Sethbag wrote:You dummies! Haven't you read the FARMS apologetics re: the words "skin of blackness"? It was actually a black leather belt they their forefathers had chosen to wear to set themselves apart from God's people, not their actual own highly-pigmented epidermis!
OMG. I have now Officially Heard Everything.
Actually, it makes a lot of sense. If you take a black strip of leather, it is animal skin, and since it is black, if you wear the piece of leather, you are wearing a "skin of blackness," kinda like Joseph's coat of many colors. The biggest problem with this theory is it doesn't seem like a very effective curse. All you have to do to counter the curse is take the belt off.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
SatanWasSetUp wrote:Actually, it makes a lot of sense. If you take a black strip of leather, it is animal skin, and since it is black, if you wear the piece of leather, you are wearing a "skin of blackness," kinda like Joseph's coat of many colors. The biggest problem with this theory is it doesn't seem like a very effective curse. All you have to do to counter the curse is take the belt off.
I suppose that's where the distinction between "the curse" and "the mark" would be made.
I have another plausible explanation for the Native American DNA problem: if God was able to change the skin color in a flash, surely the DNA was also changed to reflect that, thus making the Lamanites appear to have been closely related to Siberian tribes. I'm stunned this explanation hasn't been offered by apologists yet. Or has it?
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney
Well, just to be clear about something, I can no longer recall if it was specifically FARMS people who made the whole "skin of blackness" = "voluntarily worn leather belt" defense. It was certainly apologists on MAD, but I can't guarantee that anyone at FARMS specifically has said that. If I get a chance later today maybe I can find a way to confirm it one way or another, as if it really matters.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Sethbag wrote:You dummies! Haven't you read the FARMS apologetics re: the words "skin of blackness"? It was actually a black leather belt they their forefathers had chosen to wear to set themselves apart from God's people, not their actual own highly-pigmented epidermis!
OMG. I have now Officially Heard Everything.
Actually, it makes a lot of sense. If you take a black strip of leather, it is animal skin, and since it is black, if you wear the piece of leather, you are wearing a "skin of blackness," kinda like Joseph's coat of many colors. The biggest problem with this theory is it doesn't seem like a very effective curse. All you have to do to counter the curse is take the belt off.
Zoidberg wrote:Of course, all of us are of African stock.
That settles it then. None of us are worthy to hold the priesthood. And here I thought the problem was that it was all bogus. Turns out we're all just equally disqualified.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Zoidberg wrote:Someone needs to lure Warship over here. Seriously. Now that's a pearl of great price! I'm sure (s)he has many more to offer.
Alter Idem, your footnote does not state anything different. The statement was made in 1972, and by then Fijians, Tongans, Samoans, or Maoris were all indeed permitted to hold the priesthood because it was McKay who instituted the policy changes. And we all know how omitting some significant portions of history is not whitewashing at all.
This is the exact quote from the book:
The Church had been inconsistent over the years in its policy toward Fijians, and as recently as 1953 the First Presidency defined them as ineligible for the priesthood. President McKay, however, was convinced by his visit to Fiji and by certain anthropological evidence that the Fijians [p.152]should be reclassified as Israelites. He subsequently issued a letter to that effect
I had no idea black and white blood used to be segregated. Wow.
I suppose the way that literalists would solve this problem would be to point out that the blood wouldn't have been inherited from their ancestors, which seems to be the main crux of the issue here.
Zoidberg, it was just that the way your original statement was worded, it sounded like Fijians were denied Priesthood up until 1978, which wasn't accurate. The quote you cited explains that, thanks.
Also, note that the segregation of blood was being done by many hospitals throughout the country--not just the LDS hospitals.
I'm reading Thomas Murphy now in (what else) American Apocrypha and I'm just in the beginning but he did say research shows we all (the world) have a common female ancestor about two hundred thousand years ago in africa.
thestyleguy wrote:I'm reading Thomas Murphy now in (what else) American Apocrypha and I'm just in the beginning but he did say research shows we all (the world) have a common female ancestor about two hundred thousand years ago in africa.
That is a bald-faced lie from anti-Mormon scum! Every good Mormon knows we all came from Missouri!
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Sethbag wrote:Well, just to be clear about something, I can no longer recall if it was specifically FARMS people who made the whole "skin of blackness" = "voluntarily worn leather belt" defense. It was certainly apologists on MAD, but I can't guarantee that anyone at FARMS specifically has said that. If I get a chance later today maybe I can find a way to confirm it one way or another, as if it really matters.
No, not really. Unless you want to impress people who still have some respect for FARMS left.
A.I., I think the OP clarified the tentative time frame of the "paradigm shift", but I guess I should have been more clear.
As for blood segregation, I'm not particularly holding it against the Church, I was just expressing amazement at this particular tidbit of American history I wasn't familiar with. Of course, the fact that everybody else was doing it does not make it justified; just more excusable, perhaps. Nonetheless, this is yet another area in which the Church seems to not have had any more "truth" than the rest of the population.
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney