Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?

Post by _Themis »

bcspace wrote:
That's just personal opinion. It's not official church doctrine.


No, it's published by the Church which is the standard for doctrine.


LOL How again is saying X(doctrine) can be found in Y(church publications) means everything in Y is X. LOLOLOLOL
42
_DarkHelmet
_Emeritus
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:38 pm

Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?

Post by _DarkHelmet »

Buffalo wrote:
The church's official websites simultaneously teach that faithful Mormons will get their own world and we don't teach that faithful Mormons will get their own world.

"Official" doesn't seem to be very reliable.


Yep. LDS.org needs to talk to LDS Newsroom so they can get their stories straight.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?

Post by _beastie »

bcspace wrote:
Poor Mitt Romney. The relatively recent manual BC quoted demonstrates the LDS church still clings to its racist past, and it will be an albatross around Romney's neck.


How is it racist?


lol

And the chorus of LDS on the internet saying "how is it racist" will be SOOOO helpful to Romney.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_DarkHelmet
_Emeritus
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:38 pm

Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?

Post by _DarkHelmet »

beastie wrote:
bcspace wrote:
How is it racist?


lol

And the chorus of LDS on the internet saying "how is it racist" will be SOOOO helpful to Romney.


Exactly. Repeating over and over again that it's not racist will not make it so. It simply reinforces the church's racist stereotype.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?

Post by _Buffalo »

beastie wrote:
lol

And the chorus of LDS on the internet saying "how is it racist" will be SOOOO helpful to Romney.


LOL. Romney should put bcspace in charge of answering questions about Mormonism for him. The church's stock would plummet below even Scientology.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_lulu
_Emeritus
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?

Post by _lulu »

bcspace wrote: If it were incorrect, the Church would've modified or deleted it by now.


Unproven assumption.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
_thews
_Emeritus
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?

Post by _thews »

ldsfaqs wrote:"Color" in the Book of Mormon was ALWAYS primarily "metaphorical".... The same way color references in the Bible were always primarily metaphorical.

People who actually read the scriptures have always known this.

Of course, it is also true that there DID seem to be some skin color differences between the two major groups, which would make sense if one was more modern and more Hebrew and the other more primitive. However, we also know from the Book of Mormon that even Lamanites were called WHITE.... Clearly, color in the Book of Mormon was primarily a metaphor in reference to spirituality and purity.

What a load of crap. What part of "white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome" do you fail to understand? This is how the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith... exactly. Just because the LDS church has attempted to change the supposed word of God doesn't make it go away. Ignorance is bliss, and it's sad that most LDS are ignorant of this fact.

http://mormoncurtain.com/topic_whiteanddelightsome.html
Until 1981 2 Nephi 30:6 in the Book of Mormon taught that dark-skinned Lamanites (Indians) would eventually experience a change in the color of their skin should they embrace the Book of Mormon. This passage of Mormon scripture read:

"...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."

However, in 1981, the LDS Church decided to change "the most correct book on earth" and switched the word "white" with the word "pure." Some Mormons insist that this was a clarification since the word was never meant to refer to a person with dark skin pigmentation who would magically turn white based upon a conversion to the Mormon gospel; rather, it is claimed that the change referred to a cleaner state of heart. This assumption is definitely not supported in the Book of Mormon since 2 Nephi 5:21 says,

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

Furthermore, we find another reference to a change in skin color in 3 Nephi 2:15. This passage reads:

"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."

That the context refers to skin color is verified by a number of LDS leaders including Joseph Smith. Mormon author George D. Smith notes that Joseph Smith was given a revelation which foretold of a day when intermarriage with the Lamanites would produce a white and delightsome posterity. George Smith wrote, "This unpublished 17 July 1831 revelation was described three decades later in an 1861 letter from W.W. Phelps to Brigham Young quoting Joseph Smith: `It is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity, may become white, delightsome and just.' In the 8 December 1831 Ohio Star, Ezra Booth wrote of a revelation directing Mormon elders to marry with the `natives'" (Sunstone, November 1993, footnote #5, pg. 52).

Second LDS President Brigham Young stated in 1859, "You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation ...When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people" (Journal of Discourses 7:336).

At the October 1960 LDS Church Conference, Spencer Kimball utilized 2 Nephi 30:6 when he stated how the Indians "are fast becoming a white and delightsome people." He said, "The [Indian] children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation" (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-3).

During the same message Kimball referred to a 16-year-old Indian girl who was both LDS and "several shades lighter than her parents..." He went on to say, "These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated."

LDS writer George Edward Clark gives a similar account in his book entitled "Why I Believe." On page 129 he wrote, "The writer has been privileged to sit at table with several members of the Catawba tribe of Indians, whose reservation is near the north border of South Carolina. That tribe, or most of its people, are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). Those Indians, at least as many as I have observed, were white and delightsome, as white and fair as any group of citizens of our country. I know of no prophecy, ancient or modern, that has had a more literal fulfillment" (emphasis his).

It has also been taught in Mormonism that opposite repercussions could result when a white man abandoned his Mormon faith. For instance, the "Juvenile Instructor" (26:635) reads,

"From this it is very clear that the mark which was set upon the descendants of Cain was a skin of blackness, and there can be no doubt that this was the mark that Cain himself received; in fact, it has been noticed in our day that men who have lost the spirit of the Lord, and from whom his blessings have been withdrawn, have turned dark to such an extend as to excite the comments of all who have known them."

In 1857, Brigham Young declared that apostates would "become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil" (Journal of Discourse 5:332).

Despite the comments from past Mormon leaders, skin color has nothing to do with a person's spirituality. To say 2 Nephi 30:6 was altered merely for clarification and had nothing to do with skin color is without merit. It was a false prophecy, nothing more, nothing less.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths
_Infymus
_Emeritus
Posts: 1584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:10 pm

Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?

Post by _Infymus »

Do you know what makes me sick?

It is that even though I left the Cult of Mormonism 11 years ago, I am defending Mormonism at this point. Why? Because the Mormon Cult is changing doctrine yet - again.

So here I am defending the Mormonism that I knew - was converted to - and grew up with. What I was converted to in Mormonism would now have junior ass apologists like bcspace and ldsfaqs telling me that I was wrong. The missionaries that were appointed in 1986 by YOUR prophets - who converted me - were liars. They didn't know their doctrine.

Mormonism that within the last few weeks has changes so dramatically that if I were Mormon today, I would most definitely stand up and say NO. Absolutely NOT.

So really in the end, screw Mormonism. It shows that it isn't led by a true prophet. It isn't led by men in the past who communed with God. It is nothing more than an corporate institution run by a bunch of geriatric old men that are so out of touch with reality - it isn't even funny.

“F” Mormonism. It is a cult 100% through and through.
_Simon Southerton
_Emeritus
Posts: 623
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:09 pm

Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?

Post by _Simon Southerton »

ldsfaqs wrote:
Of course, it is also true that there DID seem to be some skin color differences between the two major groups, which would make sense if one was more modern and more Hebrew and the other more primitive.


What are you trying to say ldsfaqs? Because it sounds awfully like you are saying that darker skinned people are more primitive.
LDS apologetics --> "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up, which creates the scandal."
"Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem, if he exists. So let's all help keep Bigfoot possibly alive for future generations to enjoy, unless he doesn't exist." - Futurama
_Drifting
_Emeritus
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am

Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?

Post by _Drifting »

Simon Southerton wrote:
ldsfaqs wrote:
Of course, it is also true that there DID seem to be some skin color differences between the two major groups, which would make sense if one was more modern and more Hebrew and the other more primitive.


What are you trying to say ldsfaqs? Because it sounds awfully like you are saying that darker skinned people are more primitive.


One might also read into the ramblings of ldsfaqs that as the human race progresses we should in fact be getting lighter. Didn't Kimball say something along those lines once...
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Post Reply