Blacks and racism, church transparency

[Reluctant Watchman]

So I think that it's logical to conclude that as long as blacks still have dark skin, that the curse hasn't been removed yet. This is clearly what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the church prior to 1978 believed.

But that’s just the thing, Jospeh did ordain blacks to the priesthood. Two of them, and Elijah as a member of the 70. If you want to haggle over what percentage of “black” he was, then you have problems.

And like I’ve repeatedly stated, there is a world of difference from what Joseph and Brigham actually said.

[LDS Watchman]

So I think that it's logical to conclude that as long as blacks still have dark skin, that the curse hasn't been removed yet. This is clearly what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the church prior to 1978 believed.

But that’s just the thing, Jospeh did ordain blacks to the priesthood. Two of them, and Elijah as a member of the 70. If you want to haggle over what percentage of “black” he was, then you have problems.

And like I’ve repeatedly stated, there is a world of difference from what Joseph and Brigham actually said.

That's just the thing. There isn't a world of difference between what Joseph and Brigham actually said. They taught essentially said the same thing.

And no Joseph didn't ordained a single black man to the priesthood, but very likely authorized Elijah Abel's ordination. The fact that he was only 1/8 black and of a light complection is significant. It makes him a very unique case who can't be used to say that Joseph approved of all blacks being ordained to the priesthood. It's also significant that Zebedee Coltrin, who performed Elijah's washing and anointing in the temple testified that the Spirit total him this was wrong and that Joseph Smith later realized that Elijah Abel was not entitled to the priesthood and told him he couldn't use it anymore.

[Reluctant Watchman]

So I think that it's logical to conclude that as long as blacks still have dark skin, that the curse hasn't been removed yet. This is clearly what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the church prior to 1978 believed.

But that’s just the thing, Jospeh did ordain blacks to the priesthood. Two of them, and Elijah as a member of the 70. If you want to haggle over what percentage of “black” he was, then you have problems.

And like I’ve repeatedly stated, there is a world of difference from what Joseph and Brigham actually said.

That's just the thing. There isn't a world of difference between what Joseph and Brigham actually said. They taught essentially said the same thing.

And no Joseph didn't ordained a single black man to the priesthood, but very likely authorized Elijah Abel's ordination. The fact that he was only 1/8 black and of a light complection is significant. It makes him a very unique case who can't be used to say that Joseph approved of all blacks being ordained to the priesthood. It's also significant that Zebedee Coltrin, who performed Elijah's washing and anointing in the temple testified that the Spirit total him this was wrong and that Joseph Smith later realized that Elijah Abel was not entitled to the priesthood and told him he couldn't use it anymore.

Oh come one. You are being ignorant to what Brigham said in later years.

And yes, two black men were ordained to the priesthood. The church readily admits this in the historical notes of the M&A letter.

I think I’m done with the back and forth on this. You’ve taken a similar position on this as you do with many other topics.

[Jashon]

Look, GES said that JFS's statement was an error. That's highly problematic, because all JFS did was give a plain and reasonable interpretation of the text. So it can even be concluded that GES and RMN think the Book of Mormon text is in error in a number of places on this point.

Did he actually say that what JFS said is an error or false?

RMN through GES didn't mention JFS by name, at least not in the church news article. Here's what it says:

Elder Stevenson began his remarks saying he was “deeply saddened and hurt” by an error included in a recent Church manual referencing outdated commentary about race.

JFS's quote was deleted promptly from online materials, so it was meant or included in what was meant. It was the error or part of the error.

This gets a normal, non-hair-splitting member's head spinning, since a reasonable person must conclude that JFS led us astray, but we're told that RMN won't lead us astray, even though, on this point, it's actually the other way around: RMN is leading us astray and JFS did not lead us astray. But I digress.

JFS plainly interpreted Book of Mormon language. See the deleted snippet here. But we're told his remarks were in error. So by extension all the relevant Book of Mormon passages are in error as well. Of course they won't mention JFS by name and they won't say the Book of Mormon is in error. They do it indirectly. Yet doesn't the Lord work in plainness? However, they don't. It's quite unfortunate for the members.

Another point is that texts, though written in the past, operate to some degree in the present, and this is especially true in the case of religious texts like the Book of Mormon, which have current relevance for many readers, and therefore are very often referred to in the present tense.

[LDS Watchman]

So I think that it's logical to conclude that as long as blacks still have dark skin, that the curse hasn't been removed yet. This is clearly what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the church prior to 1978 believed.

But that’s just the thing, Jospeh did ordain blacks to the priesthood. Two of them, and Elijah as a member of the 70. If you want to haggle over what percentage of “black” he was, then you have problems.

And like I’ve repeatedly stated, there is a world of difference from what Joseph and Brigham actually said.

That's just the thing. There isn't a world of difference between what Joseph and Brigham actually said. They taught essentially said the same thing.

And no Joseph didn't ordained a single black man to the priesthood, but very likely authorized Elijah Abel's ordination. The fact that he was only 1/8 black and of a light complection is significant. It makes him a very unique case who can't be used to say that Joseph approved of all blacks being ordained to the priesthood. It's also significant that Zebedee Coltrin, who performed Elijah's washing and anointing in the temple testified that the Spirit total him this was wrong and that Joseph Smith later realized that Elijah Abel was not entitled to the priesthood and told him he couldn't use it anymore.

Oh come one. You are being ignorant to what Brigham said in later years.

And yes, two black men were ordained to the priesthood. The church readily admits this in the historical notes of the M&A letter.

I think I’m done with the back and forth on this. You’ve taken a similar position on this as you do with many other topics.

Everything I have said is true, but if you want to bow out of the conversation and not address what I said that's cool.

If by "You’ve taken a similar position on this as you do with many other topics" you mean that I try to measure all doctrine with the scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith and do my best to stick to the facts, I'll take that as a compliment.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Everything I have said is true, but if you want to bow out of the conversation and not address what I said that's cool.

I hope you enjoy those rose-colored glasses.

[LDS Watchman]

Everything I have said is true, but if you want to bow out of the conversation and not address what I said that's cool.

I hope you enjoy those rose-colored glasses.

What I said is true, you calling it rose colored glasses doesn't change that.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Everything I have said is true, but if you want to bow out of the conversation and not address what I said that's cool.

I hope you enjoy those rose-colored glasses.

What I said is true, you calling it rose colored glasses doesn't change that.

Realizing that Joseph changed his stance on blacks is where we deviate. And you haven't addressed what Brigham said.

I'm moving on. If you wan to learn a bit more about what Joseph AND Brigham did, I'd suggest watching Rob's video. There are many quotes from Brigham that clear show how these two men were at odds as far as how they treated people.

[LDS Watchman]

Everything I have said is true, but if you want to bow out of the conversation and not address what I said that's cool.

I hope you enjoy those rose-colored glasses.

What I said is true, you calling it rose colored glasses doesn't change that.

Realizing that Joseph changed his stance on blacks is where we deviate. And you haven't addressed what Brigham said.

I'm moving on. If you wan to learn a bit more about what Joseph AND Brigham did, I'd suggest watching Rob's video. There are many quotes from Brigham that clear show how these two men were at odds as far as how they treated people.

If you want to move on that's fine. I made my point about what Joseph taught and what the scriptures he brought forth say about the curse upon blacks as descendants of Cain/Canaan. If you want to believe these things were wrong and Joseph later changed his mind, go right ahead.

At the very least I hope you will at least acknowledge, if only to yourself, that the "racist" teachings regarding blacks in the church were originally taught by Joseph Smith.

[Reluctant Watchman]

At the very least I hope you will at least acknowledge, if only to yourself, that the "racist" teachings regarding blacks in the church were originally taught by Joseph Smith.

Originate, but were not stagnant.

And I hope that you also acknowledge that I don't put Joseph on some untouchable pedestal.

[LDS Watchman]

At the very least I hope you will at least acknowledge, if only to yourself, that the "racist" teachings regarding blacks in the church were originally taught by Joseph Smith.

Originate, but were not stagnant.

And I hope that you also acknowledge that I don't put Joseph on some untouchable pedestal.

If he had specically taken back anything he said later on that would be one thing, but he didn't.

I never said that you put Joseph on some untouchable pedestal, but from my observations you definitely judge him by a very different standard than Brigham and his successors.

As for Joseph not being perfect, my conclusion is that he made a mistake in allowing the 1/8 black Elijah Abel to be ordained and receive his washing and anointing but later corrected that mistake. I believe that this is by far the most logical conclusion in light of all of the available evidence.

[LDS Watchman]

Look, GES said that JFS's statement was an error. That's highly problematic, because all JFS did was give a plain and reasonable interpretation of the text. So it can even be concluded that GES and RMN think the Book of Mormon text is in error in a number of places on this point.

Did he actually say that what JFS said is an error or false?

RMN through GES didn't mention JFS by name, at least not in the church news article. Here's what it says:

Elder Stevenson began his remarks saying he was “deeply saddened and hurt” by an error included in a recent Church manual referencing outdated commentary about race.

JFS's quote was deleted promptly from online materials, so it was meant or included in what was meant. It was the error or part of the error.

This gets a normal, non-hair-splitting member's head spinning, since a reasonable person must conclude that JFS led us astray, but we're told that RMN won't lead us astray, even though, on this point, it's actually the other way around: RMN is leading us astray and JFS did not lead us astray. But I digress.

JFS plainly interpreted Book of Mormon language. See the deleted snippet here. But we're told his remarks were in error. So by extension all the relevant Book of Mormon passages are in error as well. Of course they won't mention JFS by name and they won't say the Book of Mormon is in error. They do it indirectly. Yet doesn't the Lord work in plainness? However, they don't. It's quite unfortunate for the members.

Another point is that texts, though written in the past, operate to some degree in the present, and this is especially true in the case of religious texts like the Book of Mormon, which have current relevance for many readers, and therefore are very often referred to in the present tense.

You make valid points, however my point still stands, which is that GES didn't actually disavow the statement the teachings in the BoM or JFS' interpretation of them.

Instead what I see is GES trying to do damage control and appease the snowflakes, without actually disavowing the teachings in the BoM or even JFS.

[Jashon]

Of course they disavowed the statements, in both word (if camouflaged) and in deed.

Not interested in apologetic pretzel work, but in truth, plainness, and accuracy.

You know, it is imperative that we live by such principles and that we not be governed by organizational loyalty.

[LDS Watchman]

Of course they disavowed the statements, in both word (if camouflaged) and in deed.

Not interested in apologetic pretzel work, but in truth, plainness, and accuracy.

You know, it is imperative that we live by such principles and that we not be governed by organizational loyalty.

The plain truth is that they didn't actually disavow the BoM or the statement by JSF. They simply removed his statement as being the official interpretation and now leave it up to the members to decide for themselves what is meant in the BoM. People are free to interpret it in such a way that the teachings in the BoM or by JSF have been disavowed or they can interpret it the way I am. And that was obviously the whole idea. The idea was to appease the snowflakes without actually directly disavowing what the BoM plainly says.

That's not apologetic pretzel work. That's reality.

[Jashon]

The plain truth is that they didn't actually disavow the BoM or the statement by JSF. They simply removed his statement as being the official interpretation and now leave it up to the members to decide for themselves what is meant in the BoM. People are free to interpret it in such a way that the teachings in the BoM or by JSF have been disavowed or they can interpret it the way I am. And that was obviously the whole idea. The idea was to appease the snowflakes without actually directly disavowing what the BoM plainly says.

That's not apologetic pretzel work. That's reality.

They indicated that the statement by JSF was an error, and by extension the statements in the Book of Mormon itself. Yes, RMN through GES repudiated JFS's statement and various Book of Mormon passages. Therefore we can no longer believe them, because they are in error. This is where they have led us. They make you give up your integrity in order to support them.

[LDS Watchman]

The plain truth is that they didn't actually disavow the BoM or the statement by JSF. They simply removed his statement as being the official interpretation and now leave it up to the members to decide for themselves what is meant in the BoM. People are free to interpret it in such a way that the teachings in the BoM or by JSF have been disavowed or they can interpret it the way I am. And that was obviously the whole idea. The idea was to appease the snowflakes without actually directly disavowing what the BoM plainly says.

That's not apologetic pretzel work. That's reality.

They indicated that the statement by JSF was an error, and by extension the statements in the Book of Mormon itself. Yes, RMN through GES repudiated JFS's statement and various Book of Mormon passages. Therefore we can no longer believe them, because they are in error. This is where they have led us. They make you give up your integrity in order to support them.

You're free to interpret what GES said that way, but that's not what he actually said. And you know this.

[Jashon]

The plain truth is that they didn't actually disavow the BoM or the statement by JSF. They simply removed his statement as being the official interpretation and now leave it up to the members to decide for themselves what is meant in the BoM. People are free to interpret it in such a way that the teachings in the BoM or by JSF have been disavowed or they can interpret it the way I am. And that was obviously the whole idea. The idea was to appease the snowflakes without actually directly disavowing what the BoM plainly says.

That's not apologetic pretzel work. That's reality.

They indicated that the statement by JSF was an error, and by extension the statements in the Book of Mormon itself. Yes, RMN through GES repudiated JFS's statement and various Book of Mormon passages. Therefore we can no longer believe them, because they are in error. This is where they have led us. They make you give up your integrity in order to support them.

You're free to interpret what GES said that way, but that's not what he actually said. And you know this.

This post gives a rundown of the issue, showing that the church's current position is confusing and ultimately incoherent.

[LDS Watchman]

The plain truth is that they didn't actually disavow the BoM or the statement by JSF. They simply removed his statement as being the official interpretation and now leave it up to the members to decide for themselves what is meant in the BoM. People are free to interpret it in such a way that the teachings in the BoM or by JSF have been disavowed or they can interpret it the way I am. And that was obviously the whole idea. The idea was to appease the snowflakes without actually directly disavowing what the BoM plainly says.

That's not apologetic pretzel work. That's reality.

They indicated that the statement by JSF was an error, and by extension the statements in the Book of Mormon itself. Yes, RMN through GES repudiated JFS's statement and various Book of Mormon passages. Therefore we can no longer believe them, because they are in error. This is where they have led us. They make you give up your integrity in order to support them.

You're free to interpret what GES said that way, but that's not what he actually said. And you know this.

This post gives a rundown of the issue, showing that the church's current position is confusing and ultimately incoherent.

I agree that the church's current position is confusing and ultimately incoherent. People are left to draw their own conclusions because the waters have been muddied and there isn't the clarity there once was.

[Jashon]

That quote by GES, which isn't in the church news article, but is in the post linked above, is this:

One of our recent church manuals includes a paragraph with some outdated commentary about race. It was mistakenly included in the printed version of the manual, which had been prepared for print nearly two years ago. When it was brought to the attention of Church leaders late last year, they directed that it be immediately removed in our online manuals, which is used by the majority of our members. We have also directed that any future printed manuals will reflect this change. We’re asking our members to disregard that paragraph in the printed manual. I’m deeply saddened by any hurt this error may have caused for some of our members and for others. Our position as a Church is clear—we condemn all racism, past and present, in any form and disavow any theory advanced that black or dark skin is a sign of a curse.

The glaring problem is that the commentary is by a former prophet, and it's just a summary of what the Book of Mormon says. Yet GES says the commentary is obsolete. So he thinks all the Book of Mormon language on skin color is obsolete. The post linked to concludes the same thing, because it's the only legitimate conclusion that can be reached.

[LDS Watchman]

That quote by GES, which isn't in the church news article, but is in the post linked above, is this:

One of our recent church manuals includes a paragraph with some outdated commentary about race. It was mistakenly included in the printed version of the manual, which had been prepared for print nearly two years ago. When it was brought to the attention of Church leaders late last year, they directed that it be immediately removed in our online manuals, which is used by the majority of our members. We have also directed that any future printed manuals will reflect this change. We’re asking our members to disregard that paragraph in the printed manual. I’m deeply saddened by any hurt this error may have caused for some of our members and for others. Our position as a Church is clear—we condemn all racism, past and present, in any form and disavow any theory advanced that black or dark skin is a sign of a curse.

The glaring problem is that the commentary is by a former prophet, and it's just a summary of what the Book of Mormon says. Yet GES says the commentary is obsolete. So he thinks all the Book of Mormon language on skin color is obsolete. The post linked to concludes the same thing, because it's the only legitimate conclusion that can be reached.

This comment doesn't change what I said. Just because the commentary was outdated, that doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means that it's no longer the official position of the church and people are now left to draw their own conclusions.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Church leaders love being vague. Oh how I wish they would preach like Nephi in plainness.

“Oh, we fasted and a ‘literal Godsend’ is now upon us. Listen to the government. Safe and effective. Follow the prophet, don’t go astray. Follow the prophet even if your government tells you not to get jabbed. If you receive revelation contrary to us, you are in apostasy. —Now a word from our legal department, pleases talk to a doctor.”

[Redpilled Mormon]

Just to throw another wrench into the works, there's also a narrative that 'blackness of skin' is an ancient hebrew idiom that has nothing to do with melanin content, and so doesn't translate well into english.

Trying to figure out where I first saw this... I know there was a vid of a lds leader (a 70?) expounding upon this viewpoint, he cited some experts in ancient hebraic.

It would be hilarious if there was so much consternation about this and ultimately it turns out it never had anything to do with actual skin color at all.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Just to throw another wrench into the works, there's also a narrative that 'blackness of skin' is an ancient hebrew idiom that has nothing to do with melanin content, and so doesn't translate well into english.

Trying to figure out where I first saw this... I know there was a vid of a lds leader (a 70?) expounding upon this viewpoint, he cited some experts in ancient hebraic.

It would be hilarious if there was so much consternation about this and ultimately it turns out it never had anything to do with actual skin color at all.

I honestly don’t see God condemning a child for the actions of its parents. Unless, of course, a person believes in pre-mortal sin and curses. Which kind of throws a wrench into the whole concept of a veil.

[LDS Watchman]

Just to throw another wrench into the works, there's also a narrative that 'blackness of skin' is an ancient hebrew idiom that has nothing to do with melanin content, and so doesn't translate well into english.

Trying to figure out where I first saw this... I know there was a vid of a lds leader (a 70?) expounding upon this viewpoint, he cited some experts in ancient hebraic.

It would be hilarious if there was so much consternation about this and ultimately it turns out it never had anything to do with actual skin color at all.

The Book of Mormon clearly refers to actual skin color being turned black and Joseph clearly equated blacks with the descendants of Cain/Canaan who he said were black on Moses 7, cursed not to have the priesthood in Abraham 1, and cursed to be the servant of servants in Genesis 9.

And that's good enough for me. I really couldn't care less about some alleged Hebrew idiom that attempts to make Joseph Smith look like a clueless racist bigot.

[LDS Watchman]

Just to throw another wrench into the works, there's also a narrative that 'blackness of skin' is an ancient hebrew idiom that has nothing to do with melanin content, and so doesn't translate well into english.

Trying to figure out where I first saw this... I know there was a vid of a lds leader (a 70?) expounding upon this viewpoint, he cited some experts in ancient hebraic.

It would be hilarious if there was so much consternation about this and ultimately it turns out it never had anything to do with actual skin color at all.

I honestly don’t see God condemning a child for the actions of its parents. Unless, of course, a person believes in pre-mortal sin and curses. Which kind of throws a wrench into the whole concept of a veil.

How does pre-mortal sin and curses throw a wrench into the whole concept of a veil?