Blacks and racism, church transparency

[Jashon]

The Book of Mormon language isn't racist – it's not a racist text.

The memory-holing is totally unnecessary and a dangerous thing to do.

[GeeR]

29 says the curse of Cain is lifted from these generations.

What chapter in Jeremiah is this verse, I cannot find it.

[Bronco73idi]

29 says the curse of Cain is lifted from these generations.

What chapter in Jeremiah is this verse, I cannot find it.

31

[Bronco73idi]

The Book of Mormon language isn't racist – it's not a racist text.

The memory-holing is totally unnecessary and a dangerous thing to do.

This opinion is why we are damned, a dam is a device that holds back something.

Were the Nephites lighter then there brothers?

Does the BOM say why the darker skinned ones were darker skin? If it says because of sins then that is considered racist.

[LDS Watchman]

All this debate because we are to weak to read Jeremiah literally.

27 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.
29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.

27 says I’m going to mix all the races children (seed) together.
29 says the curse of Cain is lifted from these generations.

It’s so plain and simple if we take our emotional opinion of a certain word definition out of the equation. I say emotional opinion because most of our definitions come from our opinion of a “word meaning” when that word was written long time ago.

I disagree that those verses say what you are claiming. The curse of Cain isn't mentioned at all.

[LDS Watchman]

So you'll accept the testimony of a "TBM" that the Holy Ghost bore witness to them that RMN is a true prophet of God at face value or do you require additional proof?

Did you read what I said earlier? Obviously not.

Okay cool. So you agree that someone claiming a witness of the Holy Ghost isn't enough proof then?

You are good at mincing words.

So you do accept a TBM testimony that the Holy Ghost told them that RMN is a true prophet as being sufficient proof that he's a true prophet, then?

[Reluctant Watchman]

Did you read what I said earlier? Obviously not.

Okay cool. So you agree that someone claiming a witness of the Holy Ghost isn't enough proof then?

You are good at mincing words.

So you do accept a TBM testimony that the Holy Ghost told them that RMN is a true prophet as being sufficient proof that he's a true prophet, then?

I don’t agree with it. But I’ll allow God to give them the agency to hold such a belief. Just as they can allow me to receive the promptings that he is not.

[LDS Watchman]

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.

This is very interesting. Joseph Fielding Smith's commentary is a simple, accurate summary of Book of Mormon language. Taken together – the pandering words of GES and the unnecessary action the church took to delete JFS's correct textual analysis – this all means that Q15 have repudiated all the relevant Book of Mormon language on skin color being a sign of a divine curse. As I said before, we must now disbelieve what we read in the Book of Mormon. We're told to ignore JFS's commentary and therefore ignore what it says in the Book of Mormon and abide by Q15's disavowal/repudiation.

Once again, you are free to interpret what they said and did this way, but you know full well that this isn't actually what they said and did.

Even if we analyze this as generously as we can, it still looks bad for Q15. It means they are following what is fashionable, not what is true.

The generous analysis is this: Q15 know what JFS wrote is accurate, since it faithfully reflects the language of the Book of Mormon. But so many members have a problem with the language – for cultural reasons or because they can't figure out that the language, in context, isn't racist – that Q15 have decided to memory-hole the commentary. Of course this is a weak, faithless approach by Q15, an Orwellian approach – and it goes directly against the moral imperative of their calling. This all leads to more problems down the road, as they meekly choose to memory-hole more and more scripture/doctrine as the demands increase.

I disagree that this is necessarily a weak faithless approach by the brethren. The church is full of tares. In the grand scheme of things, the issue of skin color being a curse or not in Book of Mormon times isn't that significant. If the church wants to let people draw their own conclusions about it because many can't handle the truth, I think that’s not the end of the world.

But I agree that it's a slippery slope.

[Jashon]

It's sneaky bad for Q15 to be doing this. They're undermining belief/faith in the Book of Mormon. Who knows? Maybe they think this Book of Mormon language is wrong. Sure seems that way. They're leading members to think that damage control is necessary because the Book of Mormon language is bad. In reality, the Book of Mormon is greater than they are. No one needs to shy away from the Book of Mormon and its language.

[Serragon]

It's sneaky bad for Q15 to be doing this. They're undermining belief/faith in the Book of Mormon. Who knows? Maybe they think this Book of Mormon language is wrong. Sure seems that way. They're leading members to think that damage control is necessary because the Book of Mormon language is bad. In reality, the Book of Mormon is greater than they are. No one needs to shy away from the Book of Mormon and its language.

I think it much worse than just undermining belief in the BOM.

This disavowal, combined with other recent statements from the brethren regarding race, is in direct contradiction to God Himself. They seem to be redefining the nature of God by modern sensibilities instead of accepting who God really is.

[Bronco73idi]

All this debate because we are to weak to read Jeremiah literally.

27 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.
29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.

27 says I’m going to mix all the races children (seed) together.
29 says the curse of Cain is lifted from these generations.

It’s so plain and simple if we take our emotional opinion of a certain word definition out of the equation. I say emotional opinion because most of our definitions come from our opinion of a “word meaning” when that word was written long time ago.

I disagree that those verses say what you are claiming. The curse of Cain isn't mentioned at all.

What fathers ate a sour grape to you?
Verse 27 is the start of a paragraph and it ends with verse 30. What was Jeremiah in chapter 31 trying to say in that paragraph?

People forget that scribes added the verses. The prophets wrote in paragraphs and the scribes inserted paragraph breaks with the verses, to show where they were.

Maybe the lord didn’t want this fulfilled through JS. Maybe 1978 proclamation fulfilled it? Maybe it won’t be fulfilled until after his second coming?

I believe the lord allowed it to be fulfilled in 1978.

[LDS Watchman]

Okay cool. So you agree that someone claiming a witness of the Holy Ghost isn't enough proof then?

You are good at mincing words.

So you do accept a TBM testimony that the Holy Ghost told them that RMN is a true prophet as being sufficient proof that he's a true prophet, then?

I don’t agree with it. But I’ll allow God to give them the agency to hold such a belief. Just as they can allow me to receive the promptings that he is not.

No one is denying you your agency to believe that the Holy Ghost is telling you such and such. However, we have every right to say that we believe that the spirit you are listening to is not the Holy Ghost.

It's a two way straight.

Claiming the Holy Ghost told you such and such is not sufficient proof. If you're going to accuse someone of something or make some truth claim you need to support it with actual evidence if you want to be taken seriously.

[LDS Watchman]

All this debate because we are to weak to read Jeremiah literally.

27 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.
29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.

27 says I’m going to mix all the races children (seed) together.
29 says the curse of Cain is lifted from these generations.

It’s so plain and simple if we take our emotional opinion of a certain word definition out of the equation. I say emotional opinion because most of our definitions come from our opinion of a “word meaning” when that word was written long time ago.

I disagree that those verses say what you are claiming. The curse of Cain isn't mentioned at all.

What fathers ate a sour grape to you?
Verse 27 is the start of a paragraph and it ends with verse 30. What was Jeremiah in chapter 31 trying to say in that paragraph?

People forget that scribes added the verses. The prophets wrote in paragraphs and the scribes inserted paragraph breaks with the verses, to show where they were.

Maybe the lord didn’t want this fulfilled through JS. Maybe 1978 proclamation fulfilled it? Maybe it won’t be fulfilled until after his second coming?

I believe the lord allowed it to be fulfilled in 1978.

I don't see any connection between sour grapes and the curse of Cain.

[LDS Watchman]

It's sneaky bad for Q15 to be doing this. They're undermining belief/faith in the Book of Mormon. Who knows? Maybe they think this Book of Mormon language is wrong. Sure seems that way. They're leading members to think that damage control is necessary because the Book of Mormon language is bad. In reality, the Book of Mormon is greater than they are. No one needs to shy away from the Book of Mormon and its language.

I'm not a fan of what the did, either. But I don't think it's as bad as you're making it out to be.

To me it just shows how far the general membership has fallen to where the brethren feel like this type of damage control is necessary to keep people from rejecting the entire Book of Mormon and the restoration over something that really shouldn't bother anyone.

[Bronco73idi]

All this debate because we are to weak to read Jeremiah literally.

27 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.
29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.

27 says I’m going to mix all the races children (seed) together.
29 says the curse of Cain is lifted from these generations.

It’s so plain and simple if we take our emotional opinion of a certain word definition out of the equation. I say emotional opinion because most of our definitions come from our opinion of a “word meaning” when that word was written long time ago.

I disagree that those verses say what you are claiming. The curse of Cain isn't mentioned at all.

What fathers ate a sour grape to you?
Verse 27 is the start of a paragraph and it ends with verse 30. What was Jeremiah in chapter 31 trying to say in that paragraph?

People forget that scribes added the verses. The prophets wrote in paragraphs and the scribes inserted paragraph breaks with the verses, to show where they were.

Maybe the lord didn’t want this fulfilled through JS. Maybe 1978 proclamation fulfilled it? Maybe it won’t be fulfilled until after his second coming?

I believe the lord allowed it to be fulfilled in 1978.

I don't see any connection between sour grapes and the curse of Cain.

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

As saints we have to figure this out or we are a bride with little oil.

I ask again, What fathers ate a sour grape to you?

The key is laid out in the paragraph that it is written in, in my opinion.

[LDS Watchman]

I disagree that those verses say what you are claiming. The curse of Cain isn't mentioned at all.

What fathers ate a sour grape to you?
Verse 27 is the start of a paragraph and it ends with verse 30. What was Jeremiah in chapter 31 trying to say in that paragraph?

People forget that scribes added the verses. The prophets wrote in paragraphs and the scribes inserted paragraph breaks with the verses, to show where they were.

Maybe the lord didn’t want this fulfilled through JS. Maybe 1978 proclamation fulfilled it? Maybe it won’t be fulfilled until after his second coming?

I believe the lord allowed it to be fulfilled in 1978.

I don't see any connection between sour grapes and the curse of Cain.

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

As saints we have to figure this out or we are a bride with little oil.

I ask again, What fathers ate a sour grape to you?

The key is laid out in the paragraph that it is written in, in my opinion.

I think lots of ancient fathers ate sour grapes. Most of mankind has been wicked since the very beginning. I don't see any connection to the curse of Cain or it being lifted.

[Reluctant Watchman]

No one is denying you your agency to believe that the Holy Ghost is telling you such and such. However, we have every right to say that we believe that the spirit you are listening to is not the Holy Ghost.

It's a two way straight.

Claiming the Holy Ghost told you such and such is not sufficient proof. If you're going to accuse someone of something or make some truth claim you need to support it with actual evidence if you want to be taken seriously.

Yes, that's why I say we can disagree with each other (contradictory revelation).

In reality though, a person can make the claim that the Holy Ghost told them. That is sufficient proof. Remember Moroni's admonition toward the end of the Book of Mormon? Moroni 10:5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

And, btw, I'm not speaking in hypotheticals. You just don't agree with the evidence that has been provided. You've done backflips trying to justify the actions of these men. They are leading the church not only astray, but in alignment with Babylon. Sure, they can quote scriptures with the best of them. They can give a handout to the poor. But there are rotten fruits.

[Redpilled Mormon]

Yeah I don't care much what Joseph might have said on the subject (even if it isn't just another misattribution) as that holds no weight one way or the other,

Why doesn't what Joseph said on the subject hold any weight one way or another?

Did you miss my prior post where I explained my irrefutable position on why? (I assume it was irrefutable because you never even attempted to refute it). Scroll up and find it for a longer explanation.

Short version: because I'm not a man-worshipper. And I'd like to suggest you stop being one too.

Oh yeah, you believe the church falsely attributed all of those primary sources to Joseph Smith (even though they are all easily verified as being from him) and that Joseph Smith was probably a fallen prophet (yet Brigham is the guy you throw under the bus for everything not Joseph) .

That's anything but an "irrefutable position."

You're likely being disingenuous and already know this, but just for the record: yes, I believe (and we now have absolute proof) that the ldscorp has altered some of the words and teachings of Joseph. This does not mean I believe all primary sources were falsely attributed (that's a cheap strawman tactic of someone losing an argument, to make an absurd exaggeration and then attack it.)

Joseph and Brigham weren't the same, period. Joseph may have been a fallen prophet towards the end (and maybe not), but that doesn't make him anywhere near the level of evil loathsomeness of Brigham. Brigham was such and utter pos that it's really really easy to point out all the ways he destroyed the lds church. Joseph was such a good guy that it's a lot harder to point to his malfeasances.

[Redpilled Mormon]

So you'll accept the testimony of a "TBM" that the Holy Ghost bore witness to them that RMN is a true prophet of God at face value or do you require additional proof?

Did you read what I said earlier? Obviously not.

Okay cool. So you agree that someone claiming a witness of the Holy Ghost isn't enough proof then?

You are good at mincing words.

Yet this is the same guy who just upthread made a big fuss at the idea you were making him an 'offender for a word' when you caught him out on an obvious untruth he was trying to sell.

[Redpilled Mormon]

I guess we're in the season now where God approves of Gadianton secret combinations running his church...

Actually we're in a season where many people such as yourself think it's okay to make accusations against the Lord's church without any proof.

"without any proof"? lol the cognitive dissonance here...

Show us the proof in a separate thread then.

No need for a separate thread. There's proof offered in this one, and Jashon has done an admiral job of nailing the ldscorp weaseling around this very same issue (blacks and the priesthood) demonstrating that there is plenty of proof for accusations against the ldscorp.

[Jashon]

It's sneaky bad for Q15 to be doing this. They're undermining belief/faith in the Book of Mormon. Who knows? Maybe they think this Book of Mormon language is wrong. Sure seems that way. They're leading members to think that damage control is necessary because the Book of Mormon language is bad. In reality, the Book of Mormon is greater than they are. No one needs to shy away from the Book of Mormon and its language.

I think it much worse than just undermining belief in the BOM.

This disavowal, combined with other recent statements from the brethren regarding race, is in direct contradiction to God Himself. They seem to be redefining the nature of God by modern sensibilities instead of accepting who God really is.

Could you link to some discussion on their other statements regarding race?

[Jashon]

It's sneaky bad for Q15 to be doing this. They're undermining belief/faith in the Book of Mormon. Who knows? Maybe they think this Book of Mormon language is wrong. Sure seems that way. They're leading members to think that damage control is necessary because the Book of Mormon language is bad. In reality, the Book of Mormon is greater than they are. No one needs to shy away from the Book of Mormon and its language.

I'm not a fan of what the did, either. But I don't think it's as bad as you're making it out to be.

To me it just shows how far the general membership has fallen to where the brethren feel like this type of damage control is necessary to keep people from rejecting the entire Book of Mormon and the restoration over something that really shouldn't bother anyone.

Instead of pandering to a questionable organization like the NAACP, they could have used this opportunity to educate the membership. Instead, they miseducated the membership.

[Serragon]

It's sneaky bad for Q15 to be doing this. They're undermining belief/faith in the Book of Mormon. Who knows? Maybe they think this Book of Mormon language is wrong. Sure seems that way. They're leading members to think that damage control is necessary because the Book of Mormon language is bad. In reality, the Book of Mormon is greater than they are. No one needs to shy away from the Book of Mormon and its language.

I think it much worse than just undermining belief in the BOM.

This disavowal, combined with other recent statements from the brethren regarding race, is in direct contradiction to God Himself. They seem to be redefining the nature of God by modern sensibilities instead of accepting who God really is.

Could you link to some discussion on their other statements regarding race?

Elder Oaks

Some religious people have sought to justify practices of racism by references to the Bible, as I will discuss later. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of scriptures—ancient and ­modern—and recent prophetic statements help us to see that racism, as defined, is not consistent with the revealed word of God.

President Nelson

We join with many throughout this nation and around the world who are deeply saddened at recent evidences of racism and a blatant disregard for human life. We abhor the reality that some would deny others respect and the most basic of freedoms because of the color of his or her skin.

We are also saddened when these assaults on human dignity lead to escalating violence and unrest.

The Creator of us all calls on each of us to abandon attitudes of prejudice against any group of God’s children. Any of us who has prejudice toward another race needs to repent!

During the Savior’s earthly mission, He constantly ministered to those who were excluded, marginalized, judged, overlooked, abused, and discounted. As His followers, can we do anything less? The answer is no! We believe in freedom, kindness, and fairness for all of God’s children!

Though I agree with the general sentiment of these statements, they both intentionally misrepresent the scriptures so that a conclusion can be drawn that matches more modern sensibilities.

[LDS Watchman]

Actually we're in a season where many people such as yourself think it's okay to make accusations against the Lord's church without any proof.

"without any proof"? lol the cognitive dissonance here...

Show us the proof in a separate thread then.

No need for a separate thread. There's proof offered in this one, and Jashon has done an admiral job of nailing the ldscorp weaseling around this very same issue (blacks and the priesthood) demonstrating that there is plenty of proof for accusations against the ldscorp.

Nothing Jashon said is proof that the church is being run by Gadianton Robbers. You do know what Gadianton Robbers are right?

They made secret oaths to commit gain and murder and then went out and did just that. If you're going to accuse the brethren of being guilty of this, you need to provide actual proof of this.

[LDS Watchman]

Why doesn't what Joseph said on the subject hold any weight one way or another?

Did you miss my prior post where I explained my irrefutable position on why? (I assume it was irrefutable because you never even attempted to refute it). Scroll up and find it for a longer explanation.

Short version: because I'm not a man-worshipper. And I'd like to suggest you stop being one too.

Oh yeah, you believe the church falsely attributed all of those primary sources to Joseph Smith (even though they are all easily verified as being from him) and that Joseph Smith was probably a fallen prophet (yet Brigham is the guy you throw under the bus for everything not Joseph) .

That's anything but an "irrefutable position."

You're likely being disingenuous and already know this, but just for the record: yes, I believe (and we now have absolute proof) that the ldscorp has altered some of the words and teachings of Joseph. This does not mean I believe all primary sources were falsely attributed (that's a cheap strawman tactic of someone losing an argument, to make an absurd exaggeration and then attack it.)

Joseph and Brigham weren't the same, period. Joseph may have been a fallen prophet towards the end (and maybe not), but that doesn't make him anywhere near the level of evil loathsomeness of Brigham. Brigham was such and utter pos that it's really really easy to point out all the ways he destroyed the lds church. Joseph was such a good guy that it's a lot harder to point to his malfeasances.

If you're going to claim something you need to back it up.

Where's your evidence that the church has tampered with or falsely attributed any of the scriptures or statements by Joseph Smith I've pointed to in this thread?