Leaderboard

No, it doesn’t. At least, not if the race revisionists get their way. For the Book of Mormon’s condemnation of racism (2 Ne 26:33, Jacob 3:9) to have any teeth at all, it must have been condemning skin-tone based racism, which means there must have been a skin-tone based difference between the Nephites and the Lamanites. We can quibble as to why that was so, or over how quickly it happened. We can quibble over whether the result was truly a sign of divine disfavor or whether Nephi, as a sixth-century BC Jew, was simply conditioned to think that everything that happened was a manifestation of divine will and interpreted the change in that light. But as both the original and revised manual indicate—there was a visually-discernible difference. You can make the Nephites color-blind, or you can read the record they left as an explicitly anti-racist document. But textually, you cannot do both.

I respect their feelings, but not enough to go passively along while they demand I accept a logically absurd form of hermeneutics or insist that the Church shred and re-print a run of millions upon millions of study manuals. There are some rational, sensitive, nuanced approaches we can take to the issue. The ones being advocated by the people cited in the Tribune are not among them. It’s a power play, a shriek of “notice me, and bend to my will!!” that doesn’t particularly impress me in a gospel context. The simple fact is that the original manual wasn’t wrong, as per church doctrine—incomplete and potentially subject to misuse, sure; but not wrong. But it supports a theological view (that in the isolated case of the Lamanites, there was a visually perceivable physiological change which for a limited time functioned as a sign of a deeper divine warning) that a certain fringe within the Church has been trying very hard to shame the Church into modifying.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/01/18/error-printed-lds-church/ So according to this article, the church made a mistake in the printed Come Follow Me manual for the Book of Mormon followed by a correction in the digital version. I honestly don't see the the mistake. While the wording in the digital version is a lot better, there is nothing incorrect about the original. If there is a problem with racial insensitivity, the problem is with the Book of Mormon itself. Not the manual.

This is what drives me nuts. Why does there have to be? Why are we trying to erase history? Why can't we accept what the Prophet has said in this day and still acknowledge what was said in the past? If it is no longer relevant today than I don't care if we do, or don't, teach it. However, it's still there.

If we are going to be burning books for not being racially sensitive enough, we should be burning all the copies of the Book of Mormon. While the Book of Mormon does have a tolerant egalitarian message, it’s a mistake to sweep the more difficult passages under the rug. It’s a losing conversation to say there is no racism in the Book of Mormon at all.

If somebody is coming from a Creedal background, which from the LDS Christian viewpoint isn't doesn't always have things correct, then they misunderstand the KFD due to those Creedal teachings.

Even if we assumed that personal virtue is indeed wholly irrelevant in the field of—say—medicine (and further assumed that the medical field could long endure if cheating on one’s medical boards, swindling and lying to patients, covering up botched procedures, and dodging continuing education requirements, all became an ingrained part of the professional culture—would you hire a degenerate-yet-skillful oncologist if you knew that thanks to his antics, there would be no oncologists at all when your children got cancer?); the civil government of a democratic republic is a very different skill set. In a democratic republic the people designate representatives, trusting that the representatives would act as the people themselves would act if they had the necessary time and information to function in those roles themselves. Sustainable representative democracy requires a social culture of accountability and trust, which in turn requires a significant reserve social capital of honesty and self-denial. Yes, the system can lumber on for a while in spite of a few bad actors (or even many bad actors, when the underlying culture and morals and expectations are otherwise strong). But when bad actors become the norm and the civic culture degenerates to the point that we don’t even *aspire* to anything better—that’s when you become Venezuela under Perez, or Russia under Yeltsin, or Weimar Germany. I think the Lord knew that when He gave the warning @estradling75 cites. Certain actors here want America to stop being America and start being Venezuela and Russia and Germany and Zimbabwe and Mexico and the Philippines and Uganda and Brazil. If we care at all about the world our children and grandchildren will inherit, then we need to start asking why.

Since this is talking about character among various leaders we should remember the duty the Lord has given us concerning choosing our leaders Doctrine and Covenants 98 How each individual chooses to act on that command is up to them. (Kind of like how one chooses to pay tithing) But a faithful Saint should have the instructions of God guiding their actions even if other faithful members reach a different answer while doing so.

If I don't eat I get severe sinus headaches that last 18-24 hours. Fasting is out for me. To participate in fasting I remove something from my diet that is noticeable. For me that is any sort of flavored drink. I notice if I don't drink something with flavor, which reminds me that I am fasting. Perhaps something akin would work for you as well.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1979/04/i-have-a-question/what-should-i-do-to-teach-my-beehive-class-about-fasting-when-i-cannot-fast?lang=eng M.

Hi Dahlia, good to see you! First and foremost, hooray for better controlled diabetes! Regarding your question, I'd think you can attain every single spiritual goal of fasting without risking any negative health impacts. It's ok to do less than a full day if that's what you can reasonably do and take care of your medical needs. You'll probably be hard-pressed to find someone to tell you "you must ignore the realities of diabetes in order to fast right" - that's just not how it works. The chapter in the Gospel Principles manual on fasting holds a lot of comforting things about its spiritual nature - it has helped more than one person struggling with health problems. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-25-fasting?lang=eng

I don't see where u get the idea that progression between kingdoms is not possible from D&C19. In fact, the way I read it. It appears to be a slam dunk that it is possible.

Very good points. I have trouble accepting Brandt Gardner’s theory that all the language of skin color is entirely metaphorical. But whatever you believe about the skin color language, The Book of Mormon certainly has an anti-tribalism message if not a an anti-racism message. The crowning event of the book is Christ coming and bringing about a society without any “ites.”

Adding: In that regard, it is no different than any other class lecture aimed at people whom are already familiar with the basic material. It is when people (especially those with a I-want-to-smear-things-agenda) try to skip that foundational understanding (example in this case: Christ and His love/power for His disciples) and just throw in later information. That's no the Lord's way of doing things. A classic example of anti-Catholics doing this would be the "Catholics teach that we should be cannibles!" trope (I can't roll my eyes big enough at that). Does that make sense @Jonah?

Thanks for the responses. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone said that it was OK or not to tell the person you are fasting for that you are fasting. I read the recommended resources; thanks again. Now I have another question - are there recommended sections of the BOM for people who are sick? I think I've seen a list of 'read X scripture if you have Y problem.' If you know what I mean and can direct me to that, I can figure out the rest on my own. For some reason, I have been prompted to start reading the BOM again. I've been doing it during odd moments, but maybe I will make a concerted effort to finish it before this person's surgery. Can't hurt either one of us. Thanks again.

I like the idea of abstaining from other worldly things. I'm going to think about that. I have a pile of books I have been trying to work through since I retired. Maybe no social media and just reading is an idea. Doing housework would probably be a better idea, but let's not go crazy.

Unless you're a dad - in which case you should be a stay at home dad.

I agree. Sometimes I feel like the real question that shows how we feel about equality of the sexes is if we likewise see nothing wrong with being a stay at home dad.

True. I don't think that anyone who voted for Trump was blind to who he was, the rumors and accusations about his private life, what one generally has to do to have business success at that level, that he was married several times (and whatever that implies), etc. I.didn't.care. If you think the country is going down hill now, it would have been worse under Hillary, completely crazy leftists, and globalists. I'll let Trump worry about his soul, I'll worry about mine. As long as his behavior in office is tolerable (not even saintly, freakin' 'tolerable' would be enough for me), I'm fine. I have, plenty of times. I'm on some conservative boards and there are many people who have no problem pointing out MLK's weaknesses. He was a flawed human, as are we all. But, unlike many others, he was willing to put his life on the line to benefit people. (this is not a dig toward you, anatess2, just a comment)

I did a few baptisms for the dead when I first got my recommend. It was a good experience, but as an adult, no, I didn't want to get in the baptismal font too many times.

Obviously those to whom Jesus was speaking were not g-ds at the moment he spoke to them. The symbolism of the scripture is as clear as it is obvious - Jesus was speaking prophetically of the potential of man. There is no other rational interpretation. Especially in light of other scriptures that indicate we will be like Him (G-d) when we are resurrected in glory and we also inherit "ALL" he (G-d) has. But there is something else that we see in John chapter 10. Even though Jesus prophesied by referencing scripture - The Jews did not believe it. Why do people that profess to know and believe scripture not believe what the scriptures (holy prophet and Jesus) teach. Here I will make another reference to the prophet Isaiah to give reason why the Jews - even though they knew the scripture - did not believe. It is a reference of Isaiah before King Ahaz when Isaiah said in essence - if you do not believe it - it is because you are not loyal. One thing I have learned about attempting to clarify any doctrine by the scripture - that scripture by itself is not evidence enough to clarify any doctrine - especially among "experts" and "scholars". Your link is as excellent an example as can be given. The Traveler

My observation is that those cultures and societies that have a strong patriarchy are accompanied by a well-organized matriarchy. That matriarchy provides a framework where little girls learn what it means to be a woman; where young mothers learn how to rear their little children; where women support each other to "get things done"; where middle-aged (or senior depending how young people die) women receive support transitioning past child-bearing years; where seasoned and experienced women pass on their skills and knowledge. Additionally, my observation is that when people try to dismantle the patriarchy what they really end up doing is dismantling the matriarchy, and place the displaced women in the patriarchy. The patriarchy is still there - it hasn't been dismantled at all! And while some women are quite comfortable in this structure, many find it* difficult to navigate 1) because the framework was optimized over millennia for men, and 2) their support structure has been dismantled. In addition, many men are displaced in the process. As long as I'm here, I'll add that Toy Story 4 can be viewed from this perspective (of placing women in the patriarchy and displacing men) not just as a story but also as a project. In the story, Woody doesn't have a purpose anymore and has to find one. He never really does so his character doesn't really arc (except to find out he's not needed any more - perhaps Million Dollar Babying him was too dark for Pixar?). In the project, Bo Peep and her girls resolve most of the conflict, so Woody doesn't really have a role in this film either. He doesn't serve to inspire others. And even in his babysitting duties is easily forgotten. *This is the "trying to have it all" trope from so many forms of media.

It was a rhetorical question. If the Lord clearly puts the answer in scripture... and the church clearly encourages you to read said scripture... Why do you need me or anyone else to repeat it? (aka rhetorical) As for not answering your question.. I see no reason to answer a question that fundamentally misrepresent what I am saying. Rather I address the true issue that you are twisting my words and I do not accept it.