Timpman

Okay, I see your point. I just happen to not like weeds, disease, murder, war, etc. :)

I really hope Pres. Packer is talking about raising families DURING the millennium. I am one of those guys who wants the world to end NOW.

If it were not from the Lord, it would have been a mistake. It would be very unfortunate. It was, however, from the Lord. So I wrote "This is actually was is shaking my faith a bit," which should really be "This is actually shaking my faith a bit." I just finished reading the whole essay by Edward L. Kimball, though, and I am okay now. I am actually joyful because my testimony has been strengthened. Some parts were awesome: That last one made me cry (a manly cry).

Very, very well said!Here' more from Edward L. Kimball's essay:

President Kimball said: Both quotes from https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/47.2KimballSpencerb0a083df-b26b-430b-9ce2-3efec584dcd9.pdfI am trying to understand all of this more. I am in the middle of that essay.

I'm not using anything to try to justify the ban. The ban was a veritable reality. Yes, it was a policy, but that doesn't make any less real. Though it's difficult to find the beginning and source of the ban, Brigham Young apparently was willing to accept responsibility for it. He said "Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane [sic] in him Cannot hold the priesthood & if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it" (Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 1833–1898). This is actually was is shaking my faith a bit. It's really, really sad that the whole thing could have been a monumental, 100-year mistake. Thought it was hinted that it could be a mistake, it was said over and over again to be from the Lord. It must have been from the Lord or it was was HUGE mistake.

Yes, that is interesting. I knew about the first Elijah Abel, but not his grandson. After those FEW men were ordained, black men could not hold the Priesthood, though. I think you just need to accept it as fact and quit trying to soften it.

So I said "Regardless of what our modern prophets say, we can't cover up the past. We need to address it head on. It is what it is." I probably could have used better words. I was thinking of teachings of love and equality and the 1978 revelation regarding the Priesthood. I meant that we have to acknowledge that black men could not have the Priesthood in the past and that the Lamanites were given dark skin, etc. I was worried that if we try to change the meaning of scriptures or erase history, we would rightfully be viewed as intellectually dishonest and it would hurt our cause. I confess that I do feel a bit shameful about some things. I wonder if Elder McConkie felt that when he said, “Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation." It really would be easier being a Mormon if we didn't have such controversial issues to deal with. But this is God's Church!

Haha, we wasted a lot of time. I really appreciate your apology. No hard feeling. What you pointed out in bold red does deserve some explanation, which I will provide later.

The original post asked about 2 Nephi 5:21 and other scriptures. skippy740 then linked us to Lesson Outline For Teachers | BlacksInTheScriptures.com, which says “the ‘skin’ being spoken of is spiritual and not a literal, physical skin color, which is consistent with everything we’ve covered thus far.” Also “All that made us believe that the Lamanites actually had a darker physical skin than the Nephites, now all have new footnoting or word changes to help us to understand that the passages are actually referring to spiritual darkness or spiritual blindness.” skippy704 also indicated that it’s just an idiom. That “lesson” is simply incorrect, in my opinion, and I think I explained it well (footnotes don’t always define other verses – sometimes they are just related). I came in saying that the Lamanites literally had their skin darkened and we can’t change that interpretation now. Vort came in with guns blazing:o. I wrote “It seems that some here believe that NO verses in the BoM refer to actual skin color. That doesn’t make sense.” And he replied “No one has said any such thing. You are misrepresenting the position of others. Building a false representation so that you can tear it down is called a straw man fallacy.” Vort, by saying “No one has said any such thing," you have shown you have greatly misunderstood this whole topic because I was responding to the "lesson" linked by skippy740, which clearly teaches "that NO verses in the BoM refer to actual skin color." So here is what my position is: Sometimes, "white" means "pure." But in some verses, "white" and "black" refer to actual skin color. It is what is it and we can't change the meaning of the scriptures now, as skippy740's "lesson" tries to do.

I do understand that the change was made. It just doesn't mean a whole lot. It means that in one verse, "white" meant "pure." See below for more info. I was not criticizing Joseph Smith. I was asking you to ponder why the other verses weren’t changed. See below for more info. Yes, Joseph Smith fixed it in 1840, but it didn't make it into the actually BoM printing until much later. If it were really important, it would have been included in previous printings. Yes, I did read the page you linked, and here is the "more info" I referred to above. It says: “It is true that skin color is meant in some Book of Mormon passages, but this is not true throughout the text. Nephite wrote that the Lamanites received a darker skin to make them repulsive to the Nephites so they would not mingle with the Lamanites and partake of their iniquity. “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” (2 Nephi 5:21). Later, we read that because of their repentance, “their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites” (3 Nephi 2:15). “Two other passages may be using the term “white” to denote skin color. One is Nephi’s description of the gentiles who would come to the New world, who “were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain” (1 Nephi 13:15). The other is Nephi’s description of Christ’s mother as “exceedingly fair and white” (1 Nephi 11:13), a description that matches that of the fruit of the tree of life that Nephi and his father saw in vision, which was “white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen” (1 Nephi 8:11).” It seems that some here believe that NO verses in the BoM refer to actual skin color. That doesn’t make sense. Please tell me what it is that you think I’m doing.

What are you trying to say here? In other verses in the Book of Mormon, it still says "white." Why wasn't it changed in those other verses? And if it very important at all, it would not have taken 140 years for it to be corrected. I am not trying to be "racial." I am only understanding what the book plainly says.

There is an indication that such a change takes time: "and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people." 2 Nephi 30:6.

Yes, we definitely agree on that.

Again, it would be nice if I were wrong. However, when taken in context and compared to other verses, it doesn't make sense that it's merely an idiom. Not everything in the scriptures is pleasant. Moses really did kill an Egyptian for hitting a Hebrew (Ex. 2:12) and God commanded Israel to destroy ALL of the Canaanites. God is infinitely wise and I'm not going to question that decision. We don't have to rationalize and twist words to explain the scriptures to people. Also, this is certainly not the first time I have studied this. I taught black people on my mission and studied it quite a bit.

I have been studying! Here's 2 Nephi 5:21: "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, that 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." Here's some footnotes: "curse" - TG has many verses in which this word is used. "delightsome" - Gen. 24:16 "And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up." So this refers to APPEARANCE and virtue. -1 Ne. 13:15 "I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain." This uses the term "white" when talking about APPEARANCE again. -4 Ne. 1:10 ..."and became an exceedingly fair and delightsome people." I guess it just points to this verse because "delightsome" is included. -Morm. 9:6 "That perhaps ye may be found spotless, pure, fair, and white, having been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb..." In this verse "white" is in a list with "spotless," "pure," and "fair," so it seems to be used here as an internal attribute. "enticing" - This is related to marriage. "skin" - 2 Ne. 30:6 "and 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 pure and a delightsome people." I see that "scales" has a footnote refering to "Darkness, Spiritual" and "Spiritual Blindness." And then the verse talks about becoming "a pure and a delightsome people." So this verse is similar to 2 Nephi 5:21, which is why a footnote leads to it, but does that necessarily mean that "skin" means spiritual blindless? I don't think so. That simply doesn't make sense. These two verses are interesting to compare, but one does not define the other. So "pure and delightsome" used to read "white and delightsome." If "white" should always refer to "pure," then that word would have been changed in every verse that uses it. Apparently it was important to change it only in this verse, so in other verses they may not always have the same meaning. -3 Ne. 2:14–16 This very clearly says that "their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites." It does not say that their spiritual darkness or blindness was remedied - it says their skin became white. Why use the word "skin" if it really has nothing to do with skin? "blackness" - 2 Nephi 26:33 "he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free...." So you saying that pointing us to this verse means that "all are alike unto God." Yes, that's true. It says that God invites ALL to partake of his goodness, but that doesn't mean that the Lamanites could not have been given dark skin. Of course, they were still invited to partake of his goodness. Moses 7:8 - "the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan..." Yes, this also refers to 2 Nephi 26:33 to remind us that all are invited to partake of his goodness, but it still says a blackness came upon them. Footnotes are very helpful. They lead us to verses that relate, but do not necessarily define, the verse being read. Finally, it is interesting that it says in 2 Nephi 5:21 that God CAUSED the "skin of blackness to come upon them." Would God cause people to be spiritually dark or blind? No, I think He did not cause them to be spiritual dark and blind (they brought that upon themselves, or it came as a result of their parent's unbelief), but He did cause them to have dark skin. Why use the word "skin" if it really doesn't refer to skin? I don't know why this happened to the Lamanites, but I can accept it.

In 2 Nephi 26:33, Nephi is talking and Alma 11:44 is Amulek contending with Zeezrom. They don't have to be related - "wicked and the righteous" does not necessarily replace "black and white." Alma 55:4-8 actually supports my view. Moroni "caused that a search should be made among his men." He had a very large army, which is why a search had to be done. It wasn't like there was a group of people in one building. So they found Laman, and when Laman approached the Lamanites, they believed that he was also a Lamanite. Why? Probably because he LOOKED like them, probably because of the shade of his skin. I will some more studying.

So if I study the scriptures and don't get the same conclusion as you, then I am wrong? I am using the online version of the scriptures so I want to make sure I'm not missing something. I guess I'm not. The footnotes just refer to other verses. It says "23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing." So the Nephites were obviously told to not marry Lamanites. And it's different now because Nephites don't exist and any interracial marriage is okay.

Are there actual notes in the footnotes that I am missing? I have seen only references to other verses. I guess it really is saying that the Nephites were to not marry the Lamanites at that time. It's different now, of course. I have still not seen anything that would cause me to believe that the change in skin color was not literal.

Joseph Smith used terminology from his time when he was translating, so I don't buy that argument. He could have read whatever reformed Egyptian used for dark-skinned people and used the word "black" because that was prevalent in his day. Can you show anything from the Brethren that says clearly that the BoM is NOT literally referring to making the Lamanites' skin dark? Again, I have a testimony. I just don't like the idea of reinterpreting scripture. Maybe we just have to accept that the Lamanites really were turned dark. It's hard to accept and explain perhaps, but it is what it is. EXACTLY! We have to accept it, not backpedal and try to reinterpret it. It stinks of a cover-up.

Seriously, RELAX. I am only saying "Hey, it would be easier for us if it didn't say that, but it does, so I will accept it and deal with it." Others seem to be saying "Oh, we need to change the meaning of the verses to look better to the world."

I am confused by this. I am NOT saying that we should be racist. I wish the BOM didn't have references to "skin of blackness." I wish the Church could be seen as the most tolerant on earth.

I am looking at the footnotes, but please let me know if I am missing anything. In 2 Nephi 5:21, the footnote for "skin" refers me to 2 Nephi 36:6 (and their scales of darkness...be a pure and a delightsome people) and 3 Nephi 2:14-16 (curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;...And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair). "Blackness" refers me to 2 Ne. 26:33 (he denieth none that come unto him, black and white) and Moses 7:8 (there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan). I am being sincere here. I really don't see how it could not be literal, and all those footnotes don't seem to make it otherwise. They just point to other verses that strengthen my view. I meant that this race issue is difficult for me. If it were never an issue in the Church, it would be a bit easier for me. I already said I still have a testimony of Joseph Smith and the BoM. Also of the Savior, etc.

I still have a testimony of Joseph Smith and Book of Mormon. I am just saying it won't help our cause to backpedal and tell people those verses are not literal.

I am referring to 2 Nephi 5:21 and how that was taken literally for decades. We can't change its meaning now. Believe it or not, I read through that lesson. It says "Read, discuss and follow each footnote for the world “black” demonstrating that they refer to the spiritual state and not the literal color of skin." That doesn't make sense. It is not an idiom. That site is not official at all, anyway. Referring to "scales of darkness" in a later 2 Nephi chapter does not undo what was specifically said in 2 Nephi 5. How could a "spiritual darkness" make%