RAB

Theoretical Christianity is much easier than actual Christianity.

I, too, tire of hearing what someone said on a Podcast. I feel like they are often adding more to the scriptures than they should. One example was Moses and the Flying serpent. Someone learned in a podcast that those on the outskirts of camp who were bitten probably needed assistance to get to where the staff was in the center of camp. In my mind, that undercuts the meaning of that event. The meaning is that all we have to do is look to Christ, repent, and live. We don't need someone else to carry us to Him (Bishops may have a place in the repentance process, and we can reach out to bring prodigal sons back, but I don't believe that is what this story is about). We have no idea whether Moses walked around camp with the staff, so that all people could just look up and live. There may have been no travel required at all. Just look and live. I think that is what God wants us to know. Look to Him and live. Don't avoid trying because you assume it will not work. Test Him, try Him, and see if He doesn't know how to give good gifts to His children. Podcasts have to come up with something interesting to say, but one should beware that the interesting thing they say may actually be detracting from the point of the gospel message.

I actually prefer the latter. He is more real. That is a man who has seen some stuff, has been through the ringer, and is still standing with jaw firmly set. That is a man who is a rough stone rolling. There is an indomitable will and definitely some pain behind his eyes.

I have come to a similar conclusion. We go to the Kingdom whose laws we are willing to obey. To reach the Telestial, you just have to not become a son of perdition. Pretty low bar, since you already came to earth. To reach the Terrestrial, you just have to not be an unrepentant liar, adulterer, thief, or murderer. To reach the Celestial, however, you have to strive to live those covenants made in the temple in person or by proxy, repenting along the way, until ultimately you always choose to do what is right. Whichever kingdom is chosen, all sins must be paid for in person, if one chooses not to take advantage of Christ's atonement. As D&C 19 indicates, that is not a pleasant process. It is not difficult to see why people, of their own will, will choose the subset of laws they are comfortable following, and thus, ultimately choose their kingdom. Much of that will play out in the millenium, except for those who have forfeited the opportunity for progression because they did not improve their lives during their earth life (in my mind that is reserved for evil people that wish to do harm, not for the distracted who might turn it around).

After going over my own income taxes last night, I certainly feel this way. I consider myself a relatively intelligent person, but those tax instructions and worksheets are full of gibberish only insiders can fully understand. I understood enough to know I'm cutting a check in April and revising my withholdings on my W-4 today. We really need a much simpler tax system. I love the simplicity of tithing. Just do a flat tax, and tax credit based on income for poorer people. This isn't rocket science, but how else would the Government get to incentivize my life decisions and bribe the public with the public's money.

In 2nd Nephi, Nephi points out that the days of man were lengthened pre-flood so that they could repent while in the flesh. (2 Ne. 2:21) I interpret that to mean that they lived long enough so that they learned how to always choose to do what is right, so that they did not need to repent any further. As such, through Christ's atonement that would come, they would be ready to be exalted when their resurrection would come with Christ's resurrection. How long did it take to repent in the flesh and get to a point where one would always choose what is right? Adam lived 930 years (Gen 5:5). Seth lived 912 years (Gen 5:8). Enos lived 905 years (Gen 5:11). Cainan lived 910 years (Gen 5:12). Mahalaleel lived 895 years (Gen. 5:17). Jared lived 962 years (Gen 5:20). Enoch lived 365 years until he was translated (Gen 5: 23). So, apart from Enoch, it took most people over 900 years to get to that point. Add to that the knowledge Alma 34:33 which states that we should not procrastinate our repentance because "if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed." Notice it says "if we do not improve our time" (we don't come to the earth perfect, but rather innocent), but it does not say there is no further improvement. We only get the chance continue improving if we improve our time while in this life. If we do become better people, then there is a chance to continue to improve. If we do nothing with our lives to improve, then there is no further chance to keep progressing. Piecing those two scriptural sections together, it is my belief that the thousand years of the millennium is when we get to continue to repent and improve while in flesh, so long as we made progress in mortality. It took the ancients about 900 years, so having 1,000 years at the end of mortality makes perfect sense. This gives me comfort for several reasons. We know the Lord does not expect perfection of us in our short mortalities, even though eventually He will. We know there is no magic that makes us become perfect, but rather ultimately we become what we choose to be. We also know that there will be opportunities for those who have made some improvement in their lives, but perhaps were distracted and lead astray. This isn't some game to our Father, where there is a prize to be won. Rather, He will give every opportunity and allow time for all His children who will to eventually choose Him and His way of life. Without Christ's sacrifice and grace to cleanse us and strengthen us to rise to new heights along the way, we could have no hope of eventually arriving at that glorious day of the final judgement with hopes of returning to our Father's presence. So, yeah, I believe there is progression after death. There simply has to be.

“Powers of heaven shaken.” Heaven is often synonymous with the sky and space. So, some kind of global event that knocks out satellites or perhaps space warfare?

Another possibility…it was a very male dominated society throughout history. Perhaps people would not have taken the message as well from a woman. Another thought, assuming the angels were attractive, a female angel’s beauty may have been too distracting for the male brain to process her message. 😂

I don’t get the outrage when you clearly see a Jesuit priest on Christ’s right hand coming toward him. People need to stop straining at gnats.

I think some have the idea that the specific words are some magic language that brings blessings when properly spoken…think Gandalf opening the secret door.I used to think that way—that the words unlocked some kind of power. Now, I realize we do what Christ asks, the way He asks us to do things, and then He blesses us, usually through the Holy Ghost. When I became a lawyer I found all kinds of ways to say the same thing. And antiquated language from prior leases is often modernized to become more understandable in today’s parlance. What matters is not the words spoken, but what both parties intend, and living up with what is agreed upon. If Christ wanted you to hop on one leg while you took the sacrament, well, He sets the terms of the covenants, so that would be His right. Luckily, He seems to provide language for the parties most appropriate in their time. I’m thinking about the changes to the temple endowment session as welcome changes that He, as the setter of the terms of the covenant, has a right to make.

What I have come to realize is that there is always a rational explanation. The scriptures are true, the Church is true, the Prophets of this dispensation are true. To the extent there is an apparent conflict I always start with the baseline of what the Holy Ghost has strongly witnessed to me and admit there may be some things I will not understand until later, perhaps the next life. But I know enough to keep moving forward in this life with faith the path will continue to light ahead of me.

This part seems to be at odds: “the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse.” Isn’t that exactly what Nephi and Mormon were saying it was…a sign that these people were cursed and God did not want you to mix with them? To be clear, I don’t consider it a fundamental doctrinal issue upon which salvations rests. 😉 I am open to considering alternative explanations as I am mostly just thinking out loud. I haven’t made up my mind either way.

I guess my point is that just because we have always read and understood scriptures to mean one thing, sometimes we get further light and knowledge/direction that makes as reconsider our previous understanding. I used to interpret 2 Ne 5 and Alma 3 as they are written. But this statement by the Church has me reconsidering whether Nephi and Mormon accurately described the Lamanites’ darker skin as coming from God. I believe they believe that is what happened, but I don’t actually believe that is what happened. I believe it was more likely natural phenomena/genetics/culture. It is not uncommon for civilizations to attribute naturally occurring phenomena to the gods. I think perhaps this is one such instance. But either way, it doesn’t affect my testimony of the Book of Mormon.

So, is this a 1 or a 2? “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” -From Essay on Blacks and Priesthood in the Church Library

And you are drawing a distinction that doesn't make a difference. You have addressed none of my points and instead point out that I said curse instead of mark, which you know full well is not the issue. The issue is whether God caused the darker skin of the Lamanites, regardless of what you call it. I don't believe discussion with you is going to be fruitful, so let's just peacefully agree to let it go.

I happened to be reading Alma 3 today and noticed this verse: 9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed. Notice what it did not say. It did not say that person was also cursed, but rather his or her seed were. Also, if God's purpose was to prevent the Nephites from intermingling by making the Lamanites unappealing through darker skin, then God apparently failed because Mormon admits that there were those who did intermingle, but only their children got darker skin. So, which is the more likely explanation. God did something and failed in His purpose, or the explanation is a biased explanation trying to explain a natural phenomenon. My opinion is that Nephi, Mormon, and Moses were fallible human beings who sought to explain natural phenomena as God causing it because it supported their biases against people who had waged war with them and likely killed loved ones. There was no claim to revelation on the matter in any of those instances, and Mormon may very well have just adopted Nephi's explanation (especially after watching his people get destroyed by them). It is not mental gymnastics for people to demonize their enemies. It happens all throughout the scriptures (Canaanites, Egyptians, Samaritans, Gentiles, etc.). Prophets are just people with imperfections too. Remember how mad Jonah was when Nineveh repented? And remember how eager the Lord was for the sons of Mosiah to preach to the Lamanites? That does not sound like a God who wanted to avoid interaction between the Nephites and the Lamanites. The truth is often complicated and nuanced.

I assume you are referring to this verse from 2 Nephi 5:21? 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. Again this is someone explaining why he thinks their skin got darker. Remember that at this point they had separated themselves from the Lamanites, fled, and had wars, and now the Lamanites had darker skins. Nephi is also speaking through his own lens. It is just as likely that the way the Lamanites lived caused more exposure to sun, and thus darker skins. Or perhaps even the geography of where they lived. Locations closer to the equator have more direct sunlight and naturally people with darker skins. What we do not see in the BofM is a quote from the Lord or a prophet saying, “the Lord told me He made their skins dark as a curse so we wouldn’t mix with them.” I think that would be more definitive that it was actually caused by God rather than just a naturally occurring phenomenon that the prophets tried to explain. I, for one, find Nephi’s explanation lacking because I am more attracted to women of color. Have been since I was a kid. I can’t really explain it. And people are not monolithic. I am sure not all Nephites found women of color unappealing. In fact we know that Noah’s priests essentially kidnapped them in the wilderness and made them wives because they were desirous to them. So, the most likely explanation is that Nephi was more attracted to fair skinned women and explained the darker skins as God’s curse to make them unappealing to the Nephites, because he was not particularly attracted to darker skinned women. Different strokes for different folks. As far as I know, all scriptures have indicated that all Gods children are equal before him. I don’t believe He believes any of his sons and daughters are less appealing due to their skin tone. Whenever a statement like that is made, it is through a human lens and not a direct quote from the Lord or a quoted revelation. People are prone to speculate, just as I am doing now, especially in the absence of revelation. It isn’t too far of a stretch to say that perhaps there is some speculation by Nephi and Mormon in the absence of revelation colored by their negative experiences with the Lamanites. People are human and fallible. And it really isn’t a huge deal since whatever happened is not germane to the main message of the Book of Mormon, which is that only Christ can deliver us from sin and death, and he doesn’t care what your skin color is. 2 Ne. 26:33: 33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Lifestyles may have had a lot to do with it as well. Some people, my wife being one of them, has skin that gets quite dark with lots of exposure to sunlight, but gets much lighter without it. Perhaps the authors recognized dark skins as a sign of the curse, but it really had more to do with the different ways the societies functioned. Lamanites were known for being hunters, while Nephites were known for being farmers/industrious sorts. Not knowing how those activities were carried out during those times, nor their exact geography, it is tough to say which exposed themselves more to sunlight (though I refuse to do yardwork in the heat of the day). Add to it intermarrying with natives, and there are many natural phenomena that could explain darker skin for one people over another. I personally wish I had darker skin because it is much nicer than dealing with constant sunburns, so I don't see it as a curse at all, and actually find it quite attractive. Another consideration is that they were talking figuratively, rather than describing actual phenomena. Just as pirates were said to have black hearts, perhaps Lamanites were said to have black skins. The book was abridged by Mormon, who essentially saw his entire people destroyed by Lamanites. His writings were written through his lens of perception. In the end, whether Lamanite skin tone was a natural or supernatural cause misses the whole point of the Book of Mormon, which is that all are alike unto God, and Christ is the only way to be delivered from sin and death.

I think this was the perfect line for Christ to be born under. Let me explain why. I read in Elder Bednar's recent conference talk why Christ chose to retain the marks in his hands and feet and the spear wound in his side. In part, of course, it was fulfillment of prophesy in Isaiah. But perhaps the deeper meaning, as Elder Bednar pointed out, was that even those who lived pure, good, wholesome lives might go through terrible things. That was terribly soothing for me, as one who had felt particularly betrayed by someone I loved so dearly, even though I had faithfully served in a leadership capacity to the best of my ability. Bad things can happen to people even when they didn't do anything to deserve it. I also happen to come from a family line where more than once my ancestors had to be adopted because their bloodline fathers were not very fatherlike. If your family line is not perfect, do you worry about what that says about you? Christ being born the David/Bethsheba line is the perfect way to answer this question. What our ancestors did has no bearing on who we are or what we can become. I find it incredibly comforting that Christ, who was perfect, did not come from a perfect circumstance.

To be fair, Joseph did try right away, and it turned out to be a disaster, which is probably why he put it off as long as he possibly could.