rameumptom

I did not mention you being prejudiced, nor do I think you are. I am showing how a bad intepretation of scripture can create many meanings. Brigham Young was a racist, but so were most people in the 19th century. For some reason, the scriptures were misinterpreted and read in such a way as to justify a priesthood ban. Last year, a BYU professor (Randy Bots) was interviewed and used the old party line about the curse of black skin. The Church immediately came out with a statement saying we do not believe that concept. We simply know that there was a ban and it required a revelation to lift the ban. That is the Church's official position. With that as the Church's official position, members do not have to justify Canaanites being black in order to justify the ban. That is where I disagree with you. You are attempting to teach something that the Church has said is not true. The archaeology you claim to be using has nothing to do with the claims you are making. You may as well be stating: there is gravity in Africa, therefore the Canaanites are black. The first statement is true, but has nothing to do with the latter as far as we can tell. There are many peoples that live in hot, dry and sunny places, and are not black skinned. So, your statements from Moses do not apply. It is one thing to say, "it is raining, therefore the ground is wet." It is another thing to say, "this patch of ground is wet, therefore it is raining." The two are not equal. Again, I did not suggest nor think you are prejudiced. I did suggest that you experience faulty logic, as the answers you give do not follow from the examples you provide.

Vort, you clearly are misinterpreting Solomon's Song. It must obviously mean "I am black, and cursed." Clearly Solomon was somehow descended from Ham, perhaps via Bathsheba?

Job was not black. Neither were the Canaanites. Black is a metaphor in the scriptures mentioned above. "skin of blackness" is a metaphor, possibly even referring to the skins or clothing the people wore, rather than their own flesh. That Adam had a garment of animal skins, which in some ancient texts is described as white, suggests that we may be talking about a garment or symbol of being holy or evil, rather than actual human flesh color. That the term "skin of blackness" is used in the Book of Mormon for Lamanites, who definitely were not black, also suggests something different. Here it can also mean a garment of some sort, or the darkness of the soul of the sinner. We need to be careful not to read too much of our own personal beliefs, thoughts and prejudices into the scripture. I've seen people claim Jesus was a communist; Jesus was a hippy; Jesus was from outer space; Jesus was a Hindu master; etc. All of these ideas coming from the same Bible text, but each interpretation coming from a person's specific reading, rather than seeking the original intent of the author. Canaanites were not black skinned. Period. To argue this is to wrest both the scriptures and science.

Crimson, I read the Discover article you posted. I'm confused as to how this applies to the discussion. Yes, northern Africa used to be green about 6-9000 years ago. Yes, it is now a desert. However, for LDS, who believe the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, Adam and Caan would not have been in Africa. Even the standard Eden in Mesopotamia is simply not in Africa. Noah's ark settled on Ararat, on the border of Turkey and Russia, so the "curse of Canaan" was never an issue of being in Africa. In fact, the article, while mentioning some ancient water ways with extinct settlements, never mentions Canaanites, blacks, Africans, etc. Archaeology of 6000 years ago and earlier shows groups primarily moving OUT of Africa, not into it. So, you again are making claims that have no evidence. And the "skin of blackness" that the Book of Moses mentions for the Canaanites, is not necessarily a black skin. There are many LDS scholars who have written on this, including at FairLDS.org.

The problem with what you are saying Crimson, is you are making assumptions from no evidence. I could say that space aliens populated Africa anciently, and built the pyramids. How can you disprove it? It is possible that Canaanites dwelt in Africa. In fact, many did. Egyptians enslaved many of them and used them in Egypt to build cities, work in mines, etc. The fact that this is the case, however, does not strengthen your argument. None of them were black! In fact, black Egyptians came from Nubia, in what was known as Upper Egypt (in the south, upper part of the Nile). Again, when you speak of Ham, you are assuming that Ham (or his wife) were black. Where is the evidence? Even the scriptures are silent on that issue, and one must forcibly read it into the scriptures to imagine it is there. Yes, they learn new things in archaeology all of the time. However, some things are literally set in stone. Archaeology in the Levant and Egypt has been going on for such a long and extensive time, that major discoveries as you are suggesting just will not happen. They know all of the kings of Egypt. They have found records of the Abiru (Hebrews) and Canaanites in Egypt and the Levant. The heiroglyphics and stone etchings show Canaanites as Arabic in appearance, with a language that is very similar to Hebrew. In fact, Israelis and Canaanites could easily communicate with one another in their own languages, much like I can understand Portuguese, because I am fluent in Spanish. It is important that we understand the scriptures the way they were meant to be understood. We need to be careful in imposing our views upon the scriptures, and instead seek to understand the original teaching. Science can help us in this. The story of Noah may be one of a global flood, or perhaps a major regional flood, leaving a traditional belief that Ham's descendants populated Africa. Keep an open mind, as God has much to reveal to us in the future from both religion and science.

The Canaanite language is one of many Semitic languages. The Canaanites dwelt in the area of the Levant/Palestine, and were related to the Hebrews, Moabites, Phoenicians and others. Skin color in the area is NOT black, regardless of whether there was/is heat or not. So that theory of black skin just does not work. Bytor, we can try and understand what is meant, and attempt at educated guesses. However, the archaeology does show that black skin is not a part of the meaning.

Crimson, Except archaeologically, the Canaanites were not black. They were a Semitic race. So the "blackness" that fell upon them was not a skin color curse, but a metaphor for being out of God's presence. For this reason, Abraham sent his servant elsewhere to obtain a wife for Isaac - not that they were black skinned, but because they were not among those accepted of God. So, in reading the Book of Abraham or Book of Moses, we cannot read things INTO the book that are not true. The Canaanites were not a black skinned people, and so they were not cursed with black skin.

Last year, a BYU professor of religion was interviewed by a media outlet and asked about the "curse of Cain." He talked about it, based upon his belief on the traditional view. The Church quickly came out and said that we do not believe in a curse of Cain on the black people. We simply do not know why the blacks were banned from the priesthood. The problem with reading things into this is comes from Protestant racism of the 19th century. Mormons picked it up, often worried about the concept of inter-racial marriage (and inter-racial marriage for eternity in the temple). But anyone finding black skin as the curse of Cain or Canaan in the Bible, Book of Moses or Book of Abraham is really reading the curse into the story. I suggest you look at the data in Black LDS Mormons , a site run by FAIR. And I agree with MOE. The Book of Mormon discusses the Promised Land, and those cast out of the Lord's presence. Cain was cast out of God's presence, which was also caused by a physical removal to another place. The problem with the curse of Canaan, even with the story of Ham stealing the garment of Noah/Adam, is that only one of Ham's sons is cursed. And in the tradition, Ham gives the garment to a different son, rather than Canaan!

Oh, and ignore Dravin's advice. You should NOT expose yourself to others. While it may make some laugh, it is illegal in many public places to go around naked. You simply do not need that kind of exposure on your mission....

laugh. have a sense of humor and laugh. laughter reduces stress. it heals. laugh.

Pam, Do you suppose the geriatric group that is called to "walk" to Missouri will drive down on their electric wheelchairs?

Magus, "And now, verily I say unto you, and this is wisdom, make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you" (D&C 82:22). Perhaps the Lord sometimes has us deal with the world on its level for a purpose?

Jeep, I did not say JFSmith wrote HoC. I said he was not a historian who could verify that the HoC was the most accurate history ever written. I agree with JAG. As it is, the authors of HoC were NOT eye witnesses of most of the events in the book. They were not there for the First Vision, Book of Mormon, etc. Much of the story they wrote was second or third hand information. History was written and viewed differently then than it is now. History was expected to be written from a specific viewpont: that of the winner. Victories were embellished and flaws were downplayed or even ignored. For example, how much of HoC tells us about Joseph Smith's plural wives? How much of it discusses Joseph Smith's temper or Brigham Young's foul language? Does it mention the MMM? How about the Danites? Does it discuss the various versions of Joseph Smith's First Vision? There are lots of things a historian may choose to add or not add, and the method of writing can make a person sound noble or ignoble on the same event. Truth doesn't change. However, we do not have "all truth" and so the Church has to stumble along sometimes until the Lord reveals truths we have yet to receive. When it comes to doctrine, Joseph Smith noted that we have few actual doctrines in the Church. However, over time, many teachings and beliefs of GAs were accepted by the general membership as doctrine, even though it wasn't official (and sometimes was not true, either). For example, for over a century, most members believed in the priesthood curse on blacks. It was based on speculation, but when enough GAs say the same thing, it then becomes fiat doctrine, even though not true nor official. Today's Church has learned this lesson, which is why you will not see another apostle write a Mormon Doctrine, Gospel Doctrine (by Joseph F Smith) or Doctrines of Salvation. Why? Because today's GAs do not speculate on teachings, but only focus on the key/core doctrines that are clearly true and made official by the Church. They now leave the speculating to LDS professors of religion and others to discuss, where no one will take it and make it official doctrine because an apostle said it. Doctrine and truth are one thing. History is an entirely different animal. We have historical facts (doctrine and truth) and we have events that can be interpreted in many different ways (history). Fact: White Americans moved Native Americans onto reservations after many years of wars. History: Depending on which approach you take and how you manage the facts, either the whites or Indians were the good guys, OR both were either good or evil.

JFSmith was an apostle and prophet. He was NOT a historian. His view of history was to leave out the stuff that may denigrate LDS history, or worse, the history of his family (Joseph and Hyrum, etc). His writing of "history" was like today's reporters writing fluff pieces on their favorite politician. The HoC is not the most accurate history the world has ever seen.

Be careful on stating such broad statements. Elder McConkie was flat wrong on some of his statements regarding blacks and the priesthood. Does that make him a liar, simply because he chose to believe LDS tradition over the facts and truth?

If you are going to use a specific form of a term (i.e., "socialism" as communitarianism vs statism) then it is your responsibility to explain using the non-popular definition. If people do not follow what you say, then it is your responsibility to define your terms, not ours. Words have specific meaning, which can differ depending on time period, location, etc. For someone whose moniker denotes knowledge, you are assuming too much of your audience. You assume we are going to view things from your point of view, using your definition of terms. You assumed wrong. It is not our responsibility to draw the specific definitions of terms out of you. It is yours to explain them up front, or expect to be questioned from our own perspective and definition of terms. You'll note that I distinguished between socialism and communitarianism. Why? Because the term socialism is now closely defined to a statist bureaucracy (whether Soviet Union, Red China, or Sweden, they are all large state organizations). Meanwhile, communitarianism has long been a form that, while sharing some concepts with socialism, dispenses with the force of state and with the need for it on a large level. Even Joseph Smith and Brigham Young focused on communitarianism in small communities, rather than imposed across the entire Church. As for your manner, you used terminology that suggested you were talking down to a lesser and more ignorant people. In reality, you made statements that could not be supported (Jesus was a socialist), and then got defensive when we questioned your statements. So, being derogatory, at least in this instance, IS your style. If your intentions are judged wanting, it is because you either did not explain them properly, or they are simply opposite what others believe and they DID find them wanting. The reality is, if you make claims, then you ought to be ready to backup those claims with evidence. You should also expect to be mistrusted if you speak down to people with erudite speech and attitude. Finally, if you are going to claim things from the scriptures, you'd better be ready to defend your statements. Some of us have read through the scriptures dozens of times, and read some of the major works by LDS and others scholars on such topics. I For example, I respect Vort because I know he's done his homework, even though we may not always come to the same conclusion. You, however, do not seem to have done much homework on this, and so I cannot yet place you in the same category as Vort. (and I'm sure he's much relieved to know that).

Actually, Jesus was NOT the socialist. Peter was the communitarian (different from socialist). It is way too easy for people to place labels to justify their own views, when they only see a veneer of what they want to see. This only shows your ignorance of the scriptures and who Jesus really was. Your attempt to lowbrow the other commenters here is unsettling. Jesus stated to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. He did not tell anyone to have a state run organization to feed the people - which is a major component of socialism. Instead, Jesus encouraged people to have charity and give freely to the poor. Yet, he also noted that the poor would always be with us. That you walked through the LDS buildings and thought we could do more for the poor leaves me wondering some things. First, how much do you personally give annually to charity? Second, if you are not donating to the LDS charities, why should you care what Mormons purchase with their donated funds? Do you hear any of us demanding you to donate 10-20% of your earnings to a charity, but only ones that will spend the money the way others want? No one forces me to pay tithes and other offerings to the LDS Church. I voluntarily do so, and approve of how the Church spends the money. Meanwhile, Socialists tend to want more, much more, than 10% and it is never enough. Yet, millions starved to death under socialism in the Soviet Union. Millions are starving to death in North Korea right now, even though they are taxed very high. I tire of hearing people criticize the actions of a Church or other private organization that does much good in the world, simply because they spend their funds different than the individual would. This is especially true of outsiders who don't have anything in the game, or worse, don't give of their own free will to the extent that I do. If you think socialism is wonderful, then form a socialist organization to take care of the poor. Freedom allows you to do that. But quit talking down at us when you don't know what the heck you speak of.

The problem is, through the eyes of basic philosophy, all things are truly a mystery. We only "know" things through perceiving them through our senses. When I see a person, I am only experiencing them in the past, not the present. Yes, it may only have been a tiny moment from when the light reflected off their face and entered my eyes, or I touched them and the nerve signals had to travel to my brain to interpret them, but it still is illusory. You can describe your feelngs to me, and I can by empathetic towards them, but I cannot directly experience them. In fact, I cannot directly experience many of the things happening to my own body. I cannot directly experience my liver cleansing my blood, for instance. I cannot directly experience my muscles growing (or shrinking). I can only indirectly experience these things, therefore all things are, in effect, a mystery. However, we can still indirectly experience these things and make value from the experience. I personally know very few of the people on this list (Hi Dravin!), yet I can still relate and have a relationship. And so it is with God, while I do not know all things regarding God, I can relate with him on and in many things. I can build a relationship, even if it is built upon my indirectly experiencing him via feeling the Spirit, reading scripture, or pondering, etc. And, a key to Mormonism is that we CAN get to know God. D&C 84 tells us that the Melchizedek Priesthood holds the key to the mysteries of godliness, even the key to the knowledge of God. While we only indirectly experience him here, we may directly know him someday. So mysteriousness is not an attribute of God, but it is only a defect of being human. In the Celestial Kingdom, God will not be mysterious, but will be fully known.

Oh, and for those who are critics of what the Church does, do not forget that Jesus was considered a drunk who hung out with the lowest of slimes (tax collectors, etc). Seems to me that if there will always be critics, even for the Son of God, then his prophets should fare no better....

I can give the poor some food, and they will be hungry tomorrow. Or, I can give them a job, and they can feed their family for a long time, plus the money regenerates throughout the community to provide jobs for others. It is the same concept as the Church building wells in Africa. We can give them bottles of water to drink, or build them a well where they can get their own clean water. Which is better in the long term?

Actually, you do not owe anything to your co-worker. You have your needs and wants, just as she does. She needs to realize (if she doesn't already) that things happen in life for HER to deal with. You need now to focus on your baby, let the business take care of its own business.

In the Book of Abraham, it notes that the Gods organized the world, and in commanding it, then waited for it to obey. Obviously there was something before creation of spirits. But was it agency? If Intelligence is any organized matter (atoms, molecules, elements, spirits, mortals, etc), then does it mean they all have agency? Or does waiting for them to obey simply means the Gods worked through a process? Was the earth created in 6 24 hour periods, or over billions of years, as the processes worked and organized themselves in a natural way? For me, agency requires not only Intelligence, but individuality. Atoms may have intelligence, but no self-recognition of existence. However the "spirits that were organized" (Abr 3) may have been Intelligences that had been organized into a form that has self-recognition and so then had agency from that point forward.

Resurrection is given to all who are born in this life. There are many in this life who believe materiality is evil, and only the spirit is good. Therefore, they will not want resurrection, yet they will still receive resurrection. God destroyed the world by Flood, without their concurrence. Therefore, principle #5 is false.

City Creek accomplished several purposes. First, it provides jobs to people during a severe economic downturn. Second, it prevents urban decay around the temple complex, making the area safer and more secure for visitors, as well as those who live in the area. Third, it gives the Church a place to park a lot of money until it needs it elsewhere. Spending $3 billion on the center is not throwing away money. It is an investment. Downtown SLC needed a good shopping area and urban renewal. In this, the Church killed two birds with one stone.

TG, I think you ought to start a grass-roots campaign against such labeling by those who do not merit the label. Start on the Internet: facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc. Then move forward by having an announcement placed in the Sunday bulletin at every ward. Finally, hire some goons to strong arm the belligerants who refuse to give up the title "Mormon".