Authorities In Question

[Ruabien]

I'm often told that I should concentrate on my testimony and not get caught up in peripheral issues about anthropology, linguistics and non-doctrinal histories. I agree, but there are some things that weigh heavy on my heart, and I sincerely hope someone might shed some light on how to grapple with certain things Church authorities have said. The big Kahuna is a quote from Spencer Kimball in 1960 that I'm sure many of you are aware of:

"I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today.... The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl--sixteen--sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents--on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather....These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated."

Reading this makes me sad. Perhaps there is some context that I'm overlooking. Again, any light you can shed would be most welcome.

[Moksha]

Remarks like this from the past need to be understood as a product of their time. People's sensitivity to the issues of race where not as attuned to correctness and understanding as they are now. There was still the assumption that white not only made right, but it was somehow foreordained by God. These ideas of yesterday somehow seem alien and unrighteous, but we must reach out and forgive them as we would hope others would forgive us.

[prisonchaplain]

Moksha, yours is an interesting response. It raises a question in my mind. When and to what degree are the words of your prophets considered ...well, prophetic? For example, the Pope is only infallible when his words are declared ex cathedra. My understanding is that does not happen very often.

If the church President is meeting with a casual gathering, and happens to mention, "It would probably be best if members stopped drinking cola products," would that be taken as a command from God, as a recommendation that the most faithful would observe, or as a casual opinion he happened to offer?

[Aphrodite]

Ruabien, this is half the reason I have stopped believeing a lot of what Im told in the church. Prophets have said so many conflicting things to each other over the years even tho its supposed to be 'revelation'. When I question this Im told, 'oh they're a product of their time, that was years ago,' yet if they say something somebody likes, its used as, 'well, if SWK said it....we must obey' yet if its contraversial its put down to being years ago and not relevant anymore. Double standards. I thought God was supposed to be the same yesterday today and forever? He doesnt go with the times he has his own agenda. So it seems to me a big coincidence that prophets more than 30 years ago are less racially tolerant than perhaps GBH is. Thats because its THEM saying it, not God. Hence, I dont really believe the Prophets receive revelation. I believe they pray and have good intentions. Unfortunately, that causes confusion and conflict with certain people who have their eyes open enough to notice.

[MadHatter]

It is a couple of things. The reason they put things in those terms back then was because of the time.

It may be the fact that this pheonomena occurs because it was foreordained by God. what he is talkign about really does happen genetically. i see it in my wife's family. the youngest generation of children are very pale-skinned compared to thier older ancestors. my wife's family is from the Negros Island in the philipines. the reason they named it that is because the spaniards came over and they were such a dark skinned people they thought they were black. now is not the case in the past few generations, thier skin has become lighter.

His words are not racist, maybe somehat tactless, but his observations are correct.

The problem is that people of our time try to apologize for what they say rather than the way they said it. and also we don't put emphasis on certain things like that nowadays because it brings up questions liek "are the LDS racist?" wrong, our father in heaven loves all of his children and treats them equally.

Our prophets do not contradict eachother, but it has always been stated that one remark made by a prophet on a certain occasion does not constitute doctrine. The only doctrines that are in this church are from multiple prophets. and even then we are TOLD to pray about it for ourselves to truely now if it is correct.

Nobody is infalliable, not Gordon B. not the Pope, not Moses or Noah, and not even Joe Smith. they are all men, they are all of the flesh, they are just as susceptible to mistakes as anyone else in the world.

Mightr i add that it was under the Direction of the Lord that Spencer W. Kimball extended priesthood authority to all worthy men in the church regardless of race or color.

Aphrodite, Ruabien -

I hope you pray about things sincerely and realize the truthfulness in the statements made by prophets. even if we don't expound upon them because of certian implications nowadays. if ever you have doubts, pray about things, let the spirit guide you and always lead you to know the truth.

[vinny15]

Well I dont understand what is so sad about it... First off he is simply saying that the promises they were given are coming true. If there is a prophecy than it will come true so are we wrong to acknowledge truth.

[prisonchaplain]

Well I dont understand what is so sad about it... First off he is simply saying that the promises they were given are coming true. If there is a prophecy than it will come true so are we wrong to acknowledge truth.

Are you suggesting that becoming lighter is indeed delightsome, and that lighter shaded skin is somehow a sign of spiritual evolution? That's what the a non-member, myself included, reads into the quote from the OP. Most members seem to doubt that is what God intended to communicate. So, the "why was it said the way it was said?" is a reasonable question, imho.

[Elphaba]

It may be the fact that this pheonomena occurs because it was foreordained by God. what he is talkign about really does happen genetically. i see it in my wife's family. the youngest generation of children are very pale-skinned compared to thier older ancestors. my wife's family is from the Negros Island in the philipines. the reason they named it that is because the spaniards came over and they were such a dark skinned people they thought they were black. now is not the case in the past few generations, thier skin has become lighter.

So do you believe the dark-skinned people will become light skinned? I thought that was no longer doctrine. Am I mistaken? Please let me know as I would like to know for sure.

His words are not racist, maybe somehat tactless, but his observations are correct.

How do you know? It is highly unlikely that a daughter of two dark-skinned Native Americans was lighter skinned than they.

Also, in the picture of the "twenty Lamanite missionaries," it's only common sense there would be different skin tones. This would have been true in any picture taken of Native Americans, or any other large group for that matter.

However, I believe it is wrong to attribute racism to President Kimball's remarks. His love for the "Lamanites" was very powerful. I suspect when he said he saw lighter skin tones, there weren't really any differences, but that he saw them because he wanted to; however this wasn't bigotry. It was because he was so happy for them as he said" "The Day of the Lamanite is nigh." In President' Kimball's mind, there was no greater blessing for them, and he was excited for them. This was not racism; it was joy.

Elphaba

[Moksha]

Moksha, yours is an interesting response. It raises a question in my mind. When and to what degree are the words of your prophets considered ...well, prophetic? For example, the Pope is only infallible when his words are declared ex cathedra. My understanding is that does not happen very often.

If the church President is meeting with a casual gathering, and happens to mention, "It would probably be best if members stopped drinking cola products," would that be taken as a command from God, as a recommendation that the most faithful would observe, or as a casual opinion he happened to offer?

I do not believe we have a concept directly equivalent to that of ex cathedra. Even when Brigham Young said: "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p.110), I doubt he was really speaking in an ex cathedra fashion. The reason? I do not believe such a concept would ever emanate from God.

Had an ex cathedra approach been used in the past, I suspect that such usage would have been extremely troublesome for our present day. I think that MadHatter has hit upon our best out, and that is denying the doctrine of infallibility.

[MadHatter]

<div class='quotemain'>It may be the fact that this pheonomena occurs because it was foreordained by God. what he is talkign about really does happen genetically. i see it in my wife's family. the youngest generation of children are very pale-skinned compared to thier older ancestors. my wife's family is from the Negros Island in the philipines. the reason they named it that is because the spaniards came over and they were such a dark skinned people they thought they were black. now is not the case in the past few generations, thier skin has become lighter.

So do you believe the dark-skinned people will become light skinned? I thought that was no longer doctrine. Am I mistaken? Please let me know as I would like to know for sure.

His words are not racist, maybe somehat tactless, but his observations are correct.

How do you know? It is highly unlikely that a daughter of two dark-skinned Native Americans was lighter skinned than they.

Also, in the picture of the "twenty Lamanite missionaries," it's only common sense there would be different skin tones. This would have been true in any picture taken of Native Americans, or any other large group for that matter.

However, I believe it is wrong to attribute racism to President Kimball's remarks. His love for the "Lamanites" was very powerful. I suspect when he said he saw lighter skin tones, there weren't really any differences, but that he saw them because he wanted to; however this wasn't bigotry. It was because he was so happy for them as he said" "The Day of the Lamanite is nigh." In President' Kimball's mind, there was no greater blessing for them, and he was excited for them. This was not racism; it was joy.

Elphaba

Yes i agree with you that it was Joy on his part that inspired his words. it is promised in the book of mormon that thier skin would become lighter, and from what i have seen in my wife's family, there is a boy, Rajah, he is 3/4 Filipino, he has blue eys and blonde hair and looks as caucasian as you can possibly get. explain that? same for children of the same generation in her family.

I have no doubt that President kimballs words are true, but the idea of it being doctrine is iffy. I don't believe it is a doctrine because it is not taught in our church. Sure, things are said en-passant and speculation here and there, prophesies coming true. Yes, i see Presiden't kimballs words coming true. being doctrinally binding? i think not..

[Snow]

I'm often told that I should concentrate on my testimony and not get caught up in peripheral issues about anthropology, linguistics and non-doctrinal histories. I agree, but there are some things that weigh heavy on my heart, and I sincerely hope someone might shed some light on how to grapple with certain things Church authorities have said. The big Kahuna is a quote from Spencer Kimball in 1960 that I'm sure many of you are aware of:

"I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today.... The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl--sixteen--sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents--on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather....These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated."

Reading this makes me sad. Perhaps there is some context that I'm overlooking. Again, any light you can shed would be most welcome.

How on earth could that weigh heavy on your heart?

You appear under the misconception that all people, even dead ones must share the same opinions as you... a bad misconception indeed.

Moksha, yours is an interesting response. It raises a question in my mind. When and to what degree are the words of your prophets considered ...well, prophetic? For example, the Pope is only infallible when his words are declared ex cathedra. My understanding is that does not happen very often.

If the church President is meeting with a casual gathering, and happens to mention, "It would probably be best if members stopped drinking cola products," would that be taken as a command from God, as a recommendation that the most faithful would observe, or as a casual opinion he happened to offer?

We are certainly not of the belief that when God calls someone to a priesthood or church position, even that of prophet that he removes from them their free agency and erases all incorrect opinions from their brain.

Man, even a very good one, is not an empty vessel waiting for God to fill him up with truth. We all bring our habits, background, opinions, biases, misconceptions and thoughts with us as we go.

I have no doubt that President kimballs words are true, but the idea of it being doctrine is iffy. I don't believe it is a doctrine because it is not taught in our church. Sure, things are said en-passant and speculation here and there, prophesies coming true. Yes, i see Presiden't kimballs words coming true. being doctrinally binding? i think not..

You've got to be kidding. His words are decidedly and unequivocalluy UNTRUE. There's not even a debate about it by anyone who knows anything about the Lamanites.

[CrimsonKairos]

History is interesting to me. I'm not in favor of sealing the past.

Then again, I pity those who go through life with a rear-view mirror surgically attached to their foreheads, never able to appreciate the view ahead because of their preoccupation with what happened on the road behind them.

So how can you tell the difference between a student of history, and someone with a mirror obscuring their vision? Don't know.

What I do know is that the presidents of the LDS Church, from Joseph Smith to Gordon B. Hinckley, were and are good men trying to serve God despite their weaknesses, errors and flaws.

I'm not saying the original poster was doing this, but I for one am not going to gag on a prophet's ministry because they occasionally demonstrated that they're human just like you and I.

[sixpacktr]

I find it interesting that some cry 'we've left the gospel that Joseph taught' citing teachings of JS or BY and saying we no longer preach that, and that is why the church is on the wrong track. Then, there are others that say 'look at what Joseph and Brigham taught, how could God ever teach anything like that?' thus stating that the church has been mislead from the very beginning. And sometimes, we get those that believe both of those POVs. Must be confusing...

The simple fact is that if you have a testimony of the church, and believe it to be God's only true and living church, directed by Jesus Christ, you can accept what is taught and move on, without fixating on something that 'just doesn't seem to have come from God'. It is also a very simple fact that we humans are just not that bright. We can cite all the 'evidence' we want that for this and this reason the prophets were not speaking 'from God' but as men, but then, interestingly, things change, and our POV changes.

The promise was that the Lamanites would blossom as a rose. The BOM speaks of the Lamanites becoming a 'white and delightsome' people. Hugh Nibley stated that that had not so much to do with skin color as much as with their conversion and attitudes. Which is it? I don't know. Does it matter to me and affect my testimony? No. Did Spencer Kimball know more of the mind and will of God concerning things than I do? Most definitely.

And with that, I'm content.

[Gabelma]

I find it interesting that some cry 'we've left the gospel that Joseph taught' citing teachings of JS or BY and saying we no longer preach that, and that is why the church is on the wrong track. Then, there are others that say 'look at what Joseph and Brigham taught, how could God ever teach anything like that?' thus stating that the church has been mislead from the very beginning. And sometimes, we get those that believe both of those POVs. Must be confusing...

The simple fact is that if you have a testimony of the church, and believe it to be God's only true and living church, directed by Jesus Christ, you can accept what is taught and move on, without fixating on something that 'just doesn't seem to have come from God'. It is also a very simple fact that we humans are just not that bright. We can cite all the 'evidence' we want that for this and this reason the prophets were not speaking 'from God' but as men, but then, interestingly, things change, and our POV changes.

The promise was that the Lamanites would blossom as a rose. The BOM speaks of the Lamanites becoming a 'white and delightsome' people. Hugh Nibley stated that that had not so much to do with skin color as much as with their conversion and attitudes. Which is it? I don't know. Does it matter to me and affect my testimony? No. Did Spencer Kimball know more of the mind and will of God concerning things than I do? Most definitely.

And with that, I'm content.

I don't often agree with Six but this is a great post and I agree with it all as humans we can't know all that God has to teach us we are going to get contradictions and misunderstanding, even a prophet is only mortal and cannot truly understand the immortal, all we can do is grow in our understand generation by generation. I think it was Joseph Smith that said if we could stare into heaven for 5 minutes we would understand more than a lifetime reading the Book of Mormon would teach us.

I have found our prophets remarkably anti-racist for their age in comparison to the majrity of the American population of their time. Even Peter showed racist tendencies concerning gentile/non gentile and if the Gospel of Mary is to be believed he was sexist too. I am sure in modern context even Jesus would have been seen as racist or sexist - look at the comment to the Canaanite Woman about her being a dog.

For me what matter is I know I am doing what Heavenly Father wants and that is more important than anything a prophet has to say.

-Charley

[sixpacktr]

<div class='quotemain'>

I find it interesting that some cry 'we've left the gospel that Joseph taught' citing teachings of JS or BY and saying we no longer preach that, and that is why the church is on the wrong track. Then, there are others that say 'look at what Joseph and Brigham taught, how could God ever teach anything like that?' thus stating that the church has been mislead from the very beginning. And sometimes, we get those that believe both of those POVs. Must be confusing...

The simple fact is that if you have a testimony of the church, and believe it to be God's only true and living church, directed by Jesus Christ, you can accept what is taught and move on, without fixating on something that 'just doesn't seem to have come from God'. It is also a very simple fact that we humans are just not that bright. We can cite all the 'evidence' we want that for this and this reason the prophets were not speaking 'from God' but as men, but then, interestingly, things change, and our POV changes.

The promise was that the Lamanites would blossom as a rose. The BOM speaks of the Lamanites becoming a 'white and delightsome' people. Hugh Nibley stated that that had not so much to do with skin color as much as with their conversion and attitudes. Which is it? I don't know. Does it matter to me and affect my testimony? No. Did Spencer Kimball know more of the mind and will of God concerning things than I do? Most definitely.

And with that, I'm content.

I don't often agree with Six but this is a great post and I agree with it all as humans we can't know all that God has to teach us we are going to get contradictions and misunderstanding, even a prophet is only mortal and cannot truly understand the immortal, all we can do is grow in our understand generation by generation. I think it was Joseph Smith that said if we could stare into heaven for 5 minutes we would understand more than a lifetime reading the Book of Mormon would teach us.

I have found our prophets remarkably anti-racist for their age in comparison to the majrity of the American population of their time. Even Peter showed racist tendencies concerning gentile/non gentile and if the Gospel of Mary is to be believed he was sexist too. I am sure in modern context even Jesus would have been seen as racist or sexist - look at the comment to the Canaanite Woman about her being a dog.

For me what matter is I know I am doing what Heavenly Father wants and that is more important than anything a prophet has to say.

-Charley

Thanks Charley.

I have recently revisited some thoughts by Bro Nibley and one that I am trying, more than anything to incorporate into my life, is "if you don't accuse me, I won't accuse you", a statement by JS when speaking to the brethren early on. Bro Nibley goes on to explain that the meaning of one of Satan's many names is "the accuser of the brethren", and that his role is to come before God and tell him why we aren't worthy of anything (and he is completely right). Christ's role, on the other hand is "but his/her heart was right. S/he tried their best, yes s/he made mistakes, but I love them and want them with me." It lends a much deeper meaning to the proscription in the beatitudes "Judge not, that ye be not judged" and not worrying about another's mote when our eye has a beam in it.

Both BY and JS spoke of being only concerned with our own welfare and spirituality (true we must work with our families, as we aspire to be saved together), and give everyone the biggest 'benefit of the doubt' in that we don't know a person's heart, only God does, and to reserve judgment to him.

The prophets were men as much as any of us. But their calling....my, their calling. What a burden, and what a blessing. JS was a man of passions. I love that man and can't wait to meet him. The story is told of him assaulting a mean spirited man that had thrown a rock at him. As soon as he did it (in front of witnesses, no less) he turned to the sheriff and said "you fine me the $100 fine for this". Those in the crowd, the sheriff included, said that Joseph was perfectly justified in what he did, but Joseph would have none of it, and insisted, stating that IN HIS OFFICE he should know better. What a man...

[CrimsonKairos]

...I am trying...to incorporate into my life..."if you don't accuse me, I won't accuse you", a statement by JS when speaking to the brethren early on.

Wise words. I phrase it like so:

"Overlook the faults of others, and overcome your own."

[MsMagnolia]

This reminds me of a scripture that has always been one of my "checkpoints"

Luke 6: 41-42

41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.

My father always quoted this one to me when i was being particularly harsh to my sister. It has helped me throughout my life.

Just my thoughts,

Mags

[Maureen]

This is my understanding of this "white and delightsome" term.

And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; 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. (2Nephi 30:6)

The first version(s) of the BofM said "pure and delightsome". When they printed the next version they changed it to "white and delightsome". (Don't know why though). And now the most recent version (1981) was changed back to "pure and delightsome".

You may take my not very detailed information (and not an explanation) for what it's worth. :)

M.

[a-train]

I personally love the fact that Native Americans have come into the Church and have found the happiness and joy of coming unto Christ and taking upon them his light. I'll refrain from judging those who, it would seem, would rather them remain in darkness and misery and would somehow find the pleasant approval of the LORD's anointed servants in the work of the LORD and the fruits of the Spirit grappling and difficult to accept. Each of us have our personal trials of faith, endure it well and you will be blessed.

-a-train

[Snow]

I personally love the fact that Native Americans have come into the Church and have found the happiness and joy of coming unto Christ and taking upon them his light. I'll refrain from judging those who, it would seem, would rather them remain in darkness and misery and would somehow find the pleasant approval of the LORD's anointed servants in the work of the LORD and the fruits of the Spirit grappling and difficult to accept. Each of us have our personal trials of faith, endure it well and you will be blessed.

-a-train

Not many have come into the Church.

The Church used to pour huge resources in the Native American (North American) conversion process. The amount spent per conversion was many, many times what the cost was of normal missionary programs.

The Native American outreach has largely been abandoned, a product of a by-gone era that met no one's expectations and has no backers in today's leadership. In the Church's new world=view, South and Central America is where it's at.

[Maureen]

Not many have come into the Church.

The Church used to pour huge resources in the Native American (North American) conversion process. The amount spent per conversion was many, many times what the cost was of normal missionary programs.

The Native American outreach has largely been abandoned, a product of a by-gone era that met no one's expectations and has no backers in today's leadership. In the Church's new world=view, South and Central America is where it's at.

My husband's parents adopted a First Nation's child in the late '60's; my husband's brother (of course). And just like my husband is no longer involved in the LDS church.

When I used to go to my friend's ward as a teenager (mid to late '70's) one family had adopted IIRC, about 7 First Nation's children. Can't quite remember but I think they had 11 kids altogether. Have no idea what these kids (now adults) are doing today.

M.