GaleG

Changing skin color

Recommended Posts

On 1/6/2019 at 3:53 PM, Fether said:

I personally agree with @Carborendum. I’m also not  opposed  to the idea that God literally changed their skin rather than the intermarrying having changed their skin.

The Book of Mormon does not talk specifically of indigenous people, but there is subtle evidence* of it in the Book of Mormon as well as pretty clear archeological finds that pretty much prove it... also logically it would be very difficult to assert that The Nephites, Jaredites and Mulekites were the first and only inhabitants of the new world. 

As far as the color and where in america... there could be various plausible answers.

 

 

*some example of subtle evidence:

- There were“lamanitish” servants (Alma 17:26) rather than a lamanite servant

- Sherem “had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people” (Jacob 7:1,4). Why would it point out his knowledge of the language of the people if there were only one people?

- In the Book of Omni we read the the Mulekite language (originally the same as the Nephite) has become corrupt (Omni 1:17) over about 200 years. How could a language become corrupt if there were no other languages to sway it?

this may not be hard evidence, but it certainly doesn’t ever bar the possibility of there being indigenous people.

Don't forget this lovely gem, "I am Mormon, and a pure descendant of Lehi." (emphasis mine) If only Nephites and Lamanites all the sons and daugther would be "pure" descendants of Lehi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
56 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Don't forget this lovely gem, "I am Mormon, and a pure descendant of Lehi." (emphasis mine) If only Nephites and Lamanites all the sons and daugther would be "pure" descendants of Lehi.

There were sons of Ishmael.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

There were sons of Ishmael.

Nephites and Lamanites include sons of Ishmael.

Although not important to the point being made. Mormon making a point of being a pure descendant of Lehi makes more sense if there were others that weren't from the two families (Lehi and Ishmael).

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
52 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Nephites and Lamanites include sons of Ishmael.

Although not important to the point being made. Mormon making a point of being a pure descendant of Lehi makes more sense if there were others that weren't from the two families (Lehi and Ishmael).

I was helping to clear up the meaining of "pure descendant".  It means that one's paternal line goes directly to that person. i.e. no mothers were in the line that connect Mormon to Lehi.  So, those descended from the sons of Ishmael could not have been "pure descendants" of Lehi. 

You can choose to believe that phrase means that somewhere in his genealogy he can find Lehi.  But that would be a pointless claim to make, as you indicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I was helping to clear up the meaining of "pure descendant".  It means that one's paternal line goes directly to that person. i.e. no mothers were in the line that connect Mormon to Lehi.  So, those descended from the sons of Ishmael could not have been "pure descendants" of Lehi. 

You can choose to believe that phrase means that somewhere in his genealogy he can find Lehi.  But that would be a pointless claim to make, as you indicated.

Intriguing, I am not familiar with that denotation regarding pure descendants. I have understood this either through son or daughter lines. If Ishmael's son married a daughter of Lehi's, than that descendant is still pure to Lehi.

That is a good clear up if so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
45 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Intriguing, I am not familiar with that denotation regarding pure descendants. I have understood this either through son or daughter lines. If Ishmael's son married a daughter of Lehi's, than that descendant is still pure to Lehi.

That is a good clear up if so.

So, what do you think is the difference between a "pure" descendant and simply a "descendant"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, what do you think is the difference between a "pure" descendant and simply a "descendant"?

In the Book of Mormon, I would say anyone that descended from one of the sons or daughters of Lehi, and was kept within that line.

I would say Jesus (Son of David) was a pure descendant of David both through his mother and father (father in this case being Joseph as given in Matthew, though we know Jesus was the Father's son).

Pure descendant is where your branch begins. Descendant doesn't matter where the branch begins. An example, let's use Ishmael's sons and Lehi's children. If Ishmael was not married to one of Lehi's daughters, than those children would not be pure descendants of Lehi. If these children 200 years from now married one of Lehi's descendants they would be descendants, but not pure as the line begins later.

If one of Ishmael's sons married a daughter of Lehi, they would be pure descendants of Lehi, but Ishmael's other sons who did not would not. They would be pure descendants of Ishmael, not Lehi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

In the Book of Mormon, I would say anyone that descended from one of the sons or daughters of Lehi, and was kept within that line.

I would say Jesus (Son of David) was a pure descendant of David both through his mother and father (father in this case being Joseph as given in Matthew, though we know Jesus was the Father's son).

Pure descendant is where your branch begins. Descendant doesn't matter where the branch begins. An example, let's use Ishmael's sons and Lehi's children. If Ishmael was not married to one of Lehi's daughters, than those children would not be pure descendants of Lehi. If these children 200 years from now married one of Lehi's descendants they would be descendants, but not pure as the line begins later.

If one of Ishmael's sons married a daughter of Lehi, they would be pure descendants of Lehi, but Ishmael's other sons who did not would not. They would be pure descendants of Ishmael, not Lehi.

Ishmael was NOT married to any of Lehi's daughters.  So, what are you saying? This isn't written clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Ishmael was NOT married to any of Lehi's daughters.  So, what are you saying? This isn't written clearly.

I am pretty sure you would have been able to deduct from the previous qualifier of what you highlighted you would easily see I simply missed the word "son" after Ishmael. Here is the sentence before what you specified, "An example, let's use Ishmael's sons and Lehi's children. If Ishmael was not married to one of Lehi's daughters,"

So, I would deduce I said, "If Ishmael['s son] was not married to one of Lehi's daughters,"

Which follows suit with the next paragraph:

If one of Ishmael's sons married a daughter of Lehi, they would be pure descendants of Lehi, but Ishmael's other sons who did not would not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I am pretty sure you would have been able to deduct from the previous qualifier of what you highlighted you would easily see I simply missed the word "son" after Ishmael. Here is the sentence before what you specified, "An example, let's use Ishmael's sons and Lehi's children. If Ishmael was not married to one of Lehi's daughters,"

So, I would deduce I said, "If Ishmael['s son] was not married to one of Lehi's daughters,"

I did figure that out about two minutes after I submitted it.  But I didnt' get it as I read it.

3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Which follows suit with the next paragraph:

If one of Ishmael's sons married a daughter of Lehi, they would be pure descendants of Lehi, but Ishmael's other sons who did not would not.

So, you're saying one of two things (or possibly both).

  • 50% of one's DNA is from Lehi and Sariah, and the other 50% from Ishmael and his wife.  Any other combination invalidates the claim.
  • The entire family tree of an individual in question will go to one of Lehi's daughters or sons.  None will go to one of the sons or daughters of Ishmael who married, say, Zoram.

Why would that be a distinction worth making?  And what of the Mulekites?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I did figure that out about two minutes after I submitted it.  But I didnt' get it as I read it.

So, you're saying one of two things (or possibly both).

  • 50% of one's DNA is from Lehi and Sariah, and the other 50% from Ishmael and his wife.  Any other combination invalidates the claim.
  • The entire family tree of an individual in question will go to one of Lehi's daughters or sons.  None will go to one of the sons or daughters of Ishmael who married, say, Zoram.

Why would that be a distinction worth making?  And what of the Mulekites?

Yes and No. If Zoram married one of Lehi's daughters than that would also be pure descendant of Lehi and Zoram.

Mulekites are far enough down the line that they would not be pure descendants of Lehi. Where the branch begins either from son or daughter. This tells me Mormon's branch was all the way pure back to Lehi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I did figure that out about two minutes after I submitted it.  But I didnt' get it as I read it.

So, you're saying one of two things (or possibly both).

  • 50% of one's DNA is from Lehi and Sariah, and the other 50% from Ishmael and his wife.  Any other combination invalidates the claim.
  • The entire family tree of an individual in question will go to one of Lehi's daughters or sons.  None will go to one of the sons or daughters of Ishmael who married, say, Zoram.

Why would that be a distinction worth making?  And what of the Mulekites?

This definition is found here describes what I am referring to as pure line/descendants: https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/pure line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
48 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Yes and No. If Zoram married one of Lehi's daughters than that would also be pure descendant of Lehi and Zoram.

I was using Zoram as an example of a pairing where neither the husband nor wife were descendants of Lehi.

48 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Mulekites are far enough down the line that they would not be pure descendants of Lehi. Where the branch begins either from son or daughter. This tells me Mormon's branch was all the way pure back to Lehi.

What I'm saying is that with (by implication) there were only a small band of Nephites mentioned in Omni 1 who met up with the Mulekites who seemed to be much more numerous.  When their blood mixed in with the Nephites, the likelihood of there being 50% Lehite blood in the majority of the population is very low indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

This definition is found here describes what I am referring to as pure line/descendants: https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/pure line

Yeah, I don't think that is what Mormon was saying.  I think he tended to think of the inheritance of covenants and blessings.  That would have come through the Paternal line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yeah, I don't think that is what Mormon was saying.  I think he tended to think of the inheritance of covenants and blessings.  That would have come through the Paternal line.

I am thinking genealogy, and it could be both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Scott said:

I hate to say this, but my mom was also a racist, but I don't think she is anymore.  My grandmother was also racist.   My mom seemed to change her tune when an African American became the bishop.  

The scout master in our ward before we just moved said his grandfather was both an active church member and the head of the KKK in his town where he lived (I don't remember the town, but I think it was in Tennessee?).  Today it would be surprising to learn that anyone connected with the KKK could be a church member.

Why? Not too long ago this site informed us "we need more LGBT in our LDS". Surely there's also a place for them in the Church?

22 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I am humiliated and mortified that racism seems to have been common in our church.  I am hopeful that if you (generic!) expressed such opinions now you'd be correctly mocked, ridiculed, and moved the trash heap where you belong. 

Interesting. Do you have the same hope should a church member confess his love for porn, or wish for modesty standards slackened. Or what if he openly says certain people deserve to be bullied, would you browbeat him too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Why? Not too long ago this site informed us "we need more LGBT in our LDS". Surely there's also a place for them in the Church?

Interesting. Do you have the same hope should a church member confess his love for porn, or wish for modesty standards slackened.

There is a big difference.   Anyone is welcome into our meetinghouses, but to be a member in good standing and to have a church calling, those who have same gender attraction are to stay away from homosexual sex acts.  Also, if they partake in those activities they can lose their membership in the Church.
 

Quote

Or what if he openly says certain people deserve to be bullied, would you browbeat him too?

Do you know what the KKK believes?   It isn't a matter of saying that a certain person deserves to be bullied; the KKK's believe that this country should be "purified" from blacks, minorities, race mixing, homosexuals, etc.   The KKK has shrunk in numbers so there aren't many left, but they don't exactly try to accomplish their goals peacefully.

So, while a KKK member might be welcome to visit our meeting house, I doubt that now days they would be allowed membership in our Church.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MormonGator said:
15 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Or what if he openly says certain people deserve to be bullied, would you browbeat him too?

Yup. 

 

On 1/16/2019 at 7:56 PM, MormonGator said:

I am humiliated and mortified that racism seems to have been common in our church.  I am hopeful that if you (generic!) expressed such opinions now you'd be correctly mocked, ridiculed, and moved the trash heap where you belong. 

2 Samuel 12:7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Scott said:

There is a big difference.   Anyone is welcome into our meetinghouses, but to be a member in good standing and to have a church calling, those who have same gender attraction are to stay away from homosexual sex acts.  Also, if they partake in those activities they can lose their membership in the Church.
 

Do you know what the KKK believes?   It isn't a matter of saying that a certain person deserves to be bullied; the KKK's believe that this country should be "purified" from blacks, minorities, race mixing, homosexuals, etc.   The KKK has shrunk in numbers so there aren't many left, but they don't exactly try to accomplish their goals peacefully.

So, while a KKK member might be welcome to visit our meeting house, I doubt that now days they would be allowed membership in our Church.  

 

Right, he believes some heinous things and probably would love to actually see a "purification" in his life time. But as long as he stays away from racist acts and doesn't participate in those activities he can maintain his membership in the Church, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Call me a wide eyed, politically correct liberal, but racism is just one of those "pet issues" of mine. Imagine that.

I must say, that as an adult white male, I have experience a substantial amount of subtle racism in my life.  Once, when I was out to eat at a buffet restaurant, the cashier, who was black, gave a black customer in front of me a discount on their buffet price (he did not have a coupon or any other arrangement).  Then, the next customer, who was also black was given the same discount price although he did not have a coupon, and was not part of the same group as the first.  I was third in line, and when I came up to pay to enter the buffet area, although the attendant made no secret of the discount she was providing, her demeanor changed and she charged me regular price, knowing that I saw her give a discounted price to the two gentlemen ahead of me.  I made no fuss about it, because I was expecting to pay full price, but this was an obvious occurrence where I was treated adversely, simply because I am white.

This type of situation has actually happened to me on more than one occasion.  Similar occurrences have involved waiting for service longer than someone of a different skin color who came in after me, and the like.  Usually, when this type of thing happens, it is not that hard to tell when there is a valid reason, vs when there is not.  I have never experienced anything that was substantial or would have impacted me in any serious or meaningful way, unlike some acquaintances of mine who have been told face to face by their superior that the reason they weren't getting the promotion was because the other individual who applied for the position was black.  That is blatant racism right there.  I think the modern active cultural focus on racism and race relations has resulted, and will continue to result, in a net racism increase.

Edited by person0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, person0 said:

I must say, that as an adult white male, I have experience a substantial amount of subtle racism in my life.  Once, when I was out to eat at a buffet restaurant, the cashier, who was black, gave a black customer in front of me a discount on their buffet price (he did not have a coupon or any other arrangement).  Then, the next customer, who was also black was given the same discount price although he did not have a coupon, and was not part of the same group as the first.  I was third in line, and when I came up to pay to enter the buffet area, although the attendant made no secret of the discount she was providing, her demeanor changed and she charged me regular price, knowing that I saw her give a discounted price to the two gentlemen ahead of me.  I made no fuss about it, because I was expecting to pay full price, but this was an obvious occurrence where I was treated adversely, simply because I am white.

This type of situation has actually happened to me on more than one occasion.  Similar occurrences have involved waiting for service longer than someone of a different skin color who came in after me, and the like.  Usually, when this type of thing happens, it is not that hard to tell when there is a valid reason, vs when there is not.  I have never experienced anything that was substantial or would have impacted me in any serious or meaningful way, unlike some acquaintances of mine who have been told face to face by their superior that the reason they weren't getting the promotion was because the other individual who applied for the position was black.  That is blatant racism right there.  I think the modern active cultural focus on racism and race relations has resulted, and will continue to result, in a net racism increase.

A white person has no idea-none-what a black person can go through on a daily basis. The comparison that you might have experienced an inconvenience here or there is sad-but to try to infer that you know the pain and stigma of bigotry just by saying that a black guy once got a discount on a buffet and you didn't shows that you don't really understand the pain and stigma of decades of racism that African Americans have encountered and sadly, still do encounter to some degree. 

Now, that said, America in 2019 has made leaps and bounds in it's striving towards racial equality and harmony. Now, if you have a problem with inter racial dating, you better keep your opinion to yourself. If you think telling racist jokes is appropriate, you better be extremely careful where you do so. We had a black man who became president (and by the way, I agreed with him on nothing and didn't vote for him) and so on. If you are looking for evidence of racism, as the older generations die off it'll be harder and harder to find. 

 

And by the way I'm not in favor of affirmative action either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Right, he believes some heinous things and probably would love to actually see a "purification" in his life time. But as long as he stays away from racist acts and doesn't participate in those activities he can maintain his membership in the Church, right?

I don't know if he can maintain his membership, but he can't hold the priesthood or a temple recommend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now