Racial Error in Come Follow Me Manual

[carlimac]

4 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I  like the article and the related one on the site  that talks about Elder Stevenson and quotes him as:

“We’re asking our members to disregard the paragraph in the printed manual,” he said, according to Deseret News. “Now I’m deeply saddened and hurt by this error and for any pain that it may have caused our members and for others. I would just like to reiterate our position as a Church is clear. We do condemn all racism, past and present, in any form, and we disavow any theory advanced that black or dark skin is a sign of a curse.”

https://www.ldsliving.com/At-NAACP-Luncheon-Elder-Stevenson-Teaches-All-Are-Alike-Unto-God-Addresses-Printing-Error-in-Come-Follow-Me-Regarding-Race/s/92253

How is it a theory when 2 Nephi5:21 says  " as they were white, and exceedingly fair and ^bdelightsome, that they might not be ^centicing unto my people the Lord God did cause a ^dskin of ^eblackness to come upon them."  and then "And cursed shall be the seed of him that ^amixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done."?

Did Joseph Smith translate this wrong? 

If a person who is happy ( following the commandments, delighting in God's word, etc) mixes with a person who doesn't believe in God or feels "dejected", will their kids come out genetically gloomy and dejected? This just doesn't make sense.

 I think the church should just shrug and say, we believe this is what the Lord conveyed to Joseph Smith in the translation. We know God can do whatever serves His purposes. Obviously at that time in history when the Nephites and Lamanites were clashing, this is what He did. We don't know what that blackness looked like because we weren't there. It may have been a marking we wouldn't even recognize today.  There may no longer be any DNA linkage between this particular marking or skin and those that have darker skin today. It may not have ever touched Africa or anywhere else where people typically have darker skin.  We certainly don't automatically think of dark skin as a curse  today.  It's not a "thing" at this time. (Of course the Church spokespeople would say it more eloquently than that.) But if God felt the need to darken the wickeds' skin to protect the Nephites, then it was His prerogative. 

I live around many people with darker skin. I don't think I'm racist. I think it is just silly that anyone outside the church would connect a marking God put on a people under certain circumstances, and condemn us as being racist today when we very clearly aren't.

[carlimac]

39 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

And in fairness, African-Americans might read some passages and think the same thing. 

And sadly, two "kinds" of dark people would get their feelings hurt. Seriously, people need to lighten up! (Oh that was bad. I didn't mean that literally. I mean people need to just chill.)

[Guest MormonGator]

16 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Seriously, people need to lighten up!

I agree with you on that one, yes yes yes. 100%. 

BUT

We all think people should be less sensitive, but when someone makes the slightest joke about our own race or religion, or makes us the subject of the joke, we demand their head on a pike, and turn into sniveling babies. 

Edited February 5, 2020 by MormonGator

[carlimac]

14 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I agree with you on that one, yes yes yes. 100%. 

BUT

We all think people should be less sensitive, but when someone makes the slightest joke about our own race or religion, or makes us the subject of the joke, we demand their head on a pike. 

Or gender! Thank heavens at least tonight at the indoor track meet they lowered the hurdles a notch or two for the girls after the boys had run- without any fuss from anyone.    

Edited February 5, 2020 by carlimac

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@carlimac. the video I posted earlier addresses this scripture, and the article you posted addresses it as well.  And Elder Stevenson...I don't think there is more I can add to their words.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

16 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

We all think people should be less sensitive, but when someone makes the slightest joke about our own race or religion, or makes us the subject of the joke, we demand their head on a pike, and turn into sniveling babies. 

Yes!  So true.

[Guest MormonGator]

34 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Yes!  So true.

I see this all the time. The other truth in life (regarding this topic) is that the ones who call everyone else "snowflakes" are, 99% of the time,  the biggest babies out there. 

Edited February 5, 2020 by MormonGator

[JohnsonJones]

I have a 'darker-skinned' son in law.  I suppose I could ask him on this subject when I talk to him next.

Interestingly enough, in relation to one of Spencer W. Kimballs statements (which many see as racist and today may feel was backwards) his children (though my daughter is quite fair skinned as well) are quite Caucasian looking (except for one daughter which is a mix of exotic and white).  Two of the Grandkids are blond haired and very fair, while the others have decently light brown hair and lighter complexions than their father.

I'm not sure what his reaction to some of the current reactions of society are on this, however I suppose I could ask him his thoughts. 

[anatess2]

16 hours ago, Maureen said:

Protestants also believe in original sin and baptism is not necessary in many protestant faiths.

M.

Some protestant faiths don't believe in original sin.  Some protestant faiths believe in original sin AND baptism to cleanse it.  Some protestant faiths believe in original sin and accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior is all you need to cleanse it.

In any case, any faith that believes in the Augustinian concept of original sin believes it is NECESSARY to the faith to cleanse it.

[e v e]

On 1/19/2020 at 1:08 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I respect their feelings, but not enough to go passively along while they demand I accept a logically absurd form of hermeneutics or insist that the Church shred and re-print a run of millions upon millions of study manuals. 

There are some rational, sensitive, nuanced approaches we can take to the issue.  The ones being advocated by the people cited in the Tribune are not among them.  It’s a power play, a shriek of “notice me, and bend to my will!!” that doesn’t particularly impress me in a gospel context.

The simple fact is that the original manual wasn’t wrong, as per church doctrine—incomplete and potentially subject to misuse, sure; but not wrong.  But it supports a theological view (that in the isolated case of the Lamanites, there was a visually perceivable physiological change which for a limited time functioned as a sign of a deeper divine warning) that a certain fringe within the Church has been trying very hard to shame the Church into modifying.

that's too bad that politics get involved... Well, my view is that scripture is not about racial stuff...but about His Kingdom, and that many things appear as archetype. For example, the term caananite, which could be deemed a racial insult, yet refers to the satanic nature, as I understand, and not the race of the body on this earth.  Anyway, I am not lds, so forgive me if I should stay out of a topic...but I saw this and realized it happens a lot these days, that meanings are converted to areas that were not the original intent.

Edited February 10, 2020 by e v e