THE MORMON CURTAIN
Containing 5,709 Articles Spanning 365 Topics
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery
Archives From 2005 thru 2014
|
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"WHITE AND DELIGHTSOME".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
⇒
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
| |
WHITE AND DELIGHTSOME
Total Articles:
11
Until 1981 2 Nephi 30:6 in the Book of Mormon taught that dark-skinned Lamanites (Indians) would eventually experience a change in the color of their skin should they embrace the Book of Mormon. The Mormon Curtain firmly believes that the word "Lamanite" is a racist term for those who are not fully Caucasian.
|
|
Until 1981 2 Nephi 30:6 in the Book of Mormon taught that dark-skinned Lamanites (Indians) would eventually experience a change in the color of their skin should they embrace the Book of Mormon. This passage of Mormon scripture read:
"...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 white and a delightsome people."
However, in 1981, the LDS Church decided to change "the most correct book on earth" and switched the word "white" with the word "pure." Some Mormons insist that this was a clarification since the word was never meant to refer to a person with dark skin pigmentation who would magically turn white based upon a conversion to the Mormon gospel; rather, it is claimed that the change referred to a cleaner state of heart. This assumption is definitely not supported in the Book of Mormon since 2 Nephi 5:21 says,
"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, and 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."
Furthermore, we find another reference to a change in skin color in 3 Nephi 2:15. This passage reads:
"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."
That the context refers to skin color is verified by a number of LDS leaders including Joseph Smith. Mormon author George D. Smith notes that Joseph Smith was given a revelation which foretold of a day when intermarriage with the Lamanites would produce a white and delightsome posterity. George Smith wrote, "This unpublished 17 July 1831 revelation was described three decades later in an 1861 letter from W.W. Phelps to Brigham Young quoting Joseph Smith: `It is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity, may become white, delightsome and just.' In the 8 December 1831 Ohio Star, Ezra Booth wrote of a revelation directing Mormon elders to marry with the `natives'" (Sunstone, November 1993, footnote #5, pg. 52).
Second LDS President Brigham Young stated in 1859, "You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation ...When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people" (Journal of Discourses 7:336).
At the October 1960 LDS Church Conference, Spencer Kimball utilized 2 Nephi 30:6 when he stated how the Indians "are fast becoming a white and delightsome people." He said, "The [Indian] children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation" (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-3).
During the same message Kimball referred to a 16-year-old Indian girl who was both LDS and "several shades lighter than her parents..." He went on to say, "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."
LDS writer George Edward Clark gives a similar account in his book entitled "Why I Believe." On page 129 he wrote, "The writer has been privileged to sit at table with several members of the Catawba tribe of Indians, whose reservation is near the north border of South Carolina. That tribe, or most of its people, are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). Those Indians, at least as many as I have observed, were white and delightsome, as white and fair as any group of citizens of our country. I know of no prophecy, ancient or modern, that has had a more literal fulfillment" (emphasis his).
It has also been taught in Mormonism that opposite repercussions could result when a white man abandoned his Mormon faith. For instance, the "Juvenile Instructor" (26:635) reads,
"From this it is very clear that the mark which was set upon the descendants of Cain was a skin of blackness, and there can be no doubt that this was the mark that Cain himself received; in fact, it has been noticed in our day that men who have lost the spirit of the Lord, and from whom his blessings have been withdrawn, have turned dark to such an extend as to excite the comments of all who have known them."
In 1857, Brigham Young declared that apostates would "become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil" (Journal of Discourse 5:332).
Despite the comments from past Mormon leaders, skin color has nothing to do with a person's spirituality. To say 2 Nephi 30:6 was altered merely for clarification and had nothing to do with skin color is without merit. It was a false prophecy, nothing more, nothing less.
| Until 1981 2 Nephi 30:6 in the Book of Mormon taught that dark-skinned Lamanites (Indians) would eventually experience a change in the color of their skin should they embrace the Book of Mormon. This passage of Mormon scripture read:
"...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 white and a delightsome people."
However, in 1981, the LDS Church decided to change "the most correct book on earth" and switched the word "white" with the word "pure." Some Mormons insist that this was a clarification since the word was never meant to refer to a person with dark skin pigmentation who would magically turn white based upon a conversion to the Mormon gospel; rather, it is claimed that the change referred to a cleaner state of heart. This assumption is definitely not supported in the Book of Mormon since 2 Nephi 5:21 says,
"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, and 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."
Until recently, Mormonism taught that North and South American Indians (called Lamanites by Mormons) were cursed for disobeying God. The curse changed their skins from white to black. Mormonism taught this for over 150 years. After 1981, the Mormon Church began teaching that "White" actually meant "Pure", and that blacks would not become white, but would become pure even though their doctrine still shows that white means white as black means black.
The Mormon Curtain firmly believes that the word "Lamanite" is a racist term for those who are not fully Caucasian.
| Many Mormons are now responding with the fact that the changes to 2nd Nephi 30 vs 6 wherein it states "white and delightsome" was changed to "pure and delightsome" was actually God correcting the Book of Mormon, and that the original Book of Mormon publishing was "pure and delightsome" and now it has been corrected.
Supposedly, the first edition of the Book of Mormon contains the phrase "pure and delightsome", and it was changed to "white and delightsome" in the second printing. However, here is a scan of the relevent page of the first edition, and you can see for yourself that it says "white and delightsome".
A lot of people are under the impression that the original 1830 edition contained the words "pure and delightsome", and authors like Eugene England have stated this supposed "fact" in articles published by credible periodicals like Dialog, and what-not.
However, the very first edition of the Book of Mormon to contain the phrase "pure and delightsome" was the third edition, published in 1840.
What happened, in a nutshell, is this: By 1837, the first edition was "sold out", or given away, and a second edition was printed. In 1839, JS sent the Quorum of the 12 to England on missions. By December of 1839, the second edition was depleted. There were some delays in getting funds, but by October of 1840, Ebenezer Robinson published the 3rd edition in Cincinnati, Ohio. It was this edition that changed the words to "pure and delightsome".
However, about the same time, the Quorum of the 12, desperate for Book of Mormons to hand out to the people of England, decided to print their own in England, and did so, faithfully reproducing the second edition -- in this case, retaining the words "white and delightsome".
So, now, there were two different versions of the Book of Mormon -- an English version and an American version. No other edition published by the Utah branch of the Church contained the phrase "pure and delightsome" until 1981, when it was changed back to the 1840 Cincinnati version.
However, James Wright, a non-Mormon publisher in New York City, printed a commercial version of the Book of Mormon, and for some reason, based it on the 1840 edition, thereby including the phrase "pure and delightsome". Wright's version originally had an "anti-Mormon" preface regarding the origin of the Book of Mormon, and didn't sell well. He had printed -- but not bound -- about 4,000 copies. So, what to do with them?
Wright decided to turn them into a pro-Mormon edition, re-wrote the introduction, and sold the entire printing to an LDS splinter group. This edition eventually became the basis for the RLDS's first edition of the Book of Mormon. Later, in 1908, the RLDS church changed the wording back to the original 1830 edition's "white and delightsome", noting in that preface, that the words "white and delightsome" were, in fact, Joseph Smith's original wording.
For more info: see "'White' or 'Pure': Five Vignettes" by Douglas Campbell, Dialog, Winter, 1996, p. 119
| For the memorial day weekend my partner and I drove to the Grand Canyon through Hildale/Colorado City and the Arizona Strip. We briefly visited Pipe Springs National Monument (a tiny little thing in the middle of nowhere). The 'Monument', which is co-owned and operated by the National Park service and the Paiutes, is situated on a small Paiute reservation. Note that it is NOT owned or operated by the Mormon church, though the church owned Pipe Springs for a time.
In the visitors' center there is a small one-room museum about the history of Pipe Springs. The museum includes displays (and a film) about the Paiutes, about Mormon settlers and even small bits about Spanish explorers.
In a panel labeled 'Outside Contact' (meaning outsiders who impacted the life and history of the Paiutes), there are three sections, titled "SPANISH" and "MORMON" and "Indentured Servitude". The section titled "MORMON" contains three paragraphs. This is the text of the second paragraph:
"MORMONS"
. . . . (first paragraph not included)
A central tenet of their religion was that Indians were descendants of Israel who had come to the Americas in early Biblical days and practiced a form of Christianity. But through their "abomination and loss of belief" they eventually became "loathsome. . . an idle people, full of mischief." Mormons believed it was their responsibility to help these "Lamanites", so that when they were "restored unto the knowledge of . . . Jesus Christ . . . many generations shall not pass . . . save they shall be a white and delightsome people." Thus the church urged its members to clothe and feed their "Lamanite brethren" and eventually to convert them."
. . .
(third paragraph)
#
I took photos of the panel. I wonder how long it will stay up with the wording it currently has.
| NEW: photos located at http://www.geocities.com/kathywut/PipeSprings.html
Original post:
For the memorial day weekend my partner and I drove to the Grand Canyon through Hildale/Colorado City and the Arizona Strip. We briefly visited Pipe Springs National Monument (a tiny little thing in the middle of nowhere). The 'Monument', which is co-owned and operated by the National Park service and the Paiutes, is situated on a small Paiute reservation. Note that it is NOT owned or operated by the Mormon church, though the church owned Pipe Springs for a time.
In the visitors' center there is a small one-room museum about the history of Pipe Springs. The museum includes displays (and a film) about the Paiutes, about Mormon settlers and even small bits about Spanish explorers.
In a panel labeled 'Outside Contact' (meaning outsiders who impacted the life and history of the Paiutes), there are three sections, titled "SPANISH" and "MORMON" and "Indentured Servitude". The section titled "MORMON" contains three paragraphs. This is the text of the second paragraph:
"MORMONS"
. . . . (first paragraph not included)
A central tenet of their religion was that Indians were descendants of Israel who had come to the Americas in early Biblical days and practiced a form of Christianity. But through their "abomination and loss of belief" they eventually became "loathsome. . . an idle people, full of mischief." Mormons believed it was their responsibility to help these "Lamanites", so that when they were "restored unto the knowledge of . . . Jesus Christ . . . many generations shall not pass . . . save they shall be a white and delightsome people." Thus the church urged its members to clothe and feed their "Lamanite brethren" and eventually to convert them."
I took photos of the panel. I wonder how long it will stay up with the wording it currently has.
Someone at the COB is slipping... They better get down and change it quick.
| My DW and children are part Native American, not Lamanites. Lamanite is a derogatory name for Native American based on a simplistic myth that Native Americans are descended from Laman, who was cursed, along with his descendants, by God with dark skin, which appears to have been derived from the 19th Century racist myth of the Curse of Cain, which was commonly used to justify slavery. It was also Joseph Smith's simplistic solution to the peculiar 19th century Theological problem of the origin of Native Americans and the fact that a whole civilization in the Western Hemisphere went unmentioned in the bible, a 19th century racist explanation popularized in Ethan Smith's hugely popular book View of the Hebrews, which eflected the prevailing naieve notions of the origin of the American Indians of the time.
The other really offensive aspect of the Book of Mormon is the racist notion that God would turn dark Lamanites white when they became righteous. This is a racist myth that is still alive and well today in Mormonism. Spencer W. Kimball taught that the prophecies of the BOM were coming to pass as Lamanites were joining the church, becoming righteous their skin begins to lighten.
"The day of the Lamanites in 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 white 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 darker 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. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. 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." (Spencer W. Kimball, "The Day of the Lamanites," The Improvemant, Era, Dec. 1960, p. 923)
Here's a link to an article where Thomas Murphy discusses why refering to Native American's as "Lamanites" is racist.
"Murphy said he has made it his quest to expose racism in the Scriptures, starting with the teaching that American Indians are descendants of Middle Easterners known as Lamanites, the heathen antagonists in the Book of Mormon.
Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is a history of the Americas beginning in 600 B.C. Scripture teaches that a group of Lamanites who decided to forgo violence and war became Christians; and white.
"That's racist," Murphy said.
I whole heartedly agree with Murphy.
| It's always important to remember that the Book of Mormon also expressly refers to dark skin as a curse from god upon wicked people. People who make the white = pure argument, are either ignorant of this fact or are hoping that their audience is ignorant of this fact.
However, my take on the back-and-forth with the words "white" and "pure" over the years is that it obviously reflects the prejudices or values of whoever had power when the changes were made. Probably in 1840, the Mormons, and Prophet Joe in particular, were pretty pissed off at the pro-slavery Missourians and others with whom they had so much conflict. As a result, they tended to take a more open minded view on race and were probably sympathetic to abolitionist thinking. This may explain why "white" was changed to "pure" at that time, although this is just a guess. But others, like "death on the spot for any interracial couples" Brigham, were dyed-in-the-wool racist bigots and this may help explain why "pure" went back to being "white".
In any case, as you have correctly pointed out, all they have accomplished by making these little stealth edits over the years is to repeatedly demonstrate that (i) god had no hand in guiding the writing of the Book of Mormon, or (ii) god is incompetent. Furthermore, Mormons who think the change from "white" to "pure" has somehow eliminated any grounds for suspecting that the Book of Mormon was inspired by racist bigotry are just kidding themselves, since the Book of Mormon damns itself with even more explicitly racist passages elsewhere--passages that can't be easily and stealthily edited.
| At the exmo conference last month, I was fortunate enough to buy a winning raffle ticket and receive a copy of Southerton's "Losing a Lost Tribe," a book I had not read but had heard a lot about. I'm reading it now, and wanted to say thanks to whoever donated it.
In the early pages, Southerton discusses some of the changes in the BOM, one of which is the change in 2 Nephi 30:6 from "white and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome."
Southerton does not give the date of the change, which I had always thought was 1978 (or soon after). To my surprise, I found the following at http://nowscape.com/mormons1.htm:
"... many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a WHITE and a delightsome people." (1830 Edition, p. 117)
"... PURE and delightsome people." (1840 edition)
"...WHITE and delightsome people." (All later translations until 1981)
"... PURE and delightsome people." (1981 translations , II Nephi 30:6)
Although the Mormon Church will not make available the handwritten manuscript of the Book of Mormon, the R.L.D.S. Church has the handwritten printers copy, which was given to the printer to set the type for the first printing. It too, agrees with the 1830 Edition. It reads "white".
So, someone originally wrote "white" (1830) and then someone changed it to "pure" (1840) and then back to "white" (after 1840) and then finally to "pure" (1981).
This is the "most correct book" on earth??? This is the result of a "translation" process in which JS could not continue until he got it right???
I have read here on this board that we should remember that one of the connotations of "white" is, in fact, "pure." I reply, "So what?" JS apparently didn't get it right, whether in text or in meaning, for his own generation, or for ours.
Luckily we have the R.L.D.S. handwritten printers copy to see how it was originally written. But the Utah church won't let us see the original.
Hmmmmm..... I wonder why?
| Another quote from the Tanner's Changing World of Mormonism:
Spencer W. Kimball, who on December 30, 1973, became the twelfth president of the church, feels that the Indians are actually becoming a "white and delightsome people." In the LDS General Conference, October 1960, Mr. Kimball stated:
I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today ... they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people.... For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised.... 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 (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp.922-23). (p. 209)
Ahh, the ignorance of the religious. And this is the leadership of the religion.
http://sonsofperdition.blogspot.com/
| The following article appeared as FARMS “Article of the Week” in September 2006.
How can one justify the change from "white and delightsome" in 2 Nephi 30:6 to "pure and delightsome"?
"White" need not refer to skin color, as is clear from the following passages from the biblical book of Daniel: "And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed" (Daniel 11:35). "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand" (Daniel 12:10).
In both of these passages, the meaning of the word "white" is most obviously pure; to "make white" is to purify (see also Mormon 9:6). When Joseph Smith first translated the Book of Mormon, he gave the literal rendering of "white" for the passage in 2 Nephi 30:6. For the 1840 edition, he changed it to "pure," realizing that this better reflected the meaning of the word used by Nephi.
That the terms "white and pure" were considered synonymous by the rabbis is supported by the medieval Jewish kabbalistic text, Zohar 211b, which speaks of the purification of the souls of the dead by being "immersed in that 'river of fire'" mentioned in Daniel 7:10. The text says that "fire alone has the virtue of consuming every pollution in the soul, and making it emerge pure and white . . . for that soul will have to pass through the fire in order to come out pure and white" (Maurice Simon, and Paul P. Levertoff, The Zohar (New York:, 1958), 4:218-20.)
Notes I sent to: Don Brugger - Title: Publications
I find it hard to believe that such an arrogant lie would be posted on FARMS by the Church in order to satisfy what they must consider to be very simple minds. The text states that Joseph Smith himself changed the text from “white” to “pure” in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon when it was not changed until the Triple Combination printing in 1981.
This is really funny when you think that Joseph Smith taught that the saints should intermarry with the Lamanites, encouraging the brethren to take Lamanite women as extra wives, that they might have offspring to fulfil the prophecy that they would become “white” having previously been cursed with a dark skin. (2 Nephi 5:21 "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, and 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.")
George Smith wrote, "This unpublished 17 July 1831 revelation was described three decades later in an 1861 letter from W.W. Phelps to Brigham Young quoting Joseph Smith: `It is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity, may become white, delightsome and just.' In the 8 December 1831 Ohio Star, Ezra Booth wrote of a revelation directing Mormon elders to “marry with the natives'" (Sunstone, November 1993, footnote No. 5 on page 52).
Brigham Young 1859, "You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation ...When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people" (Journal of Discourses 7:336).
There are mentions in sermons of the twentieth century by General Authorities stating that the Lamanite placement programme was already showing the prophecy fulfilled.
“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.” SPENCER W. KIMBALL General Conference Report October, 1960. Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-923.
Clearly Spencer W Kimball understood what was meant in 2 Nephi 30:6 as it appeared in 1960 and he was referring to it. (This was the year in which I joined the Church.)
Changing the context at this late stage is ridiculous and only shows the contempt held for people who have previously researched and completely understand the real motive behind the change. Why not just be honest and instead of hiding or covering up uncomfortable truths, simply leave it as it was, explain the principle and accept any criticism. Why the need to bend to public opinion rather than keep the faith? The fact is that white meant white in 2 Nephi and everyone who has studied it understands why it did. Now “the most correct book” is no longer “correct” in its true meaning of 2 Nephi 30:6 and every General Authority as well as any, even semi serious Book of Mormon scholar knows it. Be men and stand up and be counted, say so and why - this is unbecoming and only goes to show, as in so many other historical settings, that the Church will “lie for the greater good” as is often put. Well we wouldn’t want to upset potential converts now would we? Perhaps it is time to hide most of Brigham Young’s teachingstoo: In 1857 he said that apostates would "become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil" (Journal of Discourse 5:332).
You cannot have it both ways; you should pick one explanation and stick to it regardless of the consequences. It is not wise to make something appear different to that which was originally intended just to make it look better or more acceptable now; for all that happens is that you undermine the credibility of it’s previous usage until there is none left and any serious thinker can only conclude that the whole matter from the first vision right up until today’s date was and is one continuous hoax and conspiracy perpetually changed and lied about to suit the prevailing circumstances. Lies always come back to bite you and clearly this is one so obvious, whoever suggested it needs their head examined. How the First Presidency ever agreed to it God only knows. Well, perhaps God doesn’t know in reality! This whole “excuse” has only come about in an attempt to become more politically correct just as the issue of the Negro and the Priesthood did, even though prophecy from Brigham Young stated that they would NEVER be given the priesthood until AFTER ALL the seed of Abel had received it. ".. the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the priesthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Abel had received the priesthood, until the redemption of the earth.... Let this Church which is called the kingdom of God on the earth; [say] we will sommons the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishoprick, and all the elders of Isreal, suppose we summons them to appear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with us and be pertakers with us of all the blessings God has given us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the preisthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to destruction,--we should receive the curse which was placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood untill that curse be removed." (Brigham Young Addresses, Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, dated Feb. 5, 1852, located in the LDS Church Historical Department)
So the Lord has changed his mind and now allows a specific prophecy to become such that it is impossible for it to ever be fulfilled. This cannot be the case doctrinally and could never happen if the Lord knows all things, past present and future. The brethren were always teaching in the nineteenth century about the American white race being the superior and God’s chosen, putting down all other races, not just black but “Chinamen” and others.
"Let us consider the great mercy of God for a moment. A Chinese, born in China with a dark skin, and with all the handicaps of that race seen's to have little opportunity. But think of the mercy of God to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel. In spite of whatever they might have done in the pre-existence to justify being born over there as Chinamen, if they now, in this life, accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, aud that means they can have exaltation. Isn't the mercy of God marvelous?
"Think of the Negro, cursed as to the Priesthood.... This negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory....
"Now let's talk segregation again for a few moments.... When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation....
"Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them.... At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negroes we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that He placed a dark skin upon them as a curse... He forbade intermarriage... He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an iron curtain there....
"We must not intermarry with the Negro, Why? If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would all be cursed as to the Priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn't any argument, therefore, as to inter-marriage with the Negro, is there? There are 50 million Negroes in the United States. If they were to achieve complete absorption with the white race, think what that would do. With 50 million Negroes intermarried with us, where would the Priesthood be? Who could hold it, in all America? Think what that would do to the work of the Church!
"Now we are generous with the negro [sic].... I would be willing to let every Negro drive a cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation?... what God hath separated, let not man bring together again."(Race Problems--As They Affect The Church, Address by Apostle Mark L. Petersen at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954)
While Apostle Mark E. Petersen was very concerned about the need for segregation. Brigham Young, the second prophet of the church, was even more adamant about the matter.
Brigham Young gave this chilling warning:
"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, page 110)
Well, apparently not after all! How would Brigham feel now, is he turning in his grave do you think? Please don't hide behind "it was an opinion" or "he wasn't speaking as a prophet at the time" or it didn't say "thus saith the Lord" or "if it doesn't appear in accepted canonised scripture it isn't doctrine" as that simply does not wash. Brigham stated that all his talks can be taken as doctrine and I won't even reference that, it's in the J of D and you assuredly know where it is.
To give the biblical texts that you quote, then refer to kabbalistic text which is meant to look scholarly and reassure students and then state that this proves it should have been changed for clarity is pathetic. Even worse is to blame Joseph Smith for “realizing that this better reflected the meaning of the word used by Nephi.” Remember that the Church accepts that Joseph was looking at a stone in his hat while the plates were tied up in a linen cloth and he never even looked at them while translating at that stage of the game, so wouldn’t have had a clue that the “translation” was a little off. Also remember that he did not change it at all, he knew very well what it meant, referred to it by his instructions to the brethren to marry Lamanites and it was referred to by General Authorities in the twentieth century and not changed until 1981 shortly after the Negro and the Priesthood “revelation.”
The medieval text itself even states “pure AND white” in its translation, so how can pure MEAN “white” in that instance, it may be synonymous in context but it is meant to add clarity, not repeat the same exact meaning twice or “in other words” (as Joseph Smith would often have his prophets say in the Book of Mormon), and in that context, it probably alluded more to “clean” or “free from impurity” but not exactly the same as pure. “White” was indeed a symbol of “pure” in some instances and every student of ancient as well as modern history knows that. However, the previously accepted accurate context of the Book of Mormon verse did not mean pure and is here turned on its head simply to try to look politically correct. Here the Church is changing historical DOCTRINE to suit changing circumstances. What I don’t understand is why. It would have been simpler to just stick to what it originally meant and say why, as the lie is so obvious. Perhaps you forgot about the references to the scripture by Joseph Smith, and by Spencer W Kimball? Oops. I didn’t, it was published and first read by me when I was fourteen years old.
I am happy that the Priesthood is given to all men but it cannot be doctrinally justified by the Church according to prophecy previously given. There was never a revelation about it, the prophet simply felt good and that the time had come after years of internal debate and disagreement about it within the quorum and the “brethren” finally conceded and concurred after their late prayer in their room in the temple together. Equally, I am happy that the word “white” should be changed in the Book of Mormon IF it is to clarify a doctrinally established position. However as it is so obvious that this is not the case then the reasoning should be retracted and the truth be told, even when it is not a pleasant truth to bear. You violate the Articles of Faith and every sense of integrity and the Church should have had no part in it.
Unfortunately it was changed and you now have a twenty five year position to extricate the Church from and how will you ever achieve that? Not remotely by the present lies put on FARMS. Just admit that the excuse posted on FARMS holds no water and is a blatant lie please, or at least admit that it was posted by someone who hadn’t a clue about what they were doing. They should at least check the facts before posting such a thing on an “official” website. You should at least remove it from public view and if you are entirely honest, state that the true meaning in 2 Nephi 30:6 was white and is white, doctrinally, and that the change in 1981 (not 1840) was purely to accommodate the feelings of potential converts and to avoid potential criticism for supposed racism against native Americans, until they can be brought to understand the context. A bit like converts have little idea about the Temple until they are ready. That would be the honest thing to do. You might also get someone to write it who actually knows what they are doing. I apologise for the criticism but it is unfortunately well deserved. I am a stickler for honesty and integrity. If you cannot explain a position away honestly, it is better not to try to do it at all don’t you think?
JIW 10 Sep 2006
Notes not included to FARMS at this stage:
As Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson put it in their article on the subject at
http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/pu... (Mormon Research Ministry) where there are more quotes available, “To say 2 Nephi 30:6 was altered merely for clarification and had nothing to do with skin color is without merit. It was a false prophecy, nothing more, nothing less.”
I also deliberately did not bother to include the following - to see what he says in reply first - the 1840 edition (2000 copies) DID have a strikeout but ALL subsequent editions through to 1981 were changed back to white.
2 Nephi 30:6 (1840 edition) … and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white pure and a delightsome people.
(Later editions until 1981) … white and delightsome
(1981 to current edition) pure and delightsome
1840: 2,000 copies; published for Ebenezer Robinson and Don Carlos Smith (by Shepard and Stearns, Cincinnati, Ohio), Nauvoo, Illinois. Joseph Smith compared the printed text with the original manuscript and discovered a number of errors made in copying the printer's manuscript from the original. Thus the 1840 edition restores some of the readings of the original manuscript.
Furthermore the RLDS 1908 edition of the Book of Mormon is ironically TAKEN from the 1840 edition according to them. It has less chapters and the reference is:
1908 RLDS 2 Nephi Chapter 12:84 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 white and a delightsome people.
The RLDS version is available online at http://www.centerplace.org/hs/bofm/2n...
The limited 1840 (3rd edition) version was a strikeout and appeared ONLY in that limited edition of 2000 copies. It subsequently appeared as WHITE in every edition through to 1981 in all languages. Clearly if he mentions it - it means they changed their minds twice and even Brigham Young and Spencer W Kimball were fooled!
Then there is also this reference:
1 Aug 1862 - Brigham Young writes to a local bishop: "my advice is for bro James T.S. Allred to marry the Indian girl in question. It is written that 'not many generations shall pass away before they become a white and delightsome people.'" Dozens of men marry Native Americans as plural wives in pioneer Utah and Arizona A clear reference to 2 Ne 30:6.
As no reply was forthcoming - I sent the above as follows:
8 October 2006 - Hi Don
I emailed a response to the “white and delightsome” topic you wrote on, almost a month ago and had a response which indicated that you would be handling my email. So far I have not heard from you regarding some sort of retraction. I did not include a couple of things at the time that left some room for you to respond about but now include them below so you can choose how to address the overall position. These were my side notes:
As Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson put it in their article on the subject at
http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/pu... (Mormon Research Ministry) where there are more quotes available,
“To say 2 Nephi 30:6 was altered merely for clarification and had nothing to do with skin color is without merit. It was a false prophecy, nothing more, nothing less.”
I don’t think this is of any interest as it is just an opinion without qualification. Nevertheless, it is certainly a conclusion one is compelled to reach when the actual evidence is weighed.
I also deliberately did not bother to include the following - to see what was said in reply first - as I believe it makes matters even worse for the Church - the 1840 edition (2000 copies) did have a temporary change but all subsequent editions through to 1981 were changed back to “white” as far as I am aware. I didn’t know if you would admit to it or not so left it out.
2 Nephi 30:6 (1840 edition) … and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white pure and a delightsome people.
(Later editions until 1981) … white and delightsome
(1981 to current edition) pure and delightsome
1840: 2,000 copies; published for Ebenezer Robinson and Don Carlos Smith (by Shepard and Stearns, Cincinnati, Ohio), Nauvoo, Illinois. Joseph Smith compared the printed text with the original manuscript and discovered a number of errors made in copying the printer's manuscript from the original. Thus the 1840 edition restores some of the readings of the original manuscript.
Furthermore the RLDS 1908 edition of the Book of Mormon is ironically TAKEN from the 1840 edition according to them. It has less chapters and the reference is:
1908 RLDS 2 Nephi Chapter 12:84 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 white and a delightsome people.
The RLDS version is available online at http://www.centerplace.org/hs/bofm/2n...
The limited 1840 (3rd edition) version was a once only change and appeared ONLY in that limited edition of 2000 copies. It subsequently appeared as WHITE in every edition through to 1981 and in all languages as far as I can tell. If it was a deliberate change in 1840, then changed back immediately, clearly it means that Joseph Smith changed his mind TWICE. Getting things wrong once would be bad enough but twice - there is no excuse, especially if it is from a Prophet of God, representing His words and His will. The brethren obviously changed their minds once again in 1981 but why, after all the earlier evidence as to the correctness of the word? Meanwhile this would mean that I was totally fooled when I was younger and even Brigham Young and Spencer W Kimball were fooled too!
Then there is also this reference:
1 Aug 1862 - Brigham Young writes to a local bishop: "my advice is for bro James T.S. Allred to marry the Indian girl in question. It is written that 'not many generations shall pass away before they become a white and delightsome people.'" Dozens of men married Native Americans as plural wives in pioneer Utah and Arizona. A clear reference to 2 Ne 30:6.
I would appreciate a response when you are able to attend to it. I still can't understand why you would deliberately mislead LDS members by stating that the “change” was in 1840, leaving people with the false impression that it was clarified once and for all at that time by Joseph Smith, remaining the same ever since. It was certainly “white” in my Book of Mormon in 1960 and every copy that I had since, until I bought my triple in the eighties. Perhaps you relied on other people’s notes and really didn't actually look for yourself. If so, you really should be sure of your research; if not and you knew, then you lied. Why would you do that? I was taught from my youth about the concept of white and delightsome and am rather ashamed to see what the Church has now done. I don't think some things matter much - such as whether there were horses in the Book of Mormon times etc. It really does not make any difference either way as it proves nothing. However, some things do matter. Correctness and accuracy do and certainly integrity does. Truth is ultimate and eternal, so the Church claims. Clearly it is well known that this is (was) a specific doctrine of the Church, it was not an “opinion” and it was not a “principle” that may subsequently be changed without a revelation from the Lord that He himself has changed His mind about the specifics of the curse of the coloured skin and it’s prophesied removal both as spoken of (from Him) in the Book of Mormon and by Joseph and Brigham and Spencer W Kimball. The long suppressed 1831 prophecy about polygamy included the revelation that the subsequent removal of the curse was to be by integration. This has never happened. It is not an arguable point when you consider it. Perhaps this is why the brethren are now hiding the truth of the matter.
Thank you in anticipation.
Jim Whitefield
The response was
Jim,
Nobody forwarded me a request to have me respond to you, so this is the first time I’ve heard of this. I believe you must be referring to the the report on the BOM Critical Text Project that appeared in the FARMS newsletter awhile back (Insights 25/4 [2005]). I did not write that article (I edited it), which includes brief mention of the “white and delightsome” issue. That report states that Royal Skousen, in his new volume of the critical text, offers his explanation of the issue. I will refer this on to the person I think should respond to your query. I cannot promise results, especially given the tone of your letter. Have you read Skousen’s explanation in his Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Part 2: 2 Nephi 11-Mosiah 16?
I emailed back:
Hi Don
Thank you for your email. I am sorry that you were not forwarded the email I sent in. No, it was the short "article of the week" a few weeks ago I responded to. Below I am pasting the original article and I attach my first email response which indicates that you will be dealing with it. I got the impression that you wrote the short article. I hope that will help to give the entire picture, then you can decide who should respond. I think it actually needs a response from the First Presidency to FARMS as they know the truth, rather than just opinions form FARMS. I can always write to a friend in the Quorum of Twelve if you think I should but they get so busy and I have already bothered him once this year on another point which he kindly dealt with for me. Facts speak volumes, opinions and rationalizations do vary. I apologize if the tone of my letter seemed strong but I am in shock about something that I have clearly understood for almost fifty years since I was fourteen years old. Please ignore anything not relevant and just deal with the specifics.
I am not an apologist and do not pussyfoot around the point. I defended the Church in my belief for forty five years and although admit I finally left due to not being able to continue to believe in God for reasons not associated with any Church teaching, my children and grandchildren are strong and their Church should be honest. I believe in integrity and I yet hope I am wrong in my personal religious conclusions, remaining open minded. I simply do not understand that something I was taught as a youth as specific doctrine can simply be changed this way. It made me very upset. Please kindly just see through that and look at the point. I have read a lot of material, much is contradictory to the original doctrine and does nothing but weaken the original position and I am totally perplexed that such rationalization can take place. There are too many "it is plausible that" and "we can conclude from" and "it can be assumed" etc., in many writings. This is supposed to be thetrue Church led by direct and continuous revelation, God does not change and the specific, once fully acknowledged doctrine in scripture should be clearly understood as from God himself from day one and never changed. A voice from heaven told the witnesses it was "correct" and that was that. It is as simple as that. Clarification by punctuation and inserting verses etc., is fine but fundamental change in doctrine and prophecy is not. Our communication doesn't need lengthy discourse, and I don't want to put you to any trouble, just a simple acknowledgement that the original was correct as it was, unless you contend that both Brigham Young and Spencer W Kimball were wrong? Please be assured that I am knowledgeable and sensible and previously have held most Ward, several Stake and Regional callings and taught Institute of Religion weekly at Stake level for six years. I had studied the entire standard works and most other doctrinal and historical Church books and material, completed a mission and was sealed in the Temple by the week after my eighteenth birthday.
I understand and have studied doctrine for forty five years since. I was not aware of the change to "pure" until I saw the article, I never looked for it, it never occurred to me. Royal Skousen is not a prophet, he just tries to explain why unwarranted changes took place. He didn't personally make the changes nor can he explain them away that easily. I really don't want a point by point discussion on his work. With respect, it is of no value in regard to the simple point. The "Church" made the change and it was wrong. Whatever he says cannot and does not address that. He simply takes the current Church held position and tries to rationalize it back to cover what has transpired and it doesn't work. Statements by Prophets count, Brigham Young and Spencer W Kimball, although he was not yet prophet when he spoke, did speak at Conference and with approval. That is what I rely on, not the writings of Royal trying to explain why the brethren changed it.
I know that technically you cannot agree with what I ask for, as the Church; that is the First Presidency, authorized the change in 1981. That is why perhaps they should make an official statement to you. However, if you truly understand the history of it all, what I cannot understand is how it can be accepted by FARMS let alone rationalized or defended. It is simply wrong. That isn't my opinion, it is historical documented doctrinal fact. Sorry, but there is no escaping that whether you or I like it or accept it or not. I do not want it to be that way but unfortunately it is and it really is black and white so to speak.
In summary "The change offends and alters definitive established doctrine and prophecy." So, what conclusion can we draw from that?
Many Thanks
Jim
P.S.
Sorry Don, I should have added that the original point I felt FARMS should actually address was why did the article of the week deliberately leave the impression that the change occurred in 1840 for clarification and stayed permanently changed from that date onwards when in fact it did not.
Thanks again.
Jim.
From: Don Brugger - Date: 12-Oct-2006 16:34:23
Jim,
I just learned why I was not in the loop on this matter (I was not sufficiently informed of my role in this automated routing of queries). My role is to simply redirect the query to the right person, not to respond personally unless it’s something that is clearly in my realm of expertise.
Let me say that I think you are very rash in drawing your conclusions. I could counter several of your premises, but I feel it is not my role at FARMS to do that. I am an editor, not a scholar or trained LDS apologist. However, I do work on the critical text of the Book of Mormon and can assure you that the publication history of the BOM is much more complicated than you think. You need to read Royal Skousen’s work rather than dismiss it out of hand. It affords remarkable insights into BOM textual history that cannot be had elsewhere, based as it is on painstaking analysis of the two MSS (original and printer’s) and 20 significant editions of the BOM. Many of the findings are indisputable, others necessarily conjectural since data are lacking. It is vital to get the textual history right as much as possible before delving into the questions you raise. Skousen’s work goes a long way in helping here. I realize you have strong feelings about the nature of prophetic inspiration and such. I think your views are too narrow and uninformed, but I tread on very personal ground here and feel it is not appropriate for me to argue matters of faith with you. I hope we can clarify for you some points of the textual problem you see and that this new understanding will open you to new possibilities in the matters of faith you raise.
I will work on having someone respond to you. Be patient, though, as one person is out of town for another week or so and another is essentially retired; so I need some time. I cannot much because few people have the time to systematically go through all of your points and offer you solid evidence and reasons, which may or may no satisfy you.
Here’s hoping that a helpful response will be forthcoming.
Best wishes.
Don L. Brugger - Associate Director of Publications - The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship - Brigham Young University, 200 WAIH, Provo, UT 84602
Jim,
The one person who I thought should respond to your letter has declined to
do so. I have passed this matter to Dan McKinlay, who is the designated
person here to refer people to sources in connection with their research. I
learned today that the ³Question of the Week² item that you read was written
a few years ago and will be removed. So thanks for putting pressure on for
better, more updated material. Joseph Smith did in fact make the change to
³pure² in 1840, but he made all such changes for that edition on the
printer¹s MS. But later editions did not rely on the printer's MS as the
copy-text and so missed his correction until the more thorough preparatory
work for the 1981 edition. Skousen shows that this kind of error happened a
lot, but he argues that the impact on any kind of doctrinal material was
negligible (a point you contest, I am sure). Of course, this does not
address your point that the Web article gave the wrong impression. All I can
say is that the piece was written a few years back without benefit of the
findings from the critical text project and that our review system is not as
tight as it should have been. We are addressing these issues. I'm afraid
that your other issues won't get the degree of attention you might desire.
It would take a lot of time, and the few people I've spoken to feel that
there's not much point in working up a detailed response if your mind is
already made up.
You can anticipate a reply of some kind from Dan McKinlay.
Best wishes.
Don L. Brugger - Associate Director of Publications - The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship - Brigham Young University, 200 WAIH, Provo, UT 84602
From: Dan McKinlay - Date: 16-Oct-2006 17:02:40
Dear Jim,
Don has forwarded your correspondence to me. It’s hard to read your messages because of the stationery you use. If you really want to know what we have to say on the issues you cite I recommend that you read our literature, especially in FARMS Review. The members of the staff have no intention of personally arguing with your concerns, since we feel that our published writings take care of that. Although we at the Maxwell Institute try to find information that corroborates the latter-day scriptures, and we are pleased with much that we find, you should realize that ultimately the propositions of the Restoration are based on faith. That is true of all branches of Christianity, including Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox traditions, and the various branches of Protestantism. If you have reservations with what we teach we certainly grant you the agency to choose to accept or reject. I wish you well in your searches.
Dan McKinlay - Reference Manager - Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship
on 17 Oct 2006 I wrote:
Hi Don
Many thanks for your email and for asking Dan McKinley to respond. I did get a short email from him referring me to existing FARMS materials which is understandable in the circumstances. In fact your email was far more encouraging and forthcoming in helping me understand what happened. I deeply appreciate that the article will be removed and that you agree that it is misleading. I suppose it would be too much to ask that anyone comment on the fact that Brigham and Spencer spoke about the fulfillment of that prophecy and the idea of change in a doctrinal point of course would need comment from the First Presidency. Luckily a more important aspect is currently being looked at for me and I will tag on that issue in a short question specific to the point in hopes it may get an answer from higher authorities.
Thank you again for your kind response and again I am sorry for the appearance of a strong tone in my original comments. It was the first time I had ever addressed an issue outside my old profession in finance and investment where cases were simply in straight talk terms. Reading how people actually seem to address each other on this type of thing, both sides of arguments seem to be gentle nudges rather than head on specifics which I am not used to. I hope it didn't offend.
Thank you again for your time.
Kindest regards
Jim
Jim,
I was mistaken in my last note to you. Joseph made changes in the printer’s ms for the 1837 edition, not the 1840. For the latter, he referred to the original ms. I’m going to read Skousen’s analysis of the issue again because I’m not as clear on it as I should be. I may get back to you.
-------Original Message-------
From: Don Brugger - Date: 10/16/06 16:31:20
Jim,
I just wanted to correct what I said in an earlier e-mail to you. It appears that Joseph made a conscious choice to change “white” to “pure” in the 1840 edition. While it is true that he referred to the original ms (not the printer’s ms, as he did for the 1837 edition) in preparing the 1840 edition and corrected a few scribal errors, it is unlikely that the original ms read “pure,” since Oliver could hardly have mixed up those two dissimilar words while taking down Joseph’s dictation. The 1841 edition was essentially a reprinting of the 1837 edition, so that explains why Joseph’s change to “pure” was not perpetuated through future editions (though “pure” appeared in the 1858 Wright edition and two RLDS editions) until it was restored in 1981. Skousen has more to say on this issue. If interested, see his Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Part Two: 2 Nephi 11–Mosiah 16 (Provo, UT: FARMS 2005).
Sorry for getting things wrong in my last e-mail. I’m a harried editor and should not have written off the cuff. What I said is true for other textual variants in the BOM, just not for the one in 2 Nephi 30:6.
Best wishes
Don L. Brugger - Associate Director of Publications - The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship Brigham Young University, 200 WAIH, Provo, UT 84602
The overall results of this exchange are as follows:
1. My primary object was achieved. That is that FARMS has accepted the article is misleading and it has now been withdrawn and removed from the FARMS website.
2. Don Brugger agreed that the original word could NOT have been “pure” in the handwritten manuscript, in his last email. I know the original manuscript was water damaged and that the 2 Nephi section of the translation is no longer available. However, the second copy of the original handwritten manuscript definitely says “white” so that is probably why Don answered in that way. My opinion is that the 1840 edition was the error because Joseph himself changed it back in the 1841 edition and as Don says, it was from the 1837 edition which was from the original manuscript. It was of course checked and approved by Joseph Smith himself.
3. FARMS ignore facts, in favour of what is currently taught as correct and stick to apologist work only, referencing materials that in many cases give unsustainable positions without regard to logic or reason to say nothing of common sense.
4. FARMS will not address issues directly in debate, referring only to their publications which they appear to expect people to accept as correct without further question.
What I learned:
1. This was my first approach to such a project and clearly I was too aggressive in my approach. I should perhaps tone down my style somewhat. However, I was upset that the Church would (in my opinion, deliberately) mislead people on the issue.
2. I covered too much material in my attempt to cover the question and should perhaps have been more brief and specific.
3. The belief is clear in that faith precedes everything and it is not questioned when changes are made, nor why changes interfere with established doctrinal positions.
4. To get answers to doctrinal change you have to question the First Presidency directly through General Authorities as they are the ones who make the decisions that FARMS then has to unquestioningly justify. I am in the process of doing this at the present time to establish whether this is actually a doctrinal change or simply the Church being politically correct with regard to not offending Native Americans.
For my own part I think it would be very difficult and extremely foolish to try to establish a change in doctrinal position in that the “Lamenites” have been promised that they will become literally white skinned through intermarriage and through membership in the Church, regardless of which word is used in 2 Nephi 30:6.
| Are We More Effective As In Making Positive Social Changes Within Our "Faith Communities" Or Outside Of Them?
Tuesday, Nov 7, 2006, at 07:58 AM
Original Author(s): Koriwhore
Topic: WHITE AND DELIGHTSOME -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | I was just reading Barak Obama's book, "The Odacity of Hope" in regards to what he has to say about religion in the US. He's got about as moderate a view of religion as you could possibly have for somebody who claims to be a Christian. He at least acknowledges that there is a large group of people in the US who are not religious and that the majority of US citizens, who are believers, need to be carefull not to disenfrancise those of us who are not Christian or even religious.
The interesting part is that he talks to those of us who do not believe and have either left or are considering leaving our religious communities and he says, (paraphrasing)
"If you leave, you leave a vaccum that will ultimately be filled by those who hold more black or white views than yours and your opportunity to affect progress outside that community is less than if you are on the inside."
Obviously the guy was never Mormon.
I don't imagine somebody like him would be able to tollerate racist, bigoted, homophobic and misogynist Mormon Doctrine any more than me or those of us here at RfM and elsewhere in the DAMU.
Personally I got to the point where I realized that given the patriarchal heirarchy of Mormonism the only ones who affect real change are the top 15.
I was sitting in a Sunday School lesson one day and they were talking about the BOM. The guy sitting in front of me was a member of the Stake High Council. He raises his hand and says, "I wonder when the promise of the BOM will be fullfilled and the Lamanites will accept the BOM as a record of their ancestors and the Word of God and they will be turned white and delightsome?"
I was shocked! I quickly looked around the room to see if there was anybody as shocked as I was and not a soul returned my gaze. I thought, its a good thing there are no African Americans or Native Americans in this room! That would just be increadibly offensive. Unfortunately none of my African American Mormon fellow ward members were in the room at the time. Having spoken with all of them I knew how offensive those racist doctrines were to them.
I really wanted to raise a serious objection to that racist doctrine, since I always felt it was my role in the church as a critical thinking NOM, to debunk those racist myths. Up until that point I justified my activity by claiming the same thing as Barak Obama, that I could actually affect change in my faith community (tribe) from the inside a lot better than I could as an outcast.
But I found myself in an extreamly awkward position at that moment. I knew full well what would happen if I opened my mouth and spoke out in that situation. I would have been shunned and rumors would have flown about how rebelious I was if I spoke out against a doctrine that was advocated by somebody higher up the Mormon pyramid scheme than me.
I walked out of that room and have never been back and will never go back.
I walked into the primary to get my daughter out and they were singing "Book of Mormon Stories". When they got to the part about the Lamanites they pantomimed "Laminite" by holding two fingers up over the back of their heads like an indian head dress.
My part Native American daughter was being subtly brainwashed to believe that she was descended from an evil race of people.
All I could think of was that while I was witnessing my beautiful bronze skinned daughter being brainwashed the church was paying prostitutes like Daniel Peterson to swear up and down that the Mormon church doesn't teach that Native Americans are descended from Lamanites and that the DNA evidence that debunks that racist myth is all washed up.
"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
That was it. I just said * this shit and never went back.
Not long after the rest of us quit going to church, my oldest son was still determined to keep going to church and to seminary. I'd drive him to Seminary in the mornings and I could tell that he was sort of like me at his age, questioning the bogus doctrines of Mormonism but still enjoying the social benefits. I'd quiz him about what he was learning. He told me one day that he mentioned to his seminary teacher, who was the bishop's wife, the Brigham Young statement that if a white person mixed their seed with the seed of cain that they also became cursed and that the punishment for doing so was death by stoning. Always had been, always would be.
She said, "I hate to admit it. But that's true."
I just said, "WHAT! Are you SERIOUS?"
He said, "Yeah."
I said, "OMG! Were their any African Americans in the room?"
He said, "No. Thank God. Otherwise I don't think she would have said it."
I said, "Does it make any difference? I mean shouldn't we be just as offended by racist statements, no matter what our skin color happens to be? Does the fact that she was talking to a whole room full of white kids make it any more appropriate if it would be totally inappropriate if even one African American were in the room?"
That just reinforced the fact that there is NO changing Mormonism from within or from without. Who would I have gone and complained to? My bishop? It was his wife who was filling my kids head with these racist doctrines.
My stake President who was just as much of a racist as my son's seminary teacher?
My local Area Representative who is in total denial when it comes to the racist, dehumanizing doctrines of the church?
I did. They didn't have any answers. None of them do. They're not interested in my opinions. And we were expressly forbidden from addressing our concerns to the 1st Presidency, so I was out of options.
You're right. There is no changing Mormonism from within or from without. Not as long as Gordo sees his role as "conservator of traditional values" (like racism, homophobia, misogyny and bigotry, all of which completely contradict Christ's entire message, at least the one I read loud and clear.)
| |
|
How to navigate:- Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
- Click the blue arrow on the article to return to the top.
- Right-Click and copy the "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
Archived Blogs:
| |
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.
Website © 2005-2021
Compiled With: Caligra 1.119
HOSTED BY
 |
| |
|
