Mormon Doctrine that has changed

[TexanKnight]

Almost as precious as this one:

Revelation 1:14-16

His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

Or this one:

Isaiah 1:18

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Or this one:

Revelation 3:4

Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

We learn from these passages that white must be a symbol in the Bible of being “worthy”. Thus, “whiteness” or “radiance” or “no darkness in them” is not about skin color, at all–it’s about what is going on inside the heart of the person, and whether they are seeking to apply the Lord’s infinite blessing of His atoning sacrifice by their personal repentance and the sanctification of the Holy Ghost.

Really? I mean REALLY? In the BoM verse, they are talking about skin color. In the Revelations verse, it is white hair and in Isaiah, it is SINS being white. Do not try to scrub away the LDS racsim using apple and oranges verses.

Scrubbing your racism will never make it white…or pure…or delightsome

 

[ParkerD]

Really? I mean REALLY? In the BoM verse, they are talking about skin color. In the Revelations verse, it is white hair and in Isaiah, it is SINS being white. Do not try to scrub away the LDS racsim using apple and oranges verses.

Scrubbing your racism will never make it white…or pure…or delightsome

TexanKnight,
You’re the one who has said skin color represents a curse from God–not I, and not the Book of Mormon.

Neither in the Bible, nor in the Book of Mormon, was skin color presented as a curse from God. The word “mark” and the word “curse” are not the same word, nor do they have a similar meaning.

 

[TexanKnight]

TexanKnight,
You’re the one who has said skin color represents a curse from God–not I, and not the Book of Mormon.

Neither in the Bible, nor in the Book of Mormon, was skin color presented as a curse from God. The word “mark” and the word “curse” are not the same word, nor do they have a similar meaning.

Actually, that is false. If you are truly this unaware of your teachings, let me know and I will post where YOUR “prophets” have called it a curse. Please do not treat me or others like we are idiots and do not know the truth about your beliefs.

 

[ParkerD]

Actually, that is false. …

TexanKnight,

My comment had specifically to do with the Book of Mormon. That is a specific text. My statement about the Book of Mormon text was a true statement as regards “mark” and “curse”.

 

[TexanKnight]

TexanKnight,

My comment had specifically to do with the Book of Mormon. That is a specific text. My statement about the Book of Mormon text was a true statement as regards “mark” and “curse”.

Yet this thread that I started is about teachings. Again, if you are unaware of your prophets’ teachings, let me know. You should not try to dodge the racism or the change in the book of Mormon when blacks failed to turn white

 

[Jerusha]

I am finished with the little word study. The results are VERY interesting.

Again, in the Book of Mormon, particularly in Alma 3:6-9, we see a contrast between a Jewish Origins theory which honors Natives as being somehow akin to Jews, and therefore fully human, with a racist and anti-Semitic one. I Nephi 12:23, II Nephi 5:21-25, II Nephi 30:6, Enos 20, Jarom 6, Mosiah 9:12, Mosiah 10:12-17, Mosiah 11:6, Mosiah 22:6, Alma 3: 6-10, 14-17, Alma 17: 14-15, 25, Alma 22:28, Alma 23:18, Alma 24:18, Alma 30: 25, Alma 43:45, Alma 55:14, 30, Helaman 15:4, III Nephi 2: 14-16, and Mormon 5:15-17 are all racist. In III Nephi 19: 25 and 30 the resurrected Jesus “heals” Natives of a dark skin-color. In the racist context of the entire book, this is not figurative. It firmly links the color of a person’s skin with the condition of one’s soul.
To further prove this, I conducted a word-study on the word “white.” In the Bible (DRV), the word “white” is used in 65 sentences. Of these, 34% of the usages, primarily in the New Testament, are about the wearing of white clothing, symbolizing purity of the individual’s soul. Primarily in Leviticus, we see many references to negatively evaluated white skin, in the context of leprosy. Bad white skin throughout the Bible, occurs in 31% of the sentences in which the word “white” appears. White skin, evaluated positively, occurs 9% of the time. If we correct for the presence of leprosy in the Bible, white skin, evaluated positively in the Bible, still occurs only 20% of the time. It is almost as if the white garments of the New Testament were symbolic of the effects suffering can have upon the souls of lepers. This is particularly seen in the stories of Naaman and Job.
There are 28 sentences in the Book of Mormon in which the word “white” occurs. Of these, 43% of the usages are about the wearing of white clothing, which symbolizes the purity of the individual. There are no sentences in which white skin is evaluated negatively. In one, which is a paraphrase from the New Testament, it is evaluated indifferently. White skin, evaluated positively, occurs 36% of the time. It is almost as if white skin became the garment of the pure individual. It is apparent that the authors of the Book of Mormon had no understanding of the horror of leprosy. This is particularly true in the context of Numbers 12:10.

 

[theidler]

I am finished with the little word study. The results are VERY interesting.

Again, in the Book of Mormon, particularly in Alma 3:6-9, we see a contrast between a Jewish Origins theory which honors Natives as being somehow akin to Jews, and therefore fully human, with a racist and anti-Semitic one. I Nephi 12:23, II Nephi 5:21-25, II Nephi 30:6, Enos 20, Jarom 6, Mosiah 9:12, Mosiah 10:12-17, Mosiah 11:6, Mosiah 22:6, Alma 3: 6-10, 14-17, Alma 17: 14-15, 25, Alma 22:28, Alma 23:18, Alma 24:18, Alma 30: 25, Alma 43:45, Alma 55:14, 30, Helaman 15:4, III Nephi 2: 14-16, and Mormon 5:15-17 are all racist. In III Nephi 19: 25 and 30 the resurrected Jesus “heals” Natives of a dark skin-color. In the racist context of the entire book, this is not figurative. It firmly links the color of a person’s skin with the condition of one’s soul.
To further prove this, I conducted a word-study on the word “white.” In the Bible (DRV), the word “white” is used in 65 sentences. Of these, 34% of the usages, primarily in the New Testament, are about the wearing of white clothing, symbolizing purity of the individual’s soul. Primarily in Leviticus, we see many references to negatively evaluated white skin, in the context of leprosy. Bad white skin throughout the Bible, occurs in 31% of the sentences in which the word “white” appears. White skin, evaluated positively, occurs 9% of the time. If we correct for the presence of leprosy in the Bible, white skin, evaluated positively in the Bible, still occurs only 20% of the time. It is almost as if the white garments of the New Testament were symbolic of the effects suffering can have upon the souls of lepers. This is particularly seen in the stories of Naaman and Job.
There are 28 sentences in the Book of Mormon in which the word “white” occurs. Of these, 43% of the usages are about the wearing of white clothing, which symbolizes the purity of the individual. There are no sentences in which white skin is evaluated negatively. In one, which is a paraphrase from the New Testament, it is evaluated indifferently. White skin, evaluated positively, occurs 36% of the time. It is almost as if white skin became the garment of the pure individual. It is apparent that the authors of the Book of Mormon had no understanding of the horror of leprosy. This is particularly true in the context of Numbers 12:10.

:tiphat:Well done sir!:clapping: I’ll be interested to see what the response is to this one…

 

[Jerusha]

It will be very interesting. Will take a while for them to digest, and maybe me to write up the results with more clarity.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It is almost as if white skin became the garment of the pure individual.

Good insight that brings clarity.

 

[ParkerD]

I am finished with the little word study. The results are VERY interesting.

… In III Nephi 19: 25 and 30 the resurrected Jesus “heals” Natives of a dark skin-color. In the racist context of the entire book, this is not figurative. It firmly links the color of a person’s skin with the condition of one’s soul. …

Jerusha,
What that statement and conclusion shows is that you don’t know the Book of Mormon well enough to understand what is going on in 3 Nephi chapters 11-20, or the symbolism of the word “white”.

The entire chapter of 3 Nephi 19 is talking about the “people of Nephi” who had been spared from the destruction that occurred at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem, on the other side of the world. A person can find that out by reading 3 Nephi 11:1. From among those spared, there were twelve “disciples” called who became the leaders of the church through being ordained and being instructed by Christ. Among those twelve disciples were “Nephi” and his brother Timothy and Nephi’s son “Jonas” (see 3 Nephi 19:4). Those twelve disciples are the people being described in 3 Nephi 19:17-30, so their skin had already been “white” for their entire life since they were Nephites by birth and by ancestral heritage. Verse 25 talks about “countenance”, and the words “nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof” can be linked (to understand that phrase) to 1 Nephi 8:11 and 1 Nephi 11:8 where the tree of life and its fruit are described using the word “whiteness” “to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever before seen” (Lehi speaking).

But I should give up. A person looking for reasons to criticize, even when they don’t know the subject they are criticizing, will find what they look to find whether it is a correct conclusion or not.

 

[Jerusha]

At that point in the book, with the conversion of many of the Lamanite people, there was a lot of mixing going on. The racial lines had broken down, and a good part of the people who were “Nephite” also had “Lamanite” ancestry. There was still a social stigma on dark skin. You are the one who is not familiar with its context in the whole book, and the one who is reading it as you learned to read it from childhood.

 

[ParkerD]

At that point in the book, with the conversion of many of the Lamanite people, there was a lot of mixing going on. The racial lines had broken down, and a good part of the people who were “Nephite” also had “Lamanite” ancestry. There was still a social stigma on dark skin. You are the one who is not familiar with its context in the whole book, and the one who is reading it as you learned to read it from childhood.

Jerusha,

I’ve read the Book of Mormon over forty times during the course of my life, including several times during the past five years.

There is not a single passage in the Book of Mormon that would demonstrate (other than a person’s conjecture who is reading a passage and makes an assumption using their own personal biases) that the Nephites had a “social stigma” against the Lamanites due to skin color. The original ancestors had been told that the skin color would be a “mark” or a “sign” of the loss of the Holy Ghost and thus having been “shut out from the presence of the Lord”, but the book also tells several times that the Lamanites were “more righteous” in some respects than the Nephites. At various points in time, they had commerce among the Lamanites and Nephites when they were not in conditions of war. At a later point in time, the Nephites also welcomed an entire large group of “Lamanites” to live nearby and receive the protection of their armies because that Lamanite group had covenanted to not use weapons of war any more during their life and they were being attacked openly by other Lamanites.

The assumption you have made about a “social stigma” is simply not in the Book of Mormon.

A yearning wish of peace to all readers.

 

[TexanKnight]

Jerusha,

I’ve read the Book of Mormon over forty times during the course of my life, including several times during the past five years.

There is not a single passage in the Book of Mormon that would demonstrate (other than a person’s conjecture who is reading a passage and makes an assumption using their own personal biases) that the Nephites had a “social stigma” against the Lamanites due to skin color. The original ancestors had been told that the skin color would be a “mark” or a “sign” of the loss of the Holy Ghost and thus having been “shut out from the presence of the Lord”, but the book also tells several times that the Lamanites were “more righteous” in some respects than the Nephites. At various points in time, they had commerce among the Lamanites and Nephites when they were not in conditions of war. At a later point in time, the Nephites also welcomed an entire large group of “Lamanites” to live nearby and receive the protection of their armies because that Lamanite group had covenanted to not use weapons of war any more during their life and they were being attacked openly by other Lamanites.

The assumption you have made about a “social stigma” is simply not in the Book of Mormon.

A yearning wish of peace to all readers.

Brother Parker, you are simply misleading people. I understand you feel the need to “white” wash the Book of Mormon and the racist teachings of your “prophets”. Your problem here is that many of us have read the Book of Mormon numerous times. We KNOW the truth. And it is, in a nutshell, the changing of “white” to “pure” when it was clear that, contrary to yet another failed Joseph prophesy, blacks did not become white.

Heck, if it was not for college sports, black might STILL not be able to hold the Priesthood

 

[Jerusha]

that Lamanite group had covenanted to not use weapons of war any more during their life and they were being attacked openly by other Lamanites.

And we see a group of Nephites living among Lamanites, who groused exceedingly about their loss of liberties. Yet the restrictions on the Ammonites were considered to be just. Who would willingly give up their right of self-defense? Not many. Don’t you see the double standard?

Many Natives saw conversion to Christianity as a form of slavery. It was one compelling reason to not convert. In fact, that concern still exists today.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The original ancestors had been told that the skin color would be a “mark” or a “sign” of the loss of the Holy Ghost and thus having been “shut out from the presence of the Lord”,

You don’t think that what you wrote stigmatizes people?

Skin color is not a mark that signifies a curse. Neither is eye color, hair color or height. It signifies a fact that more melanin is present in the person’s skin. White skin signifies there is less melanin.

I learned this in third grade. It didn’t mesh well with what Mormon primary was teaching me…the beginning of seeing thought the lies. Skin color being a mark that signifies God’s abandonment of a person or people is a lie. I recommend that all Mormons stop believing it.

 

[theidler]

Jerusha,

I’ve read the Book of Mormon over forty times during the course of my life, including several times during the past five years.

There is not a single passage in the Book of Mormon that would demonstrate (other than a person’s conjecture who is reading a passage and makes an assumption using their own personal biases) that the Nephites had a “social stigma” against the Lamanites due to skin color. The original ancestors had been told that the skin color would be a “mark” or a “sign” of the loss of the Holy Ghost and thus having been “shut out from the presence of the Lord”, but the book also tells several times that the Lamanites were “more righteous” in some respects than the Nephites. At various points in time, they had commerce among the Lamanites and Nephites when they were not in conditions of war. At a later point in time, the Nephites also welcomed an entire large group of “Lamanites” to live nearby and receive the protection of their armies because that Lamanite group had covenanted to not use weapons of war any more during their life and they were being attacked openly by other Lamanites.

The assumption you have made about a “social stigma” is simply not in the Book of Mormon.

A yearning wish of peace to all readers.

I see a contradiction here Parker - it seems to me you’ve denied the racist content of the Book of Mormon, but now you’re saying too that “The original ancestors had been told that the skin color would be a “mark” or a “sign” of the loss of the Holy Ghost and thus having been “shut out from the presence of the Lord””…so you have admitted then that it is referring to skin color. Skin color is the mark - we, I think, are stating here that this is rooted in the racism of the times.
Compare the teachings of Brigham Young to all of this - where did all of his racist comments and teachings come from? Thin air? They were obviously linked to the movement itself. I am tired of Mormons sort of disavowing Brigham Young - for pete’s sake, there is a university named after him, and he was only overshadowed in the movement by Joseph Smith himself.
You see Parker, we’re not looking at the Book of Mormon as Scripture, we’re looking at it from an historical perspective here. Mormonism has all the hallmarks of the time and place it grew out of - amero-centrism, inherent racism (remember, the Mormons were quite racist in the beginning, as were many folk at that time to be honest), and the like. Restorationism and new “gospels” were all the rage at this point, and somewhat pre-figured in the case of Emanuel Swedenborg. But we also have figures like John Thomas, Ellen G. White, Charles Taze Russell, Mary Baker Eddy…all in the same time period.

 

[evanfaust]

This is basically how Catholics define what is referred to as the Gospel(s) that appears in the Holy Bible. There are four books from four different authors POV, but together they are all considered to be one Gospel.

Telstar…If you acknowledge that the four books are the “Gospel”, then we are getting close to an agreement, because the rest of the Bible are also part of the “good news”, but they are all appendages to the central mission of Christ.

What I am trying to say is that you also seem to agree that the Four books contais what is called "
Gospel", which outlines the central mission of Christ, which is that he atoned and died for our sins…and because of that we can accept Christ, believe in his message, take upon us his name, be baptized and receive the Holly Ghost. If you squeeze the entire Bible…you will get Christ, his atonement and the salvation of mankind.

For this reason we Mormons say that the Bible contains the fullness of the Gospel and also the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the Gospel.

Does the “Four Books” of the Bible contain the fulness of the Gospel? Yes!

Similarly I ask…Does the Book of Mormon contain the fullness of the gospel? Yes, it does?
Does it contain everything God has revelead to men on the earth? No!

Does the fullness of the gospel in the Bible differ from the fullness of the Gospel in the Book of Mormon? No…because it came from the same source, which is GOD!

Does the Bible contains everything God has revealed to mean on the earth? No! If men cannot even agree on what books should be part of the cannon, why should we be suprised that many people do not accept the Book of Mormon?

 

[evanfaust]

Hi. Dark skin color is not a mark signifying a cursed people. To believe it is, as you obviously do, is racist. I’m kind of floored, really. I think I prefer ParkerD’s approach, that at least is founded on a desire to explain away the institutional racism of Mormonism, rather than twisting the Bible to support it.

I don’t think I differ from ParkerD. If you carefully read what I posed, we are in agreement.

When we get close to God and keep His commandments we irradiate a certain light and we look “pure and delightsome” when people look at our countenance.

God is associated with “purity”, “whiteness”. When angels appear they irradiate light and their countenance irradiate “purity” and “whiteness”.

The devil is associated with darkness, which is the opposite of light. When a person follows the devil it does not look pleasant, but it looks dark, which does not necessarily mean that the person’s ethinicity is black or white or dark.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t think I differ from ParkerD. If you carefully read what I posed, we are in agreement.

When we get close to God and keep His commandments we irradiate a certain light and we look “pure and delightsome” when people look at our countenance.

God is associated with “purity”, “whiteness”. When angels appear they irradiate light and their countenance irradiate “purity” and “whiteness”.

The devil is associated with darkness, which is the opposite of light. When a person follows the devil it does not look pleasant, but it looks dark, which does not necessarily mean that the person’s ethinicity is black or white or dark.

You both claim dark skin is a mark of a curse, which isn’t figurative. Though I haven’t seen ParkerD say this until you posted, so he must be influenced by you.

Not exactly sure why but it reminds me of an old joke. How do you keep a Mormn friend from drinking all the beer at your party? Invite two Mormon friends.

 

[evanfaust]

I am finished with the little word study. The results are VERY interesting.

Again, in the Book of Mormon, particularly in Alma 3:6-9, we see a contrast between a Jewish Origins theory which honors Natives as being somehow akin to Jews, and therefore fully human, with a racist and anti-Semitic one. I Nephi 12:23, II Nephi 5:21-25, II Nephi 30:6, Enos 20, Jarom 6, Mosiah 9:12, Mosiah 10:12-17, Mosiah 11:6, Mosiah 22:6, Alma 3: 6-10, 14-17, Alma 17: 14-15, 25, Alma 22:28, Alma 23:18, Alma 24:18, Alma 30: 25, Alma 43:45, Alma 55:14, 30, Helaman 15:4, III Nephi 2: 14-16, and Mormon 5:15-17 are all racist. In III Nephi 19: 25 and 30 the resurrected Jesus “heals” Natives of a dark skin-color. In the racist context of the entire book, this is not figurative. It firmly links the color of a person’s skin with the condition of one’s soul.
To further prove this, I conducted a word-study on the word “white.” In the Bible (DRV), the word “white” is used in 65 sentences. Of these, 34% of the usages, primarily in the New Testament, are about the wearing of white clothing, symbolizing purity of the individual’s soul. Primarily in Leviticus, we see many references to negatively evaluated white skin, in the context of leprosy. Bad white skin throughout the Bible, occurs in 31% of the sentences in which the word “white” appears. White skin, evaluated positively, occurs 9% of the time. If we correct for the presence of leprosy in the Bible, white skin, evaluated positively in the Bible, still occurs only 20% of the time. It is almost as if the white garments of the New Testament were symbolic of the effects suffering can have upon the souls of lepers. This is particularly seen in the stories of Naaman and Job.
There are 28 sentences in the Book of Mormon in which the word “white” occurs. Of these, 43% of the usages are about the wearing of white clothing, which symbolizes the purity of the individual. There are no sentences in which white skin is evaluated negatively. In one, which is a paraphrase from the New Testament, it is evaluated indifferently. White skin, evaluated positively, occurs 36% of the time. It is almost as if white skin became the garment of the pure individual. It is apparent that the authors of the Book of Mormon had no understanding of the horror of leprosy. This is particularly true in the context of Numbers 12:10.

Jerusha,

I will post here an study about the same subject. It is long, but i think it is worth posting it here in its entirety.

2 Nephi 30:6. White or Pure?

How can one justify the change of the wording “white and delightsome” in 2 Nephi 30:6 to “pure and delightsome”? The change in the 1981 edition seems to be an attempt to bring the Book of Mormon up to speed with the 1978 revelation that allowed black members of the Church to hold the priesthood.

When the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a new edition of the Book of Mormon in 1981, a change was made to the text of 2 Nephi 30:6. The 1830 and most earlier editions said that the descendants of Lehi would become “a white and delightsome people.” The new edition reads “pure and delightsome.” This change was first made in the 1840 Nauvoo edition of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith, but later editions did not rely on that one, so the change was not reflected for more than a century, until it was restored to the 1981 edition.

Some objected to the change, believing that the context requires the word “white” because it refers to skin color. It is true that skin color is meant in some Book of Mormon passages, but this is not true throughout the text. Nephite wrote that the Lamanites received a darker skin to make them repulsive to the Nephites so they would not mingle with the Lamanites and partake of their iniquity. “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” (2 Nephi 5:21). Later, we read that because of their repentance, “their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites” (3 Nephi 2:15).

Two other passages may be using the term “white” to denote skin color. One is Nephi’s description of the gentiles who would come to the New world, who “were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain” (1 Nephi 13:15). The other is Nephi’s description of Christ’s mother as “exceedingly fair and white” (1 Nephi 11:13), a description that matches that of the fruit of the tree of life that Nephi and his father saw in vision, which was “white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen” (1 Nephi 8:11).

Other passages use similar or identical terminology in a context that does not denote skin color. Thus, speaking of the Jews, Nephi wrote that “as many as shall believe in Christ shall also become a delightsome people” (2 Nephi 30:7). Since Jews already have white skin, it is hard to believe that this passage refers to skin color. Note also Words of Mormon 1:8, “And my prayer to God is concerning my brethren, that they may once again come to the knowledge of God, yea, the redemption of Christ; that they may once again be a delightsome people.”