Stephen168
New member
THE TWELVE may have been Apostles but they are uniquely The Twelve. There is no “original twelve.” There is the one and only, eternally, TWELVE.
- Status
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I agree. Even as a child I found it offensive. Everyone I knew, and living in Utah back then I only knew Mormons, found it normal. Smiling and teaching kindness but with parallel current of ugliness and lies. Believed and taught with a smile and let this be a lesson learned. Don’t anger God because he does have the option of cursing you with dark skin.
I don’t know how any Mormon in good conscious can defend this. But they do try.
T
Tarquin
Guest
This is strange.
I, too, have “Native” (Amerindian) heritage, a direct maternal line. Yet I have never taken personal offense at any religious teaching, or philosophical position, which places either my ancestry or my race, my nation or my language in inferior position or moral disrepute. Beliee as you will. “It’s a free country.” (Though much less free than it could once boast.) I was taught very early in life, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.” Of course there are exceptions, some sticks and stones do not and cannot break bones. The maxim holds true generally.
There are many areas of society - the military, some sports, martial arts, construction, transportation and roads - where all sorts of words are used. It’s better to train oneself to get used to it and accept it for what it is - one language register out of many - one social context of many - and not take differences in language registers so personally.
I, too, have “Native” (Amerindian) heritage, a direct maternal line. Yet I have never taken personal offense at any religious teaching, or philosophical position, which places either my ancestry or my race, my nation or my language in inferior position or moral disrepute. Beliee as you will. “It’s a free country.” (Though much less free than it could once boast.) I was taught very early in life, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.” Of course there are exceptions, some sticks and stones do not and cannot break bones. The maxim holds true generally.
There are many areas of society - the military, some sports, martial arts, construction, transportation and roads - where all sorts of words are used. It’s better to train oneself to get used to it and accept it for what it is - one language register out of many - one social context of many - and not take differences in language registers so personally.
E
eddie_too
Guest
True_Faith 13,
one thing that i believe is a real difference between RCs and LDS concerns divine revelation.
RCs believe that divine revelation was complete with the death of the last of the twelve apostles selected by Jesus Christ. while growth in human knowledge, understanding and wisdom about divine revelation could be experienced, there is nothing new, nothing to be added to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the twelve apostles that God wants to reveal to mankind.
the LDS believes that it still can receive divine revelation. they believe that there could be and has been new divine revelations since the death of the last of the twelve apostles. i am not certain but i believe the LDS would say that the book of mormon is an example of new revelation. i believe that the LDS also has experienced changes in teachings through subsequent revelations.
one thing that i believe is a real difference between RCs and LDS concerns divine revelation.
RCs believe that divine revelation was complete with the death of the last of the twelve apostles selected by Jesus Christ. while growth in human knowledge, understanding and wisdom about divine revelation could be experienced, there is nothing new, nothing to be added to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the twelve apostles that God wants to reveal to mankind.
the LDS believes that it still can receive divine revelation. they believe that there could be and has been new divine revelations since the death of the last of the twelve apostles. i am not certain but i believe the LDS would say that the book of mormon is an example of new revelation. i believe that the LDS also has experienced changes in teachings through subsequent revelations.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
If you are going to convince people your religion is true do you really want to teach that they are cursed by God? I take offense at it because it’s well offensive. Just because it is not my belief does not mean that I shouldn’t have a problem with it I’m more offended by the fact that you’re not offended.
J
jane_doe
Guest
That sounds lie a horrible idea! I’d much rather just teach the truth. Like the fact that Mormons don’t believe Native Americans are cursed by God.
T
Tarquin
Guest
If my religion taught that some category of people were cursed by God, and I were teaching people my religion, I would have two choices - teach them some people are cursed by God; or hide the fact. Whether people are offended by truth doesn’t change truth. If I am mistaken, and they are not really cursed by God, then I am only mistaken in the teaching, not in my personal feelings which might be in conflict with those teachings.
“I take offense at it because it’s well offensive” is tautological. If it is truth, it doesn’t matter whether it is offensive or not. Adulterers take offense when they are pointed out and warned of the negative spiritual consequences - at least many used to so take offense. Offended or not, they were (and are) damaging their spirits as well as their relationships.
You are offended that I am not offended!? I am offended that my non-offensive stance is found to be offending you without understanding my concept of and the inoffensive differences between intentionally objective offensiveness and truth-based subjective offensives.
If you go through life being “offended” when others are not “offended” by something you think should “offend” them, you won’t have time to take care of life’s genuine problems.
T
Tarquin
Guest
I have no problem with that teaching. I do have a problem with the inconsistency and contradiction between Mormons saying the truth is (they believe) that Native Americans are not cursed by God, *and *they believe the Book of Mormon teaches truth; while at the same time the Book of Mormon teaches that Native Americans are cursed by God
- you know we are talking about “Lamanties” when we say “Native Americans”. Whether they are “spread across the land” or in a “limited geography”, is little more than word-playing. The fact is that some category of people - “Native Americans”, “Indians,” “Lamanites” or whoever, according to the Book of Mormon, are cursed by God. So would you agree that “Native Americans” - or some people inaccurately described as “Native Americans” are cursed by God?? Or do you agree that the Book of Mormon is giving a false report when it says that “Native Americans” - or “Lamanites” or some people inaccurately described as “Lamanites” - are cursed by God??
J
jane_doe
Guest
Fact: there is NO statement in the Book of Mormon that Native Americans are cursed by God.
Fact: it is true that two men and their immediate families had their skin darkened for their sins.
Fact: this does not say anything about their descendent being cursed or automatically wicked. In fact, the Book of Mormon condemns the idea that a person is punished for another’s sins.
Fact: There are also plenty of times that the descendent of these 2 families were VERY righteous, loved, God, praised, and called to minister to the other peoples.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I am surprised. Not about being offended or not, but that you are claiming truth is so fluid.
Is the color of one’s skin determined by a people’s standing with God. Are morally “dark” people dark skinned? Is this the truth?
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
What a whitewash, one that is easy to go along with when history is of no importance.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
T
Truth_Faith13
Guest
I think the problem is (at least for me personally with what I know about LDS history) so many of the former leaders of the church did teach that native Americans are cursed. I think it was Kimball who said a girl on the replacement programme was a good few shades lighter than others. They also taught that this was the word of God.
I know leaders now (and members) do not believe this to be the case but I personally am struggling to reconcile the two. The Book of Mormon was even changed from light and delightsome to pure and delightsome to try and recover from the once racist leaders.
H
Horton
Guest
Unfortunately this is just one example of change in doctrine within the LDS.
One of the things that I find very comforting within the Catholic Church is doctrine does not change. Practice of doctrine has been adjusted over the years such as the results of Vatican II council and other councils but the doctrine never changes.
J
jane_doe
Guest
Correction here: no such things were not taught as the word of God. They were never scripture. They were never infallibly declared. They were never even part of an official declaration from the 12. They were things said by fallible individuals in their time. That makes a huge difference.
H
Horton
Guest
Even though the LDS have ZERO infallible teachings? So JS made fallible claims when he wrote the BoM?
.
So now you are claiming the BoM is NOT scripture? I thought the basis of the LDS was the additional “scripture” of the BoM. But you are claiming it’s not or that it’s words are not the word of God?
J
jane_doe
Guest
Incorrect all around.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
The BoM Alma quote does say they were cursed with dark skin.
C
CarolNoel
Guest
Ok Jane. Which way is it??
J
jane_doe
Guest
As I said, Horton is incorrect in her assumptions here. This is understandable, as she (to my knowledge) has not actually read the Book of Mormon and is pulling the verse out of context without understanding. Let’s clarify the pronouns out to clear up the things–
6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon [the fathers] because of [the fathers’] transgression and [the fathers’] rebellion against [the father’s] brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.
Nothing to do with the generation at that time or present day being cursed or anything like that. It simply a history recap of a few families in 600 BC.
- Status