NOM

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/01 ... ds-church/

The Mormon church is saying that it was an error that they printed in the CFM manuals that the curse of black skin was a literal curse of black skin, even though that's what the Book of Mormon directly says. It's also what Joseph Smith's revelations say as they identify the "Lamanites" by the color of their skin.

This is some awful gaslighting even for them - to tell us what we're reading in the Book of Mormon isn't actually what they meant is just embarrassing.

"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, that 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."

It really shows that their disavowal of these very racist doctrines is only a very thin veneer.

This one is SOOOO egregious that I am almost forced to bring it up with my TBM family. They are force-feeding the gaslighting now.

Umm, ok Russ & co., I will listen for a minute. If the black skin isn’t really black skin, and fair or light skin isn’t really light skin, and a curse of black skin really isn’t a curse, then:
what. EXACTLY. is. it?

Yobispo wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:18 pm

This one is SOOOO egregious that I am almost forced to bring it up with my TBM family. They are force-feeding the gaslighting now.

I want to bring this up SO badly with my wife, but she takes everything I say as a personal attack and it's not worth it.

This just feels worse than the normal gaslighting. I did a write-up this week about their "now you know" video on Joseph and freemasonry and also about Eyring's latest attacks on doubts at BYU-I, but this feels like a whole new level of gaslighting to the members.

It's just so wrong.

So are they apologizing because the Book of Mormon is wrong, or for the church's racist beliefs, or for the fact that their editors accidentally exposed actual doctrine that they're trying to keep on the down-low?

I'm not sure they're apologizing...

I saw an interesting theory on reddit. The church found the error in the printed manuals but still sent them out. Then it changed the online manual. This was the older members, who are more likely to use the printed manual, get to see the same doctrine they have always known. The younger members, who are more likely to use the online manual, don't see the offensive doctrine. I would not put it past the COB minds to purposely go down this path.

To me, this means the editors don’t even know about the essays and that the doctrine has changed. There is much discrepancy of knowledge in the church.

Just thinkin'....

The church is so thorough in proofreading it's publications, I'm wondering if this isn't a hatchet job from within where someone at the last moment, just before they went to press, made this change in the text in order to embarrass the church. Forcing the old doctrine into the light.

That's something they would want to keep on the down-low for sure because it means they have intrigue within the belly of the beast that can't be controlled.

blazerb wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:28 pm

I saw an interesting theory on reddit. The church found the error in the printed manuals but still sent them out. Then it changed the online manual. This was the older members, who are more likely to use the printed manual, get to see the same doctrine they have always known. The younger members, who are more likely to use the online manual, don't see the offensive doctrine. I would not put it past the COB minds to purposely go down this path.

That's giving the Church credit for a lot more savviness than I've ever seen them display. I've seen them mess up only to respond and handle it even more poorly. I can't think of a time I've seen them do something that slick. (Although, admittedly, this one isn't really turning out all that well I would say.)

Palerider wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:57 pm

Just thinkin'....

The church is so thorough in proofreading it's publications, I'm wondering if this isn't a hatchet job from within where someone at the last moment, just before they went to press, made this change in the text in order to embarrass the church. Forcing the old doctrine into the light.

That's something they would want to keep on the down-low for sure because it means they have intrigue within the belly of the beast that can't be controlled.

I'm not big into conspiracy, but you are correct that these are heavily correlated and proofread materials so it's almost unthinkable that it got through without anyone catching that.

And I saw the idea that maybe the print was left for the older people and the digital was changed so the youth would have no idea what the church taught, but that's definitely a calculated risk given that someone was going to notice and blow it up to a bigger issue than it would've been had they just been honest about the text of their own scriptures.

What a mess... I'm glad it's shining a spotlight on the racist thoughts of the author of the Book of Mormon though, and the God he claimed to speak for.

Palerider wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:57 pm

The church is so thorough in proofreading its publications, I'm wondering if this isn't a hatchet job from within where someone at the last moment, just before they went to press, made this change in the text in order to embarrass the church. Forcing the old doctrine into the light.

Old but unrepudiated doctrine. The Church needs to apologize for its past racial policy and let the members know in no uncertain terms that they were wrong. Maintaining a stiff-necked and unrepentant posture is no way to heal. Being too arrogant to say sorry does not mesh with the claim that they are servants of the Lord.

moksha wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 18, 2020 11:40 pm

Palerider wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:57 pm

The church is so thorough in proofreading its publications, I'm wondering if this isn't a hatchet job from within where someone at the last moment, just before they went to press, made this change in the text in order to embarrass the church. Forcing the old doctrine into the light.

Old but unrepudiated doctrine. The Church needs to apologize for its past racial policy and let the members know in no uncertain terms that they were wrong. Maintaining a stiff-necked and unrepentant posture is no way to heal. Being too arrogant to say sorry does not mesh with the claim that they are servants of the Lord.

The article mentioned that the doctrine had been "denounced" but I wasn't too sure of that.

To openly and cleanly apologize would mean naming names and that means that "someone", some past prophet, led the church astray for quite awhile. And then later prophets just bobbleheaded along with the mistake. That means everyone up until Kimball was guilty. What a can of worms!

Nope. Can't have that! Just bury it and hope it doesn't stink too badly.

To me the really interesting part of this is that you now have church leadership openly saying that part of the Book of Mormon isn't true. That it doesn't actually mean what is there in plain text.

So if we can't trust what the Book of Mormon says, then what other parts are inaccurate? Perhaps Nephi wasn't really following the commandments of God when he murdered Laban. I mean I know the Book says he was, but we can't really trust the Book, can we? Maybe Jesus didn't really appear in the New World, it was just allegorical after all.

For a religion that insists it is either all true or it is nothing, this is a dangerous tightrope to try to walk.

-lost

lostinmiddlemormonism wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 19, 2020 7:27 am

To me the really interesting part of this is that you now have church leadership openly saying that part of the Book of Mormon isn't true. That it doesn't actually mean what is there in plain text.

But that's just business as usual these days. It doesn't meant the book isn't true, just like the fact that Joseph couldn't read Egyptian on papyri that didn't have the story of Abraham is any impediment to claiming that he translated the BoA from the papyri. I think the church denounces the interpretation of "curse of black skin" as meaning that someone was cursed by having their skin turned black. A truly spiritually tuned person will certainly recognize that this really means the same as "their hearts were hardened." You know, poetic license.

Book of Mormon racism is like the dog poop that gets on my lawn from time to time. If I don't remove it it's just going to keep stinking, and every so often somebody's going to step in it.

moksha wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 18, 2020 11:40 pm

Palerider wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:57 pm

The church is so thorough in proofreading its publications, I'm wondering if this isn't a hatchet job from within where someone at the last moment, just before they went to press, made this change in the text in order to embarrass the church. Forcing the old doctrine into the light.

Old but unrepudiated doctrine. The Church needs to apologize for its past racial policy and let the members know in no uncertain terms that they were wrong. Maintaining a stiff-necked and unrepentant posture is no way to heal. Being too arrogant to say sorry does not mesh with the claim that they are servants of the Lord.

This. If they would just make a big public announcement that we are sorry for early doctrine that got into the church because it was started at a time when many people including early church leaders, and that it was false doctrine when Nephi wrote it down and it was false doctrine when Joseph Smith translated it. It was false doctrine when Brigham Young made doctrine that kept blacks out of temples and kept priesthood from them. But by not stating that it was wrong and not what God wanted, they allow people to keep believing it and when people keep believing it, you get BYU professor Randy Botts teaching it and you get idiot writers who include it in new curriculum and idiot editors who still believe it that let it pass. You get people on discussion blogs who insist it WAS what God wanted because blacks were really fence sitter in the preexistence but that now all those who were fence sitters have been born, so God changed the policy. The church thinks it can repent but wants to get out of most of the steps to true repentance. Think about what the church taught you in primary. There are specific steps and one of them is to confess to the person you hurt. Not just to God and your bishop, but the person you harmed. Then you have to try to do what ever restitution you can do. In the church’s case that would be actively teaching that the old doctrine was wrong and actively teaching why it was changed. You don’t just quietly change what happens and pretend it never did happen. Denying that your mistake happened is denying you ever did wrong, which is exactly what the church is doing. They are denying they ever did wrong. Which is not repentance and it mucks up changing. It mucks up changing which is exactly what you see happening. The church tried to change direction and only told one foot which way they were walking and now can’t figure out why they are tripping over their own feet.

alas wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 19, 2020 10:00 am

You get people on discussion blogs who insist it WAS what God wanted because blacks were really fence sitter in the preexistence but that now all those who were fence sitters have been born, so God changed the policy.

I was shocked when I found out last year that my brother in law actually believes that blacks, handicapped people, etc were less valiant in the preexistence.

I did not think that was a real think in the year 2019... but it is... and I can never unsee that post from my BIL (who doesn't know I saw it).

The manuals “should have been shredded when this egregious error was found prior to international distribution,” said Jerri Harwell, associate professor in Salt Lake Community College’s English, linguistics and writing studies department. “The money that would have been lost on this is nothing compared to one day’s interest on $100 billion in [the church’s] reserves.”

While you are at it, you should have shredded the entire BOM when they changed it's actual content on the "White and delight some" scripture!

The paint on the floor of this church, that surrounds its corner of history and dogma, doesn't seem to be dry enough to walk on anytime soon. More popcorn please!