I was taught that the Donatists said that a sacrement is invalid if the person giving it is a heretic. Like say, someone is baptised by someone, who it turns out, isn’t really very sincere in his or her own beliefs. Or something like that. It’s been a while since that class.
Just popped in to tell ya’ll that when we got home from my Aunt’s funeral this afternoon, Shae was in bad shape. She passed away a couple hours later.
Even though I can be comforted by the knowledge that we’ll be together again with our loved ones, I’m to upset to think clearly. I’ve been trying to read the posts and I can’t focus/concentrate enough to follow one sentance after another. I keep rereading the same sentence and still don’t know what it’s said.
Give me a little while and I’ll be back to answer your questions.
Kathy
Sheesh! Take all the time you need.
I’ve seen it! We have a friend who’s a big Porter Rockwell buff (the James Coburn character) so he made us watch it. The details are hazy but I remember there were a few things that just didn’t sit right. It didn’t come across as particularly pro- or anti-Mormon, but it did feel like it was made by somebody who didn’t quite get the Mormon mindset.
I remember looking through a Book of Mormon and remember distinctly of a picture of Mayan city during the time of their glory, inhabited by completely caucasian people (light skin, full beards, tall, etc). Since I live in Guatemala I have a pretty good idea of what a pure blooded native central american looks like, and they do not look like that.
Since I don’t know many Mormons, I asked a person who had a vague interest in LDSs, and his explanation was somewhat surprising. He said that LDSs believe that native americans have been exposed to God because they are one of the lost tribes of Israel, and at one point looked very caucasian. But some time later Satan corrupted them, so they began to lose facial hair, got shorter, and became darker skinned. That brought on another point. He mentioned that Mormons believed that the skin tone of a group of people reflected their proximity to God. In fact, only white people can reach the highest point in heaven.
Admittedly, the guy I asked has a really strong tendency to exaggerate and simply pull things out of his ass so I simply left it as an “i don’t know”. But is any of the things mentioned in this post true?
(I hope i didn’t offend any Mormons because I really have no clue about Mormonism other than they don’t cuss, drink, or smoke)
non-native: wow, that’s pretty far out there.
First the paintings. Are any of these the painting you’re thinking of? How about this one? It is common for paintings to be polluted with present-day culture. I think a lot of early Mormon paintings about the Book of Mormon have that problem. Additionally, there is a tendency in some circles to latch onto anything in anthropology that appears to validate the Book of Mormon and declare it as proof that the BoM is a historical document. Hence, some people have associated the Mayans with BoM cultures. Arnold Friberg was the first person to be commissioned to paint for the BoM. He chose to paint big stone temples, etc. and most artists have followed his style since then. (Point of trivia: he also seems to paint everyone with massive muscles–see this painting for instance in which the boy on the boat looks like he could snap me like a twig. It turns out he painted a number of pictures of football, and pretty much painted everyone as hugely muscular after that. He also worked on the movie art for “The Ten Commandments.” See here for more.)
Your guess about your friend was right. 
However, the “folk doctrine” that I mentioned earlier in the thread is not entirely dissimilar from what he said. And there is more folk doctrine that is the basis for what he said, but nothing official.
Nephi writes of a curse on the Lamanites because of their wickedness, which includes a dark skin. Furthermore about 600 years later the curse was lifted, and their skin became “white like unto the Nephites.”
Now, if this were all that was written, I can see where your friend might get that idea. However, Jacob (brother of Nephi) warned of the danger of judging the Lamanites harshly because of the color of their skins. In fact, he used that symbolism against those who believed it by saying “I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.” (In otherwords, your “whiteness”–purity–before God is in your character, not your skin.)
Additionally, Alma wrote about a group called “Amlicites” who were renegades from the believers, and joined with the Lamanites. Their skin didn’t suddenly change color, but they did mark themselves with a mark of separation. Alma even mentions in that same chapter that at the time, the term “Nephite” became used as meaning anyone who was a believer. Hence the Nephite/Lamanite labels came to represent idealogical groups, rather than ethnic ones.
There has been a lot of discussion as to what “white” means in the scriptures I cited. For one thing, Nephite skin color was certainly different than our idea of white today. For another, the term is often used to symbolize spiritual purity (as it is in other literature).
I think that much of the folk doctrine (in general–not just in this case) arises from “sign seekers”–people who want to see a miracle to prove their faith. That plus the discomfort that some people have in not all the answers causes them to make them up when they don’t have them (and often, this speculation is spectacularly wrong). The idea that someone’s being converted would lead to a change of skin color would seem to fit that. But anyone not in a homogeneous culture would immediately see how false the idea is. Hence I suspect in rural or historical Utah, an idea like that could take hold for a while. But once you spent any time as a missionary (say, among Central Americans or any other wonderful church members with dark skins) you’d have to discard the idea as clearly wrong.
Thanks for the exhaustive post, emarkp, you covered most of what I wanted to say. My take on the whole “skin color = righteousness” thing is a bit different, however. I’m not a big fan of postmodern literary theory in general, but one thing I do like about it is the tool of criticizing textual authority: who’s writing a text, what’s their agenda, and how are these issues reflected in the text?
Just because I might accept Nephi (an author and figure in the Book of Mormon) as an inspired figure doesn’t mean that 1) he was perfect and 2) that everything he wrote was perfect, or inspired by God. As such, I’ve concluded that Nephi was a racist; I’m too lazy to look up cites now, but when he discusses the skin color issue, his language is extremely perjorative, and he takes pains to stress how lazy and disgusting the dark skinned people are. This is not necessary to the message of the book, and seems a bit tangential–it’s especially interesting in light of later portions of the text where other authors and figures criticize people for racist beliefs and hypocrisy.
I also believe that there were existing populations of native people in the Americas before the “Book of Mormon” population arrived. There’s some suggestions in the text that this was so, and anyway, it’s a lot easier to believe that the Book of Mormon Christian/Hebrew population was a religious and ethnic minority in the Americas rather than an entire nation. Anyway, let’s assume for the moment that this is true, as well as my assumptions in the prior paragraph.
Now, we have a racist author who represents a small Hebrew/Christian minority, and his estranged brothers distance themselves ideologically and geographically by living with a dark skinned “heathen” population. This author uses the same rhetoric to describe the situation as later 19th and 20th century American racists would use to describe White people who were sympathetic to or close to black people: “They turned black through their association with non-white races.” Conversely, when racist authors such as these encounter a black/dark skinned population more in line with their own beliefs, they are known to exclaim, “It’s like they’re becoming white!” Not literally true in any sense, but a rhetorical device.
Couple this with literal intermarriage that may have occurred between ethnic populations, and you have my explanation for people “turning dark” or “turning white.” Besides, understanding prophets as imperfect people is a handy tool for interpreting modern Mormon history in addition to scripture.
This is the most fascinating thread I have ever read on SDMB!!!
This really is an amazingly informative thread!
I have what is probably a really annoying question to some LDS members, but anyhoo:
I’ve read that Joseph Smith returned the gold platters to the angel when whe was done with them. Why? I mean, this guy had absolute, incontrovertible proof that God sent him a message for the world. Somebody doubts you, show them the platters!
Obviously some people wouldn’t buy Jesus himself coming and having a chat with them, but if there was some cool artifact straight from God that proved “This is it.” I don’t understand why Joseph would want to give it up.
Oh, and to save you some time, if your answer resides in the “it’s faith” category don’t bother to address this. That puts it back into the "The Bible is God’s word cuz it says so, and so is Mohammed’s word and Jim Jones’, cuz they said so too, etc. Physical, tangible prof = good, hemming and hawing evasions = bad.
I don’t want to sound like a jerk, but why did only Mr. Smith get to see the platters? Shouldn’t everyone be able to experience God’s word in person? It always sounded like an “Oracle of Delphi” sort of thing to me.
Joseph was not the only person to see and handle the plates. The opening pages of the Book of Mormon include the witness of 11 other men who were allowed to see the plates and verify for themselves the nature of them. None of those men ever recanted despite the fact a couple of them did not remain actively engaged in the Church.
Why return them? They were not meant to remain. A large portion of the plates was sealed and never viewed by Joseph. We look forward to a time when the information recorded in that sealed section is made available to us.
Keeping the plates on the Earth would have done nothing more to prove God’s existence or the truthfulness of what was translated from them than what the Book of Mormon itself does. It would have placed Joseph and others in harms way as greedy men sought to obtain the plates for the gold and nothing more. Why bother when the immediate function and need for the plates was fulfilled?
And in the end, whether you like the answer or not, FAITH has to be included in any discussion of why something happens the way it happens in terms of religion. If God desired everyone to know without a doubt that he exists, that he is the real deal, he could do any number of obvious and plain things to remove any and all doubt. What good would it do if it foiled his entire purpose for this creation? Faith is too much an integral part of the big plan for Him to want to remove it arbitrarily.
djxiii - LDS member since 1978. Canada Montreal Mission 84 - 86, divorced, current recommend holder, Sunday School Teacher (16-18), Stake Clerk (computers). I’ve enjoyed this thread immensely.
Ego_Mk2 the phrase commonly used is “golden plates.” Did The Platters ever go gold?
Joseph Smith gave the plates back to Moroni because he was commanded to. That was sufficient. Smith himself described the commandment thus:
Joseph Smith wasn’t the only one permitted to see the plates. He was permitted to show the plates to others, and their testimonies are printed at the beginning of the BoM. IMO, their testimonies are powerful and cannot be put aside lightly. Interestingly, some of the 11 witnesses later left the church (some came back years later, some died outside of the church) but not a single one denied their testimony.
Now, as to why he was commanded, we can speculate. There are a few obvious reasons: [ul] []The metal was valuable, and at the time, Smith and company had to hide the plates in various places to keep mobs from finding them. It was becoming increasingly difficult to protect them. []Part of the book was sealed, and we have yet to receive the translation of the sealed portion. We expect that at sometime (perhaps during Christ’s millenial reign) that portion will be translated. [*]Historically, God does not provide objective proof for believing in him–that would no longer be “believing”. If that were His modus operandi He could appear to us all and be done with it. [/ul] (Drat. On preview, I see djxiii beat me to it. Oh well, there’s room for two posts. )
djxiii welcome to the discussion.
I want to thank everyone who has been part of answering all the questions. When I started this thread I had no idea there would be so many qestions. I’m afraid that if I’d been the only one fielding questions, I’d still be back on the first page.
And, I want to thank all of you who are asking serious, thoughtful questions. You’ve all indicated a sincere interest in wanting to understand in our religion.
Although I agree with djxiii’s answer, Ego_Mk2 since you specificly asked for an answer that didn’t include “faith” as part of the answer, let me get my thoughts together and I’ll post a response in a few minutes.
Kathy
LOL double drat emarkp beat me.
I’m going to make room for 3 posts… I can do that can’t I?
go for it cadolphin. Out of the mouths of two or three witnesses…
What is it with the LDS “obsession” with geneaology. I know that the LDS have what is probably the largest geneaological library in the world. From what I’ve heard (and no doubt I’m in error – but hey that’s what this site is about) Mormons believe that someone could be “baptized” even after death and, as such, by researching names/family trees, they hope to be able to “baptize” these people after death. Is that true, and if not, how far off the mark am I?
I once went to a center here in New York to do some research on my family tree. They asked me to sign in. In a move that I’m not too proud of today, I signed in, but with a false name (since I didn’t want the list put away somewhere and find myself “baptized” 150 years from now). In the end, however, I walked out since I felt that I was, in effect, stealing the information from them (because I gave them a false name).
Zev Steinhardt
That’s pretty much it. Refer to my previous post about the Waiting Room…that is, anybody can accept the fullness of the Gospel after they die. In order to reach the highest kingdom of Heaven, one must fulfill all the covenants and ordinaces, among those are the baptism and temple work.
However, a person’s free agency is never, ever infringed on. Family members may baptize that person by proxy and perform the temple work for them, but in the afterlife you absolutely do not have to accept the work done.
I’ve got to track down this scripture, but it basically says that don’t be confident that you will simply accept God because you are there—dying is going to sleep in one world and waking up in the next. You don’t change at all.
And the Church policy, from what I understand since I’ve never actually done Baptism for the Dead (LOL, I was never temple worthy…) is that you can only baptize people in your family. I guess that makes things less confusing.
Ego_Mk2 every member of our Church is raised being taught “every member a missionary”. I’ve never seen myself as a missionary. To my knowledge no one has ever joined the church as a result of anything I’ve ever said or done.
When I was younger I felt a certain amount of guilt as a result, but since I’ve matured enough to understand that we are all individuals and don’t fit into some mold, I’m comfortable with my position.
I’ll answer anyone’s answers to the best of my ability but never with any pressure or expectation that they will convert. IF they did convert, I’d support them in that major change in their life as it is a tremendous change with lots of adjusting.
Why do I bring that up here? I meant to make it clear at the beginning of this thread but realized I had neglected to include it. Better late then never. I don’t want anyone to feel like they can’t ask a question without me judging them or making them feel any kind of pressure from me.
Since it’s extremely difficult to answer any question about ANY religion without including “faith” as part of the answer since faith is such an integral part of religion, this is going to be difficult, but since you asked that faith not be included in the answer, I’m going to attempt to answer you as best I can respecting your request.
As I understand the Oracle of Delphi, someone who felt themselves worthy would go through the oracle. At each step through, they would be asked a question or the journey would become more difficult. If they began to doubt themselves they would be struck down, as in killed, by the Oracle. Is that correct? If not, please educate me.
The golden plates were nothing like that. No one would be killed as a result of seeing them or doubting the validity of them.
Personally, if anyone came to me and told me they had proof that God existed or showed me something they claimed God had given to them, I’d have a couple of responses.
I’d think they were either trying to con me or that they were candidates for a Psych. Hospital. If I had seen the plates for myself, I wouldn’t have been spiritually developed enough to believe they were actually from God. Even now, at the age of 45, approaching 46, I still don’t think I have the spiritual maturity to accept that without doubting the validity.
Even though I’m not advanced enough in my spiritual development to accept the validity of the golden plates if Joseph Smith were here, here and now, to show them to me, that does not mean they didn’t come from where he said they came from nor does it mean they didn’t contain the information members of the Church have come to believe as being fact.
That brings me to something I believe all of us can see, feel, smell, etc., every day that personally is proof to me that God does exist. That for me there is no way anyone could doubt His existence, without bringing faith into it.
I think there are plenty of things surrounding us now that are “proof” such as nature, animals, people, acts of nature, etc. I look around at the beauty of the mountains, ocean, sunsets, animal, human spirits, and on and on and on… To me, that is evidence that God exists.
If God appeared you, as a man, like the LDS believe, and told you He was God, would you believe him? or would you call the loony bin? With my limited understanding and spiritual development, I’d lean towards the loony bin. We misunderstand those things we don’t understand. All that means is we’re not ready to receive the truth.
Joseph Smith was sincerely and seriously seeking answers as to which was the church for him to join. Some members of his family attended one denomination, other members attended yet another. Also, at that time, there were literally tents going up by different preachers of many denominations attempting to convert people to their churches.
If that doesn’t make sense, please let me know. I’ll try to explain again.
Kathy
And a little less embarrassing…
For many years the policy was to baptize and perform the ordinances for everyone you could find and produce records for. This led to Jewish groups being upset that prominent Jews such as Albert Einstein, Menachem Begin, Irving Berlin, and Gilda Radner had been vicariously baptized and “converted” to the LDS religion.
Not only that, but Holocaust victims were being included in the temple work for the dead. Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Center holds “If these people did not contact the Mormons themselves, the adage should be: Don’t call me, I’ll call you. With the greatest of respect to them, we do not think they are the exclusive arbitrators of who is saved.”
Also interesting is that “…a number of high profile people who have had temple ordinances performed on their behalf have received particular attention including: the Founding Fathers of the U.S., Presidents of the U.S., John Wesley, Christopher Columbus, Jewish Holocaust victims, Ghengis Khan, Joan of Arc, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Buddha.”
The LDS have been very diligent in removing the names of those who have ancestors who object to the ordinances being performed. It is precisely for this reason that you are only supposed to perform ordinances for your own family members.
pepperlandgirl is correct in that is the main reason members of the Church are encouraged to do genealogy, and, admittedly, that was my initial reason for getting interested in it myself.
Confession time: as a student at BYU, you are required to take religion classes as part of your course work. I was so dang tired of reading scriptures every flippen day after the first 2 semesters, I took a genealogy class, which counted as religion credits.
As I got into doing the research and learning so much more about my ancestors then the names, dates, and places, I became hooked!
I do family history now not just for the names, dates, and places, but also to get to know them as people. The people I am decended from. What their lives were like. What their personalities were like.
And I do so, knowing that I’m getting to know my ancestors, and “from whence I came from” without stepping on their freedom of choice knowing they aren’t being “stuck” with being being a member of the church if they don’t want to be, but giving them the opportunity if they want it.
Everyone is welcome to use the genealogy resources for their personal use.
And you are welcome to donate your findings to the library in Salt Lake City for other’s to benefit from your work, but with no worry that temple work will be done without your written permission.
I have had clients (yes, I’ve done Genealogy/Family History research as a profession). I was 2 classes short of graduating with a Genealogy major. But I digress… I have had clients who have wanted the work made available for others, who have wanted the temple work done even though they themselves were not members of the Church, and also clients who did not want any mention in the Family History Library that they had research done there. I ALWAYS HONORED my clients requests.
Kathy
Has everyone who has posted a question had it answered? I don’t want anyone to be overlooked because of the number of questions or my personal crisis in the middle of this.
If anyone feels like their question was overlooked or not answered to their satisfaction, please let me know.
Carry on…
Kathy