Beck talk

[Tex]

Originally Posted by woot

I'd love to see an attempt, because I really don't think it's possible to do so without claiming that we don't share common ancestors with other modern species.

I know we're re-opening for the umpteenth time this topic, but why don't we start with what about that First Presidency statement you find "wrong"?

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

In other words, it's wrong because you don't like it.

I'm afraid I must honestly question your reading comprehension if that's what you got out of that.

The church stance that black skin is the result of sin -- whether it be sin in the pre-existence, sin among the Lamanites, sin by Cain, or sin by Ham -- is flat-out, ridiculously wrong. If you stand by those racist doctrines, then you're wrong too. Not because I don't like it, but because there is not a single shred of evidence to back it up. Combine that with our understanding that the interplay between UV exposure, Vitamin D synthesis, and phosphate preservation is what actually makes dark skin advantageous in certain environments, and I'm sure you'll see how unbalanced someone would have to be to hold to such primitive notions.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

I know we're re-opening for the umpteenth time this topic, but why don't we start with what about that First Presidency statement you find "wrong"?

Let's start with the part where they explicitly deny evolution, and the part where they assert the actual, non-metaphorical existence of Adam and Eve as the first members of our species.

I promise that defending this is a losing battle, not only because all of the facts are against it, but also because the church has since renounced the statement.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

In other words, it's wrong because you don't like it.

You're wrong because I don't like you, among other reasons.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

I'm afraid I must honestly question your reading comprehension if that's what you got out of that.

The church stance that black skin is the result of sin -- whether it be sin in the pre-existence, sin among the Lamanites, sin by Cain, or sin by Ham -- is flat-out, ridiculously wrong. If you stand by those racist doctrines, then you're wrong too. Not because I don't like it, but because there is not a single shred of evidence to back it up. Combine that with our understanding that the interplay between UV exposure, Vitamin D synthesis, and phosphate preservation is what actually makes dark skin advantageous in certain environments, and I'm sure you'll see how unbalanced someone would have to be to hold to such primitive notions.

Unlike with Ham and Cain, the scriptures explicitly attribute the sin of Laman and his kinfolk to the reason their skin was turned dark. We even have the account of some Lamanites who converted to the Gospel and had their skin lightened.

Are you claiming that these Book of Mormon accounts are lies?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by woot

I'm afraid I must honestly question your reading comprehension if that's what you got out of that.

The church stance that black skin is the result of sin -- whether it be sin in the pre-existence, sin among the Lamanites, sin by Cain, or sin by Ham -- is flat-out, ridiculously wrong. If you stand by those racist doctrines, then you're wrong too. Not because I don't like it, but because there is not a single shred of evidence to back it up. Combine that with our understanding that the interplay between UV exposure, Vitamin D synthesis, and phosphate preservation is what actually makes dark skin advantageous in certain environments, and I'm sure you'll see how unbalanced someone would have to be to hold to such primitive notions.

What does science have to do with it? If we were to discover the scientific cause for turning water to wine, or parting the Red Sea, does that make them any less miraculous? Does God not obey natural law?

But to your point, you're really stepping all over yourself on a complex issue. You're tossing the words "church stance" and "doctrine" around very casually. I don't agree with the racist views held by some of the church's past leadership, but I don't think that it makes the priesthood ban, which was specifically permitted by God, necessarily "wrong."

Someday when political correctness isn't the most coveted virtue in our society, we may understand the underlying reasons why God allowed the church to discriminate on this basis.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Unlike with Ham and Cain, the scriptures explicitly attribute the sin of Laman and his kinfolk to the reason their skin was turned dark. We even have the account of some Lamanites who converted to the Gospel and had their skin lightened.

Are you claiming that these Book of Mormon accounts are lies?

That would be one way to put it. Metaphors might be more gentle. But yes, I happen to think that the idea of the Lamanites' skin darkening because of sin to be laughably primitive. It's a shame there aren't any Lamanites left to test. Native Americans are of Asian descent.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by woot

Let's start with the part where they explicitly deny evolution, and the part where they assert the actual, non-metaphorical existence of Adam and Eve as the first members of our species.

I promise that defending this is a losing battle, not only because all of the facts are against it, but also because the church has since renounced the statement.

I don't deny that evolutionary processes were likely involved in the creation. I think evidence for evolution with Adam and Eve's creation is just idle speculation.

To the church's renunciation: link?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

That would be one way to put it. Metaphors might be more gentle. But yes, I happen to think that the idea of the Lamanites' skin darkening because of sin to be laughably primitive. It's a shame there aren't any Lamanites left to test. Native Americans are of Asian descent.

Is there anything in the Book of Mormon which documents, one way or the other, the other peoples that may have been inhabiting the Americas contemporary with the Nephites and Lamanites?

P.S. Have you read the study done on trying to successfully use mitochondrial DNA with Icelandic peoples and how difficult is has been to definitively link KNOWN ancestors?

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

What does science have to do with it? If we were to discover the scientific cause for turning water to wine, or parting the Red Sea, does that make them any less miraculous? Does God not obey natural law?

But to your point, you're really stepping all over yourself on a complex issue. You're tossing the words "church stance" and "doctrine" around very casually. I don't agree with the racist views held by some of the church's past leadership, but I don't think that it makes the priesthood ban, which was specifically permitted by God, necessarily "wrong."

Someday when political correctness isn't the most coveted virtue in our society, we may understand the underlying reasons why God allowed the church to discriminate on this basis.

Well, I suppose "wrong" is too absolutist a term to describe much of what is contained within the changing moral zeitgeist, but the ban certainly doesn't reflect any amount of enlightenment that we might expect from a divinely led organization.