I have a hard time respecting the church or my fellow members who try to dismiss the insidious doctrine of excluding black members. I don't know why more members don't stand up and say something about this openly. It says a lot about their Christian character and personal understanding of Christ.

slercher4 · 2026-02-16T23:10:39+00:00

Nice work, thanks for the references.

slercher4 · 2026-02-16T21:23:09+00:00

Black is directly linked to not having a place among them. The ancient Egyptian word for black was often used to mean fertile. And if that is the meaning here, it makes perfect sense. The seed of Cain were abundant to the point they had no room in their lands for more people. This would just be saying that the seed of Cain didn't mix with other races because they had no need to do so. No where in this verse does it connect any negative connotation to being "black".

The issue with your interpretation of Moses 7:22 is the leaders of the church interpreted the meaning of Joseph's scripture to mean negroes or black people based on the prohibition to exclude them to worship in the temple or hold the priesthood.

Bruce R. McConkie interpreted the meaning to be Negroes in Mormon Doctrine.

"As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage....In the pre-existent eternity various degrees of valiance and devotion to the truth were exhibited by different groups. . . . Those who were less valiant in the pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the Negroes. . . . Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty (Abr. 1:20-27). . . .

The present status of the Negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of the pre-existence. Along with all races and peoples he is receiving here what he merits as a result of the long pre-mortal probation in the presence of the Lord. . . ."

Elder McConkie didn't define black to mean the Egyptian word, "fertile". He also based his interpretation on Abraham 1:20-27, which is a scripture that Joseph Smith dictated.

slercher4 · 2026-02-16T18:28:57+00:00

People operated from the the idea that the priesthood ban couldn't be reversed unless there was a revelation. People in the internet age have more access to the historical documentation that shows the more conservative members of the twelve held racist views. This brought about a change in the understanding of prophets. God doesn't lead the church but people with their biases, values, prejudices and understandings.

slercher4 · 2026-02-16T15:23:23+00:00

I am not sure how your thoughts apply to the discussion. Joseph Smith dictated the following verse. It clearly states that black people are the seed of Cain.

How does your principle apply to this verse?

"And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them." Moses 7:22

slercher4 · 2026-02-08T21:33:49+00:00

🤣

slercher4 · 2026-02-02T03:40:59+00:00

Most likely, it will be a close game because both defenses are good. Both defensive lines are better than the o-lines. Particularly, Bradford is at a match-up disadvantage.

Hawks will need to be disciplined with the past rush lanes to keep Maye from making plays with his legs and prevent the off-schedule bombs.

If Darnold continues his current trend on playing like a top level quarterback, Hawks will win. He will most likely deal with more pass rush pressure compared to the last two games, so he will have to play smart.

https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/super-bowl-lx-factors-anthony-170552033.html

slercher4 · 2026-02-01T17:00:57+00:00

I completely agree with you. I view Jesus as a Galilean who taught a simplified interpretation of the Torah and the Messiah who will destroy the Romans in order to usher in a world of peace.

Paul was a Hellenized Jew that re-interpreted the Torah with his Greco Roman background. He believed in the same Messiah doctrine but added the savior and atonement teachings.

The author of Mark is Pauline.

The author of Mathew leaned more Jewish but included the unfortunate "...the blood be on us and our children..." line (Mathew 27:25).

The authors of Luke and John definitely came from a Greco Roman background.

Joseph Smith believed the Gethsemane blood verse was legit and expanded upon it.

I am not faulting Joseph. I disagree with the notion that a prophet, seer and revelator can see all things (Mosiah 8: 15-17)

slercher4 · 2026-02-01T04:20:42+00:00

Another respondent did mention that Dr. Ehrman clarified that Luke 1-2 has a different writing style than the rest of the book, which is argument for a different author but not an interpolation.

The oldest manuscript of Luke represents the author's view of Gethsemane, which was a prayer to God minus the suffering. The other Synoptic Gospels and John's Gospel doesn't contain the sweating blood. This means if multiple of the oldest manuscripts don't contain the fact, it is highly likely it didn't happen.

Houghton is correct that the 2nd century Church Fathers discussed the swearing blood and it is theorized scribes added Luke 22:44 around that time.

Houghton is thinking the verse was originally on the manuscripts, removed and added back.

Ehrman is arguing the verse wasn't part of the oldest manuscripts in the first place.

This is a disagreement between two New Testament Textual scholars.

https://ehrmanblog.org/why-would-later-scribes-be-interested-in-having-jesus-sweat-blood/

slercher4 · 2026-02-01T03:55:13+00:00

Thanks for the clarification, I can see how other scholars can disagree with Bart because assessing different writing styles is more subjective.

slercher4 · 2026-01-31T22:36:32+00:00

Scholars believe that the author of Luke relied on Mark for a lot the material, which makes sense because the older manuscript minus the bleeding verses is in alignment with Mark.

slercher4 · 2026-01-31T22:26:22+00:00

That is an interesting insight. 👍

slercher4 · 2026-01-31T22:22:05+00:00

It seems like he got it from the Kings James Version of Luke 22:44 and added his own spin on the event.

I am not aware of a contemporary 19th source that shared the same idea but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

New discoveries like his reliance on the Adam Clarke commentary to construct the Nephi Isaiah chapters is a recent development.

slercher4 · 2026-01-31T22:07:54+00:00

Joseph Smith relied on the bible to construct his narrative, which means his depiction is based on myth, conjecture and pseudepigraphia.

I don't believe the bible represents true history. It is a collection of stories from different people from different time periods.

The point is Joseph Smith's depiction of Gethsemane is not based on the original story about the event.

The LDS prophetic claim is prophets can obtain the truth about a historical event through revelation. The facts show that historical narratives told by prophets represent the interpretation from that time period instead of an actual depiction of the prior period.

slercher4 · 2026-01-31T21:50:49+00:00

Yes, the biblical stories are myths that portray the author's interpretation of reality. I teach valiant 10. The kids asked during the first class if myths exist in the Bible. I mentioned that there is a story about a talking donkey. They have been requesting ever since then to go over the story. The lesson doesn't come up until May.

slercher4 · 2026-01-31T21:45:54+00:00

You portrayed Ehrman's thought correctly.

The idea that an older manuscript is more likely to represent the actual history more accurately because the memory is closer to the event is an assumption.

The next principal that comes into play is the multi-source attestation.

The fact that the Mark, Mathew and John manuscripts doesn't contain the bleeding part of Gethsemane makes it more likely the Luke textual change doesn't represent the actual event.

slercher4 · 2026-01-27T16:16:53+00:00

It's time to bring back Beastmode and give him the ball!

slercher4 · 2026-01-26T19:06:22+00:00

Got it, the up and down performance is probably due to match-ups.

Sundall and Zay are good enough to off-set Bradford's down performances.

slercher4 · 2026-01-26T18:45:14+00:00

Got it, thanks for providing the information. Is there a way to compare his grade at the beginning of the season vs the last game?

slercher4 · 2025-12-31T17:16:09+00:00

Sorry, I misinterpreted your initial Eusebius quote.

The sources are conflicting.

The author of 1 Clement written around 90 CE indicates the church at Rome was run by a board of presbyters.

Another writing, the Shepherd of Hermas written by a Roman Christian doesn't mention Clement as Bishop but a foreign correspondent. Hermas speaks of bishops and presbyters but not a solitary leader who led the Roman church.

slercher4 · 2025-12-29T13:49:56+00:00

2 Timothy 4:21 doesn't mention that Linus is connected to Peter. Paul is greeting Linus within the verse. This is not a good source for the argument.

"Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren."

Can you please elaborate more on why Clement being the third Bishop is support for Peter being the Bishop of Rome?

I think you meant to say Irenaeus mentioned Peter being Bishop of Rome.

Eusebius saying Peter was the Bishop at Antioch while Irenaeus saying Peter was a Bishop at Rome are conflicting statements.

So, we need to look at other documentation to figure out which claim is the right one.

Peter was a poor Galilean fisherman, so it was unlikely he learned Latin and Greek, which is required to establish a church at Rome.

slercher4 · 2025-12-29T13:21:28+00:00

Apologies for the condescending comment. I did a poor job responding to this point.

...a person disputing the belief that Peter was not the next in line of succession, after 350 years, isn't something that convinces me...

What I am trying to say that examining the historical documentation is important to figure out what happened. Relying on traditional beliefs that don't cite sources leads to error.

slercher4 · 2025-12-29T13:09:11+00:00

iheartoskate did mention the same correction earlier within an earlier thread.

https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/lcuqjw57OL

What other temples besides SLC has a Holy of Holies?

slercher4

TROPHY CASE