Array

Schwarze und das Priestertum/HLT-Schriften: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Zeile 8: Zeile 8:
==LDS scriptures revisited==
==LDS scriptures revisited==


Some contend that even though the doctrinal impact of pre-1978 statements have been greatly diminished, the LDS scriptures still retain the passages which were used for proof-texts for the ban and hence cannot be easily dismissed. A parallel can be drawn between Protestant denominations that have historically reversed their scriptural interpretations supporting slavery and a modified LDS understanding of their own scriptures that relate to the priesthood ban. Through more careful scripture reading and attention to scientific studies, many Protestants have come to differ with previous interpretations of Bible passages. A similar rethinking of passages unique to the LDS scriptures, such as [http://scriptures.lds.org/de/abr/1/26-27#26 (KP Abr. 1:2627)], can be made if one starts by discarding erroneous preconceptions. Sociologist Armand Mauss critiqued former interpretations in a recent address:
Einige meinen, obwohl der Einfluss der Lehrinhalte auf die Erklärungen vor 1978 sehr herabgesetzt wurde, dass HLT-Schriften
immer noch die Stellen beinhalten, welche als Beweistexte für das Verbot angeführt wurden, und daher nicht einfach abgetan werden können.
Es kann ein Parallele gezogen werden zwischen protestantischen Glaubensgemeinschaften, die ihre Interpretationen der Schriften, die Sklaverei zu unterstützen, historisch bewahrt haben, und einem geänderten Verständnis der HLT über ihre eigenen Schriften bezüglich des Priestertumsverbots. Durch sorgsameres Schriftenstudium und Beachtung wissenschaftlicher Studien sind viele Protestanten dahingekommen, von den früheren Interpretationen der Bibelschriftstellen abzuweichen. Ein ähnliches Überdenken besonders der HLT-Schriften wie z. B. [http://scriptures.lds.org/de/abr/1/26-27#26 (KP Abr. 1:26,27)] kann man machen, indem man falsche vorgefasste Meinungen ablegt. Der Sociologe Armand Mauss critiqued former interpretations in a recent address:


:[W]e see that the Book of Abraham says nothing about lineages set aside in the pre-existence, but only about distinguished individuals. The Book of Abraham is the only place, furthermore, that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the pharaohs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any, especially in the modern world, would be covered by that proscription. At the same time, the passages in Genesis and Moses, for their part, do not refer to any priesthood proscription, and no color change occurs in either Cain or Ham, or even in Ham's son Canaan, who, for some unexplained reason, was the one actually cursed! There is no description of the mark on Cain, except that the mark was supposed to protect him from vengeance. It's true that in the seventh chapter of Moses, we learn that descendants of Cain became black, but not until the time of Enoch, six generations after Cain, and even then only in a vision of Enoch about an unspecified future time. There is no explanation for this blackness; it is not even clear that we are to take it literally.{{ref|mauss1}}
:[W]e see that the Book of Abraham says nothing about lineages set aside in the pre-existence, but only about distinguished individuals. The Book of Abraham is the only place, furthermore, that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the pharaohs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any, especially in the modern world, would be covered by that proscription. At the same time, the passages in Genesis and Moses, for their part, do not refer to any priesthood proscription, and no color change occurs in either Cain or Ham, or even in Ham's son Canaan, who, for some unexplained reason, was the one actually cursed! There is no description of the mark on Cain, except that the mark was supposed to protect him from vengeance. It's true that in the seventh chapter of Moses, we learn that descendants of Cain became black, but not until the time of Enoch, six generations after Cain, and even then only in a vision of Enoch about an unspecified future time. There is no explanation for this blackness; it is not even clear that we are to take it literally.{{ref|mauss1}}

Version vom 9. Juli 2009, 06:38 Uhr

Kritik

  • Kritiker behaupten, das lt. HLT-Schriften die Hautfarbe eines Menschen auf dessen Benehmen in der Prä-Existenz hinweist.
  • Kritiker klagen, dass das Buch Mormon rassistisch wäre und würde den Gedanken vertreten, dass die weiße Rasse überlegen wäre.

Quelle(n) der Kritik

  • Simon Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2004) 8–9.

LDS scriptures revisited

Einige meinen, obwohl der Einfluss der Lehrinhalte auf die Erklärungen vor 1978 sehr herabgesetzt wurde, dass HLT-Schriften immer noch die Stellen beinhalten, welche als Beweistexte für das Verbot angeführt wurden, und daher nicht einfach abgetan werden können. Es kann ein Parallele gezogen werden zwischen protestantischen Glaubensgemeinschaften, die ihre Interpretationen der Schriften, die Sklaverei zu unterstützen, historisch bewahrt haben, und einem geänderten Verständnis der HLT über ihre eigenen Schriften bezüglich des Priestertumsverbots. Durch sorgsameres Schriftenstudium und Beachtung wissenschaftlicher Studien sind viele Protestanten dahingekommen, von den früheren Interpretationen der Bibelschriftstellen abzuweichen. Ein ähnliches Überdenken besonders der HLT-Schriften wie z. B. (KP Abr. 1:26,27) kann man machen, indem man falsche vorgefasste Meinungen ablegt. Der Sociologe Armand Mauss critiqued former interpretations in a recent address:

[W]e see that the Book of Abraham says nothing about lineages set aside in the pre-existence, but only about distinguished individuals. The Book of Abraham is the only place, furthermore, that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the pharaohs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any, especially in the modern world, would be covered by that proscription. At the same time, the passages in Genesis and Moses, for their part, do not refer to any priesthood proscription, and no color change occurs in either Cain or Ham, or even in Ham's son Canaan, who, for some unexplained reason, was the one actually cursed! There is no description of the mark on Cain, except that the mark was supposed to protect him from vengeance. It's true that in the seventh chapter of Moses, we learn that descendants of Cain became black, but not until the time of Enoch, six generations after Cain, and even then only in a vision of Enoch about an unspecified future time. There is no explanation for this blackness; it is not even clear that we are to take it literally.[1]

Although critics frequently cite some Book of Mormon passages as being racist, it does not appear to have been used in a justification for the ban. They often cite Book of Mormon passages like (BM 2. Ne 5:21-25) und (BM Alma 3:6-10) while ignoring the more representative (BM 2. Ne 26:33)

Richard L. Bushman, LDS author of a biography of Joseph Smith, writes:

...[T]he fact that [the Lamanites] are Israel, the chosen of God, adds a level of complexity to the Book of Mormon that simple racism does not explain. Incongruously, the book champions the Indians' place in world history, assigning them to a more glorious future than modern American whites.... Lamanite degradation is not ingrained in their natures, ineluctably bonded to their dark skins. Their wickedness is wholly cultural and frequently reversed. During one period, "they began to be a very industrious people; yea, and they were friendly with the Nephites; therefore, they did open a correspondence with them, and the curse of God did no more follow them." (BM Alma 23:18) In the end, the Lamanites triumph. The white Nephites perish, and the dark Lamanites remain. [2]

One faithful black member, Marcus Martins—also chair of the department of religious education at BYU-Hawaii—has said:

The [priesthood] ban itself was not racist, but, unfortunately, it gave cover to people who were.[3]

Fußnoten

  1. [back] Armand L. Mauss, "The LDS Church and the Race Issue: A Study in Misplaced Apologetics", FAIR Conference 2003 FAIR englischer, #2 FAIR englischer
  2. [back] Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 99. ISBN 1400042704
  3. [back] Marcus Martins, "A Black Man in Zion: Reflections on Race in the Restored Gospel" (2006 FAIR Conference presentation).

Zusätzliches Material

FAIRwiki Artikel

Wiki Artikel zur Priestertumsoffenbarung 1978


FAIR Website

Externe Links

Gedrucktes Material

Abgerufen von „http://104.237.154.152/Antworten/index.php?title=Schwarze_und_das_Priestertum/HLT-Schriften&oldid=4678“