Racism and the Book of Mormon

[_Bob Loblaw]

Unfortunately, Why Me's admission that he doesn't really think the Church is true also makes it clear that he is trolling, not sincerely trying to defend the Church.

I could have told you that.

[Guest]

...

[Guest]

I have never claimed that the church was not true. But the topic of skin color in the Book of Mormon is being debated at the moment. GAs do have their own opinions on the matter. I have not seen any revelation about it from a GA. I have just heard opinions. And this is the way I see it. But you can prove me wrong. If you can provide a revelation about it from a GA I would be interested in reading it.

[_Drifting]

I have never claimed that the true was not true. But the topic of skin color in the Book of Mormon is being debated at the moemnt. GAs do have their own opinions on the matter. I have not seen any revelation about it from a GA. I have just heard opinions. And this is the way I see it. But you can prove me wrong. If you can provide a revelation about it from a GA I would be interested in reading it.

I thought the Prophet Nephi's revelation about it in the Book of Mormon was pretty clear on the matter.

Nephites = good = white skin
Lamanites = bad = cursed with a skin of blackness

[_why me]

I have never claimed that the true was not true. But the topic of skin color in the Book of Mormon is being debated at the moemnt. GAs do have their own opinions on the matter. I have not seen any revelation about it from a GA. I have just heard opinions. And this is the way I see it. But you can prove me wrong. If you can provide a revelation about it from a GA I would be interested in reading it.

I thought the Prophet Nephi's revelation about it in the Book of Mormon was pretty clear on the matter.

Nephites = good = white skin
Lamanites = bad = cursed with a skin of blackness

I don't see it that way at all.

[_Drifting]

I don't see it that way at all.

It doesn't matter what way you see it:
That's how Nephi saw it.
That's how every Church Prophet and Apostle from Young to Kimball saw it.
That's the way it is still explained today by the Church to Primary children.

[_beefcalf]

I thought the Prophet Nephi's revelation about it in the Book of Mormon was pretty clear on the matter.

Nephites = good = white skin
Lamanites = bad = cursed with a skin of blackness

I don't see it that way at all.

That's because you don't believe in the actual LDS Church. You believe in a watered-down, sanitized facsimile of the LDS Church, with all warts frozen off, all the smelly abscesses drained, and a thin coat of cheap lacquer slathered over the top.

[_Mary]

Why me, I've already given you links to the Book of Mormon Manual from 2009 which states in no uncertain terms that the 'skin of blackness' was not a metaphor.

It is the apologists like Brant Gardner (and others) who suggest that it is. But the mental gymnastics that one has to go through to make it fit with 'today's' attitudes make no sense, are silly and strike as disingenuous at best.

Joseph and all after him saw the Book of Mormon as 'real' history with God talking to his peoples on the American continent. This has absolutely influenced how people of other races were viewed both in practice and in doctrine and in policy.

Most of us have no problem admitting that various stories in the Bible are mythical. Do we really think that God (if there is one) would curse a whole nation like the Canaanites and reduce them to slavery just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Does that make sense? Well, it doesn't to me. Much more likely that this is a story told by Israelites to 'justify' their actions.

In that sense, maybe there is a case for saying that the Book of Mormon is entirely mythical and yet still has some history in it (though as you know I do not accept that personally).

But the kind of God that would reveal a mythical history to Joseph Smith that would then lead his followers for around 140 years to hold on to racist beliefs is a God that is beyond my limited understanding.

[_Tobin]

Why me, I've already given you links to the Book of Mormon Manual from 2009 which states in no uncertain terms that the 'skin of blackness' was not a metaphor.

It is the apologists like Brant Gardner (and others) who suggest that it is. But the mental gymnastics that one has to go through to make it fit with 'today's' attitudes make no sense, are silly and strike as disingenuous at best.

Joseph and all after him saw the Book of Mormon as 'real' history with God talking to his peoples on the American continent. This has absolutely influenced how people of other races were viewed both in practice and in doctrine and in policy.

Most of us have no problem admitting that various stories in the Bible are mythical. Do we really think that God (if there is one) would curse a whole nation like the Canaanites and reduce them to slavery just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Does that make sense? Well, it doesn't to me. Much more likely that this is a story told by Israelites to 'justify' their actions.

In that sense, maybe there is a case for saying that the Book of Mormon is entirely mythical and yet still has some history in it (though as you know I do not accept that personally).

But the kind of God that would reveal a mythical history to Joseph Smith that would then lead his followers for around 140 years to hold on to racist beliefs is a God that is beyond my limited understanding.

I won't answer for why me, but again - I don't see why he cares if the Nephites were prejudiced against the Lamanites or not. I don't see the claim that the Nephites were anything less than human, possessing all the faults and flaws that we ourselves possess. So let's suppose that there was a genetic difference that developed between the Lehites (or because they intermarried with people already here), one having a fairer skin and the other darker, and the Nephites attributed this as a "curse" from God. The Nephites being racist and prejudiced in their views does not mean God is. In fact, the Book of Mormon often depicts this relationship between the two groups as I've pointed out.

The narrative in the video was one stating that dark skin = evil and light skin = good. However, the Book of Mormon turns this on its head where the light skin become evil and the dark skin become good. As I've already pointed out, the Lamanite prophet Samuel preaches repentance to the Nephites. So it would seem, that isn't the determination of whether one will be good or evil and the video is completely inaccurate. Instead, the Book of Mormon seems to say that those that are in rebellion against God will mark themselves and eventually separate themselves from those that are good, that they will seek to destroy the good, and degenerate into many foul and impure practices.

And as why me has pointed out, there are instances in the Book of Mormon where white is simply used to mean pure and has nothing to do with one's skin color.

Given all that, the only reason to believe the Book of Mormon is non-historical is because you don't believe God is capable of bringing groups of people to this continent and you do not believe the Bible is historical as well. After all, doubts about the Book of Mormon translate into similar attacks on the Bible and that is really what is going on here. Either the scriptures speak about people's experiences with that God, or they do not. Either God really exists and speaks to man, or God does not exist. That is what one must decide for themselves, but don't pretend that you can disbelieve and not disblieve all of it.

[_Drifting]

So let's suppose that there was a genetic difference that developed between the Lehites (or because they intermarried with people already here), one having a fairer skin and the other darker, and the Nephites attributed this as a "curse" from God.

Sadly this speculation has no credibility because, as the book itself points out, the land had been kept from all other nations specifically for the Nephites. That and that no other nations are ever mentioned.

The Nephites being racist and prejudiced in their views does not mean God is. In fact, the Book of Mormon often depicts this relationship between the two groups as I've pointed out.

This is valid speculation. Of course, that opens the door to the question about how valid the contents of the Book of Mormon actually are, given that the authors could be so wrong about God cursing the Lamanites with a skin of blackness; how would we establish what else they got badly wrong but wrote down in the Book of Mormon?
It also opens the door to questions about why God allowed Joseph et al to believe the Nephites were right about the skin colour curse when He knew all along the Nephites were mistaken.

The narrative in the video was one stating that dark skin = evil and light skin = good.

Which is exactly how it is explained to children in Primary today.

However, the Book of Mormon turns this on its head where the light skin become evil and the dark skin become good. As I've already pointed out, the Lamanite prophet Samuel preaches repentance to the Nephites.

Where does it state that the Nephites skin turned black?

So it would seem, that isn't the determination of whether one will be good or evil and the video is completely inaccurate.

That's not consistent with what the Book of Mormon actual states. It seems like more invalid speculation on your part.

Instead, the Book of Mormon seems to say that those that are in rebellion against God will mark themselves

Please quote where it says this in the Book of Mormon and with what mark do they 'mark themselves'?

And as why me has pointed out, there are instances in the Book of Mormon where white is simply used to mean pure and has nothing to do with one's skin color.

Here we go again trying to wriggle away from the words used into 'what words they should have used' to reinterpret Josephs translation into fitting with todays societal norms.

Given all that, the only reason to believe the Book of Mormon is non-historical is because you don't believe God is capable of bringing groups of people to this continent and you do not believe the Bible is historical as well.

No, the reason to believe the Book of Mormon is non-historical is because all the available tangible evidence, or should I say, the non availability of any tangible evidence, points to that being the case.

After all, doubts about the Book of Mormon translate into similar attacks on the Bible and that is really what is going on here. Either the scriptures speak about people's experiences with that God, or they do not. Either God really exists and speaks to man, or God does not exist. That is what one must decide for themselves, but don't pretend that you can disbelieve and not disblieve all of it.

Are you saying the scriptures (including the Bible) are all literally true?
Because you said earlier that the Nephites were possibly the racists and not God. That would mean the scriptures did not speak about 'people's experience with God' but instead contained errors and personal speculation dressed up as 'people's experience with God'.

Why can't one disbelieve and yet still believe some of the principles are of value?