Book of Mormon not racist..... it's spiritual symbolism.

[_mentalgymnast]

How would you characterize someone who claims to reject the racist pronouncements of former apostles and prophets while simultaneously trying to minimize and obfuscate similar sentiments in the Book of Mormon?

MG:It's a tight squeeze.

A tight squeeze? You're joking, right?

Well, if you don't like that phrase for one reason or another, let's go with "it's a balancing act". It really doesn't surprise me that there would be racist pronouncements from apostles and prophets. I would surprise me, OTOH, if God is racist in the way which you're trying to paint Him. To the point that I would find it difficult to worship a being such as that. But I think God is a LOT bigger than that. Whatever negative characteristics we try and paint Him with will only show a partial view...which observed in totality with the rest of the painting cause/result in that partial view fading into obscurity.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

MG, I would recommend reading my comment CAREFULLY. I didn't say that separation/segragation wasn't the CAUSE of the "mark" or dark skin. That is not the ISSUE that people have with the Book of Mormon, is what I'm saying. The reason people have an issue with the Book of Mormon and claim it is racist is because the "mark" that God supposedly uses (DARK skin) is associated with ugliness, spiritual death, wickedness, etc. It also destroys the concept of free agency. People are "marked" as wicked right from birth. Don't mix with them, cause they are ugly and anyone who is "dark" should be avoided, etc. Why didn't God just "mark" the good people? Say, all the bad people are staying white and my good people will be marked with a dark skin? Because the Book of Mormon is the product of a racist mindset from the 19th century. The Book of Mormon plays right into the preconceived notions (of Joseph Smith's day) that dark skin was a curse from God put on a wicked RACE of people. (The Blacks and the "Redman") who were considered "savages" and "barbarians" and of less intelligence, and Evil, etc., etc. You really do have to go through lots of mental gymnastics not to see this, or try and explain it any other way.

I hear what you're saying, but again, in that time and place what are the other alternatives for God to use to accomplish His purposes? Alternatives that would actually work. I understand that from our vantage point it appears that God is and/or would be marking/signifying those that are 'wicked' with what appears to be a curse or a mark. But the fact is, it apparently separated one group from another and kept them, as a whole social/cultural group, from intermingling with each other. Even though as Gadianton said there were exceptions to that. The Lamanites continued to interbreed with each other as did the Nephites. I would suppose that if you wanted to use Jacob 5 as a guide/template, God was trying to work the vineyard with the intent of creating a more righteous/stable part of the vineyard.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

It reads to me that one of the primary functions of the marking of the unrighteous with a 'skin of blackness' was to prohibit the righteous procreating with the unrighteous. So another option for God would have been to curse all the unrighteous with impotence and sterility. That way no innocent children would have been caught up in being seen as cursed and loathsome through no fault of their own.

It does seem to be the case that in this world the innocents always come out on the short end of the stick. It happens over and over again. It IS unfortunate, but it happens. I'm not trying to make excuses for God. I'm stating the fact that when populations become more unstable and move towards a less productive or even broken society, the children are going to suffer. I suppose sterilization is an alternative, but truth be told, I haven't observed this to be the way things work in any historical period that I'm aware of. God sure would be showing His hand if He did something like that though, wouldn't He?

By using the skin curse God defeated His own plan of Salvation by enabling children to be born into a non innocent state. Children were born with a skin of blackness and were therefore cursed and marked by God for something their parents had done. I think that's called a plot hole.

Again, throughout history the children have always paid for the sins of their fathers. It is unfortunate. We can hope that in all of these cases, of which there are many, that there is some sort of mechanism in place that will make up for the inequities and injustices. Especially those that are put upon children in their innocent condition/state.

Atonement of Jesus Christ?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

And here's the last problem, it didn't work. God gave a cursing and a loathsome skin colouring and still the Lamanaties prospered and were crushingly victorious. All that recorded racism and for what?

What was the result for the Nephite society, as a closed group, after the separation/segregation? Did it have any positive aspects? Yes, we know that down the road the Lamanites and the Nephites went a warring with one another again. Did the separation give the Nephites a more cohesive/operational group (for one thing they were all of the same religious faith and depended on God) to work with as they ended up defending themselves against the Lamanites? I suppose that if the Nephites and the Lamanites assimilated with one another we might have seen a different history, but would God's purposes have been carried out?

Some open ended questions.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Keep on contemplatin' MG.

I do and I will. Better than not, right? I, for one, am not a believer in the "all the thinking has been done" mentality.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Only a racist God would view skin color as a means of separation and segregation. Only a racist God would view dark skin as 'being undesirable'.

I'm having a hard time getting past your first two sentences. We have to remember that when we read the scriptures that they are written by men. That, in and of itself, is a key indication that we're not going to get a complete/accurate picture of what's going on. And then you have those that are interpreting what these men/prophets have said...two thousand years later. There's bound to be some conjecture going on that is going to be faulty.

As I mentioned earlier, the world as it is shows us that there are many examples of separations/segregation/annihilations of populations/cultural groups. Yes, I know the point that some are making here is that God is a racist because we see lighter hued populations of people (Nephites), along with God, looking at darker hued populations (Lamanites) as being a punishment or a mark of displeasure/nonacceptance. I suppose that in the sense that God and His Nephite Church see others as being wicked and/or unfit for membership in the kingdom of God, you might have a point. If you want to tack on the word racism to that, I suppose the within certain bounds/parameters, you'd be correct in doing so.

One thing to keep in mind is that within the Book of Mormon we also are taught that "all are alike unto God". How can this idea coexist with the so called racist action/events that we see? One possibility is just what I said. If God and His prophets saw the other as being 'wicked' and not worthy for participation/membership in the 'kingdom' then they would use terminology and/or descriptors that to us would sound an awfully lot like cold, hard racism.

But maybe that's not what it is, at least in the same way that we tend to think about it. When we see descriptors such as "dark and loathsome", to the Nephites this might mean something along the line of 'unworthy', 'wicked', 'undesirable', and so forth. Now how directly/indirectly the Nephites views correlate with God's and what that means is a question worth of pursuing. But again, that's going to be rather difficult from our perspective. Folks, this was two thousand years ago.

That's got to count for something. Unless, of course (which happens to be the case here) , you think that it's not two thousand years ago, its' less than two hundred years ago. And that counts for something too.

Regards,
MG

[_just me]

Well, most of us don't believe it was 2000 years ago. It was the early 1800s. All the racism is easily explained when viewed in that context.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG could argue that the priests [of Noah] were wicked and had depraved tastes, but the daughters [of the Lamanites] in the narrative are presented as wholesome and pure.

If you would like to cut and paste or link to that story/narrative, we could look at it a bit closer.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

God sure would be showing His hand if He did something like that though, wouldn't He?

Ah the God cannot show his hand defense. Never heard why that makes any sense. If he need us to have faith, and we cannot have faith if we know, then you are saying blind faith. Of course this means God wants gullibility. You would also have to argue God cannot really heal people throuth priesthood blessings since that would be showing his hand.

[_mentalgymnast]

Well, most of us don't believe it was 2000 years ago. It was the early 1800s. All the racism is easily explained when viewed in that context.

I'd have to agree with that.

Regards,
MG