Racism and the Book of Mormon

[_why me]

I love the way they think, but at the moment their thoughts and ideas would be considered 'heretical' by many I am sure.

I think that people are looking at various verses in different ways. I showed you FAIR and Blacklds plus there are others who are offering differing takes with color issues in the Book of Mormon. And no one as be excommunicated for apostacy. It is an open discussion. And certainly one can bring it up in sunday school if necessary. No problem.

Maybe you have been away from the ballgame for too long.

[_why me]

Is this still 'bumping' or is it now 'trying to nail jello to the wall'....

It's perfectly fine to keep reminding for everyone something whyme is not honest enough to admit what we already know. We all know the church has never taught this, and even the article he quotes says it is not affiliated with the church in any way. The answer they give is BS apologetics that makes no sense, since it would not really distinguish the groups. To say one group is all lazy and the other is industrious is stupid to the extreme.

Okay, lets all gather around for a nice campfire chat...okay...I have some marshmallows that I brought for a roast. And I even brought sticks. And I have coffee for those exmos who need their cup. Okay...now lets begin with the chat.

I believe that people are seeing those scriptures dealing with race differently. And discussions will follow. There is nothing wrong with bringing up interpretations in priesthood or sunday school. It is not apostacy. Also, we can look at it from the viewpoint of the writer for that section of the Book of Mormon. Were the nephites a little down on the lamanites....? Yes. Why...? because they were human. However, when the lamanites joined the fold and accepted God, they were looked upon as brothers and sisters. But yes, there was contention between the two groups and dislike.

Also, I think that it is wonderful that people can discuss different interpretations for the Book of Mormon. Scriptures can be read and analyzed and discussed and reinterpreted. Isn't it wonderful? See what you guys are missing by staying out of the fold? And I could even venture to say that the GAs who interpreted certain scriptures racially may have been wrong in their interpretation. Nothing wrong with that either since it is an interpretation.

Now who wants a marshmallow?

[_Darth J]

I don't see him being a Church Leader either...

My point is simple. What he wrote would be acceptable in any sunday school class discussing skin color or color imagery. No apostacy.

Nope. That violates church policy.

Handbook of Instructions 21.1.13

The Church makes available scriptures, magazines, manuals, books, and other materials to help members learn and live the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Priesthood and auxiliary leaders encourage members to obtain copies of the scriptures and other curriculum materials to use in their homes and at church.

Leaders ensure that teachers use Church-approved materials for quorum and class instruction. The publication Instructions for Curriculum provides information about how to organize Sunday classes and which materials to use for lessons.

[_madeleine]

Okay, just trying to follow on and seek evidence that Lehi may have come over to the Americas with 'racist' ideas already in place (based on skin colour).

I found this book (which I haven't read, but have spent some time checking the reviews)

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7641.html

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Curse-Ham-C ... inw_strp_1

In it Goldenberg argues that there is a preference for one's own skin tone, but beyond that there is no evidence for black Africans being associated with slavery or a 'curse'. The Semitic evidence is just not there from the period in question.

So to me it goes back to a 'loose translation'. It is more likely that the Book of Mormon was filtered through Joseph's brain and so would naturally have included his prejudices and experiences. This would seem to me to most likely explain away all the anachronisms despite various accounts that would suggest the contrary.

I'm quite prepared to believe that there is good in the Book of Mormon, that there are good messages there, but there are certainly bad messages also, and I would put the blame for that on Joseph rather than ancient Israelites in matters concerning race.

One problem that I can think of off the top of my head with a "racist" Lehi: "Race" is a ~17th century invention.

Regarding the mark of Cain...it was formulated by people who were pro-slavery as a pseudo support for slavery. Pseudo, because it isn't a real argument. As you have already pointed out, Genesis says nothing of Cain's skin color changing.

Modern Biblical scholars place the passage in the culture from which it comes, and speculate it was a tattoo. Also, the mark wasn't a curse but a sign of being protected by God.

[_why me]

Nope. That violates church policy.

Handbook of Instructions 21.1.13

The Church makes available scriptures, magazines, manuals, books, and other materials to help members learn and live the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Priesthood and auxiliary leaders encourage members to obtain copies of the scriptures and other curriculum materials to use in their homes and at church.

Leaders ensure that teachers use Church-approved materials for quorum and class instruction. The publication Instructions for Curriculum provides information about how to organize Sunday classes and which materials to use for lessons.

Okay, let me try this again: A person can raise their hand and give their take on it in class. They can bring to the table a different interpretation of skin color. No problem. No apostacy.

[_Drifting]

I don't see him being a Church Leader either...

My point is simple. What he wrote would be acceptable in any sunday school class discussing skin color or color imagery. No apostacy.

Nope. That violates church policy.

Handbook of Instructions 21.1.13

The Church makes available scriptures, magazines, manuals, books, and other materials to help members learn and live the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Priesthood and auxiliary leaders encourage members to obtain copies of the scriptures and other curriculum materials to use in their homes and at church.

Leaders ensure that teachers use Church-approved materials for quorum and class instruction. The publication Instructions for Curriculum provides information about how to organize Sunday classes and which materials to use for lessons.

Again Why Me, you are not answering the question. Nobody asked what you considered acceptable in any Sunday School Class (which, as DJ points out, is completely at odds to what the Church thinks is acceptable in any Sunday School Class).

Here is what you have been asked:

So, Why Me, how is it coming with finding a single LDS leader who has ever taught that the dark skin given to the Lamanites was merely symbolic?

What you have shown us examples of is just how far away from the teachings of the Church you have drifted...

[_cafe crema]

They are after all the most secretive religion around.

Oh...okay....the vatican would be glad to hear it.

The Vatican is no more secretive than those in charge of the LDS church and the Catholic church is certainly not secretive about it's sacraments.

[_Themis]

Okay, lets all gather around for a nice campfire chat...okay...I have some marshmallows that I brought for a roast. And I even brought sticks. And I have coffee for those exmos who need their cup. Okay...now lets begin with the chat.

I believe that people are seeing those scriptures dealing with race differently. And discussions will follow. There is nothing wrong with bringing up interpretations in priesthood or sunday school. It is not apostacy. Also, we can look at it from the viewpoint of the writer for that section of the Book of Mormon. Were the Nephites a little down on the Lamanites....? Yes. Why...? because they were human. However, when the Lamanites joined the fold and accepted God, they were looked upon as brothers and sisters. But yes, there was contention between the two groups and dislike.

Also, I think that it is wonderful that people can discuss different interpretations for the Book of Mormon. Scriptures can be read and analyzed and discussed and reinterpreted. Isn't it wonderful? See what you guys are missing by staying out of the fold? And I could even venture to say that the GAs who interpreted certain scriptures racially may have been wrong in their interpretation. Nothing wrong with that either since it is an interpretation.

Now who wants a marshmallow?

You are dodging AGAIN. We both know the church and it's leaders have never taught this interpretation, which is apologetic, and almost every member will not agree with you. You have what the church has taught and what the Book of Mormon says going against you. You certainly are free to interpret it any way you like. I am sure you could bring up that you think the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction and not get into trouble, but then you would need to attend SS first.

[_Darth J]

Nope. That violates church policy.

Handbook of Instructions 21.1.13

The Church makes available scriptures, magazines, manuals, books, and other materials to help members learn and live the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Priesthood and auxiliary leaders encourage members to obtain copies of the scriptures and other curriculum materials to use in their homes and at church.

Leaders ensure that teachers use Church-approved materials for quorum and class instruction. The publication Instructions for Curriculum provides information about how to organize Sunday classes and which materials to use for lessons.

Okay, let me try this again: A person can raise their hand and give their take on it in class. They can bring to the table a different interpretation of skin color. No problem. No apostacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question.

[_Mary]

Madeleine said:

One problem that I can think of off the top of my head with a "racist" Lehi: "Race" is a ~17th century invention.

I absolutely agree. David Goldenberg (book referenced below) makes an excellent case for this. In that sense I am convinced that the passages in the Book of Mormon dealing with 'dark skin' as a curse or 'sign' of the curse, is totally anachronistic. It shouldn't be there. If Nephi and Lehi really did exist then the idea of God cursing a group of people with a dark skin would be totally alien to them. It makes no sense. The only way it does make sense is if it is Joseph Smith's ideas rather than any ancient group. Sylvester Johnson (book referenced below) outlines just how familiar what is found in the Book of Mormon would have been in 19th Century America in particular. Whites were the superior race, chosen of God, the Native American Indian was ungodly, far from the Christian God, and the blacks were even further down the pecking order with some viewing them as less than human.

Regarding the mark of Cain...it was formulated by people who were pro-slavery as a pseudo support for slavery. Pseudo, because it isn't a real argument. As you have already pointed out, Genesis says nothing of Cain's skin color changing.

Also, it was an attempt to define the differences in race from a biblical perspective. In 19th Century America, (and before) the world was viewed through a biblical lens in Christian countries. Interestingly Muslim slave traders used the same justification (curse of Ham/Canaan) for their trading in slaves.
They were reading in to the text what just wasn't there, in order to justify their own worldview and practices.

Modern Biblical scholars place the passage in the culture from which it comes, and speculate it was a tattoo. Also, the mark wasn't a curse but a sign of being protected by God.

Yes, it almost certainly wasn't a change in skin colour since Israelites were from the same tribal base as the Canaanites. Joseph Smith wouldn't have appreciated or understood this.

Curse of Ham : Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity and Islam
Goldenberg, David M.
Pages: 468
Publisher: Princeton University Press
Location: Princeton, New Jersey, USA
Date Published: 07/2005

Myth of Ham in Nineteenth-Century American Christianity : Race, Heathens, and the People of God
Johnson, Sylvester
Pages: 204
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
Location: Gordonsville, VA, USA
Date Published: 12/2004