DiscussMormonism.com

Check out the Children's Book of Mormon Stories book published by LDS Inc.

Specifically Chapter 9: A New Home in the Promised Land,” Book of Mormon Stories, 25
Towards the bottom of the page:



Laman and Lemuel’s followers called themselves Lamanites.
They became a dark-skinned people.
God cursed them because of their wickedness.



The Lamanites became lazy and would not work.



The people who followed Nephi called themselves Nephites.
The Lamanites hated the Nephites and wanted to kill them.

An old canard. Skin color is not related to any particular behavior or defect in the book. Hence, no racism. On the other hand, what PP's logic is saying is that dark skinned people are never wicked or lazy; speaking to "noble savage" illusions which are shared by all leftists.

bcspace wrote:An old canard. Skin color is not related to any particular behavior or defect in the book. Hence, no racism. On the other hand, what PP's logic is saying is that dark skinned people are never wicked or lazy; speaking to "noble savage" illusions which are shared by all leftists.

The stupid. It burns.

It's people like you who make people think Mormons are still racists. Keep up the good work!

Polygamy-Porter wrote:


The people who followed Nephi called themselves Nephites.
The Lamanites hated the Nephites and wanted to kill them.

I think this is a telling picture. Consider the Book of Mormon was published in 1830. The idea of chrsitian white people living in civilized towns while the dark skinned savages hid in the wilderness and spied on them. That was a real fear for early 19th century Americans. The Book of Mormon addressed this issue by providing an origin story for the savages. The mystery is why people still buy into this origin story today.

bcspace wrote:An old canard. Skin color is not related to any particular behavior or defect in the book. Hence, no racism. On the other hand, what PP's logic is saying is that dark skinned people are never wicked or lazy; speaking to "noble savage" illusions which are shared by all leftists.

This is still published by LDS Inc.

Therefore according to your definition, the contents thereof are doctrine.

Polygamy-Porter wrote:This is still published by LDS Inc.

Therefore according to your definition, the contents thereof are doctrine.

"God cursed them because of their wickedness." bc's point was that "skin color is not related to any particular behavior or defect." No, it's just general wickedness that caused the curse. But that's not racist. It's OK to call a whole group of people wicked as long as you don't refer to any particular behavior or defect. That's like saying it's not misogynistic to call women stupid, as long as you don't point out something specific. They think this kind of crap is defending the church. How stupid can you be?

I have watched bc for some time, and I am almost convinced he's an anti-Mormon sockpuppet.

"God cursed them because of their wickedness." bc's point was that "skin color is not related to any particular behavior or defect." No, it's just general wickedness that caused the curse. But that's not racist. It's OK to call a whole group of people wicked as long as you don't refer to any particular behavior or defect. That's like saying it's not misogynistic to call women stupid, as long as you don't point out something specific. They think this kind of crap is defending the church. How stupid can you be?

So are saying that in addition to stating the suspect is black, it's also wrong to state the suspect is black and is wearing a blue shirt?

bcspace wrote:An old canard. Skin color is not related to any particular behavior or defect in the book. Hence, no racism. On the other hand, what PP's logic is saying is that dark skinned people are never wicked or lazy; speaking to "noble savage" illusions which are shared by all leftists.

Let's analyze this:

Laman and Lemuel’s followers called themselves Lamanites.
They became a dark-skinned people.
God cursed them because of their wickedness.

You are leading us to believe that the author was simply stating that Laman and Lemuel's followers became a dark-skinned people, but that the dark skin was not considered the curse. Is that right?

Remember, that this is a book designed for children. If this is being read to a child, in simplistic terms, the child is going to conclude that the curse is the dark skin based on the way the sentences are laid out. This is basic reading comprehension 101.

You are leading us to believe that the author was simply stating that Laman and Lemuel's followers became a dark-skinned people, but that the dark skin was not considered the curse. Is that right?

No. In the Book of Mormon case, dark skin is part of the curse. But notice, they were not lazy or wicked because they had dark skin either before or after the curse. Hence, no racism.

bcspace wrote:

You are leading us to believe that the author was simply stating that Laman and Lemuel's followers became a dark-skinned people, but that the dark skin was not considered the curse. Is that right?

No. In the Book of Mormon case, dark skin is part of the curse. But notice, they were not lazy or wicked because they had dark skin either before or after the curse. Hence, no racism.

I don't think that was Porter's argument.

Edited to add---I would say that the fact that dark skin is reflected as a curse from God to be racist.