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

[Guest]

Well, if you don't like that phrase for one reason or another, let's go with "it's a balancing act".

But that won't work either because you won't find a balancing point between a greater evil (i.e. the teachings of modern prophets) and a lesser evil (i.e. the sanitized racism of the current Book of Mormon).

It really doesn't surprise me that there would be racist pronouncements from apostles and prophets.

Okay, so then why not also excise the racist passages from the Book of Mormon? If we can throw Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Joseph Fielding Smith under the bus, then why not Nephi?

I would surprise me, OTOH, if God is racist in the way which you're trying to paint Him.

Here's the specific definition of racism I'm using to "paint" him:

The Oxford English Dictionary defines racism as the "belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races" and the expression of such prejudice.

That's a pretty good distillation of what the Book of Mormon says about race, isn't it?

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.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but you have yet to explain what "a LOT bigger than that" means. Does it mean he's an eternal racist? An infinite racist? How is Celestial racism different from terrestrial racism?

Whatever negative characteristics we try and paint Him with will only show a partial view...

No--this is how the Book of Mormon and the Bible paint him, not how I paint him.

...which observed in totality with the rest of the painting cause/result in that partial view fading into obscurity.

This presumes a great many things that contradict not only ancient scripture and modern scripture, but also the teachings of latter-day prophets.

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.

But that's why we have latter-day prophets, isn't it?

[_Goya]

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

That might be troublesome if we didn't have living prophets to tell us what they meant, whether it's 2000 years ago or 20 years ago

[_mentalgymnast]

If we can throw Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Joseph Fielding Smith under the bus, then why not Nephi?

The words of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Joseph Fielding Smith haven't been erased from the historical record that is available to see have they? Why are you suggesting we would do different in regards to the Book of Mormon? Why NOT just leave them there so that we are forced to make sense out of it?

You are in favor of burying history? For one thing, if we are not aware of what may appear to be historical injustices and/or inequities, how are we to learn and correct future actions/impulses/events? And even if there is some rhyme or reason behind what occurred two thousand years ago, we can still learn from the historical record.

Why erase it?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

That might be troublesome if we didn't have living prophets to tell us what they meant, whether it's 2000 years ago or 20 years ago

And you are free do come to your own conclusions after hearkening to the words of prophets and apostles. You are in no way forced to believe every word they have to say. If it were so, Mark E. Peterson, for one, would have destroyed any future hope of getting things right. There are things he said that were just plain wrong...in my opinion anyway.

Regards,
MG

[_Goya]

That might be troublesome if we didn't have living prophets to tell us what they meant, whether it's 2000 years ago or 20 years ago

And you are free do come to your own conclusions after hearkening to the words of prophets and apostles. You are in no way forced to believe every word they have to say. If it were so, Mark E. Peterson, for one, would have destroyed any future hope of getting things right. There are things he said that were just plain wrong...in my opinion anyway.

Regards,
MG

Apologies. I'm just trying to figure out what you believe.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

The words of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Joseph Fielding Smith haven't been erased from the historical record that is available to see have they?

No, they haven't been erased, so far as I know, with the possible exception of certain materials that may have been destroyed by a former president of the Daughters of Utah Pioneers. But I doubt that everything in the archives is available to the public.

Why are you suggesting we would do different in regards to the Book of Mormon?

I'm not.

Why NOT just leave them there so that we are forced to make sense out of it?

Sounds like a good idea. The best way to make sense of the Book of Mormon is to understand it as a work of fiction--problem solved!

You are in favor of burying history?

Nope.

For one thing, if we are not aware of what may appear to be historical injustices and/or inequities, how are we to learn and correct future actions/impulses/events? And even if there is some rhyme or reason behind what occurred two thousand years ago, we can still learn from the historical record.

And if it turns out to be fiction--as in the case of the BoM--we can learn from that, too. The Book of Mormon tells us far more about Joseph Smith, his cohorts, and the antebellum United States than it does about the ancient inhabitants of the Americas.

Why erase it?

Why mischaracterize it as ancient history when it clearly isn't?

[_canpakes]

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.

MG -

I'm wondering if you can 'bottom line' this for me.

When you write what you have immediately above, it would seem that you hint at the possibility that you believe that both the Book of Mormon and subsequent pronouncements regarding this topic could both be heavily influenced by mere mortal opinion. In other words, the 'racist' elements are not there because 'God' (in whatever form) is 'racist', but because the writings that would lead one to conclude this are merely the opinions or fables of men.

Is that correct?

If not, can you specifically state which parts of the Book or which subsequent statements by Church leaders being discussed in this thread really have - in your opinion - God's actual imprimatur, so to speak, to be published, accepted and acknowledged as 'God's opinion' on these things?

[_grindael]

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.

Very weak, my man. In no way does this overturn the available evidence that we have. (Not even close). Why in the world would I speculate about what other alternatives God would use in a 19th Century piece of pseudepigrapha? The burden is on you, MG. If God was trying to make a more "stable" part of his Vineyard, he failed miserably.

[_I have a question]

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.

Regards,
MG

Not in this case. These particular scriptures were given word by word directly to Joseph by God.

On that basis we have to conclude that God is a racist (as we understand racism) or that He was happy to leave wording in that would lead us to conclude that God is a racist and upon which a discriminatory Church policy would be based.

[_I have a question]

And you are free do come to your own conclusions after hearkening to the words of prophets and apostles. You are in no way forced to believe every word they have to say. If it were so, Mark E. Peterson, for one, would have destroyed any future hope of getting things right. There are things he said that were just plain wrong...in my opinion anyway.

Regards,
MG

Apologies. I'm just trying to figure out what you believe.

So is he....