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

[_mentalgymnast]

So is he....

Belief is an interesting concept. And it's rather more complicated, for some, than others. For some the natural inclination is to disbelieve after being exposed to information that causes cognitive dissonance. For others the natural inclination is to dig deeper and look for more information, after having been exposed to the same information, with hopes of gaining greater understanding/wisdom that may lead to actual 'belief'. I'm one of those that has very few entrenched 'beliefs' in regards to those things that are not readily accessible through the natural five senses. Of course we've been acculturated to 'believe' that we can always trust these senses, and the associated thinking processes attached thereto, to tell us the 'truth'. Of course we know that this is not always the case. So the result, for me, is that I wholeheartedly trust very little (whether through my own sensory system or information regarding what can't be readily seen/experienced) in response the the question, "What do you believe?". The sun coming 'up', that rain will 'fall', that love exists, and a number of other things I DO believe. But there is much that I look at with skeptical eyes and put on the balance scale as to whether I might think that it is plausible, possible, or probable. The truth claims, in a global/macro sense, of the LDS Church I look at as having plausible, possible, and at times even probable reasons/rationale for 'belief'.

And so I stay. I suppose that I am dogmatic in the belief that there is no completely trustworthy reason to be dogmatic. I like to remain open. I'd like to think that: there is rhyme and/or reason for everything that happens in the world and that all is or will be made right. That there is truth to be found in many places. That suffering has meaning. That God is over all. That there is eternal meaning/purpose in the universe, that includes us. That goodness will prevail. That God is not a racist. That families can be forever. That the weaknesses of men are assumed and/or accounted for and part of an overall plan.

The the process of grabbing onto truth and holding onto it is a rather complicated and at times messy process. And in my mind it requires constant management and balance.

I am comfortable living in a world of ambiguity and questioning with hopes of gaining greater light and wisdom and holding on to that which I see as good and worthy of honor/respect/loyalty. I suppose I do rely, up to point, on some of the anchor experiences that I've personally had along the way that FOR ME anchor me to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. At the same time I am totally open to the concept of "to each his own", because I think that God may/does have custom designed plans for everyone.

Even the Scientologists and Fundamentalist Mormons. And you guys.

Regards,
MG

[_malkie]

...
At the same time I am totally open to the concept of "to each his own", because I think that God may/does have custom designed plans for everyone.

Even the Scientologists and Fundamentalist Mormons. And you guys.

Regards,
MG

Or the possibility that your god has no plans for anyone, even orthodox/orthopractic Mormons?

[_Goya]

That suffering has meaning.

What possible meaning could suffering have?

[_Goya]

I suppose I do rely, up to point, on some of the anchor experiences that I've personally had along the way that FOR ME anchor me to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, do you see the modern prophets as mouthpieces of God or not?

[_cognitiveharmony]

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

My post wasn't relying on any interpretations from 2000 years later. The text is very specific and doesn't really have room for alternate interpretations. It specifically speaks of racist concepts being employed by God. You haven't even begun to address this. You simple keep avoiding the subject by ignoring what's actually in the book. If God cursed the Lamanites with dark skin as a punishment for wickedness and as a method to make them 'undesirable' to the white Nephites, then God is a racist. If He did not, then the Book of Mormon along with it's author is bearing false witness. If you believe the Book of Mormon is inaccurate, then you need to describe where and how it's inaccurate and further explain where it IS accurate and how you can know the difference. If a book is purported to be from God, yet has so much misleading and incorrect doctrine and information, what good is it? What good do you get from the Book of Mormon that you couldn't find elsewhere in the world? What is the purpose of a book so flawed that it portrays God as a racist and inflicts damage on society with it's portrayal for generations? There is no 'further light and knowledge' contained in this book, only 19th century bigotry, zealotry, and a nice dose of confusion.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

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?

Here's what I'm getting from MG--

MG summarizes the problem very clearly when he says, "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."

Okay, so now that we know what the problem is, what's the answer? According to the Church, the answer to the problem is continuing revelation from latter-day prophets who tell us what God wants us to believe and how to behave...except for when they talk about race issues.

When it comes to issues involving race, latter-day prophets can't tell the difference between divine revelation and social customs, folk beliefs, and popular opinion. These guys are epic failures in all things regarding race. This is why MG rejects pretty much everything they have to say on the subject.

Frankly, I applaud MG for rejecting these destructive teachings. It takes a certain amount of courage to reject them, especially when one has been born in the covenant and grown up in the Church. The fact that MG has done so makes him part of the solution to this and many other problems in the Church.

[_moksha]

It is possible that the Tar Baby in Uncle Remus tale was the symbolic of George Washington's warning about becoming entangled in foreign affairs. In relationship to the Mormon Saga, it could also represent that portion of the female charm to which Joseph Smith became too enamored. Either way, we can see that the Tar Baby represented something far greater than the banality of racism.

[_I have a question]

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?

Here's what I'm getting from MG--

MG summarizes the problem very clearly when he says, "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."

Okay, so now that we know what the problem is, what's the answer? According to the Church, the answer to the problem is continuing revelation from latter-day prophets who tell us what God wants us to believe and how to behave...except for when they talk about race issues.

When it comes to issues involving race, latter-day prophets can't tell the difference between divine revelation and social customs, folk beliefs, and popular opinion. These guys are epic failures in all things regarding race. This is why MG rejects pretty much everything they have to say on the subject.

Frankly, I applaud MG for rejecting these destructive teachings. It takes a certain amount of courage to reject them, especially when one has been born in the covenant and grown up in the Church. The fact that MG has done so makes him part of the solution to this and many other problems in the Church.

I think you need to factor in that MG has admitted a number of times that his starting point is:
1. God is not a racist
2. Joseph Smith was a Prophet and I trust him.

These predetermined conclusions restrict MG's thought processes. He would rather be seen as defending racism than think himself that he was inferring God was a racist or that Joseph wasn't a Prophet. He has chosen not to give himself the free reign of letting the evidence lead wherever it leads. For him it can lead anywhere EXCEPT the place where anyone reading the same words would conclude it has to lead.

He isnt an apologist, he's a testimony protectionist, no matter what the cost to his credibility or how his intellectual integrity is perceived. That basis makes it exceptionally difficult to have any kind of rationale discussion. You can discuss racism with him as much as you like, so long as what is written in the Book of Mormon is categorised as something other than racism.

[_mentalgymnast]

The [Book of Mormon] is very specific and doesn't really have room for alternate interpretations. It specifically speaks of racist concepts being employed by God.

This seems to be the sticking point. I've attempted to work through and with it instead of accepting the above statement as a given. It is already a given in these parts that there is no other interpretation possible in the Book of Mormon other than either a racist Joseph Smith or a racist God, depending on your view of the origins of the Book of Mormon.

Here is part of a blog entry over on:

http://janariess.religionnews.com/2014/ ... xperience/

that might be helpful at this point.

Marcus Martins, PhD in sociology, and professor at Brigham Young University-Hawaii, discusses that and other questions related to racial atitudes and the meaning of the scriptures. Martins is the son of Helvecio Martins, first LDS Church general authority of African descent, and Professor Martins himself was the first missionary of African descent called in 1978. He is currently serving as a mission president in Brazil. In one address he gave in 2009, he spoke of

“our scriptural stance on race relations found in the Book of Mormon where Nephi proclaims that “…[God] inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” (The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ; 2 Nephi 26:33)”

The principle peoples whose history is recounted in the Book of Mormon were all descendants of the tribes of Israel, including Judah, Ephraim and Manassah. They were not of African descent. If there is phrasing that seems to refer to a distinct appearance between the “Lamanites” and the “Nephites” it is nothing that has to do with actual racial differences, because they were all descendants of Israel, literal cousins, with lots of intermarriage and dissenters of one group joining the other. Whatever the Book of Mormon is talking about, it is not an actual racial difference, and it is definitely not speaking of people of African descent.

What the Book of Mormon does teach is that God loved and redeemed people in both general groups, and some of the most exemplary people described there are people who were “Lamanites”, including the converts to Christianity who refused to take arms in their own defense and were slain by their angry Lamanite brothers. In the end, it is the formerly favored Nephites who become corrupt and evil and are destroyed as a nation because they have betrayed their heritage and the prophets of God. The main purpose of the Book of Mormon is stated to be to teach the descendants of the Lamanites that they are of the House of Israel and are a chosen people who are entitled to great blessings from God. So how is this message “racist”?

The Latter-day Saints who believed in the Book of Mormon set out early on to take its message to the American Indians whom they believed had ancestry among the Book of Mormon peoples. That continued on through times when many other Americans thought Indians were not fully human.

When we look at the whole of Judeo-Christian history we have whispers/strains of 'racism' embedded in the culture and/or religious doctrines/attitudes of the folks in different 'dispensations'. From the Old Testament up through the New Testament. One would expect that there would be echoes of 'racism' coming through the pages of the Book of Mormon. This whole discussion, for the most part, is focusing on: Whether or not what we see going on in the Book of Mormon is actually racism from the modern and/or ancient viewpoint/standard?

My contention/suggestion/proposal is that we may want to remain open on the answer to this question.

When everything is broken down to the simple elements of this thread/argument...that's about ALL I'm really saying.

From where you're sitting, this may not be an option for you. Especially if you're locked into the Book of Mormon being a product of the nineteenth century...period.

Regards,
MG

[_Goya]

When we look at the whole of Judeo-Christian history we have whispers/strains of 'racism' embedded in the culture and/or religious doctrines/attitudes of the folks in different 'dispensations'. From the Old Testament up through the New Testament. One would expect that there would be echoes of 'racism' coming through the pages of the Book of Mormon.

For argument's sake, let's assume this is true. On what are you basing your argument that God is not racist?