DiscussMormonism.com

cognitiveharmony wrote:
Isn't it wonderful to know that you believe in a God that would restore his 'Gospel' and allow you and everyone else for the first 150 or so years to believe that he's a racist.....at least until racism is no longer cool.....

I'm not denying that there is an element of privilege and 'holier than thou' that sneaks its way in to the minds and hearts of the early saints, including the leaders. It IS unfortunate. It has created misunderstanding and hurt/disappointment.

Question for you. I'm not sure if you believe in a creator/God. If not, this question is rather useless, I suppose. Anyway, the reality in front of our face this that there has been throughout human history a division line between human beings called 'race'. If God is behind His creation orchestrating what's going on, what do you think the purpose of division lines created by racial lineage is? No purpose? Some purpose? Purely evolutionary and God didn't have anything to do with it and just has to deal with it?

What are your thoughts? Is it possible, in your mind, that God would give certain light and knowledge to various groupings of humanity that is unique to those populations?

Anyone is free to join in...although if you're not open to the possibility of a creator/God, I would suspect that your input would be rather ineffectual just as the question itself would appear to be a futile exercise in trying to make meaning out of nothing of any real substance.

Regards,
MG

just me wrote:How does that article in anyway make the doctrine of black/dark skin being a curse and keeping people from the temple/priesthood not a racist doctrine? Are you also opposed to calling slavery racist or making blacks sit at the back of the bus? Please tell us how discriminating against people based on race and skin color is not racist.

It is a divisive doctrine. But I'm not convinced that this is the same thing as being a racist doctrine. Divisive/division can either be seen as a positive thing or a negative thing depending on the circumstances. Racism is always bad. IMHO.

Slavery. Back of the bus. Racist.

Regards,
MG

cognitiveharmony wrote: [God] curses sinful people with dark skin and...people with dark skin are unworthy of the priesthood[/color]

On its surface, I am uncomfortable with this. What I'm saying is that I'm open to the possibility that there's more to it than meets the eye and that God knows the end from the beginning and has made allowances for the missteps of people doing stupid things. But what that dividing line is between people doing stupid things and what is God's will...I don't really know and can't hope to figure out without things getting rather tangled up.

Regards,
MG

ldsfaqs wrote:... it's spiritual symbolism.

How long have you held this view? I would wager it's no more that five years. What was your reasoning before then?

Some Schmo wrote:In fact, most people wouldn't even bother to discuss [the racial divisions in the Mormon priesthood] with the thought, What's the point?

I'm not sure that this is true. A lot of people, yes. But I think there are many folks that are at least willing to entertain other ways of looking at the issue. Earlier in the thread faqs presented some alternative ways of viewing 'Book of Mormon racism' and I mentioned Brant Gardner's work, but there was a rather deafening silence and an immediate cry of "No, racism...pure and simple".

To be honest, I'm not sure that I'm totally on board with Brant's theories, but it does provide another way...possibilities... of viewing things rather than looking at the whole issue through eyes of 'racism' with all the venom and hatred that this word carries in its wake.

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast wrote:

Some Schmo wrote:In fact, most people wouldn't even bother to discuss [the racial divisions in the Mormon priesthood] with the thought, What's the point?

Whoa whoa whoa... let me stop you right there.

The 'it' you replaced in my post with "[the racial divisions in the Mormon priesthood]" was not referring to that at all. I was talking about the church itself, not "divisions in the priesthood". I'm talking about its culture. And I was referring to the obvious fact that it's not "the true church." That was the main thrust of that sentence.

Since I wasn't specifically referring to the race issue (as much) with that particular post, when I later said most people wouldn't bother to discuss it, what I was really saying is that the word "Mormon" itself is more of a punchline with the general population than a topic of serious discussion. I mean that literally. I can't remember all times I've just said the word and elicited chuckles (of course, context helps).

Ok, so anyway, what were you saying?

mentalgymnast wrote:I'm not sure that this is true. A lot of people, yes. But I think there are many folks that are at least willing to entertain other ways of looking at the issue. Earlier in the thread faqs presented some alternative ways of viewing 'Book of Mormon racism' and I mentioned Brant Gardner's work, but there was a rather deafening silence and an immediate cry of "No, racism...pure and simple".

To be honest, I'm not sure that I'm totally on board with Brant's theories, but it does provide another way...possibilities... of viewing things rather than looking at the whole issue through eyes of 'racism' with all the venom and hatred that this word carries in its wake.

Regards,
MG

Dude, I honestly like you. Pretty much always have, so when I say this, I'm saying it because I respect you enough to be straight with you: the only people who would seriously entertain any alternate hypotheses to the fact that the Book of Mormon is a racist, fictitious document are people who already have an emotional investment in it being a sacred text. That's it. Everyone else can read it objectively, and see what is staring them in the face.

As for your question as to why god would make separate races, I realize you're asking other theists, but the reason it's such a difficult question is that you're imposing your god on the issue. If you take your god out of it, it makes complete sense. It comes down to early ancestry migration patterns and the amount and quality of light the various locations people migrated to have. I heard Bill Nye talking about that just the other day.

just me wrote: Please tell us how discriminating against people based on race and skin color is not racist.

It's not racist if the division is based on something other than those characteristics that are applicable and/or associated with being a racist. Being able to pinpoint with accuracy whether or not those characteristics have a basis/origin in racism (superiority/domination) vs. division (separation without some sort of 'evil' ulterior motive) is the sticky point .

Regards,
MG

Question for ldsfaqs and mentalgymnast:

In your view, is Holocaust Denialism inherently anti-Semitic?

Is it possible to be a Holocaust denier without also being an anti-Semite?

mentalgymnast wrote:

just me wrote: Please tell us how discriminating against people based on race and skin color is not racist.

It's not racist if the division is based on something other than those characteristics that are applicable and/or associated with being a racist.

Dude, why would you conveniently change "discriminate" to "division"? It's the discrimination (or division) that itself is racist. It can't be based on something else if that's what it is. The discrimination is the characteristic you're looking for.

mentalgymnast wrote:It's not racist if the division is based on something other than those characteristics that are applicable and/or associated with being a racist.

So the post-Reconstruction Jim Crow laws were not necessarily racist.

Uh, okay...