Racist Book of Mormon Stories - Refuting the Mopologists

[_Runtu]

From the fact that Kimball is talking of the home placement program making participating kids lighter than their non-participating siblings and parents, it is clear that what Droopy said is just plain wrong.

It's also kind of funny to hear Droopy saying that President Kimball was commenting on interracial marriage here, but on the other thread he is insisting that the church's direct counsel against such marriages is spot on. Talk about ad hoc argumentation and talking out of both sides of his mouth.

[_Chap]

... talking out of both sides of his mouth.

There might be less polite descriptions possible ...

[_Buffalo]

From the fact that Kimball is talking of the home placement program making participating kids lighter than their non-participating siblings and parents, it is clear that what Droopy said is just plain wrong.

Droopy will admit that he likes show tunes and and aspires to be a hair dresser before he ever admits he was wrong about something. :)

[_Darth J]

What does race have to do with the plan of salvation?

Why are you asking me? Its the leftists and liberals here who are obsessed by it, not me.

Lineage has a great deal to do with the plan of salvation in its mortal context and processes, but I don't accept "race" as an actual scientific phenomenon. There are no such thing as different "races" of homo sapiens sapiens.

Oh, those silly Bretheren and their priesthood ban!

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.
—First Presidency statement, August 17, 1949

I wonder how the Church could even have an attitude with reference to Negroes, since race doesn't exist. Or how Bruce R. McConkie could have written that "the race and nation in which men are born in this world is a direct result of their pre-existent life." He must have been a leftist.

Droopy, do you want to concede right now that numerous prophets and apostles in the LDS Church have talked about "the Negro race," or should I keep going?

[_Droopy]

So, God advises us to make marital decisions based on what our racist families and neighbors might say? Yikes.

No, we should make our marital decisions based upon revelation and the best chances of a harmonious interaction and relationship between the two spouses and the respective cultural background of each. This is what I am (vainly, it seems yet again) attempting to get across. It can be better to stay within one's own ethnic group, socioeconomic background, educational level, and other variables. There is nothing hard and fast about h is, only, as a mean, its probably wise counsel.

I can understand cultural differences being an issue, but these are not directly related to man-made "ethnic boundaries."

How so? How is ethnicity unrelated to culture under conditions in which the ethinic boundaries in question have been created by cultural differences grounded in a sense of ethnic identity as over against "the other" outside?

Would it be wise for an upper middle class university student to marry a woman raised and enculturated within the inner city welfare underclass? It might work, but rolling those dice might also, and I'd say quite likely, end in disaster for all concerned.

A blue collar kid marrying into the Heinz family also may or may not work, based upon the same concerns.

Take, for example, a Bolivian who wants to marry an Argentine of similar genetic makeup. The church says this is fine and dandy, but Argentines tend to think of Bolivians the way white Americans tend to think of Mexicans: lower class, illiterate, lazy, etc. For this reason, Bolivians don't think much of Argentines, either.

Most Americans do not see Mexicans in this manner. Ground Control to Major John, you're suffering from space fever. Take your meds.

[_Darth J]

"I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today.... The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl--sixteen--sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents--on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather....These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness."
- Apostle Elder Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, 1960

This is of no use to your argument unless you can show what Elder Kimball thought was the actually active cause of the changes he said he saw.

Its also clear you have not the slightest idea what you're talking about, or where you're going with this. Spencer Kimball had a great love for the Amerindians, as have many LDS apostles. The Amerindians were, indeed, among the first peoples (and the English) to whom missionary work was inaugurated after the organization of the Church.

Spin your wheels and throw as much mud and gravel as you wish.

It is obvious that he thought the cause of the changes was the young American Indians believing in the Church, just like the Book of Mormon promises. He makes it clear that this is the only difference: "on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather."

Spencer W. Kimball did indeed have a great love for the American Indians, and he believed that their skin color was related to their faithfulness to the LDS gospel.

[_tapirrider]

"I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today.... The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl--sixteen--sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents--on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather....These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness."
- Apostle Elder Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, 1960

This is of no use to your argument unless you can show what Elder Kimball thought was the actually active cause of the changes he said he saw.

Its also clear you have not the slightest idea what you're talking about, or where you're going with this. Spencer Kimball had a great love for the Amerindians, as have many LDS apostles. The Amerindians were, indeed, among the first peoples (and the English) to whom missionary work was inaugurated after the organization of the Church.

Spin your wheels and throw as much mud and gravel as you wish.

What Kimball actually thought? He thought that the Book of Mormon was true. He thought that a promise in it was happening. "The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised."

2 Nephi 30: 6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.

In 1981 the Book of Mormon was changed. It no longer says "white", it says "pure".

http://scriptures.BYU.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1091&era=yes

[_Chap]

...[To Runtu] Take your meds.

Yuk. Maybe we just leave it to Droopy to think of what he deserves to get back in response to a dig like this. Poor guy.

[_Darth J]

A blue collar kid marrying into the Heinz family also may or may not work, based upon the same concerns.

Droopy, I would like to see a statement from the Church advising youth to marry within their same socioeconomic status. Would you like to cite one for me?

[_Droopy]

Oh, those silly Bretheren and their priesthood ban!

Hi Darth. Back from the ACLU father-son camp out? Good. I'm sure you'll add loads of intellectual substance to the proceedings here.

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.
—First Presidency statement, August 17, 1949

1949? That's the year the original Mighty Joe Young was released. That was the policy at that time. Anything else?

I wonder how the Church could even have an attitude with reference to Negroes, since race doesn't exist. Or how Bruce R. McConkie could have written that "the race and nation in which men are born in this world is a direct result of their pre-existent life." He must have been a leftist.

The author of this book is as deeply confused (and as sloppy a thinker) as you are, Darth. The counter-arguments to this are so old and so well known that I'll overlook them for now in the name of repetitious banality.

Droopy, do you want to concede right now that numerous prophets and apostles in the LDS Church have talked about "the Negro race," or should I keep going?

No, they have. I do not accept the concept. There are far, far fewer morphological differences - and utterly trivial by comparison - between human beings, at their utmost, and various breeds of dogs. There is one "race" of homo sapiens sapiens, among which are slight morphological (and biochemical) variations.

The whole idea is bosh. Lineage and culture are another matter entirely. Further, there has never been any official doctrine regarding the validity of the concept. It was used as the vast majority of white and black Americans have always used it - as a cultural linguistic inheritance.