Think racism isn't taught to Mormon kids? Think again.

[_Tobin]

What ridiculous claim do you think I'm defending? I'm not ok with racism whether it is practiced and taught outside or inside the Church.

Not racism; I think you've been clear that you're not ok with it. I'm thinking of you arguing from the position that there actually were Nephites:

Admittedly there are parts of the Book of Mormon that were written by Nephites, who were racist.

Or you speculating in scientific terms about the natural mechanism that darkened the Lamanites' skin as a way to explain the Nephites' confusion about a curse:

The Nephites felt that way. But it may have just been a genetic mutation and they attributed it to God cursing the Lamanites with a dark skin as an outward sign of how evil they were.

In context, your statements don't read to me as mere literary criticism, and the people arguing with you certainly took what you wrote as a defense of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Is that not what you were doing?

Not exactly. I'm saying that if you just follow the narrative of the Book of Mormon, it is hard to build the case that the Book of Mormon itself teaches racism since Jacob chastises the Nephites for being prejudiced, the Lamanites become righteous and Lamanite prophets preach repentance to the wicked Nephites, and the Nephites don't change color when they become wicked. Based on that narrative and underlying bias of the Nephites, one can understand the racist statements and views that are expressed. That doesn't mean I agree with them or that they reflect my views.

The historical claims of the Book of Mormon are a different matter and shouldn't be based on the narrative. I don't find the argument that a sacred text in and of itself is sufficient to prove it was historical. That is not a compelling view to me for either the Book of Mormon nor the Bible.

[_Equality]

What I find so amusing about the apologetic argument that the mistakes (racism, concepts refuted by scientific progress, translation errors, and the like) of prophets are tolerated by God is that the defense offered up completely destroys Mormonism's raison d'etre. The Restoration that Joseph Smith gave to the world was supposed to have corrected the errors and mistakes that developed over two millennia of Christianity. The core idea of the Restoration is that God spoke to Man directly when Jesus walked the earth and in the short period after His ascension to heaven through revelation. That direct communication from God to Man was pure when it was received. But over time, men began to change and alter the "pure" word of God, adding and subtracting things according to their own worldly wisdom and understanding. The Restoration of Mormonism was different from (and superior to) the reformation efforts of Luther and his spiritual progeny in that the reformation efforts relied again on the wisdom and reasoning of mere mortal men. Their efforts represented the "philosophies of men, mingled with scripture." God's direct revelation to Joseph Smith was supposed to be qualitatively different from that--it was supposed to be 100% reliable because God would not lead his true prophets astray.

But now the apologists tell us that if Joseph Smith thought he was translating an Egyptian papyrus that contained the writings of Abraham, he was simply mistaken, and that when he claimed that's what he did, God wouldn't correct him on his misapprehension because to do so would be to make a sock puppet out of the prophet. Or that if Brigham Young was mistaken in instituting a ban on priesthood for men of black African descent, his racism can be explained by the fact that he was simply a product of his time. And God is just fine with all these mistakes of men to creep into the scriptures, into the allegedly inspired talks the prophets give at General Conference, and into the doctrines and policies of the "one true and living church on the face of the whole earth." God doesn't correct them because prophets aren't perfect, even when producing scripture and claiming to speak in God's name and voice. The problem with arguing that the scriptures, talks, lessons, doctrines, and policies given to us by Mormon prophets contain a mixture of God's ideas and human misconceptions is that this makes them no more reliable than the received wisdom of 2000 years of traditional Christianity's "philosophies of men mingled with scripture." Actually, it makes them worse--at least the Protestants didn't claim to be speaking for God when coming up with their doctrines and policies.

If God won't correct his prophets, what's the use of him calling them in the first place? What makes Mormonism superior to the so-called "apostate" churches of traditional Christianity if Mormonism's leaders, like those allegedly apostate sects, are just mingling their own best human reasoning with guidance doled out capriciously by a whimsical deity?

[_DarkHelmet]

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.

To summarize BC Space's argument, it's not racism if it's true.

[_Sophocles]

What I find so amusing about the apologetic argument that the mistakes (racism, concepts refuted by scientific progress, translation errors, and the like) of prophets are tolerated by God is that the defense offered up completely destroys Mormonism's raison d'etre.

Exactly. Reminds me of the old quote from Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

The apologists take away everything that is good and special about the church in order to defend it, and they leave themselves with no answer to the question "Then why would anyone want to join this church?"

[_Tobin]

...

The answer is staring you in the face. The raison d'etre of Mormonism isn't as you characterize it so more men, LDS prophets in place of pastors and other clergy, can tell us what to believe, but that we should instead seek and speak with God ourselves and determine the truth for ourselves. Mormonism is a revealed religion, not a dictated religion. There is no reason to believe its claims over any other religions claims other than God reveals to you that you should. The "mistakes" of LDS prophets only highlight why it isn't a good idea to "trust in the arm of flesh", but that instead it is better to trust in the Lord and follow him.

And LDS prophets are not necessarily inspired, or called of God. It is merely an ecclesiastical title in the LDS Church. There is a world of difference between that and those that are truly called of God. Consider Martin Luther King, Jr and his calling to speak the "truth" about the evils of racism and segregation" Or Gandhi and his mission of peaceful protest and resistance to free his people from British rule. These are examples of true prophets because they stand up for the truth and say what needs to be said.

[_Drifting]

And LDS prophets are not necessarily inspired, or called of God. It is merely an ecclesiastical title in the LDS Church.

Does any other believing Mormon agree with this?

[_Juggler Vain]

In context, your statements don't read to me as mere literary criticism, and the people arguing with you certainly took what you wrote as a defense of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Is that not what you were doing?

Not exactly. I'm saying that if you just follow the narrative of the Book of Mormon, it is hard to build the case that the Book of Mormon itself teaches racism since Jacob chastises the Nephites for being prejudiced, the Lamanites become righteous and Lamanite prophets preach repentance to the wicked Nephites, and the Nephites don't change color when they become wicked. Based on that narrative and underlying bias of the Nephites, one can understand the racist statements and views that are expressed. That doesn't mean I agree with them or that they reflect my views.

The historical claims of the Book of Mormon are a different matter and shouldn't be based on the narrative. I don't find the argument that a sacred text in and of itself is sufficient to prove it was historical. That is not a compelling view to me for either the Book of Mormon nor the Bible.

Okay, so you have just been engaging in literary criticism this whole thread, and reading the Book of Mormon as a piece of literature -- a mere story, regardless of its authorship -- you can see ideas and take-away lessons beneath the "face value" of the text that can turn the overt racist messages on their heads (e.g., "and thus we see how not to interpret changes in skin color").

Do you accept the idea that the "face value" of the Book of Mormon text is what nearly all mainstream Mormons accept and teach their kids, and that the Church provides resources to facilitate this teaching?

-JV

[_Chap]

...

The answer is staring you in the face. The raison d'etre of Mormonism isn't as you characterize it so more men, LDS prophets in place of pastors and other clergy, can tell us what to believe, but that we should instead seek and speak with God ourselves and determine the truth for ourselves. Mormonism is a revealed religion, not a dictated religion. There is no reason to believe its claims over any other religions claims other than God reveals to you that you should. The "mistakes" of LDS prophets only highlight why it isn't a good idea to "trust in the arm of flesh", but that instead it is better to trust in the Lord and follow him.

And LDS prophets are not necessarily inspired, or called of God. It is merely an ecclesiastical title in the LDS Church. There is a world of difference between that and those that are truly called of God. Consider Martin Luther King, Jr and his calling to speak the "truth" about the evils of racism and segregation" Or Gandhi and his mission of peaceful protest and resistance to free his people from British rule. These are examples of true prophets because they stand up for the truth and say what needs to be said.

Somehow I don't think Tobin can hold a Temple recommend.

4. Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

Heresy! Burn the Panda!

[_Drifting]

Tobin, do any of your views and beliefs align with the official views and beliefs of Mormonism?

 

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

 The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.

[_Tobin]

Okay, so you have just been engaging in literary criticism this whole thread, and reading the Book of Mormon as a piece of literature -- a mere story, regardless of its authorship -- you can see ideas and take-away lessons beneath the "face value" of the text that can turn the overt racist messages on their heads (e.g., "and thus we see how not to interpret changes in skin color").

Do you accept the idea that the "face value" of the Book of Mormon text is what nearly all mainstream Mormons accept and teach their kids, and that the Church provides resources to facilitate this teaching?

I agree that the criticism is valid and that the mainstream practice is misguided. But, I'm also of the view that the speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr should be taught in LDS Churches. I also think the Church should apologize for its practice of banning blacks from priesthod and denounce it as a man-made, despicable doctrine that we completely reject.