Racism and the Book of Mormon

[_Darth J]

The point is: nephites coming from the middle east mixing with other races on the continent could not be white.

Show me any verse anywhere in the Book of Mormon that indicates the Nephites "mixed" with "other races on the continent."

[_Themis]

You haven't noticed racism towards the black community or culture among Mormons. That's just unbelievable. Or maybe you live in an area that's racially homogenous and it rarely is a factor.

I don't care if someone in a video defends their religion with a series of arguing points, it's a huge problem with Mormons. Huge problem. The fact that Mormons aren't able to recognize it would only be a first step.

I'm not trying to 'make a case' man, I thought it was something everyone saw. Guess not, the video proves Mormons aren't racist so good job on turning that around.

In the video he says he doesn't think Mormons are racist, or at least I think he would agree that they are not any different then the surrounding population. I think the problem for the Book of Mormon is the mirroring of ideas present in the 1800's on the subject. Where did the Nephites get the idea that skin color is a punishment or curse, but then we have no evidence for some 3 white groups of people from the middle east thousands of years ago.

[Guest]

So Themis asks whyme to argue his case based on the TEXT of the Book of Mormon, not on artists' interpretations ...

And whyme replies with reference to what he sees in an artist's interpretation?

I am talking common sense. The Nephites did not have a european skin color. So, they were not white. And someone sent me links of church art showing the people with brown skin which only confirmed what I said. These people are seen as having brown skin and not lily white.

You're talking nonsense...again.
Since when has Church art accurately reflected official doctrinal claims?
CFR any verse in the Book of Mormon that says the Nephites had brown skin, as opposed to them being explicitly stated within the book as being 'white'.
You won't, because you can't...again.

[_tapirrider]

I am talking common sense. The Nephites did not have a european skin color. So, they were not white. And someone sent me links of church art showing the people with brown skin which only confirmed what I said. These people are seen as having brown skin and not lily white.

Common sense does not agree with the Book of Mormon, which says that Nephites did have a European skin color. Did you forget about Nephi prophesying of Columbus and Europeans coming? Nephi said the Europeans were white "like unto my people".

1 Nephi 13:
12 And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.
13 And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters.
14 And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.
15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.

[_Mary]

Here's what Spencer Kimball said:

I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today ... they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people.... For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised.... The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

From: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Lamanites/Curse

I read the FAIR site and it just seems a lot of ridiculous mumbo jumbo on this particular issue.
Right up until 1960, the language of the Book of Mormon was so clear concerning the curse being a dark skin that Spencer Kimball had no problem in making the 'racist' (sorry lets call it what it was) statement that he made. Was there one person in the whole church then that disagreed with him or found his statement troubling?

Personally I think this is a real issue for the church and it's one that is not easily gotten out of without complete revision and reworking of the Book of Mormon Text as seen in the latest Doubleday edition (in some sections - not all).

Of course the Israelites coming out of Jerusalem would not have been 'white'. That's a given. But in the 70's I was taught that there were 2 groups in the Americas, the light skinned (Nephites) and the dark skinned (Lamanites). This was from the missionaries and it was basic stuff. I remember being shown a picture as evidence of two races. Something like this: http://www.famsi.org/reports/99003/images/fig10.jpg

Brian is right in my opinion. This is a really hard one to wiggle out of and does infact argue against historicity. There is no evidence that I am aware of that the peoples of the Bible were racist based on skin colour. Indeed the Israelites themselves of which Lehi is supposed to be one, were the objects of racism and persecution based on tribal affiliation, but not on 'skin colour'.

So to me, the racism in the Book of Mormon based on 'white' and 'black' is entirely anachronistic and argues for a 19th century origin of the Book of Mormon. It looks and feels 19th Century in this instance.

[Guest]

Oh, Gladys Knight is a Mormon? Never mind.

You honestly don't notice anything?

I believe that many critics on this board must have been taliban Mormons in the church. And now they still are taliban exmormons expecting everyone to be who they were when members of the church. And this is the problem when it comes to much discussion about Mormons and cultural norms and opinions.

Fair enough, I was probably taliban Mormon when active, although 'taliban exmormon' isn't very fair. You don't know what my views are on many church related issues are, when/if i'm planning to go back, etc. I can see what you're talking about though, many Mormons started to see issues after being gung ho about for so long and some do crusade against it, although usually not very long.

But that's a very broad and incorrect assumption to just say that's THE reason these discussions can never work out. On the flip side a lot of the frustration is I think Mormons are trained to view practically any type of criticism as 'anti-mormon.'

[_Drifting]

I believe that many critics on this board must have been taliban Mormons in the church. And now they still are taliban exmormons expecting everyone to be who they were when members of the church. And this is the problem when it comes to much discussion about Mormons and cultural norms and opinions.

Fair enough, I was probably taliban Mormon when active, although 'taliban exmormon' isn't very fair. You don't know what my views are on many church related issues are, when/if I'm planning to go back, etc. I can see what you're talking about though, many Mormons started to see issues after being gung ho about for so long and some do crusade against it, although usually not very long.

But that's a very broad and incorrect assumption to just say that's THE reason these discussions can never work out. On the flip side a lot of the frustration is I think Mormons are trained to view practically any type of criticism as 'anti-mormon.'

You're going to get extremes on both sides in online discussions of course.

There is a space between what Why Me believes and what is supportable or evidentiary. That space is usually referred to as a 'gaping chasm of cosmic proportions...'

[_Mary]

There is a space between what Why Me believes and what is supportable or evidentiary. That space is usually referred to as a 'gaping chasm of cosmic proportions...'

Sorry Why Me, but that is funny

(You did quite unfairly continue to argue that I was in an anti-mormon hole so I felt I could get away with chuckling)

I am quite happy for you to label me as anti-racist and anti-book of Mormon passages that seem to indicate God is racist. You can label me with those for the rest of my life and I will be quite happy!

[Guest]

So to me, the racism in the Book of Mormon based on 'white' and 'black' is entirely anachronistic and argues for a 19th century origin of the Book of Mormon. It looks and feels 19th Century in this instance.

If I am not mistaken the white and delightsome was changed to pure and delightsome by Joseph Smith in 1840.

President Kimball felt that the Indians were becoming a “white and delightsome” people through the power of God as a result their acceptance of the Gospel. This was not an uncommon belief at the time. At the time that this statement was made by Elder Kimball, the Book of Mormon did indeed say "white and delightsome." This passage is often quoted relative to the lifting of the curse since the phrase "white and delightsome" was changed to "pure and delightsome" in the 1840 (and again in the 1981) editions of the Book of Mormon. The edit made by Joseph Smith in 1840 in which this phrase was changed to "pure and delightsome" had been omitted from subsequent editions, which were actually based upon the 1837 edition rather than the 1840 edition. The modification was not restored again until the 1981 edition with the following explanation:

Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

From the FAIR site you linked to.

[_Tobin]

So to me, the racism in the Book of Mormon based on 'white' and 'black' is entirely anachronistic and argues for a 19th century origin of the Book of Mormon. It looks and feels 19th Century in this instance.

If I am not mistaken the white and delightsome was changed to pure and delightsome by Joseph Smith in 1840.

That isn't the only problem with her assertion why me. If it was purely a 19th century view of racism, then why in the Book of Mormon are the Lamanites portrayed as rigtheous at times and the Nephites as wicked?!? The whole premise is flawed and just plain silly to start with.