Racism and the Book of Mormon

[_why me]

Fair enough, I was probably taliban Mormon when active, although 'taliban exmormon' isn't very fair. '

Difficult to shed the talibanisms when an exmormon. Usually, it comes out when least expected. This is the problem with many former taliban Mormons who lived the law knee deep in the mire. When they become exmormons they still show intolerance to a Mormon's inactivity or anything less than a taliban mentality.

[_Themis]

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.

The bibles portrays Israelites as wicked all the time and needing other groups to bring them down to repentance. Is it that hard to think Joseph or others may have just used a common story type with the Book of Mormon.

[_Chap]

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.

The bibles portrays Israelites as wicked all the time and needing other groups to bring them down to repentance. Is it that hard to think Joseph or others may have just used a common story type with the Book of Mormon.

Nope. The skin color angle is a 19th century overlay on an attempted imitation of ancient Hebrew scripture. It's not surprising that the joins show, is it?

[_why me]

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.

This is true. In fact, the Indians were not much loved as the Indian Wars would demonstrate two decades later. The Book of Mormon turned frontier racism upside down.

However, exmormons love to bring out past GA quotations here and there to prove their point. However, no one has proved who wrote the Book of Mormon and the witnesses still hold up.

[_why me]

Nope. The skin color angle is a 19th century overlay on an attempted imitation of ancient Hebrew scripture. It's not surprising that the joins show, is it?

Maybe it is me but I just don't know how the vision of the three witnesses fits into all this. Do you?

[_Drifting]

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.

Wasn't changed to 'brown' though was it...

[_Themis]

Nope. The skin color angle is a 19th century overlay on an attempted imitation of ancient Hebrew scripture. It's not surprising that the joins show, is it?

My point was simply that the Bible, and other stories do follow the same theme of God's chosen group being wicked and needing some other group to force them to repent.

[_Themis]

Maybe it is me but I just don't know how the vision of the three witnesses fits into all this. Do you?

It's not relevant, and it's visions, not vision. The Book of Mormon needs only be shown to be made up, just as court cases only need show someone is guilty, not always how the did it. It also helps when you have even more obvious made up things like the Book of Abraham.

[_Tobin]

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.

This is true. In fact, the Indians were not much loved as the Indian Wars would demonstrate two decades later. The Book of Mormon turned frontier racism upside down.

However, exmormons love to bring out past GA quotations here and there to prove their point. However, no one has proved who wrote the Book of Mormon and the witnesses still hold up.

I understand your point about the witnesses and who the author is, but I've never found the argument convincing. Joseph Smith could have written it and colluded with his family and associates to perpetrate a hoax. There really is no reason to believe the witnesses to the Book of Mormon. I and you do not know them personally and so their testimony is of little weight. The only reason to believe the Book of Mormon is true is if God tells you it is and I believe that is the whole purpose of the Book in the first place.

[_Darth J]

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 sure would mean something if it were not for the numerous, explicit references to a change in skin color that Joseph Smith left in there.

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.

Let's consider the unspoken assumptions underlying this FAIR wiki entry:

1. The Book of Mormon is the Most Correct Book On Earth That Was Translated By The Power Of God For Our Day, and yet the Lord fumbled the wording here to such an extent that a Modern Prophet, Seer, And Revelator did not understand what the text really meant when said Prophet, Seer, And Revelator spoke in the name of Jesus Christ during General Conference.

2. The FAIRies who write the FAIR wiki understand what the Book of Mormon means better than Spencer W. Kimball, who was a Special Witness Of The Lord Jesus Christ and a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator imbued with the spirit of prophecy and the gift of discernment.

3. When Spencer W. Kimball gets up in General Conference and makes assertions of fact that he claims were witnesses by numerous other people (like the missionary he says made a comment about donating blood), he is merely expressing a misunderstanding of the Book of Mormon that was common at that time. And it was indeed a misunderstanding, regardless of the numerous, explicit verses in the Book of Mormon equating the Lamanite curse with skin color, which verses were not changed in 1981.

4. If the FAIR wiki is right, then it means that General Authorities sometimes make up fanciful, faith-promoting stories out of whole cloth to prove a point about their mistaken understanding of the scriptures.