Book of Mormon not racist..... it's spiritual symbolism.

[_mentalgymnast]

When we look at the whole of Judeo-Christian history we have whispers/strains of 'racism' embedded in the culture and/or religious doctrines/attitudes of the folks in different 'dispensations'. From the Old Testament up through the New Testament. One would expect that there would be echoes of 'racism' coming through the pages of the Book of Mormon.

For argument's sake, let's assume this is true. On what are you basing your argument that God is not racist?

You read the blog extract I quoted in my last post, right? I think this touches on where I'm coming from in answer to your question. I think I've also touched on your question off and on throughout this thread. I can sit here and go back through memory lane and remember where I have done so. I'm not going to take the time to cut and paste for you though.

by the way, my last post and the extract which I used from Riess's blog comments pretty much encapsulates an approach that I think is reasonable as we look at so-called 'racism' in the Book of Mormon.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

These guys are epic failures in all things regarding race.

I think Pres. Kimball got things right back in 1978.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

That suffering has meaning.

What possible meaning could suffering have?

Another thread might be appropriate for this.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

...
At the same time I am totally open to the concept of "to each his own", because I think that God may/does have custom designed plans for everyone.

Even the Scientologists and Fundamentalist Mormons. And you guys.

Regards,
MG

Or the possibility that your god has no plans for anyone, even orthodox/orthopractic Mormons?

Well, sure, it's always possible that a creator/God may have gone to all the effort to get man/woman on the planet...and then just let the whole thing go to hell. Figuratively (literally?).

Or we might surmise that He also has a plan by which His ultimate creation, man, has purpose/destiny/meaning. I can't see God just letting everything to to pot. Figuratively (literally?).

To think that the CofJCofLDS might be part of 'a plan' is not unreasonable in my opinion. Especially with all the time/effort/resources that are poured into temple work for the living and the dead.

Regards,
MG

[_Goya]

I think I've also touched on your question off and on throughout this thread. I can sit here and go back through memory lane and remember where I have done so. I'm not going to take the time to cut and paste for you though. : smile:

I'm not looking for something that has been touched on, off and on, throughout the thread. I'd like to read your succinct argument, so I don't misunderstand it.

I'll try to summarize what I think I've read you've been saying. Please help me if I'm mistaken.

You've basically said that God is not racist because He's God. And God, by definition, can't be racist. And we mortals can't know his ways. And we're reading things through our mortal, presentist viewpoints. Do I have that right?

[_cognitiveharmony]

Marcus Martins, PhD in sociology, and professor at Brigham Young University-Hawaii, discusses that and other questions related to racial atitudes and the meaning of the scriptures. Martins is the son of Helvecio Martins, first LDS Church general authority of African descent, and Professor Martins himself was the first missionary of African descent called in 1978. He is currently serving as a mission president in Brazil. In one address he gave in 2009, he spoke of

“our scriptural stance on race relations found in the Book of Mormon where Nephi proclaims that “…[God] inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” (The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ; 2 Nephi 26:33)”

The principle peoples whose history is recounted in the Book of Mormon were all descendants of the tribes of Israel, including Judah, Ephraim and Manassah. They were not of African descent. If there is phrasing that seems to refer to a distinct appearance between the “Lamanites” and the “Nephites” it is nothing that has to do with actual racial differences, because they were all descendants of Israel, literal cousins, with lots of intermarriage and dissenters of one group joining the other. Whatever the Book of Mormon is talking about, it is not an actual racial difference, and it is definitely not speaking of people of African descent.

What the Book of Mormon does teach is that God loved and redeemed people in both general groups, and some of the most exemplary people described there are people who were “Lamanites”, including the converts to Christianity who refused to take arms in their own defense and were slain by their angry Lamanite brothers. In the end, it is the formerly favored Nephites who become corrupt and evil and are destroyed as a nation because they have betrayed their heritage and the prophets of God. The main purpose of the Book of Mormon is stated to be to teach the descendants of the Lamanites that they are of the House of Israel and are a chosen people who are entitled to great blessings from God. So how is this message “racist”?

The Latter-day Saints who believed in the Book of Mormon set out early on to take its message to the American Indians whom they believed had ancestry among the Book of Mormon peoples. That continued on through times when many other Americans thought Indians were not fully human.

When we look at the whole of Judeo-Christian history we have whispers/strains of 'racism' embedded in the culture and/or religious doctrines/attitudes of the folks in different 'dispensations'. From the Old Testament up through the New Testament. One would expect that there would be echoes of 'racism' coming through the pages of the Book of Mormon. This whole discussion, for the most part, is focusing on: Whether or not what we see going on in the Book of Mormon is actually racism from the modern and/or ancient viewpoint/standard?

If all humans are descended from Adam, then according to the person that you quoted above, there is only one race and racism is self contradictory. Of course he has no idea what he's talking about. It's quite possible for a dark skinned parent and a white skinned parent to have both a dark skinned and a white skinned child, both of which could experience racism based on the color of their skin regardless of having the VERY same parents. Racism is not usually base on literal descendency but rather unique traits that groups of people often share. This defense of the Book of Mormon is so weak that it's hardly worth discussing. Is there anything else out there that you think is ACTUALLY a good defense? The difference between me and the author of the Book of Mormon is that I think that if there is a God, then he planned the different colors of skin for variety and beauty, whereas the Book of Mormon specifically states that He did it as a curse for wickedness and to make one group (the dark skinned one) undesirable.

So if Lamanites can be good and it has nothing to do with their skin color, why do they become white again when they become righteous? Explain these verses in context:

3 Nephi 2:14:15

14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;

15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

[_mentalgymnast]

It really doesn't surprise me that there would be racist pronouncements from apostles and prophets. I would surprise me, OTOH, if God is racist in the way which you're trying to paint Him.

MG -

I'm wondering if you can 'bottom line' this for me.

I'll try.

When you write what you have immediately above, it would seem that you hint at the possibility that you believe that both the Book of Mormon and subsequent pronouncements regarding this topic could both be heavily influenced by mere mortal opinion.

Think Deuteronomistic influence. Seeing as that the plates and their writings were created by men, I don't see any other way of looking at it.

In other words, the 'racist' elements are not there because 'God' (in whatever form) is 'racist', but because the writings that would lead one to conclude this are merely the opinions or fables of men.

If you look at my recent post where I extracted some comments from a blog entry, you can take as the 'take away' from this...and my subsequent comments on that post...that I'm still not convinced that the Book of Mormon 'racism' can be interpreted quite as starkly as some are attempting to do here. At the same time, I don't doubt that the influence of man is found within the pages/text of the Book of Mormon. How could it be otherwise, unless you want to take the approach that all of the words in the Book of Mormon are literally "God breathed"?

..can you specifically state which parts of the Book or which subsequent statements by Church leaders being discussed in this thread really have - in your opinion - God's actual imprimatur, so to speak, to be published, accepted and acknowledged as 'God's opinion' on these things?

in my opinion, canon scripture and pronouncements from prophets that enter into publication are always going to be a composite product. Man and God. That is, if you assume that God is part of the process/equation. God has influence, and so does man. The sticky point, obviously, is where one starts and the other ends and/or visa versa.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Marcus Martins, PhD in sociology, and professor at Brigham Young University-Hawaii, discusses that and other questions related to racial atitudes and the meaning of the scriptures. Martins is the son of Helvecio Martins, first LDS Church general authority of African descent, and Professor Martins himself was the first missionary of African descent called in 1978. He is currently serving as a mission president in Brazil. In one address he gave in 2009, he spoke of

“our scriptural stance on race relations found in the Book of Mormon where Nephi proclaims that “…[God] inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” (The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ; 2 Nephi 26:33)”

The principle peoples whose history is recounted in the Book of Mormon were all descendants of the tribes of Israel, including Judah, Ephraim and Manassah. They were not of African descent. If there is phrasing that seems to refer to a distinct appearance between the “Lamanites” and the “Nephites” it is nothing that has to do with actual racial differences, because they were all descendants of Israel, literal cousins, with lots of intermarriage and dissenters of one group joining the other. Whatever the Book of Mormon is talking about, it is not an actual racial difference, and it is definitely not speaking of people of African descent.

What the Book of Mormon does teach is that God loved and redeemed people in both general groups, and some of the most exemplary people described there are people who were “Lamanites”, including the converts to Christianity who refused to take arms in their own defense and were slain by their angry Lamanite brothers. In the end, it is the formerly favored Nephites who become corrupt and evil and are destroyed as a nation because they have betrayed their heritage and the prophets of God. The main purpose of the Book of Mormon is stated to be to teach the descendants of the Lamanites that they are of the House of Israel and are a chosen people who are entitled to great blessings from God. So how is this message “racist”?

The Latter-day Saints who believed in the Book of Mormon set out early on to take its message to the American Indians whom they believed had ancestry among the Book of Mormon peoples. That continued on through times when many other Americans thought Indians were not fully human.

MG: When we look at the whole of Judeo-Christian history we have whispers/strains of 'racism' embedded in the culture and/or religious doctrines/attitudes of the folks in different 'dispensations'. From the Old Testament up through the New Testament. One would expect that there would be echoes of 'racism' coming through the pages of the Book of Mormon. This whole discussion, for the most part, is focusing on: Whether or not what we see going on in the Book of Mormon is actually racism from the modern and/or ancient viewpoint/standard?

Of course he has no idea what he's talking about.

Aargh.
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

So if Lamanites can be good and it has nothing to do with their skin color, why do they become white again when they become righteous? Explain these verses in context:

3 Nephi 2:14:15

14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;

15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

That's a good question. From a 'non-racist' perspective I would have to default to the arguments that Brant Gardner has given. He's the expert.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/ ... -blackness

http://mormonstories.org/307-311-transl ... t-gardner/

He goes into the meaning of 'skin' and so forth. by the way, if you haven't listened to his interview with John Dehlin, it's a good one.

Regards,
MG

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Here's what I'm getting from MG--

MG summarizes the problem very clearly when he says, "We have to remember that when we read the scriptures that they are written by men. That, in and of itself, is a key indication that we're not going to get a complete/accurate picture of what's going on. And then you have those that are interpreting what these men/prophets have said...two thousand years later. There's bound to be some conjecture going on that is going to be faulty."

Okay, so now that we know what the problem is, what's the answer? According to the Church, the answer to the problem is continuing revelation from latter-day prophets who tell us what God wants us to believe and how to behave...except for when they talk about race issues.

When it comes to issues involving race, latter-day prophets can't tell the difference between divine revelation and social customs, folk beliefs, and popular opinion. These guys are epic failures in all things regarding race. This is why MG rejects pretty much everything they have to say on the subject.

Frankly, I applaud MG for rejecting these destructive teachings. It takes a certain amount of courage to reject them, especially when one has been born in the covenant and grown up in the Church. The fact that MG has done so makes him part of the solution to this and many other problems in the Church.

I think you need to factor in that MG has admitted a number of times that his starting point is:
1. God is not a racist
2. Joseph Smith was a Prophet and I trust him.

Yes, I agree MG believes God is not a racist in spite of the fact that God talks and acts very much like a racist talks and acts. And yes, I agree MG trusts Joseph Smith as a revelator...except in matters regarding race. MG clearly picks and chooses which revelations he'll accept and which he'll reject.

These predetermined conclusions restrict MG's thought processes. He would rather be seen as defending racism than think himself that he was inferring God was a racist or that Joseph wasn't a Prophet. He has chosen not to give himself the free reign of letting the evidence lead wherever it leads. For him it can lead anywhere EXCEPT the place where anyone reading the same words would conclude it has to lead.

Yes, I think this describes MG's thoughts and attitudes very well--at this particular point in time. If he's moving away from what latter-day prophets say about race, then he's at least moving in the right direction. I like to think he's a work in progress, that he's making baby steps.

He isnt an apologist, he's a testimony protectionist, no matter what the cost to his credibility or how his intellectual integrity is perceived. That basis makes it exceptionally difficult to have any kind of rationale discussion. You can discuss racism with him as much as you like, so long as what is written in the Book of Mormon is categorised as something other than racism.

Yes, he a testimony protectionist. Nice turn of phrase, by the way. For some people, the protect-my-testimony-at-all-cost stage is the final obstacle on their way to freedom. That's certainly a reoccurring theme with some of the high-level defectors from Scientology.