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

[_The Erotic Apologist]

These guys are epic failures in all things regarding race.

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

In all fairness, the IRS should get the credit for that one, not Spencer W Kimbull.

[_cognitiveharmony]

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

Aargh.
MG

Is that all you have to say? He's saying that because they supposedly shared common ancestry, racism couldn't have existed. It's an asinine assertion. If you actually believe in the Book of Mormon then you believe that we ALL share common ancestry. So if racism is impossible due to common ancestry, how does it exist?

[_cognitiveharmony]

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

I can hardly believe I slogged through that garbage. Why don't you summarize Brant's arguments so I can see if you even understood what they are? If you truly did, you would have never posted this link.

[_Goya]

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

It looks like Gardner offers two perspectives on skin color references in the Book of Mormon. One is that of LDS Church authorities, and the other is that of Mormon apologists. Gardner appears to go with the explanation offered by apologists, thereby discarding the official explanation. Or am I misreading Gardner?

And if I'm not misreading: Is this the side of the argument you're adopting?

[_Goya]

I can hardly believe I slogged through that garbage. Why don't you summarize Brant's arguments so I can see if you even understood what they are? If you truly did, you would have never posted this link.

Thank you for saying this.

[_Themis]

Belief is an interesting concept. And it's rather more complicated, for some, than others. For some the natural inclination is to disbelieve after being exposed to information that causes cognitive dissonance. For others the natural inclination is to dig deeper and look for more information, after having been exposed to the same information, with hopes of gaining greater understanding/wisdom that may lead to actual 'belief'. I'm one of those that has very few entrenched 'beliefs' in regards to those things that are not readily accessible through the natural five senses. Of course we've been acculturated to 'believe' that we can always trust these senses, and the associated thinking processes attached thereto, to tell us the 'truth'. Of course we know that this is not always the case. So the result, for me, is that I wholeheartedly trust very little (whether through my own sensory system or information regarding what can't be readily seen/experienced) in response the the question, "What do you believe?". The sun coming 'up', that rain will 'fall', that love exists, and a number of other things I DO believe. But there is much that I look at with skeptical eyes and put on the balance scale as to whether I might think that it is plausible, possible, or probable. The truth claims, in a global/macro sense, of the LDS Church I look at as having plausible, possible, and at times even probable reasons/rationale for 'belief'.

And so I stay. I suppose that I am dogmatic in the belief that there is no completely trustworthy reason to be dogmatic. I like to remain open. I'd like to think that: there is rhyme and/or reason for everything that happens in the world and that all is or will be made right. That there is truth to be found in many places. That suffering has meaning. That God is over all. That there is eternal meaning/purpose in the universe, that includes us. That goodness will prevail. That God is not a racist. That families can be forever. That the weaknesses of men are assumed and/or accounted for and part of an overall plan.

The the process of grabbing onto truth and holding onto it is a rather complicated and at times messy process. And in my mind it requires constant management and balance.

I am comfortable living in a world of ambiguity and questioning with hopes of gaining greater light and wisdom and holding on to that which I see as good and worthy of honor/respect/loyalty. I suppose I do rely, up to point, on some of the anchor experiences that I've personally had along the way that FOR ME anchor me to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. 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

That's a lot of mental masturbation in your post. You are trying to convince yourself that you are somehow very open minded by thinking that the less trust you have for the 5 senses the more open minded you are. You are very wrong. Open mindedness is about how willing you are to alter your beliefs and views when confronted with evidence supporting a change in beliefs. You instead make the choice not to trust the evidence in order to protect the belief. This is the opposite of an open mind. Trust in our 5 sense should be based on reliability. What interesting is that we have lots and lots of experience here. We can test test test test test them all the time. We can test how accurate the information we are receiving, and how consistent they are. Yet you have little trust for them and instead put all your trust in a few experiences you cannot know came from some entity. Experiences you interpreted with your world view in mind which differed from most other who do the same with their world views. Funny to see you go with the unreliable and reject the reliable to maintain certain beliefs. This is not someone who wants the truth.

[_Gunnar]

Belief is an interesting concept. And it's rather more complicated, for some, than others. For some the natural inclination is to disbelieve after being exposed to information that causes cognitive dissonance. For others the natural inclination is to dig deeper and look for more information, after having been exposed to the same information, with hopes of gaining greater understanding/wisdom that may lead to actual 'belief'. I'm one of those that has very few entrenched 'beliefs' in regards to those things that are not readily accessible through the natural five senses. Of course we've been acculturated to 'believe' that we can always trust these senses, and the associated thinking processes attached thereto, to tell us the 'truth'. Of course we know that this is not always the case. So the result, for me, is that I wholeheartedly trust very little (whether through my own sensory system or information regarding what can't be readily seen/experienced) in response the the question, "What do you believe?". The sun coming 'up', that rain will 'fall', that love exists, and a number of other things I DO believe. But there is much that I look at with skeptical eyes and put on the balance scale as to whether I might think that it is plausible, possible, or probable. The truth claims, in a global/macro sense, of the LDS Church I look at as having plausible, possible, and at times even probable reasons/rationale for 'belief'.

And so I stay. I suppose that I am dogmatic in the belief that there is no completely trustworthy reason to be dogmatic. I like to remain open. I'd like to think that: there is rhyme and/or reason for everything that happens in the world and that all is or will be made right. That there is truth to be found in many places. That suffering has meaning. That God is over all. That there is eternal meaning/purpose in the universe, that includes us. That goodness will prevail. That God is not a racist. That families can be forever. That the weaknesses of men are assumed and/or accounted for and part of an overall plan.

The the process of grabbing onto truth and holding onto it is a rather complicated and at times messy process. And in my mind it requires constant management and balance.

I am comfortable living in a world of ambiguity and questioning with hopes of gaining greater light and wisdom and holding on to that which I see as good and worthy of honor/respect/loyalty. I suppose I do rely, up to point, on some of the anchor experiences that I've personally had along the way that FOR ME anchor me to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. 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

That's a lot of mental masturbation in your post. You are trying to convince yourself that you are somehow very open minded by thinking that the less trust you have for the 5 senses the more open minded you are. You are very wrong. Open mindedness is about how willing you are to alter your beliefs and views when confronted with evidence supporting a change in beliefs. You instead make the choice not to trust the evidence in order to protect the belief. This is the opposite of an open mind. Trust in our 5 sense should be based on reliability. What interesting is that we have lots and lots of experience here. We can test test test test test them all the time. We can test how accurate the information we are receiving, and how consistent they are. Yet you have little trust for them and instead put all your trust in a few experiences you cannot know came from some entity. Experiences you interpreted with your world view in mind which differed from most other who do the same with their world views. Funny to see you go with the unreliable and reject the reliable to maintain certain beliefs. This is not someone who wants the truth.

Extremely well said, Themis! As has been repeatedly on this forum, and which mentalgymnast still seems incapable of grasping or acknowledging, is that his approach to discerning and evaluating truth can be and has been used to justify belief in all kinds of mutually contradictory and even patently absurd claims, if only one wants desperately enough to believe them.

[_grindael]

I think that God may/does have custom designed plans for everyone.

How could the blanket racism of denying the Priesthood to those with an African Ancestry and black skin be a custom designed plan for EVERYONE? I'm completely baffled by your mental mindset. I think though that it is not someone who doesn't want the truth, but can't accept it.

[_mentalgymnast]

Gardner appears to go with the explanation offered by apologists, thereby discarding the official explanation. Or am I misreading Gardner?

Sort of. Many apologists don't go along with Brant's theories though.

Regards,
MG

[_Jersey Girl]

MG,

Been reading most of the exchanges here. Would you mind answering me one question?

Who lives your life, MG?