• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mormonism and Racial Supremacy

Feathers in Hair

World's Tallest Hobbit
nutshell said:
Thanks, Maize.

And for the people who have nothing better to do than send sarcastic remarks back and forth, can you at least do it without the :rolleyes: and :sarcastic and :areyoucra . Those are starting to irritate me more than anything else. I've tuned out the words going back and forth and yes, that includes from both sides.

While I haven't been reading the thread, I'll have to agree with this part, if nothing else. Nothing makes me not want to read a post more than to see those expressions.
 

DeepShadow

White Crow
Okay, I'll try my hand at your questions, Nikki.

Is the Book of Mormon racist? Sort of. It was authored by Nephites, some of whom were censured because of racism:

Jacob 3:5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you....

More commonly, accusations of racism are based on a superficial reading of the text--light skin good, dark skin bad--which fails to take into account several points to the contrary. First, it says they were marked on their skin for unbelief, but these marks also included light-skinned unbelievers who painted their foreheads. It also goes on to list a dark-skinned believer as one of the greatest prophets of the book who was yet rejected by most of the light-skinned people, and says that the (dark-skinned) People of Ammon had greater faith than any of the light-skinned people. These are only three of the dozens of examples that fly in the face of such "dark skin bad, white skin good" overgeneralizations.

To look at one of these examples in-depth, let's examine the case of the Amlicites, who marked themselves to separate themselves from the Nephites. In Alma chapter 3, we are first given an explanation for the "mark" placed on the Lamanites:
7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.
8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.
9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.
(Emphasis added)

Thus, the purpose was to mark them as unbelievers, not to mark them as inferior beings. Compare this with the Biblical passage about being "unequally yoked with unbelievers" (2 Cor 6:14), yet another passage that has been quoted out of context to support racism.

The passage goes on to explain the mark placed on the Amlicites:

13 Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads.
14 Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.
15 And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also.
16 And again: I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed.
17 And again, I say he that departeth from thee shall no more be called thy seed; and I will bless thee, and whomsoever shall be called thy seed, henceforth and forever; and these were the promises of the Lord unto Nephi and to his seed.
18 Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them.

Now here we have the Lord getting credit for the mark placed on the Amlicites, which they actually placed on themselves. This is hardly the miraculous "marking" that is conveyed by the drastic oversimplifications--i.e. "make God mad, skin turns dark." It's quite likely that the darkening of the skin of the Lamanites was equally un-miraculous--the most likely cause was that many or most of Ishmael's family had Bedoin blood, as suggested by Hugh Nibley (Lehi in the Desert, 1952).

Thus, the entire purpose of the "curse" was not to denote inferiority but to warn Nephites from intermarriage with unbelievers. Is it easy to misinterpret this as racism? Absolutely, as evidenced by Jacob's words above and the other racist actions by Nephites. But when all the racial episodes in the Book of Mormon are added up, they are far in favor of racial equality. In that light, I think Elder Petersen readily accepted a superficial layman's interpretation without making a more thoughtful study.
 

DeepShadow

White Crow
HopefulNikki said:
While I'd love to hear it, I can't help but expect that it will be some sort of "spiritual" interpretation of "dark skin"...which just makes me laugh. You guys are insistent that some ambiguous phrase like "image of God" in Genesis is literal, physical similarity, but when it comes to the BoM talking about dark skin, which for the first 100+ years of their existence Mormons took literally (even if it wasn't "official"), you guys suddenly adhere to spiritualized interpretation.

This was probably the part that offended most of the other LDS here, Nikki. You're already anticipating us making weak arguments. Not only does that show a lack of respect for your opponents, but your presumptive rebuttal of an argument none of us made is tantamount to beating up a straw man.

I'll continue rebutting your arguments as respectfully as I can, but when you jump to concluding that your opponents are going to make transparently contradictory--even juvenile--arguments, you shouldn't be at all shocked that this thread quickly turns into "how to offend a Mormon."
 

DeepShadow

White Crow
beckysoup61 said:

That's my way of saying that I've learned not to type what I'm yelling at the screen. I've heard it elsewhere as "swear from the wrists up" but as I don't swear...you get the idea?
 

Snowbear

Nita Okhata
DeepShadow said:
That's my way of saying that I've learned not to type what I'm yelling at the screen. I've heard it elsewhere as "swear from the wrists up" but as I don't swear...you get the idea?
Bwahahahahahaha :biglaugh:

Can't frubal you since I just did... but dang... that's a good one :D
 

Bishka

Veteran Member
DeepShadow said:
That's my way of saying that I've learned not to type what I'm yelling at the screen. I've heard it elsewhere as "swear from the wrists up" but as I don't swear...you get the idea?

Ahhh. Gotcha.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
DeepShadow said:
This was probably the part that offended most of the other LDS here, Nikki. You're already anticipating us making weak arguments. Not only does that show a lack of respect for your opponents, but your presumptive rebuttal of an argument none of us made is tantamount to beating up a straw man.

I'll continue rebutting your arguments as respectfully as I can, but when you jump to concluding that your opponents are going to make transparently contradictory--even juvenile--arguments, you shouldn't be at all shocked that this thread quickly turns into "how to offend a Mormon."
I'm just going to mention that Nikki PM'd me, apologizing and saying that she was not going to continue pursuing the matter. I accepted her apology and mentioned a couple of thoughts I was considering posting had we not agreed to drop the matter.

I went to a FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) Conference a year ago in which a Black member of the Church presented an absolutely fantastic paper on the subject of racism in the Book of Mormon and among the LDS leadership. I got a copy of his paper, but it's not online. He raised some excellent points which I may share on another occasion. Right now is probably not the best time to do that.

I think that it is extremely important that we not ever try to deny that racist remarks have, in fact, been made in the past. We can't simply brush the whole issue under the carpet and pretend that it never existed. Human beings have been hurt and offended and by saying, "Well, what's done is done. Let's put that behind us," we only compound the problem.

I was going to PM you, DeepShadow, to get your input on the subject, but before I had a chance to do so, Nikki said she wanted to drop the whole thing. But never fear... it will come up again. It always does. :D
 

DeepShadow

White Crow
Sad to hear. To Nikki, I'd be pleased if you'd reconsider, but I'll respect your decision either way.

And thanks, Katzpur, for reminding us again that we need to acknowledge the imperfections within the church. We have a sacred responsibility to root those problems out, not just cover them up. "Woe unto him who saith all is well in Zion..."

On a related note, since it appears Nikki may not follow through, I might as well mention that Mark E. Petersen and others who appear to carry the sin of racism were not removed from their positions because, in short, the Lord makes do with what he has. The Lord allows His leaders to continue the process of becoming more like him, and hopefully Elder Petersen repented of this error and offered some kind of retraction--many did.

At any rate, there are only a few sins that will get a leader removed. Thank goodness, or we'd never have leaders at all!
 
Top