mormonism racist?

[Katzpur]

What is the skin symbolic of?

I don't know exactly. The best way I can explain it is to say that just as I don't believe that God literally took a rib out of Adam's side to make Eve, I don't believe He literally turned someone's skin from white to black. I can't tell you what the rib symbolized in Genesis and I can't tell you what the skin symbolized in the Book of Mormon.

 

[Katzpur]

I mean, I feel bad I guess for backing away from something you want to talk about in more depth....tell you what, I'll agree to a One-on-One if I can take my time with it. It just sounds like a huge project. I'm also traveling tomorrow and I won't be back until Monday morning.

Also I can't give a positive case that the style and content of the BoM prove it was written in the 19th century. I can't do that for the texts of Scientology, Islam, etc. either. The best I can do is agree to hear your case and evaluate it honestly and ask questions.

You know, it's not that big of a deal. It would be a huge project and if you're not particularly interested, it's okay with me. Take it easy and travel safely.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I don't know exactly. The best way I can explain it is to say that just as I don't believe that God literally took a rib out of Adam's side to make Eve, I don't believe He literally turned someone's skin from white to black. I can't tell you what the rib symbolized in Genesis and I can't tell you what the skin symbolized in the Book of Mormon.

Well then I rest my case. I leave the final word to you.

 

[Autodidact]

Auto, we've discussed the authenticity of the Book of Mormon on many occasions. The fact that you find no compelling evidence that it is not merely another work of fiction by some 19th century charlatan doesn't matter to me in the slightest. Millions of people, many of them every bit as intelligent and well-read as you, have found sufficient evidence to believe it. Billions more have found evidence enough to convince them to embrace Christianity. I have seriously had it with your condescending, know-it-all attitude. I could care less what you think about my church, its sacred texts, doctrines, practices, culture, leadership or anything else. I don't know whether you've even ever noticed this or not, but I can get along just fine with about 95% of the atheists on RF. Some of them I like a whole lot more than I like a few of my fellow Mormons. Unlike you, they have proven that it is entirely possible to to express a contrary opinion without being pompous and sarcastic. Your unending stream of belitting remarks has grown so old that the stench has become quite intolerable.

That's what that little ignore button is for. If you do want to engage, I suggest that you address the issues, and not me personally; it's more in keeping with the board's philosophy. Oh, and the argument ad populum is a fallacy.

 

[Autodidact]

It looks like we were both posting at the same time. What I was saying was that all you'd have to do is prove that the style and content of the book is clearly indicative that it was written in the 19th century. Ask Auto how hard that would be. I'm sure she wouldn't think you'd be at even a slight disadvantage. After all, you'd just be debating against a stupid, gullible, naive Mormon. How hard could it be? Or do you think I might be able to provide actual "evidence" other than what mere blind faith has told me?

How about just showing that the book is completely erroneous in every factual assertion from start to finish, would that do? That it gets the following wrong:

• the animals
• the plants
• the buildings
• the artifacts
• the genetics
• the math

and every other piece of objective, archeological or scientific evidence about all of the key, substantive, factual, historical claims that it makes. Would that do you?

But that's O.K., because Mormons have faith that one day the evidence will be found to show that it's true.

Or, alternatively, the whole thing a a big metaphor or parable for something.

Or, it doesn't mean what it seems to say, and what Mormons, including Mormon leaders, believed it said until scientific and archeological evidence showed that to be wrong.

 

[Autodidact]

Any good scholar could find plenty of evidence if there really was any, whereas I can provide a lot of evidence that it almost certainly couldn't have been. It would be even easier for me to prove that the individual books in the Book of Mormon were written by different individuals. Do you know anything about wordprint analyses? There are also a lot of clues based upon what people in 19th century America thought they knew back then about the Arabian desert (where the first part of the Book of Mormon takes place), what the knowledge of the time was about the Native Americans, 19th-century thoughts on ancient warfare, etc. There are linguistic characteristics of the Book of Mormon that a 19th-century author couldn't have known about. All I'm saying is that people who insist that Joseph Smith wrote the book as a piece of fiction have a very difficult time coming up with any actual evidence, whereas those of us who believe it was translated from an ancient Semitic record can point to some very specific reasons why we do.

Katzpur: This is false and you know it is false. Your faith may prevent you from accepting it, but you know as well as I do that the entire body of scientific evidence in every field from ethno-botany to archeology puts the lie to the BoM. That doesn't mean you have to reject it. I understand that you accept it on faith. But don't go around telling lies about it, for heaven's sake; it's wrong. Because you have to throw out scientific conclusions from:

archeology
paleontology
botany
zoology
genetics
linguistics
etc.

and every other scientific discipline that has studied the flora, fauna, people and geography of the Americas.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, if "skin" is interpreted literally, which I don't believe should be the case. When we're talking "white skin" versus "black skin," it's not just the adjectives that are symbolic, it's the nouns they modify that are symbolic as well. If I thought that God changed someone's skin from white to black because he was wicked, I'd say that was racist.

Okay, I'll give you a day or so to rest up.

So your position is that "God cursed the Lammanites with dark skin" means "God cursed the Indians (?) with bad souls," or something? What?

 

[Autodidact]

I don't know exactly.

Pretty poor symbolism, then, isn't it, if you don't even know what it's supposed to be symbol of?

 

[Apex]

...I suggest that you address the issues, and not me personally; it's more in keeping with the board's philosophy. Oh, and the argument ad populum is a fallacy.

 

[Apex]

But that's O.K., because Mormons have faith that one day the evidence will be found to show that it's true.

Could we please have a showing of hands (or posts) from our fellow LDS members who believe that one day solid evidence for the Book of Mormon will be found proving it is 100% true, causing a mass conversion of people due to Earthly materialistic evidence only, completley negating the need for faith?

 

[Katzpur]

That's what that little ignore button is for.

Thanks for the reminder. I just used it -- for only the second time in two years. Congratulations.

 

[Autodidact]

Are you trying to say that I have either (1) made an argument ad populum or (2) addressed the personality of the poster, rather than the issue? If so, can you direct me to the post in which I did that? Thank you.

 

[Autodidact]

Could we please have a showing of hands (or posts) from our fellow LDS members who believe that one day solid evidence for the Book of Mormon will be found proving it is 100% true, causing a mass conversion of people due to Earthly materialistic evidence only, completley negating the need for faith?

Nice straw man, and not what I said. When arguing the factuality of the BoM, I've had many Mormons post, right here at RF, that they expect evidence of Nephites and Lammanites to be found one day, even that they have faith that it will be, which is what I actually said.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

White skin is symbolic of purity. Dark skin is symbolic of wickedness. If this isn't racist symbolism, then nothing is.

I'm still interested in hearing a response from Watchmen and Apex about the point I made about racist symbolism, if they care to respond.

 

[AlsoAnima]

You know. We could argue our positions politely.
I could say, "I believe that the alleged racism in the book of mormon is in fact, racism attributed to the author."
And someone else could say, "That's a possibility, but I believe that it's more likely that it's symbolic of something else."
And then I could say "Oh? Well what do you think it's symbolic of, I never considered viewing it that way."

 

[Watchmen]

I'm still interested in hearing a response from Watchmen and Apex about the point I made about racist symbolism, if they care to respond.

Various posters (Katzpur and someone else) already explained this. 1. it's not referring to blacks. 2. it could be referring to marks they put on themselves. 3. it could be referring to countenance.


if we're taking one word at its symbolic meaning why not the other word too?

 

[Watchmen]

You know. We could argue our positions politely.
I could say, "I believe that the alleged racism in the book of mormon is in fact, racism attributed to the author."
And someone else could say, "That's a possibility, but I believe that it's more likely that it's symbolic of something else."
And then I could say "Oh? Well what do you think it's symbolic of, I never considered viewing it that way."

That would be nice.

In fact, Katzpur started a separate thread on the issue to do just that, but I'm not sure the debate was carried out in the respectful manner you illustrated above.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Various posters (Katzpur and someone else) already explained this. 1. it's not referring to blacks.

It can only be racist if it is referring to blacks?

2. it could be referring to marks they put on themselves.

But it clearly isn't. It says dark skin. Contrasted with people who are white.

3. it could be referring to countenance.

But that's still racist (or perhaps 'ethnocentric' would be the better term). And again, it says dark skin vs. "white".

Remember, the BoM was written (translated) at a time/place in history when "white" was understood to mean Caucasian, i.e. people with white skin, and there were serious cultural/legal divides between "white" people and people with "dark skin". (At earlier periods in history this was not always the case, even in slave states).

if we're taking one word at its symbolic meaning why not the other word too?

What is "skin" symbolic of? And how is that not racist symbolism?

 

[Watchmen]

It can only be racist if it is referring to blacks?
But it clearly isn't. It says dark skin. Contrasted with people who are white.

But that's still racist (or perhaps 'ethnocentric' would be the better term). And again, it says dark skin vs. "white".

Remember, the BoM was written (translated) at a time/place in history when "white" was understood to mean Caucasian, i.e. people with white skin, and there were serious cultural/legal divides between "white" people and people with "dark skin". (At earlier periods in history this was not always the case, even in slave states).
What is "skin" symbolic of? And how is that not racist symbolism?

Mr. Sprinkles, it's been discussed to death. You don't accept our explanations, and, quite frankly, I'm tired of giving them. I suggest you find the thread Katzpur started - her explanations are much more thorough than anything you'll get out of me.

EDIT: Here's the thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...es/81416-katzpurs-take-racism-lds-church.html

EDIT 2: And here is what she says:

This “skin of blackness” was clearly never intended to be taken literally, as it describing the skins of people who were already relatively dark. All of the people whose story is told in the Book of Mormon (i.e. the Nephites and the Lamanites) were from the Middle East. We believe that some of the American Indians are descended from the group of people known in the Book of Mormon as the Lamanites. These are the people upon whom the Lord caused a “skin of blackness” to come. But just how black is their skin? I don’t know anyone who would confuse an American Indian with an African American. It’s not as if the Book of Mormon people were of Scandinavian descent, and God “cursed” them by making them appear to have come from Zimbabwe! The Book of Mormon states that "it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites, and their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites." What good would it do for God to change the skin of a Jordanian man so that he would be mistaken as being from Ecuador? If that's not completely illogical, I don't know what is.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Mr. Sprinkles, it's been discussed to death. You don't accept our explanations, and, quite frankly, I'm tired of giving them.

Okay, I totally understand what you're saying....however, in my honest opinion, you really haven't responded to the question I'm raising. (See below)

I suggest you find the thread Katzpur started - her explanations are much more thorough than anything you'll get out of me.

EDIT: Here's the thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...es/81416-katzpurs-take-racism-lds-church.html

EDIT 2: And here is what she says:

This “skin of blackness” was clearly never intended to be taken literally, as it describing the skins of people who were already relatively dark. All of the people whose story is told in the Book of Mormon (i.e. the Nephites and the Lamanites) were from the Middle East. We believe that some of the American Indians are descended from the group of people known in the Book of Mormon as the Lamanites. These are the people upon whom the Lord caused a “skin of blackness” to come. But just how black is their skin? I don’t know anyone who would confuse an American Indian with an African American. It’s not as if the Book of Mormon people were of Scandinavian descent, and God “cursed” them by making them appear to have come from Zimbabwe! The Book of Mormon states that "it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites, and their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites." What good would it do for God to change the skin of a Jordanian man so that he would be mistaken as being from Ecuador? If that's not completely illogical, I don't know what is.

This actually does not address the issue I'm raising because I am asking about symbolism. I am not disputing (for the sake of argument) that the "skin of blackness" and other references to skin tones are symbolic.

So my question to you is: what is the "skin" symbolic of? A person's moral character? Their favor with God? Katzpur told me she does not know....but she does believe it is symbolic of something or other. I am interested in your opinion.

And then I have a follow-up: even if it is symbolic, and even if we aren't sure what "dark skin" vs. "white skin" symbolizes, other than some sort of "bad" vs. "good" quality.....isn't such symbolism racist, almost by definition?