mormonism racist?

[Watchmen]

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?

I've provided an interpretation/listed interpretations and you rejected each.

You think it's racist. I don't.

 

[Katzpur]

Okay, I'm going to attempt to clarify this one last time, because I've been thinking about it for a few days now. One of the dictionary definitons of "black" is "figuratively, dismal, gloomy, sullen, forbidding, or the like; destitute of moral light or goodness; mournful; calamitous; evil; wicked; atrocious." Shakespeare used the word to describe black "deeds, thoughts, envy, tidings, despair." The word "skin" is described in the dictionary as a word meaning several things other than "the external covering... of most animals..." Without quoting all of the possible meanings word for word, I'll just mention that it is used to describe the outermost layer of a number of different items, from the shell of a ship to the skum that appears on boiling milk to the surface of a pearl. Essentially, it's the layer that is most readily visually apparent.

We often use the word "dark" in reference to certain types of comedies which, while funny and entertaining, have a sinister side. Many people, when viewing a photograph of certain criminals who have commited an unusually vile crime, will comment that they even look evil. They have a dark (i.e. evil) appearance. Oftentimes, it's a look in their eyes or just their overall countenance.

To me, the "skin of blackness" symbolizes the overall look of darkness associated with a particularly base, depraved or menacing persona. I think it clearly does refer to appearance, but not to the actual color of the Lamanites skin (which was virtually identical to the skin color of the Nephites, since both groups were of Middle-eastern descent).

If you still think it's a racist statement, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I've provided an interpretation/listed interpretations and you rejected each.

An interpretation for "skin"? Where?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

To me, the "skin of blackness" symbolizes the overall look of darkness associated with a particularly base, depraved or menacing persona. I think it clearly does refer to appearance, but not to the actual color of the Lamanites skin (which was virtually identical to the skin color of the Nephites, since both groups were of Middle-eastern descent).

If you still think it's a racist statement, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I think this is a very problematic interpretation.
1) It's an enormous stretch to say the "skin of blackness" contrasted with people who are "white" does indeed refer to physical appearance, BUT specifically not skin tone, especially given the unique racial context of America 1840s when this was written or translated.
2) As you know, skin color in the Middle East varies from region to region, from person to person, from white to dark.
3) Even if we accept this interpretation, that it's only talking about an evil, black "appearance" of one ethnic group vs. the white and delightsome "appearance" of another ethnic group, but NOT skin color specifically, it is still racist. Racism is not just about skin color, it's also about a primitive countenance or a brutish demeanor, vs. a noble brow and so on associated with different populations of people.

 

[Katzpur]

I think this is a very problematic interpretation.
1) It's an enormous stretch to say the "skin of blackness" contrasted with people who are "white" does indeed refer to physical appearance, BUT specifically not skin tone, especially given the unique racial context of America 1840s when this was written or translated.
2) As you know, skin color in the Middle East varies from region to region, from person to person, from white to dark.
3) Even if we accept this interpretation, that it's only talking about an evil, black "appearance" of one ethnic group vs. the white and delightsome "appearance" of another ethnic group, but NOT skin color specifically, it is still racist. Racism is not just about skin color, it's also about a primitive countenance or a brutish demeanor, vs. a noble brow and so on associated with different populations of people.

Okay, well suit yourself. I'm done with this topic for the time being. My interpretation may be problematic for you. It's entirely reasonable to me. We're coming from two opposite perspectives about the authorship of the Book of Mormon so there is little more I can say.

 

[Watchmen]

I think this is a very problematic interpretation.
1) It's an enormous stretch to say the "skin of blackness" contrasted with people who are "white" does indeed refer to physical appearance, BUT specifically not skin tone, especially given the unique racial context of America 1840s when this was written or translated.
2) As you know, skin color in the Middle East varies from region to region, from person to person, from white to dark.
3) Even if we accept this interpretation, that it's only talking about an evil, black "appearance" of one ethnic group vs. the white and delightsome "appearance" of another ethnic group, but NOT skin color specifically, it is still racist. Racism is not just about skin color, it's also about a primitive countenance or a brutish demeanor, vs. a noble brow and so on associated with different populations of people.

Like I said, we provide interpretations and explanations and you reject them.

There's really no place to go from here.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Like I said, we provide interpretations and explanations and you reject them.

There's really no place to go from here.

Okay, but in all fairness, I had asked your opinion specifically, not Katzpur's, because at that time Katzpur had responded by saying she didn't know, and you had not responded yourself. There was no "interpretation and explanation" for me to potentially reject until just now, and I can't know that you agree with everything Katzpur says unless you say so. (Or are you each merely one head on some ghastly LDS hydra? )

I'm just not sure it is possible to make a racist statement, unless it is in the most obvious and distasteful form imaginable, given the standards of what counts as "racist" I have seen here.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Okay, well suit yourself. I'm done with this topic for the time being. My interpretation may be problematic for you. It's entirely reasonable to me. We're coming from two opposite perspectives about the authorship of the Book of Mormon so there is little more I can say.

Okay, fair enough, thanks for the discussion.

 

[Watchmen]

Okay, but in all fairness, I had asked your opinion specifically, not Katzpur's, because at that time Katzpur had responded by saying she didn't know, and you had not responded yourself. There was no "interpretation and explanation" for me to potentially reject until just now, and I can't know that you agree with everything Katzpur says unless you say so. (Or are you each merely one head on some ghastly LDS hydra? )

I'm just not sure it is possible to make a racist statement, unless it is in the most obvious and distasteful form imaginable, given the standards of what counts as "racist" I have seen here.

I did provide interpretations and you did reject them. Check the posts.

I'm done.

Have a nice day.

 

[Autodidact]

We believe that some of the American Indians are descended from the group of people known in the Book of Mormon as the Lamanites.

Which ones?

 

[Autodidact]

Okay, I'm going to attempt to clarify this one last time, because I've been thinking about it for a few days now. One of the dictionary definitons of "black" is "figuratively, dismal, gloomy, sullen, forbidding, or the like; destitute of moral light or goodness; mournful; calamitous; evil; wicked; atrocious." Shakespeare used the word to describe black "deeds, thoughts, envy, tidings, despair." The word "skin" is described in the dictionary as a word meaning several things other than "the external covering... of most animals..." Without quoting all of the possible meanings word for word, I'll just mention that it is used to describe the outermost layer of a number of different items, from the shell of a ship to the skum that appears on boiling milk to the surface of a pearl. Essentially, it's the layer that is most readily visually apparent.

We often use the word "dark" in reference to certain types of comedies which, while funny and entertaining, have a sinister side. Many people, when viewing a photograph of certain criminals who have commited an unusually vile crime, will comment that they even look evil. They have a dark (i.e. evil) appearance. Oftentimes, it's a look in their eyes or just their overall countenance.

To me, the "skin of blackness" symbolizes the overall look of darkness associated with a particularly base, depraved or menacing persona. I think it clearly does refer to appearance, but not to the actual color of the Lamanites skin (which was virtually identical to the skin color of the Nephites, since both groups were of Middle-eastern descent).

If you still think it's a racist statement, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I would say that construing "black skin" to mean "looking evil" is gymnastic stretching equaled only perhaps by some Muslims here at RF when defending the Q'uran.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Well, I have to agree. To me, "a skin of blackness" sounds like it is literally referring to skin color. And "white and delightsome" sounds like white is being portrayed as superior. I don't know what to think, honestly. It sounds like blatant racism. But I know God is not racist, so where does that leave me?

 

[Watchmen]

Which ones?

Who knows?

But I'm not a literalist. I was speaking of Mormons in general.

 

[Watchmen]

I would say that construing "black skin" to mean "looking evil" is gymnastic stretching equaled only perhaps by some Muslims here at RF when defending the Q'uran.

Of course you would say that. It's not news. It's not surprising.

 

[Katzpur]

Well, I have to agree. To me, "a skin of blackness" sounds like it is literally referring to skin color. And "white and delightsome" sounds like white is being portrayed as superior. I don't know what to think, honestly. It sounds like blatant racism. But I know God is not racist, so where does that leave me?

Sound like it leaves you confused. Better sort that one out before you go on your mission. By the way, what color do you think Lehi's descendants were before God supposedly made their skin turn black, and what color do you think they were afterwards?

 

[Autodidact]

Who knows?

That's convenient. So far there is not a shred of evidence for any of them. But as long as you don't commit yourself, you don't have to worry about the evidence.

 

[Autodidact]

Of course you would say that. It's not news. It's not surprising.

Yeah, that's because I'm not Mormon.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, I have to agree. To me, "a skin of blackness" sounds like it is literally referring to skin color. And "white and delightsome" sounds like white is being portrayed as superior. I don't know what to think, honestly. It sounds like blatant racism. But I know God is not racist, so where does that leave me?

Especially when you add the several other BoM references to white Nephites and dark Lamanites.

 

[Watchmen]

That's convenient. So far there is not a shred of evidence for any of them. But as long as you don't commit yourself, you don't have to worry about the evidence.

I see you ignored the rest of my post. How convenient for you.

 

[Watchmen]

Yeah, that's because I'm not Mormon.

But you are a master of the obvious.