mormonism racist?

[Watchmen]

See post #292 .

that post is my own belief. your post was about religionists generally. you're still wrong.

 

[Autodidact]

It's not a personal attack, it's an observation. If anything, you're the one on the attack, comparing Mormon beliefs to belief in leprechauns, and so on.

What I said is that for mainstream historians, Lammanites have as much validity as Leprechauns. Do you disagree? Are there some mainstream, non LDS apologist historians you would like to name who assert that the Lammanites are actual, historical, New World people?

 

[Autodidact]

that post is my own belief. your post was about religionists generally. you're still wrong.

O.K. Watchmen's post is an example of post-modernism relativism of the most contructivist kind. I have read many other such posts from other religionists who cannot defend the factual nature of their religious assertions.

 

[Autodidact]

Participating in politics per our culture isn't making the rest of you participate in our culture. Get over it. Organizations have the right to participate in the political process. Run a better campaign next time.

I beg to differ, and intend to. We will prevail. I prophesize that the LDS church will change their position on this issue when it benefits their church to do so.

 

[Watchmen]

What I said is that for mainstream historians, Lammanites have as much validity as Leprechauns. Do you disagree? Are there some mainstream, non LDS apologist historians you would like to name who assert that the Lammanites are actual, historical, New World people?

I disagree with your approach. It's an attack.

 

[Autodidact]

Once again, can you try really hard to focus on the substance? Do mainstream historians consider Lammanites to be real, or fictional? That's the issue.

 

[Watchmen]

Once again, can you try really hard to focus on the substance? Do mainstream historians consider Lammanites to be real, or fictional? That's the issue.

First, that has nothing to do with the OP.

Second, as a non-literalist it doesn't matter to me.

But to answer your question, I do not know of any mainstream historians who consider Lamanites to be real.

Does it matter? Of course not. Whether Lamanites are real or not does not change the truth of the mythology.

 

[Autodidact]

First, that has nothing to do with the OP.

Second, as a non-literalist it doesn't matter to me.

But to answer your question, I do not know of any mainstream historians who consider Lamanites to be real.

So why is it offensive for me to point that out? It seems that you'd rather discuss my "bias" than acknowledge that what I'm saying is factually correct, which is of much greater interest and importance than me and my personal attitudes.

Does it matter? Of course not. Whether Lamanites are real or not does not change the truth of the mythology.

Well, millions of Mormons would disagree with you there.

Hey, I'm just responding to your personal attacks on me, despite the fact that you agree with me.

In fact, now that I think of it, don't you grant the Lamanites approximately the same status as leprechauns: mythical? So why is it offensive for me to say the same?

 

[Watchmen]

So why is it offensive for me to point that out? It seems that you'd rather discuss my "bias" than acknowledge that what I'm saying is factually correct, which is of much greater interest and importance than me and my personal attitudes.

Well, millions of Mormons would disagree with you there.

Hey, I'm just responding to your personal attacks on me, despite the fact that you agree with me.

In fact, now that I think of it, don't you grant the Lamanites approximately the same status as leprechauns: mythical? So why is it offensive for me to say the same?

Your tone is full of animosity and bias. That's why it's offensive.


I don't believe Lamanites really existed. I don't believe in leprechauns. But, God has given me the story of the Lamanites to bring me to Christ. It's something I take very seriously whether it literally occurred or not. I don't believe the same is true of leprechauns.

 

[Autodidact]

Your tone is full of animosity and bias. That's why it's offensive.

Right. What I'm saying is true, but you'd rather I not say it. Got it.

I don't believe Lamanites really existed. I don't believe in leprechauns. But, God has given me the story of the Lamanites to bring me to Christ. It's something I take very seriously whether it literally occurred or not. I don't believe the same is true of leprechauns.

But then, you're not Irish.

 

[Watchmen]

Right. What I'm saying is true, but you'd rather I not say it. Got it.

We just agreed. And you admitted we agreed. So truth has nothing to do with it. Your tone does.

But then, you're not Irish.

Let me put this in perspective for you. What you said is equivalent to someone comparing homosexuals to pedophiles.

 

[Autodidact]

We just agreed. And you admitted we agreed. So truth has nothing to do with it. Your tone does.

I don't get it. When you say that Lamanites have the same ontological status as leprechauns, it's fine. But when I point out that's exactly how historians regard them, you object. Seems like a double standard.

btw, I was wondering, for you, is Jesus also mythological?

Let me put this in perspective for you. What you said is equivalent to someone comparing homosexuals to pedophiles.

Please explain how.

If someone's culture values the leprechaun myth, and an individual finds meaning and truth in it, then what's wrong with it? How is the Mormon myth better than the Irish myth?

Is believing in leprechauns harmful, while believing in Lamanites is not?

In short, I don't get your analogy.

 

[Watchmen]

I don't get it. When you say that Lamanites have the same ontological status as leprechauns, it's fine. But when I point out that's exactly how historians regard them, you object. Seems like a double standard.

btw, I was wondering, for you, is Jesus also mythological?

Please explain how.

If someone's culture values the leprechaun myth, and an individual finds meaning and truth in it, then what's wrong with it? How is the Mormon myth better than the Irish myth?

Is believing in leprechauns harmful, while believing in Lamanites is not?

In short, I don't get your analogy.

I do believe Jesus is real.

I don't care if you don't get the analogy.

I'm ready to move on.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, Enlil was taking us down the road to historicity of the BoM, which was not the subject of the OP, so if he wants to pursue that, maybe it's time for a new thread.

 

[Autodidact]

Mormonism is not racist! You ignorant Fascist! Read the book of Mormon before you judge it!Though, the world would be better without the blacks, if they were ALL Mormon though, it would be ok I guess.

1. Who are you talking to? Who said Mormonism is racist? Who didn't read the BoM?
2. Uh, you do realize that your statement is totally racist, right? Or were you joking?

 

[Katzpur]

Mormonism is not racist! You ignorant Fascist! Read the book of Mormon before you judge it!Though, the world would be better without the blacks, if they were ALL Mormon though, it would be ok I guess.

Uh... Mormon Defender, you might want to read the forum rules before you make another post. I've read several of your posts and have found most of them highly offensive and definitely against the rules of this forum. I don't know the first thing about you aside from the fact that you claim to be LDS, but I can tell you for sure that you won't last for long around here if you keep posting garbage like this.

 

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by Autodidact
Well, Enlil was taking us down the road to historicity of the BoM, which was not the subject of the OP, so if he wants to pursue that, maybe it's time for a new thread.

Not I. I just responded to you and Mr. Spinkles' posts regarding what professional historians think of the Book of Mormon.

 

[AlsoAnima]

Okay. I feel I should mention this. After going through Mormon Defender's entire post history, I have concluded that they were a parody to get a quick laugh or an attempt to make Mormons look crazy. Disregard anything this person says.

Mormonism is not racist! You ignorant Fascist! Read the book of Mormon before you judge it!Though, the world would be better without the blacks, if they were ALL Mormon though, it would be ok I guess.

 

[DeepShadow]

Okay, I haven't read all 32 pages, but so far I haven't seen anyone suggesting the possibility that the narrators of the book could have been racist or at least somewhat bigoted. The translation of the book is not the question here; a miraculous translation of racist words is going to reveal their bias, not hide it.

It seems pretty clear to me that the Nephites struggled with racism in their own ranks. Consider this line from 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...
8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.
9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins...

Is it any wonder that some of the narrators use racist terms to delineate themselves?

Another thing I haven't seen mentioned: if the Book of Mormon is racist against dark skin, why is the most righteous group in the book (People of Ammon) dark skinned? And the most wicked (Gadianton robbers) light skinned? Anyone want to field that one?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Another thing I haven't seen mentioned: if the Book of Mormon is racist against dark skin, why is the most righteous group in the book (People of Ammon) dark skinned? And the most wicked (Gadianton robbers) light skinned? Anyone want to field that one?

One possibility is that the book is not totally consistent/coherent.

Another possibility is that the racism expressed in the book is, like all racisms throughout history, not total, or not totally consistent/coherent. Racism is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. Cases in point:

• The same white Europeans who regarded Native Americans/Blacks as inferior also befriended, traded with, admired, respected and in some cases fought alongside certain individuals/groups of them.
• There were white poets who believed blacks were inferior yet still wrote of the "noble savage" and suchlike.
• I believe there were white scientists who believed Africans were somewhat inferior, but who also believed slavery should be abolished and blacks treated equally (or more equally).
• I believe at least one or two high-ranking Nazis were widely known to be gay, despite the extermination of gays the Nazis carried out.
• In American prisons gangs are formed along strict racial lines, and many subscribe to racist ideologies, yet those same people form interracial friendships and have "respect" for the others.
• Certain modern evangelical Christians are the most outspoken supporters of Jews and Israel, and yet in private they are simultaneously some of the most paranoid anti-semites.

In all of these cases, despite the "non-racist" actions, I think it's fair to say the racist actions remain racist.....and in the BoM lines about God cursing people with a skin of blackness, and contrasting this with being "white and delightsome" is racist if anything is.