mormonism racist?

[Mr Spinkles]

Thanks for your candid response, Katzpur. I admire the honesty and self-criticism of your analysis, although I still think it is problematic.

Of course the Book of Mormon remains central to Mormonism. The Church would not exist without it. For someone who believes that it is a fictional work written by a nineteenth-century author or authors, it's easy enough to suggest that certain passages to either "rejected" or that the book be edited to remove them entirely. How could we possibly do either? We believe the book to be a sacred text written by people who lived hundreds of years ago. We don't believe Joseph Smith or any other nineteenth-century man or men wrote it.

I completely understand and agree that this belief presents a dilemma and this is one example of why I think dogmatism hinders progress and constrains our scientific and moral reasoning. The reason once-accepted racism has been widely rejected is not because people read the Book of Mormon more carefully. It is because of the outside forces of civil rights and equality movements which intruded themselves, and which Mormons (like many Americans) eventually came to accept. It was because they read the non-sacred writings of Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King and embraced them on their merits. And my suspicion is the lessons on racial equality and acceptance were gradually imposed on the BoM and LDS policy, not discovered within them. This must have taken considerable finesse, so as to reject the racism inherent in sacred passages without appearing to reject the dogma that the passages are sacred. And, because such intellectual finesse was required by the constraint of dogma, it took longer for both Mormons and the Church to embrace racial equality than it otherwise might have taken. The only thing stopping the LDS Church from accepting full racial equality, in accordance with much of the country and much of its own membership, was the "dilemma" you described. And this serves as a reminder of the liabilities of unquestionable dogma and the failure to accept or reject a text on its merits alone.

And I'm afraid a similar sad history is repeating itself today in terms of LGBT rights.

The "racist" passages are not removed or rejected as "racist" because we do not interpret them to be racist. There was a time when many of our members did. Some probably still do today.

Are there statements which, if they appeared in the Book of Mormon (hypothetically) you would regard as racist? What would such a sentence look like?

The Book of Mormon contains thousands of footnotes. While many of them have been there for who knows how many years, new ones are occasionally added. Many of these cross-reference to other passages (both in the Book of Mormon and in the Bible) which, when studied with a sincere desire to understand the message of the book, clarify the meaning of words or phrases that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. The 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon added a number of new footnotes to help people understand these so-called "racist" passages better. How many people who are critical of the Book of Mormon do you think bother to use the tools that have been provided for them to help them understand its message?

I roughly know what an anti-racist tract looks like. I have read MLK's letter from Birmingham jail and I don't expect it will ever require a footnote to help people understand that it is not racist. I applaud the progress your Church has made and I am glad such footnotes were added. But I think it's unfortunate that a true acceptance of racial equality was hindered, not helped by dogmatism.

There are, in probably every holy text in the world, passages which the people who believe that text use to justify their negative behaviors. For many years, the Latter-day Saints did read the so-called "racist" passages in the Book of Mormon as you are reading them now. Like the majority of the people in the United States, many Mormons looked down on people with darker skin. It would be ridiculous to deny this. What I'm saying is that we used our scriptures to help make us feel that this was okay. It wasn't that the scriptures were racist. We were the ones who were racist. Our leaders are making a conscious effort to help us realize that God does not promote racism. He hates racism. We have come a long, long way, just like everybody else. We still have a ways to go.

Of course we agree that racism is a bad thing, and I appreciate your honesty and candor. However, I think your leaders were lagging way behind you and the other members of the LDS Church, and the rest of America, on the issue of racial equality. You would have been better off without their "conscious effort" to remind you of the racist passages in the BoM; to point out that interracial dating usually ends in failure, and should probably be avoided; to rail about the "hatred" coming from the "black activists" opposing racist Church teachings and practices, and so on. (Activists who, in their sinister fashion, were actually seeking acceptance/ the corruption of white marriages, not legal equality.) Your leaders' "conscious efforts" positively opposed the progress individual Mormons were making all by themselves, along with the rest of America, change bubbled up from below it wasn't handed down from above. And the same is self-evidently true on the issue of LGBT equality.

 

[Autodidact]

Of course the Book of Mormon remains central to Mormonism. The Church would not exist without it. For someone who believes that it is a fictional work written by a nineteenth-century author or authors, it's easy enough to suggest that certain passages to either "rejected" or that the book be edited to remove them entirely. How could we possibly do either? We believe the book to be a sacred text written by people who lived hundreds of years ago. We don't believe Joseph Smith or any other nineteenth-century man or men wrote it. The "racist" passages are not removed or rejected as "racist" because we do not interpret them to be racist. There was a time when many of our members did. Some probably still do today.

The Book of Mormon contains thousands of footnotes. While many of them have been there for who knows how many years, new ones are occasionally added. Many of these cross-reference to other passages (both in the Book of Mormon and in the Bible) which, when studied with a sincere desire to understand the message of the book, clarify the meaning of words or phrases that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. The 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon added a number of new footnotes to help people understand these so-called "racist" passages better. How many people who are critical of the Book of Mormon do you think bother to use the tools that have been provided for them to help them understand its message?

There are, in probably every holy text in the world, passages which the people who believe that text use to justify their negative behaviors. For many years, the Latter-day Saints did read the so-called "racist" passages in the Book of Mormon as you are reading them now. Like the majority of the people in the United States, many Mormons looked down on people with darker skin. It would be ridiculous to deny this. What I'm saying is that we used our scriptures to help make us feel that this was okay. It wasn't that the scriptures were racist. We were the ones who were racist. Our leaders are making a conscious effort to help us realize that God does not promote racism. He hates racism. We have come a long, long way, just like everybody else. We still have a ways to go.

I think I understand what you are saying. What is the Mormon position on the change from "white and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome" in the Book of Mormon?

 

[Katzpur]

I think I understand what you are saying. What is the Mormon position on the change from "white and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome" in the Book of Mormon?

The word "pure" in that passage was originally translated as such by Joseph Smith. It was printed, however, at one time as "white," and then corrected by Joseph Smith in the 1840 printing to once again say "pure." Unfortunately, later printings continued to say "white." Later printings missed the correction and it stood until 1891, at which time the original word as Joseph Smith had translated it was once again used. It has remained correct since then.

 

[Katzpur]

Thanks for your candid response, Katzpur. I admire the honesty and self-criticism of your analysis, although I still think it is problematic.

Hi, Spink. I hope you don't mind if I direct you to post #52 (on page 6) of Katzpur's Take on Racism in the LDS Church. If it doesn't adequately address your concerns, tell me and I'll try to respond more specifically.

 

[Autodidact]

The word "pure" in that passage was originally translated as such by Joseph Smith. It was printed, however, at one time as "white," and then corrected by Joseph Smith in the 1840 printing to once again say "pure." Unfortunately, later printings continued to say "white." Later printings missed the correction and it stood until 1891, at which time the original word as Joseph Smith had translated it was once again used. It has remained correct since then.

What is the source for the first assertion, that the original translation was "white?"

How does that gibe with other references in the BoM, such as wherefore, as

they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

2 Nephi 5:21, or3 Nephi 2:12-15, when their curse "taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."

Also then were all of the Mormon prophets from that time to 1981 mistaken, when they all believed that it was all about color, such as Brigham Young, who said that "You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation ...When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people" (Journal of Discourses 7:336). I suppose that retroactively becomes a non-revelation? Likewise Spencer Kimball?

 

[idea]

he will put a mark upon them

I think the mark was makeup - not actual skin color...


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.
(Book of Mormon | Alma3:13 - 14)

 

[Autodidact]

I think the mark was makeup - not actual skin color...


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.
(Book of Mormon | Alma3:13 - 14)

Same questions for you then: What about other passages clearly referring to skin color? And have all the prophets before 1980 been wrong about this?

 

[Katzpur]

What is the source for the first assertion, that the original translation was "white?"

The original manuscript of the book.

How does that gibe with other references in the BoM, such as wherefore, as 2 Nephi 5:21, or3 Nephi 2:12-15, when their curse "taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."

I explained this in another thread I started. I don't take the reference to "skin" literally, just as I don't take similar references in the Bible literally.

Also then were all of the Mormon prophets from that time to 1981 mistaken...

Yes.

I suppose that retroactively becomes a non-revelation? Likewise Spencer Kimball?

Sorry, you lost me. You might want to read the post I directed Mr. Spinks to in post #84 of this thread. You'll find that my opinions differ quite a bit from some of my fellow Latter-day Saints, just as they do on some other topics.

 

[Autodidact]

The original manuscript of the book.

Where is it? Who has seen it?

I explained this in another thread I started. I don't take the reference to "skin" literally, just as I don't take similar references in the Bible literally.

I see.

Yes.

This is where it breaks down for me. When they were alive, and delivering these revelations, they were taken as prophecy, and therefore in effect as scripture. In 1980 (the time not being coincidential, IMO), the church decides different, and now, looking back, in the light of that change, you say they weren't propecies, weren't revelations, but were just wrong.

Sorry, you lost me. You might want to read the post I directed Mr. Spinks to in post #84 of this thread. You'll find that my opinions differ quite a bit from some of my fellow Latter-day Saints, just as they do on some other topics.

See above. At the time, they were revelations. Now they're wrong.

 

[Katzpur]

Where is it? Who has seen it?

The Church actually has at least some of the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon on display at the Museum of Church History and art. I have seen these myself. I was mistaken, though, in what I said. In trying to find the answer for you, I learned that Joseph Smith made the change from "white" to "pure" in 1840, thinking that people would likely misunderstand the meaning of the verse -- as they clearly have. The error was reinstated, as I said before, and not corrected until 1981.

This is where it breaks down for me. When they were alive, and delivering these revelations, they were taken as prophecy, and therefore in effect as scripture. In 1980 (the time not being coincidential, IMO), the church decides different, and now, looking back, in the light of that change, you say they weren't propecies, weren't revelations, but were just wrong.

They weren't revelations. They were as wrong in 1850 and in 1850 as they are now. If they had been revelations, we would have some record to substantiate this. There is no such record. As far as it being no coincidence that the Blacks were given given the priesthood until 1878, I disagree. There had been very little pressure on the Church for 10 or more years prior to change its policy of withholding the priesthood from the Blacks. If the change had been made in 1963 or evern 1968, you might have a point. It simply wasn't a focus on anybody's attention in 1978.

At the time, they were revelations. Now they're wrong.

Suit yourself. I don't believe they were ever revelations, and I didn't believe they were in 1977 either.

 

[Autodidact]

The Church actually has at least some of the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon on display at the Museum of Church History and art. I have seen these myself. I was mistaken, though, in what I said. In trying to find the answer for you, I learned that Joseph Smith made the change from "white" to "pure" in 1840, thinking that people would likely misunderstand the meaning of the verse -- as they clearly have. The error was reinstated, as I said before, and not corrected until 1981.

I appreciate you acknowledging your error. Kudoes.

How about if we don't presume what Joseph Smith was thinking, unless you have a source for that?

O.K., more questions. So in his original "translation," Smith used the word "white." His divinely inspired translation, the one that forms a basis for the entire Mormon religion. Then later, he decided he was mistaken, the "Reformed Egyptian" word didn't actually mean "white," it meant, "pure." Kinda looks like the "translation" wasn't all that divinely inspired, doesn't it? Which throws the entire basis of the religion into question. Because, after all, Smith didn't have the golden plates in 1840, did he? So what on earth was he "translating?"

So what you have is many editions with the word "white," and a single one with the word "pure," and you decide that the single edition is correct, and all the other ones are incorrect. On what do you base that choice? I find it odd, because it is not consistent with other passages that talk about a curse of black skin, such as [SIZE=-1]"And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren." [/SIZE][SIZE=-2](Alma 3:6)[/SIZE][SIZE=-1].[/SIZE]

They weren't revelations.

But at the time, everyone thought they were.

They were as wrong in 1850 and in 1850 as they are now.

So a prophet, sharing his divinely revealed understanding of scripture, can be wrong? When Brigham Young preached prophecies, he did so without revelation?

Still the curse will be removed from them before it will be removed from the children of Judah; and they will become "a white and delightsome people"

Isn't he the same man who said, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 95)

If they had been revelations, we would have some record to substantiate this.

But there are many such records.

As far as it being no coincidence that the Blacks were given given the priesthood until 1878, I disagree. There had been very little pressure on the Church for 10 or more years prior to change its policy of withholding the priesthood from the Blacks. If the change had been made in 1963 or evern 1968, you might have a point. It simply wasn't a focus on anybody's attention in 1978.

Actually I think I was talking about the official change from "white" to "pure" in 1980 or 81. In any case, that's not how I and this Mormon remember it.

1) On January 9th, 1970, TIME magazine (at that time the second most read magazine in the United States) released an article titled "Mormons and the Mark of Cain". The article was devastating (and accurate). It accurately reported the Mormon belief that "Negroes" were the children of Cain, less valiant in the War in Heaven, the "Mark of Cain" was a black skin, the priesthood-ban, etc. The TIME article spawned a flurry of hundreds of other articles (local and national), and caused the Civil Rights movement and the Radical Student Movement (then protesting the Vietnam War) to put "the Mormon Church" on their enemies list. Mormon missionaries throughout the United States were "feeling the heat"; many investigators cancelled their baptisms, and more doors than usual were being slammed in their faces. These negative articles continued until June 8th, 1978. The 1970 TIME article is in the links below.
2) The Federal Government, under U.S. President Jimmy Carter, was pressuring the Church to end "its discrimination against blacks" and hinting that Brigham Young University students would be denied Federal education grants and loans if the "discrimination" did not end. BYU itself received no Federal money, but almost all BYU students received some sort of Federal grant or loan; such as the Pell Grants and Stafford Loans (granted to all American students who need them).
2) Several universities such as Stanford University in California were refusing to play games with BYU because of its "discrimination". When BYU teams played at other schools, BYU athletes were often pelted with eggs or rocks, called "racists" and threatened with death.
3) A Nigerian university student in California found a book in the library titled "Mormonism and the Negro" by John Stewart (published independently by Stewart) which tried to explain and defend the Curse of Cain doctrine and priesthood-ban. The Nigerian student became ENRAGED, and wrote an article for a major Nigerian newspaper titled "Evil Saints". The Nigerian and Ghana governments then denied visas to all white Mormons trying to enter their countries. The Church had plan to send "Senior Elders" (i.e. retired white Mormon high priests) on one and two year missions to Ghana and Nigeria, to perform all priesthood ordinances while letting local black leaders retain their role as preaching "Pastors" who did not perform any priesthood ordinances. The black "Pastors" would continue to preach on Sunday, and to proselyte, while the white "Senior Elders" would perform all baptisms and bless the Sacrament on Sundays. But, after the "Evil Saints" article, this program had to be cancelled.

The Mormons are a bit slow, but eventually they catch up with Civil Rights.

Suit yourself. I don't believe they were ever revelations, and I didn't believe they were in 1977 either.

Has the Church ever issued a doctrinal statement about any of these post-civil rights changes?

 

[Watchmen]

O.K., more questions. So in his original "translation," Smith used the word "white." His divinely inspired translation, the one that forms a basis for the entire Mormon religion. Then later, he decided he was mistaken, the "Reformed Egyptian" word didn't actually mean "white," it meant, "pure." Kinda looks like the "translation" wasn't all that divinely inspired, doesn't it? Which throws the entire basis of the religion into question. Because, after all, Smith didn't have the golden plates in 1840, did he? So what on earth was he "translating?"

I suggest you read Katzpur's post again. That's not what she said. There was never a mistake in translation - just a mistake in the people's understanding. Because of the mistake in understanding, he changed the word to "pure" to help the readers.

 

[Autodidact]

I suggest you read Katzpur's post again. That's not what she said. There was never a mistake in translation - just a mistake in the people's understanding. Because of the mistake in understanding, he changed the word to "pure" to help the readers.

Well, "white" is very different in meaning than "pure." One is a color, one is not. If he meant "pure," then "white" is a lousy translation of the "Reformed Egyptian" word, is it not? I mean, if I read "white," I'm going to "understand" that to mean the color we call "white," aren't you? And if it meant "pure," and he translated it as "white," that would be a mistake, would it not? I mean, I looked up "white" in a thesaurus and got:

achromatic, achromic, alabaster, ashen, blanched, bleached, bloodless, chalky, clear, fair, frosted, ghastly, hoary, immaculate, ivory, light, milky, neutral, pallid, pasty, pearly, silver, silvery, snowy, transparent, wan, waxen .

"Pure" isn't even a synonym of "white."

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that the passages in question were not racist, and they were not a mistake in translation.

What would a racist passage look like?
What would a mistake in translation look like?

 

[Watchmen]

Well, "white" is very different in meaning than "pure." One is a color, one is not. If he meant "pure," then "white" is a lousy translation of the "Reformed Egyptian" word, is it not? I mean, if I read "white," I'm going to "understand" that to mean the color we call "white," aren't you? And if it meant "pure," and he translated it as "white," that would be a mistake, would it not? I mean, I looked up "white" in a thesaurus and got:

achromatic, achromic, alabaster, ashen, blanched, bleached, bloodless, chalky, clear, fair, frosted, ghastly, hoary, immaculate, ivory, light, milky, neutral, pallid, pasty, pearly, silver, silvery, snowy, transparent, wan, waxen .

"Pure" isn't even a synonym of "white."

Just because it's not in your thesaurus doesn't mean it's not a synonym. For example, "white" would be pure in scriptures that refer to garments being made white by the blood of the lamb. In this case, white refers to garments - not skin color - and white refers to being made pure through Christ - not turning white.

 

[Autodidact]

Just because it's not in your thesaurus doesn't mean it's not a synonym. For example, "white" would be pure in scriptures that refer to garments being made white by the blood of the lamb. In this case, white refers to garments - not skin color - and white refers to being made pure through Christ - not turning white.

It's not my thesaurus. And no, you're mistaken. A thesaurus is a book that lists synonyms. They try really hard to list all of them. So if it's not in the thesaurus, it's probably not a synonym.

After that your post didn't make sense to me. Blood makes something white? In scripture? You'll have to quote me that scripture because I would think blood would make something red. But that's just me.

 

[Apex]

It's not my thesaurus. And no, you're mistaken. A thesaurus is a book that lists synonyms. They try really hard to list all of them. So if it's not in the thesaurus, it's probably not a synonym.

After that your post didn't make sense to me. Blood makes something white? In scripture? You'll have to quote me that scripture because I would think blood would make something red. But that's just me.

You can not be serious that you have never heard of white being used as a synonym for pure.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You can not be serious that you have never heard white being used as a synonym for pure.

Only for snow, myself. And maybe cocaine.

 

[Apex]

Only for snow, myself. And maybe cocaine.

2 seconds on google,
http://emptyeasel.com/2007/06/22/the-color-white-pure-cold-and-clean/

And although it’s probably more of a cultural thing, white is often viewed as the color of moral purity and goodness.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You can not be serious that you have never heard white being used as a synonym for pure.

Fair enough but the passages in question refer specifically to white vs. dark skin. White skin was indeed viewed as the skin color of moral purity and goodness, this was/is part of the racist mindset.