mormonism racist?

[Katzpur]

Exactly. And, going the other way round, the fact that the book does reflect the cultural racism on his day is just one more piece of evidence that he wrote it.

To me, the evidence that he didn't write it is so compelling that even if I believed he was racist, I'd have a hard time letting that one point convince me otherwise. But seeing as this thread is not about who wrote the Book of Mormon, I'm going to leave it at that. Neither one of us is going to budge an inch. I know from past experience that once you find an anti-Mormon thread to post on, it's like you get on a runaway train. I've said pretty much all I have to say to you on this topic. I'll respond to the posts you've made up till now, but then I'm through with this nonsense.

 

[Katzpur]

It can take a basic doctrine, such as that Indians are descended from immigrants from the middle east, and that God cursed them with dark skin because of their transgressions, throw it out the window, and go about its business. That is fascinating. The weird part is that to do this, they have to forget that it was doctrine before, and deny that it ever was. It's like Soviet re-writing of history or something, and fascinating to observe in action.

You know, it's really interesting that you would see yourself in a position to define what is and what is not LDS doctrine. The fact that you think something is doctrine doesn't make it so. Even before the ban, our leaders were saying it wasn't doctrine.

PRESIDENT DAVID O. MCKAY (1954): “There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this Church that the Negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the Church of any kind pertaining to the Negro. ‘We believe’ that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the Priesthood from the Negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it.”

I admitted to you when I posted something in error. Now why don't you be a big girl and do the same.

 

[Katzpur]

No, white is not a synonym for pure, unless the thing you're talking about is white. White is a color.

Isaiah 1:18 clearly uses white as a symbol for pure, clean and sinless: Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be aswhite as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

You are wrong again, Auto. Admit it. Sins have no color, and yet when they are removed, forgiven, and forgotten they will be "as white as snow."

 

[Apex]

Isaiah 1:18 clearly uses white as a symbol for pure, clean and sinless: Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be aswhite as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

You are wrong again, Auto. Admit it. Sins have no color, and yet when they are removed, forgiven, and forgotten they will be "as white as snow."

I think we would get farther with Fish Hunter...

 

[Katzpur]

I think we would get farther with Fish Hunter...

I think it's about sixes. It would be a different kind of argument altogether but the end result would be the same.

 

[Watchmen]

Right. I'm pointing out the obvious fact that when your holy book says that Indians have dark skin as a curse from God it's racist, you're twisting like a pretzel to deny the obvious, and I'm being intellectually dishonest. And then, when the pressure mounts against that same church, they suddenly dig up a single edition that used the word "pure" instead, decide that's the "right" one, even though the original, divinely inspired, magic-rocks-and-hat assisted "translation" of a language that doesn't exist reads "white," as do many other passages from the same book. but I'm the one who's intellectually dishonest. Uh huh.

Just as obviously, if I'm translating a book from Spanish, and it has the word "blanco," I translate it as "white." If instead I right, "pure," I suck at translation. That would be the kindest possible interpretation of the story--Smith was a lousy translator.

OK - ignore what I posted. You suck at reading.

 

[Autodidact]

Isaiah 1:18 clearly uses white as a symbol for pure, clean and sinless: Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be aswhite as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

You are wrong again, Auto. Admit it. Sins have no color, and yet when they are removed, forgiven, and forgotten they will be "as white as snow."

Symbol does not equal synonym does not equal good translation. The flag is a symbol of the United States of America. If I'm translating an official document from Chinese, and it has the Chinese word for U.S.A., it would be a significant error to translate the word as "flag."

Give me a break. Are you honestly trying to argue that translating the "Reformed Egyptian" word for "pure" as "white" is accurate translation? That the problem is that people might misunderstand it and think it meant "white?" Uh, yeah, because "white" does mean "white." So when I read "white," I think it means "white."

 

[Autodidact]

You know, it's really interesting that you would see yourself in a position to define what is and what is not LDS doctrine. The fact that you think something is doctrine doesn't make it so. Even before the ban, our leaders were saying it wasn't doctrine.

PRESIDENT DAVID O. MCKAY (1954): “There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this Church that the Negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the Church of any kind pertaining to the Negro. ‘We believe’ that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the Priesthood from the Negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it.”

I admitted to you when I posted something in error. Now why don't you be a big girl and do the same.

What are you talking about? My post was about Indians, not "Negroes." All non-white races equivalent to you?

 

[Watchmen]

And Auto continues to ignore that I demonstrated:

1. that some thesauruses do indeed list "pure" as a synonym for white; and

2. that white is used symbollically in scripture.

 

[Autodidact]

It's a symbol. A symbol. Are you trying to tell me that if I write a letter in Spanish, stating that I live in a casa blanca, you translate that as me living in a pure house? That is accurate translation?

Look, either one of two things:
1. "white" is an accurate translation for the "Reformed Egyptian" word. The BoM says that Indians become white when they get their act together.
2. "White" is not an accurate translation for whatever. Smith is a lousy translator, and the whole book is unreliable.

You can't have it both ways: It's a perfect translation, and it's wrong.

And you're both ignoring the repeated other references in the BoM to white skin, black skin, curse of black skin, and so forth.

 

[Katzpur]

What are you talking about? My post was about Indians, not "Negroes."

It was about racism and doctrine. All charges of racism in the Church claim that the Book of Mormon contains "racist" statements and that we had racist policies pertaining to Blacks as well. You are claiming that this supposed racism was doctrine. The bottom line is, you are not in a position to say what constitutes Mormon doctrine.

All non-white races equivalent to you?

All races period are equivalent to me, Auto. How about to you?

 

[Katzpur]

It's a symbol. A symbol. Are you trying to tell me that if I write a letter in Spanish, stating that I live in a casa blanca, you translate that as me living in a pure house? That is accurate translation?

What a pathetic example. No one has ever implied that "white" is never used in any other way than as a synonym for "pure." I showed you where it is used in the Bible to mean "pure."

Look, either one of two things:

Look, yourself. There are not merely two options. There are only two options you are willing to consider.

1. "white" is an accurate translation for the "Reformed Egyptian" word. The BoM says that Indians become white when they get their act together.

The Book of Mormon makes no mention of Indians getting their act together.

2. "White" is not an accurate translation for whatever. Smith is a lousy translator, and the whole book is unreliable.

According to you. Where'd you get your degree in linguistics anyway?

 

[Autodidact]

It was about racism and doctrine. All charges of racism in the Church claim that the Book of Mormon contains "racist" statements and that we had racist policies pertaining to Blacks as well. You are claiming that this supposed racism was doctrine. The bottom line is, you are not in a position to say what constitutes Mormon doctrine.

You mean this post?

Again, what's interesting and cool about Mormonism is that it can turn on a dime like this. It can take a basic doctrine, such as that Indians are descended from immigrants from the middle east, and that God cursed them with dark skin because of their transgressions, throw it out the window, and go about its business. That is fascinating. The weird part is that to do this, they have to forget that it was doctrine before, and deny that it ever was. It's like Soviet re-writing of history or something, and fascinating to observe in action.

(emphasis added.)

Apparently you believe that only Mormons are competent to speak on what is Mormon doctrine. Convenient way to control Mormon PR, IMO. So when the whitewash is completed, and the new story about what was doctrine in place, no one who would dare to remember different gets heard from.

All races period are equivalent to me, Auto. How about to you?

Well, I would never call a Navajo person African-American, or you Japanese, or a post about Indians equivalent to one about Black priests, no. I can tell them apart.

 

[Autodidact]

What a pathetic example. No one has ever implied that "white" is never used in any other way than as a synonym for "pure." I showed you where it is used in the Bible to mean "pure."

Look, yourself. There are not merely two options. There are only two options you are willing to consider.

The Book of Mormon makes no mention of Indians getting their act together.

According to you. Where'd you get your degree in linguistics anyway?

I see two options:
1. The translation is correct.
2. The translation is incorrect.

What other option is there?

 

[Katzpur]

Apparently you believe that only Mormons are competent to speak on what is Mormon doctrine.

Uh, yes. Mormons have the right to define their own doctrine. Catholics have a right to define Catholic doctrine. Muslims have a right to define Islamic doctrine. Sorry, you have the right to define your own beliefs, not anybody elses.

Well, I would never call a Navajo person African-American, or you Japanese, or a post about Indians equivalent to one about Black priests, no. I can tell them apart.

Well aren't you a regular genius, Einstein.

 

[Autodidact]

It's not about defining the beliefs, Katzpur, but about accurately stating how they were once defined. Mormons get to decide whether they believe that Indians are Lamanites cursed by God. That's their prerogative. If they then deny they ever believed that, it's not about defining their beliefs, it's about telling the truth.

 

[Autodidact]

For example, the Pope gets to decide whether Catholics believe the earth rotates around the sun, or vice versa. The Catholics don't get to retroactively decide that they always believed the former; that's lying.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see two options:
1. The translation is correct.
2. The translation is incorrect.

What other option is there?

1b. The translation is correct but nuanced, and a different word would be better to communicate the message in a different culture.

I had a look at the passages Katzpur quoted, plus some others. I also had a search through the Bible for other uses of "white". Most were straightforward literal descriptions of colour, but this one stood out as odd:

2 Kings 5:27:

Naaman's leprosy will cling to you and to your descendants forever." Then Gehazi went from Elisha's presence and he was leprous, as white as snow.

I had to look up the symptoms of leprosy. Apparently, it can result in a symmetrical skin rash on parts of the body that can be "light or dark". Given this, I suppose it's possible (though maybe a stretch) to explain this verse away as a literal description of the effects of the disease.

In any case, I think Katzpur's right: the Bible does use "white" as a synonym for "pure" in several cases. Now, whether this points toward the Book of Mormon being the product of the same culture that produced these verses in Lamentations, the Psalms, etc., or whether it points toward it being the product of a 19th century author who was familiar with the Bible... I'll leave that up to others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For example, the Pope gets to decide whether Catholics believe the earth rotates around the sun, or vice versa. The Catholics don't get to retroactively decide that they always believed the former; that's lying.

OTOH, he does get to say that limbo doesn't exist and that despite it being a widely-held belief in the Church for centuries, it was never officially doctrine.

 

[Watchmen]

It's a symbol. A symbol. Are you trying to tell me that if I write a letter in Spanish, stating that I live in a casa blanca, you translate that as me living in a pure house? That is accurate translation?

Look, either one of two things:
1. "white" is an accurate translation for the "Reformed Egyptian" word. The BoM says that Indians become white when they get their act together.
2. "White" is not an accurate translation for whatever. Smith is a lousy translator, and the whole book is unreliable.

You can't have it both ways: It's a perfect translation, and it's wrong.

And you're both ignoring the repeated other references in the BoM to white skin, black skin, curse of black skin, and so forth.

You're ignoring that fact that the word was translated "white" and that meant "pure." I've already showd you evidence that "pure" is a synonym for white and I've already showed you evidence that "white" is used symbolically as it is in the phrase: "garments washed white in the blood of the lamb."