mormonism racist?

[Katzpur]

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.

Actually, I think this is an excellent example. There are absolutely widely-held beliefs in almost any religion that are not officially binding on the members of those religions, because they are NOT doctrine. For years, I thought the belief in limbo was a Catholic doctrine, but when I Catholic explained to me that it never was, I was not so pig-headed as to insist I was right and the Catholic was wrong.

 

[Autodidact]

Define "doctrine" in the context of LDS.

 

[Autodidact]

My point is that the Mormon Church has a pattern and history of (1) changing its doctirne and (2) then denying that the previous doctrine was in fact doctrine. Therefore, Mormons will tend to deny that something that is not currently doctrine ever was. This allows them both to change their beliefs, based on current "revelation," and to still maintain their faith in the infallibility of the prophet's revelation, whatever that currently is, even when it directly changes prior revelation. Thus, it's not a question of who best knows what Mormon doctrine was, but who is willing and able to decribe it most accurately.

 

[Watchmen]

And I'd love to discuss that alleged pattern and history, but you stubbornly refuse to be objective as demonstrated by your refusal to admit you were wrong about white being a synonym for pure and refusing to admit white is used symbolically in scripture.

 

[Autodidact]

WHITE IS SYMBOLIC OF PURITY. I said as much, repeatedly. The flag is symbolic of America. A six-pointed star is symbolic of Judaism. But a star is not Judaism, a flag is not America, and "white" is not the same thing as "pure." I can't admit that it is, without lying.

And, for the third or fourth time, if the word was only being used symbolically, (and thus badly, since it was so unclear that for a hundred years all of your leaders and prophets thought it was literal), the same text uses other words and emphasizes skin color, when talking about Indians.

If I say, "My skin is white," is your immediate understanding that my skin is pure? Or that I'm white. Cuz, y'know, we're talking about skin here, as the BoM makes clear.

 

[Watchmen]

WHITE IS SYMBOLIC OF PURITY. I said as much, repeatedly. The flag is symbolic of America. A six-pointed star is symbolic of Judaism. But a star is not Judaism, a flag is not America, and "white" is not the same thing as "pure." I can't admit that it is, without lying.

And, for the third or fourth time, if the word was only being used symbolically, (and thus badly, since it was so unclear that for a hundred years all of your leaders and prophets thought it was literal), the same text uses other words and emphasizes skin color, when talking about Indians.

If I say, "My skin is white," is your immediate understanding that my skin is pure? Or that I'm white. Cuz, y'know, we're talking about skin here, as the BoM makes clear.

Your failure to understand comes from your denial that the word is used symbolically.

If white garments = spotless due to Christ, why can't white skin?

Example: 1 Nephi 11:13 In reference to Mary..."I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white."

Does this refer to her skin? Of course not - it refers to her purity.

 

[Katzpur]

Define "doctrine" in the context of LDS.

The LDS canon is comprised of four books which we consider to be scripture: The Holy Bible (KJV), The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. If you can find a teaching in one of these four books, it's a safe bet you're talking doctrine. We refer to these four volumes of scripture as "the Standard Works" for the simple reason that they are the "standard" by which all other teachings must be measured.

There is one exception to this rule of thumb. We believe that Christ's Church is led today by living prophets, through whom God speaks to His children. Prophets receive revelation directly from God. Whenever a revelation is doctrinal in nature, it is always presented to the general Church membership for a sustaining vote. It is given either through the First Presidency of the Church (the President and his two counselors) or through the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as a single, united entity. Once the doctrine has been accepted by the members of the Church it becomes doctrine. At some point in time it will more than likely be added to The Doctrine and Covenants. This was the case, for instance, with the 1978 revelation granting the Priesthood to all male members of the Church.

In other words, any LDS General Authority (i.e. the governing body of the Church or the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve and the Seventy) speaking on his own and not on behalf of the entire body, may be thought of as presenting his own opinion or interpretation of doctrine. While we believe them to be inspired, they are human beings with opinions of their own. The Prophet Joseph Smith probably said it best when he stated, "A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such."

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Your failure to understand comes from your denial that the word is used symbolically.

If white garments = spotless due to Christ, why can't white skin?

Example: 1 Nephi 11:13 In reference to Mary..."I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white."

Does this refer to her skin? Of course not - it refers to her purity.

It clearly does refer to her skin but it can also be symbolic at the same time. This is common in both fiction and religious scripture. You could say, "He had a booming voice", and this could be literally true as well as symbolic/illustrative of the person's personality (he is commanding, bossy, whatever). I could see a "white light" shining down on me from the heavens, and this could be literally true (I really did see a WHITE light, not a black light, or a purple light) as well as illustrative that it is a special kind of heavenly light. See what I mean?

If white garments = spotless due to Christ, why can't white skin?

White skin can symbolize any good thing we like, and dark skin can symbolize any bad thing we like, if we adopt a racist mentality.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

"People with dark skins are stupid." How's that?

I don't think real racism commonly adopts such an overt and easily recognizable form. But to answer your question....I suppose "stupid" is better than being cursed for wickedness.

I don't know. Nothing comes to mind. If you can think of something you believe would qualify as racist symbolism, you might mention it and I'll tell you if I agree or not.

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

Statements "plucked out" of any text and put into some other text could be seen as racist. In the context of the overall message of the Book of Mormon, I believe them to be symbolic.

Well I think that is an understandable line of thinking to adopt if we insist the BoM, unlike every other book ever written, has a perfectly coherent overall message. However, we do not normally assume this about all books. It is possible most parts of a book form a coherent message while certain parts go against that message. It is also possible that the message is multi-faceted, and we can accept certain parts of the message more or less than others.

In one of Joseph Smith's rare, non-racist moments, he translated the following: "For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free,male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." (2 Nephi 26:33) That is what we believe, though sadly it is ignored.

Thanks for the quote Katz, I appreciate the info. But actually the scope of what I am saying is quite narrow, the racism (or lack thereof) of Joseph Smith as a person is a much broader issue than what I am talking about. And what you and other Mormons today believe is also a much broader issue, I can absolutely concede that for his time Joseph Smith was progressive and modern-day Mormons are not racist.

I am focusing on the merit of words written on a page and the liabilities of accepting words uncritically.

 

[Watchmen]

The LDS canon is comprised of four books which we consider to be scripture: The Holy Bible (KJV), The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. If you can find a teaching in one of these four books, it's a safe bet you're talking doctrine. We refer to these four volumes of scripture as "the Standard Works" for the simple reason that they are the "standard" by which all other teachings must be measured.

There is one exception to this rule of thumb. We believe that Christ's Church is led today by living prophets, through whom God speaks to His children. Prophets receive revelation directly from God. Whenever a revelation is doctrinal in nature, it is always presented to the general Church membership for a sustaining vote. It is given either through the First Presidency of the Church (the President and his two counselors) or through the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as a single, united entity. Once the doctrine has been accepted by the members of the Church it becomes doctrine. At some point in time it will more than likely be added to The Doctrine and Covenants. This was the case, for instance, with the 1978 revelation granting the Priesthood to all male members of the Church.

In other words, any LDS General Authority (i.e. the governing body of the Church or the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve and the Seventy) speaking on his own and not on behalf of the entire body, may be thought of as presenting his own opinion or interpretation of doctrine. While we believe them to be inspired, they are human beings with opinions of their own. The Prophet Joseph Smith probably said it best when he stated, "A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such."

Oh - I wish I had a nickel for every time you posted this!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Is it possible for a non-racist person to think, write, or say something that is racist?

Remember what Avenue Q has taught us....everybody's a little bit racist.

 

[Katzpur]

Oh - I wish I had a nickel for every time you posted this!

Well, the question gets asked often enough, doesn't it? I have my correction of stock answers so I don't have to take the time to compose one every three or four months.

 

[Katzpur]

I can absolutely concede that for his time Joseph Smith was progressive and modern-day Mormons are not racist.

I am going to pretend that this was the last post ever written on this thread, that everybody took a vote and that the vote was unanimous in favor of this statement and that everybody decided to move on to another topic for at least another year. :yes:

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, I agree with Mr. Spinkles, that from what I know of 19th century white Americans, Joseph Smith was less racist than average, and modern day Mormons are no more racist than other 21st century Americans.

In addition, the BoM has/had a core racist theme, which is that Indians are Lamanites who were cursed by God with dark skin.

 

[Katzpur]

Is it possible for a non-racist person to think, write, or say something that is racist?

Remember what Avenue Q has taught us....everybody's a little bit racist.

Sure, we all have our prejudices -- racial, sexual, religious, etc. In my opinion, those who pretend that they don't are just kidding themselves.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I am going to pretend that this was the last post ever written on this thread, that everybody took a vote and that the vote was unanimous in favor of this statement and that everybody decided to move on to another topic for at least another year. :yes:

Not so fast. I'm still waiting for a response to my point about racist symbolism.

Yes, I agree with Mr. Spinkles, that from what I know of 19th century white Americans, Joseph Smith was less racist than average, and modern day Mormons are no more racist than other 21st century Americans.

In addition, the BoM has/had a core racist theme, which is that Indians are Lamanites who were cursed by God with dark skin.

Exactly, these are separate issues.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Sure, we all have our prejudices -- racial, sexual, religious, etc. In my opinion, those who pretend that they don't are just kidding themselves.

Okay so even if we assume Joseph Smith was not especially "racist" some things he said/wrote can be racist. In fact if the BoM was not written by Smith, but only translated by him, then these really are two completely separate issues. And that is the issue at hand, "are these passages racist", not "was Joseph Smith racist". The latter question may help inform the former question, but it does not necessarily answer the former question.

And in this case, the passages about white skin vs. dark skin are clearly racist....this is almost definitional.

 

[Quiddity]

Mormons being racist wouldn't bother me as much as Mormonism having it as part of there official doctrine of the faith.

 

[Katzpur]

Not so fast. I'm still waiting for a response to my point about racist symbolism.

You mean this point?

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

If I believed God literally changed the color of anyone's skin from white to black, you might be able to convince me that it was racist symbolism, but since I have already pointed out that that's not what I believe happened, I can't see how it would be racist. Since we Mormons believe that some of the native Americans are the descendents of the people whose skins were supposedly made "black" and that they originally had the skin color of a Middle-eastern person today, I don't see how anyone can even argue that one is darker than the other.

 

[Quiddity]

You mean this point? If I believed God literally changed the color of anyone's skin from white to black, you might be able to convince me that it was racist symbolism, but since I have already pointed out that that's not what I believe happened, I can't see how it would be racist. Since we Mormons believe that some of the native Americans are the descendents of the people whose skins were supposedly made "black" and that they originally had the skin color of a Middle-eastern person today, I don't see how anyone can even argue that one is darker than the other.

There is a reason Brigham Young forbade blacks to enter the priesthood. Yes, this was just policy and not doctrine but it most certainly was racist.