mormonism racist?

[Katzpur]

Okay so even if we assume Joseph Smith was not especially "racist" some things he said/wrote can be racist.

That's because you think he "wrote" the Book of Mormon.

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.

I believe they are separate issues for the reason I already stated. I guess the reason I'm having a hard time seeing the passages in the Book of Mormon as racist is that in my opinion an actual change of skin color never took place. I don't believe the change took place because I see no evidence that it did. If it had, we would see a noticeable difference in degree of darkness between a South American Indian and a Arabian. It was more of a change in countenance.

 

[Autodidact]

That's because you think he "wrote" the Book of Mormon.

I believe they are separate issues for the reason I already stated. I guess the reason I'm having a hard time seeing the passages in the Book of Mormon as racist is that in my opinion an actual change of skin color never took place. I don't believe the change took place because I see no evidence that it did. If it had, we would see a noticeable difference in degree of darkness between a South American Indian and a Arabian. It was more of a change in countenance.

Well for heaven's sake, there's not a scintilla of evidence that anything in the BoM is factual, but that doesn't stop millions of Mormons from believing it anyway!

Interestingly, the leaders of your faith did believe and even claim to observe Indians' skin becoming whiter after conversion.

 

[Autodidact]

So, Katzpur, coming back to those books which form Mormon scripture, what do you call the meaning, or interpretation of them, and who decides that? For example, who gets to decide whether Middle-East immigrants are the principle ancestors of American Indians, or only among their ancestors? (although we know that in point of fact they are neither.)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well for heaven's sake, there's not a scintilla of evidence that anything in the BoM is factual, but that doesn't stop millions of Mormons from believing it anyway!

Interestingly, the leaders of your faith did believe and even claim to observe Indians' skin becoming whiter after conversion.

And this wasn't exactly a long time ago, either. I believe some of those leaders are former First Presidents who are living today.

 

[Katzpur]

Auto, we've discussed the authenticity of the Book of Mormon on many occasions. The fact that you find no compelling evidence that it is not merely another work of fiction by some 19th century charlatan doesn't matter to me in the slightest. Millions of people, many of them every bit as intelligent and well-read as you, have found sufficient evidence to believe it. Billions more have found evidence enough to convince them to embrace Christianity. I have seriously had it with your condescending, know-it-all attitude. I could care less what you think about my church, its sacred texts, doctrines, practices, culture, leadership or anything else. I don't know whether you've even ever noticed this or not, but I can get along just fine with about 95% of the atheists on RF. Some of them I like a whole lot more than I like a few of my fellow Mormons. Unlike you, they have proven that it is entirely possible to to express a contrary opinion without being pompous and sarcastic. Your unending stream of belitting remarks has grown so old that the stench has become quite intolerable.

 

[Katzpur]

And this wasn't exactly a long time ago, either. I believe some of those leaders are former First Presidents who are living today.

Excuse me? Who would those be? I am not aware of any "former First Presidents" who are living today, so I can hardly wait to find out who they are. While you're at it, could you tell me how one becomes a "former First President"?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That's because you think he "wrote" the Book of Mormon.

And it came to pass that you are correct!

I believe they are separate issues for the reason I already stated. I guess the reason I'm having a hard time seeing the passages in the Book of Mormon as racist is that in my opinion an actual change of skin color never took place. I don't believe the change took place because I see no evidence that it did. If it had, we would see a noticeable difference in degree of darkness between a South American Indian and a Arabian. ...

Okay well we definitely agree it didn't happen....

...It was more of a change in countenance.

Uh...um....oh. That's not literal or racist or anything.... :thud:

 

[Katzpur]

And it came to pass that you are correct!

If you'd ever like to have a one-on-one debate on the subject, just let me know. I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for believing as you do (I mean beyond "I don't believe in God or angels, etc."). I bet I can provide a better case for my position than you can for yours.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Excuse me? Who would those be? I am not aware of any "former First Presidents" who are living today, so I can hardly wait to find out who they are. While you're at it, could you tell me how one becomes a "former First President"?

Sorry I was mistaken, that was president Kimball and he died in 1985.

 

[Katzpur]

Sorry I was mistaken, that was president Kimball and he died in 1985.

Well, maybe he was wrong. He wasn't the Pope after all! By the way, here is a comment one of our current Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks, made in an interview with the Associated Press about three years after Spencer W. Kimball died. It doesn't tie directly to what you're saying President Kimball believed about the Indians, but it relates more to the beliefs individual LDS General Authorities (the Prophet, his counselors, the Apostles, the Seventy) have on various subjects (in this case, lifting the ban on giving Blacks the priesthood). Substitute pretty much any interpretation offered by any LDS General Authority and the same thing applies. They are human beings with human failings. They guess at things, offer their own opinions, and are products of their culture. They try to explain things according to what they believe they know, based on their present knowledge.

Dallin Oaks: “…It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When do so, we are on our own. Some people put reason to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that…”

“I’m referring to reasons given by General Authorities and elaborated upon by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to be unnecessary risk taking…”

“Let’s [not] make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent.”

By the way, should I start that One-on-One? I'm sure you're just itching to prove that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. I promise I won't say that I know he actually translated it because the Holy Ghost told me so if you promise that you won't say that he just wrote it himself because you're smart enough not to believe otherwise. If we were to both just stick to the evidence at hand, it might be kind of fun. If you're convinced that he wrote it, you must have some good reasons. There must be certain clues in the book that would point to a 19th century author as opposed to a number of authors who lived a thousand years ago.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If you'd ever like to have a one-on-one debate on the subject, just let me know. I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for believing as you do (I mean beyond "I don't believe in God or angels, etc."). I bet I can provide a better case for my position than you can for yours.

That may well be true. On the other hand, believers in psychic readings, and many other religious/paranormal claims, may be able to provide a better case for their belief than you or I can for our non-belief. As a skeptic, I am at an enormous disadvantage, because I am expected (unfairly) to reject magical claims (which we all do constantly without batting an eye) only after studying the topic with the same intensity as a devotee. Meanwhile, believers in infallible religious dogma can get away with simply dismissing "heretical" religions/ideas without studying them.

So for example, Muslims can probably provide a better case for their belief in the authenticity of the Qu'ran (I mean "better" as in more extensive and complicated, and with more energy) than you or I can for our non-belief in its authenticity. Somehow, the long, complicated, excited apologetics of a believer overwhelm the basic standards of evidence people normally apply to everything but their own favorite sacred scripture.

 

[Katzpur]

That may well be true. On the other hand, believers in psychic readings, and many other religious/paranormal claims, may be able to provide a better case for their belief than you or I can for our non-belief. As a skeptic, I am at an enormous disadvantage, because I am expected (unfairly) to reject magical claims (which we all do constantly without batting an eye) only after studying the topic with the same intensity as a devotee. Meanwhile, believers in infallible religious dogma can get away with simply dismissing "heretical" religions/ideas without studying them.

It looks like we were both posting at the same time. What I was saying was that all you'd have to do is prove that the style and content of the book is clearly indicative that it was written in the 19th century. Ask Auto how hard that would be. I'm sure she wouldn't think you'd be at even a slight disadvantage. After all, you'd just be debating against a stupid, gullible, naive Mormon. How hard could it be? Or do you think I might be able to provide actual "evidence" other than what mere blind faith has told me?

 

[rojse]

It looks like we were both posting at the same time. What I was saying was that all you'd have to do is prove that the style and content of the book is clearly indicative that it was written in the 19th century. Ask Auto how hard that would be. I'm sure she wouldn't think you'd be at even a slight disadvantage. After all, you'd just be debating against a stupid, gullible, naive Mormon. How hard could it be? Or do you think I might be able to provide actual "evidence" other than what mere blind faith has told me?

But what would indicate a work is written in the nineteenth century? Consider the depth of writing styles and modes from the twentieth century , and how varied authors can be even when of the same era and genre.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It looks like we were both posting at the same time. What I was saying was that all you'd have to do is prove that the style and content of the book is clearly indicative that it was written in the 19th century. Ask Auto how hard that would be. I'm sure she wouldn't think you'd be at even a slight disadvantage. After all, you'd just be debating against a stupid, gullible, naive Mormon. How hard could it be?

I can't even prove to you Mormons that "white skin = pure, dark skin = curse" is racist symbolism. So this much larger project would be very hard. We have a very small, narrow, well-defined topic right here, let's settle this one first.

And, as I said, if that isn't racist symbolism, nothing is.

 

[Katzpur]

But what would indicate a work is written in the nineteenth century? Consider the depth of writing styles and modes from the twentieth century , and how varied authors can be even when of the same era and genre.

Any good scholar could find plenty of evidence if there really was any, whereas I can provide a lot of evidence that it almost certainly couldn't have been. It would be even easier for me to prove that the individual books in the Book of Mormon were written by different individuals. Do you know anything about wordprint analyses? There are also a lot of clues based upon what people in 19th century America thought they knew back then about the Arabian desert (where the first part of the Book of Mormon takes place), what the knowledge of the time was about the Native Americans, 19th-century thoughts on ancient warfare, etc. There are linguistic characteristics of the Book of Mormon that a 19th-century author couldn't have known about. All I'm saying is that people who insist that Joseph Smith wrote the book as a piece of fiction have a very difficult time coming up with any actual evidence, whereas those of us who believe it was translated from an ancient Semitic record can point to some very specific reasons why we do.

 

[Katzpur]

I can't even prove to you Mormons that "white skin = pure, dark skin = curse" is racist symbolism. So this much larger project would be very hard. We have a very small, narrow, well-defined topic right here, let's settle this one first.

Easy way out, huh? If we can't agree on this one topic, let's hash it about for a few hundred more posts instead of moving on to another point that might actually be resolved. What a shame.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Easy way out, huh? If we can't agree on this one topic, let's hash it about for a few hundred more posts instead of moving on to another point that might actually be resolved. What a shame.

Actually I wasn't aware that you specifically responded to that point. Is it racist symbolism for white skin to symbolize purity, and dark skin to symbolize wickedness (or a curse, or whatever)? Or not? Yes or not?

I'm honestly just clarifying....

And yes I concede it's an easy way out. I worked 12 hours yesterday, 8 more today and I'm tired.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I mean, I feel bad I guess for backing away from something you want to talk about in more depth....tell you what, I'll agree to a One-on-One if I can take my time with it. It just sounds like a huge project. I'm also traveling tomorrow and I won't be back until Monday morning.

Also I can't give a positive case that the style and content of the BoM prove it was written in the 19th century. I can't do that for the texts of Scientology, Islam, etc. either. The best I can do is agree to hear your case and evaluate it honestly and ask questions.

 

[Katzpur]

Actually I wasn't aware that you specifically responded to that point. Is it racist symbolism for white skin to symbolize purity, and dark skin to symbolize wickedness (or a curse, or whatever)? Or not? Yes or not?

Yes, if "skin" is interpreted literally, which I don't believe should be the case. When we're talking "white skin" versus "black skin," it's not just the adjectives that are symbolic, it's the nouns they modify that are symbolic as well. If I thought that God changed someone's skin from white to black because he was wicked, I'd say that was racist.

And yes I concede it's an easy way out. I worked 12 hours yesterday, 8 more today and I'm tired.

Okay, I'll give you a day or so to rest up.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

When we're talking "white skin" versus "black skin," it's not just the adjectives that are symbolic, it's the nouns they modify that are symbolic as well.

What is the skin symbolic of?