- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My daughter came to me today and asked “Why are there people of different races??”. [Holy confronting Mormonism’s racist tendencies batman, was my initial thought to this question].
This was my answer.
“Mormonism doesn’t give satisfactory answers to that question in my view. The Book of Mormon postulates that God turned some people’s skin a different color to prevent mixing with other peoples, to preserve righteousness, but I don’t think that’s a valid reason”….then I went into an anti-racism commentary. My 13 year old daughter asked “why are people so negative about [insert certain race here]”.
I had to come up with an answer there, which I won’t share because the topic is so sensitive and I don’t want to have to defend myself.
Who knows, maybe I’m tearing down her faith or at least, not giving it a traditional basis, but I could not transmit the racial slurs that are found in some of our history and theology.
I am getting ready for the big question she will ask me some day (she is quite intelligent). “Daddy — how can you believe only PARTS of the scriptures and not all of it??? “
My answer will be that I’m not willing to surrender my own sense of right and wrong until i have strong evidence (spiritual, or otherwise) to do so. I haven’t explored this issue in Mormonism in depth, so I’m left with my own conflicting views. If this is tremendously important to you — you need to make it a subject of serious study and prayer, and draw your own conclusions”.
And my overall rejoinder — I have a testimony I should be a member of the Church, so I stay with it in spite of these questions.
How would you answer the questions to a 13 year old:
Quote:Why are there people of different races??”.
And the follow-up:
Quote:Why are people so negative about certain races??
Same reason there are different colors of cats, dogs, horses, and most other mammals. Of course that means a lot of the Bible creation story is a myth, but….
You’re going to get a direct answer to the question, but first you’re going to get a couple of direct questions to you. Why did you make it a question about religion? Did she ask for a Mormon justification, or was it just the question as you quoted it in this post?
If she didn’t ask about a religious justification, honestly, talking as a friend here, I think you screwed up the answer by making it a religious question – and I also think you screwed up the factual answer / critique you gave about Mormonism. (I’ll explain that at the end of the comment.) I think you over-thought it and made it WAY more complicated than it is and needed to be – and, in the process, might have introduced an element of “criticism” that wasn’t necessary and was factually incorrect.
Why are there multiple races? If I were to answer that question for a 13-year old, I would say the following:
Quote:1) Because our bodies evolved in ways that I don’t understand fully yet.
2) Because the earth is FAR older than 6,000 years, which is just a way to restate answer #1.
That’s it, as far as input from me goes. I then would say:
Quote:That’s a great question, and I’m sure there are really good answers online. Why don’t we find out together?
Finally, the Church’s last published statement regarding the creation leaves the possibility wide-open that our bodies were created through an evolutionary process. It’s not just by omission; it actually says our bodies might have evolved independent of the insertion of the spirits of Adam and Eve.
Did you know that? Did you know that Mormonism’s last official pronouncement (from the early 1900’s) gives a pretty good answer to your daughter’s question? I’m going to find the statement and quote the relevant part in another comment.
The original statement is from November 1909 and is signed by the First Presidency of that time (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder and Anthon H. Lund), and it was re-published in the Ensign in February 2002. Thus, it not only is the current official statement of the Church, but it is less than 10 years old in its newly endorsed status. The entire statement seems to read as if it’s anti-evolution, but it’s not. It requires careful reading and close parsing – and putting aside the assumptions that automatically color how most people read it. I mean this seriously: It does NOT say what most people who read it will think it says, simply because most people who read it are going to assume things beforehand and allow their assumptions to cloud their judgment.
The key paragraph is:
Quote:True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.
This says explicitly that Adam might have begun his life as an embryo – and that changes entirely the reading of the rest of the statement for those who are able and willing to accept it.
I agree with Ray. It isn’t a religious question. Religions should have just stayed out of it, but they always seem to want to make up meanings for the world around us. I guess that’s what they do. But it would really be best if they stayed out of the business of assigning religious meaning to the genetics of appearance. Race is an artificial, abstract concept that people made up. There’s almost nothing biologically or functionally different between human beings of different “races.” We’re all the same species of animal, with different markings, shapes and sizes, as is found among any animal species.
Throughout most of human history up until recently, people didn’t get around much. The vast majority of people ever born lived their life and died without ever leaving a 50 mile radius. So … some who actually did travel observed different superficial genetic traits like coloring or shape that were handed down geographically due to very limited “gene pools,” and they associated those with specific regional cultures. The notion of “race” came from this. IMO, it’s a non-causal correlation between culture and appearance. Cultures are very different. Different cultures value things differently — arts, sciences, survival skills, prowess in combat against other humans, skills in hunting, or education and learning, etc. But you can take any human infant, regardless of their appearance, raise them in any culture and you will get someone with those general cultural characteristics. Very little is genetics. Most of what we consider “race” is a false correlation with culture.
It used to sort of make sense when people and cultures did not travel much. It makes very little sense now, like in the past one or two centuries with the rapid advancement of transportation and the coming development of a global culture. I don’t believe there’s any metaphysical component to it at all.
Natural selection of isolated groups of people. That is the answer. But, SD, I understand why you made it a religious question…because your 13 old daughter is reading the BOM where it clearly states that god turned peoples’ skin dark, and she probably has heard the story or Cain being turned dark to keep him from mingling with Adam’s seed.
So here we go again. Everyone on this board gets it. I even think the top church leaders get it….but we are left with our myths and crazy doctrines of the 1800’s and at the whims of local church leaders and members…. and the brethern from SLC who could really fix these kind of problems by just speaking up and stating plainly and clearly in GC —- won’t.
And no Ray — the article you quoted from 2002 is not clear. It reads like a lawyer brief. Why not (the apostles) just come out and say “we don’t know, maybe it was evolution…?”
Naturally, I disagree that this could be answered from a religious angle — or that I might have over thought or wrongly attached it to our religion. I will answer some of Ray’s questions, here.
We have the Book of Mormon scripture in 2 Ne 5:21 (Alma 3:6) as well as other skin color references (Jacob 3:
that give reasons for different races. In fact, I’m not a student of race or biology (and neither is my daughter). Any discussion on this topic has happened in Church or scripture contexts my entire life. So, naturally I turned to the supposed well-spring of important knowledge — our scriptures and what I was taught at Church, or read from Church publications.Further, as she is interested in this topic, I saw the question as something that she might ask others as it comes up at Church (as it has occasionally over the last few decades I’ve been a member). Also, well meaning but poorly informed members teaching lessons may well come out with objectionable comments on the subject — as I have seen them do occasionally in the past. Also, at one time, I had a discussion in a Sunday School lesson and someone indicated one prominent race are descendents of Japeth, which provides a biblical reference, broaching the subject of racial origins. Heck, McConkie said one race existed “because they were fence-sitters in the pre-mortal life” – -while his Mormon Doctrine was not Church doctrine, a LOT of members believed it and quoted it back to me throughout my life at different times. And let’s not forget the claims that such apostles are special witnesses of Christ, and in McConkie’s case, viewed as somehwat of a scholar, which provides a certain amount of legitimacy to what he said — at least, in the minds of obedient, but perhaps naive and overly believing LDS people like I used to be.
And given my realignment and restructing of this religion to which I’ve dedicated a huge amounts of time, anguish and money, this is what automatically defaulted to my mind — as the only context in which I’ve ever personally considered those questions.
However, I realize I don’t have a corner on knowledge, and looked at the explanations you have given and take them under consideration. I wasn’t aware of these statements on race either that you quoted but when I read it a second ago, it sounded pretty elliptical and almost nonesensical and can be taken multiple ways. Most truth is beautiful and simple.
I have relied on the “Church doesn’t answer that question very well” before, and I don’t see it as criticism really. It DOESN’T answer some questions very well at all, and I think . And I think recognition of this fact is a precursor to maintaining faith so unrealistic expectations are not set about the perfectness of the Church — leading to inactivity and disillusionment as I have experienced when guesss what — I learned Stake and higher up leaders are just plain human.
I actually concur with what Cwald said. He said it shorter and better. I’m surprised I’ve never been exposed to the quote Ray gave above until now — never, and upon reading it, it really is not that clear or helpful (sorry Ray). All I heard was blacks can’t have the priesthood, BY said the blacks get the priesthood after everyone else does (quoted in Mormon America), God cursed certain peoples for unrighteousness, and blessed them with whiter skin as they grew more righteous, etcetera. All that needs to be neutralized in my view. But done in a way that doesn’t hurt faith. I think I achieved that aim in my discussion.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.
This says explicitly that Adam might have begun his life as an embryo – and that changes entirely the reading of the rest of the statement for those who are able and willing to accept it.In what important way does Adam possibly beginning as an embryo change things? Are you saying that the church is against the idea of evolution from one species to another, but since the question was about the origin of the different races within mankind – evolution would have been an acceptable answer while also being entirely consistent with current LDS teaching?
Roy wrote:In what important way does Adam possibly beginning as an embryo change things? Are you saying that the church is against the idea of evolution from one species to another, but since the question was about the origin of the different races within mankind – evolution would have been an acceptable answer while also being entirely consistent with current LDS teaching?Thank you Roy! It’s nice when I don’t have to be the only a-hole on the board asking these questions.
🙂 cwald wrote:Roy wrote:In what important way does Adam possibly beginning as an embryo change things? Are you saying that the church is against the idea of evolution from one species to another, but since the question was about the origin of the different races within mankind – evolution would have been an acceptable answer while also being entirely consistent with current LDS teaching?Thank you Roy! It’s nice when I don’t have to be the only a-hole on the board asking these questions.
🙂 cWald, you made me laugh really hard. Honestly. But I thank Ray for answering the question
😆 😆 The question was on the origin of races, and Ray came out with a statement which can be read to imply that evolution is an acceptable theory in light of Church statements….and therefore, racial evolution is also possible…However, I don’t think we can just ignore the other objectionable statements in the scriptures that imply other sources of racial differences. Nor can we ignore the religious answers to these questions, going straight for the biological ones either. They are like multiple theories that need to be considered before making a personal decision.
Interesting, I went to my daughter and shared the “evolution of races”, as well as the limits on my personal knowledge. I asked if that helped. She said “Nope, it’s just confusing”. I replied “OH…” like I was disappointed I wasn’t much help. She said “It’s OK, I don’t really need to know”. We ended agreeing that regardless of the origins, we need to treat people of all races with respect.
OK, I did a lousy job of explaining what I tried to say. Let me try again: The ONLY reason to believe God is behind the existence of various “races” (skin colors / shades) is that ancient people believed it and recorded it in works that we have accepted as “scripture”. Throw in the statement in the NT that says all scripture is of God (which is circular reasoning in the extreme: “Scripture is the word of God; therefore, all scripture is of God” – and evangelical, inerrant baloney, imo), and we get, “Race is caused by God.”
Hogwash.
Skin color is caused by genetics, and evolution (genetics changing things in myriad ways over LONG periods of time) answers SD’s daughter’s question perfectly. Iow, we have different skin colors, because we do. Evolution works that way. Period. We have different races, as Brian said, because we tend to classify differences – and skin color is the most obvious difference there is. Period.
My inclusion of the official Church statement was to point out that Mormonism doesn’t reject the simplest answer for different skin color and races – evolution. I dare say the majority of members probably reject “Godless evolution” – but I also dare say the majority of members aren’t young earth creationists. I certainly hope not, given our actual theology and “as far as it is translated correctly” foundation. So, generally, they are rejecting something because of their prior assumptions about what it means – kind of like most Southern Baptists and why the reject Mormonism.
😆 Ironic, I know.If I need to parse the quote I provided, I will – but it wasn’t meant to address the existence of different races. It was meant simply to show that the Church’s official statement about creation allows explicitly for the possibility that Adam’s body was created through an evolutionary process – that he might have been born of parents who weren’t classified as “human” in the way the Church defines that term (the combination of a mortal body and an immortal spirit child of God) and had his spirit inserted into his physical body at some point (making him uniquely “man”) – which has lots and lots of implications regarding humans now. The Church can’t dive into that speculative realm. I understand and accept that completely. However, it’s there – and, relevant to this post, it’s completely straightforward and simple to answer the central question AND your extrapolation into religion by saying simply:
Quote:People in the past didn’t understand, so they latched onto explanations that made sense to them. What we read in scriptures and from people in earlier times are their best understandings – but they were wrong about lots of things, and this is one of them. There are different races because people saw different skin colors and had to create “race” as a distinguishing factor – and they usually were arrogant about it and assumed a different skin color meant inferiority. Actually, different skin color came about because of evolution. It really is that simple.
That’s what I meant by making it more complicated that it needs to be. The simple answer to the straightforward question isn’t difficult – and it’s quite easy to understand if kept really simple. I think you over-complicated it with how you answered it. You could have answered the basic question very simply, then, if necessary, now or later, added the religious stuff I just wrote above.
That’s all.
Actually, as I thought about this during today (more time on my hands with a vacation day in hand), I figure my answer to the racist scripture concern is that it’s a record of how the people who wrote the scripture saw race at the time. And in Bible and BoM and even early Church times, there was a lot of racism. WE see it differently now, with better enlightenment, and that’s why blacks now have the priesthood and we revere people of all races. Yup. The post I wrote on my own blog that says exactly what you just said, if you’re interested, is:
“Reflections from a Mixed-Race Family”( http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2007/09/reflections-from-mixed-race-family.html Wow Ray, you did it – I am even further stupefied now than before you explained! :eh: 😆 Old-Timer wrote:If I need to parse the quote I provided, I will – but it wasn’t meant to address the existence of different races. It was meant simply to show that the Church’s official statement about creation allows explicitly for the possibility that Adam’s body was created through an evolutionary process – that he might have been born of parents who weren’t classified as “human” in the way the Church defines that term (the combination of a mortal body and an immortal spirit child of God) and had his spirit inserted into his physical body at some point (making him uniquely “man”) – which has lots and lots of implications regarding humans now. The Church can’t dive into that speculative realm.
I read the quote you provided to mean that maybe God created Adam in a Petri-dish and incubator, maybe he took him from another world already populated, or maybe he created him fully grown – we just don’t know. But the central message is that his DNA was always human.
Now from reading your post, I have additional thoughts – What do you mean that Adam’s body may have been created through an evolutionary process? What might that evolutionary process look like? What do you mean about Adam’s parents possibly not being “human”(the combination of a mortal body and an immortal spirit child of God)? Do you mean that maybe they were homo-erectus beings and Adam was the first to make the genetic mutation to homo-sapien? Do you mean that maybe they were soulless fleshy incubators? None of the above – or all of the above?
[In mock authoritative tone] “Our first parents were not descended from monkeys! The very idea itself is debasing! It is quite clear that Adam and Eve were descended from soulless fleshy incubators!”
😆 Being that this post is more or less about evolution – I don’t feel that these questions represent too much of a tangent.
Although we seem to have some agreement here, it puts a new slant on the scriptures. Most people take the approach that if it says it in the canon, it’s true. Here we are treating the book as more of a historical record, rather than a total prescription of truth. In fact, I don’t see that as an unhealthy approach to scripture frankly.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.