- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
To me, there either is, or isn’t, racism in the BoM. Either the fundamentalist viewpoint is right, or there is flat out racism in the BoM. The very fact that to curse sinful people, God “darkened” their skin color, and told the white people not to mingle with the “dark” people, either means skin color is important in determining one’s pre-mortal righteousness, and is a sign of inferiority, or it was written with the racial views of Joesph’s time. If it was written with the racial views of Joseph’s time, it means Joseph wrote the book, it is racist, and that racism permeated Church leader’s teachings about Lamanites and racism for over 100 years. If the BoM isn’t racist, then it’s views of race should be deemed accurate/correct, meaning dark skin is a sign of sinfulness/inferiority. If fundamentalists are right, “colored” people were less faithful in the pre-existence, and their skin color here is a consequence of their lack of faithfulness before this life. I’m not saying it’s impossible for this viewpoint to be correct, but if it isn’t, then the BoM is racist, plain and simple. According to the dictionary, the definition of racism is:
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.Either the fundamentalists are right, and our views/definitions of racism are wrong, or by definition, the BoM is full of racist content. If the BoM is really the word of God, the word of God that God went to so much trouble to keep safe and have it translated for today’s generation, then it is difficult to reject anything it teaches. If it is truly God’s word, and the keystone of the Church, then how can any of it be considered incorrect? If God decided that the BoM was so important, that it needed to be brought for miraculously for today’s world, then wouldn’t it be full of truthful/correct things? Which brings me back to my original point: either the BoM was made up by Joseph, and it is racist, or it was written by ancient Prophets, the fundamentalist views of race and righteousness are right, and are current views/definitions of racism are wrong. To me, the obvious answer is that Joseph wrote the book, and he incorporated his era’s views of race into his writings–meaning the BoM contains plenty of racist material and it’s racist influence negatively impacted the Church’s policies towards non-caucasian’s until 1978.
or those who wrote it used different skin pigmentation to marginalize their enemies – just as has been done by pretty much every ethnic group throughout history. (see my post linked a few comments back) If the Nephites intermarried with another group of similar heritage,
as the BofM describes, and if the Lamanites intermarried with native peoples, which the population statements of the BofM strongly imply, there easily could have been a fairly quick pigmentation separation between the two groups caused by marrying “strangers” outside the family and faith – and, again, that nearly always has been viewed as taboo by those to whom the faith is important. Similarly, the intermingling of the people at the time of Christ’s visit quickly would erase any visible differentiators – and, interestingly, the skin statements don’t appear after that point, even after the people separate into Nephites and Lamanites again. They only appear when the Nephites were trying to remain separate from the Lamanites and needed an easy justification to not inter-marry. Such statements would be natural and expected. Racism always has been and still is a powerful default justification for peoples to not intermingle, so why would its inclusion in an ancient record prove it’s a modern work?There are lots of things in the BofM that would explain the statements, as long as we don’t take every word in it as the inerrant word of God and instead the filtered word of human prophets trying to explain to their children why they shouldn’t mingle with the non-believers.
I’m not claiming that is the “correct” answer in this case, but merely that there certainly are very good reasons to expect such statements in such a record.
Wordsleuth, You seem to be implying that racism began with Joseph Smith’s generation. Could it be possible that racism existed in the Biblical period as well? Don’t you view the Bible as inherently racist? Let’s not forget that slavery began long before Joseph Smith’s era, and racism has been around for thousands of years. Could it be that Nephi was a racist? Was Elijah a racist? Jonah? Joshua? Moses? Isaiah? Jeremiah? Isn’t the whole concept of God choosing Israel as his covenant people (rather than Arab ancestors like Esau, and Ishmael) a racist idea?
If the Book of Mormon came from the time period of Jeremiah, who was also racist, doesn’t it make sense for Nephi to be racist as well?
Even if the BoM is the most correct book, doesn’t mean it is perfect. Certainly we view some of the Bible passages about slavery as incorrect. Fundamentally, this shouldn’t make us think God approves of slavery, just because fundamentalist prophets believed it was ok.
Ray, Mormonheretic, It’s not the inclusion of racism that makes me think it’s a modern work, it’s the type of racism. It’s a racism that matches Joseph’s day perfectly. My point about racism is this: as far as we know about North/South America, minus encounters with the Vikings and the Spanish, no permanent white settlements lasted until the pilgrims Plymouth and the gold seekers in Jamestown. According to the BoM, there were “white” people in the America’s before other recorded history says, and they were ALL white–according to the BoM. At this point, does racism exist in this all white society? Does Lehi’s clan have racist beliefs? According to the writers of the BoM, this group of white people splits: Good=white, Bad=dark. The dark, loathsome, wild view of Indians is very much a viewpoint that existed in Joseph’s time. The fact that God CURSED Laman and his descendants by making their skin dark says a lot about skin color. Considering that Prophets as recently as Benson and Kimball claimed that dark-skinned Indians would still become white either through baptism, or after the 2nd coming, also says a lot about skin color. Did these Prophets view skin color as significant? I would say they did. Why? Because–according to the BoM–it was a curse from God. If skin color is a curse from God, what does that say about those that get born into these lines of color? There needs to be a reason, right? It isn’t just random, not with a pre-existence. That’s where the fundamentalist, fence-sitting view comes in.
The description given the dark, loathsome, Lamanites fits the descriptions given of Indians in Joseph’s time to a T; where are your ancient historical examples that match so perfectly well? It’s a doubled edged sword to me–if God really did curse people by changing their skin color, then skin color must matter; or, if the description of the Lamanites matches the views of Indians perfectly to Joseph’s time, was it simply an author incorporating the racism surrounding him? The idea that Joseph incorporated ideas around him makes more sense to me.
You can try and get around this by saying the BoM covered a very small geographical area, or that flawed authors wrote it, or whatever you want to say–but for the first 140 years, the Church treated skin color like it was a curse. It wasn’t until the early 1980’s changes in the BoM before they edited it to stop saying baptized Lamanites would become white. Were those Prophets and apostles wrong for the first 140 years? For most of the Church’s history, they were teaching things that don’t jive with limited geography theories, or any of the other loop holes FARMS is trying to create.
Quote:Were those Prophets and apostles wrong for the first 140 years?
Yep, imo.
Quote:For most of the Church’s history, they were teaching things that don’t jive with limited geography theories, or any of the other loop holes FARMS is trying to create.
Fwiw, I don’t see it as a loophole at all.I was convinced of the Limited Geopgraphy Theory before I turned 12– and before I had ANY clue that there was such a thing. It’s the ONLY theory, imo, that makes sense based on the actual words of the book itself – so, yes, as I’ve said before, I believe there were all sorts of misconceptions about the BofM among the early saints (including Joseph, himself) that persist to this day among the current members. There are MANY ways, imo, that it simply doesn’t say what most members assume it says – and the race aspect is a huge part of that. Just as a cultural exercise, try reading the Bible and looking at how “white”, “black” and “dark” are used in the OT. It might just open up a whole new way for you to begin to reconcile this issue without the lens of automatic assumption based on our current view of racism and the dominant view that still exists of the passages being discussed.
Again, I’m NOT claiming my view here is “correct” – but I think it fits the overall message of the BofM itself when parsed carefully FAR better than the assumptions that, understandably, get attacked.
By the way, I have always found it interesting that societies, both Mormon and Christian, view Semitic peoples of the biblical and Book of Mormon times as ‘white’. In reality, their skin pigmentation was probably more in line with the peoples of the Arabian Peninsula today. We’re not talking about a tribe of Norsemen! Wordsleuth, I think you’ve done a good job of stating my views/concerns.
Wordsleuth, How do you view the Bible? Can you please tell me the form of racism they used that is different from Joseph Smith’s time period? I guess I’m having a hard time understanding why you think Joseph’s racism is different than biblical racism.
I thought you might like some interesting references. Ephrem the Syrian, and early Christian from the 4th Century AD: “Abel was bright as the light, / but the murderer (Cain) was dark as the darkness”. (Found in Tryggve Kronholm, Motifs from Genesis 1-11, pp. 135-42)
In an Eastern Christian (Armenian) Adam-book (5th or 6th century) it is written: “And the Lord was wroth with Cain. . . He beat Cain’s face with hail, which blackened like coal, and thus he remained with a black face”. (Found in The History of Abel and Cain, 10, in Lipscomb, The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature, pp. 145, 250)
The Irish Saltair na Rann around 1000 AD records Gabriel announcing to Adam: “Dark rough senseless Cain is going to kill Abel”. (Found in D. Greene and F. Kelly, The Irish Adam and Eve Story from Saltair Na Rann (Dublin, 1976), 1:91, lines 1959-1960)
These seem to predate Joseph Smith by 800-1400 years.
SilentStruggle, I did a post discussing race a while back. One of the physicians I worked with was from Iran. We discussed the “Jewish race” and the “Arab race.” Both terms are scientifically unsound. Arabs and Jews are both considered Caucasian. There are 5 races, strictly speaking: (1) white, (2) black, (3) asian, (4) Native American/Eskimo, and (5) Pacific Islander. Hispanics are the tough one, because they can be either black or white (scientifically there is no brown.) Check it out at
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2008/09/25/whats-the-difference-between-arabs-persians/ mormonheretic wrote:Wordsleuth,
How do you view the Bible? Can you please tell me the form of racism they used that is different from Joseph Smith’s time period? I guess I’m having a hard time understanding why you think Joseph’s racism is different than biblical racism.
Have you read Michael Quinn? Grant Palmer? Even Richard Bushman? The perceptions people had in Joseph’s time of Native American’s are identical to the way the Lamanites are portrayed in the BoM. Once again, I’m not saying Joseph or the BoM invented racism–there is certainly racism in the Bible–but the very specific racism directed toward the supposed progenitors of Native American’s is hard to overlook. General racism and specific descriptions of racism directed towards a particular race are the difference between the Bible and the BoM.
Mormonheretic, what do you think God was saying about skin color when he “cursed” Laman with dark skin? What was he saying about Laman’s posterity–they got the privilege of being born with a “curse? I know how Mormon Prophets and apostles viewed it–they taught that conversion and righteousness would give these “cursed” people white skin again. What were they saying about skin color? Once again, the descriptions of the Lamanites found in the BoM are very, very similar to the views of Native Americans held in Joseph’s time. We have no other historical record of ancient interaction between “Indians/Lamanites” and white people, so a comparison to the Bible doesn’t work. If God really did what the BoM claims, i.e., he “cursed” Laman and Lemuel by darkening their skin, then skin color has a relationship to righteousness; that’s what the Church taught for a long, long time. Or, I can determine that this is probably unlikely, and look at the obvious parallels to Joseph’s era and the views of Indians that were held. I choose the latter; I don’t believe that skin color matters; I don’t believe “God” would use skin color as a curse; I don’t think skin color has anything to do with pre-mortal behavior–all of which contradicts Church teachings for most of it’s existence.
Mormonheretic, you should really read some Michael Quinn–your views of this issue might change. If you’ve already read Quinn, read him again and focus on this element of his writing, or look at articles by Craig Criddle.
One theory my DH has put forth is that the Lamanites were intermarrying with native S. Americans, thus causing them to become “dark”. The Nephites, who were descendants of a “white” race, would then view these individuals as evil for marrying outside the religion. Therefore, in their eyes, the “curse of darkness” came because of procreation between races, with the “evil” progenitor Lamanites becoming darker as they mingled with natives. The “curse” wasn’t from God – it was from themselves and their own actions. I believe that people have darker skin as a natural protection from very sunny places. Anyone else agree with me on this? I suppose in some areas … However, I have a beautiful 2 year old grandson who is 50% Japanese. He lives at my home right now (son in school) … tub time is lots of fun … and the yellowest little thing you have ever seen.
In other words, Japanese and Chinese are pretty far north. Not sure their color can be attributed to sun.
Well, in all seriousness, do you find it more likely that skin color is associated with climate/evolution/natural selection or the sins of one’s ancestors? sm, I think all of us agree that the idea of skin color as a curse or the result of sin is wrong. I haven’t read anything here that hints otherwise. All I’m saying is that there are very easy ways to see the statements in the BofM as legitimate for the culture of the time – that, if the people described actually existed, the statements would fit the way race was viewed in their time.
I’m also saying that the way “white”, “black” and “dark” are used in the descriptions is consistent with the way they are used in many places in the Bible (especially the OT time period that corresponds to the time period in the BofM when they are found) – that they don’t necessarily have to be literal racial terms, even though I believe they were used as racial delineators for those who inter-married “outside the faith” – that they can be interpreted literally AND symbolically without any stretch or mental gymnastics whatsoever.
That’s all.
Makes sense to me, Ray. HiJolly
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.