Spiritual Valiance - Mormon Antithesis To Racism

[dougtheavenger]

In 1852 a French Count name Arthur de Gobineau published his signature work, "The Inequality of Human Races". His ideas were not new but he was the first to present them in so complete and coherent a manner. His thesis was presented and accepted as science in his day and may have been the first "scientific" challenge to Mormonism though it was not directed at Mormonism in particular.

Gobineau's thesis was that race, culture and civilization were linked and that "blood" (read biology) was the determinant factor. He also made the following assertions.

1. Racial differences are permanent.

2. Religion can not fundamentally alter culture.

3. Human progress and achievement is limited both as regards the individual and the race.

Latter Day Saints will quickly see the conflict between these theories and the restored gospel. Joseph Smith and current LDS leaders have consistantly taught that what the world calls psychological and psychometic characteristics, are in fact metaphysical patterns of behavior that involve us, as spirits, and other metaphysical beings such as the Holy Ghost. Free Agency is always present and plays a role. For example, criminality is a function of free will not biology. Thought is a metaphysical process that involves free will and the influence of other spirits such as the Holy Ghost rather than a biological function. Intelligence is a pattern of metaphysical behavior that developed in our premortal existence rather than simply a matter of brain development.

As if in answer to Gobineau, LDS leaders in the mid to late 19th century began to develop an antithesis to racism as it was laid out in the "Inequality of Human Races". The antithesis is simple. Any coorrelation that may exist between lineage and metaphysical patterns of behavior (read psychological or psychometric characteristics) are not the result of genetic determinism, but rather a selection process whereby God matches children to parents with similar metaphysical patterns. This adequately explains any correlation that may exist between race and psychological or psychometric characteristics.

The Book of Mormon and other standard works of the Church of Jesus Christ clearly states that religious faith can fundamentally alter culture. They state that all human being are capable of infinite joy, that whole societies have been taken up into heaven, and that racial differences such as skin color are not neccessarily permanent; a fact confirmed by science. (Towne & Hulse) The doctrine of pre-mortal existence tells us that integrity, thought, and intelligence exist apart from biology or lineage other than the lineage of God the Father.

Because Mormons are raised in a paradigm so radically different from the one from which Gobineau spoke, they often fail to grasp what racism really is or how radically Mormonism departs from it. The "environment" vs "genetics" argument carried on by non-Mormons does not represent two radically different views.

[Questing Beast]

What are you wanting to discuss?

My only comment is to point out that Joseph Smith taught (somewhere) that Israelites are the most prone to accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ when they hear it. The more Israelite blood, i.e. the more direct the Israelite lineage, the more susceptible to spiritual things the person is. Now, believing that God directs more valiant spirits from the preexistence into bodies more biologically "Israelite" is a matter of faith. It also smacks of elitism, which I abhor.

The 19th century racism that early Mormons believed in is not part of the modern church. I cannot recall hearing what I described above being taught over the pulpit in my lifetime....

[Senator]

As if in answer to Gobineau, LDS leaders in the mid to late 19th century began to develop an antithesis to racism as it was laid out in the "Inequality of Human Races".

Interesting ideas..

I would be interested to see your reference material from which you see this antithetical development. (I'm assuming you are refering to seeds prior to the OD of 1978)

[DH]

Latter Day Saints will quickly see the conflict between these theories and the restored gospel. Joseph Smith and current LDS leaders have consistantly taught that what the world calls psychological and psychometic characteristics, are in fact metaphysical patterns of behavior that involve us, as spirits, and other metaphysical beings such as the Holy Ghost. Free Agency is always present and plays a role.

Actually, that's not true, LDS leaders have not consistently taught that. One problem with that viewpoint is that mental illnesses would be viewed as spiritual problems. In reality, mental illness is the result of things like biology or emotional trauma.

For example, criminality is a function of free will not biology. Thought is a metaphysical process that involves free will and the influence of other spirits such as the Holy Ghost rather than a biological function. Intelligence is a pattern of metaphysical behavior that developed in our premortal existence rather than simply a matter of brain development.

Truly criminal behavior is indeed a result of the poor exercise of free agency. However, much of what we label criminal is partly the result of biology in the form of mental illness. Such a person may commit acts that we call criminal, but she is not completely responsible for her actions as a result of mental illness.

I've also NEVER heard an LDS leader claim that intelligence is "a pattern of metaphysical behavior that developed in our premortal existence." Sorry, but some things really are attributable to brain development and other biological factors.

As if in answer to Gobineau, LDS leaders in the mid to late 19th century began to develop an antithesis to racism as it was laid out in the "Inequality of Human Races". The antithesis is simple. Any coorrelation that may exist between lineage and metaphysical patterns of behavior (read psychological or psychometric characteristics) are not the result of genetic determinism, but rather a selection process whereby God matches children to parents with similar metaphysical patterns. This adequately explains any correlation that may exist between race and psychological or psychometric characteristics.

In other words, if you were valiant during the War in Heaven, you got white skin. If you were a "fence sitter," you got dark skin. How is that not racist? I see this as the Mormons meeting one racist theory with another. In fact, the LDS version may actually be worse, because it implies that if people of non-white races suffer disadvantages in this life, it is their own fault for not being valiant enough in the pre-existence.

The Book of Mormon and other standard works of the Church of Jesus Christ clearly states that religious faith can fundamentally alter culture. They state that all human being are capable of infinite joy, that whole societies have been taken up into heaven, and that racial differences such as skin color are not neccessarily permanent; a fact confirmed by science. (Towne & Hulse) The doctrine of pre-mortal existence tells us that integrity, thought, and intelligence exist apart from biology or lineage other than the lineage of God the Father.

Because Mormons are raised in a paradigm so radically different from the one from which Gobineau spoke, they often fail to grasp what racism really is or how radically Mormonism departs from it. The "environment" vs "genetics" argument carried on by non-Mormons does not represent two radically different views.

I think you fail to grasp how racist Brigham Young and his ilk really were. I wouldn't worry so much about skin color not being permanent. Rather, I say skin color shouldn't matter. What exactly would be wrong with having black skin in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom? In my opinion, nothing at all. Black people (and Asians, latinos, Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, etc.) are beautiful the way they are. Rather than expecting people of other races to look forward to the day in the next life when they can be "white and delightsome" like us, we should be striving to overcome the biases white people have against other races. Now that would be a truly Celestial culture.

Edited August 23, 2011 by DH

[Questing Beast]

As "white" people make up less than 6% of the world's population, we are the oddballs and not "delightsome" as the vast majority of human beings define such things. The BofM is a white guy's book. But actually, if Lehites are placed in their genetic context, they were dark-skinned desert dwellers. Anyone with noticeably light skin was "exotic"; blond-haired and blue-eyed even more so. But most people where the BofM was published fit that description, so "white and delightsome" had a very narrow definition. Nowadays, the return to "pure and delightsome" (the 1840 edition wording) is a PC change made necessary by the widening influence of non "white" Mormons from every nation in the world. Less than half of Mormons are "white", but we all aspire to be "pure"....

[thesometimesaint]

QB:

It has nothing to do with PC. White/Black are terms used in the Bible/BoM as representions of character, or lack thereof, not of skin hue.

[DH]

It has nothing to do with PC. White/Black are terms used in the Bible/BoM as representions of character, or lack thereof, not of skin hue.

Not quite. The terms refer to both character and skin hue, the implication being that if you had dark skin, you had a poor character.

2 Nephi 5:21

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Alma 3:6

And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

[thesometimesaint]

DH:

As Nephites and Lamanites were at times in their history indistinquishable from each other. Skin hue is irrelevent to character. Further at times the Lamanites were more righteous than the Nephites.

Edited August 23, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Loran Blood]

It'll be interesting to watch this thread melt down as it progresses. Both sides seem determined to take the Book of Mormon to places where that book itself does not go, and put a number of words into its mouth that it never uttered.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Loran Blood

[LeSellers]

Not quite. The terms refer to both character and skin hue, the implication being that if you had dark skin, you had a poor character.

As Nephites and Lamanites were at times in their history indistinquishable from each other. Skin hue is irrelevent to character. Further at times the Lamanites were more righteous than the Nephites.

Even when they were not the better people, as a people, there were frequent exceptions to the "dark-skin=poor-character,-lighter-skin=good-character" "rule" (note the use of ironic quotes).

Jacob, the founder of the city of Jacobugath was "lighter skinned". The father of king Lamoni's father’s servant had had a "remarkable vision", and she, too, was a "Lamanite Christian".

The "teint de peau plus sombre" (I can never remember that scripture in English—it's just "French" in my mind) was "given" to the Lamanites based on their rejection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It came, perhaps from their failing to keep the covenant of not marrying outside the Israelite tribal group (there were "others" there). But its function was to protect the Nephites from falling into that same trap. We read that the darker skin was a marker to let Nephite men know that they were not to marry them, lest the children be raised by unbelieving mothers. (Since fathers chose their daughters' husbands, the same thing applied there, too.) It was founded on the knowledge that it is easier to pass on unbelief than belief. And, there was the example of Solomon and his "strange" wives.

It was not a mark of personal character.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

If as the BoM states there were times when there were no "ites" of any kind, and times when Nephites were indisquinshable from Lamanites. It would appear that anyone not Nephite(a religio-political distinction) was considered a Lamanite. I propose that skin hue was irrelevent to character.

[LeSellers]

If as the BoM states there were times when there were no "ites" of any kind, and times when Nephites were indisquinshable from Lamanites. It would appear that anyone not Nephite(a religio-political distinction) was considered a Lamanite. I propose that skin hue was irrelevent to character.

In one of the more-or-less rare times I agree with you (although they're gettg more frequent—who's changing, I wonder), you seem to have felt that I was in disagreement. I gotta work on that.

Anyway, I was agreeing with you, and hoping, however miserably, to have sustained and enlarged your position.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

I didn't know we were disagreeing.

[BCSpace]

Because Mormons are raised in a paradigm so radically different from the one from which Gobineau spoke, they often fail to grasp what racism really is or how radically Mormonism departs from it. The "environment" vs "genetics" argument carried on by non-Mormons does not represent two radically different views.

Do scientists today think as Gobineau thought that "human progress and achievement is limited both as regards the individual and the race"? I wuld certainly agree that LDS and Gobineau diverge here, but is there a divergence otherwise in this case (#3)?

Edited August 24, 2011 by BCSpace

[dougtheavenger]

What are you wanting to discuss?

My only comment is to point out that Joseph Smith taught (somewhere) that Israelites are the most prone to accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ when they hear it. The more Israelite blood, i.e. the more direct the Israelite lineage, the more susceptible to spiritual things the person is. Now, believing that God directs more valiant spirits from the preexistence into bodies more biologically "Israelite" is a matter of faith. It also smacks of elitism, which I abhor.

The 19th century racism that early Mormons believed in is not part of the modern church. I cannot recall hearing what I described above being taught over the pulpit in my lifetime....

I think you got it wrong. Joseph Smith said that the intelligent part of man was the spirit. In other words intelligence is metaphysical not biological in nature. The brain is little more than a filter in this paradigm. What you seem to believe was "19th century racism that early Mormons believed in .." was, in fact the antithesis of racism. The 19th century racism that nonMormons believed in and still believe in is founded on the concept of biological determinism.

Edited August 26, 2011 by dougtheavenger

[dougtheavenger]

I think you fail to grasp how racist Brigham Young and his ilk really were. I wouldn't worry so much about skin color not being permanent. Rather, I say skin color shouldn't matter. What exactly would be wrong with having black skin in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom? In my opinion, nothing at all. Black people (and Asians, latinos, Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, etc.) are beautiful the way they are. Rather than expecting people of other races to look forward to the day in the next life when they can be "white and delightsome" like us, we should be striving to overcome the biases white people have against other races. Now that would be a truly Celestial culture.

Any residual racism Brigham Young had, he brought with him from his nonMormon upbringing. Furthermore, making unflatering, hurtful, insensitive or even disdainful remarks about people of a race not your own is not, in and of itself, racist. In order to be racist by the original definition of racism, he would have had to attribute bad behavior to bad genes. Of course the definition of racism has expanded to include maliscious or invidious discrimination. Although there is an element of disdain in some of Young's remarks, they were not maliscious as, for eaxmple, blaming the world wide recession of 2008 on white bankers with blue eyes.

Edited August 26, 2011 by dougtheavenger

[dougtheavenger]

I've also NEVER heard an LDS leader claim that intelligence is "a pattern of metaphysical behavior that developed in our premortal existence." Sorry, but some things really are attributable to brain development and other biological factors.

I guess you missed this Aaronic priesthood lesson then.

http://lds.org/ldsor...0004d82620aRCRD

“This first Comforter or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1938], p. 149).

Elder Parley P. Pratt also described the effects of the Holy Ghost:

“[His influence] quickens all the intellectual faculties, increases, enlarges, expands and purifies all the natural passions and affections; and adapts them, by the gift of wisdom, to their lawful use. It inspires, develops, cultivates and matures all the fine-toned sympathies, joys, tastes, kindred feelings and affections of our nature. It inspires virtue, kindness, goodness, tenderness, gentleness and charity. It develops beauty of person, form and features. It tends to health, vigor, animation and social feeling. It invigorates all the faculties of the physical and intellectual man. It strengthens, and gives tone to the nerves. In short, it is, as it were, marrow to the bone, joy to the heart, light to the eyes, music to the ears, and life to the whole being” (Key to the Science of Theology, 9th ed. [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1965], p. 101).

Actually, that's not true, LDS leaders have not consistently taught that. One problem with that viewpoint is that mental illnesses would be viewed as spiritual problems. In reality, mental illness is the result of things like biology or emotional trauma.

No. The brain is a filter; that is, a processor of input data, not the real consciousness. If the filter is messed up, the consciousness recieves unreliable data and responds in what seems to us an irrational way. The mentally ill see the world differently than we do and so behave in a way that makes no sense to us. That doesn't invalidate aything I have said or that the church has taught.

Edited August 26, 2011 by dougtheavenger

[dougtheavenger]

Do scientists today think as Gobineau thought that "human progress and achievement is limited both as regards the individual and the race"? I wuld certainly agree that LDS and Gobineau diverge here, but is there a divergence otherwise in this case (#3)?

Many people today, including some social scientists, believe that individuals are limited in what they can achieve. I recall hearing one of the authors of "The Bell Curve" (I believe his name is Murray) say as much about himself on the G Gordon Liddy Show years ago. Gobineau's view that technology had its limits and was close to reaching it in 1852 has, of course, been abandoned.