The End Of Race As A Salient Catogory Of Human Relations

[BlueDreams]

1. Does race matter?

In both the context of the church and society right now, yes. It matters in daily interactions and expectations. Race is a question that I'm asked abotu frequently and notice often. It makes a framework for culture groups that I've come to see as pertinent. I think there was a major reason the Anti-nephi-lehites, though converts, still remained distinguishable for years. Their identity was tied up into their racial and cultural heritage. Similarly, I think it's a mistake to think that all equal means all the same. It doesn't at all. Ignoring differences doesn't work, it alienates and discredits different perspectives that are based, in part, by very different heritages.

2. In the long run, no. When Christ came to the people in the BoM, it talked about there being no more -ites after a time. There will come a day when that can be said. But I don't think it will be by maintaining the dominant culture that currently exists. It'll be quite distinctive, IMO then what we have today. I feel like there was one ward I was in for a while that had something close to it. It was a random hodge-podge of 32 nationalities that met and worshipped. There was little bickering, the people loved each other, and they learned from the various backgrounds that we came from. It was incredibly welcoming and empowering. So at the moment race should matter in that its needed to recognize part of what makes us distinctive and to embrace and learn from varying perspectives. As we do so I feel that we come closer to having no more -ites....ironically in the opposite method that I think many assume getting rid of race means.

3. Honestly, this part I've never cared either way. I could think of someone that it might help in some way....and who knows, it might change some attitudes within the church. But whether the church apologized or not would have little effect on me personally. I prefer to learn from the past, both good and bad, and use that to better understand the direction we should take in the future.

With luv,

BD

[BCSpace]

I've not seen any racist views from Loran. As for myself, I am not racist nor have I expressed or defended any racist views:

Note the following highly offensive statement:

I notice you did not find anything I said.

"There appear to be at least several ways the Lord manifests relative blessing/cursing with regard to both priesthood and general gospel blessings. One is lineage (which can originate in apostasy by a specific group or sub-group among a larger lineal base),

Not racist as it is not stating an inherent weakness or flaw or defect or inferiority because of any inborn characteristics or phenotypes.

another is slight morphological alterations (the darker skin of the Lamanites)."

Ditto.

At worst, the ban is applied before skin color or lineage comes into play. In other words, the ban cannot possibly be racist.

[Loran Blood]

Personally, I find your suggestion that dark skin is a marker signifying a culture out of harmony and hostile to the gospel a reflection of a primitive, not to mention racist view. Dark skin is not a curse in the Bible. Book of Mormon statements should be read in their proper historical/literary context.

I grow ever more weary (I now continue to see clearly what public conservative intellectuals throughout modern history have had to deal with within the marketplace of ideas (and especially black conservative intellectuals) in their attempts to engage in reasoned, rational argument with those the distinguished black scholar Thomas Sowell has termed the Anointed) of vain endeavors to engage in civil, rational discussion of viewpoints on racial issues as they relate to Church history and doctrine with people who are far more concerned with public moral self congratulation than with serious, meaningful discussion of the issues that intersect gospel teachings and their relation to our modern cultural moment.

Now, Cushan comes into the fray with race cards tumbling out of his sleeve and I'm going to just say, "Play the game in a fair and civil manner, or fold and leave the table." I'm not going to so much as defend myself from the charge of "racism" because doing so is simply playing into the politically correct game. One of the points of all this is to get people to defend themselves - to deny the charges - and any attempt to do so appears then to be a sign that the charge hit a nerve. I'm not going to take the bait, and have no need to as I have nothing to defend, as far as my personal views and perspectives are concerned.

As far as Cushan's assertion that he finds my claim that "dark skin is a marker signifying a culture out of harmony and hostile to the gospel" an indication of a "primitive, not to mention racist view", It might be a good for Cushan to first learn the gospel a bit better, and then come back here and throw moral rocks and those he disagrees with for what are obviously, other philosophical/attitudinal reason have little to do with Church teachings.

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 (2 Nephi 5:21).

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 (Alma 3:6).

And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites (2 Nephi 2:15).

The core gospel teaching relating to the manner in which the Lord distinguishes those within gospel culture from those in rebellion or hostile to gospel culture and ways of life, and creates distance between those within the gospel from incompatible cultural forms through morphological or otherwise visual markers that stand in for culture, can be see below. In the Book of Mormon, these can be either heritable genetic alterations (a darker skin) or self applied distinguishing marks (clothing, personal adornment, personal cultural symbolism (tattooing, body piercing etc.). The key texts are Alma 3: 13-19:

Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads.

Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.

And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also.

And again: I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed.

And again, I say he that departeth from thee shall no more be called thy seed; and I will bless thee, and whomsoever shall be called thy seed, henceforth and forever; and these were the promises of the Lord unto Nephi and to his seed.

Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them.

Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation.

Notice that in all cases, race has nothing to do with any changes made, either microcevolutionary (darker skin tone) or assimilation into an anti-gospel culture through self applied changes (marking in the forehead, adopting the clothing, hairstyles, attitudes, values of an adversary culture etc.). The entire focus is culture and cultural transmission of adversary culture values and beliefs -lineage - and the distinguishing of that culture from gospel culture such that those within gospel (Zion) culture do not partake of, assimilate, absorb, or syncrististically blend those cultural elements with their own. In this sense, "lineage" doesn't mean "innate genetic attributes" but only correlates to them (in some, but hardly all instances). Lineage here, in a gospel sense, is much more connected to cultural inheritance than to genetic; it only takes into consideration those aspects of humanness that are susceptible to change through the application of free agency. To make this as clear as it could possible be to the reader, the Book of Mormon contains explicit warnings to those who take these symbolic markers as signs of inherent or innate inferiority in a class or group of people:

Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them (Jacob 3:5).

Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers (Jacob 3:9).

Nothing about race. Morphology? Physical differences? Yes. "Race?" Not a word about any innate, underlying characteristics making a specific people inherently inferior (the basis of the modern concept of "racism") but only of cultural characteristics that are within the free agency of those within that culture to change and to which any morphological or self applied markers only point. The Book of Mormon explicitly warns that we are not to "hate" or otherwise feel innately superior to those with darker skin or other such differences. Why? Because these differences are not symbolic of innate, inherent, underlying, indelibly imprinted attributes but, in some primordial past moment in historical time, culture, personal values, and behavior. People of darker skin can be "more righteous than you" when they repent and adopt gospel cultural and personal norms. The scriptures are quite clear that the Lord does use natural, biological (genetic, microevolutionary) principles to symbolize and distinguish cultural and personal attributes and separate them from gospel/Zion culture. The means he uses (either congenital morphological changes or self applied personal "culture" that one carries with him and marks him as a part of a larger cultural group and its mores/norms) do not, as in racist ideology, imply innate, inherent characteristics, but spiritual/cultural characteristics are are variable as one uses one's agency to repent and live the gospel. Any such differences are symbolic markers, not references to innate attributes, and nowhere in the Book of Mormon are they associated with any kind of essential, underlying inferiority. Samuel the Lamanite had dark skin - in his DNA he partook of the leftover "marker" placed upon his ancestors, but he was a prophet teaching the gospel to the Nephites in one of their periods of steep cultural decline and wickedness. The Nephite's skin remained light and Samual's remained dark, but culturally, they were worlds apart.

Fine then. Call me a racist for simply pointing out what the Church and its scriptures teach. I'm experienced enough in all of this to understand that trying to reach a bound and determined, politically correct moral breast-beater through rational argument is as futile as trying to fix a bicycle while wearing boxing gloves. I'm not going to give you the payoff you crave by saying "I am not either a racist. I have lots of black friends." Its not going to happen, because I know percisely where this leads, and it can only go in one direction for the scapegoat.

If all you can do is assassinate character, there is another board where this is de rigueur and welcome as the main approach to argument. I'm rather nonplussed to see it manifested here to such a freewheeling degree (and I'm surprised the mods didn't warn Chushan not to flame and personally attack others in such a blatant way, although I think Cushan, holding the orthodox trendy view, is in a better position to play the field than I am).

Edited March 7, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

I guess that depends on the church's goal. Do they want to mend fences or be "technically" right? I've been known to apologize because doing so heals when clinging dogmatically to my position would drive a wedge. In this case, apologizing may come across as admitting fault. So what? It isn't like anyone believes our leaders are infallible and it certainly doesn't change the fundamentals of the atonement or plan of salvation. Ultimately, the general leaders of the church have to run a cost benefit analysis and determine if losing face is worth gaining souls or if, for that matter, souls will be gained or lost at all by accepting that past leaders may have erred.

There's no "cost benefit analysis" to be run. If the original "ban" had nothing to do with "racism" in the normative (and peculiarly modern) sense of the term, then there is nothing to apologize for, and apologizing to black people as a class would then become nothing more than an exercise in belly crawling to appease trendy contemporary sociocultural notions of public confession for ideologically specific political/social crimes against singled out victim groups. It would do immeasurable harm to the church for it to prostrate itself before Babylon and beg absolution in this manner, and to countless white and black members who have already come to terms with the ban through prayer and revelation.

[Loran Blood]

Should we rely on apologetically motivated LDS scholars ...

Should we rely on deeply agenda driven, psychologically self interested anti-apologetic polemicists?

[Loran Blood]

Unless we want to do away with the Book of Mormon and the Doctrince & Covenants with their references to Jew and Gentile and Lamanite and the different prophecies associated with each of them and the importance we place on lineage in Patriarchal Blessings we can't pretend race is irrelevant.

Well, I think this is representative of much of the problem faced in any such discussion. "Jew" and "Gentile" and "Lamanite" are not categories of race (except, perhaps, to the racist, who sees all such categories as indicative of underlying essence), but ethnic and, in the case of Jew and Gentile, religious and cultural boundaries.

It is my position that projecting modern, post Civil War and especially 20th century notions of "race" back onto BofM peoples is impermissible, as those people's themselves would, most probably, not have understood what we mean by the term.

In secular society I look forward to the day when we can say race doesn't matter and is irrelevant. There is a prerrequisite for this: the end of racism. We have a LONG way to go first. Until then all we can do is pretend race doesn't matter while it influences the lives of millions of people. That kind of pretending is self-deception akin to an ostrich sticking his head in the sand.

1. Who has a long way to go?

2. The portion of the text I italicized is an excellent representation of precisely the philosophy of people like Cornel West, Manning Marable, Henry Louis Gates, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Derrick Bell, and numerous others of similar comittment to keeping the fires of racial consciousness burning.

I wonder just how much of race mattering is a function of so many of use believing that it does?

Edited March 7, 2012 by Loran Blood

[BCSpace]

Should we rely on apologetically motivated LDS scholars ...

Official LDS publications are what you can rely on for the Church's position and doctrine. I have posted a few examples above.

[thesometimesaint]

bluedreams:

I'm not color blind, but it makes no difference to me. I'm more interesting in the character of their soul.

[KevinG]

We need to be very clear about who belongs to our race before the aliens come. I'd hate to have any confusion about who is human when we get into the interstellar wars. Friendly fire is a terrible thing on the planetary scale.

[Calm]

I feel like there was one ward I was in for a while that had something close to it. It was a random hodge-podge of 32 nationalities that met and worshipped. There was little bickering, the people loved each other, and they learned from the various backgrounds that we came from. It was incredibly welcoming and empowering.

The International Branch in Moscow was very much like that while we were there. It was fascinating hearing from everyone their different backgrounds and everyone worked together to create a real community.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

If all you can do is assassinate character, there is another board where this is de rigueur and welcome as the main approach to argument. I'm rather nonplussed to see it manifested here to such a freewheeling degree (and I'm surprised the mods didn't warn Chushan not to flame and personally attack others in such a blatant way, although I think Cushan, holding the orthodox trendy view, is in a better position to play the field than I am).

Personally, I don't care if Book of Mormon authors did depict darker skin tones as a curse that God places upon the wicked. Though I would argue that you're not interpreting these passages correctly, even if they made this claim, I would view the assertion as a reflection of a primitive, racist world-view that privileges light pigmentation over dark.

The fact that you not only espouse this offensive position, but promote it publicly is embarrassing, to say the least. I happen to believe that God views darker skin tone as an attractive quality, not a curse for wickedness.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

One of many, many problems I see with Loran Blood's suggestion that dark skin is a curse from God predicated upon wickedness is where does one draw the line?

Are Indians more wicked than Mexicans? Are caucasians more wicked than albinos? Clearly Africans must be the most wicked of all (hence the Priesthood ban)!!!!

More importantly, what possible good can come from promoting these decisive views?

Mr. Blood's primitive perspectives on these issues are no different than those espoused by the Massai who associated pale skin with being cursed or caused by evil spirits associated with witchcraft. The Massai would even abandon their "cursed" children born with conditions such as albinism.

Why on earth would anyone wish to promote this type of racial/pigmental elitism?

Edited March 7, 2012 by Cushan Rishathaim

[mercyngrace]

I wonder just how much of race mattering is a function of so many of use believing that it does?

Why is insignificant to this discussion. The reality is that race does matter to many people.

And if an apology will soothe those injuries, why withhold it?

Wasn't Christ's atonement the ultimate act of self-degradation in an attempt to make reconciliation?

The Savior's atonement was, in effect, an act of apologizing for sins that weren't even His.

If He can descend below all things, shouldn't we, if we claim to be His followers, at least be able to climb down from our high horses?

edit: I just noticed Droopy got banned. I swear there are drinking games that last longer. Dog gone it, Droopy...

Edited March 7, 2012 by mercyngrace

[BlueDreams]

Loran blood:

2. The portion of the text I italicized is an excellent representation of precisely the philosophy of people like Cornel West, Manning Marable, Henry Louis Gates, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Derrick Bell, and numerous others of similar comittment to keeping the fires of racial consciousness burning.

There's a reason it is: it's still present for the majority of ethnic minorities. I sometimes forget the difference until I have an experience like my companion who'd had few minority friends. One day, after we'd been together a week or so she asked me point blank if I usually was questioned about my race this often. I was surprised by this, I hadn't thought about it...it was normal to expect some racial commentary coming my way at least once a day. From people asking "what are you?" (or some derivative of that) to silly expectations about me based on their racial assumptions about you, to uncomfortable moments where what someone said was borderline racist or just offensive. Ignoring race is moronic because very few seem to ignore it in real life. It's colored my experience growing up in a significant way by being physically distinctive from all of my family, having to defend my own ethnic/racial identity, to simply being a bridge to worlds that many people who are of this race or that nationality and don't understand another.

Thesometimesaint:

good. What has developed the character of my soul is how I've grown up is, in part, my racial/ethnic heritage

Cal:

That sounds wonderful! I miss those type of settings some days.

With luv,

BD

[mfbukowski]

Personally, I don't care if Book of Mormon authors did depict darker skin tones as a curse that God places upon the wicked. Though I would argue that you're not interpreting these passages correctly, even if they made this claim, I would view the assertion as a reflection of a primitive, racist world-view that privileges light pigmentation over dark.

The fact that you not only espouse this offensive position, but promote it publicly is embarrassing, to say the least. I happen to believe that God views darker skin tone as an attractive quality, not a curse for wickedness.

Not to mention that with the church blossoming among the "Lamanites" it is just a plain stupid way of seeing your brothers and sisters. There are no divisions in the church- we are all to be one

[mfbukowski]

edit: I just noticed Droopy got banned. I swear there are drinking games that last longer. Dog gone it, Droopy...

I know. Pretty amazing. I suppose he will re-appear at the other place he has promised not to frequent. All that .....energy.... has to go somewhere or he might explode.

[The Nehor]

Well, I think this is representative of much of the problem faced in any such discussion. "Jew" and "Gentile" and "Lamanite" are not categories of race (except, perhaps, to the racist, who sees all such categories as indicative of underlying essence), but ethnic and, in the case of Jew and Gentile, religious and cultural boundaries.

This is hair-splitting. Race is tied up in ethnic, religious, and cultural distinctions. And of course racism is different now then it was in Book of Mormon times. It was still racism then. When the sons of Mosiah went to teach the Lamanites they were not racist but their countrymen were when they pointed out the inferiority of the Lamanites and how violence was the only solution with them.

It is my position that projecting modern, post Civil War and especially 20th century notions of "race" back onto BofM peoples is impermissible, as those people's themselves would, most probably, not have understood what we mean by the term.

Indeed, nor would they have understood the word 'ethnic' or 'cultural'. There were still what we would understand as racial considerations.

1. Who has a long way to go?

American society.

2. The portion of the text I italicized is an excellent representation of precisely the philosophy of people like Cornel West, Manning Marable, Henry Louis Gates, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Derrick Bell, and numerous others of similar comittment to keeping the fires of racial consciousness burning.

I wonder just how much of race mattering is a function of so many of use believing that it does?

All of it. Duh. It matters to those who oppose racism because they believe it exists (they are right). It matters to racists because they are racists and they believe race matters.

Nor do I think you are as far beyond racism as you seem to imagine yourself based on your posts here. You are at least naive or sheltered if you seriously believe racism isn't a problem. I highly recommend this video:

[KevinG]

I like Shadenfreude too, but its too dirty to post.

[BCSpace]

Why is insignificant to this discussion. The reality is that race does matter to many people.

And if an apology will soothe those injuries, why withhold it?

Because it validates playing and relying on the race card in cases where no racism was present, such a LDS doctrine pre 1978. Continuing to do that keeps the fires of racism burning. The Church is being bullied from within and without on this issue; mostly without. The solution is to not respond the way the bully wants. The Church knows this and that is why no apology for imagined misdeeds will be forthcoming.

Edited March 8, 2012 by BCSpace

[mercyngrace]

Because it validates playing and relying on the race card in cases where no racism was present, such a LDS doctrine pre 1978. Continuing to do that keeps the fires of racism burning. The Church is being bullied from within and without on this issue; mostly without. The solution is to not respond the way the bully wants. The Church knows this and that is why no apology for imagined misdeeds will be forthcoming.

In the Sermon on the Mount, the Savior taught an interesting principle. He said if thy brother hath ought against thee, go and be reconciled. 13 chapters later, He says if your brother trespasses against you, go to him privately and make amends. In both cases, the responsibility lies with the disciple of Christ to make amends. He doesn't say "if your brother has ought against you, and you think his hurt feelings are justified..." or "if your brother trespasses against you and his offense is forgivable...". The responsibility for reconciliation is always ours.

Christ was bullied, too. He turned the other cheek, absorbed the blows, and said Father forgive them.

I understand that an apology may seem indulgent to some but in this case, I see no harm in it.

Edited March 8, 2012 by mercyngrace

[BCSpace]

Christ was bullied, too. He turned the other cheek, absorbed the blows, and said Father forgive them.

I understand that an apology may seem indulgent to some but in this case, I see no harm in it.

I disagree. This is more a Pharisee/Sadducee situation in which false teachings are being presented. Christ treated them quite differently. The Church is indeed being nice but is certainly not handing over any lunch money at the same time.

Edited March 8, 2012 by BCSpace