Races

[Tacenda]

It is what it is, I'm glad the church is downplaying it with the changes.

[ERayR]

It is what it is, I'm glad the church is downplaying it with the changes.

It certainly is and what it is is a non-issue right from the start.

[volgadon]

There is definitely a physical aspect to the BoM statements on skin colour. However, and this is a big one, the Nephites would not have been ignorant of the sun's affect on skin pigmentation. They would have seen the Lamanite's dark skin as symbolising God's curse, whereas their skin would have darkened due to natural causes only. While the outward appearance might have seemed identical to any outside observer, there would have been an ideology of cause and effect separating the Nephite's perceptions of their own group and the Lamanites.

[urroner]

I agree. But it's clearly racial in the BoM.

And when the Nephites protected the Anti-Nephi-Lehites, I guess they were truly judging everybody with racial overtones.

I don't think, given our ignorance of the culture and context of the BofM, that we should be so quick to point things like that out.

[ERayR]

And when the Nephites protected the Anti-Nephi-Lehites, I guess they were truly judging everybody with racial overtones.

I don't think, given our ignorance of the culture and context of the BofM, that we should be so quick to point things like that out.

But then Tacenda has a tendency to look to the dark side. But then so did Luke Skywalker and see how he turned out.

[urroner]

But then Tacenda has a tendency to look to the dark side. But then so did Luke Skywalker and see how he turned out.

Yep, he choose the wrong side of this issue and became a pez head.

[ERayR]

Yep, he choose the wrong side of this issue and became a pez head.

OOPS!

[urroner]

[ERayR]

Again OOPS!!!!

[urroner]

Again OOPS!!!!

That was how he became a pez head.

[Damien the Leper]

There is definitely a physical aspect to the BoM statements on skin colour. However, and this is a big one, the Nephites would not have been ignorant of the sun's affect on skin pigmentation. They would have seen the Lamanite's dark skin as symbolising God's curse, whereas their skin would have darkened due to natural causes only. While the outward appearance might have seemed identical to any outside observer, there would have been an ideology of cause and effect separating the Nephite's perceptions of their own group and the Lamanites.

Finally...someone who gets it!!! It wasn't a curse as Nephi would naively believe. It's called a tan or a sunburn. The latter only if one was unfortunate to not have put on some sunscreen.

[cinepro]

But then Tacenda has a tendency to look to the dark side. But then so did Luke Skywalker and see how he turned out.

How did Luke Skywalker have "a tendency to look to the dark side"?

[Hamba Tuhan]

There is definitely a physical aspect to the BoM statements on skin colour.

You may be right, but how exactly would we know this? My research has predominantly been in 16th-century European texts composed in the Pacific, wherein statements on skin 'colour' have no demonstrable correlation to actual 'pigmentation'. And to be honest, no serious historian any longer expects them to since race as a physical construct really only begins to appear in 18th-century European discourse (see http://epress.anu.edu.au/titles/foreign-bodies). Therefore, how can we be sure of the 'physical aspect' when it comes to Book of Mormon statements on skin colour?

[TAO]

Do you believe that blood and race play any factors in the gospel? I've just been wondering why God chose to have so many different races, and what the purpose of it is. This is in no way meant to be a racist topic.

I have no clue. Whatever God does is fine with me though =).

[Hamba Tuhan]

But it's clearly racial in the BoM.

It is what it is, I'm glad the church is downplaying it with the changes.

I'm lost. Can you please explain what you mean here. What exactly is 'clearly racial' in the Book of Mormon. What precisely is the Church supposedly attempting to play down, and by means of what specific 'changes'? Also, I think it might help to know what you mean by 'racial'. This word tends toward definitional fluidity, I've found.

[Tacenda]

Your welcome, for supplying you the ammo for your comical "Star War's" relief.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Tacenda

[BlueDreams]

Do you believe that blood and race play any factors in the gospel? I've just been wondering why God chose to have so many different races, and what the purpose of it is. This is in no way meant to be a racist topic.

Yes.....

In that it is the perceived distinctions that inhibit a zion society. One of my favorite chapters in the Bom talks about the removing of -ites. I'ver heard it stated that after Christ came they all became nephites, but that is not true. They were all seen as children of God without worldly categorization to unnecessarily seperate one from another. There are so many different races because people see difference and attribute significance to them. Take it from someone who's family looks like a genetics experiment with different races/peoples (that would be me). There's more important things in life. I feel it's immediate importance is to learn and grow from these distinctions to recognize that there is value in different perspectives, lives, and subsequent applications of the gospel. That they are of equal value and worth for us to receive a fuller picture of what the gospel is. In the long run, there will be no -ites anymore.

With luv,

BD

[Damien the Leper]

Let's be clear. No person with a different color skin other than white was ever "cursed". This also dispells the myth that some group of people in the pre-existence were less righteous and therefore "cursed". Blacks, hispanics, asians, etc. never have been nor will they ever be an inferior group or "less favorable" in God's eyes. This would be ridiculous to believe.

[volgadon]

You may be right, but how exactly would we know this? My research has predominantly been in 16th-century European texts composed in the Pacific, wherein statements on skin 'colour' have no demonstrable correlation to actual 'pigmentation'. And to be honest, no serious historian any longer expects them to since race as a physical construct really only begins to appear in 18th-century European discourse (see http://epress.anu.ed.../foreign-bodies). Therefore, how can we be sure of the 'physical aspect' when it comes to Book of Mormon statements on skin colour?

I've written a little bit more in detail here. http://www.mormondia...entry1209133831

While I agree with what you are saying on race as a physical construct, I find it hard to believe that certain colours or physical features were not associated with certain peoples or groups beforehand. I've mentioned Blackamoors, there is also Jeremiah 12:33, and the joker who tried to rile Hillel the Elder. http://books.google....at feet&f=false

Edited September 26, 2012 by volgadon

[Tacenda]

I'm lost. Can you please explain what you mean here. What exactly is 'clearly racial' in the Book of Mormon. What precisely is the Church supposedly attempting to play down, and by means of what specific 'changes'? Also, I think it might help to know what you mean by 'racial'. This word tends toward definitional fluidity, I've found.

Saying someone is cursed for having dark skin is a racist comment by today's standards. If not, then why did the church feel the need to make the changes? If they had left the most correct book alone then that might be different. My computer crashed so I'm unable to paste the scriptures of the several changes that were indeed made. I'm pretty sure you're aware of them already.

[Cobalt-70]

There is definitely a physical aspect to the BoM statements on skin colour. However, and this is a big one, the Nephites would not have been ignorant of the sun's affect on skin pigmentation. They would have seen the Lamanite's dark skin as symbolising God's curse, whereas their skin would have darkened due to natural causes only. While the outward appearance might have seemed identical to any outside observer, there would have been an ideology of cause and effect separating the Nephite's perceptions of their own group and the Lamanites.

You're saying that Lamanites were just tanned Nephites? So why would the Lamanites be more tanned than the Nephites. The Lamanites were supposedly a "slothful" people. They didn't go out into the fields working, like the Nephites did, so how did the Lamanites get tanned, but the Nephites didn't?

[Cobalt-70]

Are you referring to 2 Nephi 30:6? The change is insignificant. In both Hebrew and Egyptian, words for "white" and "pure" are the same words. Either translation is correct; "white" literally and "pure" not literally. The former is the denotation and the latter the connotation.

The Bible has a perfectly good example of this phenomenon. See Daniel 11:35 and 12:10 in the King James Bible. Then, see another translation such as the NIV in the same passages. Both translations, however, are correct.

Like these passages in Daniel, that Book of Mormon passage also does not have a so-called racial component.

By the way, that change was incorporated because it was a return to a reading that Joseph Smith said should be put there, and which he did put into the edition of the Book of Mormon that he had worked on editing. But, because later editions were based off of a European edition that missed the change, we lost that change until 1981, when it was given back to us.

This theory does not explain 2 Nephi 5:21, which refers to a "skin of blackness." Joseph Smith never changed that one. I don't think it is very credible to argue that Joseph Smith didn't believe that the Native Americans were literally cursed with dark skins. That idea, as applied especially to blacks, was "in the air" during his era. I just think Smith was simply wrong, and that the LDS Church should straightforwardly and unapologetically change these parts of the Book of Mormon.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[ERayR]

Saying someone is cursed for having dark skin is a racist comment by today's standards. If not, then why did the church feel the need to make the changes? If they had left the most correct book alone then that might be different. My computer crashed so I'm unable to paste the scriptures of the several changes that were indeed made. I'm pretty sure you're aware of them already.

I am well aware of the scriptures and the changes as are most others here. Is it possible for something metaphorical going on here?

[volgadon]

You're saying that Lamanites were just tanned Nephites? So why would the Lamanites be more tanned than the Nephites. The Lamanites were supposedly a "slothful" people. They didn't go out into the fields working, like the Nephites did, so how did the Lamanites get tanned, but the Nephites didn't?

Maybe you should read what I wrote.

[ERayR]

You're saying that Lamanites were just tanned Nephites? So why would the Lamanites be more tanned than the Nephites. The Lamanites were supposedly a "slothful" people. They didn't go out into the fields working, like the Nephites did, so how did the Lamanites get tanned, but the Nephites didn't?

Because they dressed skimpier.

Edited September 26, 2012 by ERayR