USU78 Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 In the text, the writer makes a claim that no black indians have been found and then calls the american indian red skinned. I would think that if Joseph wrote the book he would have used red skinned and not black to correlate with the fact that no black indians have been discovered. Notice the footnote for black in the text when you click the word 'occasionally'.Nice try though. Also, please tell us how joseph wrote the book of mormon...please give time and place and how he bought all the paper needed and feathered pens also without being noticed. And what happened to the rough drafts. Thanks.In the text, the writer makes a claim that no black indians have been found and then calls the american indian red skinned. I would think that if Joseph wrote the book he would have used red skinned and not black to correlate with the fact that no black indians have been discovered. Notice the footnote for black in the text when you click the word 'occasionally'.Nice try though. Also, please tell us how joseph wrote the book of mormon...please give time and place and how he bought all the paper needed and feathered pens also without being noticed. And what happened to the rough drafts. Thanks.Of course, the fact that the BoM wasn't published until 1830 makes this 1841 reference and Cobalt's conclusions therefrom all the more likely.Or not.
MormonMason Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) Got anything before 1841? Say, 1827-ish? Using later sources is about as crazy as using 1859 sources to address LDS thinking on Blacks and the priesthood in the 1830s through 1840s. Edited October 23, 2012 by MormonMason
Cobalt-70 Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 I think that you are projecting in this post. Americans would have understood that the indians had darker skin than whties but then again so did the slaves. I don't think that many whites would consider the indian black. But they would have considered the slave black. The indians would have been considered red. I also believe that new englanders would have known the difference between the color of the slave and indian. They weren't so uniformed. We also need to remember that the indian was around in the late 1700's in New England.Saying that their skin is "red" is just as inaccurate, and even more so, than saying that they had a "skin of blackness."While I agree that the word "blackness" is metaphorical of evil, I disagree with those who read a literal skin marking out of the Book of Mormon. The book says, very explicitly, that the Lamanites were marked with a dark skin so that they were not enticing to the (white) Nephites. That this dark skin is called a "skin of blackness" is a poetic and metaphorical way to describe the skin tone.The point about the book of mormon is that the lamanites do not resemble the american indian at all. It seems to be a different culture from the book of mormon. I see no similiarities.There are indeed similarities between the Lamanites and at least the stereotype of Native Americans. Take, for instance, the description of them in Alma 3, which says they shaved their heads, they wore loincloths, they used bows and arrows, they had dark skin, "according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them." 1 Ne. 12 says that they were "a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations." 2 Ne. 5:24 says that they "did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey." Alma 22:28 says that they "lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents." You don't see a resemblance to the Native American stereotype that Joseph Smith would have been familiar with?Moreover, if the Lamanites had no resemblance to American Indians, then why does D&C 10:48, 28:8-14, 32:2, 54:8 refer to Native Americans as "Lamanites"? And why does D&C 3 say that one of the purposes of the Book of Mormon is to bring the "Lamanites" to a knowledge of their fathers?
ed2276 Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 I think this is a case that many faithful Mormons want so badly for these passages in the Book of Mormon not to be racist that they are willing to adopt an extremely unnatural reading of the text. If 99% of the people reading the Book of Mormon for the first time understand these passages to be racially-oriented, then what are we doing? Coming up with these clever misreadings of the text doesn't help our proselytizing efforts, because we don't come across as credible. The moment we lose our credibility, nobody is going to listen to whatever else we have to say.Let's just fess up. The Book of Mormon is racist. But so what? Lots of 19th century books were racist. Or, if you think that the book is actually an ancient history of the Indians, that just means it's that much older and therefore that much more likely to be racist. The bible is pretty racist too, and not to mention sexist and homophobic. Lets just either (1) admit that the Book of Mormon is racist, and disavow that racism, or (2) change the Book of Mormon and get rid of the racist parts.Laman and Lemuel were Nephi's brothers. They were all the same race and ethnicity. The curse was to differentiate those in rebellion from the righteous, not to make a statement on race. There is nothing "racist" about what happened to Laman and Lemuel and their posterity.
Cobalt-70 Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 Laman and Lemuel were Nephi's brothers. They were all the same race and ethnicity. The curse was to differentiate those in rebellion from the righteous, not to make a statement on race. There is nothing "racist" about what happened to Laman and Lemuel and their posterity.No, the racist part is how the dark skin of the "loathsome" Lamanites is a mark designed to make them not be "enticing" to the white Nephites.
altersteve Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 No, the racist part is how the dark skin of the "loathsome" Lamanites is a mark designed to make them not be "enticing" to the white Nephites.Not being physically attracted to dark-skinned people is not racist.
CV75 Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 Laman and Lemuel were Nephi's brothers. They were all the same race and ethnicity. The curse was to differentiate those in rebellion from the righteous, not to make a statement on race. There is nothing "racist" about what happened to Laman and Lemuel and their posterity.I agree. I just happened to be reading Alma 9 today. The Lord explains that, “Inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. Now I would that ye should remember, that inasmuch as the Lamanites have not kept the commandments of God, they have been cut off from the presence of the Lord. Now we see that the word of the Lord has been verified in this thing, and the Lamanites have been cut off from his presence, from the beginning of their transgressions in the land. Nevertheless I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for them in the day of judgment than for you, if ye remain in your sins, yea, and even more tolerable for them in this life than for you, except ye repent. For there are many promises which are extended to the Lamanites; for it is because of the traditions of their fathers that caused them to remain in their state of ignorance; therefore the Lord will be merciful unto them and prolong their existence in the land. And at some period of time they will be brought to believe in his word, and to know of the incorrectness of the traditions of their fathers; and many of them will be saved, for the Lord will be merciful unto all who call on his name. But behold, I say unto you that if ye persist in your wickedness that your days shall not be prolonged in the land…”This reminded me of Jacob 3:8, “O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.”I can see that the curse and blessing actually relates to the presence of God—that the closer we are to Him, the greater the glory and brilliance we enjoy (D&C 88:67, “And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things.” 1
Rivers Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 Not being physically attracted to dark-skinned people is not racist.Noah's priest's were physically attracted to the Lamanite daughters. I find it interesting that there are descriptions of Lamanites becoming white upon conversion but there are no descriptions of Nephites becoming dark after apostatizing.
Sevenbak Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) Noah's priest's were physically attracted to the Lamanite daughters.I find it interesting that there are descriptions of Lamanites becoming white upon conversion but there are no descriptions of Nephites becoming dark after apostatizing.Yes there is. Alma 315 And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also.16 And again: I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed.It didn't happen instantly, but the promise was the same. Edited October 25, 2012 by Sevenbak
Cobalt-70 Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 Not being physically attracted to dark-skinned people is not racist.It kinda does, actually. If someone thinks that dark skin makes a person "loathsome" and "un-enticing," then they might be a racist.
Rivers Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 Yes there is. Alma 315 And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also.16 And again: I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed.It didn't happen instantly, but the promise was the same.The Amilicites never turned dark. They had to mark themselves with red paint in order stand out.
williamsmith Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 Correcting a widespread misreading.I frankly never believed the anti-mormon claim of "racism" in the Book of Mormon.My being a convert, years in the Church and much reading of the book, I "always" looked at the "skin" verses in the BOM as symbolism, the same as the Bible has similar symbolism. And I've also seen nearly all mormons look at the verses as symbolism. Sure, I also saw/see some likelihood that the two cultures might have actually been lighter or darker than the other generally speaking, but that was likely more due to modernity compared to primitive culture than to extremes of skin color.The actual issue is that anti-mormons places their own prejudices and false judgments and interpretations onto us.
williamsmith Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) These videos are good on the subject (minus the music and the eccentric views).[media=] (this one plus 2 more) Edited October 28, 2012 by williamsmith
altersteve Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 It kinda does, actually. If someone thinks that dark skin makes a person "loathsome" and "un-enticing," then they might be a racist.First of all, the Lamanites are never described as "loathsome" because they had dark skin. They were said to be "a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people" (1 Nephi 12:23). And I stand by what I said that if you don't find dark skin attractive, that doesn't automatically make you a racist. There are some women I'm not particularly attracted to; does that mean I'm discriminating against them? 1
volgadon Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 There are some women I'm not particularly attracted to; does that mean I'm discriminating against them?You are. However, that is not by itself a bad thing, nor does it mean that you discriminate against them in all spheres of life.
altersteve Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 You are. However, that is not by itself a bad thing, nor does it mean that you discriminate against them in all spheres of life.Right. I meant "discriminating" in the more extreme sense, though -- "in all spheres of life," like you said.
Recommended Posts