Race And The Preisthood New Topic Addition And Bom Verses

[jkwilliams]

'Metaphorical' always seems to mean a part of the narrative whose clear interpretation is no longer acceptable.

 

Indeed. A literal reading of the texts (Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, Book of Abraham) tends to situate these scriptures as 19th-century productions, as these ideas about skin color and race reflect common beliefs of the day. Now that most people have moved beyond such things, the implications of a literal reading are uncomfortable and thus are abandoned.

[Rivers]

Indeed. A literal reading of the texts (Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, Book of Abraham) tends to situate these scriptures as 19th-century productions, as these ideas about skin color and race reflect common beliefs of the day. Now that most people have moved beyond such things, the implications of a literal reading are uncomfortable and thus are abandoned.

These racist passages in the Book of Mormon are especially awkward now that the church has officially denounced the belief that skin color is mark of God's cursing.  What the heck are we supposed to do with these verses?

[thesometimesaint]

Indeed. A literal reading of the texts (Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, Book of Abraham) tends to situate these scriptures as 19th-century productions, as these ideas about skin color and race reflect common beliefs of the day. Now that most people have moved beyond such things, the implications of a literal reading are uncomfortable and thus are abandoned.

 

Those have been common beliefs around the world and throughout recorded history.

 

Though some people do try to read any ancient sacred text as if it is a modern day science book. Doing such does a grave disservice to both.

[Stone holm]

'Metaphorical' always seems to mean a part of the narrative whose clear interpretation is no longer acceptable.

 

Gave you a bump on that.  The plain meaning is pretty clear.  What we have to understand is that the B of M is scripture which is more accurate than the OT, but it still has to be understood in the cultural context of its time.  That does not mean it isn't an inspired text or that Joseph Smith made it up, it just means that it was written by people inspired by God, but living in a very racist and tribalistic society.  Sometimes the Lamanites were more righteous than the Nephites, but that did not prevent the cultural biases, antagonisms, and hatreds from being manifest in the text.  In addition, in those times when the Lamanites were more righteous -- the reference to them still had a condescending feel to it.  Kind of like, look even these savages are behaving better than you!  That is hardly an approach that is aimed at eliminating racism.  To try and whitewash these passages with make believe metaphorical notions, just detracts from the reality that the Book of Mormon is real and those people were real and they behaved like real people -- and even the righteous and more civilized were influenced by their racist upbringing.  I was raised in Indiana, during a time when it was the most racist State outside the old Confederacy, my parents, especially my father, were racists and thought Martin Luther King, Jr. was an evil troublemaker -- does that mean they were evil?  No.  Does it mean they didn't have important values to pass on to me, or they were bad parents? No.  They were merely part of the culture of the time.  Much of the former State of Deseret because of its fascination with the 1950's and because of leaders like ETB who thought that the Civil Rights Movement was inspired by Communists -- held onto cultural racism a bit longer than other parts of the non-Confederacy.  Why?  Have no real clue.  We are still struggling to understand how Thomas Jefferson and James Madison could have remained slaveholders.  The best that has been puzzled out so far, is the deep belief that the slaves having been treated so badly historically if set free would retaliate with hatred -- so they felt that it was impossible for the two races to reconcile, so they stayed with the re-colonization concept rather abolition.  Joseph Smith, Jr. may have had some of the same misgivings.  We just don't know.

[David T]

These racist passages in the Book of Mormon are especially awkward now that the church has officially denounced the belief that skin color is mark of God's cursing.  What the heck are we supposed to do with these verses?

 

I'm glad you asked! 

 

Adjusting the Narrative: Part 2a - Nephi and the Skin of Blackness -  http://www.withoutend.org/adjusting-narrative-part-2anephi-skin-blackness/

Adjusting the Narrative: Part 2b - Disavowed Theories -  http://www.withoutend.org/adjusting-narrative-part-2b-entract-addendum/

 

And you can follow the links for the rest of the series. More is coming.

Edited December 11, 2013 by David T

[stemelbow]

These racist passages in the Book of Mormon are especially awkward now that the church has officially denounced the belief that skin color is mark of God's cursing.  What the heck are we supposed to do with these verses?

 

Ignore them and condemn not the mistakes of men in the book, maybe?

[thesometimesaint]

These racist passages in the Book of Mormon are especially awkward now that the church has officially denounced the belief that skin color is mark of God's cursing.  What the heck are we supposed to do with these verses?

 

Who knows but a thousand years from now our Scriptures will relegated to the realm of Beowulf. I certainly hope not. However I do believe that all of our Scriptures are the word of God as far as they are translated correctly.

[CA Steve]

Gave you a bump on that.  The plain meaning is pretty clear.  What we have to understand is that the B of M is scripture which is more accurate than the OT, but it still has to be understood in the cultural context of its time.  That does not mean it isn't an inspired text or that Joseph Smith made it up, it just means that it was written by people inspired by God, but living in a very racist and tribalistic society.  Sometimes the Lamanites were more righteous than the Nephites, but that did not prevent the cultural biases, antagonisms, and hatreds from being manifest in the text.  In addition, in those times when the Lamanites were more righteous -- the reference to them still had a condescending feel to it.  Kind of like, look even these savages are behaving better than you!  That is hardly an approach that is aimed at eliminating racism.  To try and whitewash these passages with make believe metaphorical notions, just detracts from the reality that the Book of Mormon is real and those people were real and they behaved like real people -- and even the righteous and more civilized were influenced by their racist upbringing.  I was raised in Indiana, during a time when it was the most racist State outside the old Confederacy, my parents, especially my father, were racists and thought Martin Luther King, Jr. was an evil troublemaker -- does that mean they were evil?  No.  Does it mean they didn't have important values to pass on to me, or they were bad parents? No.  They were merely part of the culture of the time.  Much of the former State of Deseret because of its fascination with the 1950's and because of leaders like ETB who thought that the Civil Rights Movement was inspired by Communists -- held onto cultural racism a bit longer than other parts of the non-Confederacy.  Why?  Have no real clue.  We are still struggling to understand how Thomas Jefferson and James Madison could have remained slaveholders.  The best that has been puzzled out so far, is the deep belief that the slaves having been treated so badly historically if set free would retaliate with hatred -- so they felt that it was impossible for the two races to reconcile, so they stayed with the re-colonization concept rather abolition.  Joseph Smith, Jr. may have had some of the same misgivings.  We just don't know.

Here is the problem I see with this reasoning, which is in essence saying that the racism is a result of the cultural milieu of the day, be it the last one hundred and fifty or so years of the modern day church, or the thousand year history of the Book of Mormon, or the Bible. God has consistently revealed his will, through His prophets, throughout these times. In all of these ages he has asked his people to follow Him and obey His commandments, regardless of how difficult and socially unacceptable those commandments were/are. Whether it be incredible strict dietary laws, or abandoning their families, homeland and birthrights to travel thousands of miles to live in unknown lands, or practice polygamy in a remote desert, God has not hesitated to ask his followers to abandon all, even their entire lives as they know it, to follow him. Why has He consistently avoided (for lack of a better word) demanding that his followers treat their fellow man whose skin is a different color, equally?

 

It is a fundamental aspect of Christianity that we love one another equally, regardless of who we are. I find it hard to believe that a God who could compel his chosen people to do all those other things, could not also teach them, on a consistent basis, that that skin color does not matter. I think the cultural excuse for racism raises some really difficult questions about how or if prophets really communicate with God because I do not believe God is a racist nor do I believe he would tolerate such practices for so long by even his chosen ones.

[jkwilliams]

Those have been common beliefs around the world and throughout recorded history.

 

Though some people do try to read any ancient sacred text as if it is a modern day science book. Doing such does a grave disservice to both.

 

Racism has a long and storied history. What I'm talking about is the specific racial mythology of LDS scripture, which speaks for itself. I suppose one could also say that ignoring the context in which a sacred text emerged does a grave disservice to the text.

[thesometimesaint]

Here is the problem I see with this reasoning, which is in essence saying that the racism is a result of the cultural milieu of the day, be it the last one hundred and fifty or so years of the modern day church, or the thousand year history of the Book of Mormon, or the Bible. God has consistently revealed his will, through His prophets, throughout these times. In all of these ages he has asked his people to follow Him and obey His commandments, regardless of how difficult and socially unacceptable those commandments were/are. Whether it be incredible strict dietary laws, or abandoning their families, homeland and birthrights to travel thousands of miles to live in unknown lands, or practice polygamy in a remote desert, God has not hesitated to ask his followers to abandon all, even their entire lives as they know it, to follow him. Why has He consistently avoided (for lack of a better word) demanding that his followers treat their fellow man whose skin is a different color, equally?

 

It is a fundamental aspect of Christianity that we love one another equally, regardless of who we are. I find it hard to believe that a God who could compel his chosen people to do all those other things, could not also teach them, on a consistent basis, that that skin color does not matter. I think the cultural excuse for racism raises some really difficult questions about how or if prophets really communicate with God because I do not believe God is a racist nor do I believe he would tolerate such practices for so long by even his chosen ones.

 

Why? He seems to allow every other evil act to occur. Maybe there is a higher law in place, the one of Agency. It is possible and even probable to commit evil acts and not be judged by man in this life. Such is not the case with God in the eternities.

[thesometimesaint]

Racism has a long and storied history. What I'm talking about is the specific racial mythology of LDS scripture, which speaks for itself. I suppose one could also say that ignoring the context in which a sacred text emerged does a grave disservice to the text.

 

But racism isn't specific to just LDS Scripture. It seems to be part and parcel of the human condition. I'm not making any excuses for anyone. The BoM like any Scripture is a man made product and as such to claim lack of bias and sometimes even evil acts is a disservice to/regardless the writer. To dismiss the BoM as a modern day con job because of racism is a non sequitur

[stemelbow]

But racism isn't specific to just LDS Scripture. It seems to be part and parcel of the human condition. I'm not making any excuses for anyone. The BoM like any Scripture is a man made product and as such to claim lack of bias and sometimes even evil acts is a disservice to/regardless the writer. To dismiss the BoM as a modern day con job because of racism is a non sequitur

 

Excellent addition to the conversation.

[jkwilliams]

But racism isn't specific to just LDS Scripture. It seems to be part and parcel of the human condition. I'm not making any excuses for anyone. The BoM like any Scripture is a man made product and as such to claim lack of bias and sometimes even evil acts is a disservice to/regardless the writer. To dismiss the BoM as a modern day con job because of racism is a non sequitur

 

No, it's not just specific to LDS scripture. The form and rationale for it are quite specific to LDS scripture, which happens to dovetail with specific ideas justifying slavery and other ideas current when the Book of Mormon was published.

 

I do not "dismiss the BoM as a modern day con job because of racism." But ignoring the culture into which the Book of Mormon emerged is, IMO, missing half the equation, whether or not it is a true account of ancient Americans.

[CA Steve]

Why? He seems to allow every other evil act to occur. Maybe there is a higher law in place, the one of Agency. It is possible and even probable to commit evil acts and not be judged by man in this life. Such is not the case with God in the eternities.

There is a distinct difference between God allowing things to happen and God failing to communicate with his prophets that he does not want His chosen people to engage in those same things, a difference that becomes all too evident when those same prophets actually inquire about that very issue, as was the case with David O McKay..

[BCSpace]

These racist passages in the Book of Mormon are especially awkward now that the church has officially denounced the belief that skin color is mark of God's cursing.  What the heck are we supposed to do with these verses?

 

There aren't any racist passages.  None of the ones referred to teaches that disadvantages or disfavor stem from skin color.

 

My thinking now is settling on one of context. For example, it's obvious that anthropologically 'black skin' relative to the priesthood ban is quite different from 'black skin' relative to the the peoples indigenous to this Hemisphere.

[thesometimesaint]

No, it's not just specific to LDS scripture. The form and rationale for it are quite specific to LDS scripture, which happens to dovetail with specific ideas justifying slavery and other ideas current when the Book of Mormon was published.

 

I do not "dismiss the BoM as a modern day con job because of racism." But ignoring the culture into which the Book of Mormon emerged is, IMO, missing half the equation, whether or not it is a true account of ancient Americans.

 

In its form and rationale it is no different than many other sacred texts of all religions. These ideas have been around since the dawn of history. As wise man once told me: You can justify anything using the Bible. That the Bible justifies slavery is no more indicative that King James wrote the Bible than because JS knew about slavery he wrote the BoM.

Edited December 11, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Rivers]

There aren't any racist passages. None of the ones referred to teaches that disadvantages or disfavor stem from skin color.

My thinking now is settling on one of context. For example, it's obvious that anthropologically 'black skin' relative to the priesthood ban is quite different from 'black skin' relative to the the peoples indigenous to this Hemisphere.

The Book of Mormon still explicitly states that God marked the Lamanites' skin for unrighteousness. Yet the church disavows that skin color is the mark of a curse. There is now a huge contradiction between what the church says and what is written in the Book of Mormon.

[BCSpace]

The Book of Mormon still explicitly states that God marked the Lamanites' skin for unrighteousness. Yet the church disavows that skin color is the mark of a curse. There is now a huge contradiction between what the church says and what is written in the Book of Mormon.

 

Correct.  The reason for this thread.  Here is the pertinent quote:

 

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse..."

 

The "theories advanced in the past" part refers only to the recent priesthood ban, not the BoM verses.  The contextual argument is looking very good indeed though I would agree it would be better to remove "or curse".

Edited December 11, 2013 by BCSpace

[jkwilliams]

In its form and rationale it is no different than many other sacred texts of all religions. These ideas have been around since the dawn of history. As wise man once told me: You can justify anything using the Bible. That the Bible justifies slavery is no more indicative that King James wrote the Bible than because JS knew about slavery he wrote the BoM.

 

I'm talking about the link between skin color and Cain, which is a rather modern invention.

[David T]

 

The "theories advanced in the past" part refers only to the recent priesthood ban, not the BoM verses.  The contextual argument is looking very good indeed though I would agree it would be better to remove "or curse".

 

I see no reason at all why it would stop there. The wording is the same as even recently has been used to explain the Book of Mormon.

 

Seminary Manual: "Make sure students understand that the curse mentioned in this chapter was separation from God. The changing of their skin was only a mark or sign of the curse. "

 

Gospel Topics: “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse . . . Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” 

 

The past includes Book of Mormon prophets. I believe a solid case can be made for the fact that Nephi, who made the initial declaration, was mistaken, and others followed his lead and assumptions, even as other prophets tried (and failed) to correct the assumption.

 

It's an ancient parallel to the modern Church and its leaders. The potential to use this to teach and correct in a powerful way is huge. It's incredibly frustrating to see people who have a strong desire to cling to and support the idea of God physically changing skin color to signify a curse. More light and knowledge has come into the world. 

 

“It seems to be part of our nature as human beings to make assumptions about people, politics and piety based on our incomplete and often misleading experience. … So often the ‘truths’ we tell ourselves are merely fragments of the truth and sometimes, they’re not really the truth at all.”

 

"Both the Nephites as well as the Lamanites created their own “truths” about each other …These “truths” fed their hatred for one another until it finally consumed them all. Needless to say, there are many examples in the Book of Mormon that contradict both of these stereotypes. Nevertheless, the Nephites and Lamanites believed these “truths” that shaped the destiny of this once-mighty and beautiful people.” - President Uchtdorf

 

These reminded me of  my favorite apostolic observation of 2012, given, again by President Uchtdorf, in the February 2012 Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting, where he said, “Unfortunately, we sometimes don’t seek revelation or answers from the scriptures…because we think we know the answers already. Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?”

Edited December 11, 2013 by David T

[BCSpace]

Gospel Topics: “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse . . . Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”

 

 

I think your problem here is emphasis on the word unequivocally.  The Church has not said the BoM passages and a variety of other verses and doctrines are racist and indeed they are not.

 

 

The past includes Book of Mormon prophets. I believe a solid case can be made for the fact that Nephi, who made the initial declaration, was mistaken, and others followed his lead and assumptions, even as other prophets tried (and failed) to correct the assumption.

 

Non doctrinal sources don't make your case solid.

 

 

These reminded me of  my favorite apostolic observation of 2012, given,

 

I have neither stopped asking questions nor stopped considering other evidences.

Edited December 11, 2013 by BCSpace

[David T]

Non doctrinal sources don't make your case solid.

 

That blog post that I wrote uses the scriptures (a doctrinal source) to show that Nephi went beyond what he reported the Lord to have actually communicated. Added to the fact that Nephi was not - could not, and did not claim to be -  an eyewitness to the fulfillment of his affirmation.

 

Since everything is based on this primary declaration (much like it is with Brother Brigham and the modern ban), it's important to critically examine what is claimed, and what can reasonably be seen as an educated assumption. Afterall - part of the process of President Kimball receiving his revelation was studying and pondering the observations of 'non doctrinal sources', and revisiting interpretive assumptions from the scriptures.

 

If you have a rebuttal, I'd be happy for you to post it there on the blog itself.

Edited December 11, 2013 by David T

[David T]

 The Church has not said the BoM passages and a variety of other verses and doctrines are racist and indeed they are not.

 

Nephi claims God turned his antagonist's skin black as a sign of a Curse. The Church said it disavows the theory that God uses dark skin as a sign of a curse. How much clearer can you get?

[BCSpace]

That blog post that I wrote uses the scriptures (a doctrinal source) to show that Nephi went beyond what he reported the Lord to have actually communicated. Added to the fact that Nephi was not - could not, and did not claim to be -  an eyewitness to the fulfillment of his affirmation.

 

Since everything is based on this primary declaration (much like it is with Brother Brigham and the modern ban), it's important to critically examine what is claimed, and what can reasonably be seen as an educated assumption.

 

If you have a rebuttal, I'd be happy for you to post it there on the blog itself.

 

What I like about your post is that you are arguing the same thing I am with regards to the BoM curse and the Priesthood ban curse being separate issues:

 

Even if one is to acknowledge the truth that this has nothing contextually to do with African Blacks,

 

 

But you are indeed making use of non doctrinal sources to influence your personal interpretation of the BoM:

 

 

Last year, inspired by Grant Hardy’s Understanding the Book of Mormon, Brant Gardner’s wonderful and exhaustive ‘Second Witness‘ commentary, and Joseph Spencer’s ‘An Other Testament: On Typoogy’,

 

Edited December 11, 2013 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

The Church has not said the BoM passages and a variety of other verses and doctrines are racist and indeed they are not.

 

Nephi claims God turned his antagonist's skin black as a sign of a Curse. The Church said it disavows the theory that God uses dark skin as a sign of a curse. How much clearer can you get?

 

Since even you separated out the BoM issue of black skin from the issue of the recent priesthood ban, the issue is not clear at all in the direction you are going.  It's not up to you and me to decide when the Church thinks the last sentence in the BoM title page should be applied.

Edited December 11, 2013 by BCSpace