The Underlying Principles For Mark E Petersen's Address

[Calm]

Prove it.

And don't simply replace bigotry based on group prejudice with racism.

Biological classification is needed for the type of racism we are discussing here. Biological classification that occurs in modern times.

Do not use sources that impose modern concepts on ancient ideas.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Calm

[Calm]

. Also the Neanderthals were a race of people that died out about 40,000 years ago.

The Neanderthals are generally considered a different species. Are you suggesting Blacks are a different species than homo sapiens?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/are-neanderthals-human.html

Edited September 13, 2015 by Calm

[thesometimesaint]

The Neanderthals are generally considered a different species. Are you suggesting Blacks are a different species than homo sapiens?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/are-neanderthals-human.html

 

They're not a separate species. The human species is out of Africa. You have Neanderthal genes in your body.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/18/dna-neanderthals-modern-humans-genes_n_5168730.html

 

No. Blacks are merely Homo Sapiens Sapiens with more Melanin in their skin than White Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=Melanin&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-005

[Calm]

They're not a separate species.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/18/dna-neanderthals-modern-humans-genes_n_5168730.html

 

You need toread your own link:

"Four years after scientists discovered that the two species' genomes differ"

Two species=different species

[BlueDreams]

No, of course not.  It seems people are in denial that the BoM isn't a bit racist.  That's all.  I know the intelligence and the thorough person BD is.  But I put all people that don't see this coming from the biblical scripture which was written by men, and the BoM which was written by scribes, also as taking from their thought process of the day.  That's all.  I just don't have the intelligence to put it down in words like most on this board do!  You totally misunderstood me on this Cal.  But I forgive you!    Not once did I say BD was being deceptive.  That would make me a cad!   

 

Don't get me wrong, the authors of said books likely had their own issues of prejudice...the prophets hint at least of a few of them (classism, prejudice, competing ideologies, and discrimination based on all of these). But our version of racism, is not theirs. The problem is that we've been reading it into the texts our specific brand of racism, when that is not what the original authors would have seen.

 

Edit: after reading what Cal said....just listen to her

Edited September 13, 2015 by BlueDreams

[thesometimesaint]

The Neanderthals(Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis) were not a separate species from us(Homo Sapiens Sapiens). We could and did interbreed.

SEE http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-neanderthalensis

 

PS: SEE Speciation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speciation

Edited September 13, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[BlueDreams]

The Neanderthals(Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis) were not a separate species from us(Homo Sapiens Sapiens). We could and did interbreed.

SEE http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-neanderthalensis

 

TSS....no offense, but could we let go of this. This thread really has nothing to do with neanderthals. Neanderthals are a subspecies....ie a biological/taxonomy sub-order in species. Race is a set of socially derived differences that have been deemed pertinent and distinctive...the 21st century view of race was derived only a few centuries ago (around the time when europeans particularly became obsessed with physiological differences and biology). Race, as a word was used very differently than it is now and is closer to cultural/ethnic group bigotry....Cal is very right on that one. And we're talking about that, not the biological taxonomy of Neanderthals (a subspecies, much the same way wolves and dogs are a subspecies. Humans today do not have subspecies and the modern use of the term race cannot include Neanderthals).  

 

For more arbitrary distinctions between the terms race, breed, and subspecies see here

 

Now let's please move on....no more neanderthals.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 13, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

So we are back to Tacenda being required to demonstrate there is racism in the Bible (not read into the text using modern concepts).

CFR stands given it is why she is claiming others are in denial, etc.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Calm

[thesometimesaint]

TSS....no offense, but could we let go of this. This thread really has nothing to do with neanderthals. Neanderthals are a subspecies....ie a biological/taxonomy sub-order in species. Race is a set of socially derived differences that have been deemed pertinent and distinctive...the 21st century view of race was derived only a few centuries ago (around the time when europeans particularly became obsessed with physiological differences and biology). Race, as a word was used very differently than it is now and is closer to cultural/ethnic group bigotry....Cal is very right on that one. And we're talking about that, not the biological taxonomy of Neanderthals (a subspecies, much the same way wolves and dogs are a subspecies. Humans today do not have subspecies and the modern use of the term race cannot include Neanderthals).  

 

For more arbitrary distinctions between the terms race, breed, and subspecies see here

 

Now let's please move on....no more neanderthals.

 

With luv,

BD

 

I quite agree. The Neanderthals are no more, and it is our cultural biases that play a large part in how we view them as well as our fellow modern humans today,

[juliann]

Don't fault her, it's in the BoM and people that try to sidestep fail, IMO. Whomever wrote it was coming from a 19th century mindset, back when blacks were slaves in some states. The seerstones may have had some crossed messages. White supremacy, without all the hoopla. Bobbie is just reading what is there. Too bad she's not discounting it like some have done. It must just be ingrained to believe what she's told in the church. Now we're told it could have been racist, the BY's at the time and their quotes. But the BoM, it's not going anywhere fast, as far as the color of skin and righteousness, or it's curse. Here's a website that talks of how people read things into scripture that made them do what they did. Too bad they didn't have a moral compass. http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_race1.htm

I generally find racism and ignorance to go hand in hand. You are quoting an anti-Mormon site doing a nice job of pretending to look neutral. Did you even look at the footnotes? Their source is McKeever and Johnson! I wrote a response to them many moons ago. Ironically, as they finger Mormons, their white Evangelicism has a far worse history of racism...and it hasn't been corrected. Something about the blind leading the blind.....

 

All you have told us is that you believe this...

 

Even though the Book of Mormon teaches that African Americans are inferior and loathsome, -- uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind according to Mark E. Peterson -- it does state that they may eventually be saved. However, even in Heaven, LDS theology said that they will be servants to others.

 

 

You must believe that the BOM took place on the African continent...there can be no other excuse for the idea that ancient usage of "black" applies to those on the American continent. None.

 

Further, none of the above is "Mormon theology." They have cherry picked a statement here and there and then made that up. These two are the consummate dissemblers This is where the conference protesters get their information from. And you support this. Astonishing.

[juliann]

Maybe there needs to be a rule that no one can spread racism unless they have been certified to have read a book or two. This is not a topic where I feel very friendly or patient because I absolutely cannot stomach those who want to place themselves above other "races."

 

First we need to document what race is. The most accessible book...and short is Racism: A Short History by George M. Fredrickson from Princeton University Press. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_22?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=racism+a+short+history&sprefix=racism+a+short+history%2Caps%2C712 I have countless books on race by accredited scholars, Tacenda and Bobbie. Let's start here:

 

The modern concept of races as basic human types classified by physical characteristics (primarily skin color) was not invented until the eighteenth century. p 53.

 

 He then explains it had antecedents in animal husbandry and blood libel against Jews that began in the MIddle Ages. It was rooted in the belief that blood could convey "sacred or magical properties."

 

Here is the problem. You want to haul everyone back to the MIddle Ages. Few want to go there. Tacenda, you have cleverly inserted that the BOM is a 19th century creation to maintain a racist reading. Wow.

[Tacenda]

Maybe there needs to be a rule that no one can spread racism unless they have been certified to have read a book or two. This is not a topic where I feel very friendly or patient because I absolutely cannot stomach those who want to place themselves above other "races."

 

First we need to document what race is. The most accessible book...and short is Racism: A Short History by George M. Fredrickson from Princeton University Press. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_22?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=racism+a+short+history&sprefix=racism+a+short+history%2Caps%2C712 I have countless books on race by accredited scholars, Tacenda and Bobbie. Let's start here:

 

 He then explains it had antecedents in animal husbandry and blood libel against Jews that began in the MIddle Ages. It was rooted in the belief that blood could convey "sacred or magical properties."

 

Here is the problem. You want to haul everyone back to the MIddle Ages. Few want to go there. Tacenda, you have cleverly inserted that the BOM is a 19th century creation to maintain a racist reading. Wow.

1978

[Calm]

Meaning what exactly?

What does 1978 have to do with biblical context? Or the modern origin of the concept "race"?

Edited September 14, 2015 by Calm

[Tacenda]

Meaning what exactly?

What does 1978 have to do with biblical context? Or the modern origin of the concept "race"?

Yesterday was a crazy busy day, all I could write was "1978".  It signifies everything rolled into one.  The fact, to me, that our church got it wrong, or the leaders did, until finally someone saw the light. 

 

You asked about biblical context.  I didn't say anything about color in the bible.  I meant that JS saw in the Bible, what others saw, IMO.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_and_religion

 

Main article: The Bible and slavery

  

Genesis narrative about the Curse of Ham has often been held to be an aetiological story, giving a reason for the enslavement of the Canaanites. The word ham is very similar to the Hebrew word for hot, which is cognate with an Egyptian word (kem, meaning black) used to refer to Egypt itself, in reference to the fertile black soil along the Nile valley. Although many scholars therefore view Ham as an eponym used to represent Egypt in the Table of Nations,^%5B1%5D a number of Christians throughout history, including Origen^%5B2%5D and the Cave of Treasures,^%5B3%5D have argued for the alternate proposition that Ham represents all black people, his name symbolising their dark skin colour;^%5B4%5D pro-slavery advocates, from Eutychius of Alexandria^%5B5%5D and John Philoponus,^%5B6%5D to American pro-slavery apologists,^%5B7%5D have therefore occasionally interpreted the narrative as a condemnation of all black people to slavery.^%5B8%5D A few Christians, like Jerome, even took up the racist notion that black people inherently had a soul as black as %5Btheir%5D body.^%5B9%5D

 

Also this is interesting to me, the changes the church made.  I understand that the church needs to do this as to reflect the change in 1978.  But the original wording was significantly different.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamanite

Changes to Book of Mormon chapter summaries[edit]

In December 2010, the LDS Church made changes to the non-canonical chapter summaries and also to some of the footnotes in its online version of the Book of Mormon. In Second Nephi chapter 5, the original wording was: "Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge unto the Nephites." The phrase "skin of blackness" was removed and became: "Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites."^%5B33%5D The second change appears in summary of Mormon chapter 5. Formerly, it included the phrase that "the Lamanites shall be a dark, filthy, and loathsome people". The new version deleted the phrase "dark, loathsome, and filthy" and now reads, "the Lamanites will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them."^{%5B33%5D%5B34%5D}

These changes are seen by some critics to be another step in the evolution of the text of the Book of Mormon to delete racist language from it.^%5B33%5D On the other hand, some believers in the Book of Mormon, such as Marvin Perkins, see these changes as better conforming the chapter headers and footnotes to the meaning of the text in light of the LDS Church's 1978 Revelation on Priesthood.^%5B35%5D In an interview, a former BYU graduate student suggested that the changes were made for "clarity, a change in emphasis and to stick closer to the scriptural language."^%5B33%5D

[Tacenda]

Right because telling someone they aren't being wholly honest isn't telling them at some level they are lying.

Who is being in denial now?

Did you read Marvin's presentation?

I didn't say BD was not wholly honest, I said the thought process.

 

I read Marvin's presentation finally.  Very interesting and probably makes one feel a little better about the BOM verses.   

[thesometimesaint]

Tacenda:

 

You might find this helpful

SEE http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes/%22white%22_changed_to_%22pure%22

[juliann]

Yesterday was a crazy busy day, all I could write was "1978".  It signifies everything rolled into one.  The fact, to me, that our church got it wrong, or the leaders did, until finally someone saw the light. 

 

You asked about biblical context.  I didn't say anything about color in the bible.  I meant that JS saw in the Bible, what others saw, IMO.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_and_religion

 

Main article: The Bible and slavery

  

Genesis narrative about the Curse of Ham has often been held to be an aetiological story, giving a reason for the enslavement of the Canaanites. The word ham is very similar to the Hebrew word for hot, which is cognate with an Egyptian word (kem, meaning black) used to refer to Egypt itself, in reference to the fertile black soil along the Nile valley. Although many scholars therefore view Ham as an eponym used to represent Egypt in the Table of Nations,^%5B1%5D a number of Christians throughout history, including Origen^%5B2%5D and the Cave of Treasures,^%5B3%5D have argued for the alternate proposition that Ham represents all black people, his name symbolising their dark skin colour;^%5B4%5D pro-slavery advocates, from Eutychius of Alexandria^%5B5%5D and John Philoponus,^%5B6%5D to American pro-slavery apologists,^%5B7%5D have therefore occasionally interpreted the narrative as a condemnation of all black people to slavery.^%5B8%5D A few Christians, like Jerome, even took up the racist notion that black people inherently had a soul as black as %5Btheir%5D body.^%5B9%5D

 

Also this is interesting to me, the changes the church made.  I understand that the church needs to do this as to reflect the change in 1978.  But the original wording was significantly different.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamanite

Changes to Book of Mormon chapter summaries[edit]

In December 2010, the LDS Church made changes to the non-canonical chapter summaries and also to some of the footnotes in its online version of the Book of Mormon. In Second Nephi chapter 5, the original wording was: "Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge unto the Nephites." The phrase "skin of blackness" was removed and became: "Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites."^%5B33%5D The second change appears in summary of Mormon chapter 5. Formerly, it included the phrase that "the Lamanites shall be a dark, filthy, and loathsome people". The new version deleted the phrase "dark, loathsome, and filthy" and now reads, "the Lamanites will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them."^{%5B33%5D%5B34%5D}

These changes are seen by some critics to be another step in the evolution of the text of the Book of Mormon to delete racist language from it.^%5B33%5D On the other hand, some believers in the Book of Mormon, such as Marvin Perkins, see these changes as better conforming the chapter headers and footnotes to the meaning of the text in light of the LDS Church's 1978 Revelation on Priesthood.^%5B35%5D In an interview, a former BYU graduate student suggested that the changes were made for "clarity, a change in emphasis and to stick closer to the scriptural language."^%5B33%5D

How is this relevant? (Wikipedia, seriously?) Slavery in the Bible wasn't about black Africans. You are trying to change the topic.  The topic is what is in the Bible....or BOM. And black played against white imagery isn't about skin.

 

If you want to make JS the racist for some reason then you need to first prove that he wrote the BOM.

[Tacenda]

How is this relevant? (Wikipedia, seriously?) Slavery in the Bible wasn't about black Africans. You are trying to change the topic.  The topic is what is in the Bible....or BOM. And black played against white imagery isn't about skin.

 

If you want to make JS the racist for some reason then you need to first prove that he wrote the BOM.

You've got to admit he was the author of the BOM, I didn't say he made it all up.  He was the conduit, geez. 

 

Did I say slavery in the Bible was about black Africans?  Maybe I do have dementia, because I can't remember what you and Cal are telling me I said. 

 

Why are you picking on me!    It was an opinion, that JS took from the Bible, possible reasons for slavery.  He took from the Bible a lot of things, it's called "restoration".  I thought JS tried to right wrong things, I think he tried to show redemption.  I totally don't think he was a racist.  But he grew up with a certain mindset too.  Didn't he give a few blacks the PH? 

 

Ok, can't wait to see what I said now that I forgot or don't have a clue I said.   

[BlueDreams]

You've got to admit he was the author of the BOM, I didn't say he made it all up.  He was the conduit, geez. 

 

Did I say slavery in the Bible was about black Africans?  Maybe I do have dementia, because I can't remember what you and Cal are telling me I said. 

 

Why are you picking on me!    It was an opinion, that JS took from the Bible, possible reasons for slavery.  He took from the Bible a lot of things, it's called "restoration".  I thought JS tried to right wrong things, I think he tried to show redemption.  I totally don't think he was a racist.  But he grew up with a certain mindset too.  Didn't he give a few blacks the PH? 

 

Ok, can't wait to see what I said now that I forgot or don't have a clue I said.   

 

Tacenda, it probably wasn't what you said, but how you said it....ie. those who believe otherwise about race changes/racism/skin changes (however you prefer to word it) are a) in a bit or denial and b) not being intellectually honest wholly....which is patronizing. But your reasoning for that is, in itself, appearing quite holey and doesn't seem to be well documented but based off of other peoples words and just the obviousness of a traditional folk-belief about race and markings. It's not exactly kosher to state that people who've done a good amount of research don't get it when you, who probably haven't looked into it nearly as much, somehow do. And then there are the claims themselves which are another level of irritating, because you're insisting a racist narrative is the obvious read into sacred text. And that's a looseness with a translation process that most don't assume when they say JS was a "conduit"....I don't think JS was the author, P.S., he was the transcriber. Things may have been lost in translation of sorts, but not that lost.

 

Also if JS was to have been the author in the sense that you've given, the Lamanites shouldn't have had black skin, they should have had red (that's how they would have viewed Native skin tone). But that's not what is written. 

 

Basically the reaction is because there is a very simple and clear way to read the text without inserting 19th century racism and without even changing the wording. But with very little inspection into this idea, it feels that you've thrown it out as vaguely delusional and intellectually dishonest and that the ONLY way to read it accurately is to assume some form of racism in the text by the "author" and to dismiss these passages as antebellum racist beliefs. Hope that clarifies the reactions a bit.

 

Last thing, I would like to know what you thought of what I mentioned here. It probably just got buried.

 

With luv,

BD 

[Tacenda]

Tacenda, it probably wasn't what you said, but how you said it....ie. those who believe otherwise about race changes/racism/skin changes (however you prefer to word it) are a) in a bit or denial and b) not being intellectually honest wholly....which is patronizing. But your reasoning for that is, in itself, appearing quite holey and doesn't seem to be well documented but based off of other peoples words and just the obviousness of a traditional folk-belief about race and markings. It's not exactly kosher to state that people who've done a good amount of research don't get it when you, who probably haven't looked into it nearly as much, somehow do. And then there are the claims themselves which are another level of irritating, because you're insisting a racist narrative is the obvious read into sacred text. And that's a looseness with a translation process that most don't assume when they say JS was a "conduit"....I don't think JS was the author, P.S., he was the transcriber. Things may have been lost in translation of sorts, but not that lost.

Also if JS was to have been the author in the sense that you've given, the Lamanites shouldn't have had black skin, they should have had red (that's how they would have viewed Native skin tone). But that's not what is written.

Basically the reaction is because there is a very simple and clear way to read the text without inserting 19th century racism and without even changing the wording. But with very little inspection into this idea, it feels that you've thrown it out as vaguely delusional and intellectually dishonest and that the ONLY way to read it accurately is to assume some form of racism in the text by the "author" and to dismiss these passages as antebellum racist beliefs. Hope that clarifies the reactions a bit.

Last thing, I would like to know what you thought of what I mentioned here. It probably just got buried.

With luv,

BD

I guess the church alluding to it in the Gospel Topics essay made me think it's possible that blacks being denied the PH was probably not from God but racist leaders apparently, who read it wrong in the Bible, IMO. They're readers of the Bible, not writers, they misunderstood the writings as you mentioned, about it not being the skin.

Which btw, there is variation in the pigmant of an indian's skin. From black to lighter skin or reddiah skin tones. Speaking of skin color, check out this YouTube of the origin of the human race.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=14&rct=j&q=origin%20of%20human%20race&ved=0CEwQtwIwDWoVChMIgoX-2IL4xwIVzzeICh1deQSl&url=http%3A%2F%2Fm.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKUZDTzrOZ2o&usg=AFQjCNH5mrh9m_ChrQb0asw8_bCqu7rtSA

And... I'm sorry if I sounded patronizing, in my mind I would think you'd want the denial of the PH to blacks, to be of man, not God. Or why was the ban put in place? Just something to do with Africans? I don't understand. But as you mention, there were the natives in the BoM, not blacks which JS could have used as a narrative. But more than likely it could have stemmed from this...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States

About JS being the author, I have a copy of the 1830 edition of the BoM. It lists JS as the author, but understand it may have been copyright laws or something.

And could you be specific about what you wanted me to read in the link you provided. I read what you said, but don't know the question.

[Calm]

About JS being the author, I have a copy of the 1830 edition of the BoM. It lists JS as the author, but understand it may have been copyright laws or something.

No may have about it :

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Joseph_as_author_and_proprietor

"The fact is, Joseph Smith was complying with federal law (see I Statutes 124, 1790, as amended by 2 Stat. 171, 1802), which dictated the words the district clerk had to write when a person was taking out a copyright on a book. It can be demonstrated historically that many translators, including those who produced the 1824 edition of the King James Version of the Bible, were listed as "Author" to conform to this law.[1]"

Also if you have a copy, you can clearly see he refers to translating the Book:

"The 1830 Book of Mormon clearly identifies Joseph Smith as the translator of the work

Notice in the first paragraph of the copyright form above that even though Joseph Smith legally claimed his right as "author" he still inserted information making it clear that the text originated from an ancient, pre-written "abridgment" that came forth to the modern world "by the gift and power of God" and through an act of "interpretation" or translation.

It should also be pointed out that in the Preface of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon the Prophet Joseph Smith designated himself as the "Author" but also indicated no less than six times that he was the translator of the text. Likewise, it can be seen in the 1830 testimony of the Eight Witnesses that Joseph Smith is called the "Author and Proprietor of this work" but it is also said that he "translated" the golden plates in order to obtain the text of the Book of Mormon."

Edited September 15, 2015 by Calm

[Calm]

And... I'm sorry if I sounded patronizing, in my mind I would think you'd want the denial of the PH to blacks, to be of man, not God. Or why was the ban put in place? Just something to do with Africans? I don't understand.

You really, really, really need to read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Different-Color-Struggle-Whiteness/dp/0199754071

At least read the summary please just to get an idea of complications involved.

A couple of the reviews provide some info as well.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Calm

[Tacenda]

http://bytheirstrangefruit.blogspot.com/p/start-here.html

This blog gives info about Christianity and Race.

Actually this page in particular... BD, Juliann or Calm.

http://bytheirstrangefruit.blogspot.com/2011/06/religious-roots-of-racism.html

Edited September 15, 2015 by Tacenda

[Calm]

https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sightings/wrong-side-white-w-paul-reeve

More relevant to the Mormon experience of race.

[Calm]

You like podcasts, iirc. Haven't listened, but it sounds like this would be useful for you (covers the book plus more) Ardis Parshall is excellent with history as well, so an additional reason to listen:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/mip-22-reeve-parshall-p1/

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/mip-23-mormonism-race-reeve-parshall-p2/

Edited September 15, 2015 by Calm