Racism Slowly Being Removed from Book of Mormon

[Johnnie Cake]

 

In the past the chapter heading for 2nd Nephi Chapter 5 read

"Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge to the Nephites"

The new online version reads 

“Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites"

Also notice the online version of Moroni Chapter 5's heading which used to read

The Lamanites shall be a dark, filthy, and loathsome people. . .”
 
and now states 

"Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them . . .”

[Jim Stiles]

With respect to the Bible, chapter and section headings are external to the text.  The chapter heading for Hebrews 1 in some Bibles say that the author of Hebrews was Paul.  As far as what the Bible itself says, the author was anonymous.

Do LDS members regard chapter and section headings to be part of the actual Book of Mormon?

[VideoGameJunkie]

Didn't Bruce R McConkie do all the chapter headings?

[PeterPear]

15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 

In the past the chapter heading for 2nd Nephi Chapter 5 read

"Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge to the Nephites"

The new online version reads 

“Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites"

Also notice the online version of Moroni Chapter 5's heading which used to read

The Lamanites shall be a dark, filthy, and loathsome people. . .”
 
and now states 

"Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them . . .”

It's Mormon Chapter 5. And the quotes you mentioned were taken from the text.

And what was innacurate about it? Never heard of the Zuni Urine Drinkers, for example?

http://historyweird.com/1902-native-american-clowns-urine-animals/

 

 

Edited February 24, 2016 by PeterPear

[volgadon]

20 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

With respect to the Bible, chapter and section headings are external to the text.  The chapter heading for Hebrews 1 in some Bibles say that the author of Hebrews was Paul.  As far as what the Bible itself says, the author was anonymous.

Do LDS members regard chapter and section headings to be part of the actual Book of Mormon?

We view them like the Bible headings.

[deli_llama]

 

It's Mormon Chapter 5. And the quotes you mentioned were taken from the text.

And what was innacurate about it? Never heard of the Zuni Urine Drinkers, for example?

http://historyweird.com/1902-native-american-clowns-urine-animals/

 

 

I am not sure if you are being jestful, or if the example you are using really is something you think illustrates dark and loathsome. What is happening with the Koyemshis is a little more complex then how the article you linked portrays them and their actions. I don't feel your example is what the Book of Mormon is talking about when it talks of a dark and loathsome people. What is at play in your example has to do with the trickster character, and its role in the culture's myth and ritual. They are acting as sacred clowns or holy fools. It is more similar to being called as a temple actor to play Lucifer in a live session. They consider it a sacred calling, just as we do. 
If you find their actions repulsive—good—they are likely being successful in their role. These ritual actors and actions are specific to the culture they derive from, and unless we have grown up in the culture we can't really understand the hows and whys of the Koyemshis. Give it a deeper study, but I wouldn't make up my mind based on a website that is quoting a 1902 government research report. 
If you are interested, here is a different link that probes the subject of Koyemshis a bit deeper. 
https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/1940
A couple of other sources as background to the role of the acting trickster, or sacred clowns, like the Koyemshis: Trickster Makes This World: Mischief, Myth and Art by Lewis Hyde, and Mythical Trickster Figures: Contours, Contexts, and Criticisms by William Hynes. 
And just because it is a good trickster book: Trickster and Hero: Two Characters in the Oral and Written Traditions of the World by Harold Scheub.
Then again, you might just be jesting at that, and wouldn't it fit the Koyemshi theme?

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, deli_llama said:

I am not sure if you are being jestful, or if the example you are using really is something you think illustrates dark and loathsome. What is happening with the Koyemshis is a little more complex then how the article you linked portrays them and their actions. I don't feel your example is what the Book of Mormon is talking about when it talks of a dark and loathsome people. What is at play in your example has to do with the trickster character, and its role in the culture's myth and ritual. They are acting as sacred clowns or holy fools. It is more similar to being called as a temple actor to play Lucifer in a live session. They consider it a sacred calling, just as we do. 
If you find their actions repulsive—good—they are likely being successful in their role. These ritual actors and actions are specific to the culture they derive from, and unless we have grown up in the culture we can't really understand the hows and whys of the Koyemshis. .......................................................................................
Then again, you might just be jesting at that, and wouldn't it fit the Koyemshi theme?

Exactly.  However, we can go even further in observing that the original, archetypal event is itself a ritual, with actors playing the parts.  Jester or Judas, the roles are essential.

So too, Passion week for Jesus is a reenactment of the Passover Sacrificial rites.  If it were not, what would be the point of it?

[TrespassersW]

I think the Nephites were racist in very much the same way that I think George Washington was a racist. It doesn't mean I don't think he was a good and righteous man, but he clearly had some very different cultural sensitivities than we hold today.

I think the fact that modern culture sees prejudice based on skin color as wrong is a good thing and a sign of progress. But I also think that God works with people wherever they are. And I think that God is less interested in revolutionizing our culture and more interested in helping us be the best person we can be, whatever our circumstances are.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, TrespassersW said:

I think the Nephites were racist in very much the same way that I think George Washington was a racist. It doesn't mean I don't think he was a good and righteous man, but he clearly had some very different cultural sensitivities than we hold today.

I think the fact that modern culture sees prejudice based on skin color as wrong is a good thing and a sign of progress. But I also think that God works with people wherever they are. And I think that God is less interested in revolutionizing our culture and more interested in helping us be the best person we can be, whatever our circumstances are.

A revolution one person at a time.

[deli_llama]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Exactly.  However, we can go even further in observing that the original, archetypal event is itself a ritual, with actors playing the parts.  Jester or Judas, the roles are essential.

So too, Passion week for Jesus is a reenactment of the Passover Sacrificial rites.  If it were not, what would be the point of it?

I am not sure I would classify Judas as a trickster, and you might not have been, but he did fill his role. 

Thank you for pointing out the example of Passion Week, it is a good one  

During my time working with indigenous/primitive peoples I have observed they don't think in or see archetypes. As western influence creeps into cultures this might change slightly, but in general it doesn't play a part in their perception of reality. They also wouldn't see a re-enactment as a re-enactment. This also would be the case in pre-enactments, for example Israel's temple rites (first or second temple) or Abraham's potential sacrifice of Issac.  Rituals or sacred events would be as real in time and space to them as the original, or in the case of Isreal's pre-enactment, the future event. I feel this was also true with the Passion, more than just a re-enactment, but an eternal event that was actualized in space and time, and yet also a ritual in its own right.  

Ok, I will stop derailing now. 

[Sevenbak]

3 hours ago, TrespassersW said:

I think the Nephites were racist in very much the same way that I think George Washington was a racist. It doesn't mean I don't think he was a good and righteous man, but he clearly had some very different cultural sensitivities than we hold today.

I think you hit the nail on the head.        The Nephites were not racially sensitive or correct, but that wasn't a prerequisite to the righteousness. 

2nd Nephi 5 speaks of the Lord's involvement in the "curse", and how he knew his people would interact with them.

 

21 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.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, Sevenbak said:

The Nephites were not racially sensitive or correct, but that wasn't a prerequisite to the righteousness.

So why is it considered to be such today?
Why is racism a sin today but wasn't in the days of yore?

Are "sin" and "righteousness" time specific?

Edited February 24, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Robert F. Smith]

16 minutes ago, deli_llama said:

.....................................

During my time working with indigenous/primitive peoples I have observed they don't think in or see archetypes. As western influence creeps into cultures this might change slightly, but in general it doesn't play a part in their perception of reality. They also wouldn't see a re-enactment as a re-enactment. This also would be the case in pre-enactments, for example Israel's temple rites (first or second temple) or Abraham's potential sacrifice of Issac.  Rituals or sacred events would be as real in time and space to them as the original, or in the case of Isreal's pre-enactment, the future event. I feel this was also true with the Passion, more than just a re-enactment, but an eternal event that was actualized in space and time, and yet also a ritual in its own right.  

.....................................................

However, primitive peoples do think in cyclic rather than linear time, so inevitably see repetition and reenactment.  For Jews at the Passover Seder meal, it is also a reenactment.

[Sevenbak]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So why is it considered to be such today?
Why is racism a sin today but wasn't in the days of yore?

Are "sin" and "righteousness" time specific?

I think that's too simplistic of a question.  The Lord was trying to preserve his people and keep them righteous by not mixing with unbelievers.  But the Lord has done that many many times in the past, the Old Testament is full of examples.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

With respect to the Bible, chapter and section headings are external to the text.  The chapter heading for Hebrews 1 in some Bibles say that the author of Hebrews was Paul.  As far as what the Bible itself says, the author was anonymous.

Do LDS members regard chapter and section headings to be part of the actual Book of Mormon?

Depends on what you mean by "actual Book of Mormon."

They are not considered to be part of the Nephite record translated by Joseph Smith. They are present as study aids, like the index, or the Bible Dictionary, or the Topical Guide.

To use your wording, they are "external to the text."

Edited February 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

35 minutes ago, Sevenbak said:

I think that's too simplistic of a question.  The Lord was trying to preserve his people and keep them righteous by not mixing with unbelievers.  But the Lord has done that many many times in the past, the Old Testament is full of examples.

Oh I agree.
Which is why I think it is far to simplistic to mark these things as "racist".  God can and has restricted groups of people throughout history, sometimes by tribe, sometimes by religion, sometimes by nation, etc.  OT and BOM are full of examples.  Even the NT has some.

Edited February 25, 2016 by JLHPROF

[deli_llama]

54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

However, primitive peoples do think in cyclic rather than linear time, so inevitably see repetition and reenactment.  For Jews at the Passover Seder meal, it is also a reenactment.

I apologize, I did not mean to imply that ancient Israel, Jews, or modern Jews wouldn't see it as a reenactment (how do you keep autocorrect from adding a dash? Better yet, I should just reset my dictionary or something.). I am fairly sure they would.

I was expressing that primitive peoples wouldn't see ancient, or modern temple rites, as reenactments. By primitive, I don't mean ancient or old cultures from history. Rather I am speaking of band or tribal groups, usually living concurrent with modern society, often at H/G-wildcrafting-maybe some small subsistence agriculture levels.

You are correct about cyclical time, and they do acknowledge repetition. I will still dig in a bit about whether or not they see it at reenactment, or as a/the real event they are participating in. Then again, we draw lines between what happens in waking life and in dreams. Most primitive cultures don't. The dream, and what happens in it, is as real as waking life. Something hard for modern, western minds to understand, let alone do. 

Thanks for the engagement. 

Edited February 25, 2016 by deli_llama

[Sevenbak]

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh I agree.
Which is why I think it is far to simplistic to mark these things as "racist".  God can and has restricted groups of people throughout history, sometimes by tribe, sometimes by religion, sometimes by nation, etc.  OT and BOM are full of examples.  Even the NT has some.

Agreed.  Another good example is the people of Enoch, from Moses 7, who are supposed to be more righteous than anyone else.  Even they were despising the people of Cannan, and Enoch called all people to repentance except for them.

 

"...there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people....

...And it came to pass that Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were the people of Canaan, to repent;"

 

The difference here though is that the Nephites tried from the very beginning to teach the Lamanites.

 

 

 

 

[Jim Stiles]

On 2/25/2016 at 7:14 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Depends on what you mean by "actual Book of Mormon."

They are not considered to be part of the Nephite record translated by Joseph Smith. They are present as study aids, like the index, or the Bible Dictionary, or the Topical Guide.

To use your wording, they are "external to the text."

Good.  :-)

The better Bibles contain a note saying that the chapter and section headings are traditional and are not part of the Biblical text.

[Jude2]

On 2/24/2016 at 0:42 PM, TrespassersW said:

I think the Nephites were racist in very much the same way that I think George Washington was a racist. It doesn't mean I don't think he was a good and righteous man, but he clearly had some very different cultural sensitivities than we hold today.

I think the fact that modern culture sees prejudice based on skin color as wrong is a good thing and a sign of progress. But I also think that God works with people wherever they are. And I think that God is less interested in revolutionizing our culture and more interested in helping us be the best person we can be, whatever our circumstances are.

The whole book is about racism and how the only way to overcome it is to 'come unto Christ', only when we see each other as brothers and sisters can we ever learn to love each other

[Bernard Gui]

How can racism be attributed to a family fight?

I have family members who  bitterly oppose the Church and reject the gospel. While being with them is uncomfortable, we haven't come to blows and received death threats like Lehi's family. But if we did, why are we racists if we sever our ties and move away from them? And if they follow us to our new home and try to kill our wives and children, would it be racist to defend ourselves and call them wicked and loathsome?

How is it racist to hope, pray, and work for a reconciliation with them generation after generation, even sending our sons, at the peril of their lives, to try to win them back? And love and praise them when they are more righteous than we? Then when some of them return, we give them our own lands and defend them from their murderous brothers with our own blood and treasure? And then we reunite with them, intermarry, and live in peace for hundreds of years? Racism?

No comprendo.

 

Edited February 26, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

On 2/24/2016 at 11:31 PM, Jim Stiles said:

With respect to the Bible, chapter and section headings are external to the text.  The chapter heading for Hebrews 1 in some Bibles say that the author of Hebrews was Paul.  As far as what the Bible itself says, the author was anonymous.

Do LDS members regard chapter and section headings to be part of the actual Book of Mormon?

No, the chapter headings are not part of the text. The book headings, on the other hand, are from the original.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

How can racism be attributed to a family fight?

I have family members who  bitterly oppose the Church and reject the gospel. While being with them is uncomfortable, we haven't come to blows and received death threats like Lehi's family. But if we did, why are we racists if we sever our ties and move away from them? And if they follow us to our new home and try to kill our wives and children, would it be racist to defend ourselves and call them wicked and loathsome?

How is it racist to hope, pray, and work for a reconciliation with them generation after generation, even sending our sons, at the peril of their lives, to try to win them back? And love and praise them when they are more righteous than we? Then when some of them return, we give them our own lands and defend them from their murderous brothers with our own blood and treasure? And then we reunite with them, intermarry, and live in peace for hundreds of years? Racism?

No comprendo.

 

To be fair many of the Nephites were racist. Jacob calls out his people for thinking they are better then the Lamanites when they are worse (due to greed and philandering). When the sons of Mosiah went on their mission to the Lamanites they said that many of their countrymen thought it was foolish and even advocated offensive war against the Lamanites as a more pragmatic solution.

The prophets recognized their shared kinship and did not fall into this trap. A lot like today really.

[stemelbow]

On ‎2‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 10:26 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

 

In the past the chapter heading for 2nd Nephi Chapter 5 read

"Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge to the Nephites"

The new online version reads 

“Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites"

Also notice the online version of Moroni Chapter 5's heading which used to read

The Lamanites shall be a dark, filthy, and loathsome people. . .”
 
and now states 

"Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them . . .”

The idea of revising the scriptures is pretty awesome if the reviser to upfront about it and we preserve the original for historical purposes.  Teachings need to be constantly evaluated and reconsidered.  We'll never know all, but we should live by the principal of learning little by little.

[cinepro]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

How can racism be attributed to a family fight?

I have family members who  bitterly oppose the Church and reject the gospel. While being with them is uncomfortable, we haven't come to blows and received death threats like Lehi's family. But if we did, why are we racists if we sever our ties and move away from them? And if they follow us to our new home and try to kill our wives and children, would it be racist to defend ourselves and call them wicked and loathsome?

How is it racist to hope, pray, and work for a reconciliation with them generation after generation, even sending our sons, at the peril of their lives, to try to win them back? And love and praise them when they are more righteous than we? Then when some of them return, we give them our own lands and defend them from their murderous brothers with our own blood and treasure? And then we reunite with them, intermarry, and live in peace for hundreds of years? Racism?

No comprendo.

 

If the mean members of your family went to Hawaii and got really tan, and then married some people with dark skin and their children had darker skin, and you and the righteous members of your family taught your children that the dark skin was a result of them being wicked and that God gave them the dark skin so they (the children) wouldn't accidentally marry the children of the evil people, then yes, to some it might be considered a little racist.

Edited February 26, 2016 by cinepro