Skin Color Doesn’t Mean Skin Color

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Honestly, we're all dumb. Some are just more refined in their dumbness.

Truth…  

[juliann]

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is it your view that the church has unequivocally and officially stated that the skin of blackness in the book Mormon does not equal a change of actual skin color? I must have missed that statement. 

I repeat. If the BOM is an ancient document, it will be written like an ancient document. That enables us to use textual criticism which is the basis of biblical scholarship. Biblical scholarship resoundingly accepts the use of black as metaphor...for more than one negative thing. The verses I provided would be used by any textual critic to reinforce the meaning of black, which is not a color. 

If you don't think the BOM is an ancient document then you are coming into a Mormon forum and merely accusing those who do of something they don't believe.  (And then scream about a very justified and documentable label of race baiting as they keep pounding and not engaging.) 

So to your question, the problem we have...and lucky for the racebaiters, is that we like everyone else of those unfortunate eras, have a history of racism. The problem is that, not the BOM. I do think leadership is going after the interpretations. And I do think, given what has come out in the last week or so, that they will get more aggressive. 

We now have enough information to counter any crap that comes up in a SS class, for example. As always, life is lived on the local level in wards. It is up to us to educate dumb racists, or at least shut them up. 

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is it your view that the church has unequivocally and officially stated that the skin of blackness in the book Mormon does not equal a change of actual skin color? I must have missed that statement. 

I don't think that's even necessary. Or maybe it is, but it doesn't really matter because those who must find fault, will still find it.

Joseph Smith lived in a country where the original natives, the Indians, were distinctively not the same people as those who had been brought there from Africa to be slaves. Everyone there knew very well that the natives were not black. So if the BoM were Joseph's composition, why would he talk about a skin of blackness when he knew perfectly well that the people he was supposedly writing about were not black?

I've mentioned it before in this thread, but I've not read the entire thread through, and perhaps you haven't either, so you might have missed it. I'll repeat  (or, rather, paraphrase) myself for your benefit:

"Black" is a metaphor among many different cultures. Perhaps you've heard the term "blackheart" also called "blackguard" -- which is an old-fashioned term for a scoundrel, and has nothing to do with being racially black while guarding anything. Having a "black visage" refers to being very angry in old writings. Having a "black outlook" is to be pessimistic. I could write more on this, but I won't. I gotta get to bed.

 

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

or at least shut them up. 

And good luck with that...

[juliann]

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

My initial thoughts are one, I would love to see the church officially endorse Mervin’s interpretation and also specifically condemn the old interpretation as racist. I think it would be a big step forward for your church as a global entity. But two, I also remain wholly unconvinced that his interpretation is correct - but then as you state, I view the book as a 19th century work. I may or may not find time to go into more detail.

Those verses are not Marvin's interpretation. He is, however, the only one I have seen pointing it out. That is standard textual criticism. You go to other verses or culture (which we can't do) to see how a word/concept is being used. Since the BOM is a redacted effort, it muddles the need to stay within one text. But since this is in Nephi as well as Alma, I think we are on solid ground for defining black as a metaphor for righteousness...and I particularly like the verse that clarifies it as those within or without the church being the same to God. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, Teancum said:

The church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavour or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

Except that doesn’t do it? The church distinguishes between a curse and a mark of the curse. Given what is being taught in Sunday schools across the country today, if the church leadership actually disavows and rejects the idea that skin color change is the mark of the curse, they have failed miserably.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I don't think that's even necessary.

It’s part of the repentance process and is absolutely necessary. 

[california boy]

36 minutes ago, juliann said:

Going into a group of people to bring up ugly racist things that have been disavowed, and refusing to acknowledge the disavowal,  is the very definition of race baiting. I doubt I called you a race baiter personally but there certainly is race baiting going on. Your quote above does not show me calling you that.

Whether done personally or just in a pile on, no one gets to run from that anymore than we can run from a racist past. 

I reject that it is name calling when the definition fits and it is an accepted term for a specified behavior. And it is downright funny that after the decades I have been on this board that anyone thinks calling me mean or nasty to avoid responding to documentation is an effective deterrent. 

You guys can begin to respond to documentation that has been posted at any time rather than continue with the baseless accusations.  Start ENGAGING if you don't want race baiting behavior labeled.  

Wait.  Are you trying to tell me the reason why you are accusing me of race baiting is because I acknowledged that past leaders taught a totally different belief on what was meant in the BoM about the curse placed upon them by God????  That is the reason I am race baiting?  Seriously?  And to be clear, I never ever said that past racist practices by the Church have not been disavowed.  They have.  

Do you have any official statements by Church leaders that skin of darkness now means the Laminates just put on leather jackets?  Is there an official explanation to what the BoM now means when it talks about the curse from God that turn their skins black????  Just what is the official explanation on the meaning of these verses that YOU say the Church now move on to?

 

Edited February 27, 2024 by california boy

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is it your view that the church has unequivocally and officially stated that the skin of blackness in the book Mormon does not equal a change of actual skin color? I must have missed that statement. 

 

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

I repeat. If the BOM is an ancient document, it will be written like an ancient document. That enables us to use textual criticism which is the basis of biblical scholarship. Biblical scholarship resoundingly accepts the use of black as metaphor...for more than one negative thing. The verses I provided would be used by any textual critic to reinforce the meaning of black, which is not a color. 

If you don't think the BOM is an ancient document then you are coming into a Mormon forum and merely accusing those who do of something they don't believe.  (And then scream about a very justified and documentable label of race baiting as they keep pounding and not engaging.) 

So to your question, the problem we have...and lucky for the racebaiters, is that we like everyone else of those unfortunate eras, have a history of racism. The problem is that, not the BOM. I do think leadership is going after the interpretations. And I do think, given what has come out in the last week or so, that they will get more aggressive. 

We now have enough information to counter any crap that comes up in a SS class, for example. As always, life is lived on the local level in wards. It is up to us to educate dumb racists, or at least shut them up. 

Is that a long way of saying no? And no you don’t have enough to combat racists like my uncle in Sunday School until you have the current prophet unequivocally with his prophetic mantle condemn the other interpretation. 

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

And good luck with that...

Seriously. The problem is that I can't cite content and sources off the top of my head like I used to be able to. But it only takes one person in each ward to counter any idea that skin instantaneously turns "black." And the church has directly repudiated the "curse." Not that race baiters care....

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

Is that a long way of saying no? And no you don’t have enough to combat racists like my uncle in Sunday School until you have the current prophet unequivocally with his prophetic mantle condemn the other interpretation. 

Come to church with me sometime. 

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Wait.  Are you trying to tell me the reason why you are accusing me of race baiting is because I acknowledged that past leaders taught a totally different belief on what was meant in the BoM about the curse placed upon them by God????  That is the reason I am race baiting?  Seriously?  And to be clear, I never ever said that past racist practices by the Church have not been disavowed.  They have.  

Do you have any official statements by Church leaders that skin of darkness now means the Laminates just put on leather jackets?  Is there an official explanation to what the BoM now means when it talks about the curse from God that turn their skins black????  Just what is the official explanation on the meaning of these verses that YOU say the Church now move on to?

 

Where did I accuse you personally of racebaiting? I only remember one post from you. 

Why do I have to start talking about leather jackets? Why should I? I've been very clear what I think black means! The same thing it means in the Bible. I have presented documentation. The curse crap has been directly disavowed. You wonder why I get annoyed with these accusations? It doesn't matter what any of us say. You guys just skip over it and recycle the same racist junk as if we have to accept it as truth. 

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

Come to church with me sometime. 

I have a Black bishop, BTW.

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Except that doesn’t do it? The church distinguishes between a curse and a mark of the curse. Given what is being taught in Sunday schools across the country today, if the church leadership actually disavows and rejects the idea that skin color change is the mark of the curse, they have failed miserably.  

Or you are not up to date with what has/is coming out. You might consider that we Mormons are more likely to be aware and we don't tend to lie about that stuff cause we are delighted with the advancements. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

Now.... to draw fire away from others - let me give my opinion:

I believe the skin color of the Lamanites was changed, not through some strange phenomenon but by them mingling with an existing population. How else do you explain their numbers being over twice that of the Nephites even after the Nephites merged with the Mulekites?

Now, do I believe this was a curse? No. But the Lord used it to keep the Nephites from desiring marriage with them.

The musings of early Utah leaders? I chalk it up to being a little too loose with their personal thoughts from the pulpit. I refuse to hold them to a standard of perfection I can't hope for myself

ZealouslyStriving (Mosiah 27:35)

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Now.... to draw fire away from others - let me give my opinion:

I believe the skin color of the Lamanites was changed, not through some strange phenomenon but by them mingling with an existing population. How else do you explain their numbers being over twice that of the Nephites even after the Nephites merged with the Mulekites?

Now, do I believe this was a curse? No. But the Lord used it to keep the Nephites from desiring marriage with them.

The musings of early Utah leaders? I chalk it up to being a little too loose with their personal thoughts from the pulpit. I refuse to hold them to a standard of perfection I can't hope for myself

ZealouslyStriving (Mosiah 27:35)

BTW I like dark-skinned girls.

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Now.... to draw fire away from others - let me give my opinion:

I believe the skin color of the Lamanites was changed, not through some strange phenomenon but by them mingling with an existing population. How else do you explain their numbers being over twice that of the Nephites even after the Nephites merged with the Mulekites?

Now, do I believe this was a curse? No. But the Lord used it to keep the Nephites from desiring marriage with them.

The musings of early Utah leaders? I chalk it up to being a little too loose with their personal thoughts from the pulpit. I refuse to hold them to a standard of perfection I can't hope for myself

ZealouslyStriving (Mosiah 27:35)

Glad you are here, ZS. Racism is a more modern construction. In ancient societies it was about tribalism/nationalism not skin color. Lamanites/Nephites did intermingle at certain points. The BOM considers it to be about righteousness (which was the meaning of black according to other verses.)

 

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

Where did I accuse you personally of racebaiting? I only remember one post from you. 

Page 12 on on this thread you said this to me.

Quote

And, no, you do not have to accept anything. Just stop the stupid race baiting or debate the scholarship.

If you now are withdrawing the accusation, are you willing to apologize?

 

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

Why do I have to start talking about leather jackets? Why should I? I've been very clear what I think black means! The same thing it means in the Bible. I have presented documentation. The curse crap has been directly disavowed. You wonder why I get annoyed with these accusations? It doesn't matter what any of us say. You guys just skip over it and recycle the same racist junk as if we have to accept it as truth. 

You don't have to start talking about leather jackets or anything else.  But you are basing your whole rant about race baiting on the idea that the Church leaders have some kind of different interpretation of those verses in the Book of Mormon that no longer are based on skin color.  If the Church has moved on, just what is their official explanation on what is written in the Book of Mormon concerning the curse of God causing a black skin?  If there are such statements, maybe a little educating us on what is now the official doctrine on those verses might be more helpful than accusing people of race baiting.  It is a pretty hideous accusation to hurl at someone.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Glad you are here, ZS. Racism is a more modern construction. In ancient societies it was about tribalism/nationalism not skin color. Lamanites/Nephites did intermingle at certain points. The BOM considers it to be about righteousness (which was the meaning of black according to other verses.)

 

And I respect your opinion on that. I would ask, politely, how you reconcile that view with Moses 7:8, 22?

[Stargazer]

27 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s part of the repentance process and is absolutely necessary. 

What?! The church is supposed to repent of something written in the Book of Mormon?

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

You can postulate that a higher moral law exists, but you can't prove it objectively.  It is a relative belief or faith-based position only. 

Even if higher laws exist (and I believe they do), there is no objective way that we can decipher and all come to an indisputable/unquestionable agreement without relying on our individual perspective/limitation/filters. We are unavoidably experiencing a relative (in relation to what may be absolute) reality.  That seems to be part of the greater plan.   The veil of forgetfulness seems to inhibit and limit our perspective of the absolute, creating a relative reality.  

The higher law is the elephant.  Society are the blind men.  It's all spelled out in the parable.  Even if a higher law exists, relativity still determines our truth/morality, which may or may not correspond with THE TRUTH/morality. 

Not on our own, I agree.  But we aren't left on our own, and eventually we won't be looking through a glass darkly.  Thank goodness.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Now.... to draw fire away from others - let me give my opinion:

I believe the skin color of the Lamanites was changed, not through some strange phenomenon but by them mingling with an existing population. How else do you explain their numbers being over twice that of the Nephites even after the Nephites merged with the Mulekites?

Now, do I believe this was a curse? No. But the Lord used it to keep the Nephites from desiring marriage with them.

The musings of early Utah leaders? I chalk it up to being a little too loose with their personal thoughts from the pulpit. I refuse to hold them to a standard of perfection I can't hope for myself

ZealouslyStriving (Mosiah 27:35)

That is, imo, a valid position.  I do think there are one or two verses that appear to talk of “skins” as some sort of material possession, which means they could be a person’s own skin (one case refers to skins wrapped around the loins, Alma 3.).  I also believe the majority of “black” references in the BoM is more about spiritual nature than physical.

I also think while that position might have been held by Nephi and Jacob initially and possibly explain their attitude to some extent, by the time groups of Lamanites start rejoining the “in group” righteous Nephites, they are not talking about human ethnic group skin color changes because it happens too quickly to fit, so imo if it ever was actual skin colour being discussed, by then it is not, it is symbolic.

Edited February 27, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

That is, imo, a valid position.  I do think there are one or two verses that appear to talk of “skins” as some sort of material possession, which means they could be a person’s own skin.  I also believe the majority of “black” references in the BoM is more about spiritual nature than physical.

I also think while that position might have been held by Nephi and Jacob initially and possibly explain their attitude to some extent, by the time groups of Lamanites start rejoining the “in group” righteous Nephites, they are not talking about human ethnic group skin color changes because it happens too quickly to fit, so imo if it ever was actual skin colour being discussed, by then it is not, it is symbolic.

👍 I don't know how to like posts...

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

Page 12 on on this thread you said this to me.

The two comments for context and ease of remembering…as it’s not too long…and a link to see in context to the discussion…

CB first, than Juliann

Quote

So you are berating Teancum for believing at one time that prophets and apostles claimed they had some insight in the past?   But in reality, they did not have any authoritative statements on what is taught in the Book of Mormon?  Interesting position for a believing member to take.  

And yes, past statements were indeed racist.  That is not being debated is it?  

Now we got people who do not speak with any divine throwing out their own opinions they have on the black skin curse and we are now expected to adopt those theories???

As you said, Good Grief.

Quote

Do not speak with any divine? What? 

So now that it has become uncomfortable to be pressed into defending the so tired and lazy race baiting interpretation of an ancient text (if you want to do it to the BOM, you have to do it to the Bible,) you want to change the topic to demanding prophetic inerrancy. It's also old and tired. But whatever. New topic, new thread.   

And, no, you do not have to accept anything. Just stop the stupid race baiting or debate the scholarship.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75765-skin-color-doesn’t-mean-skin-color/?do=findComment&comment=1210177159

 

Edited February 27, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

👍 I don't know how to like posts...

You will be able to rep points and start threads yourself as 25 points