Skin Color Doesn’t Mean Skin Color

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I can't say that I've ever had much in the way of a "racial identity." 

That might be because the race your identity would come from is seen as the “norm” or default mode. It’s like people thinking they have no accent because they hear their own voice as normal and others make changes to it. 

[2BizE]

Why are there so many theories and excuses for racism in the BoM? Why not just own it, accept it, apologize and improve?

[Stormin' Mormon]

23 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Why are there so many theories and excuses for racism in the BoM? Why not just own it, accept it, apologize and improve?

Because those doing the excusing are only making excuses for the racism of a people who lived 2,500 years ago, a people whose notions of "race" are orthogonal to modern understandings of it. I have no obligation to own up to or apologize for the racism of a culture so very far removed from my own. I am not now, nor have I ever been a Nephite.

You'll note, though, that those who think the BoM reflects 19th century notions of race are not the same ones who are defending the book. In other words, no one in this thread is defending racism as it existed in America in the early 1800's.

 

Edited February 22, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[Alch]

Even if you can say that a culture is objectively better compared to another, that doesn’t mean that taking somebody from one and putting them into another doesn’t cause damage. As an extreme example, think of Brave New World. Billions of people function fine in that culture, but John can’t. A lot of native children developed a fear of their past tribes, like their fosters did. But also, it was almost impossible for them to fully integrate into the Mormon culture. Many of them were forced to be celibate because whites were seen as above them, and natives were seen as below them. They were left in a limbo that was worse than either alternative. Many tried to escape that limbo down the Native path, finding that their skin made it impossible to go the other way.

First post, hoo. Hope I got some stuff wrong to be bashed on.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

FAIR has a good article on this.  An excerpt:

"The shrillness of this statement is irresponsible and reflects a lack of scholarly balance and detachment."

Thanks,

-Smac

The writer here doesn’t know the difference between “genocide” and “cultural genocide”? Really? And this feigned ignorance is supposed to convince the reader that the Holocaust is being compared to the placement program? Presumably to evoke an emotional reaction that of course it is not as bad as the gas chambers when no one was saying they were the same.

Oh what a tangled web we weave.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

That might be because the race your identity would come from is seen as the “norm” or default mode. 

It is this.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Why are there so many theories and excuses for racism in the BoM? Why not just own it, accept it, apologize and improve?

Honestly the Lamanites come off better and more sympathetic in the Book of Mormon than the Nephites in many ways. 

The only writer who really hit hard about the Lamanites being awful was Enos:

“And I bear record that the people of Nephi did seek diligently to restore the Lamanites unto the true faith in God. But our labors were vain; their hatred was fixed, and they were led by their evil nature that they became wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people, full of idolatry and filthiness; feeding upon beasts of prey; dwelling in tents, and wandering about in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about their loins and their heads shaven; and their skill was in the bow, and in the cimeter, and the ax. And many of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat; and they were continually seeking to destroy us.”

This reads like a Jacksonian era anti-Indian pamphlet. Gotta love the “evil nature” bit and the carnivore diet which I seriously doubt is accurate.

Then again he didn’t think much of his own people either:

“And there was nothing save it was exceeding harshness, preaching and prophesying of wars, and contentions, and destructions, and continually reminding them of death, and the duration of eternity, and the judgments and the power of God, and all these things—stirring them up continually to keep them in the fear of the Lord. I say there was nothing short of these things, and exceedingly great plainness of speech, would keep them from going down speedily to destruction. And after this manner do I write concerning them.”

I see the “scare them straight” tactics didn’t work that well back then either. Maybe try some other approach? Is there anything worthwhile in this promised land place?

“And I soon go to the place of my rest, which is with my Redeemer; for I know that in him I shall rest. And I rejoice in the day when my mortal shall put on immortality, and shall stand before him; then shall I see his face with pleasure, and he will say unto me: Come unto me, ye blessed, there is a place prepared for you in the mansions of my Father. Amen.”

Oh my, don’t we think highly of ourselves?

Edited February 22, 2024 by The Nehor

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think sometimes a facile and unlearned approach to the text, particularly when accompanied by sociocultural presuppositions (regarding things like race) can and ought to be augmented by real study and examination.

Yet one should not need to speak or read Greek to understand the New Testament. Should they?

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it's more reasonable than the presentist notions that impair your approach.

Thanks,

-Smac

I just read the words of the text.  God's message should not be so mysterious and have need to spin doctor the message like you and other apologists do.  And your basis premise and approach when doing apologetics is flawed IMO.  But what do you like to say? Reasonable minds can disagree on such things.

[Stormin' Mormon]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 God's message should not be so mysterious and have need to spin doctor the message like you and other apologists do.

I agree.  And what is the message of the Book of Mormon?  The authors themselves tell us multiple times that its message is to declare that Jesus is the Christ.  And that message requires no additional schooling to be absorbed, comprehended, and applied.

The way that people in 600 BC conceived of race is not even an appendage to that message.  It's so far removed from the message that it's not even in the same neighborhood as a tangent to the message.  

[Teancum]

9 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I agree.  And what is the message of the Book of Mormon?  The authors themselves tell us multiple times that its message is to declare that Jesus is the Christ.  And that message requires no additional schooling to be absorbed, comprehended, and applied.

Yet are there not other doctrinal messages in the book?

9 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The way that people in 600 BC conceived of race is not even an appendage to that message.  It's so far removed from the message that it's not even in the same neighborhood as a tangent to the message.  

THe passages on skin color and the curse being a skin of darkness speak more to the fact that the BoM was a product of 19th century creation. THe idea that the Native Americans were actually a white race that were more intelligent and advanced than their descendants who somehow were cursed with dark skin was a popular speculation at the time of Joseph Smith.  This seems to be substantial evidence that the book was the product of Joseph's Smith's talent, or someone else.

https://www.historicalblindness.com/blogandpodcast//the-myth-of-a-lost-mound-builder-race

 

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yet one should not need to speak or read Greek to understand the New Testament. Should they?

Depends on what level, but yes, one should. I remember I was first told as a teen if I ever wanted to truly understand the NT for myself, I would need to learn Biblical Greek.   I am rotten with languages, so while I wanted to, I had concerns about my GPA and time in college and decided not to attempt it. 

Edited February 22, 2024 by Calm

[webbles]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

THe passages on skin color and the curse being a skin of darkness speak more to the fact that the BoM was a product of 19th century creation. THe idea that the Native Americans were actually a white race that were more intelligent and advanced than their descendants who somehow were cursed with dark skin was a popular speculation at the time of Joseph Smith.  This seems to be substantial evidence that the book was the product of Joseph's Smith's talent, or someone else.

https://www.historicalblindness.com/blogandpodcast//the-myth-of-a-lost-mound-builder-race

If the Book of Mormon was Joseph Smith's invention, it didn't follow the existing myths very well.  For example, "American Antiquites" has the white race (called Scandinavian and Eskimos) being the more savage of the three groups (the Tartars and the Polynesians are the other two groups).  In "View of the Hebrews", it doesn't have two different races but one race (the lost tribes) who split into an intelligent tribe (the Levites) and the rest but the Levites are forced to flee southward to run away from the more savage group.

I find this connection between the Book of Mormon and the 19th century myths to be difficult because of how "wrong" the Book of Mormon is compared to the myths.  If Joseph had been trying to utilize these myths to support his fictional story, he did very poorly.  In many cases, the Book of Mormon contradicts the myths or fails to use the best "evidence" from the myths.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Honestly the Lamanites come off better and more sympathetic in the Book of Mormon than the Nephites in many ways. 

The only writer who really hit hard about the Lamanites being awful was Enos:

“And I bear record that the people of Nephi did seek diligently to restore the Lamanites unto the true faith in God. But our labors were vain; their hatred was fixed, and they were led by their evil nature that they became wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people, full of idolatry and filthiness; feeding upon beasts of prey; dwelling in tents, and wandering about in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about their loins and their heads shaven; and their skill was in the bow, and in the cimeter, and the ax. And many of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat; and they were continually seeking to destroy us.”

This reads like a Jacksonian era anti-Indian pamphlet. Gotta love the “evil nature” bit and the carnivore diet which I seriously doubt is accurate.

Then again he didn’t think much of his own people either:

“And there was nothing save it was exceeding harshness, preaching and prophesying of wars, and contentions, and destructions, and continually reminding them of death, and the duration of eternity, and the judgments and the power of God, and all these things—stirring them up continually to keep them in the fear of the Lord. I say there was nothing short of these things, and exceedingly great plainness of speech, would keep them from going down speedily to destruction. And after this manner do I write concerning them.”

I see the “scare them straight” tactics didn’t work that well back then either. Maybe try some other approach? Is there anything worthwhile in this promised land place?

“And I soon go to the place of my rest, which is with my Redeemer; for I know that in him I shall rest. And I rejoice in the day when my mortal shall put on immortality, and shall stand before him; then shall I see his face with pleasure, and he will say unto me: Come unto me, ye blessed, there is a place prepared for you in the mansions of my Father. Amen.”

Oh my, don’t we think highly of ourselves?

When the title page is used as a guide for what to extract from the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites are listed first of the peoples to whom it the book is directed.

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I just read the words of the text. 

And you interpret the words of the text.  We all do.  How we interpret the text is heavily influenced by the presuppositions, biases, etc. we bring to the table.

54 minutes ago, Teancum said:

God's message should not be so mysterious and have need to spin doctor the message like you and other apologists do.

The message of Jesus Christ is pretty simple, as are most of the "appendages" to this message.

When and if human foibles and errors come into play, and/or gaps and errors in the data and our grasp thereof, we need to address those things, and sometimes that requires nuance, study, patience, etc. 

That said, none of this stuff is essential for our salvation, which is what "God's message" is really about.  My salvation is not contingent on my fully grasping all the arguments and subtleties pertaining to biblical translations, the Johannine Comma, the Trinity, the physics of the resurrection, whether Emma pushed Eliza down the stairs, the Church's and EPA's compliance with SEC regulations, the references to "skin" in the Book of Mormon, and so on. 

Such matters, while deserving of some study and attention, are way downstream from whether God lives, whether Jesus Christ is His Son, whether we are His children, and whether the Gospel of Jesus Christ was restored through Joseph Smith.  I have come to accept these things as a matter of faith borne of study, prayer and personal revelation.  I further believe that these things are not intended to be accepted without evidence, hence the need for the Book of Mormon, prayer, and so on.

54 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And your basis premise and approach when doing apologetics is flawed IMO.  But what do you like to say? Reasonable minds can disagree on such things.

I am glad we can agree on that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stormin' Mormon]

58 minutes ago, Teancum said:

THe passages on skin color and the curse being a skin of darkness speak more to the fact that the BoM was a product of 19th century creation. THe idea that the Native Americans were actually a white race that were more intelligent and advanced than their descendants who somehow were cursed with dark skin was a popular speculation at the time of Joseph Smith.  This seems to be substantial evidence that the book was the product of Joseph's Smith's talent, or someone else.

https://www.historicalblindness.com/blogandpodcast//the-myth-of-a-lost-mound-builder-race

 

This goes to my earlier point about not being able to apply rationality to faith without first making value judgements regarding how to weigh the piles of evidence in front of us.

Let's place this piece in the pile of evidence against the Book of Mormon's claims to be an ancient text.  But there's also a pile of evidence supporting the Book's claim to be an ancient text (from Sorenson, Clark, Gardner, and others). On to the first pile we can stack the counters to the argument in the second pile, but then we'd have to add to the second pile the counters to the arguments in the first.  

I don't know how you would apply a rational and quantifiable measurement to these two piles without having some pre-existing framework of values.  You can certainly simplify the calculus through a wholesale dismissal of one pile or the other, a tactic employed by both believers and critics alike.  But there is no value-neutral framework by which I can give serious, rational consideration to each pile of evidence.  

 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

If the Book of Mormon was Joseph Smith's invention, it didn't follow the existing myths very well.  For example, "American Antiquites" has the white race (called Scandinavian and Eskimos) being the more savage of the three groups (the Tartars and the Polynesians are the other two groups).  In "View of the Hebrews", it doesn't have two different races but one race (the lost tribes) who split into an intelligent tribe (the Levites) and the rest but the Levites are forced to flee southward to run away from the more savage group.

It does not need to follow the myths specifically.  Having elements of the  myths seems to be enough.

1 hour ago, webbles said:

 

 

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

If the Book of Mormon was Joseph Smith's invention, it didn't follow the existing myths very well.  For example, "American Antiquites" has the white race (called Scandinavian and Eskimos) being the more savage of the three groups (the Tartars and the Polynesians are the other two groups).  In "View of the Hebrews", it doesn't have two different races but one race (the lost tribes) who split into an intelligent tribe (the Levites) and the rest but the Levites are forced to flee southward to run away from the more savage group.

It does not need to follow the myths specifically.  Having elements of the  myths seems to be enough.

"Enough" for . . . what?

Humans share about 50% of their DNA with bananas, primarily in the form of basic genetic machinery and certain conserved genes essential for life processes. This similarity reflects the common ancestry of all life on Earth rather than any close relationship between humans and bananas.

Perhaps the same can be said about "basic" "components" or "elements" shared by "myths" and the Book of Mormon.  The similarity reflects the common structure of stories and tropes, rather than any close relationship between myths and the Book of Mormon text.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 22, 2024 by smac97

[BlueDreams]

23 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

This argument could work if the church was an organization practiced at the above attitude: 

"We don't know, we were wrong and we are likely still wrong about many things."

But it is not, and so when someone who is promoting the church also promotes these apologetics, it does in my opinion feel abusive. The psychological abuse draws from the authority it proclaims to have and which the church exercised in the past and still exercises. 

Meadow, we're going to strongly disagree on this one. The backbone of my disagreement is that one of the main focuses of my job have been working with clients with histories of abuse or are currently in abusive relationships. This includes directly working througn a range of abuse, from the "mild" of emotional and psychological abuse or neglect from a current partner to the extreme of child sex trafficking. It's included stories of what I would absolutely consider abuse via religious leaders, religious fanataicism, dereliction of duty in the face of abuse, and harmful local cultures within the religious faith.. It's included working directly with victims and perpetrators. Because I live in UT in an area with a high density of members, almost all of those stories come within an LDS context to some degree. I couldn't respond to your post yesterday because my morning was spent getting frustrated about a case that includes severe codependency from a complicated case where a person married their rapist. It was beyond frustrating and I didn't want that frustration to bleed into this post. 

 

Today's a new day, so I think what I prefer to land on is simply that I strongly disagree with you. Not because I don't think the church has and can do things that are harmful to it's members (especially on the local ward/stake level, which are the levels that also most reflect local culture and flavor...certain cultural contexts seem to have more problematic approaches). But because what your pointing out doesn't meet the qualifications for psychological abuse for me. 

23 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Tell me, at what point these type of apologetics are supposed to matter according to the church? The church does not move position based on an argument's merits. 

I don't think any of us fully know how the church as a collective ends up moving positions. I personally don't doubt that argument and different views points play a role, based on a few things I've seen or heard of. On the local level, I've been a source for information on sexual/relational concerns more than once for local leadership. So I do know they do reach out for professional opinions and don't seem to be discouraged to do so since it's happened on the reg, particularly when I wasn't mom of a youngin and had more time to do so. I also know from what I've observed, is that my knowledge source is not the only concern they're balancing out.  The local leadership is also usually trying to balance the needs and concerns of their local ward who have a wide range of concerns, experiences, and openness to certain topics. When there's a more closed community there's less that can be shared or explored. When there's a more open one, there's more. I've seen both and many in between within my little slice of the LDS Church communities. what this usually means is that I'm negotiating with community leaders (ward council, rs presidents, PEC's, and Bishops usually) on what to incorporate or cover in presentations. When I've offered my expertise, this happens more. When they seek me out there's less of it. 

 

Also what is your definition of apologetics? The og vid I'm assuming is an apologetic work, but I don't think the theories in general are a work of apologetics. 

23 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

That's the crux here.

We've been taught that we should seek truth from any source (wonderful) and that we are to receive continuing revelation, but we've also been taught that we should obey for obedience's sake, that we should obey leaders even if they're wrong, and even that maybe God intentionally inspired us to go the wrong way for our own good, further entrenching the concept of obedience not based on what is right.

I can see where you're coming from and also disagree with the conclusions you're coming to. There's several reasons I could go into about why I see it differently, ranging from cultural shifts on what is ok both in the church and the wider culture(s) it participates in to what is balanced and focused on, to even the context of some of those messages. But I think this may just be better to say I disagree and that that there is more than one conclusion one can make on the same information. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Edited February 22, 2024 by BlueDreams

[pogi]

10 hours ago, Alch said:

Even if you can say that a culture is objectively better compared to another, that doesn’t mean that taking somebody from one and putting them into another doesn’t cause damage. As an extreme example, think of Brave New World. Billions of people function fine in that culture, but John can’t. A lot of native children developed a fear of their past tribes, like their fosters did. But also, it was almost impossible for them to fully integrate into the Mormon culture. Many of them were forced to be celibate because whites were seen as above them, and natives were seen as below them. They were left in a limbo that was worse than either alternative. Many tried to escape that limbo down the Native path, finding that their skin made it impossible to go the other way.

First post, hoo. Hope I got some stuff wrong to be bashed on.

Welcome aboard!  Good post.

Don't worry, you will get bashed whether or not you got some stuff wrong.  That is the fun of it. 

[pogi]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

FAIR has a good article on this.  An excerpt:

"The shrillness of this statement is irresponsible and reflects a lack of scholarly balance and detachment."

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you mind addressing the main point of my post where I stated:

Quote

Success, as defined by the church, was not merely based on educational and economic success, but also on a "lifelong commitment to the faith".   It was a proselytizing tool. 

In that sense it was a debacle in the same way that baseball baptisms were a debacle.  "If you want to participate, let me introduce you to Elders ______".    Missionaries had quotas, and they would "baptize children to go on placement just to fill their quotas". 

It was a miserable debacle in that sense. 

This seems to be a point that is not being addressed, and I think it is an important point when assessing the success/failure of the program. 

Edited February 22, 2024 by pogi

[webbles]

53 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It does not need to follow the myths specifically.  Having elements of the  myths seems to be enough.

Sure, but he contradicts or ignores the parts of the myth that were considered the strongest reasons in his day.

For instance, no one believed that people sailed across the ocean from Jerusalem to the Americas.  Not a single myth has that.  One myth has the lost tribes crossing at the Bering Straits.  Another has the Tartars cross at the Bering Straits.  Another has Welsh/Norse crossing by way of Iceland, Greenland, and Newfoundland.  The closest one has the Polynesians coming over the Pacific.  Joseph ignores all of that and has them instead build a boat across the waters.  Why not use the Bering Straight?  Or go by way of Iceland?  That is what all the other myths use and was "scientifically" proven in his day.

And since the peopling of the Americas was from the North, most of the myths include battles that force people to the South.  Instead, Joseph decides to flip that completely on its head which doesn't fit any of the scientific discoveries of his day.  The mound builders were "known" to have fled to Central America.

He also ignores all of the discoveries that showed that Native Americans were Israelites.  The "View of the Hebrews" lists many items that prove it.  Before that, "A Star in the West" included many as well.  And yet, Joseph ignored the vast majority of them.  He picked out very few of them, including some that are only mentioned in passing.

When I compare the myths to what Joseph wrote, I see far more contradictions than similarities.  Reading "View of the Hebrews", "A Star in the West", "American Antiquites", I have a hard time even finding the similarities.  I also have a hard time believing why Joseph would ignore all of those "scientific" facts and contradict them when he is supposedly writing a historical account.

[Thinking]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

How so?

Swinging is swapping partners.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"Enough" for . . . what?

JS or whoever wrote the BoM to include some of the myths around the mound builders and ideas of the origins of the Native Americans.  And the elements included in the book from what was in vogue at the time seem enough to demonstrate it is a product of someone who lived in the 19th century and is not ancient. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Humans share about 50% of their DNA with bananas, primarily in the form of basic genetic machinery and certain conserved genes essential for life processes. This similarity reflects the common ancestry of all life on Earth rather than any close relationship between humans and bananas.

Perhaps the same can be said about "basic" "components" or "elements" shared by "myths" and the Book of Mormon.  The similarity reflects the common structure of stories and tropes, rather than any close relationship between myths and the Book of Mormon text.

Thanks,

-Smac

Not only does the BoM include plenty of what was popular in the 19th century regarding the origins of the native Americans, but is also contains substantial amounts of 19the century anachronisms as well as discussions of Christian doctrines that were being debated at the time the book was produced.  These evidences seem to support the book being a 19th century product.

[Teancum]

28 minutes ago, webbles said:

Sure, but he contradicts or ignores the parts of the myth that were considered the strongest reasons in his day.

For instance, no one believed that people sailed across the ocean from Jerusalem to the Americas.  Not a single myth has that.  One myth has the lost tribes crossing at the Bering Straits.  Another has the Tartars cross at the Bering Straits.  Another has Welsh/Norse crossing by way of Iceland, Greenland, and Newfoundland.  The closest one has the Polynesians coming over the Pacific.  Joseph ignores all of that and has them instead build a boat across the waters.  Why not use the Bering Straight?  Or go by way of Iceland?  That is what all the other myths use and was "scientifically" proven in his day.

And since the peopling of the Americas was from the North, most of the myths include battles that force people to the South.  Instead, Joseph decides to flip that completely on its head which doesn't fit any of the scientific discoveries of his day.  The mound builders were "known" to have fled to Central America.

He also ignores all of the discoveries that showed that Native Americans were Israelites.  The "View of the Hebrews" lists many items that prove it.  Before that, "A Star in the West" included many as well.  And yet, Joseph ignored the vast majority of them.  He picked out very few of them, including some that are only mentioned in passing.

When I compare the myths to what Joseph wrote, I see far more contradictions than similarities.  Reading "View of the Hebrews", "A Star in the West", "American Antiquites", I have a hard time even finding the similarities.  I also have a hard time believing why Joseph would ignore all of those "scientific" facts and contradict them when he is supposedly writing a historical account.

Apparently we have reached differing conclusions.

[MustardSeed]

51 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

But because what your pointing out doesn't meet the qualifications for psychological abuse for me. 

I would agree.  
I don’t like how the church handles this stuff, I don’t like that they seem to stand behind “apologists” , I don’t like the absence of acknowledgment of bad policy past and present.  But I also do not want to be a victim. I personally don’t feel like I have to ascribe to everything to be in good standing with God and to feel worthy of my recommend.  I know that doesn’t sound like what we were taught in primary but I’ve grown beyond primary.  
The church cannot abuse me. I will not let it happen.