Racism in the scriptures

[Seeking]

Is it true that the Nephi verses were recently edited due to increasing lay knowledge of their racist tones?

[Wingnut]

I believe it was the chapter summaries that were edited, not text of the Book of Mormon itself.

[Seeking]

Thanks...

Why were they edited?

[Wingnut]

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/37212-changes-chapter-headings-footnotes-lds-org.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/36268-new-changes-bom-chapter-headings.html

[ryanh]

Note: Chapter headings are NOT scripture. (neither are footnotes) They are were simply inserted to assist with study.

[Seeking]

Ah, I see. So when Joseph Smith used the term 'skin', he didn't actually mean skin? I'm confused.

[Wingnut]

Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon. He did not write the chapter headings. He did not write the footnotes.

[Seeking]

I am mistaken then. Who did write the Book of Mormon?

[Wingnut]

Nephi, Jacob, Ether, Mormon, and a slew of other prophets. Joseph Smith translated it.

[Seeking]

So Nephi wasn't referring to skin, per se, but to the spirit? Why wouldn't he have just said that? And if it was just a metaphor for spirit, why weren't black's able to assume positions of authority within the church for all of that time?

[Matthew0059]

Seeking:

It makes sense to think that the curse was spiritual, and the sign (outward manifestation) of that curse was literal. In the Nephite society, those with darker skins signified Lamanite, which was the same as degenerate (spiritually and culturally).

The question about blacks not able to hold the Priesthood has to do with the curse of Cain and Caanan, the sins of the father being answered upon the heads of the children who do not love GOD, and how the LORD does HIS work ("the last shall be first, and the first shall be last"). It's about lineage, not skin color. For example, under the Mosaic law only Levites were able to hold the Aaronic Priesthood.

Honestly, you're coming across as someone trying to play the "honest" questioning game to bring up what you see as controversy in the Church's past.

[Wingnut]

Honestly, you're coming across as someone trying to play the "honest" questioning game to bring up what you see as controversy in the Church's past.

This.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Wingnut

[blackknight5k]

I smell a troll...

[slamjet]

My question would be; Did you read the Book of Mormon, or only a synopsis? If you didn't read it, then the answers we would give you here would be meaningless to you.

[Seeking]

I didn't realize honest questioning was a game. I guess I have a little more respect for it than you do?

[Seeking]

Also, your comment "it's about lineage, not skin color" is poor spin. Skin color is a product of lineage, which still leaves you having to answer the question.

Perhaps the answer is unbecoming?

[Wingnut]

Also, your comment "it's about lineage, not skin color" is poor spin. Skin color is a product of lineage, which still leaves you having to answer the question.

I knew a full-blooded Mexican once with blue eyes and strawberry-blonde hair. She looked white, but her lineage was not Caucasian or any sort of Anglo-Saxon.

Additionally, the priesthood ban did not apply to Haitians, Dominicans, Cubans, or anyone else with black skin not of African descent. So yes, it is about lineage.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Wingnut

[estradling75]

The answer will always be Read the Whole Thing...

Even if you want to make the case that certain passages appear to be racist. Reading the whole book will make it very clear that skin color doesn't matter. Only Personal Righteousness does.

To use bunt racially charged terms for a summary... When the white/light skinned people (Nephites) go evil they are destroyed.. in fact the end of the Book of Mormon had them get totally wiped out because of their wickedness... Whereas the black/dark skinned people (Lamanites) survived. More importantly those that become Righteous are mentioned as being more Righteous the 'prefered' light skinned group (Nephites).

In summary the Book of Mormon does a poor job of convincing me I am some how superior because I have light skin... In fact on even the most basic level it says the color of my skin is not what I am (or anyone else) is going to be judged by.

Edited March 25, 2011 by pam

[Seeking]

I never said it wasn't about lineage, just that lineage and skin color are mutually inclusive. And because the priesthood ban did not apply to Haitians, Dominicans, Cubans, or anyone else with black skin not of African descent still leaves you having to answer why those with black skin OF African descent were discriminated against.

[Seeking]

Thank you estradling75...that makes sense. I actually have read the whole thing but I think I need to read it a few times to really parse it...it was just really confusing.

[mightynancy]

The question about blacks not able to hold the Priesthood has to do with the curse of Cain and Caanan, the sins of the father being answered upon the heads of the children who do not love GOD,...

No, no, no, a thousand times no. That is folklore, an invented justification for something that people couldn't explain in any other way. Please, the Church does not promote this point of view.

[Wingnut]

I never said it wasn't about lineage, just that lineage and skin color are mutually inclusive.

They are not.

And because the priesthood ban did not apply to Haitians, Dominicans, Cubans, or anyone else with black skin not of African descent still leaves you having to answer why those with black skin OF African descent were discriminated against.

As Matthew explained, it has to do with the curse of Cain/Canaan.

No, no, no, a thousand times no. That is folklore, an invented justification for something that people couldn't explain in any other way. Please, the Church does not promote this point of view.

The Church doesn't promote this point of view anymore.

Seeking, you won't find many people here willing to give you in-depth answers to your questions when you ask in a confrontational and accusatory manner. We're used to it, and we don't give in to it. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because you didn't start out that way, but I'm quickly changing my mind.

[Seeking]

Who was being accusatory? Matthew0059 when he suggested my legitimate question smelled of and "honesty' game, or blackknight5k, who called me a troll.

I am trying to find a religion/church/belief to subscribe to, and I want to make sure of what I am getting in to. I am sorry if you found me accusatory/confrontational.

[estradling75]

Thank you estradling75...that makes sense. I actually have read the whole thing but I think I need to read it a few times to really parse it...it was just really confusing.

When you do.. pay closer attention to these... Anti Nephi-Lehis, the Army of Helman, and the prophet called Samuel the Lamanite... Also focus on why the Nephites keep running into problems. (not the external force but why they are vulnerable to it )

[Wingnut]

Who was being accusatory? Matthew0059 when he suggested my legitimate question smelled of and "honesty' game, or blackknight5k, who called me a troll.

That's because your questions and general attitude are very similar to many we've seen before.

I am trying to find a religion/church/belief to subscribe to, and I want to make sure of what I am getting in to.

Your intro post says you're an atheist interested in critically evaluating how Mormons approach reality. That doesn't exactly line up with what you're indicating here.