NOM

In order to believe the BOM is the word of God one has to crawl over, around, under, or through its racism. How does one do that?

It isn't racism if God wants to change the color of someone's skin. We don't question his decisions or if perhaps the crap we're reading might be the product of a man, heaven forbid. That way it's God's deal and our hands are clean.

Simple....right?

It helps that the Book of Mormon is written in obscurantist faux-Jacobean English, so that Mormons can say with plausible deniability that it means something else.

One variant of Mormon apologetics claims that the skins cursed with blackness refer to loin cloths, indicating that God removed detergent from the presence of the Lamanites to show his displeasure. Therefore, the strongest claim against the BoM would be that of laundryism.

deacon blues wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:05 pm In order to believe the BOM is the word of God one has to crawl over, around, under, or through its racism. How does one do that?

Perhaps the same way folks crawl over, under, and through the passages in the bible that approve of slavery?

deacon blues wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:05 pm In order to believe the BOM is the word of God one has to crawl over, around, under, or through its racism. How does one do that?

You throw God under the bus, along with American culture in the 1830s and all those racist ancient people born before the the 1978 revelation from Spencer Kimball. But not Joseph Smith, since he tried his best to reflect 21st century attitudes. I quote from the Race and the Priesthood essay:

We don't know exactly who wrote: There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime.

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous 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.

This does not confront the racial attitudes in the Book of Mormon directly, but it does clear the enlightened name Joseph Smith along with modern prophets (since 1978).

The work of confronting the attitudes in the Book of Mormon comes from Brant Gardner in his book, "Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon". The summary of his ideas on this topic are, not surprisingly, found within the pages of FairMormon.org

Brant Gardner wrote: The “skin of blackness” was certainly intended to be a pejorative term, but it was not a physical description. Modern readers may be uncomfortable with Nephite racial prejudices, but they existed. They were not, however, based on skin color as has been part of the more modern U.S. culture. Nephite prejudices were developed on distinctions more common to the ancient world and used reasons other than pigmentation.

So, there you go. God was the original author of family and race based priesthood restrictions. The Book of Mormon reflects ancient attitudes, but Joseph Smith was the enlightened guy in this affair. He might have been more complicated in his other affairs.

I can't help but wonder why, if God revealed the BoM specifically for a 19th-21st century English speaking audience, He couldn't produce a translation that was in the dialect of those people, rather than in a centuries-old dialect, and why he couldn't inspire the translator use words that communicate what he is actually trying to say. In this case, God appears to have directed the translator to use words that say the exact opposite of what He wanted it to say.

The other question for me is what goes on in someone's head that makes them say, "hey, yeah, that makes sense!" I was doing everything in my power to cling to my testimony of the Book of Mormon when I first started encountering this type of apologetics and I found them consistently disappointing, even though I was trying to convince myself that they really were good answers. Now I would like to sit down with Brent Gardner and ask him if he is just throwing out face saving possibilities on the church's behalf or if he sincerely believes this stuff. Does he really believe those verses have absolutely nothing to do with the skin color of the American Indians?

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 10:37 am Now I would like to sit down with Brent Gardner and ask him if he is just throwing out face saving possibilities on the church's behalf or if he sincerely believes this stuff. Does he really believe those verses have absolutely nothing to do with the skin color of the American Indians?

I doubt even he knows the answer to that.

Emower wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:42 am

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 10:37 am Now I would like to sit down with Brent Gardner and ask him if he is just throwing out face saving possibilities on the church's behalf or if he sincerely believes this stuff. Does he really believe those verses have absolutely nothing to do with the skin color of the American Indians?

I doubt even he knows the answer to that.

John Dehlin interviewed Brant Gardner and asked pretty much all of those questions. Brant Gardner continues to contribute to FairMormon and appears to be an entirely believing individual.

Corsair wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:31 pmJohn Dehlin interviewed Brant Gardner and asked pretty much all of those questions. Brant Gardner continues to contribute to FairMormon and appears to be an entirely believing individual.

I have interacted with Brant on another forum. When everyone else was attacking me and calling me names because for my skepticism Brant was always patient and reserved and I really appreciated that. I could never be certain whether he was a committed believer or an intellectual "believer" until I saw him in a panel at Sunstone where he was visibly annoyed by Sandra Tanner's criticisms of the BoM.