Black and Mormon

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I consider the argument about Levites getting the priesthood as an excuse for people with black skin not getting the priesthood to be racist folklore, just in case you were wondering. There is a racist subtext to it.

Exactly.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I consider the argument about Levites getting the priesthood as an excuse for people with black skin not getting the priesthood to be racist folklore, just in case you were wondering. There is a racist subtext to it.

I don't think you would get much discussion of that now. Gentiles not having the gospel yes, but not a discussion of the levites. Is there potential racial subtext there? Sure, its probably better described as an ethnic subtext though.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I don't think you would get much discussion of that now. Gentiles not having the gospel yes, but not a discussion of the levites. Is there potential racial subtext there? Sure, its probably better described as an ethnic subtext though.

"They passed it father to son. We use skin color."

How is that not racism?

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

"They passed it father to son. We use skin color."

How is that not racism?

No, I mean the difference between Gentiles (Greek) and Jews was an ethnic difference not a racial difference.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by pelagius

No, I mean the difference between Gentiles (Greek) and Jews was an ethnic difference not a racial difference.

Again, if you say "they used ethnic criteria, we use skin color"--how is that not racism?

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Again, if you say "they used ethnic criteria, we use skin color"--how is that not racism?

First, there is no "me" in this argument. I already agree with you: The priesthood was taken away and then withheld from blacks because of racism. So be careful of careless "yous." There has been several times in this thread were values have been imputed to me that I clearly do not hold. I mostly have a problem with some of the sweeping statements that have been made about the degree of racism that still exists.

Second, I don't think it is necessarily racist to use the Gentile example (it depends). Surely, you can think of a way in which that example is used that reveals no racism. I don't think you do any good for your case when you paint with such and indicting and sweeping brush.

[woot]

This isn't a troll, so I apologize if it's comes off poorly.

I know that many of you guys accept science and whatnot, so I'm wondering what the interpretation of Moses 7:22 is in light of our knowledge that humans started with black skin and that we white folk showed up quite a bit later, and only as we migrated out of Africa over the last 50-100,000 years.

If I were to take a stab at it, I suppose that since all of Moses would need to be a metaphor in order to jive with reality that there wouldn't be any particular difficulty with this verse, since it is only a product of the racial views of its time. Is that about right or is there an explanation that would allow it to be viewed as the perfect word of God and not a product of outdated racial prejudices?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by pelagius

First, there is no "me" in this argument. I already agree with you: The priesthood was taken away and then withheld from blacks because of racism. So be careful of careless "yous." There has been several times in this thread were values have been imputed to me that I clearly do not hold. I mostly have a problem with some of the sweeping statements that have been made about the degree of racism that still exists.

Second, I don't think it is necessarily racist to use the Gentile example (it depends). Surely, you can think of a way in which that example is used that reveals no racism. I don't think you do any good for your case when you paint with such and indicting and sweeping brush.

Please provide me an example of an argument where the final sentence is "we used skin color" that does not have a racist subtext. You've stumped me there. I'm not going to be able to come up with anything.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Please provide me an example of an argument where the final sentence is "we used skin color" that does not have a racist subtext. You've stumped me there. I'm not going to be able to come up with anything.

If someone simply uses it as an example of another restriction that they don't understand but believe because the NT is scripture, then it doesn't reveal the person is racist (although the person might be a racist). It does reveal that they believe that God has imposed ethnic and racial restrictions in the past, but that doesn't necessarily imply the person is racist unless you define racist as "believing in a God that can impose ethnic and racial restrictions." But that makes any answer besides it was caused by "man", racist. Do you really want to go that far?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by pelagius

If someone simply uses it as an example of another restriction that they don't understand but believe because the NT is scripture, then it doesn't reveal the person is racist (although the person might be a racist). It does reveal that they believe that God has imposed ethnic and racial restrictions in the past, but that doesn't necessarily imply the person is racist unless you define racist as "believing in a God that can impose ethnic and racial restrictions."

How is God imposing "racial restrictions" not racist? I'm not trying to play semantic games here. When you discriminate using race, whether you are David Duke or Elohim, it is racism.