|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{FairMormon}}
| + | #REDIRECT[[Repudiated ideas about race#Do the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon link a person's skin color to their behavior in the pre-existence?]] |
| − | <onlyinclude>
| |
| − | ==Question: Do the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon link a person's skin color to their behavior in the pre-existence?==
| |
| − | ===The Book of Mormon does not appear to have been used in a justification for the priesthood ban===
| |
| − | | |
| − | It has been claimed that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon link a person's skin color to their behavior in the pre-existence. Those who claim that the Book of Mormon is racist often cite Book of Mormon passages like {{s|2|Nephi|5|21-25}} and {{s||Alma|3|6-10}} while ignoring the more representative {{s|2|Nephi|26|33}}.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===The Book of Abraham says nothing about lineages set aside in the pre-existence===
| |
| − | | |
| − | Some contend that even though the doctrinal impact of pre-1978 statements have been greatly diminished, the LDS scriptures still retain the passages which were used for proof-texts for the ban and hence cannot be easily dismissed. A parallel can be drawn between Protestant denominations that have historically reversed their scriptural interpretations supporting slavery and a modified LDS understanding of their own scriptures that relate to the priesthood ban. Through more careful scripture reading and attention to scientific studies, many Protestants have come to differ with previous interpretations of Bible passages. A similar rethinking of passages unique to the LDS scriptures, such as {{s||Abraham|1|26-27}}, can be made if one starts by discarding erroneous preconceptions. Sociologist Armand Mauss critiqued former interpretations in a recent address:
| |
| − | | |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | [W]e see that the Book of Abraham says nothing about lineages set aside in the pre-existence, but only about distinguished individuals. The Book of Abraham is the only place, furthermore, that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the pharaohs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any, especially in the modern world, would be covered by that proscription. At the same time, the passages in Genesis and Moses, for their part, do not refer to any priesthood proscription, and no color change occurs in either Cain or Ham, or even in Ham's son Canaan, who, for some unexplained reason, was the one actually cursed! There is no description of the mark on Cain, except that the mark was supposed to protect him from vengeance. It's true that in the seventh chapter of Moses, we learn that descendants of Cain became black, but not until the time of Enoch, six generations after Cain, and even then only in a vision of Enoch about an unspecified future time. There is no explanation for this blackness; it is not even clear that we are to take it literally.<ref>Armand L. Mauss, "The LDS Church and the Race Issue: A Study in Misplaced Apologetics", FAIR Conference 2003 {{fairlink|url=http://www.blacklds.org/mormon/mauss.html}}, {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2003MauA.html #2}}</ref>
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Richard L. Bushman, LDS author of a biography of Joseph Smith, writes:
| |
| − | | |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | ...[T]he fact that [the Lamanites] are Israel, the chosen of God, adds a level of complexity to the Book of Mormon that simple racism does not explain. Incongruously, the book champions the Indians' place in world history, assigning them to a more glorious future than modern American whites.... Lamanite degradation is not ingrained in their natures, ineluctably bonded to their dark skins. Their wickedness is wholly cultural and frequently reversed. During one period, "they began to be a very industrious people; yea, and they were friendly with the Nephites; therefore, they did open a correspondence with them, and the curse of God did no more follow them." ({{s||Alma|23|18}}) In the end, the Lamanites triumph. The white Nephites perish, and the dark Lamanites remain.<ref>{{RSR1|start=99}}</ref>
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | | |
| − | One faithful black member, Marcus Martins—also chair of the department of religious education at BYU-Hawaii—has said:
| |
| − | | |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | The [priesthood] ban itself was not racist, but, unfortunately, it gave cover to people who were.<ref>Marcus Martins, "A Black Man in Zion: Reflections on Race in the Restored Gospel" (2006 FAIR Conference presentation).</ref>
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | | |
| − | A more detailed treatment of all the relevant scriptures from the Latter-day Saint canon can be found at [[Question: Do the scriptures promote racism?| this link]].
| |
| − | </onlyinclude>
| |
| − | {{endnotes sources}}
| |
| | | | |
| | <!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE --> | | <!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE --> |
