Racism in the scriptures

[estradling75]

2 Nephi 5:20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

The skins were turned dark but that was not the curse. This is similar to Cain's curse. Cain was cursed and given a mark so people would know who he is. However, the mark wasn't the curse. The curse was being cut off from our Lord our God. The same applies to 2 Nephi 5:20-22 with the Lamanites. Read verse 20. That tells what the curse is. The Lamanites were cut off from the Lord our God; that was the curse. The dark skin was their mark just as Cain was marked. Verse 22 helps as well. "Save they shall repent of their iniquities." They were cursed because they sinned repeatedly with no sign of wanting to repent so they were cursed by being cut off from our Lord our God and the mark was the dark skin.

Yeap... and generally when it gets brought up its for one of three reasons...

1... A person is seeking reads it and tries to understand what it is

2... Someone who is not a fan of God or organized religion tries to use it as proof of a racist god.

3... Someone who is not a fan of the LDS and uses it to call the LDS church (and its people racists)

[apexviper13]

Yeap... and generally when it gets brought up its for one of three reasons...

1... A person is seeking reads it and tries to understand what it is

2... Someone who is not a fan of God or organized religion tries to use it as proof of a racist god.

3... Someone who is not a fan of the LDS and uses it to call the LDS church (and its people racists)

Yep. Either they take it out of context because they actually think their opinion is correct or just to get others to dislike the church.

[Elphaba]

Cain was cursed and given a mark so people would know who he is.

What was the mark?

Elphaba

[bytebear]

What was the mark?

Elphaba

Do you really expect anyone to take that question seriously? I think everyone knows the common 19th Century interpretation was that it was black skin. It was a very common justification for slavery. But, then Mormons were anti-slavery, so it seems they were simply influenced by the times. But, the elephant in the room, is that the Bible does specify that Cain was marked so people would recognize him.

"What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth." (Gen. 4:10–12)

"Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over",[3] and God "set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him" (Gen. 4:15)

[skippy740]

Tis a fun game, any 'improvement' begs the question of why wasn't the Church perfect from the get go.

Here’s MY take (“gospel and history of the church according to skippy740”): There is a difference between the doctrines of the church, and the practices of the church. Did any latter day prophet lead the church astray by teaching false doctrines? No. You could say that there were false theories (Adam-God theory and other things). Did they lead the church astray from the core principles of the gospel? No. Was withholding the priesthood from Blacks have a doctrinal basis? No. It was a practice that was assumed “doctrinal”.

What are the doctrines of the church? The 4th Article of Faith – Faith, repentance, baptism, receive the Holy Ghost. It was also the first thing that Christ taught the Nephites when he visited them in 3 Nephi 11. (“Any more or less than this cometh of evil and is not of me.”)

Polygamy is a perfect example of the difference between doctrines and practices. Here was a true, revealed, doctrinal practice that was stopped. Did the fact that the practice ended change the doctrine? No. My own theory behind this is that the Lord knew about the persecution of the Saints, at the time and the near future. The Lord saw to it that there was a “planned concession” to help make Utah a state. So, the Lord seeing the future of His people, commanded polygamy so it can be ended later.

How about the Law of Consecration? Here’s another revealed law of the Lord’s people… and it was ended because the people weren’t (aren’t) ready for it. Did this change the doctrine? No. But the practice isn’t being “enforced” (for lack of a better word).

The doctrines of the church are eternal, never changing and no respector of persons. The practices may be changed and adjusted.

It’s important to remember that the church wasn’t restored perfectly all at one time. Tithing wasn’t a requirement until the turn of the 20th century. Neither was the Word of Wisdom. The church we see today in terms of organization is NOT the same in terms of practice and organization as was in Joseph Smith’s time. The church has and does evolve – often requiring more of its members over time.

Why wasn’t everything done on day 1? To help adapt to the weaknesses of the Lord’s people. It’s better to have a small band of faithful, smoking and swearing latter day saints… than none. The Lord says “Come unto me with your weakness, so that your weakness may become strength.” He didn’t say be strong and perfect FIRST before coming to Him. The Lord does the best with what he’s got.

Thinking back to President Hinckley’s talk back in 1999 about missionary work: “Think of the risk the Lord took when he called you.” [Feed my lambs, feed my sheep] Same principle applied in the early days of the church.

But the bigger question is this: How do we follow a Prophet who may not be perfect, right? Before joining the church, as missionaries, we ask investigators to pray about the things we teach so we can get our own witness. That process never stops. We are to always study things out in our minds and ask the Lord if it be right (D&C 9). I remember hearing somewhere that “Saint” means Student. I don’t remember exactly where I heard that, but it sounds great to me.

If we follow the prophet and the doctrines he teaches, we will be fine at the Judgment Bar of God.

Just my thoughts – and ONLY my thoughts.

skippy740

[skippy740]

What was the mark?

Elphaba

According to Miracle of Forgiveness by Spencer W. Kimball:

Miracle of Forgiveness - MormonWiki.org

As I was riding along the road on my mule I suddenly noticed a very strange personage walking beside me. His head was about even with my shoulders as I sat in my saddle. He wore no clothing, but was covered with hair. His skin was very dark. I asked him where he dwelt and he replied that he had no home, that he was a wanderer in the earth and traveled to and fro. He said he was a very miserable creature, that he had earnestly sought death during his sojourn upon the earth, but that he could not die, and his mission was to destroy the souls of men. About the time he expressed himself thus, I rebuked him in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, and commanded him to go hence, and he immediately departed out of my sight..."

It's more inline with the Big Foot theory than much of anything else.

[Elphaba]

Do you really expect anyone to take that question seriously?

Yes.

I think everyone knows the common 19th Century interpretation was that it was black skin.

It's 2011.

It was a very common justification for slavery. But, then Mormons were anti-slavery, so it seems they were simply influenced by the times. But, the elephant in the room, is that the Bible does specify that Cain was marked so people would recognize him.

"What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth." (Gen. 4:10–12)

"Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over",[3] and God "set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him" (Gen. 4:15)

I was interested in apexviper's response.

Elphaba

[spamlds]

Maybe this article I wrote will help with this topic:

Racism, the scriptures, and the error of imposing modern assumptions on ancient sacred writings - The Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism - "Truth is not a tactic"

[Blackmarch]

What was the mark?

Elphaba

the scriptures don't explain what the mark was.

[apexviper13]

What was the mark?

Elphaba

The dark skin was the mark. Kind of like how you dress identical twins differently so you can tell them apart.

[Suzie]

The dark skin was the mark. Kind of like how you dress identical twins differently so you can tell them apart.

The mark of Cain was dark skin? Where does it say that?

[apexviper13]

Take another look at verse 21 and what's said and how it's said.

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

While most agree this is referring to literal skin, I believe it's also referring to the spirit. Since they hardened their hearts to the Lord that means they were once followers of the Lord. In order for something to actual harden it has to be soft spiritually speaking in this case. I'll break up this verse piece by piece so you'll see what I mean.

a) "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity."

Obviously this is referring to the curse of being cut off from God.

b) "For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome,"

This is usually taken as "they were at one time white". As I stated above, this is a common interpretation and yes it is referring to skin but there's a more spiritual level to this. White is a color that represents purity. If you talk about this from the spiritual perspective instead of the actual color itself it's referring to the fact that the Lamanites were once followers of God, thus making them pure (white).

c) "that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

This part of the verse goes back to what I mentioned about the black skin being a mark of separation. Enticing means to lure (one of the definitions). By giving a mark such as black skin, the Nephites would know something is up with the Lamanites and to not follow their (the Lamanites) actions. If the mark wasn't visible then some of the Nephites would have gotten involved with whatever the Lamanites did and would also have turned from the Lord. Hope I helped.

[apexviper13]

The mark of Cain was dark skin? Where does it say that?

I was referring to the one of the Lamanites.

[Suzie]

Take another look at verse 21 and what's said and how it's said.

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

While most agree this is referring to literal skin, I believe it's also referring to the spirit. Since they hardened their hearts to the Lord that means they were once followers of the Lord. In order for something to actual harden it has to be soft spiritually speaking in this case. I'll break up this verse piece by piece so you'll see what I mean.

a) "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity."

Obviously this is referring to the curse of being cut off from God.

b) "For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome,"

This is usually taken as "they were at one time white". As I stated above, this is a common interpretation and yes it is referring to skin but there's a more spiritual level to this. White is a color that represents purity. If you talk about this from the spiritual perspective instead of the actual color itself it's referring to the fact that the Lamanites were once followers of God, thus making them pure (white).

c) "that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

This part of the verse goes back to what I mentioned about the black skin being a mark of separation. Enticing means to lure (one of the definitions). By giving a mark such as black skin, the Nephites would know something is up with the Lamanites and to not follow their (the Lamanites) actions. If the mark wasn't visible then some of the Nephites would have gotten involved with whatever the Lamanites did and would also have turned from the Lord. Hope I helped.

Darius Gray mentions in one of his videos that the words "dark" skin don't refer to actual skin color but in a spiritual sense however and personally, even though I like Darius a lot I just don't see that interpretation.