Racisim in Scripture

[skippy740]

The "curse" was definitely black skin and we need to stop trying to explain it another way. That just mocks people's intelligence. Regardless of what our modern prophets say, we can't cover up the past. We need to address it head on. It is what it is.

Don't try to take the bar exam without studying for it.

Try reading your scriptures and reading the footnotes to those scriptures.

In fact, click on the link in my signature line.

Quite honestly... you don't know what you're talking about.

This thread will have some good reading for you:

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/41871-question-about-beliefs-2.html#post617516

Edited April 2, 2012 by skippy740

[Hala401]

You are right, I got too emotional. The LDS of all people know what it is like to be involved with other races.

[skippy740]

What "past" are you exactly referring to?

The past teachings of general authorities and others in the past of the LDS church.

I think Elder D. Todd Christofferson's talk helped to bring SOME understanding of this to light. I look forward to reading the official text when it comes out tomorrow online.

Essentially, a prophet is not always speaking as a prophet. I liked it when he said "Brigham Young spoke this morning. Now the Lord's words will be adressing us this afternoon."... or something to that affect.

[Timpman]

What "past" are you exactly referring to?

I am referring to 2 Nephi 5:21 and how that was taken literally for decades. We can't change its meaning now.

Don't try to take the bar exam without studying for it.

Try reading your scriptures and reading the footnotes to those scriptures.

In fact, click on the link in my signature line.

Quite honestly... you don't know what you're talking about.

Believe it or not, I read through that lesson. It says "Read, discuss and follow each footnote for the world “black” demonstrating that they refer to the spiritual state and not the literal color of skin." That doesn't make sense. It is not an idiom. That site is not official at all, anyway. Referring to "scales of darkness" in a later 2 Nephi chapter does not undo what was specifically said in 2 Nephi 5.

How could a "spiritual darkness" make%

Edited April 2, 2012 by Timpman

[skippy740]

Are you saying that the brethren are wrong to include those footnotes in the scriptures?

Open your set of scriptures and read the footnotes and find out what the brethren are trying to teach you.

[Timpman]

I still have a testimony of Joseph Smith and Book of Mormon. I am just saying it won't help our cause to backpedal and tell people those verses are not literal.

[Vort]

It would be easier being a Mormon if I were wrong in this case, but it's so obvious that these verses are literal.

You ought perhaps to examine carefully the basis of your testimony.

In any case, being a "Mormon" is not supposed to be easy. Christ's yoke is easy and his burden light, but even he made it abundantly clear that his servants should expect to be treated no better than he himself was treated. And he was crucified by his enemies.

[skippy740]

Color terminology for race - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tell me... when was the first time the word "black" was used in reference to skin color? Every reference on this page was around the year 1600.

Which book of scripture was written after the year 1600?

Only one: The Doctrine & Covenants.

Study ALL the verses in the Lesson Outline for Teachers. Learn this. It will help you update your testimony to post-1978.

[Timpman]

I am looking at the footnotes, but please let me know if I am missing anything. In 2 Nephi 5:21, the footnote for "skin" refers me to 2 Nephi 36:6 (and their scales of darkness...be a pure and a delightsome people) and 3 Nephi 2:14-16 (curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;...And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair). "Blackness" refers me to 2 Ne. 26:33 (he denieth none that come unto him, black and white) and Moses 7:8 (there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan).

I am being sincere here. I really don't see how it could not be literal, and all those footnotes don't seem to make it otherwise. They just point to other verses that strengthen my view.

You ought perhaps to examine carefully the basis of your testimony.

In any case, being a "Mormon" is not supposed to be easy.

I meant that this race issue is difficult for me. If it were never an issue in the Church, it would be a bit easier for me. I already said I still have a testimony of Joseph Smith and the BoM. Also of the Savior, etc.

[Timpman]

ALL the verses in the Lesson Outline for Teachers. Learn this. It will help you update your testimony to post-1978.

I am confused by this. I am NOT saying that we should be racist. I wish the BOM didn't have references to "skin of blackness." I wish the Church could be seen as the most tolerant on earth.

[Vort]

I meant that this race issue is difficult for me. If it were never an issue in the Church, it would be a bit easier for me. I already said I still have a testimony of Joseph Smith and the BoM. Also of the Savior, etc.

You should embrace the history of the Church and the doings of its leaders and members as a part of your own heritage. That they were imperfect and may even have done some things suboptimally is hardly something to worry about. But if you must worry about it, then you should simply put such things out of your mind until your testimony and spiritual understanding have grown enough to allow you to get past it. Picking at the scab does not promote healing.

[Vort]

I am confused by this. I am NOT saying that we should be racist. I wish the BOM didn't have references to "skin of blackness."

Not sure why you think it's your place to wish that the Book of Mormon read differently from how it reads. Yours is not the responsibility to provide scripture. The Lord has done so through the agency of his prophet Joseph Smith, who saw fit to include the phrase "skin of blackness". That should be good enough reason to accept the phraseology. If it is not, then quit worrying about it and just ignore it until you have gained enough strength and maturity to get past it.

I wish the Church could be seen as the most tolerant on earth.

This will never happen. The Church is destined to be unpopular with the world, no matter how virtuous its members or how good its works. I suggest you quit wishing for impossible things.

[Just_A_Guy]

Timpman, one way of looking at it is considering that if the "curse" in 2 Ne 5 was solely the skin of darkness, then the remainder of the chapter becomes much more problematic. We read in verses 24-25 that because of the curse:

24 . . . they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

25 And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction.

If dark skin is one and the same as the "curse", there's still the question of how a mere darkening of skin can cause group A to become idle, full of mischief and subtlety, inclined towards meat-eating, and generally a scourge to group B, whose ancestors were more righteous than those of group A.

[Timpman]

Not sure why you think it's your place to wish that the Book of Mormon read differently from how it reads. Yours is not the responsibility to provide scripture. The Lord has done so through the agency of his prophet Joseph Smith, who saw fit to include the phrase "skin of blackness".

Seriously, RELAX. I am only saying "Hey, it would be easier for us if it didn't say that, but it does, so I will accept it and deal with it." Others seem to be saying "Oh, we need to change the meaning of the verses to look better to the world."

[Timpman]

Not sure why you think it's your place to wish that the Book of Mormon read differently from how it reads. Yours is not the responsibility to provide scripture. The Lord has done so through the agency of his prophet Joseph Smith, who saw fit to include the phrase "skin of blackness".

Seriously, RELAX. I am only saying "Hey, it would be easier for us if it didn't say that, but it does, so I will accept it and deal with it." Others seem to be saying "Oh, we need to change the meaning of the verses to look better to the world."

[Timpman]

Tell me... when was the first time the word "black" was used in reference to skin color? Every reference on this page was around the year 1600.

Joseph Smith used terminology from his time when he was translating, so I don't buy that argument. He could have read whatever reformed Egyptian used for dark-skinned people and used the word "black" because that was prevalent in his day.

Can you show anything from the Brethren that says clearly that the BoM is NOT literally referring to making the Lamanites' skin dark?

Again, I have a testimony. I just don't like the idea of reinterpreting scripture. Maybe we just have to accept that the Lamanites really were turned dark. It's hard to accept and explain perhaps, but it is what it is.

You should embrace the history of the Church and the doings of its leaders and members as a part of your own heritage. That they were imperfect

EXACTLY! We have to accept it, not backpedal and try to reinterpret it. It stinks of a cover-up.

[skippy740]

Joseph Smith used terminology from his time when he was translating, so I don't buy that argument. He could have read whatever reformed Egyptian used for dark-skinned people and used the word "black" because that was prevalent in his day.

Can you show anything from the Brethren that says clearly that the BoM is NOT literally referring to making the Lamanites' skin dark?

Again, I have a testimony. I just don't like the idea of reinterpreting scripture. Maybe we just have to accept that the Lamanites really were turned dark. It's hard to accept and explain perhaps, but it is what it is.

EXACTLY! We have to accept it, not backpedal and try to reinterpret it. It stinks of a cover-up.

Yes. The footnotes. (Who do you think authorized them?)

Otherwise, you are saying that the scriptures are telling you to not like people of a darker skin... or not to marry a person of a darker skin.

That is what you are inferring that the scriptures are telling you... and it's not true.

Do you believe in the 9th Article of Faith?

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Based on this thread, you don't... or at least you aren't applying it to this topic.

The reason I get very involved in threads like this isn't because of the individual posting. It's for ALL THE NON-PARTICIPANTS who simply read these threads. If these views are not challenged, they can easily be accepted as the "status quo" and that it is the way it is.

The website is not official. That is true. The scriptures the website uses ARE official. I recommend that you read, study and ponder the scriptures.

[skippy740]

Let us compare these two verses of Book of Mormon scripture:

2 Nephi 26:33

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Alma 11:44

44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

Very similar aren't they?

Why does one reference color and NOT the state of their soul?

Yet the other does NOT reference color and references the state of their soul?

Alma 55:4-8

4 And now it came to pass that when Moroni had said these words, he caused that a search should be made among his men, that perhaps he might find a man who was a descendant of Laman among them.

5 And it came to pass that they found one, whose name was Laman; and he was one of the servants of the king who was murdered by Amalickiah.

6 Now Moroni caused that Laman and a small number of his men should go forth unto the guards who were over the Nephites.

7 Now the Nephites were guarded in the city of Gid; therefore Moroni appointed Laman and caused that a small number of men should go with him.

8 And when it was evening Laman went to the guards who were over the Nephites, and behold, they saw him coming and they hailed him; but he saith unto them: Fear not; behold, I am a Lamanite. Behold, we have escaped from the Nephites, and they sleep; and behold we have taken of their wine and brought with us.

Now, I don't know about YOUR sacrament meetings... but I know that it would be VERY easy to do a "search" for a dark-skinned person.

Why would Moroni have to do a "search"? Could it be that they weren't so easily distinguished?

And if they chose someone who was easily distinguished by skin color, they couldn't fool the guards by their appearance. The Lamanite spoke and implied that they were ALL Lamanites.

Please... for your knowledge and testimony... read the verses on the website. Read the footnotes... and you will become a stronger advocate of truth and help bring more souls unto Christ.

[Timpman]

Are there actual notes in the footnotes that I am missing? I have seen only references to other verses.

Otherwise, you are saying that the scriptures are telling you to not like people of a darker skin... or not to marry a person of a darker skin.

I guess it really is saying that the Nephites were to not marry the Lamanites at that time. It's different now, of course. I have still not seen anything that would cause me to believe that the change in skin color was not literal.

[skippy740]

Are there actual notes in the footnotes that I am missing? I have seen only references to other verses.

I guess it really is saying that the Nephites were to not marry the Lamanites at that time. It's different now, of course. I have still not seen anything that would cause me to believe that the change in skin color was not literal.

It's called scripture study. Read the other verses in context and you will learn what the brethren want you to know.

Why is it 'different now'? Isn't God the same yesterday, today and forever?

[Timpman]

So if I study the scriptures and don't get the same conclusion as you, then I am wrong? I am using the online version of the scriptures so I want to make sure I'm not missing something. I guess I'm not. The footnotes just refer to other verses.

It says "23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing." So the Nephites were obviously told to not marry Lamanites. And it's different now because Nephites don't exist and any interracial marriage is okay.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Timpman

[skippy740]

2 Nephi 5:21

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.

What are the footnotes for "cursing"?

TG Curse - looks like it will be time to open the Topical Guide to get more information.

What are the footnotes for delightsome? There are a few scriptures there.

What are the footnotes for enticing? TG Marriage, temporal Must be a recent change because (IIRC) my scriptures say "TG Marriage, Interfaith".

What are the footnotes for skin? 2 Nephi 30:6 & 3 Nephi 2:15 (14-16) I'll reference those in a bit.

What are the footnotes for blackness? 2 Nephi 26:33 (already referenced above - again All Are Alike Unto God) & Moses 7:8

2 Nephi 30:6

6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.

Before the current 1981 edition of the scriptures, this verse read "white and a delightsome people". Why would it be changed?

In this verse, "scales" has a different footnote: TG Darkness, Spiritual; Spiritual Blindness.

3 Nephi 2:15

15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

I'll let you read and study those footnotes there.

Moses 7:8

8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

What is the footnote for 'blackness'? 2 Nephi 26:33... the same as referenced above that ALL are alike unto God.

This is what I mean by studying the scriptures and the footnotes.

[skippy740]

So if I study the scriptures and don't get the same conclusion as you, then I am wrong? I am using the online version of the scriptures so I want to make sure I'm not missing something. I guess I'm not. The footnotes just refer to other verses.

It says "23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing." So the Nephites were obviously told to not marry Lamanites. And it's different now because Nephites don't exist and any interracial marriage is okay.

My first admonition to you is to study the scriptures and understand what is being communicated in the scriptures and in the footnotes.

If you want to disagree on "interpretation"... that's fine with me.

I will say this: I've been very blessed to bring many souls into the kingdom. Understanding our doctrine and the correct interpretation helps to do so.

If you decide that we can't see 'eye-to-eye' on this, that's fine. This isn't 'saving doctrine'. But it will hamper your ability to bring souls into the kingdom.

Most people talk about this subject without doing even 10 minutes of study. You'll notice that I'm 'spoon-feeding' you the information. I shouldn't have to do that. But I'm not doing it for you... but for all the others who are and will read this thread in the future.

If you study all the footnotes and study this section by topic, by verse and the other verses related to it... you will come to know what the brethren want you to know.

[Timpman]

In 2 Nephi 26:33, Nephi is talking and Alma 11:44 is Amulek contending with Zeezrom. They don't have to be related - "wicked and the righteous" does not necessarily replace "black and white."

Alma 55:4-8 actually supports my view. Moroni "caused that a search should be made among his men." He had a very large army, which is why a search had to be done. It wasn't like there was a group of people in one building. So they found Laman, and when Laman approached the Lamanites, they believed that he was also a Lamanite. Why? Probably because he LOOKED like them, probably because of the shade of his skin.

I will some more studying.

[skippy740]

Keep going. You have plenty of resources to help you.