Church issues Race & Priesthood statement rejecting theories for past ban on Blacks in priesthood


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

So according to what others have said, the church was at one time allowed to lead others astray with a completely false doctrine, yet they fix it now. So good thing we won't be damned but they must be for believing and practicing such false doctrines.

What a ridiculous view point!

Fairmormon quotes hinckley,

Recent remarks by the current prophet, President Hinckley, demonstrate that members of the LDS church must put aside any thoughts or legacy of racial intolerance or unkindness:

Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.[3]

Soo ALL the early prophets cannot consider themselves disciples of Christ.

Difference between policy and doctrine? This is Doctrine they are teaching. Took us 3 generations I guess to correct this one, what one or two generations to correct lectures on faith, 3 generations to remove the church patriarch...

the church has just stated the following people were wrong,

Brigham Young

John Taylor

Wilford Woodruff

Spencer W. Kimball

Maybe even others.

2 nephi 5: 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.
3 nephi 2:15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

It would be nice if the leaders could receive a reveation on this matter, you know actual Doctrine. Instead of stating everything as policies or public statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, Skippy. Even within the Church, it seems quite a few people are bound and determined to remember the darkness, and get as much mileage out of it as possible.

JAG, I do not know who you refer to as "quite a few" but as a history junkie myself, I think it is imperative for people to remember both the pleasant and the unpleasant in history (not just LDS). We do it about slavery, we do it with 9/11, we do it with the Holocaust why not about this very sensitive topic?

I'm thrilled with the statement about the Church disavowing the theories that Brigham Young and others shared in the past such as black skin being a curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life, mixed-race marriages being a sin or that blacks are inferior. Then read that the Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form is just great.

I want to carry this statement everywhere so every time someone repeats one of these statements by Brigham Young or others such as Pratt I can show them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Afternoon Suzie. I hope you're doing well! :)

I'm thrilled with the statement about the Church disavowing the theories that Brigham Young and others shared in the past such as black skin being a curse...

Whether this is relevant to the priesthood ban or not, the fact that God has cursed people with black skin is not a theory. The Book of Mormon makes this clear. It happened. God cursed the Lamanites with black skin to make them unenticing to the Nephites and then He later removed the black skin (cursing) from them.

The Book of Mormon is either true or it isn't. I don't see a way to equivocate this in to a "theory". People may not like that this is what the Book of Mormon says (or they may not believe what it says) but that is what it says.

-Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a theory, as by default, one would wonder if God cursed white people for white skin, regardless of the fact that pigment is based on location and adaptation. One would imagine Adam and Eve were dark skinned, given that I doubt they lived anywhere but the equator. Science or not, truth or not, I disagree that a blanket statement of truth, automatically stifles dissent and ignores context as well as the understanding of the author and interpretation of the reader.

Just as we don't believe in original sin, I don't believe it would be prudent to believe such a curse is as obvious as we make it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Afternoon Suzie. I hope you're doing well! :)

Whether this is relevant to the priesthood ban or not, the fact that God has cursed people with black skin is not a theory...

.... I don't see a way to equivocate this in to a "theory". People may not like that this is what the Book of Mormon says (or they may not believe what it says) but that is what it says.

-Finrock

Then you disagree with the Church statement? They are the ones who used the term "theories".

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

Race and the Priesthood

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Afternoon Suzie. I hope you're doing well! :)

Whether this is relevant to the priesthood ban or not, the fact that God has cursed people with black skin is not a theory. The Book of Mormon makes this clear. It happened. God cursed the Lamanites with black skin to make them unenticing to the Nephites and then He later removed the black skin (cursing) from them.

The Book of Mormon is either true or it isn't. I don't see a way to equivocate this in to a "theory". People may not like that this is what the Book of Mormon says (or they may not believe what it says) but that is what it says.

-Finrock

Finrock,

I would encourage you to read the footnotes on those verses. Black may not mean what you think it means.

BTW, it said a "skin of darkness", not "black". There is a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finrock,

I would encourage you to read the footnotes on those verses. Black may not mean what you think it means.

BTW, it said a "skin of darkness", not "black". There is a difference.

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 (Emphasis added).

-Finrock

Edited by Finrock
Grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you disagree with the Church statement? They are the ones who used the term "theories".

Race and the Priesthood

No, I don't disagree with it. The Book of Mormon didn't advance any theories in the past. It provides a factual account of God turning a peoples' skin from white to black as a curse.

I'm not saying anything more or anything less. I believe the Book of Mormon.

-Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you disagree with the Church statement? They are the ones who used the term "theories".

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

Race and the Priesthood

So it is your opinion that the Church leadership is disavowing a clear Book of Mormon doctrine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Finrock

I stand corrected on that verse.

However, I still recommend reading the footnotes and seeing the patterns within the scriptures that are there to find.

I recommend these videos as a "guided tour":

Edited by skippy740
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi skippy740! :)

I stand corrected on that verse.

However, I still recommend reading the footnotes and seeing the patterns within the scriptures that are there to find.

I recommend this video as a "guided tour":

I'm aware of the footnotes for this verse. I'm also aware of many patterns found in the scriptures. Thank you for providing the link. I have nothing against learning more. I mean, nobody else on this forum may knows this, but in the end I am only interested in the truth. I'm ready to forsake all false notions.

Whatever else 2 Nehpi 5:21 may mean, the plain and simple meaning is what it is. The Book of Mormon plainly says that God cursed a people to have black skin. I accept the Book of Mormon account completely. I believe it fully. I don't feel any need to apologize or defend the content of the Book of Mormon. That means that I don't feel a need to find an alternate meaning to replace what is plainly being said.

-Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's take ONE verse that we haven't yet talked about:

Jacob 3:8

8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.

At the throne of God, what is happening? We are going to be judged.

Will God be judging us according to our skin color? Based on reading the verse, it looks like it because "their skins will be whiter than yours".

Maybe it's not quite as literal as we first read it?

Maybe other similar verses aren't quite as literal in their meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Church is clearly disavowing the teaching that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, then it clearly isn't a Book of Mormon doctrine.

2 Nephi 5:21

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 (Emphasis added).

I suppose that this verse does not specify that the "skin of blackness" was a curse, but merely something designed to discourage attraction or enticement. But Alma 3:6 is less ambiguous:

And
the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers,
which was a curse upon them
because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

3 Nephi 2:15 seems almost equally unambiguous:

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

The teaching that "black skin" is in general a sign of disfavor with God is, of course, false. But it would be dishonest to suggest that the Book of Mormon does not teach that such was specifically the case with respect to the Lamanites. And while Abraham does not come right out and make that same equivalency with respect to the descendants of Ham, it's hard not to read that as an intent -- perhaps not that the dark skin was itself a curse, but certainly that it was a mark to distinguish those who had incurred divine displeasure. To my mind, that seems largely a distinction without much of a difference.

I am all for disavowing racism. I am all for giving the anti-Mormon liars less material to work with and twist to their lies. But I am not for pretending that things didn't happen when they actually did happen, or for modifying our sacred scriptures (or their plan interpretations) because some sensitive soul might take offense at them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true that God caused the Lamanites to have a different skin color. However, calling it a "curse" is completely false doctrine, and exactly the kind of teaching the Church is stating as false and wrong. Since we have differing ideas of what the Church statement says, let me back up my argument with some scriptures and history.

Firstly, the main idea the "curse" idea is based off of, the so-called "curse of Ham" or "curse of Cain" teachings, were inventions of 15th Century Spain and Portugal partly to justify their practice of slavery. While the curse is mentioned in historical documents before this, the idea of black skin being a curse was not taught until then. We have revealed scripture that finally shows this idea as false, even if the fact that it was invented wasn't evidence enough. Let's read Moses 7:8.

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 was cursed? The land, not the people. How was it cursed? With heat. What gift does God give those who live in hot climates? Melanin appropriate to their environment. It is wonderful that we have the Pearl of Great Price to help us avoid the error in interpretation that led the Spanish and Portuguese to believe in this false notion.

Another scripture that refutes the idea of black skin being a "curse" is found in the Book of Mormon. Yes, the Book of Mormon can get complicated when trying to understand if black skin really is a curse. There is the one verse you've* already mentioned, but several other verses touch on this topic. Let's consider as one example Jacob's sermon as recorded in Jacob 2 and 3. Jacob has three main messages: condemnation of sexual sins, pursuit of wealth, and condemnation of the Nephites' hatred of the Lamanites:

9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.

While Jacob clearly states the the Lamanites did have a dark skin, he is also clearly not teaching a curse of any kind. Instead, he is telling the Nephites specifically not to treat the Lamanites any different because of their skin color. Instead, the Nephites are to remember their own sins instead. This is clearly not how one speaks of a "cursed" people. Nephi himself also later teaches in 2 Nephi 26:33 that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female.”

We also have for support of the idea that black skin is not a curse the revising hand of Mormon. While he could only include a hundreth part of the records, he does include details which further demonstrate that the Lamanites and Nephites are alike unto God. He includes the prophecy of Samuel, the Lamanite, who foretells the coming of Christ. He points to tribalism and "all manner of -ites" as part of the reason the Nephites fell from righteousness.

Most importantly, though, we have this recent statement of the Church as a clear disavowal of the "black skin is a curse" doctrine. This statement is clear enough to me that black skin is not a curse or a sign of disfavor.

*I wrote this post mostly to Finrock. Vort had not posted when I wrote this post.

EDIT: also, what skippy said regarding "skin color as metaphor."

Edited by LittleWyvern
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true that God caused the Lamanites to have a different skin color. However, calling it a "curse" is completely false doctrine, and exactly the kind of teaching the Church is stating as false and wrong.

Alma 3:6 states:

And
the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers,
which was a curse upon them
because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

Does this, or does this not, clearly state that the Lamanites' dark skin was a mark set upon the fathers of the Lamanites as a curse for their rebellion and transgression? If you think it does not clearly state this, please explain exactly what it DOES state.

Let's read Moses 7:8...What was cursed? The land, not the people. How was it cursed? With heat. What gift does God give those who live in hot climates? Melanin appropriate to their environment.

This is all fine, but it also irrelevant.

Another scripture that refutes the idea of black skin being a "curse" is found in the Book of Mormon. Yes, the Book of Mormon can get complicated when trying to understand if black skin really is a curse. There is the one verse you've already mentioned, but several other verses touch on this topic. Let's consider as one example Jacob's sermon as recorded in Jacob 2 and 3. Jacob has three main messages: condemnation of sexual sins, pursuit of wealth, and condemnation of the Nephites' hatred of the Lamanites:

Your claim is incorrect. These verses do not specify that "dark skin is never a curse from God."

We also have for support of the idea that black skin is not a curse the revising hand of Mormon.

You cannot have an "also" until you have an original demonstration, which you do not.

Most importantly, though, we have this recent statement of the Church as a clear disavowal of the "black skin is a curse" doctrine. This statement is clear enough to me that black skin is not a curse or a sign of disfavor.

Why do people insist on interpretation by sledge hammer? What is being said seems clear and obvious enough to me:

  • We do not know why blacks were disallowed from Priesthood and temple covenants.
  • They were not disallowed because they had black skins. (We already knew this, however, since worthy dark-skinned people have always been allowed to hold the Priesthood and enjoy temple blessings, with the lone exception of African blacks.)
  • Black skin is not (note the present tense) a curse from God.

If you are going to suggest that they are making claims beyond this -- as you are doing -- then it is incumbent upon you to explain how your new doctrine squares with the verses provided that demonstrate the opposite.

*I wrote this post mostly to Finrock. Vort had not posted when I wrote this post.

EDIT: also, what skippy said regarding "skin color as metaphor."

Fair enough that you weren't responding to me. As for skin color as a metaphor, it is obviously used as such in at least a couple of places ("...their skin will be whiter than yours..."), but one or even several metaphorical usages do not suggest that every such usage is a metaphor.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, Vort, I do not want to have an argument with you. Such arguments rarely, if ever, end well. I was simply trying to demonstrate to Finrock why I believed what I believed. You may suggest that I interpret things with a sledgehammer and bait me into an argument all you want, but I couldn't care less. I have stated what I believe and why I believe it. You are free to believe what you want.

Edited by LittleWyvern
removing now inaccurate information
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not baiting, LW. I asked simple, straightforward questions. You are making an assertion, and I am pointing out problems and asking you to back it up. You don't have to, of course, but don't falsely accuse me of baiting you when you just don't want to answer. Own your actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm going to bow out of this thread. I've re-hashed these same things over and over again over the past couple of years. One can search my past posts, or even go to my "sticky" thread here for more information.

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/45876-scriptures-church-history-racism-blacks-scriptures.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Book of Mormon sometimes does indeed refers to the mark as the "curse" and uses both terms interchangeably however, I cannot ignore other scriptures that to me makes sense. I do not believe the "dark skin" was the curse. The curse was them being cut off from the presence of the Lord, the dark skin was the "mark". Two different things as illustrated in the following passage. The curse preceded the "mark".

"Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, AND I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them. " (Alma 3:14)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Book of Mormon sometimes does indeed refers to the mark as the "curse" and uses both terms interchangeably however, I cannot ignore other scriptures that to me makes sense. I do not believe the "dark skin" was the curse. The curse was them being cut off from the presence of the Lord, the dark skin was the "mark". Two different things as illustrated in the following passage. The curse preceded the "mark".

"Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, AND I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them. " (Alma 3:14)

So the explanation is that the Book of Mormon says "curse", but doesn't actually mean it? Saying the "skin of blackness" was a "curse" is sort of a short-hand way of saying that the "skin of blackness" MARKED those people who had also been cursed by cutting themselveso off from God?

I do not find this explanation completely satisfying, but it seems reasonable in some ways. I can't discount it; I actually find it rather attractive for selfish reasons, because it allows one to avoid societal disapprobation without doing violence to the scriptures themselves (since we Latter-day Saints disallow the naive attitude that scripture must be a word-for-word perfect revelation of the mind of God). It is for this very reason that I distrust that interpretation, because it wraps everything up into a nice, neat package. But it's reasonable and certainly worth considering.

Thanks for the thought.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the explanation is that the Book of Mormon says "curse", but doesn't actually mean it? Saying the "skin of blackness" was a "curse" is sort of a short-hand way of saying that the "skin of blackness" MARKED those people who had also been cursed by cutting themselveso off from God?

The explanation is that in some scriptures they use both curse and mark as the same but in others there is a clear distinction between the two, making the whole thing not as black or white (no pun intended).

I do not find this explanation completely satisfying, but it seems reasonable in some ways. I can't discount it; I actually find it rather attractive for selfish reasons, because it allows one to avoid societal disapprobation without doing violence to the scriptures themselves (since we Latter-day Saints disallow the naive attitude that scripture must be a word-for-word perfect revelation of the mind of God). It is for this very reason that I distrust that interpretation, because it wraps everything up into a nice, neat package. But it's reasonable and certainly worth considering.

I agree with what you are saying. I think we can manipulate the scriptures or any statement to make it sound the way we want them to sound, sometimes we do it consciously and sometimes unconsciously as a desperate attempt of making sense of the things that just do not make sense at all to us. We do it with Polygamy, we do it with Blacks and the Priesthood, we do it with most uncomfortable topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with what you are saying. I think we can manipulate the scriptures or any statement to make it sound the way we want them to sound, sometimes we do it consciously and sometimes unconsciously as a desperate attempt of making sense of the things that just do not make sense at all to us. We do it with Polygamy, we do it with Blacks and the Priesthood, we do it with most uncomfortable topics.

I think you are probably right, and I think this is where many of us get into trouble. Our first response SHOULD BE to try to understand the word and the mind of God, and then to change our worldview to conform with that. However, too often our first response IS to try to manipulate (the scriptures use the word "wrest") the word and the mind of God, or our understanding of those, to allow for our own prejudices. This is antithetical to approaching God.

That is why even though I might be in agreement with many on this thread regarding the repugnance of racism, I refuse to cop to the "easy out" that does not jibe (or seem to jibe) with scriptures until I have more information. I would rather know the mind of God and be reviled by the world than be friends with the world and a stranger to God. In their desperation to show the world just how racist they aren't, some nominal Latter-day Saints have willingly thrown Brigham Young and other prophets under the proverbial bus. (Not necessarily those in this thread.) Even more than making it clear that I'm against racial hatred, I hope to be clear that I do not subscribe to such appalling disloyalty. Brigham Young may have been a man of his time, but he was a prophet of God, and I will stand with him as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share