Help understanding this belief

[easyaspie]

Hi, a Mormon friend told me that Mormons believe God turned the Native Americans dark skinned due to wickedness. He said the belief is that this happened to black people, too. He even showed me some passages in your scriptures that say this.

This doesn't sound right to me. It sounds very racist. My friend is a kind, good person and I'm very surprised by this belief.

Do all Mormons believe that God turned people black due to sin? When I googled it, it seems like they do. I'm just so shocked I was wondering what other Mormons think about it.

[Guest]

You didn't supply your religious affiliation.  The metaphor of dark versus light to refer to unrighteous and righteous is prevalent not only in the Book of Mormon but also in the Bible starting from the mark of Cain.

 

It is really better to read the entire story between Nephites and Lamanites so you can understand the synergy between those two groups.  Nephites started out good and Lamanites started out bad, they go through centuries of life in the Book of Mormon wherein the Nephites turn bad and the Lamanites turn good and back again - even Nephites becoming Lamanites and vice versa.  So, if you're going to say the Lamanites have dark skin because they were evil... well, you'd think they'd turn white when they became righteous.... 

[easyaspie]

I am not affiliated with a religion so I left it blank.

 

I'm confused by your response. Do you mean to say that you are a Mormon that does not believe that Native American's or black people had their skin turned black due to wickedness?

 

I was told that Cain's descendents were and are black people. Is that what you believe?

 

How can it be a metaphor if it is talking about actual dark skinned people? That just confuses me more.

[Guest]

Lots of popular Mormon myths and stereotypes in there. Where the heck is skippy?

[Jane_Doe]

Hi, a Mormon friend told me that Mormons believe God turned the Native Americans dark skinned due to wickedness. He said the belief is that this happened to black people, too. He even showed me some passages in your scriptures that say this.

This doesn't sound right to me. It sounds very racist. My friend is a kind, good person and I'm very surprised by this belief.

Do all Mormons believe that God turned people black due to sin? When I googled it, it seems like they do. I'm just so shocked I was wondering what other Mormons think about it.

 

This is a common mis-informed rumor. 

 

The rumor stems from a Book of Mormon story, when a family splits because some of the sons want to follow the Lord and some wanted follow Satan.  The scriptures say how the “bad guys” became dark.  In this case, yes this refered to skin color, but more importantly it refers to symbolic darkness- i.e., turning to “the dark side”  (to use a pop reference).  That’s how things stood at that time for that particular group of people (~600 BC).

 

Does this mean that everyone with dark skin is a follow of Satan?  Heck no!  Let’s pull another example from the Book of Mormon: a person with dark skin called by God to proclaim the birth of Christ.  When this dark skinned prophet went to proclaim this news to the descendants of the “good white guys” they banned them from the city and would have killed him if not for divine intervention. 

 

 

A color of one’s skin has nothing to do with a person’s righteousness.  Check out this clip of a black Mormon Bishop:

Edited February 2, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[estradling75]

If you what to know what Mormons believe then read the book...  The Book of Mormon that is.  Its on the website and you can read it for free  https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/bofm-title?lang=eng

 

In it you'll find the story of God' interaction with a family that is fighting amount themselves.  The fight passes itself down thorough the generations.  The story shows how God doesn't care about skin color or what family you are born into, he favors those that choose to humbly follow them. To those that rebel, he is long suffering with and gives them plenty of chances to repent before the get destroyed.

 

That is the story.  If some how after reading that you come away thinking that is says racism is some how ok... Its because you selectively read only bits and pieces rather then the whole story  

[Jane_Doe]

I am not affiliated with a religion so I left it blank.

 

I'm confused by your response. Do you mean to say that you are a Mormon that does not believe that Native American's or black people had their skin turned black due to wickedness?

 

I was told that Cain's descendents were and are black people. Is that what you believe?

 

How can it be a metaphor if it is talking about actual dark skinned people? That just confuses me more.

 

~600 BC, there was one group of people whose skinned was darkened as a symbol of their lifestyle going dark (i.e. evil).  It's the similar to nun putting on a hobbit for the first time to indicate the change she wants in her life (except she's committing her life to God).

 

This has does not that their decedents were evil (see my previous post).  It has nothing to do with people of African descent.  Skin color (black, white, or purple) has nothing to do with how righteous a person is.

 

Cain has nothing to do with a person's race.  

Edited February 2, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[The Folk Prophet]

Cain has nothing to do with a person's race.  

 

Well...technically, skin color aside, descendants of Cain would have to do with a person's race.  But we have no idea who are and are not descendants of Cain.

 

What I think is also interesting to think about is that to claim the Book of Mormon is racist somehow skips over the fact that the Lamanites and the Nephites are the exact same race.

[Claire]

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

The basic position in the link seems to be that, after Brigham Young restricted the ordination of African Americans to the priesthood, a number of theories "why" entered circulation. A fairly common one was that black skin was the mark of Cain, which was already a popular hypothesis in American culture at the time. While some people in relatively prominent positions appear to have advocated that particular theory, the LDS Church does not appear to have taken an official stance on the subject at the time.

 

In the present day, the theory has been condemned.

[sxfritz]

My personal interpretation is that the unrighteous Cain and Laman were separated from their families and became integrated with the non-white 'native' population. That has nothing to do or say about the righteousness of the native population, only that the lineage of Cain and Laman were 'cursed' to be different.  I have never heard this as doctrine. I am not going to debate it with anyone here. It is my interpretation.

[The Folk Prophet]

My personal interpretation is that the unrighteous Cain and Laman were separated from their families and became integrated with the non-white 'native' population. That has nothing to do or say about the righteousness of the native population, only that the lineage of Cain and Laman were 'cursed' to be different.  I have never heard this as doctrine. I am not going to debate it with anyone here. It is my interpretation.

 

I know you said you weren't going to debate it, so don't take this as an attempt, just a thought being shared: There may be some merit to this thinking for the Lamanites. For Cain, however, although there are LDS folk (I've "debated" with them on it before) who believe that there were pre-Adamite races, I for one think the idea of the children of God having mated with said pre-Adamites, even if they existed (which I'm dubious about), problematic from a theological point of view.

[Just_A_Guy]

I know Elder McConkie was very opposed to the notion of pre-Adamites; but frankly it's the only way I can square existing anthropological evidence of pre-5000 BCE human activity with the notion of a historical Adam. And it wouldadd a different perspective on the scriptural references to God's displeasure at the "sons of God" marrying the "daughters of men". I incline towards the idea that Adam was created directly by God outside of evolutionary processes, that he was spiritually and intellectually different than all who preceded him, and that eventually his seed thoroughly mixed with the pre-Adamites such that all humans alive today can at least trace Adam as an ancestor.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

I know Elder McConkie was very opposed to the notion of pre-Adamites; but frankly it's the only way I can square existing anthropological evidence of pre-5000 BCE human activity with the notion of a historical Adam.

 

Well, come on. Certainly not the "only" way. I mean, there's always aliens. Seriously though, there are other explanations, theoretically. We once thought the world was flat and all that...

 

IAnd it wouldadd a different perspective on the scriptural references to God's displeasure at the "sons of God" marrying the "daughters of men". 

 

Only if you interpret daughters of men to mean something other than what it says...the daughters of...you know...men...as in the first "man"...Adam. :)

 

I do tend to be pretty neutral on the potential existence of pre-adamite humaniod beings. But like I said, my problem is with them mating with men. It's as likely a thought as us mating with a monkey now to my thinking. So theologically, how does that work? The monkey man is...what? Fashioned after the image of God, as all His children are -- but not quite? What of the creature's spirit? Is it also half monkey spirit and half man spirit?

 

There are too many problems raised with the idea. So I don't buy it.

 

And as it applies to the thread at hand, which is more racist...God changed Cain's skin color, or the descendants of Cain are from non-Human stock, whereas the rest of us are pure-bloods? Muggles, mudbloods and squibs!

 

It doesn't strike me that such speculation is one bit wiser than the now disavowed other theories that have been postulated in the past.

[FunkyTown]

Hi, a Mormon friend told me that Mormons believe God turned the Native Americans dark skinned due to wickedness. He said the belief is that this happened to black people, too. He even showed me some passages in your scriptures that say this.

 

That's odd. Is this an active mormon friend? It sounds more like someone pretending to be Mormon said it.

 

Hunh.

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, come on. Certainly not the "only" way. I mean, there's always aliens. Seriously though, there are other explanations, theoretically. We once thought the world was flat and all that...

It's the only way "I" can explain it. Certainly open to other explanations, though.

Only if you interpret daughters of men to mean something other than what it says...the daughters of...you know...men...as in the first "man"...Adam. :)

If we are going strict textualist, though, we are stuck with that "sons of God" terminology--that's why some ancient writers came out with this idea that the "sons of God" were actually angels who fell after being seduced by mortal women.

So theologically, how does that work? The monkey man is...what? Fashioned after the image of God, as all His children are -- but not quite? What of the creature's spirit? Is it also half monkey spirit and half man spirit?

If you're talking about these hypothetical pre-Adamites: I imagine they'd have their own type of spirit that simply wasn't equivalent to a human spirit. I mean, don't we believe that the same would have been the case for the Neanderthals and homo erectus?

If you're talking about their supposedly mixed offspring: Well, from a physical standpoint, that's not TERRIBLY different than the idea of Jesus Himself being half-human and half-immortal. From a spiritual standpoint--it needn't be that complicated; the new creature gets a human spirit--that's the legacy of having Adam for a progenitor. (All this being HIGHLY speculative, of course!)

And as it applies to the thread at hand, which is more racist...God changed Cain's skin color, or the descendants of Cain are from non-Human stock, whereas the rest of us are pure-bloods? Muggles, mudbloods and squibs!

Not really. We don't know what ethnic features Adam himself had. Geneticists tell us that there was certainly a variation in mankind's skin tones by 5,000 BCE. In theory, while precise bloodlines (and hereditary traits vis a vis skin color) may differ; we're ALL from non-human stock--otherwise we'd have lifespans in the hundreds of years, like the patriarchs did. Similar life expectancies for Europeans as for other modern ethnic groups indicate that they are just as intermingled as anyone else. It's just that Cain, personally, might have happened to intermarry with a darker-skinned group of pre-Adamites; other groups Adam's seed mingled with could well have been "white".

The possible use of this theory by racists is no more my problem, than racist claims that whites are "more evolved" is the fault of anthropologists who postulate that the earliest humans were black.

It doesn't strike me that such speculation is one bit wiser than the now disavowed other theories that have been postulated in the past.

Claiming official church imprimatur to such notions is certainly highly improper; but I don't think the Church's statements disavowing origin theories for the priesthood ban require observant Mormons to cede all inquiry into human origins, to the secularists. Edited February 2, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

It's the only way "I" can explain it. Certainly open to other explanations, though.

 

This is how I see it... Man = spirit + body.

 

The 7 days of creation can be interpreted as 7 creative periods... not literal days.

 

In the creative period of the creation of the human body - evolutionary processes may have been used - forming humanoids in different steps of evolution... all existent until finally, the soul of Adam was joined with his body.  Thus, Adam is the first Man... but not necessarily the first mortal body.

 

Totally non-doctrinal, of course.

[The Folk Prophet]

If we are going strict textualist, though, we are stuck with that "sons of God" terminology--that's why some ancient writers came out with this idea that the "sons of God" were actually angels who fell after being seduced by mortal women.

 

I just don't see reading anything other than artistic expression into sons of God vs. daughters of men. We are all sons and daughters of God and all sons and daughters of men. To imply something else, it seems to me, a different term would need to be used...a la...sons of God married the daughters of...say...monkeys...

 

I'm being flippant...but hopefully my point is clear. :)

 

If you're talking about their supposedly mixed offspring: Well, from a physical standpoint, that's not TERRIBLY different than the idea of Jesus Himself being half-human and half-immortal. From a spiritual standpoint--it needn't be that complicated; the new creature gets a human spirit--that's the legacy of having Adam for a progenitor. (All this being HIGHLY speculative, of course!)

 

Hmm. 

 

Not really. We don't know what ethnic features Adam himself had. Geneticists tell us that there was certainly a variation in mankind's skin tones by 5,000 BCE. In theory, while precise bloodlines (and hereditary traits vis a vis skin color) may differ; we're ALL from non-human stock--otherwise we'd have lifespans in the hundreds of years, like the patriarchs did. Similar life expectancies for Europeans as for other modern ethnic groups indicate that they are just as intermingled as anyone else. It's just that Cain, personally, might have happened to intermarry with a darker-skinned group of pre-Adamites; other groups Adam's seed mingled with could well have been "white".

 

My point isn't really about skin color, but about the supposed idea that some of us are "pure" humans whereas some of us are half monkey-men (I know, I know...flippant...I can't help myself.)

 

Claiming official church imprimatur to such notions is certainly highly improper; but I don't think the Church's statements disavowing origin theories for the priesthood ban require observant Mormons to cede all inquiry into human origins, to the secularists.

 

As much as I can, overall, accept the logic behind your thoughts, they seem like an effort to stretch things to fit secularism rather than, perhaps more appropriately, the other way around.

 

There is, of course, a reason the church does not have an official p.o.v. on pre-Adamites. But what can I say? I guess I'm a McConkie-ite. (Wait...is that mixing metaphors? Er...wait...what's a metaphor?)

 

I'll do some pondering and see what other objections to the idea I can come up with.

[The Folk Prophet]

Okay...just that quick I've come up with another objection.

 

Sealing.

 

So now we're doing our family history and we work our way back to Adam's time (probably in the Millenium with help of Angels), now we have a great, great, great.......great, great, great grandma who wasn't human...wasn't a child of God. So who do we seal her children to? Hmm? What about great, great, great.......great, great, great grandpa. Let's say he wasn't culpable, in that it was simply the traditions of his fathers, but oh how he loved great, great, great.......great, great, great grandma...but too bad. She's not human.

 

Really, the idea is just a mess.

 

I'm sure I'll have more ideas coming.

[Connie]

I always thought "sons of God" vs "daughters of men" was referring to people who had entered into a covenant relationship with God versus those who had not.

[bytor2112]

I believe it was a commonly held belief that the Lamanites were given a "mark" which was a literal change in skin color. Elder Kimball remarked that he had noticed a change in the indians and that they were becoming a "white and delightsome" people.

 

"White and delightsome" was edited and changed to "pure and delightsome" in 1840 by Joseph Smith, but the former found it's way into later printings. I think it was changed in the 1981 printing...

 

It is now most often viewed as a spiritual description as opposed to a literal description and Elder Kimball may well have been describing a spiritual change. In the BOM their is a "curse" and a "mark" used to describe Lamanites. The "curse" may be separation from God and the "mark" may be metaphorical as well. 

 

We often refer to the "world" when it is obvious that we live in the world. Yet we use that term to describe others who do not keep God's commandments.

Edited February 2, 2015 by bytor2112

[easyaspie]

This is a common mis-informed rumor. 

 

The rumor stems from a Book of Mormon story, when a family splits because some of the sons want to follow the Lord and some wanted follow Satan.  The scriptures say how the “bad guys” became dark.  In this case, yes this refered to skin color, but more importantly it refers to symbolic darkness- i.e., turning to “the dark side”  (to use a pop reference).  That’s how things stood at that time for that particular group of people (~600 BC).

 

So, you also believe that God turned people black or dark-skinned and it was due to being the bad guys. What is the rumor part? My friend didn't say everyone who is black or NA is a bad person. He said the original ancestors had their skin turned due to their wickedness. I'm saying that teaching that black skin was a curse from God is a racist teaching.

[Just_A_Guy]

As much as I can, overall, accept the logic behind your thoughts, they seem like an effort to stretch things to fit secularism rather than, perhaps more appropriately, the other way around.

 

I wouldn't call it an effort to fit secularism; but I would call it an effort to explain facts as we understand them to be.  The fossils, skeletal remains, and carbon dating methods are what they are.  I'm open to a possibility that it's all wrong, but I've seen no scientific explanation of why it must be so (I see hole-poking, on the order of what criminal defense attorneys do when trying to raise "reasonable doubt"; but that's very different than providing a comprehensive and cohesive theory as to why the otherwise-most-likely explanation is in fact incorrect).  What I see at present is an archaeological record in which homo sapiens are running around a hundred thousand years ago, and a scriptural record where Adam is in Eden until around six thousand years ago.  Pre-Adamites strikes me as the best way to resolve that conundrum at present, Elder McConkie's writings notwithstanding.

 

 

There is, of course, a reason the church does not have an official p.o.v. on pre-Adamites. But what can I say? I guess I'm a McConkie-ite. (Wait...is that mixing metaphors? Er...wait...what's a metaphor?)

 

On this topic, I'm a bit of a pre-McConkie-ite myself.  But I trust I still have a soul. 

 

 

Let's say he wasn't culpable, in that it was simply the traditions of his fathers, but oh how he loved great, great, great.......great, great, great grandma...but too bad. She's not human.

 

As to the union between the parents--as opponents to gay marriage, you and I both know that not every couple who chooses to have sex during mortality--and perhaps, even to raise a child together--will have their unions solemnized through an eternal sealing.  As to the children--again, there's precedent for such situations, via adoption.  What did Joseph Smith say was the point of sealings?  To establish a chain back to Adam. 

 

I always thought "sons of God" vs "daughters of men" was referring to people who had entered into a covenant relationship with God versus those who had not.

 

I don't necessarily disagree. :)

Edited February 2, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

In the present day, the theory has been condemned.

 

Not quite. Racism has been condemned; the particular theory has merely been disclaimed as being (now or ever) LDS doctrine. The Church has made no judgment on the truthfulness or falsity of the idea. They have just said, "We don't teach this as LDS doctrine."

[Connie]

I'm saying that teaching that black skin was a curse from God is a racist teaching.

 

Good thing the LDS church doesn't teach this then.  As others have tried to explain, it's not the black skin that was the curse.

[Syme]

Well...technically, skin color aside, descendants of Cain would have to do with a person's race.  But we have no idea who are and are not descendants of Cain.

 

Correct if wrong but... I would have thought Cain's descendants were all dead due to the flood.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Syme