Cursing and colouring


askandanswer
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Vort said:

The closest I can think of is the obvious admission that Brigham Young, like Joseph Smith, Peter, Moses, Adam, and LDSGator, was a man of his times.

Missed this last night. Again, totally fair. That comes closer to describing the essay. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/8/2022 at 7:27 AM, MarginOfError said:

Yes. In fact, I would argue that any interpretation that ties skin color to these curses is just plain wrong. 

The curse, as I understand it, is a spiritual isolation from God. Perhaps most importantly, a lack of access to the priesthood authority that would permit one to make covenants. 

Personally, there are certain things in the scriptures I take with a grain of salt. Despite being scripture, they were still written by men and even those who wrote the Book of Mormon acknowledge it has flaws. For that matter, Joseph Smith says of the Book of Mormon that it is "the most correct of any book on earth." Not that it is perfect. I'll refer you to an earlier post of mine where I make an argument that racism was a thing among the Book of Mormon peoples and even the authors. Skin color being a willful and acute act of God is one of those things I am deeply skeptical of. I suspect such statements are retrofitted to explain skin color more than anything else.

 

Lifestyles may have had a lot to do with it as well.  Some people, my wife being one of them, has skin that gets quite dark with lots of exposure to sunlight, but gets much lighter without it.  Perhaps the authors recognized dark skins as a sign of the curse, but it really had more to do with the different ways the societies functioned.  Lamanites were known for being hunters, while Nephites were known for being farmers/industrious sorts.  Not knowing how those activities were carried out during those times, nor their exact geography, it is tough to say which exposed themselves more to sunlight (though I refuse to do yardwork in the heat of the day).  Add to it intermarrying with natives, and there are many natural phenomena that could explain darker skin for one people over another.  I personally wish I had darker skin because it is much nicer than dealing with constant sunburns, so I don't see it as a curse at all, and actually find it quite attractive. 

Another consideration is that they were talking figuratively, rather than describing actual phenomena.  Just as pirates were said to have black hearts, perhaps Lamanites were said to have black skins.  The book was abridged by Mormon, who essentially saw his entire people destroyed by Lamanites.  His writings were written through his lens of perception.  In the end, whether Lamanite skin tone was a natural or supernatural cause misses the whole point of the Book of Mormon, which is that all are alike unto God, and Christ is the only way to be delivered from sin and death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That doesn't explain Nephi saying much more literal and clear statements about the same thing.

I assume you are referring to this verse from 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.

Again this is someone explaining why he thinks their skin got darker.  Remember that at this point they had separated themselves from the Lamanites, fled, and had wars, and now the Lamanites had darker skins.  Nephi is also speaking through his own lens.  It is just as likely that the way the Lamanites lived caused more exposure to sun, and thus darker skins.  Or perhaps even the geography of where they lived.  Locations closer to the equator have more direct sunlight and naturally people with darker skins.  

What we do not see in the BofM is a quote from the Lord or a prophet saying, “the Lord told me He made their skins dark as a curse so we wouldn’t mix with them.”  I think that would be more definitive that it was actually caused by God rather than just a naturally occurring phenomenon that the prophets tried to explain.

I, for one, find Nephi’s explanation lacking because I am more attracted to women of color.  Have been since I was a kid. I can’t really explain it. And people are not monolithic.  I am sure not all Nephites found women of color unappealing.  In fact we know that Noah’s priests essentially kidnapped them in the wilderness and made them wives because they were desirous to them. So, the most likely explanation is that Nephi was more attracted to fair skinned women and explained the darker skins as God’s curse to make them unappealing to the Nephites, because he was not particularly attracted to darker skinned women.  Different strokes for different folks.

As far as I know, all scriptures have indicated that all Gods children are equal before him. I don’t believe He believes any of his sons and daughters are less appealing due to their skin tone.  Whenever a statement like that is made, it is through a human lens and not a direct quote from the Lord or a quoted revelation.

People are prone to speculate, just as I am doing now, especially in the absence of revelation.  It isn’t too far of a stretch to say that perhaps there is some speculation by Nephi and Mormon in the absence of revelation colored by their negative experiences with the Lamanites. People are human and fallible.  And it really isn’t a huge deal since whatever happened is not germane to the main message of the Book of Mormon, which is that only Christ can deliver us from sin and death, and he doesn’t care what your skin color is.  

2 Ne. 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, RAB said:

I assume you are referring to this verse from 2 Nephi 5:21? 

I often find it amusing to hear people go through mental gymnastics to deny what is right in front of their eyes.

The Lord does what the Lord does because it is for the benefit of mankind.  But we need to constantly remember that His ways are not our ways.  He does things that may seem like it violates man's transient, flawed code of ethics.  But He does them in HIS wisdom.

We tend to see ANYthing that is race-related as some version of racism that is to be completely shunned and disavowed at every opportunity -- even cancelled.  I don't.  I see race as a completely different thing that what most people do.

Race is simply genetics.  Both physical and social characteristics are handed down from parent to child.  Physical through genetics, and social through upbringing.  Why deny these facts?

To recognize that I was never going to be an NBA star (because of genetics) and that most NBA players are black is considered racism in today's world.  But it's true.  Why deny it?  Is it wrong to recognize those simple facts?  If everything is racism, nothing is racism.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  That is certainly true.  Why can't it be true that in the CULTURE that Nephi was in that lighter skin was considered more attractive?

In today's world Asian skin is considered more attractive.  White people want to get tans.  Black people often use skin lighteners.  Asians wonder what the fuss is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I often find it amusing to hear people go through mental gymnastics to deny what is right in front of their eyes.

The Lord does what the Lord does because it is for the benefit of mankind.  But we need to constantly remember that His ways are not our ways.  He does things that may seem like it violates man's transient, flawed code of ethics.  But He does them in HIS wisdom.

We tend to see ANYthing that is race-related as some version of racism that is to be completely shunned and disavowed at every opportunity -- even cancelled.  I don't.  I see race as a completely different thing that what most people do.

Race is simply genetics.  Both physical and social characteristics are handed down from parent to child.  Physical through genetics, and social through upbringing.  Why deny these facts?

To recognize that I was never going to be an NBA star (because of genetics) and that most NBA players are black is considered racism in today's world.  But it's true.  Why deny it?  Is it wrong to recognize those simple facts?  If everything is racism, nothing is racism.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  That is certainly true.  Why can't it be true that in the CULTURE that Nephi was in that lighter skin was considered more attractive?

In today's world Asian skin is considered more attractive.  White people want to get tans.  Black people often use skin lighteners.  Asians wonder what the fuss is about.

I happened to be reading Alma 3 today and noticed this verse:

9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.
 

Notice what it did not say.  It did not say that person was also cursed, but rather his or her seed were.  Also, if God's purpose was to prevent the Nephites from intermingling by making the Lamanites unappealing through darker skin, then God apparently failed because Mormon admits that there were those who did intermingle, but only their children got darker skin. So, which is the more likely explanation.  God did something and failed in His purpose, or the explanation is a biased explanation trying to explain a natural phenomenon.  

My opinion is that Nephi, Mormon, and Moses were fallible human beings who sought to explain natural phenomena as God causing it because it supported their biases against people who had waged war with them and likely killed loved ones.  There was no claim to revelation on the matter in any of those instances, and Mormon may very well have just adopted Nephi's explanation (especially after watching his people get destroyed by them).  It is not mental gymnastics for people to demonize their enemies.  It happens all throughout the scriptures (Canaanites, Egyptians, Samaritans, Gentiles, etc.).  Prophets are just people with imperfections too.  Remember how mad Jonah was when Nineveh repented?  And remember how eager the Lord was for the sons of Mosiah to preach to the Lamanites?  That does not sound like a God who wanted to avoid interaction between the Nephites and the Lamanites. The truth is often complicated and nuanced. 

Edited by RAB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RAB said:

Notice what it did not say.  It did not say that person was also cursed, but rather his or her seed were. 

You're assuming the skin was a curse.  I never said that.  You're assuming that on your own just so you can refute it.  That's called a straw man, my friend.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You're assuming the skin was a curse.  I never said that.  You're assuming that on your own just so you can refute it.  That's called a straw man, my friend.

And you are drawing a distinction that doesn't make a difference.  You have addressed none of my points and instead point out that I said curse instead of mark, which you know full well is not the issue.  The issue is whether God caused the darker skin of the Lamanites, regardless of what you call it.  I don't believe discussion with you is going to be fruitful, so let's just peacefully agree to let it go.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HOW TO FIND SCRIPTURAL TRUTH

Method 1

Read the scriptures. Interpret their meaning based on correct doctrines (teachings), which includes other scriptures and their interpretations by prophets of God. Include sources such as the temple liturgies. As Bruce R. McConkie and other leaders have counseled, stay within the mainstream of the Church's teachings as propounded by its apostles. Be warned that you will rarely be feted by others for your profound insights, stunning originality of thought, or masterful, subtle interpretations. Lots of people whose opinions you probably won't care about will think you're way stupid.

Method 2

Decide what you want to believe, based on social popularity and personal preference. Then go cherry-picking through the scriptures to gather evidence to bolster your pet theories. If any scriptural thing flatly goes against your ideas, and especially if the teachings of the prophets go against those ideas, immediately put concerns to rest by attributing normal, understandable mortal human weakness to the scriptural purveyors of falsehoods. Make it clear that it really is not their fault, for they were benighted men blinded by their culture and passions, and lacked the sophistication and greater intelligence granted to certain among us today. Be assured that you will often be feted by others for your profound insights, stunning originality of thought, and masterful, subtle interpretations. Lots of people whose opinions you will value greatly will think you're way smart.

I think Method 1 produces a better outcome, where "better outcome" means arriving at a. mental and spiritual model of truth that more correctly approximates external reality. Not everyone agrees with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Vort said:

HOW TO FIND SCRIPTURAL TRUTH

Method 1

Read the scriptures. Interpret their meaning based on correct doctrines (teachings), which includes other scriptures and their interpretations by prophets of God. Include sources such as the temple liturgies. As Bruce R. McConkie and other leaders have counseled, stay within the mainstream of the Church's teachings as propounded by its apostles. Be warned that you will rarely be feted by others for your profound insights, stunning originality of thought, or masterful, subtle interpretations. Lots of people whose opinions you probably won't care about will think you're way stupid.

Method 2

Decide what you want to believe, based on social popularity and personal preference. Then go cherry-picking through the scriptures to gather evidence to bolster your pet theories. If any scriptural thing flatly goes against your ideas, and especially if the teachings of the prophets go against those ideas, immediately put concerns to rest by attributing normal, understandable mortal human weakness to the scriptural purveyors of falsehoods. Make it clear that it really is not their fault, for they were benighted men blinded by their culture and passions, and lacked the sophistication and greater intelligence granted to certain among us today. Be assured that you will often be feted by others for your profound insights, stunning originality of thought, and masterful, subtle interpretations. Lots of people whose opinions you will value greatly will think you're way smart.

I think Method 1 produces a better outcome, where "better outcome" means arriving at a. mental and spiritual model of truth that more correctly approximates external reality. Not everyone agrees with me.

One of the challenges we often can face is when method 2 stems from method 1. The church teaches a certain thing or a certain thing a certain way, so one interprets accordingly. Then the church changes the way they're, on the whole, teaching it. It can be very difficult then to adjust one's thinking on the matter. Even for those who have been stalwart Method 1ers their entire life. It calls for a lot of humility and putting of oneself aside.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Vort said:

HOW TO FIND SCRIPTURAL TRUTH

Method 1

Read the scriptures. Interpret their meaning based on correct doctrines (teachings), which includes other scriptures and their interpretations by prophets of God. Include sources such as the temple liturgies. As Bruce R. McConkie and other leaders have counseled, stay within the mainstream of the Church's teachings as propounded by its apostles. Be warned that you will rarely be feted by others for your profound insights, stunning originality of thought, or masterful, subtle interpretations. Lots of people whose opinions you probably won't care about will think you're way stupid.

Method 2

Decide what you want to believe, based on social popularity and personal preference. Then go cherry-picking through the scriptures to gather evidence to bolster your pet theories. If any scriptural thing flatly goes against your ideas, and especially if the teachings of the prophets go against those ideas, immediately put concerns to rest by attributing normal, understandable mortal human weakness to the scriptural purveyors of falsehoods. Make it clear that it really is not their fault, for they were benighted men blinded by their culture and passions, and lacked the sophistication and greater intelligence granted to certain among us today. Be assured that you will often be feted by others for your profound insights, stunning originality of thought, and masterful, subtle interpretations. Lots of people whose opinions you will value greatly will think you're way smart.

I think Method 1 produces a better outcome, where "better outcome" means arriving at a. mental and spiritual model of truth that more correctly approximates external reality. Not everyone agrees with me.

So, is this a 1 or a 2?

“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous 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. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”
-From Essay on Blacks and Priesthood in the Church Library

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RAB said:

So, is this a 1 or a 2?

“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous 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. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”
-From Essay on Blacks and Priesthood in the Church Library

Looks like a 1 to me.

I believe you're trying to make a point, but I confess I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Clarifications would be welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Vort said:

Looks like a 1 to me.

I believe you're trying to make a point, but I confess I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Clarifications would be welcome.

I guess my point is that just because we have always read and understood scriptures to mean one thing, sometimes we get further light and knowledge/direction that makes as reconsider our previous understanding.  I used to interpret 2 Ne 5 and Alma 3 as they are written.  But this statement by the Church has me reconsidering whether Nephi and Mormon accurately described the Lamanites’ darker skin as coming from God.  I believe they believe that is what happened, but I don’t actually believe that is what happened.  I believe it was more likely natural phenomena/genetics/culture.  It is not uncommon for civilizations to attribute naturally occurring phenomena to the gods.  I think perhaps this is one such instance.  But either way, it doesn’t affect my testimony of the Book of Mormon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, RAB said:

I guess my point is that just because we have always read and understood scriptures to mean one thing, sometimes we get further light and knowledge/direction that makes as reconsider our previous understanding.  I used to interpret 2 Ne 5 and Alma 3 as they are written.  But this statement by the Church has me reconsidering whether Nephi and Mormon accurately described the Lamanites’ darker skin as coming from God.

I don't understand why. Your claim appears to be that the Church's statement somehow contradicts scriptural teachings. I disbelieve this. What elements of the statement and of scripture do you find in conflict?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I don't understand why. Your claim appears to be that the Church's statement somehow contradicts scriptural teachings. I disbelieve this. What elements of the statement and of scripture do you find in conflict?

This part seems to be at odds: “the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse.”  Isn’t that exactly what Nephi and Mormon were saying it was…a sign that these people were cursed and God did not want you to mix with them?

To be clear, I don’t consider it a fundamental doctrinal issue upon which salvations rests. 😉  I am open to considering alternative explanations as I am mostly just thinking out loud.  I haven’t made up my mind either way.

Edited by RAB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, RAB said:

This part seems to be at odds: “the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse.”  Isn’t that exactly what Nephi and Mormon were saying it was…a sign that these people were cursed and God did not want you to mix with them?

To be clear, I don’t consider it a fundamental doctrinal issue upon which salvations rests. 😉  I am open to considering alternative explanations as I am mostly just thinking out loud.  I haven’t made up my mind either way.

FWIW, my interpretation is as follows (2 points):

First, there is likely meaning in the fact they used the word is and not the word was.

It does not say "the Church disavows that black skin was ever a sign of a curse". That is a different meaning than the way it was phrased. The theory that it is, point blank, de facto, always a sign of a curse is disavowed. The theory that it was, ever, in certain instances, for a time, a sign of a curse, was not said.

2ndly, and this may or may not be grasping at straws, there may be meaning to the fact that they specifically say "black" skin, which is generally understood to be those of black African decent who were denied the priesthood (which is the subject of the essay). It seems to not be referring to the darkening of the skin of the Lamanites, who are certainly not considered "black" in today's nomenclature.

That being said, there's still Moses 7:8 and 22 (and Moses 5:40, relatively) to deal with. Which doesn't specifically speak of a "curse", but in plain reading does seem to be just that regarding the children of Canaan. Which, yeah.... based on the essay quotation you gave and method 1 as described by @Vort, it's probably best for the general member to interpret that scripture in a way that doesn't subscribe to the plain reading of it as a "curse" of any sort at this current time -- unless one allows for my first point (as I do), that there may well have been times where such a thing was a curse (or sign of a curse, as it were), but that doesn't mean it is the eternal reality of black skin.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little thought (sorry a big long post) - I grew up a very long time ago - in a time somewhat forgotten; that by today's standards would be long long ago in a galaxy far far away.  Both my parents were 4th generation Scandinavian immigrants (mostly Danish).  I remember my favorite grandma telling me that I need to find a nice Scandinavian (preferable Danish) girl to marry.  That I should especially make sure that we were both of the same house of Israel (Ephraim).   Her husband (a returned missionary at the end of the 19th century) smoked tobacco and drank coffee for as long as I knew him – yet he still served callings and always held a temple recommend.  The word of wisdom was not a commandment when he became addicted.

I was also told to never wear anything red because that was symbolic of Satan.  My grandparents taught me that one should never remove the temple garment.  Back then there were not separate tops and bottoms but a single garment.  I was taught that even when bathing one should always have one arm or leg in the garment.  My parents counseled me some liberalism is acceptable. 

Lots has changed during my lifetime concerning our view of sacred things.  Weather are not it was true or not I was told that Blacks had the “mark” of Cain and we should not marry or even date blacks.  I grew up with the impression that righteous blacks would someday have all the priesthood blessings but until then we should not seek to convert blacks but allow it if it occurred as a sign of an exceptionally good black.

I never saw a black close up or talked one on one with a black until I joined the army.  My best and closest friend in the army was a black that grew up in Watts California.  It would seem that blacks and Mormons were both somewhat rejected – in essence all we had was each other.  My unit had no other blacks or Mormons.  Though he was never baptized, I converted him to Mormon theology with the exception that blacks shouldn’t hold the priesthood.  He converted me that blacks ought to have every opportunity available in both the gospel as well as politics and society.  My friend was killed in Vietnam.  I prayed often that the blessings (temple and all things) would open up for blacks.  I was glad and excited when blacks received the priesthood and all blessings available.

I do not know why things change.   But I have decided that as all things are restored that there will be many more changes.  It would be better if things did not need to change – that when the church was restored it was restored as it would be for eternity.  The only reference I have from scripture is the concept that the last shall be first and the first shall be last.  That there is an order.  That that time has come for blacks and that we are no longer to think that blacks (or whatever) in the Kingdom of G-d are any different than us Scandinavians – vice versa or anything else.

Most changes I have had some question but after pondering and prayer – I believe every change that has taken place during my lifetime and been for the better.  I could argue that such changes should have happened sooner but without doubt it has been for the better.  Some think that the church should have moved with the politics of the civil rights movement.   I am seeing pressure from LGBTQ+ society and supporters.  I understand we should love and fellowship all coming unto Christ.  But I am of the mind that repentance is a change of heart – from personal wants and desires to follow the principles of a gospel of love that is willing to sacrifice all to raise up and prepare our seed (children born under the covenant) for the return of Christ.

 

The Traveler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I have come to realize is that there is always a rational explanation. The scriptures are true, the Church is true, the Prophets of this dispensation are true.  To the extent there is an apparent conflict I always start with the baseline of what the Holy Ghost has strongly witnessed to me and admit there may be some things I will not understand until later, perhaps the next life.  But I know enough to keep moving forward in this life with faith the path will continue to light ahead of me. 

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