What is so True?

[kona0197]

Well I have found several sites - both anti and pro Mormon - that the Church did teach the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints taught, as official doctrine, for 150 years, that "Negroes" are the "accursed" descendants of Cain.

I can post actual sayings from Church leaders saying the same thing if you like. I can post what that Wiki says on the subject as well if anyone cares.

Of course I will not post anything from an anti-Mormon site. Learned my lesson the first time.

[inthearmsofsleep]

The only LDS websites I visit are this one and the official Church site.

I've even heard people here say that black skin is the curse of Cain.

Speaking of the Lamenites and Nephites it was proven that all modern day Native Americans have DNA shared with Asian populations. No DNA from Israel.

This doesn't have anything to do with the supposed "DNA Issue", but a while ago I was having problems with what some people said concerning dark skin and the priesthood ban, etc.... I found this video on youtube and it was very useful to me. It's sort of a lecture by Marvin Perkins... it's about an hour long, spread out over 6 videos.

Check it out here:

YouTube - Pt 1, Reaching Black Saints

[Hemidakota]

Why correct them? I believe them. You guys are the ones who are wrong.

Prove it.

[prisonchaplain]

I have noticed I keep getting different responses from what is so "true" about the LDS. In my mind the church is not perfect in doctrine. For example, minorities would not have been included in temple rites before 1978. There have been several other major changes since then. Also I read that even church leadership is not correct all the time. We would always refer to the standard works. If leaders teachings are based on the standard works but at the same time always refer to the standard works that to me indicates church leaders are not true either. If the doctrine is not true because of being revised for needing improvement, and the leaders are not true because they are not correct all the time. For example Brigham Young, then what is so true about the church?

Note that I am responding to the OP, despite nearly 30 responses. I did check the first few, but they seem to focus on the alleged errors Landy mentions.

The larger question is: what is claimed to be true about the Church? What I have gathered is:

1. There should only be one Christian church

2. It must be organized and authorized in a very specific way, and by God.

3. It must be the authorized successor to the Apostles

4. And, of course, Joseph Smith received revelations, including that he was a prophet for the latter days, and that he would found a church that would continue to raise up prophets for the last days.

Please faithful LDS, let me know if I've captured the essence of the claims right. Whatever one thinks of the critiques in the OP, the main question may be the best one I've ever seen here. It gets at the heart of what many of us non-LDS are wondering, but perhaps could not quite word correctly.

[lilered]

It had nothing to do with the Lord withholding the Priesthood from certain races. It had to do with leaders in the Church who were racist. You notice the ban for blacks was lifted after the world said it was not politically correct to have a Church thinking like that?

By the way do you all notice that the Church teaches that dark skin is a curse? That's very racist as well.

First of all, the church teaches from the Bible, please review Geneses: 4:9-15

Genesis

9 ¶ And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my abrother’s bkeeper?

10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s ablood crieth unto me from the ground.

11 And now art thou acursed from the bearth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;

12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a afugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

13 And Cain said unto the Lord, aMy punishment is greater than I can bear.

14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall aslay me.

15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a amark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

The church is not racist, God placed the curse on Cain and his posterity, not the church. The church therefore cannot undo a curse that God himself set up Cain. However, the Churchs Prophets can pray and seek Gods guidance on this matter, which Church Prophets did repeatedly prior to and including Pres. Kimball. This curse was only lifted when God allowed it to be so and not before.

Blacks have always been baptized into the church, they were however not allowed to hold Gods Priesthood until such time as God allowed it.

Your ascertain that the Church is racist is unfair, because we follow the scriptures (Gods word). God is the one that placed the curse, not the church.

[Hemidakota]

'Mark' not a 'Curse' when it comes to skin pigmentation [altering the gene pool]

[HiJolly]

The larger question is: what is claimed to be true about the Church? What I have gathered is:

1. There should only be one Christian church

2. It must be organized and authorized in a very specific way, and by God.

3. It must be the authorized successor to the Apostles

4. And, of course, Joseph Smith received revelations, including that he was a prophet for the latter days, and that he would found a church that would continue to raise up prophets for the last days.

Please faithful LDS, let me know if I've captured the essence of the claims right. Whatever one thinks of the critiques in the OP, the main question may be the best one I've ever seen here. It gets at the heart of what many of us non-LDS are wondering, but perhaps could not quite word correctly.

I disagree with #1. And #2 has its limitations. I agree 100% with #'s 3 and 4.

And for what it's worth, various members (both of high and regular standing) of the Church have taught for over 150 years that the black skin was a curse, whether the Church held it as doctrine or not. Growing up in the 60's, I got a lot of it in church. It wasn't true. But the members really believed it. I recon they can repent, if they haven't already.

HiJolly

[Hemidakota]

Last comment is not according to the church or given doctrine. Genesis uses the word 'mark' and not 'curse' for his skin colour. Now, if wish to post something with references, I would be glad to look.

[kona0197]

OK Hemi go look into this. It's from a wiki about the curse of Cain.

After the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the largest of several organizations claiming succession from Smith's church. Brigham Young, the church's president, clearly believed that people of African ancestry were under the curse of Cain. In 1852, he reportedly stated:

"[A]ny man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ...."[16] Throughout his ministry, Young maintained his view that black skin was part of the curse of Cain, and that black people were still under that curse. On February 5, 1852, Young stated:

"What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see.... I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain".[17] On October 9, 1859, he again addressed the curse of Cain, as well as an additional curse of slavery, known as the curse of Ham, stating:

"Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the 'servant of servants;' and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree".[18] Similar doctrine was continued by Young's successors as President of the Church, such as John Taylor, who held the same belief of Phelps that Cain's descendants survived the flood via the wife of Ham. In 1881, Taylor stated:

"And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God".[19] Throughout the years, various church leaders and theologians spoke on the curse of Cain doctrine. Some of the ideas propounded in these sermons and writings included the following:

• That Cain would not be allowed to enter God's presence, nor would he enjoy the companionship of any member of the Godhead
• That Cain would be called Perdition and not be resurrected to a degree of glory; He would lose any chance of exaltation
• That the earth would not "yield unto Cain her strength," (or in other words, he would be agriculturally cursed)
• That a mark would be placed upon Cain so that others would not try to kill him
• That this mark was "Black skin"
• That Cain would have to live as "a vagabond" on the earth and that he would not taste of death
• That any mixing of Cain's seed with any others (such as in interracial marriage), would pass the effects of the curse upon their descendants.
• The denial of the priesthood and temple ordinances to Ham and his descendants (a few church leaders taught that Ham's wife was a descendant of Cain), those being of Black African descent (except in rare occasions), until after Abel's descendants had a chance to receive the gospel and hold the priesthood. No blessing would be denied these people after the resurrection, but it would be denied in this life.
• In 1881, church president John Taylor said "And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22 page 304).

In 1954, church leader David O. McKay taught "There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. ‘We believe’ that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it."[20]

[edit] Racial restriction policy reversed

In 1978, the church announced a revelation from God officially renouncing its policy of excluding blacks from the priesthood.

[edit] Full repudiation requested

Even with urging from a number of black Mormons, there has never been an official and explicit church repudiation of the doctrine, or an admission that it was a mistake. In 1998, there was a report in the Los Angeles Times that the church leadership was considering an official repudiation of the curse of Cain and curse of Ham doctrines, to mark the 20th anniversary of the 1978 revelation. (Larry B. Stammer, "Mormons May Disavow Old View on Blacks", L.A. Times, May 18, 1998, p. A1). This, however, was quickly denied by the LDS spokesman Don LeFevre. (ABC News report, May 18, 1998). The Times later suggested that the publicity generated by its article may have caused the church to put an official disavowal on hold.[21]

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated:

"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles".[22]

[inthearmsofsleep]

It's important to remember that we (as a church) don't claim to be inerrant... as our leaders are human just like us. We claim that God's word is perfect, but anything outside of that is the word of man, and therefore fallible. Not everything the prophet says becomes official church doctrine. If he eats a sandwich and says it's terrible, does it become OFFICIALLY terrible? No, it's just his opinion.

[kona0197]

Hey I was just trying to prove that the Church did teach that the curse of Cain was a skin of blackness. I believe I succeeded.

[THIRDpersonviewer]

Hey I was just trying to prove that the Church did teach that the curse of Cain was a skin of blackness. I believe I succeeded.

The only way that it was a curse was because it imposed limitations on the potential blessings of one of the seed of cain. You're 100% right, it was taught and it was taught as Elder McConkie stated "according to the light and knowledge we had(paraphrase summary)." Same thing with the Word of Wisdom. There was nothing against smoking or drinking until after the Word of Wisdom.

The Lord saw fit to withhold the Priesthood till the perfect time. You talk about questioning, and do you think with slavery going on, the Church would have been persecuted and property would have been destroyed or defiled because of racism. This persisted well into the 1960's. Then there had to be a period of time to go between, so we did not appear a "bandwagon" organization, but that it moves on a higher accord. By waiting, there were probably also some unfaithful members weeded out that thought that the Church should change things because men are changing. We follow God, not men. God works in the appropriate manner.

Take a military stance for instance. If you are attacking a wall of 500 troops. You only have a small fraction of men that would give you one row deep and stretch for 50 men. You don't attack with that thin row of men, but you consolidate your forces and attack a together at a point until you have the resources to combat a greater area. The message first went to the Jews, because of lack of numbers, then to certain gentiles, and has so worked it's way until everyone has the right to all blessings of the message. It is just a matter of getting it out.

So the curse has been removed. It is no longer there. Curses are, only where there is no blessing. The curse of Cain prevented that seed from receiving the full blessings of the gospel, by right of the Priesthood.

However, now we have the full light and knowledge necessary to teach to all men what they need. And it is because God did it on his timetable.

[prisonchaplain]

It's important to remember that we (as a church) don't claim to be inerrant... as our leaders are human just like us. We claim that God's word is perfect, but anything outside of that is the word of man, and therefore fallible. Not everything the prophet says becomes official church doctrine. If he eats a sandwich and says it's terrible, does it become OFFICIALLY terrible? No, it's just his opinion.

Okay, I'm going to venture the personal opinions of a white guy, non-LDS church member. My guess is that it was widely believed by most LDS members and leaders for much of the church's history that blackness was the mark of Cain, and that it was a mark of curse, more than blessing.

My own church, with an even shorter history than yours, also has some sadly racist elements to its history. In fact, one of the early pioneers of our distinctive doctrine is known to have lambasted the famed Azusa St. revival, when he visited, cursing it as N****r religion. Horrible stuff...very much a product of his time.

BUT, another key difference--my church has repudiated its errors, and fully admitted that they were such. There was no, "Well...God released us to fully embrace our Black bretheren." No, it was, "We were wrong, the racism was wrong, we repent." There have even been reconciliation services, at which white leaders washed the feet of black leaders.

What we hear repeatedly from this church is that God allowed the separation, the withholding of the priesthood for his timing, that the leaders were not wrong, just typical of their age, and, of course, that black members have no interest in apologies etc. Such may satisfy members, but comes across as a very tepid response to many on the outside.

[THIRDpersonviewer]

The original intent(withholding the Priesthood) was not of racism, but of God's Law and the administration of it. Yes, I am sure there were definitely racist Mormons. There are racists in all groups except the non-racists:D. However(which I have said on other occasions), the Church is physically separate from the people(members). That means the Church acted according to God, whether the people did or not was up to the people.

It does look bad from the outside, however I have learned it is usually best to come inside to know what is really inside. People try to understand things from their outside perspective, which cannot equate to having "inside information."

[Adeipho]

I have noticed I keep getting different responses from what is so "true" about the LDS. In my mind the church is not perfect in doctrine. For example, minorities would not have been included in temple rites before 1978. There have been several other major changes since then. Also I read that even church leadership is not correct all the time. We would always refer to the standard works. If leaders teachings are based on the standard works but at the same time always refer to the standard works that to me indicates church leaders are not true either. If the doctrine is not true because of being revised for needing improvement, and the leaders are not true because they are not correct all the time. For example Brigham Young, then what is so true about the church?

The only thing that is unchanging is God. Everything else must change, grow, line upon line. You think the church was not true because the Lord didnt allow blacks to hold the priesthood until a certain date? What about the fact that Jesus's own mission on earth was aimed at the jews?

Just because something grows, changes, and improves doesnt mean it wasnt true before. Take the earth itself...it is the only spere we know of that sustains life. Do you think it was always so? We know that the purpose of this earth from its foundation was for us children of God to come and be tested, yet when the earth was first developing it was a dead rock, pounded by other rocks, then it developed a core, then later an atmosphere and oceans and after a long time life was able to inhabit it.

Now according to your argument one could say the earth was NOT the "true" earth because it had not always been as it is now.

If you want to know "what is true" then I'll tell you the answer. It is that Christ lives. He is the Son of God and he is our advocate to the Father. We are litteral children of God, and for better or worse...that makes me your brother.

Adeipho (greek meaning "a brother")

[DigitalShadow]

Okay, I'm going to venture the personal opinions of a white guy, non-LDS church member. My guess is that it was widely believed by most LDS members and leaders for much of the church's history that blackness was the mark of Cain, and that it was a mark of curse, more than blessing.

My own church, with an even shorter history than yours, also has some sadly racist elements to its history. In fact, one of the early pioneers of our distinctive doctrine is known to have lambasted the famed Azusa St. revival, when he visited, cursing it as N****r religion. Horrible stuff...very much a product of his time.

BUT, another key difference--my church has repudiated its errors, and fully admitted that they were such. There was no, "Well...God released us to fully embrace our Black bretheren." No, it was, "We were wrong, the racism was wrong, we repent." There have even been reconciliation services, at which white leaders washed the feet of black leaders.

What we hear repeatedly from this church is that God allowed the separation, the withholding of the priesthood for his timing, that the leaders were not wrong, just typical of their age, and, of course, that black members have no interest in apologies etc. Such may satisfy members, but comes across as a very tepid response to many on the outside.

As a non-LDS minority (not black either), I will say that some of the remarks I've seen from church leaders such as Brigham Young have seemed offensive to me (though understandable given the timeperiod) but the attitude that the church takes of this actually being God's will instead of the error in judgement of someone who is clearly human bothers me much more.

I think part of what drives this attitude is that the church leader is believed to be literally a prophet of God and while not strictly inerrant, presumably has a higher standard of morality and no one wants to imagine something as ugly as racism existing in a recognized prophet.

I don't mean to offend anyone because I know this is a touchy subject, all I'm saying is that from an outsider's point of view the racist remarks that were made don't bother me as much as the attitude taken by the church reguarding the issue.

[Adeipho]

As a non-LDS minority (not black either), I will say that some of the remarks I've seen from church leaders such as Brigham Young have seemed offensive to me (though understandable given the timeperiod) but the attitude that the church takes of this actually being God's will instead of the error in judgement of someone who is clearly human bothers me much more.

I think part of what drives this attitude is that the church leader is believed to be literally a prophet of God and while not strictly inerrant, presumably has a higher standard of morality and no one wants to imagine something as ugly as racism existing in a recognized prophet.

I don't mean to offend anyone because I know this is a touchy subject, all I'm saying is that from an outsider's point of view the racist remarks that were made don't bother me as much as the attitude taken by the church reguarding the issue.

So we're supposed to make believe that God didnt and doesnt make known His will through His chosen prophets in order to make ourselves look "gooder" to outsiders? You know, God's will isnt always popular with man. Like when the Lord told his people to kill everyone including women and children and livestock.....

Now, there is a difference between a prophets opinion or beliefe and when he is acting in the name of the Lord. A lot of quotes are of opinion.

[prisonchaplain]

The only thing that is unchanging is God. Everything else must change, grow, line upon line. You think the church was not true because the Lord didnt allow blacks to hold the priesthood until a certain date?

Is it not possible that the church was wrong on this matter? God could have used this error for his purposes, but that would not negate that it was an error. Why is it so difficult for the church to say, "Our leaders were wrong in this matter. Blacks should not have been denied the priesthood."

What about the fact that Jesus's own mission on earth was aimed at the jews?

What about it? Jesus is Jehovah, according to LDS teaching. He is part of the Godhead. He is the Son of God? So, by definition, he was not racist. Is there a suggestion here that any church leader of any faith can be justified if Jesus did something similar?

Just because something grows, changes, and improves doesnt mean it wasnt true before.

Perhaps. But, if something improves...is better than before, why is it so hard to say that what was before was not as good...and might even have been bad?

[DigitalShadow]

So we're supposed to make believe that God didnt and doesnt make known His will through His chosen prophets in order to make ourselves look "gooder" to outsiders? You know, God's will isnt always popular with man. Like when the Lord told his people to kill everyone including women and children and livestock.....

Now, there is a difference between a prophets opinion or beliefe and when he is acting in the name of the Lord. A lot of quotes are of opinion.

No, you can make believe whatever you want, including that none of your prophets ever had any racist tendencies. All I'm saying is that they're still human with their own biases and predjudices even if they receive divine revalation. I'm not saying the church should go back and say that they weren't really prophets, just admit that they are capable of "mistakes" rather than claiming that God did not want black people to have the priesthood, which is an especially hard claim to defend given that Joseph Smith gave the priesthood to the first black man in 1836.

Thank you for demonstrating the exact attidue that makes me not want to join the church.

[Dale]

You don't join a church to like everyone's attitude. One joins a church out of love for their Lord. In all religion one has to be around persons with ideas you do not like. I read my scriptures, have spiritual thoughts because i want to feel spiritual. And i put up with other human beings that annoy me in my denomination out of love for my Lord if nothing else.

[Adeipho]

No, you can make believe whatever you want, including that none of your prophets ever had any racist tendencies. All I'm saying is that they're still human with their own biases and predjudices even if they receive divine revalation. I'm not saying the church should go back and say that they weren't really prophets, just admit that they are capable of "mistakes" rather than claiming that God did not want black people to have the priesthood, which is an especially hard claim to defend given that Joseph Smith gave the priesthood to the first black man in 1836.

Thank you for demonstrating the exact attidue that makes me not want to join the church.

I never said a prophet never had a racist tendency. I am saying that the subject regarding priesthood authority was not based on racisim in the light of prejudice. I agree that they are human with biases predjudices etc etc..... And I believe they can make mistakes. But the Lord promised to never allow a prophet to lead the church astray.

Thank you for demonstrating the typical way in which a person takes another's words and ignores them and puts different words in their mouth.

Dont worry its cool. Reply soon!

[kona0197]

What we hear repeatedly from this church is that God allowed the separation, the withholding of the priesthood for his timing, that the leaders were not wrong, just typical of their age, and, of course, that black members have no interest in apologies etc. Such may satisfy members, but comes across as a very tepid response to many on the outside.

Exactly. The Church leaders were wrong. And to my knowledge no apology to the Black people of the world has been made. I wonder why? I thank DigitalShadow for his post as well.

[Vanhin]

Is it not possible that the church was wrong on this matter? God could have used this error for his purposes, but that would not negate that it was an error. Why is it so difficult for the church to say, "Our leaders were wrong in this matter. Blacks should not have been denied the priesthood."

It certainly is possible for the Church to be wrong, but not for long, and I can't think of anything that it has been wrong about. The Lord will not permit the Prophet to lead the Church astray:

“I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty” (Official Declaration—1).

This is from a statement on what constitutes official doctrine in the Church:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine. (LDS Newsroom - Approaching Mormon Doctrine)

It is more likely for individuals in the Church, even Church leaders to be wrong about somethings. And they have been. For example, Bruce R. McConkie, who was an Apostle, taught openly that "Negroes" would never receive the priesthood in this life. Clearly he was wrong, and had this to say:

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles. (Horne, Dennis B. (2000). Bruce R. McConkie: Highlights From His Life & Teachings.)

Our scriptures do speak of a people who were cursed as to the priesthood. We can only assume that this ban represented that, but we really don't know. Except during the time of the Law of Moses, when the priesthood of Aaron was restricted to a specific tribe of Israel (Levi), I am aware of no other people besides blacks of African descent, who were prohibited from holding the priesthood. All other races, and colors were allowed to hold the priesthood. So, it wasn't a racist policy, or doctrine. Elder Holland recently said the following:

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger [apostles] to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place. (PBS Special, Elder Holland)

Those are some thoughts I had on this.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Shell72]

The Bible makes no mention of turning Cain to a negro or darkening his skin..

"[a] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him."

This mark was a symbol of protection and grace from God. I don't know understand how the darkening of the skin even got into play as there is no mention of it in the Bible.

The other mentionings of "marks" in the Bible refer to tatoos, markings,markings on foreheads, the mark of the Beast, so why would anyone associate that with God punishing people by turning the black?

[lilered]

Note the date: This would seem to indicate that this subject was addressed much earlier than the 60's and 70's. The operative words are doctorine and practice. Remember again that the Negro always could join the church since its beginning. They could not hold the priesthood until God later allowed it.

In 1954, church leader David O. McKay taught "There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. ‘We believe’ that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it