Of course, we here at RfM noticed, but how is it that this is not being discussed in every ward in the world-wide church? Here we have a current direct statement from the church that clearly condemns “thus saith the Lord God” teachings in the Book of Mormon. This should be big news; church members should be actively burning their officially disavowed racist book.

Perhaps one could attribute some racist teachings to Brigham Young (and every so-called prophet for a 150 years after), but what can they do about this “thus saith the Lord” doctrine in that “most correct” of books?

This is about as clear-cut as it gets.

Today: “The Church disavows…that black skin is a…curse”

2 Nephi 5:21: “Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.” Two verses later it is called a “curse.”


Why aren’t members talking about this? Can we do something to get the word out? In the past, members could say that God had a reason for his curses. Today, how can they reconcile the disavowed doctrine and their own very clear scriptures?


The December 2013 article concludes with the following statement: (in part)

“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 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.”


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.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

It must be hard for them to keep all their lies straight...

gettinreal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It must be hard for them to keep all their lies
> straight...

...and for many, this must be a painful and increasingly nightmarish time.

Trapped and cornered...by something that many honestly once believed was true...but now know is not.

I feel sorry for those whose lives and families are on the line and who literally don't know what to do.

and they literally don't know what to do."

Lots of us feel concern for them, too. They might not know what to do, but from here we can see that what they need to do is to leap out of those toxic waters and into "the world" - that same world they've been taught was so full of evil and scary crap.

That's the True© Leap of Faith, isn't it? I read here all the time about how that's where the True© Blessings come in for Mormons!

<for any Mormons reading this: if that doesn't make any sense to you, you haven't read enough of other people's journeys yet.>

tevai Wrote:
------------------------------------
> gettinreal Wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > It must be hard for them to keep all their lies straight...
>
> ...and for many, this must be a painful and increasingly nightmarish time.
>
> Trapped and cornered...by something that many honestly once believed was true...but now know is not.
>
> I feel sorry for those whose lives and families are on the line and who literally don't know what to do.

^ You said it ^

Chicken N. Backpacks...
The phrase "theories advanced in the past" implies that some outside source came up with the "theories". In reality, however, they are either taken from the text of the BoM, and so *are* part of a divine curse and cannot be denied, or they are merely part of 19th century thinking, and therefore show that the church is not a divinely founded and enlightened organization...

They say we changed on them (as members, or once members, friends of Mormonism or of Mormons, ex-mormons, apostates, sinners, truth seekers, and saints - many are saintlier now than we/ they ever could have been as a [TBM] "mormon") and forget how they changed on us/ members.

There is no (true) center in Mormonism. That's why it perennially wobbles.

When it grows out of its old ways, it sheds its skin, winding it's way, like a sneaky snake, off to the next pray.

It disguises it's motives and masks itself (doing good and noble, if selfish) in dead end works.

The bom taught me that dark skin was a curse. Now it tries to deny it.

I knew, growing up, in the south, that churches were the most segregated places to be on a Sunday.

They want to be able to have their cake and eat it too.

LDSinkFENCEsitters

Keep your current BOM editions, a new, improved edition will be quietly introduced.

When anyone refers to black=curse, the new edition will be conveniently missing such references...

White and delightsome, anyone?

The word "curse" will be replaced with "blessing," the reason being it was a mistranslation because Joseph Smith was speaking as a man into his hat that day.

Look, they can say anything because the sheep do not question. Is it a sentence with a subject and a verb? Did it drop from the drooling lips of an apostle? Must be so.



Kathleen Waters

I think the curse on Cain is what the tscc disavowed.

That's how I see it too and it leaves me angry because they don't care that a curse still applies to American Indians. They don't even address that problem with their "keystone" book of scripture.

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

Classic spin. The phrase "theories advanced in the past" implies that some outside source came up with the "theories". In reality, however, they are either taken from the text of the BoM, and so *are* part of a divine curse and cannot be denied, or they are merely part of 19th century thinking, and therefore show that the church is not a divinely founded and enlightened organization.

Either way, TSCC is screwed.

O, but the "theories of the past" are not holy scripture, so they are different, and can be disavowed, while still embracing scripture. See, they're not the same! (even tho they are the same).

Easy peasy...

Lastofthewine said: “I think the curse on Cain is what the tscc disavowed.”

My FIL tried to tell me the same thing. But cursing with a black skin is cursing with a black skin and that is what was explicitly disavowed in the church’s statement. Besides, what’s the point of saying: “we’re not racist anymore with regard to the Cain’s posterity but we still think God had a good reason to consider the Book of Mormon people as ‘loathsome’ and ‘not enticing’ with their God caused ‘skin of blackness‘.”

“Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”

Let’s not let them spin this statement to be limited in its scope.

I noticed.

But what most people have not is that they have gone a step further.

They have stated that the book is inspired and therefore how it came to be and the accuracy or need for archeological evidence is needless.

Think about that. They are saying ok, its not true but it teaches good things and those principles are true. This will be their new talking point going forward.

That can't work for them. If it's just inspired fiction, why the stories about Moroni's visits, physical plates, witnesses, Zelph, "revelations" about missions to the Lamanites, etc...? To admit that it may not be historical, whether the words came by revelation or not, is to admit that Joe was just making crap up. The pious fraud theory might work for some people, but all the evidence screams that Joe was just a good-for-nothing-PoS.

My FIL further tried to tell me that in the BoM, god had a good reason for what he did and because of that the scriptures in question can’t be considered racists. Besides, he reasoned, racism is about how we treat people and Mormons have always been nice to blacks and Native Americans so we weren’t racist. And because our behavior wasn’t racist, the Church’s statements that condemn racism really don’t apply to the God given policies of the past.

Quite the mental gymnastics.

If the church disavows one thing today, who is to say it won't disavow another thing tomorrow? And how can the Book of Mormon be the most correct of any book on Earth if parts of it are being disavowed? The next time I get approached by a missionary I'll be sure to ask.

throw in here a I can tell you their response:

1) our ways are not god's ways, all we know if that he loves us and has a plan and really sister, that is all we need to know (fire off a long knowing smile).

2) He has not changed anything, he never changes, just our understanding is so limited that he has to go very slow with us, step by step, bedree upon degree. (Add an overly simplistic allegory to the old testament versus the new testament)

3)Joseph Smith was just a man, so was Nephi. Often in translating, things get misinterpreted. Thank the lord that he has provided prophets to clarify this things for us today, so we don't read it wrong.(Mention the scripture where nephi wallows in pity becuase of his imperfections and the chapter in the D&C where the lord chastises JS for being not up to par)

God's ways are not our ways. Fair point. However, can a never changing God command someone to break a previously given commandment? Did God command Nephi to kill Laban? Did God command Joe to commit adultery? Doesn't the church teach that there are certain laws decreed in heaven? How could a perfect, never changing, justice obsessed God make exceptions? I don't think he could. The book isn't true, Joe was a false prophet, etc..

reference / citation for the OP's quote, please.

My former friend bawled be out for being mean and hateful after I put those same BofM scriptures on Facebook with absolutely no commentary.

She claimed the old--it's figurative not literal argument. So the whole danged book is FIGURATIVE? How are we supposed to know? If this is official doctrine they need to make it very clear in this next conference coming up.

Anyone who thinks it teaches good messages is someone who hasn't thought about it very much. I'm trying to come up with a central message...

--God hates women and children and isn't too fond of men either.

--Obey and prosper or sin and have a war.

Other ideas?

Some Book of Mormon verses are more True than others.

GNPE asked for a reference:

The quote was from the Essay on Race and the Priesthood on LDS.org.

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood

The cop-out in the essay states: Many other churches had segregated congregations...

So... mormon god wasn't very inspired then either, and if all your friends were doing it, you would do it to... (the desperate quest to be like other churches yet be the only true church).

Where is the reference that Joseph and pals intended to screw Native American women until the next generation became white and delightsome? How does the church explain that inspiration from the holy prophet?

Ultimately, they will throw all the inconvenient doctrine and history under the bus and will only be about tithing, and not smoking.

too, not to. Sorry.

The web of deceit gets more and more tangled, just like Bill Shakespeare said.

Then there is that whole problematic chapter of Alma 44 where the Lamanites are commanded by Moroni to enter into a covenant and if they don't they will be slain. When Zerahemnah says,"Behold, we are not of your faith, we don't believe that it is God that has delivered us into your hands: but we believe that it is your cunning that preserved you from our swords..." Moroni hands him his sword and he is promptly scalped.

Oh how very "ISIS Training Manual" the Book of Mormon is!

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

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/2?lang=eng

The most true and perfect book on the planet.

They actually teach and believe that.

The mention of denial of PH to men sometimes omits the fact that Black Women couldn't have 'their endowment', but the article cited does.

Why were women denied endowment? What about the (claimed) 'revelation'? Did it mention women? (blank stare)

sometimes the mormons will be Very Specific, sometimes not.

Copying from the OP because I don't own a BOM:

2 Nephi 5:21: “Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

I would gladly contribute some money to getting this with a graphic & the word "racism" or whatever up on a billboard, or other damning info such as BY's priceless quotes as to who's living on the moon, JS' marrying teens, etc.

And this is exactly the reason why I don't believe anymore and couldn't ever go back.

Lies, spin and cover ups. The only true church and the most correct book....Yeah right!

The only truth is the people who are responsible for writing this nonsense are a total bunch of muppets. No offence intended Kermit :)

Here is another example of “the theories advanced in the past” that have been “disavowed” by nameless authors of the not-quite official essay on Race and the Priesthood published on LDS.org.

Alma 3:6 - 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.

While I applaud the Church making a clear statement of current policy, it’s predictable that they would simple ignore addressing their racist Book of Mormon scriptures. Frankly, it’s a no win situation for them.

What was once a “direct commandment from the Lord” is disingenuously referred to as “the theories advanced in the past”. It makes me want to scream!


In 1949, The First Presidency issued the following statement:
"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time." (The First Presidency on the Negro Question, 17 Aug. 1949)

What do you want them to do; roll over & die?
If this was my immoral, amoral, disingenuous Church I'd behave exactly the same just for the sake of keeping the Sheep & collecting the tithes.