Is dark skin a curse?

[ElderDarionBevan]

Someone the other day asked us about the part in the Book of Mormon where the lord puts a skin of darkness upon the Lamanites. He was wondering if all dark skinned people are cursed? How would you answer this?

I gave my best response to him, there are some scriptures that talk about it as well. come and see them. Blessings of obedience

[thesometimesaint]

When God was making people he had to put them in the oven to finish baking. The white ones came out too early, and the black ones came out too late and the Hawaiian ones came out just right. As told to me by a beautiful brown Hawaiian sister.

[Palerider]

Someone the other day asked us about the part in the Book of Mormon where the lord puts a skin of darkness upon the Lamanites. He was wondering if all dark skinned people are cursed? How would you answer this?

I gave my best response to him, there are some scriptures that talk about it as well. come and see them. Blessings of obedience

"The Lamanites did not choose to follow the commandments of the Lord and they rebelled against the prophet, thus they were cursed. The curse was that they were cut off from the Lord's presence. He no longer was there to help or guide them, until they would repent and return to him. The skin of darkness was placed upon them to distinguish them from the Nephites."

What is served by having the Lamanites "distinguished"? We have evil people around us all the time of caucasian decent and yet they are not turned Black or Brown so we can tell them apart. This makes no sense to me and your investigators are wise to question it.

[Kevin Christensen]

The short answer is, "Not cosmetically." Morally, filthy garments and skins of blackness are equivalent, something that is much more evident when you consider that skins can be garments, and that certain garments have covenant implications, and that the Book of Mormon contains passages on both skins and garments in which they are discussing the same issues. As do ancient writings in general, including Lamentations and Daniel. That calls to mind the importance of 2 Nephi 25 on the importance of learning cultural contexts for texts.

A related and relevant discussion at Times and Seasons

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2011/02/a-review-of-notable-changes/

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Walden]

The short answer is, "Not cosmetically." Morally, filthy garments and skins of blackness are equivalent, something that is much more evident when you consider that skins can be garments, and that certain garments have covenant implications, and that the Book of Mormon contains passages on both skins and garments in which they are discussing the same issues. As do ancient writings in general, including Lamentations and Daniel. That calls to mind the importance of 2 Nephi 25 on the importance of learning cultural contexts for texts.

A related and relevant discussion at Times and Seasons

http://timesandseaso...otable-changes/

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

If this above explanantion is proper, then Spencer W Kimball must have been severely mistaken when he claimed the following in General Conference:

[SilverKnight]

How do you explain the above statements by Kimball and Young if "darkness" is only spiritual, and not physical, as you infer above?

Clearly both of them believed it was physical, as did most Christian ministers up until the 20th century.

[SkepticTheist]

Someone the other day asked us about the part in the Book of Mormon where the lord puts a skin of darkness upon the Lamanites. He was wondering if all dark skinned people are cursed? How would you answer this?

I gave my best response to him, there are some scriptures that talk about it as well. come and see them. Blessings of obedience

In apocryphal/pseudepigraphic books, when it speaks of Adam and Eve, sometimes it talks of their "bright nature" before they fell after eating the fruit. They were "naked" but not really, because they had this "skin" or a "covering" which is a bright nature, which was their covering. It was only after that nature left them, that they needed clothing. The same thing in a book called Zosimus, that talks about people with this bright nature which are otherwise nude. I know that sounds kind of bizarre, but this is precisely what the Book of Mormon is referring to when it says:

O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. (Jacob 3:

This is the same thing as having the "image" of God in your countenance. The point is, dark skin versus light skin in the scriptures *USUALLY*, especially the book of Mormon, is not referring at all to skin color, but bright nature, or not being in the state of *spiritual death*. The Lord said that the Lamanites would be cut off from his presence, and thus, no more image of God in their countenances. It has nothing to do with their skin color. The Nephites were probably ethnically very similar to the Lamanites and were probably "Indians" with the same ethnicity, which has a darker skin color that caucasians. Thus, the "Curse of Cain" had nothing to do with the ethnicity of black people. It has nothing to do with race. It is the curse that comes upon anyone when they apostatize, that has nothing to do with skin color. The "mark" is likely to be this lack of the light emanating from the eyes and shining from the skin as the image of God. So when people are "sons of perdition" this can mean that they have committed an unpardonable sin, but more often, it refers to people who are followers of Satan, who have the curse of Cain upon them, from all nations, who have committed whatever sin that cut them off from the presence of the Lord, regardless of whether it is a "sin unto death" or not.

Ed Goble

[SkepticTheist]

"The Lamanites did not choose to follow the commandments of the Lord and they rebelled against the prophet, thus they were cursed. The curse was that they were cut off from the Lord's presence. He no longer was there to help or guide them, until they would repent and return to him. The skin of darkness was placed upon them to distinguish them from the Nephites."

What is served by having the Lamanites "distinguished"? We have evil people around us all the time of caucasian decent and yet they are not turned Black or Brown so we can tell them apart. This makes no sense to me and your investigators are wise to question it.

Lots of times I can tell when people have a "bright nature" versus when they don't. I can look into someone's eyes sometimes and sense the darkness, and it *feels* revolting. So that certainly is a distinguishing "mark" that you can generally tell people that are wicked. And in our culture, more and more, people are marking themselves when they are under this spirit with tatoos or body piercings, and so forth, not unlike the Amlicites. So many times it is not very difficult to tell people who are truly "marked" with this "skin" and those who are not. So these things make perfect sense to me, and they have nothing to do with skin color.

Ed

[SkepticTheist]

I believe Spencer W. Kimball had his own personal beliefs that do not carry the weight of doctrine of the church, just like any other. I don't think the Church has any doctrine on this subject, but the explanation of bright nature versus dark nature makes a heck of a lot more sense than this folklore doctrine. The curse of the Lamanites and the curse of Cain simply were not based on skin color, regardless of whether over time the Lamanites actually did mix in with darker people to get a darker skin. If they did, it would have only been coincidental, though the Nephites may have come over time to associate the skin color with the dark nature in their faces. The black people joining the church do not magically change in their skin color, but gain a "bright nature" in their countenances. Nevertheless, any time the curse is removed from people when they join the church, and become righteous, their skin color never seems to magically change to white. That is a naive and racist notion to some degree. Why *should* their skin color change? What is wrong with dark skin ethnically? This is all about spiritual nature, and that is really all that counts. So Spencer W. Kimball had a folklore-based belief.

Ed Goble

If this above explanantion is proper, then Spencer W Kimball must have been severely mistaken when he claimed the following in General Conference:

[Kevin Christensen]

If this above explanantion is proper, then Spencer W Kimball must have been severely mistaken when he claimed the following in General Conference:

SNIP

And certainly, Brigham Young misunderstood that dark skin was only spiritual when he stated:

SNIP

How do you explain the above statements by Kimball and Young if "darkness" is only spiritual, and not physical, as you infer above?

D&C 1, speaking directly of LDS leaders, bluntly states:

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

2 Nephi 25:5 clearly states:

"...there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews."

The scholars who have looked closely at how the Ancient Near Eastern peoples used the kind of language and imagery that appears in the Book of Mormon have all agreed that they used such language to describe moral condition, not physical appearance. Nibley, Sorenson, Gardner, and others have discussed this in detail in their books.

In 3 Nephi, Jesus says of his Old World disciples, regarding the "other sheep,"

[BCSpace]

Someone the other day asked us about the part in the Book of Mormon where the lord puts a skin of darkness upon the Lamanites. He was wondering if all dark skinned people are cursed? How would you answer this?

In the BoM, it appears to be a direct curse on the Lamanites. For the descendents of Cain, it is an indirect result of a curse (Moses 7:.

What is served by having the Lamanites "distinguished"? We have evil people around us all the time of caucasian decent and yet they are not turned Black or Brown so we can tell them apart. This makes no sense to me and your investigators are wise to question it.

I disagree as this is presentism. In modern society, individuals are much more independent of their kin. In ancient societies, one's kin or extended family had more influence over you and often exercised a large degree of control over misbehaving individuals. So the actions and desires of the heads and progenitors of any family or tribal groups had considerable impact.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Someone the other day asked us about the part in the Book of Mormon where the lord puts a skin of darkness upon the Lamanites. He was wondering if all dark skinned people are cursed? How would you answer this?

I gave my best response to him, there are some scriptures that talk about it as well. come and see them. Blessings of obedience

People are not cursed for the color of there skin, the darkness of skin given to the Lamanites was a mark that God placed upon them to warn the Nephites. Remember that the Lamanites would kill Nephites on sight, God darkened there skin to protect the Nephite, not as a curse to the Lamanites.

Also remember that God marked Cain so that he would not be hunted down an slain in vengeance for his murder of Abel.

He also confused the languages at the Tower of Babel to stop the construction of the tower.

God will change people in order for his will to be done.

[LDS Guy 1986]

This makes no sense to me and your investigators are wise to question it.

As the old proverb goes, The Lord works in mysterious ways

[Jason]

"The Lamanites did not choose to follow the commandments of the Lord and they rebelled against the prophet, thus they were cursed. The curse was that they were cut off from the Lord's presence. He no longer was there to help or guide them, until they would repent and return to him. The skin of darkness was placed upon them to distinguish them from the Nephites."

What is served by having the Lamanites "distinguished"? We have evil people around us all the time of caucasian decent and yet they are not turned Black or Brown so we can tell them apart. This makes no sense to me and your investigators are wise to question it.

It made sense to the Nephites.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

D&C 1, speaking directly of LDS leaders, bluntly states:

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

2 Nephi 25:5 clearly states:

"...there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews."

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

This is a great response. I truely hope that Walden learned something from this.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I believe the Inspired Version (JST) makes it clear that it wasn't the first time the Lord has put this distinguishing mark on a certain group of people...

Moses 7:8

For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

Moses 7:22

And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

But I see no mention of the color of the skin being the curse

[Walden]

I believe Spencer W. Kimball had his own personal beliefs that do not carry the weight of doctrine of the church, just like any other. I don't think the Church has any doctrine on this subject, but the explanation of bright nature versus dark nature makes a heck of a lot more sense than this folklore doctrine. The curse of the Lamanites and the curse of Cain simply were not based on skin color, regardless of whether over time the Lamanites actually did mix in with darker people to get a darker skin. If they did, it would have only been coincidental, though the Nephites may have come over time to associate the skin color with the dark nature in their faces. The black people joining the church do not magically change in their skin color, but gain a "bright nature" in their countenances. Nevertheless, any time the curse is removed from people when they join the church, and become righteous, their skin color never seems to magically change to white. That is a naive and racist notion to some degree. Why *should* their skin color change? What is wrong with dark skin ethnically? This is all about spiritual nature, and that is really all that counts. So Spencer W. Kimball had a folklore-based belief.

Ed Goble

Of course SWK has his own personal beliefs; I'm just not sure why he is espousing his "own personal beliefs" in General Conference rather than beliefs that align with church doctrine. And considering his "own personal beliefs" are rather divergent from the "doctrine of the church", well, what that says about his power of discernment I'll leave you to decide.

The explanation of "bright nature" versus "dark nature" is really reaching, if you ask me. One has to stretch the language pretty far to make that argument.

A more plausible explanation is that the "dark skin as a curse" belief was one that was rather popular in the mid-19th century, around the time that the LDS church was blossoming, and that many religious leaders at that time embraced this viewpoint. Is it not more plausible that this viewpoint made it's way into the doctrinal text as a direct result of this popular belief of the time, or does it make more sense that "skin" actually means "countenance" in the text, or that "filthy garments" = "dark skin", or any of the other non-doctrinal and wholly speculative arguments made earlier in this thread?

[SkepticTheist]

Of course SWK has his own personal beliefs; I'm just not sure why he is espousing his "own personal beliefs" in General Conference rather than beliefs that align with church doctrine. And considering his "own personal beliefs" are rather divergent from the "doctrine of the church", well, what that says about his power of discernment I'll leave you to decide.

The explanation of "bright nature" versus "dark nature" is really reaching, if you ask me. One has to stretch the language pretty far to make that argument.

A more plausible explanation is that the "dark skin as a curse" belief was one that was rather popular in the mid-19th century, around the time that the LDS church was blossoming, and that many religious leaders at that time embraced this viewpoint. Is it not more plausible that this viewpoint made it's way into the doctrinal text as a direct result of this popular belief of the time, or does it make more sense that "skin" actually means "countenance" in the text, or that "filthy garments" = "dark skin", or any of the other non-doctrinal and wholly speculative arguments made earlier in this thread?

If you take a naturalistic explanation for everything and not assume that the Holy Ghost can say what it pleases how it pleases, and not allow for the Holy Ghost to be that which determines the correct interpretation for the intent of a certain wording, I can see how you would have come to the conclusions you have come to. But there is actually a good amount of basis for my interpretation of the verses this way, both from modern revelation, as well as in its ancient precedents. And to deny that it is a rational and reasonable, alternate interpretation of that wording is to show that you are dogmatic in demanding only a naturalistic explanation for the scriptures. I acknowledge that it can be interpreted the way you say, but there is nothing that forces me to conclude it must be so.

Ed Goble

[SkepticTheist]

This is a great response. I truely hope that Walden learned something from this.

Awesome Kevin. I'm going to use that from D&C 1 a lot from now on for stuff like this..........

[cinepro]

Someone the other day asked us about the part in the Book of Mormon where the lord puts a skin of darkness upon the Lamanites. He was wondering if all dark skinned people are cursed? How would you answer this?

I gave my best response to him, there are some scriptures that talk about it as well. come and see them. Blessings of obedience

From your blog:

The prophet Nephi said of the Lord, "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." (2 Nephi 26:33)

So, if an investigator asked how that scripture relates to the priesthood ban, what would you say?

[kolipoki09]

Someone the other day asked us about the part in the Book of Mormon where the lord puts a skin of darkness upon the Lamanites. He was wondering if all dark skinned people are cursed? How would you answer this?

I gave my best response to him, there are some scriptures that talk about it as well. come and see them. Blessings of obedience

When I was a missionary, I wish I would have known this. It would have saved me a lot of headaches and door slams.

[T-Shirt]

So, if an investigator asked how that scripture relates to the priesthood ban, what would you say?

In the Old and New Testaments, women, slaves, heathens and gentiles, were all denied some degree of participation. However, none of them were ultimately denied the full blessings of what God has to offer.

T-Shirt

[mbh26]

I think you have to live around and with different races and cultures and allow yourself to objectively evaluate the level of morality practiced therein to really understand what people of old time meant by scriptures like this. If someone were to just tell you, you would simply dismiss it as racist. I never understood what any of it was about until I travelled.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dark skin is absolutely a curse. At least for Anglo-Scandinavians like myself.

My misspent California youth -- the beach not too far away, a swimming pool in our backyard -- and my subsequent years living in the Middle East are catching up with me. I single-handedly keep a Provo dermatologist and his entire staff of nurses and office personnel in business.

[WalkerW]

Race as understood today was development over the past several centuries, particularly since the Enlightenment. If we take the Book of Mormon to be ancient history, then I think it is safe to say that the Nephites would have had no idea what we are talking about when we say that "dark skin is racist" (especially given the automatic imagery of pre-Civil War slavery and Jim Crow laws that emerge in the minds of Americans). See, for example, George M. Frederickson's brief article "The Historical Origins and Development of Racism."

I'm inclined to understand it within a spiritual, religious, and/or covenant context.