Is dark skin a curse?

[Monster]

This is just a silly Mormon false doctrine that was perpetuated by somewhat racist members of a bygone era. I doubt you could find any GA today that would acknowledge that dark skin was a curse.

[kolipoki09]

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.

Even as a youth, DCP was collecting checks as the Church's leading Primary/MIA Mopologist, enough to warrant this luxurious San Gabriel view.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ6KNhhBprufPYuKtSNIBUvKR00ZP_jkG67x6bK7dZTusGGGQQVQQ

[CV75]

He was wondering if all dark skinned people are cursed? How would you answer this?

As I read 2 Nephi 5: 21, Jacob 3: 5, Alma 3: 6, and 3 Nephi 2: 15, I take it that dark skin or a mark is used as a sign of the cursing, and that while it is not the curse itself, it is referred to symbolically as the cursing. The cursing of course, is being cut off from the presence of the Lord (2 Nephi 5: 20).

The use of dark skin is how the Lord taught a particular lesson to a particular people in a particular time and place, best suited for their circumstances and culture. The message for our day is still,

[Jason]

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

Well to begin with I would say that "partaking of his goodness" or salvation is something different from being called to serve through the priesthood.

[semlogo]

Obviously the Nephites thought it was. But actually, it's a blessing unless you live in the far north where the sun is weak.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Obviously the Nephites thought it was. But actually, it's a blessing unless you live in the far north where the sun is weak.

I think what it comes down to is this is the skin of darkness is only a mark, a mark the lets the Nephites know who is a Lamanite. The curse is being separated from God because of there wickedness, the curse has nothing to do with the skin of darkness nor the skin of darkness have anything to do with the curse.

Also the references to Cain's seed being black, never states that there skin is black. I feel that in the context of the scripture they are referring to the spirit of the the descendants of Cain, there spirit is black because they are raised by such a wicked man. I feel that if Abraham was intending to tell us that people with black skin are descendants of Cain, then he would of told us that!

[cinepro]

Well to begin with I would say that "partaking of his goodness" or salvation is something different from being called to serve through the priesthood.

How about being allowed Temple Blessings, including celestial marriage, in this life?

[erichard]

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.

We do know that President McKay was not racist.

He had two councilors. One was Brown, and the other one Tanner.

(quote)

Richard

[Senator]

Is dark skin a curse?

It is hopefully becoming less such as time goes on.

I think this is the only response I could give at this time.

[mbh26]

Is dark skin a curse?

It is hopefully becoming less such as time goes on.

I think this is the only response I could give at this time.

I think we all share a responsibility in how we represent our race and family by our own actions. Depending on the reputation that we build it can be a curse or a blessing for those who come after us. Over time a reputation has less to do with what others say about us and more to do with what we say about ourselves than one might initially think.

[LDSToronto]

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

You know, every time I hear this excuse, every single time, all I can think is that this is like saying, "Well, everyone else is doing it...."

These were men claiming to be PROPHETS OF GOD!!! Shouldn't they be able to do some discerning? Were they so blind to the fact that racism is wrong, and that this policy-doctrine looked an awful lot like RACISM!?!

H.

[LDSToronto]

I can look into someone's eyes sometimes and sense the darkness, and it *feels* revolting.

Look into my eye, Ed.

[USU78]

You know, every time I hear this excuse, every single time, all I can think is that this is like saying, "Well, everyone else is doing it...."

These were men claiming to be PROPHETS OF GOD!!! Shouldn't they be able to do some discerning? Were they so blind to the fact that racism is wrong, and that this policy-doctrine looked an awful lot like RACISM!?!

Presentism.

Pure, unadulterated and inapposite.

[Rivers]

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 best way that I can answer this is to say that the dark skin was simply way of helping the Nephites distinguish themselves from the Lamanites. As in the Old Testament, the Lord chooses a covenant people. In the Book of Mormon, the Nephites play the role of the covenant people. And the Lamanites play the role of the outside nations or the Gentiles. Like the children of Israel, the Nephites were not allowed to intermarry with the Gentiles. The Book of Mormon states that the reason for the curse was to prevent intermarriage.

[Rivers]

You know, every time I hear this excuse, every single time, all I can think is that this is like saying, "Well, everyone else is doing it...."

These were men claiming to be PROPHETS OF GOD!!! Shouldn't they be able to do some discerning? Were they so blind to the fact that racism is wrong, and that this policy-doctrine looked an awful lot like RACISM!?!

H.

You would think that wouldn't you.

[LDSToronto]

You know, every time I hear this excuse, every single time, all I can think is that this is like saying, "Well, everyone else is doing it...."

These were men claiming to be PROPHETS OF GOD!!! Shouldn't they be able to do some discerning? Were they so blind to the fact that racism is wrong, and that this policy-doctrine looked an awful lot like RACISM!?!

Presentism.

Sorry, USU, could you explain *when* racism was acceptable? Certainly, if I'm projecting present-day morality, I'd like to know which age I'm projecting it upon.

EDIT: But, wait, isn't morality timeless? Wouldn't a prophet's job be to warn the people of immoral practices in any day that they lived? Thus, wouldn't a prophet always know that racism is wrong, and even the *appearance* of racism would also be wrong?

H.

[Eitan]

You know, every time I hear this excuse, every single time, all I can think is that this is like saying, "Well, everyone else is doing it...."

I have the exact same reaction to this excuse. It is in no way an adequate response to some of the actions and attitudes of past Mormon leaders. But what's worse, to extend your analogy, was that NOT everyone else was doing it. And more and more people ---who were not prophets of God, or the Lord's anointed, or the chosen people --- stopped doing it long before the LDS Church did.

[USU78]

Sorry, USU, could you explain *when* racism was acceptable? Certainly, if I'm projecting present-day morality, I'd like to know which age I'm projecting it upon.

EDIT: But, wait, isn't morality timeless? Wouldn't a prophet's job be to warn the people of immoral practices in any day that they lived? Thus, wouldn't a prophet always know that racism is wrong, and even the *appearance* of racism would also be wrong?

"Racism," first off, isn't a particularly useful descriptor of behavior, especially as usually employed. I'm called "racist" if I'm a landlord and wish to evict an Hispanic tenant for nonpayment of rent or creating disturbances in violation of leases and local laws. I'm called "racist" if I demand the same behavior of a Muslim as I would of a Christian. So, please, spare us the nondesciptor. It's become useless through misuse for too dang long.

Now, as far as "morality" is concerned, I imagine an Abraham who is righteous and fair with all, regardless of the financial arrangements between others and Abraham, or between and among others. Slavery is, ultimately, a financial arrangement. Even in ancient times, the arrangement was subjected to strict limitations as to rights and obligations by and between owner and owned. Compliance with those laws, and the laws of Heaven, requiring kindness and righteousness and meticulous fairness at all times, make it quite irrelevant whether the human laws permit slavery.

Does this shock you? It shouldn't. I believe those "vicious racist" slaveowners in antebellum Dixie may well have been more righteous than myself or yourself. Slavery isn't the issue. Righteousness by both slave and owner is the issue. There is no special merit in being owned or poor . . . just as there's no special merit in owning or being wealthy.

So let's now move to the now happily-behind-us priesthood ban. Does the presence of a ban make a particular community at a particular time more or less righteous than another community sans a ban? Its presence or absence answers nothing. The righteousness, kindness and meticulous fairness of the members of a community are the issue.

We can brag that we have banned the "twin relics of barbarism" from our midst, but it doesn't matter a d@mm if we are miserable pieces of work, that ban notwithstanding.

[LDSToronto]

"Racism," first off, isn't a particularly useful descriptor of behavior, especially as usually employed. I'm called "racist" if I'm a landlord and wish to evict an Hispanic tenant for nonpayment of rent or creating disturbances in violation of leases and local laws. I'm called "racist" if I demand the same behavior of a Muslim as I would of a Christian. So, please, spare us the nondesciptor. It's become useless through misuse for too dang long.

You can't dismiss 'racism' simply by changing it's definition or calling it a useless non-descriptor. Besides, let's agree - the church may not have been racist in it's motivations (let's assume), but it certainly had the appearance of racism.

Now, as far as "morality" is concerned, I imagine an Abraham who is righteous and fair with all, regardless of the financial arrangements between others and Abraham, or between and among others. Slavery is, ultimately, a financial arrangement. Even in ancient times, the arrangement was subjected to strict limitations as to rights and obligations by and between owner and owned. Compliance with those laws, and the laws of Heaven, requiring kindness and righteousness and meticulous fairness at all times, make it quite irrelevant whether the human laws permit slavery.

So slavery is OK in Abrahamic times, so long as everyone's being nice? Got it.

Does this shock you? It shouldn't. I believe those "vicious racist" slaveowners in antebellum Dixie may well have been more righteous than myself or yourself. Slavery isn't the issue. Righteousness by both slave and owner is the issue. There is no special merit in being owned or poor . . . just as there's no special merit in owning or being wealthy.

And I can't believe you just said that... whatever credibility you had, is now gone.

So let's now move to the now happily-behind-us priesthood ban. Does the presence of a ban make a particular community at a particular time more or less righteous than another community sans a ban? Its presence or absence answers nothing. The righteousness, kindness and meticulous fairness of the members of a community are the issue.

We can brag that we have banned the "twin relics of barbarism" from our midst, but it doesn't matter a d@mm if we are miserable pieces of work, that ban notwithstanding.

Like I said, any prophet worth his revelatory and moral salt could have seen that the ban at least looked like a racist policy, realized racism was wrong (regardless of the climate of the day) and eradicated it. But, as you pointed out, apparently slavery is righteous, so....

H.

[SkepticTheist]

Good one.

Look into my eye, Ed.

[USU78]

You can't dismiss 'racism' simply by changing it's definition or calling it a useless non-descriptor.

Is my firing up the barbecue for North America's sacred cow so disturbing? I didn't dismiss it. Ill- and misuse did. "Racism" is the XXIst Century's "bloody shirt." Look it up.

Besides, let's agree - the church may not have been racist in it's motivations (let's assume), but it certainly had the appearance of racism.

I don't agree at all. I've no need to agree with a taxonomy that guarantees that the kneejerk antiMormon view gets to win the day.

So slavery is OK in Abrahamic times, so long as everyone's being nice? Got it.

Very glib. There is no moral superiority in unrighteous people who just happen to live in times when economics are such that people don't tend to own other people

And I can't believe you just said that... whatever credibility you had, is now gone.

Whatever. There's no telling what other people are going to think when you speak TRVTH to them. Some become introspective and consider the implications that their comfortable self-image may be false and bloated. Others stop their ears.

Like I said, any prophet worth his revelatory and moral salt could have seen that the ban at least looked like a racist policy, realized racism was wrong (regardless of the climate of the day) and eradicated it. But, as you pointed out, apparently slavery is righteous, so....

More glibtitude. Toronto's "LDS"ness just got revealed as something else entirely.

[Doug the Hutt]

Back to OP:

Q: Are all dark skinned people cursed? How would you answer this?

Apologetically:

1. It's imperative that the Church does not look like the bad guy. The Church must be presented as if it were on the moral high ground (because it IS, right?) in every situation including the issue of so-called "racism", or SSM/Prop 8, or for-profit operations, or whatever.

2. Remember, the Lord would never allow the Church to be led astray. President Wilford Woodruff stated:

[MichaelM]

Is my firing up the barbecue for North America's sacred cow so disturbing? I didn't dismiss it. Ill- and misuse did. "Racism" is the XXIst Century's "bloody shirt." Look it up.

I don't agree at all. I've no need to agree with a taxonomy that guarantees that the kneejerk antiMormon view gets to win the day.

Very glib. There is no moral superiority in unrighteous people who just happen to live in times when economics are such that people don't tend to own other people

Whatever. There's no telling what other people are going to think when you speak TRVTH to them. Some become introspective and consider the implications that their comfortable self-image may be false and bloated. Others stop their ears.

More glibtitude. Toronto's "LDS"ness just got revealed as something else entirely.

Your view and description of the word racism leaves out the most important element. Racism is nothing more than the belief that one group is superior to another. It has nothing to do with hate or love. It has nothing to do with good or bad behavior. It is simply the belief of superior and inferior.

You mentioned slaveowners of the south. Take a good hard look at the writings from then:

"Jefferson Davis, United States Senator from Mississippi, February 14th, 1850

They see that the slaves in their present condition in the South are comfortable and happy; they see them advancing in intelligence; they see the kindest relations existing between them and their masters; they see them provided for in age and sickness, in infancy and in disability; they see them in useful employment, restrained from the vicious indulgences to which their inferior nature inclines them; they see our penitentiaries never filled, and our poor-houses usually empty."

(The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, by Jefferson Davis, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1, 3, and 5 Bond Street, 1881, Volume I, page 534)

Davis was the United States Secretary of War from 1853 to 1857.

"Jefferson Davis, August 24th, 1858

Among our neighbors of Central and Southern America, we see the Caucasian mingled with the Indian and the African. They have the forms of free government, because they have copied them. To its benefits they have not attained, because that standard of civilization is above their race."

(Speeches of the Hon. Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, Delivered During the Summer of 1858, Baltimore, Printed by John Murphy & Co., Marble Building, 182 Baltimore Street, 1859)

He became the President of the Confederate States of America in 1861.

Take a truthful look at Brigham Young's words:

"It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants, but those they serve should use them with all the heart and feeling, as they would use their own children, and their compassion should reach over them, and round about them, and treat them as kindly, and with that humane feeling necessary to be shown to mortall beings of the human species. Under these sercumstances there blessings in life are greater in proportion than those who have to provide the bread and dinner for them"

"Therefore I will not consent for one moment to have an african dictate me or any Bren. with regard to Church or State Government. I may vary in my veiwes from others, and they may think I am foolish in the things I have spoken, and think that they know more than I do, but I know I know more than they do. If the Affricans cannot bear rule in the Church of God, what buisness have they to bear rule in the State and Government affairs of this Territory or any others?"

(Brigham Young Addresses, Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, dated Feb. 5, 1852, located in the LDS Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah)

The required reading of Charles Murray's Bell Curve at BYU and the mention of Murray by General Authorities including Gordon B. Hinckley indicate that racism as defined by superior/inferior is still in the LDS Church.

Please define racism correctly and do not use twisted examples such as having to evict a tenant for breaching the contract of a lease.

[cinepro]

EDIT: But, wait, isn't morality timeless? Wouldn't a prophet's job be to warn the people of immoral practices in any day that they lived?

H.

Well, if that were the case the Book of Mormon might be nothing more than 500 pages of constant pleading with the native women to put shirts on.

[Abulafia]

Dark skin is a blessing to those who live in very hot countries.

From Wiki.... (my bold)

Evolution of skin color

Rogers et al. (2004) performed an examination of the variation in MC1R nucleotide sequences for people of different ancestry and compared the sequences for chimpanzees and humans from various regions of the Earth. Rogers concluded that roughly five million years ago, at the time of the evolutionary separation of chimpanzees and humans, the common ancestors of all humans had light skin that was covered by dark hair. Over time the hair disappeared to allow better heat dissipation through sweating[5] and the skin tone grew darker to protect from folate depletion to the increased exposure to sunlight.[2] By 1.2 million years ago, shortly after the final speciation of homo sapiens from homo ergaster, the ancestors of all people living today had exactly the same receptor protein as modern Africans.[43] Evolutionary pressure meant that any gene variations that resulted in lighter skin were unable to survive under the intense African sun, and human skin remained dark for the next 1.1 million years.

Approximately 70,000