Were Adam And Eve White?

[KevinG]

There are plenty of people that believe (or used to believe) that God put a mark of black skin on Cain's seed and the Laminates while ALSO believing that idea is NOT racist.

 

They can take it up with the current Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency who have said in no unclear terms that the old folklore and theories are not true, and never were doctrine.

 

The last sociological study I saw referring to LDS and race attitudes was in the late 1980s and even then those with those views were a disturbing but small minority of the Saints.

 

Still unanswered is any reference to a "large number" or "many" or "most" of the Saints believing these things.  I don't buy the assertion.

[KevinG]

Which countries with branches and Stakes of the LDS Church don't have access to the internet?

 

I got those quotes from LDS.org and fairmormon.org in about 10 minutes.

 

Now you are just flailing.

 

You are also conflating the one time mark in the Book of Mormon with the Curse of Cain (a false protestant belief that got carried into the church in the 19th century).  These are two different things.

 

So you (edit: you and Brian 2.0) go to wards with people who ignore the prophets and justify their own bigotry.  How... er... nice for you.  Will you use this newfound knowledge that I have shared to disabuse them of their false doctrines, or continue to assume all Mormons are like your backwoods, redneck Stake members?  Of course we often project our own frame of reference onto larger populations, but you are starting to sound a bit provincial.

 

So again where is the study that confirms you and Brian are representative of the church as a whole?

Edited August 24, 2015 by KevinG

[Ahab]

SARCASM

(My one liners usually come with a helping of sarcasm sauce. Sorry I didn't make that clear.)

It was very clear to me, just so you know

I know I'm not always funny but I do have a good sense of humor. About as good as my sense of the truth. And I even laugh at myself sometimes. And I am a white guy.

[ERayR]

Maybe LDS did not believe that in your stake, but my stake is different. 

Again, all LDS agree black skin is not a curse, but some believe it used to be in ancient times. See the difference? 

 

No. 

 

Well, even Brian agrees, he just said 

 

 

and that is why we need a black Adam. Our church is an international church, many countries don't have access your quotes anyway.

 

Your reasoning is not rational.

 

I love being right 

 

You haven't made it yet.  Keep trying.

[Brian 2.0]

I did comment on them. Maybe you missed one.

Why do you suppose my idea and my advice do not make sense?

And yes I am always laughing inside, if not on the outside, when I see something funny.

 

laughter is good.  I feel bad for people that generally don't laugh often.   

 

I'll have to look back.  It's not a big deal and no need to rehash.  We'll find plenty later to spar over I'm sure.  And I always enjoy it when we do and would enjoy a laugh with you despite my troll-ish accusations

[TheSkepticChristian]

They can take it up with the current Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency who have said in no unclear terms that the old folklore and theories are not true, and never were doctrine.

 

You are missing the point, they don't think it is a theory, they think it is taught in the scriptures. They don't see it as racist. 

 

That is why we need a clear statement

Perhaps "dark skin was never a curse, not even in ancient times" 

 

Many LDS believe Cain is black, but his Father Adam is white 

 

"“a very strange personage,” dark and hairy, who “was a wanderer in the earth and and traveled to and fro." 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormon_urban_legends_or_folklore/Cain_as_Bigfoot

Edited August 25, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[KevinG]

I suggest the following site with some good discussion about contemporary LDS attitudes.  Recent studies (actual studies) indicate that LDS are likely to hold less racist attitudes than Americans in general.

 

Please review the footnotes.  That's where the real information is: http://www.blacklds.org/mauss

[Brian 2.0]

They can take it up with the current Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency who have said in no unclear terms that the old folklore and theories are not true, and never were doctrine.

 

The last sociological study I saw referring to LDS and race attitudes was in the late 1980s and even then those with those views were a disturbing but small minority of the Saints.

 

Still unanswered is any reference to a "large number" or "many" or "most" of the Saints believing these things.  I don't buy the assertion.

 

I'll grant you that the mark of Cain being black is somewhat disavowed at this point.  To nit-pick... someone could still believe the mark of Cain was dark skin and be square with what I read in those statements.  They just can't connect the mark of Cain to the Priesthood ban as that connection has been deemed not doctrine.

 

God turning the Lamanites skin black... and then back to white when righteous... is another matter.  I would love some statements on that from the brethren, but they haven't seem to touch that. 

[JulieM]

Agreed. What a ridiculous topic!

I've always felt you were one of the most thoughtful and kind members on this board until I just read through this thread. I no longer feel that way about you. I don't know what your and jkwilliams history is, but why not just refrain from responding or posting on his threads rather than doing what you've done here? It's really very ugly.

Edited August 25, 2015 by JulieM

[TheSkepticChristian]

I suggest the following site with some good discussion about contemporary LDS attitudes.  Recent studies (actual studies) indicate that LDS are likely to hold less racist attitudes than Americans in general.

 

How many times do we have to tell you that the LDS that believe dark skin was a curse in ancient times, don't see themselves as racist. 

Many believe that in my stake, but they are not racist, it make sense to them. 

 

No LDS I know is racist. 

 

 

They just can't connect the mark of Cain to the Priesthood ban as that connection has been deemed not doctrine.

 

that is what many LDS say  

Edited August 25, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[KevinG]

I'll grant you that the mark of Cain being black is somewhat disavowed at this point.  To nit-pick... someone could still believe the mark of Cain was dark skin and be square with what I read in those statements.  They just can't connect the mark of Cain to the Priesthood ban as that connection has been deemed not doctrine.

 

God turning the Lamanites skin black... and then back to white when righteous... is another matter.  I would love some statements on that from the brethren, but they haven't seem to touch that. 

 

Here is a good essay by John Tvedtnes also cited on blacklds.org  http://www.blacklds.org/tvedtnes  While this doesn't satisfy the request to cover such things in General Conference this would be a departure from the usual concentration on Christ, the Atonement, Loving thy Neighbor, etc.

[ERayR]

Okay grandpa 

 

 

 

I suggest that you do not have enough respect for your elders.

[KevinG]

How many times do we have to tell you that the LDS that believe dark skin was a curse in ancient times, don't see themselves as racist. 

Many believe that in my stake, but they are not racist, it make sense to them. 

 

No LDS I know is racist. 

 

1000 times of repeating that will still not prove that the attitude that a mark on the skin or color is a sign of inferiority is widespread, or even held by a large number of Saints.  Put up or shut up.

 

The only think that can be extrapolated from the Book of Mormon is that God once marked someone with a dark skin for their disobedience.  That can not be generalized into divining the attitudes of "many or most" Saints about ethnicity without some extreme amounts of projection.

 

In fact I've provided several references to articles and studies that disprove that notion.  You continue to ignore them or claim you already read them.  Then you claim that people don't have access to the same articles it took me a few minutes to find on the world wide web, and part of those on lds.org.

 

I'm afraid I cannot help you with reading comprehension.

Edited August 25, 2015 by KevinG

[JAHS]

and I know all of that, none of your quotes say black skin was never a curse. 

I am not talking about the priesthood ban or "neutral in heaven" 

 

Many LDS believe dark skin is a curse because the Book of Mormon appears to be saying that. At least the LDS in my stake, trust me. 

 

The pearl of great price also talks about the mark of Cain. 

 

SO CFR. Try again. 

 

Racist assumptions that have not been clearly debunked in General conference 

1. Dark skin is lamanite curse

2. the mark of Cain is black skin 

3. the first humans had to be white 

 

The black skin was not the curse that was put on Cain; rather the curse was that he would be a fugitive and a vagabond because of his deed in killing Abel (Gen. 4: 11-15).

 

"And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." (Gen. 4: 15)

 

A mark was put on Cain so noone would kill him.  We don't know what kind of mark was placed on Cain. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

1000 times of repeating that will still not prove that the attitude that a mark on the skin or color is a sign of inferiority is widespread, or even held by a large number of Saints.  Put up or shut up.

 

You quote a General Authority that said black skin was never a curse. 

 

I used to believe black skin was a curse in ancient times, I was not racist, but I was taught that in church. 

 

SO in my experience, a lot of LDS believe that. 

 

I am not saying they believe the mark was a sign of inferiority, you keep adding words to my mouth. 

 

I am going to write a letter to the church, if you don't help me I am going to ask another group to help me. 

 

 

The black skin was not the curse that was put on Cain; rather the curse was that he would be a fugitive and a vagabond because of his deed in killing Abel (Gen. 4: 11-15).

 

and I am not arguing that, I am simply saying what many LDS believe 

Edited August 25, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[KevinG]

I quoted several General Authorities saying that black skin is not a curse in our day.  You did not read or comprehend their words.

 

If you want someone to say marks or color were never used as a curse, even in ancient times, no one is arguing that.  It was at least once in the Book of Mormon.  That cannot be generalized into saying all black people, or people up to 1978 were still cursed.  It doesn't follow and it is a false teaching.

 

As for your letter, once you get it composed post it here.  I'm all in favor of indigenous actors playing temple roles for their own countries, however it might be costly to do.  I can also run it by a friend and graduate school classmate of mine who knows something about race and the church.  http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-a-black-man-in-zion-reflections-on-race-in-the-restored-gospel  Of course I can't promise he will have time to respond to your letter draft.  But it might be entertaining.

Edited August 25, 2015 by KevinG

[KevinG]

 

and I am not arguing that, I am simply saying what many LDS believe 

 

How many is "many".  Besides you Brian 2.0, and the apparently behind the times members of your Stake?

 

You still haven't answered my CFR on that.

[mfbukowski]

baby steps, I guess.

I have to cut them some slack because I assume the pool of actors they have to choose from is fluent English-speaking temple-recommend holding actors... and I can take a stab at the racial breakdown of the group and I'm sure diversity options is slim pickings.

I suspect they are also volunteers who live in the Mormon corridor because there are many there who would be honored to be chosen for such a role.  And would/should the church pay for travel expenses when there are so many locals?  And would more diversity shock some literalists?

 

I believe race is irrelevant to these issues yet clearly there are some here to want to see "diversity" and on the other side of literalism are those who do not want to see "diversity" at all.

 

Two sides of the same coin of literalism as far as I am concerned.   These are PROXIES, people!

 

If you die without having your ordinances done, would you protest at having someone of the same race being your proxy because you believed in diversity??

 

Would you protest at having someone of a different race being your proxy because they were the wrong color?  

 

Both questions regard one or the other as the "wrong shade of brown" to be a proxy for Adam and Eve!!   How goofy is that?

 

We are all brown- some are lighter and some are darker but I hate to break it to you- none of us are "white" unless you are a corpse.

 

The whole question is absurd as far as I am concerned.

Edited August 25, 2015 by mfbukowski

[TheSkepticChristian]

I quoted several General Authorities saying that black skin is not a curse in our day.  You did not read or comprehend their words.

 

and LDS agree, but they don't say anything about ancient times. That is why some LDS believe that it was (again, not is). 

Was and is are not the same thing in the minds of many LDS, and they are not racist. 

 

 

  It was at least once in the Old Testament and once in the Book of Mormon.  That cannot be generalized into saying all black people, or people up to 1978 were still cursed.  It doesn't follow and it is a false teaching.ining.

 

So you believe in racist assumptions too? 

I don't believe in a God that curses or marks with black skin. 

 

 

As for your letter, once you get it composed post it here.  I'm all in favor of indigenous actors playing temple roles for their own countries, however it might be costly to do.  I can also run it by a friend and graduate school classmate of mine who knows something about race and the church.  http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-a-black-man-in-zion-reflections-on-race-in-the-restored-gospel  Of course I can't promise he will have time to respond to your letter draft.  But it might be entertaining.

 

Good, I will, thanks. 

[ERayR]

How many is "many".  Besides you Brian 2.0, and the apparently behind the times members of your Stake?

 

You still haven't answered my CFR on that.

 

I can't even imagine some place that is that far in the backwoods.

[KevinG]

Well I just corrected my statement to remove the Old Testament reference in light of JAHS post.  I'd hate to perpetuate more bad history.

 

So that leaves us with one issue.  A single reference in the Book of Mormon to a dark skin (not even black if you note the Lamanite theories).

 

And keep in mind that the darker skinned people became highly favored of the Lord and the lighter became cursed due to their behavior, not their color.

 

What is it exactly you want the Brethren to refute again that they haven't already.  A single passage of the Book of Mormon that, to my knowledge has never been used to enslave, or justify bigotry in our time?  Or the false theories floated in the past which have now been shown to be culturally bound ignorance by statements of living prophets?

 

Like I said earlier if you know of so called Saints who still subscribe to such twaddle tell them that you, KevinG, ERayR, President Hinckley, Apostle Holland and other good Saints think they are WRONG!  You can do that without a letter to the Brethren.

Edited August 25, 2015 by KevinG

[ttribe]

so now you never came here for advice because you could answer the question but didn't want to? Why was that?

 

He wasn't looking for advice.  He wondered how the general population of this board would respond to a genuine question from an actual member of his ward.  Insinuating he is lying, that there is no actual "friend" and that he's just trying to insult people here doesn't make John look bad.  It makes you look bad.  I, for one, would have expected this kind of treatment from one or two posters who shall not be named, but not from you.

 

You may not like that John has some direct criticisms of the Church, but general suppositions of dishonesty and veiled intentions serve only to validate the stereotype that no doubter can expect to be treated better than a turncoat and traitor by the "faithful." 

 

The John Williams I've known for the past seven years has never given me reason to doubt the sincerity of his statements...even when he's been nice to me.  Now, if I could just get him to autograph my box sets of the Star Wars and Indiana Jones soundtracks.

Edited August 25, 2015 by ttribe

[Stargazer]

How many times do we have to tell you that the LDS that believe dark skin was a curse in ancient times, don't see themselves as racist. 

Many believe that in my stake, but they are not racist, it make sense to them. 

 

No LDS I know is racist. 

 

 

that is what many LDS say  

 

I am acquainted with only one LDS who is racist.  He went totally inactive the day he saw a mixed-race couple kneeling across from each other in a temple sealing room.  He's a great guy, and has nothing against people of other races (he'd risk his life to save anyone from danger, regardless of race), but he just thinks white people are superior.  I tried to talk him out of his racism, but was unsuccessful.  It's been awhile since I saw him, so it's possible he might have re-entered activity, but I have my doubts.

 

And he can't find any other LDS to join him in his racist attitudes, which is at least part of the reason he has withdrawn from activity.

[ttribe]

I am acquainted with only one LDS who is racist.  He went totally inactive the day he saw a mixed-race couple kneeling across from each other in a temple sealing room.  He's a great guy, and has nothing against people of other races (he'd risk his life to save anyone from danger, regardless of race), but he just thinks white people are superior.  I tried to talk him out of his racism, but was unsuccessful.  It's been awhile since I saw him, so it's possible he might have re-entered activity, but I have my doubts.

 

And he can't find any other LDS to join him in his racist attitudes, which is at least part of the reason he has withdrawn from activity.

 

I've mentioned this before, but while serving in KY on my mission, I had the occasion to encounter an inactive member of the Church who hadn't set foot in an LDS building since the day the Priesthood was extended to all worthy males.  I'm glad to report he was in the minority (all puns intended) in his actions, but it certainly did happen.

[ERayR]

I am acquainted with only one LDS who is racist.  He went totally inactive the day he saw a mixed-race couple kneeling across from each other in a temple sealing room.  He's a great guy, and has nothing against people of other races (he'd risk his life to save anyone from danger, regardless of race), but he just thinks white people are superior.  I tried to talk him out of his racism, but was unsuccessful.  It's been awhile since I saw him, so it's possible he might have re-entered activity, but I have my doubts.

 

And he can't find any other LDS to join him in his racist attitudes, which is at least part of the reason he has withdrawn from activity.

 

Years ago I knew a member who was racist.  The problem is he didn't realize it.