Racist Doctrine in Come Follow Me Lesson Manual Already Distributed

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The real question is if and why God would curse ANY of his children who made the first cut in the Great Council.

Less valiant?

Than who else who did not follow Satan?

I thought that was what the Telestial kingdom is for?!?

The story simple doesn't make sense. It teaches no lessons of value nor does it add to the Plan of Salvation.

Totally out of left field

It has no context. God does not curse his children who have not even been born. Ridiculous 

So I take it that you think those curses placed upon certain lineages found in the scriptures are to be considered racist even without any unique outward physical characteristics that would make it easy to identify a member of a cursed lineage? 
 

In consideration of the fact that in the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price some of the mightiest and most revered prophets of God — and even God Almighty himself — testify that divine curses have indeed been placed upon certain earthly lineages, it would seem to me that there are likely good and rational reasons why a God of perfect love and justice pronounced those curses that are yet to be revealed and understood. I personally would find it very difficult to cast aside whole portions of holy writ simply because I, within the scope of my very limited knowledge, don’t like what’s being said.

Edited January 19, 2020 by teddyaware

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree with this view. It may be turned into a positive thing because the difference between the online vs printed version could be used to teach the changes and why it can take time for change to occur as well as teach one shouldn’t just depend on one source for one’s study of the Gospel. 
 

I do hope there is additional active responses to this as opposed to simply altering the digital and leaving it at that.

I’m bringing a copy of the SLTrib article to my Bishop today to ask that he think about publicly addressing this with the ward.  Since families are studying the lessons from the hard copy manuals at home, I think they ought to clearly communicate the correct version to everyone proactively.  Maybe also put comments in the newsletter.  
 

We can make this into an opportunity to dispel old teachings even quoting from the gospel topics essay about the disavowal.  Locally, I’m thinking this can be a chance to turn lemons into lemonade.  

[ksfisher]

12 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Millions of copies already distributed claiming Dark Skim in BoM due to curse.

Dark skim?

Perhaps that’s just a printing error and not a reference to chocolate milk. 😊

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

Well the only way I can reconcile it is that black skin overall is not a sign of divine disfavor or curse.  But for the people in the above scripture it was used to help prevent inter marriage.   We cannot disavow Book of Mormon scriptures that is just smoke and mirrors.

I have to agree with this. The scripture says what it says and hard to interpret it any other way. 
One possible alternate way to look at it is how Brigham Young described those that leave Church:

"I feel to bless this people, and they are a God-blessed people. Look at them, and see the difference from their condition a few years ago! Brethren who have been on missions, can you see any difference in this people from the time you went away until your return? [Audience voices: "Yes."] You can see men and women who are sixty or seventy years of age looking young and handsome; but let them apostatize, and they will become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil."

Figuratively speaking, their countenance becomes black in appearance. I have seen this happen to many former church members. Perhaps this type of blackness is what happened to the Lamanites?

 

[provoman]

Print Version: “The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing,” “The dark skin was the sign of the curse. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord. ... Dark skin ... is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse.”

 

Online version: In Nephi’s day the curse of the Lamanites was that they were “cut off from [the Lord’s] presence … because of their iniquity” (2 Nephi 5:20–21). This meant the Spirit of the Lord was withdrawn from their lives. When Lamanites later embraced the gospel of Jesus Christ, “the curse of God did no more follow them” (Alma 23:18).

The Book of Mormon also states that a mark of dark skin came upon the Lamanites after the Nephites separated from them. The nature and appearance of this mark are not fully understood. The mark initially distinguished the Lamanites from the Nephites. Later, as both the Nephites and Lamanites each went through periods of wickedness and righteousness, the mark became irrelevant as an indicator of the Lamanites’ standing before God.

Prophets affirm in our day that dark skin is not a sign of divine disfavor or cursing. The Church embraces Nephi’s teaching that the Lord “denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). President Russell M. Nelson declared: “The Lord has stressed His essential doctrine of equal opportunity for His children. … Differences in culture, language, gender, race, and nationality fade into insignificance as the faithful enter the covenant path and come unto our beloved Redeemer”

 

This is why I am not understanding where there is a controversy. I think the online version is the better choice for the presentation of the material. But when compared, it seems there is elaboration of the print in the online version.

Edited January 19, 2020 by provoman

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, 2BizE said:

My view of this is there are a lot of different wrong beliefs still out there, even among the editors.  I don’t think the church has done enough to get word out of the essays that declare these new doctrines and church positions.  Most church members don’t know that the church now disavows the curse of black skin.

Oh, most members do know.  Most members don't even live in the good old USA.

[hope_for_things]

49 minutes ago, provoman said:

Print Version: “The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing,” “The dark skin was the sign of the curse. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord. ... Dark skin ... is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse.”

 

Online version: In Nephi’s day the curse of the Lamanites was that they were “cut off from [the Lord’s] presence … because of their iniquity” (2 Nephi 5:20–21). This meant the Spirit of the Lord was withdrawn from their lives. When Lamanites later embraced the gospel of Jesus Christ, “the curse of God did no more follow them” (Alma 23:18).

The Book of Mormon also states that a mark of dark skin came upon the Lamanites after the Nephites separated from them. The nature and appearance of this mark are not fully understood. The mark initially distinguished the Lamanites from the Nephites. Later, as both the Nephites and Lamanites each went through periods of wickedness and righteousness, the mark became irrelevant as an indicator of the Lamanites’ standing before God.

Prophets affirm in our day that dark skin is not a sign of divine disfavor or cursing. The Church embraces Nephi’s teaching that the Lord “denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). President Russell M. Nelson declared: “The Lord has stressed His essential doctrine of equal opportunity for His children. … Differences in culture, language, gender, race, and nationality fade into insignificance as the faithful enter the covenant path and come unto our beloved Redeemer”

 

This is why I am not understanding where there is a controversy. I think the online version is the better choice for the presentation of the material. But when compared, it seems there is elaboration of the print in the online version.

You have to connect the dots, and for whatever reason church leaders are unwilling to just explicitly state that those passages in the BoM don’t reflect current church teachings.  They could throw Nephi under the bus and say that this was Nephi’s opinion and it was influenced by his cultural views and was a fallible human like the rest of us.  That’s one option.  
 

Otherwise you’re going to have well intentioned members trying to come up with their own theories about how a literal interpretation of those BoM passages can be true, while at the same time the church teaches that God doesn’t do these curses with skin color.  It’s a conundrum.  Perhaps  a closer reading of the gospel topics essay and the history of racism in the church is needed to flesh these views out.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

Print Version: “The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing,” “The dark skin was the sign of the curse. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord. ... Dark skin ... is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse.”

I’m always nervous about ellipses.  Can anyone provide the full quote from Joseph Fielding Smith’s Answers to Gospel Questions?  I’m suspicious that it’s not as charitable on this topic as this may seem.  

[Metis_LDS]

For what it is worth as a Half Blood I have always been puzzled by the black skin thing.  I can post pictures from relatives that in a black and white picture appear blackish but I know they were reddish.  When persons from the past spoke of Red Indians they were not kidding and I have seen Red First Nations Natives in Alberta up close.  

Edited January 19, 2020 by Metis_LDS
correction

[provoman]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You have to connect the dots, and for whatever reason church leaders are unwilling to just explicitly state that those passages in the BoM don’t reflect current church teachings.  They could throw Nephi under the bus and say that this was Nephi’s opinion and it was influenced by his cultural views and was a fallible human like the rest of us.  That’s one option.  
 

Otherwise you’re going to have well intentioned members trying to come up with their own theories about how a literal interpretation of those BoM passages can be true, while at the same time the church teaches that God doesn’t do these curses with skin color.  It’s a conundrum.  Perhaps  a closer reading of the gospel topics essay and the history of racism in the church is needed to flesh these views out.  

To the bolded, this might help "Some people have mistakenly thought that the dark skin placed upon the Lamanites was the curse. President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) explained that the dark skin was not the curse: The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse [not the curse itself]. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord." (Book of Mormon student manual)

Edited January 19, 2020 by provoman

[10THAmendment]

Jobs skin turned black in Job 30:30 which obviously is not literal. Job did not become black. Black skin is an ancient thing that means doom and gloom over a person. The early prophets of the church were simply preaching false doctrine when they degraded black people said it was literal. 

Edited January 19, 2020 by 10THAmendment

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, provoman said:

To the bolded, this might help "Some people have mistakenly thought that the dark skin placed upon the Lamanites was the curse. President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) explained that the dark skin was not the curse: The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse [not the curse itself]. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord." (Book of Mormon student manual)

This whole sign of the curse apologetic might have sounded less problematic to people at the time, but it’s still clearly racist.  

[Thinking]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

none should be expected to believe that skin color was at any time a curse from God. 

Are you playing the semantics game? Skin color was definitely the sign of the curse.

[provoman]

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This whole sign of the curse apologetic might have sounded less problematic to people at the time, but it’s still clearly racist.  

How would explain the racism? 

It was a younger brother speaking of his older brothers.

[CA Steve]

Why was the need so great to keep the two groups from mixing that God actually changed the skin color on the Lamanites?

Wouldn't the group with the spirit immediately be able to recognize someone not from their group and who did not have the spirit? 

[Meadowchik]

46 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Are you playing the semantics game? Skin color was definitely the sign of the curse.

No, not at all! I said:

Quote

Confusion is going to be costly and painful for people at some point. Some dear friends of ours have four children who have dark skin. As teenagers and priesthood holders, they did not even know about the Priesthood being withheld until 1979. I cannot imagine that it will be easy for them when they learn it. This is an example of something that must be officially repudiated for the health of believing members: none should be expected to believe that skin color was at any time a curse from God.

I'm saying that the racist policies and scriptures must be repudiated. People should not be expected to believe that they are (or would have been at any time in history) less worthy or less eligible because of their skin color or race.

[hope_for_things]

55 minutes ago, provoman said:

How would explain the racism? 

It was a younger brother speaking of his older brothers.

And prejudicial treatment or view about another class of person based on racial characteristics including skin color is the definition of racism.  
 

Also, it wasn’t just his brothers, but their families, kids, grandkids, wife’s, aunt and uncles.  It was their group however big it had become by this point in the timeline.  

[provoman]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

And prejudicial treatment or view about another class of person based on racial characteristics including skin color is the definition of racism.  
 

Also, it wasn’t just his brothers, but their families, kids, grandkids, wife’s, aunt and uncles.  It was their group however big it had become by this point in the timeline.  

What "race" are referring to when you are speaking of Nephi's brothers, extended family, and others in About 588–559 B.C.

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Millions of copies already distributed claiming Dark Skim in BoM due to curse. Church claiming it’s a printing error. 
 

Damage sets back church decades claims one member of Genius.   
 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/01/18/error-printed-lds-church/

Someone pointed out the discrepancies between the printed and online versions to me a few weeks ago. It came across to me as the online version was more in-depth, thorough and better overall, not contradictory. I found it hard to spot how the printed version "doesn't reflect the church’s current views on the topic." I chalk that up to my personal bias (to me the two versions convey the exact same thing), as enough readers seem to have complained about it from their bias. It is interesting to me that, according to the spokeswoman, the Church accepts the perception of the offended as indicating that an "error" was been made on the Church's part.

Focusing on the skin aspect alone:

Print: "The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two people from mixing (see [scripture references]). The dark skin was the sign of the curse. The curse was the withdrawl of the Spirit of the Lord.."

Online: "The Book of Mormon also states that a mark of dark skin came upon the Lamanites after the Nephites separated from them. The nature and appearance of this mark are not fully understood. The mark initially distinguished the Lamanites from the Nephites. Later, as both the Nephites and Lamanites each went through periods of wickedness and righteousness, the mark became irrelevant as an indicator of the Lamanites’ standing before God."

[CV75]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This whole sign of the curse apologetic might have sounded less problematic to people at the time, but it’s still clearly racist.  

It seems to me that the Lehites were of a mindset where skin color and separation was the most effective and meaningful way for the Lord to deal with them so as to preserve the covenant in the promised land for as long as possible, for whatever reason. Every cultural group has its admirable and less-admirable mores (especially when viewed with presentism or egocentrism), some supportive of the covenants and some not, hence "The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him."

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I personally would find it very difficult to cast aside whole portions of holy writ simply because I, within the scope of my very limited knowledge, don’t like what’s being said.

So then what is "your own testimony" as opposed to accepting anything you have been taught without question?

Why accept the Book if Mormon at all?

Or why not accept the Zoroastrian Avesta as "Holy Writ," or the Koran??

Why deny them the status of scripture?

Sorry but to face these issues is necessary when one is a convert.

How do you know the Baptists did not get it right?

Why are you not a Jehovah's Witness?

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

People should not be expected to believe that they are (or would have been at any time in history) less worthy or less eligible because of their skin color or race.

But there was a time when some people were less eligible because of their skin color or race.

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m always nervous about ellipses.  Can anyone provide the full quote from Joseph Fielding Smith’s Answers to Gospel Questions?  I’m suspicious that it’s not as charitable on this topic as this may seem.  

Question: "The question I have is concerning the present status of the Lamanites. I know that Laman and Lemuel and their families were cursed, but to what extent is this curse carried today? Was the darker skin all or just part of the curse? Will this curse be completely forgotten and taken away by the Lord on the basis of repentance and complete acceptance of the gospel?"

Answer: The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord and the Lamanites becoming a "loathsome and filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations." (I Nephi 12:23.) The Lord commanded the Nephites not to intermarry with them, for if they did they would partake of the curse.

At the time of the Savior's visit to the Nephites all of the people became united, and the curse and the dark skin which was its sign were removed. The two peoples became one and lived in full harmony and peace for about two hundred years.

There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God. (IV Nephi, verse 17.)

EVIL BROUGHT RETURN OF DARK SKIN

After the people again forgot the Lord and dissensions arose, some of them took upon themselves the name Lamanites and the dark skin returned. When the Lamanites fully repent and sincerely receive the gospel, the Lord has promised to remove the dark skin. The Lord declared by revelation that, "before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as the rose." (D. & C. 49:24.)

The dark skin of those who have come into the Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse. Many of these converts are delightsome and have the Spirit of the Lord. Perhaps there are some Lamanites today who are losing the dark pigment. Many of the members of the Church among the Catawba Indians of the South could readily pass as of the white race; also in other parts of the South. (ANSWERS TO GOSPEL QUESTIONS, VOL. 3)

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Leaving our specific topic aside, do you believe we are all born exactly equal?  That we enter mortality on a completely level playing field as far as gospel progression?

I don't and I think scripture is clear on that.  And if we are not all created equal in spiritual progression I think some criteria had to be used by the Father in the placement we receive.  And again I think scripture indicates premortal actions help his decision making.

Of course we are not born into a perfectly equal situation.  In fact there are gross differences to where and how we are born.  But nobody earned a better or worse spot in this life in some pre earth life or if no pr earth life did God send them to some chosen group and to claim such with no evidence is a form of evil and has resulted in all sorts of atrocities by some humans on others. See this is when faith can be dangerous.

Edited January 19, 2020 by Teancum

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

What "race" are referring to when you are speaking of Nephi's brothers, extended family, and others in About 588–559 B.C.

Race is largely contextual and culturally defined.  All humans are essentially the same genetically, race is a human construct.  

Quote

Race is a powerful social category forged historically through oppression, slavery, and conquest.  Most geneticists agree that racial taxonomies at the DNA level are invalid.  Genetic differences within any designated racial group are often greater than differences between racial groups.  Most genetic markers do not differ sufficiently by race to be useful in medical research (Duster, 2009;Cosmides, 2003). 

https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/terms/race.html