Skin Color Doesn’t Mean Skin Color

[ZealouslyStriving]

Doing all this on a cellphone is hard 😔

[Nevo]

19 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I've quoted this twice on this thread alone. I don't know why you clipped the next sentence out: 

"The nature and appearance of this mark are not fully understood."

Nature according to Google means: "the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it"

Appearance: "the way that someone or something looks"

Hi, BD. It looks like the thread has moved on, but I wanted to explain myself.

I didn't include the next sentence because I didn't think it was relevant to the point I was making. The Come, Follow Me manual doesn't describe the mark as a metaphor; it describes it as "dark skin" (something Juliann said only "dumb Mormons who don't know about metaphor in ancient texts" believe).

Yes, it does say that "the nature and appearance of this mark [of dark skin] are not fully understood." It also says that this mark of dark skin—however it came about and whatever it actually looked like—"initially distinguished the Lamanites from the Nephites" but later became "irrelevant." The manual goes on to affirm the current Church teaching that "dark skin is not a sign of divine disfavor or cursing." None of this makes any sense to me if they're not actually talking about skin color.

19 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

As for the book of moses and Abr. Moses has the word black/ness in exactly two verses in the same chapter that never mentions skin at all. Rather it talks first of "a blackness" falling on them after describing a cursed land. It's then shorthanded after. Unless you're including cain getting marked...that passage doesn't even have "black" in it.

The Book of Moses says that the "the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among ["the sons of Adam"]" (Moses 7:22). Here we get the same (anachronistic) linking of cursing, "black[ness]," and segregation that we find in the Book of Mormon. I think it's problematic even if skin color isn't explicitly mentioned.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

At this point it is in every lesson on OD 2 starting in seminary and I think any lesson referring to the Curse of Cain (Genesis)and so is likely to reach a lot more than a conference talk and which means a lot of rinsing and repeating, but I too hope something specific is mentioned by the prophet as has been already taught by Elder Gerard in multiple settings (I think this is his chosen focus of his calling, I wonder if he was counseled to do this or it was personal inspiration).  I so hope Elder Gerard becomes an apostle for so many reasons.

Love this…

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2021/09/digital-only/we-are-family?lang=eng

 

Talking about racism doesn’t cut it. Elder Oaks talks about racism but specifically excluded any actions from God in scripture as not racist by definition. Leaves a really big loophole. This is not an exmo problem. It’s a Latter-day Saint problem that is easily fixable if the church leadership wasn’t scared of alienating its base (my read on it). Or perhaps they just aren’t unified on it. 

Edited February 27, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

At this point it is in every lesson on OD 2 starting in seminary and I think any lesson referring to the Curse of Cain (Genesis)and so is likely to reach a lot more than a conference talk and which means a lot of rinsing and repeating, but I too hope something specific is mentioned by the prophet as has been already taught by Elder Gerard in multiple settings (I think this is his chosen focus of his calling, I wonder if he was counseled to do this or it was personal inspiration).  I so hope Elder Gerard becomes an apostle for so many reasons.

Love this…

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2021/09/digital-only/we-are-family?lang=eng

 

But every Mormon who lives or has lived doesn't think the same way! So it doesn't count, silly. 

Took care of that for you guys. On to the next undocumented accusation! 

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Depends on the decade. Church leaders taught that race was God’s caste system. People on earth were sorted into races based on their pre-existence performance. With white Europeans on top And black Africans on bottom. Other races in between.  They thought that races should not mix and marry. They taught that Native American skin color lightened as people accepted the gospel. Among other things. 

But is any of that "guidance"- counsel towards actionable steps? Seems like thoughts and ideas, nothing more.

Edited February 27, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving
Clarification

[Calm]

Quote

“We envision a lot of our members from the church, through our program Just Serve, which is national and encourages service, will team up with the Black sororities, the Urban League, NAACP and others and come together with resources to build a model of collaboration and cooperation to deal with some of the tough inner-city questions,” said Elder Jack N. Gerard, a General Authority Seventy and executive director of the Church Communication Department.

The expectation is there to put words disavowing racism into action…

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/6/18/22533923/can-the-naacp-latter-day-saint-relationship-save-america-lds-mormon

This is in part a response to…

Quote

Talking about racism doesn’t cut it.

They aren’t just talking.

Edited February 27, 2024 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

Do you hold the same standard for every other org?

Just ones that I’m intimately familiar with. Ones where I know the thoughts and feelings of both family members, close, friends relatives, etc. Nearly all of them reject your interpretation. This isn’t a hard problem to fix. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Talking about racism doesn’t cut it. Elder Oaks talks about racism but specifically excluded any actions from God in scripture as not racist by definition. Leaves a retry big loop hole. This is not an exmo problem. It’s a Latter-day Saint problem that is easily fixable if the church leadership wasn’t scared of alienating its base (my read on it). Or perhaps they just aren’t unified on it. 

How? Seems "exmos" are the ones bent out of shape about it... I'm not losing sleep 😎

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

But is any of that "guidance"- counsel towards actionable steps? Seems like thoughts and ideas, nothing more.

Honestly, you can just get out of here. My wife grew up, thinking that her parents marriage was suspect. Because she is mixed race, she held a deep concern that she would not be able to find someone to marry in a righteous way. My children came home from church with doubts about their worth. They were born in 2003 for goodness sake. My mother complemented the lightest skin of my children because of his color. 

Edited February 27, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Hi, BD. It looks like the thread has moved on, but I wanted to explain myself.

I didn't include the next sentence because I didn't think it was relevant to the point I was making. The Come, Follow Me manual doesn't describe the mark as a metaphor; it describes it as "dark skin" (something Juliann said only "dumb Mormons who don't know about metaphor in ancient texts" believe).

Yes, it does say that "the nature and appearance of this mark [of dark skin] are not fully understood." It also says that this mark of dark skin—however it came about and whatever it actually looked like—"initially distinguished the Lamanites from the Nephites" but later became "irrelevant." The manual goes on to affirm the current Church teaching that "dark skin is not a sign of divine disfavor or cursing." None of this makes any sense to me if they're not actually talking about skin color.

 

And the official statements on LDS.org don't clarify that for you? Why not? You know full well how manuals are written and by whom. Daniel Peterson gave proof that manuals are barely proof read let alone gone over by the First Prez. The church needs to do better on that but it doesn't discount or set aside the official position. 

Quote

The Book of Moses says that the "the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among ["the sons of Adam"]" (Moses 7:22). Here we get the same (anachronistic) linking of cursing, "black[ness]," and segregation that we find in the Book of Mormon. I think it's problematic even if skin color isn't explicitly mentioned.

That same thinking is in the Curse of Cain and was used to justify slavery before Mormonism existed. Is that equally problematic for all Christians who no longer read that in to it? Is it appropriate to go into a Protestant forum and tell them they believe in racist scriptures? 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Honestly, you can just get out of here. My wife grew up, thinking that her parents marriage was suspect. Because she is mixed race, she held a deep concern that she would not be able to find someone to marry in a righteous way. My children came home from church with doubts about their worth. They were born in 2003 for goodness sake. My mother complemented the lightest skin of my children because of his color. 

It is unfortunate that attitudes won’t turn on a dime even when policies sometimes do, such as the 1978 removal of the ban leading to immediate action of blacks receiving priesthood, but here we are 45+ years later still trying to move forward.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

Daniel Peterson gave proof that manuals are barely proof read let alone gone over by the First Prez. The church needs to do better on that but it doesn't discount or set aside the official position.

The fact that the disavowal is in every relevant lesson in the most recent manuals makes me think this was official direction.  I wonder if Ben Spackman has any insight into how this is being pushed in teacher training or whatever they call it in CES.

Dan was describing something from a couple of decades ago (I remember hearing the story either shortly before I moved down from Canada or shortly after and that was in 2003).  Maybe things have changed.  Pres Nelson seems to me like the kind of man who would check out the manuals.  The Come Follow Me program seems near and dear to his heart….and he was the face of the new relationship cooperating with the NAACP, etc. (see Deseret.org link).

Edited February 27, 2024 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is unfortunate that attitudes won’t turn on a dime even when policies sometimes do, such as the 1978 removal of the ban leading to immediate action of blacks receiving priesthood, but here we are 45+ years later still trying to move forward.

The only reason we’re here 45 years later is because the church leadership refuses to address the issue head on in a way that could upset the more conservative members of the church. It’s a decision that they make. Every time they choose to avoid the topic they make that decision. They have the ability to address it and they choose not to. Instead they issue carefully worded denials, it can be read either way. Slowly at first, then build steam, then publish anonymous essays on their website. Then slip stuff in the manuals then pretend it never existed in the first place . Avoid taking direct responsibility to stand up at the pulpit, and admit that they were wrong.  Call out their predecessors.

Edited February 27, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Honestly, you can just get out of here. My wife grew up, thinking that her parents marriage was suspect. Because she is mixed race, she held a deep concern that she would not be able to find someone to marry in a righteous way. My children came home from church with doubts about their worth. They were born in 2003 for goodness sake. My mother complemented the lightest skin of my children because of his color. 

But I just got here 😔

Seriously though I sorry your kids had to go through that. But anyone really reading the standard works esp. the Book of Mormon would know that all are worthy of love and respect

[Stargazer]

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

It’s the top/first hit when I did a search on “black skin” for “all content”…

In fact all of the hits on the first page (but one, which is an historical document) are disavowals of black skin as a sign of a curse. (The 6 or so quotes are going to take a bit, I need to save between quotes so as not to lose my work…)

added:  I particularly like the last one as the teacher is told to display the Church’s disavowal, have a student read it, and then discuss why any such speculation on skin color as a curse is wrong, which means this is taught to all youth in the Church who do institute (unless I am wrong and this isn’t a required or beginning class).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/priesthood-and-temple-restriction?lang=eng

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/training/black-members-of-the-church/section-4/africa?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/foundations-of-the-restoration-teacher-manual/lesson-26-the-revelation-on-the-priesthood?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2019/12/05-bowed-down-to-the-grave?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual-2017/chapter-56-official-declaration-2?lang=eng

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/the-priesthood-restored-podcast-episode-5-transcript

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/council-of-fifty-minutes-march-1844-january-1846-volume-1-10-march-1844-1-march-1845/1#historical-intro

This is the exception as it is a transcript of an 1844 meeting and so would obviously not have the modern day disavowal in it.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-seminary-teacher-manual/introduction-to-the-book-of-genesis/lesson-17-genesis-6-13-9-29?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/foundations-of-the-restoration-teacher-material-2019/lesson-27-teacher-material-the-revelation-on-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

I predict that the racism hobbyhorse will always be too valuable to those who must desperately ride on it in order to justify their self-righteous attacks on the church. They cannot abandon it, because it forms too much of their argument against the church.

Or perhaps I will be surprised. 

Nah.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

But I just got here 😔

Seriously though I sorry your kids had to go through that. But anyone really reading the standard works esp. the Book of Mormon would know that all are worthy of love and respect

And yet their story isn’t unique. Again, church leadership has the ability to stand up and put it into it at any time. It’s been 45 years. What are they waiting for?

[juliann]

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Just ones that I’m intimately familiar with. Ones where I know the thoughts and feelings of both family members, close, friends relatives, etc. Nearly all of them reject your interpretation. This isn’t a hard problem to fix. 

And all of mine soundly reject it. We all wish the church would do more. But we have enough to start working with now. You are going to need stats, not anecdotes if you want to make claims for how racist everyone is. The link from Armand Mauss does contain stats and it doesn't support your idea that LDS are more racist than others at that time. And I am sorry for the experience of your children. I realize the strongest statements are more recent. But there is enough to throw in the face of anyone who supports racism while claiming to be LDS.

I think the real problem here is our fear of "contention" which translates into letting people say evil things in our presence and in church lessons. Until we are willing to do the work of putting them into action, all the official statements in the world won't make a difference to those kind of people. Social pressure will. And there are more of us than them. That becomes very clear in RS when we all get talking about difficult topics. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And yet their story isn’t unique. Again, church leadership has the ability to stand up and put it into it at any time. It’s been 45 years. What are they waiting for?

Honest question... Have you watched General Conference over the last 5 years?

Church leaders have been very blunt about how we are to treat other races. If the chaff aren't listening they can't make them.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

BTW I like dark-skinned girls.

My family is pretty diverse. My son-in-law is Mexican, now I have two sons that promised/engaged to one who is part Jamaican and Italian, and the other one is half black and half white that is Ecuadorian. This just happened in the last few months, and we'll be planning two weddings here in a few months. I'm so very excited to welcome these beautiful women to our family. 

Edited February 27, 2024 by Tacenda

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 minutes ago, juliann said:

And all of mine soundly reject it. We all wish the church would do more. But we have enough to start working with now. You are going to need stats, not anecdotes if you want to make claims for how racist everyone is. The link from Armand Mauss does contain stats and it doesn't support your idea that LDS are more racist than others at that time. And I am sorry for the experience of your children. I realize the strongest statements are more recent. But there is enough to throw in the face of anyone who supports racism while claiming to be LDS.

I think the real problem here is our fear of "contention" which translates into letting people say evil things in our presence and in church lessons. Until we are willing to do the work of putting them into action, all the official statements in the world won't make a difference to those kind of people. Social pressure will. And there are more of us than them. That becomes very clear in RS when we all get talking about difficult topics. 

The real problem is that Russell Nelson hasn’t stood up in general conference invoked his prophetic mantle and specifically repudiated his predecessor’ns interpretation of these scriptures. They spend plenty of time condemning homosexuality. I know they have time to spare for this if they choose to. 

Edited February 27, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

BTW I like dark-skinned girls.

Not really appropriate for several reasons…just an fyi (I missed it earlier), it’s rating women by appearance 

Edited February 27, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My family is pretty diverse. My son-in-law is Mexican, now I have two sons that are nearly engaged to one who is part Jamaican and Italian, and the other one is half black and half white that is Ecuadorian. 

My Stake President daughter from when I was a kid (early 90s) married a guy from Jamaica.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Not really appropriate for several reasons…just an fyi

How about... I appreciate darker skin tones?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Honest question... Have you watched General Conference over the last 5 years?

Church leaders have been very blunt about how we are to treat other races. If the chaff aren't listening they can't make them.

The problem is that it doesn’t matter. Here is a talk from Elder Oaks on racism. 
 

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dallin-h-oaks/racism-other-challenges/

Note this at the bottom:

“Using current definitions, some might call such divine actions and prophet-taught principles racist, but God, who is the loving Father of all nations, tribes, and ethnicities,32cannot be branded as racist for His dealings with His children. Often the reasons for His plan are not known or understandable to mortals. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,” He said through the prophet Isaiah. “Neither are your ways my ways.”33

He’s excused all divine and prophetic actions from scrutiny. All one has to do is decide the priesthood ban, racist curses etc are divine and then bam! Not racist. 
 

Until they are specifically called out by name by those in authority, these things will persist in your church. 

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

My Stake President daughter from when I was a kid (early 90s) married a guy from Jamaica.

I upvoted your comment because now you have enough posts, yay!

Edited February 27, 2024 by Tacenda