Church Disavows Dark Sin as a Curse

This is great progress. I made the mistake though of reading through the comments. Sad how hateful some can be even when the church is trying. Dammned if you do, damned if you don’t I guess. Glad to see the church is making friends with the NAACP as well. I think that will be very beneficial for both sides.

I thought this was automatically disavowed when the PH was opened to all worthy male members of the church regardless of race.

What am I missing? This feels very strange.

The teachings that Blacks were cursed with the mark of Cain or that they were marked because they didn’t keep their first estate and a variety of other similar reasons for Blacks not holding the priesthood persisted (and does persist with some) long after 1978. Even the priesthood essay is not clear enough for some. I think this particular case with the manual misprint/oversight is actually an example of that. Whoever wrote/edited that portion of the manual apparently believed it or believed it was doctrine AND it is presumed that editors other than the original also looked at it (this would include GAs). I think the Church is a little embarrassed by this and should be.

I thought this was automatically disavowed when the PH was opened to all worthy male members of the church regardless of race.

What am I missing? This feels very strange.

What happened in 1978 is that the priesthood and temple ban was removed. 10 after that Elder Oaks began saying that the justifications that had been built up to explain the ban had been man made (he may have been saying that before but in 1988 we have him on record). In essence – God commanded the ban and God commanded the ban rescinded but God did not explain himself and we were foolish for trying to put reasons to God’s commands. Elder Oaks has been remarkably consistent in this rationale. I did a comparison on his remarks from 1988, 2007, and 2018.

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9013&p=126086&hilit=elder+oaks+restriction#p126086

Recently President Oaks gave some remarks at the “Be One” celebration. Pres. Oaks had given an interview on this same topic in 1988 and in 2007. I am interested in a comparison of his remarks 30 years apart.

“‘If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, “Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,” you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We [mortals] can put reasons to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here, and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that. … I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.’

“When asked if [he] was even referring to reasons given by General Authorities, [he] replied:

“‘I’m referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon … by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking. … My experience with this was to say, I don’t know whether this is commanded in the Pearl of Great Price. I’m not positive about that commandment in relation to this. I put my faith on the president of the Church whom I sustain as the prophet. When he tells me that this is what the church does, then I’ll go with that…. Let’s don’t make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that’s where safety lies’ [“Apostles Talk about Reasons for Lifting Ban,”

Daily Herald,

Provo, Utah, June 5, 1988, 21 (AP)]” (Dallin H. Oaks,

Life’s Lessons Learned

[2011], 68–69).

Elder Oaks calls the restriction a revelation and a commandment. Elder Oaks had faith in the commanded/revealed restriction but not in any of the explanations then put forward. The revelation is the will of the Lord – where safety lies.

I had many times that my heart ached for that, and it ached for my Church, which I knew to be true and yet blessings of that Church were not available to a significant segment of our Heavenly Father’s children. And I didn’t understand why; I couldn’t identify with any of the explanations that were given. Yet I sustained the action; I was confident that in the time of the Lord I would know more about it, so I went along on faith.[Elder Oaks “The Mormons” 2007

Elder Oaks could not identify with the explanations given at that point. He sustained the “action” (meaning priesthood ban). He went on faith that he would know more about it in the “time of the Lord” (which I believe infers that the restriction was part of the Lord’s timing)

I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them. As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray — as promised from the beginning of these restrictions — that the day would come when all would enjoy the blessings of priesthood and temple…[snip]…

Institutionally, the Church reacted swiftly to the revelation on the priesthood.

Ordinations and temple recommends came immediately. The reasons that had been given to try to explain the prior restrictions on members of African ancestry — even those previously voiced by revered Church leaders — were promptly and publicly disavowed. … [snip]… Others have wanted to look back, concentrating attention on re-examining the past, including seeking reasons for the now-outdated restrictions.

However, most in the Church, including its senior leadership, …[snip]… have trusted the wisdom and timing of the Lord and accepted the directions of His prophet. [President Oaks “Be One” 2018]

President Oaks could not feel confirmation of the truth of the restriction explanations then put forward. President Oaks infers that the priesthood restriction was a commandment and divine direction. President Oaks infers that the restriction was in place due to “the wisdom and timing of the Lord.”

It appears that the thinking of President Oaks has not really evolved much on this subject. It regards to content, there is very little change. One development that I noticed was the President Oaks has taken to calling the Priesthood ban as “restrictions”. In the previous interviews President Oaks used an assortment of words to describe the restriction – revelation, command, “the one”, this, this subject, that, it, & the action (His interviewers used the term “Priesthood Ban”, Elder Oaks never used that term that I can tell). In his 2018 address President Oaks used “the restriction”, “his restriction”, or “restrictions” 7 times.

I am somewhat disappointed because I had hoped that the Essay on Race and the Priesthood might have added something to President Oaks’ thought process on this subject. I had thought that it was apparent that there was no evidence for a revelation that began the priesthood restriction (and that it could have been implemented by BY acting as a man and not as an oracle of God). I had thought that by unequivocally condemning “all racism, past and present, in any form” in the essay, the church might be taking a “read between the lines” approach to floating the idea that the restriction might have been wrong.

If that was the intent of the essay, President Oaks appears not to have received the memo.

I was taught in LDS institute in the early 2000’s that dark skin placed upon the Lamanites was a sign of the curse but not the curse itself. I did not interpret the essay to have refuted this BoM teaching (and it would appear that the writers and editors of the Come Follow Me Manual did not understand it this way either). Is that what the church is now saying? That Nephi was wrong?

I was taught the same thing just a few years ago, I think it was in a BYU religion class. If the church really is trying to disavow these teachings, it won’t be easy. It’s been part of the official curriculum for a very long time.

… However, 2 Nephi 5:21 comes right out and says that the Lamanites were cursed with black skin to make them undesirable to the Nephites. It’s a little harder for church leaders to distance themselves from that, since it comes right out of the BOM. …

I think the current approach leaders are taking is to go ultra-parse on the verse to make the claim that the curse is a separate thing from the mark of “blackness of skin.”

Here’s the verse:

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Again, if you go ultra-parse separating thoughts from one another following punctuation (periods or semicolons), you could say that the verse is communicating three separate ideas:

1) God cursed the Lamanites because of their iniquity.

2) The Lamanites hardened their hearts against god.

3) The Lamanites were hot, like perfect 10s, so god caused a skin of blackness to come upon them to make them less attractive?

Curse or no curse, that last one is tough to get around.

I don’t know why we can’t go the route of saying Nephi was a product of his time, held racist views, attributed some of his racist views to god and later his thoughts became scripture that many used to justify racist/stereotypical views.

But Nephi is kind of like Joseph Smith in that regard. The answer is seldom, “Yeah, Nephi/Joseph clearly screwed up in that instance. They were human after all.” and all too often the answer is an apologetic aimed at protecting the purity of a legend we’ve built up.

One thing we don’t like to discuss in Sunday School is how Nephi is a unreliable narrator.

The Race and the Priesthood essay says the following:

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

That goes for things BY said, things that other church leaders have said, …and things Nephi said. I think we often give prophets in the BoM (and other scriptures) too much weight simply because what they’ve said is found in scripture. Nephi was just another church leader in a long line of church leaders and church leaders get things wrong all the time.

In other words, maybe the verse is saying that black skin was a curse and a sign of divine disfavor, but that theory is officially disavowed – even if Nephi advanced it.

I don’t know why we can’t go the route of saying Nephi was a product of his time, held racist views, attributed some of his racist views to god and later his thoughts became scripture that many used to justify racist/stereotypical views.

But Nephi is kind of like Joseph Smith in that regard. The answer is seldom, “Yeah, Nephi/Joseph clearly screwed up in that instance. They were human after all.” and all too often the answer is an apologetic aimed at protecting the purity of a legend we’ve built up.

Yeah, I agree. I wish we could simply say that Nephi’s comments were incorrect. However, we, as a church, have kind of painted ourselves into a corner when we claim that the BOM is the most correct of any book on earth. We have Sunday School lessons practically worshiping the book, we build up the characters to the level of infallibility, teach our children to sing songs about them, etc. So, when a verse like this comes along, it’s hard to just point the finger at Nephi. It’s like saying, it’s the most correct of any book on earth…except that verse.

In full transparency, my view of the BOM is that it is a fictional book, written by Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith. I still see a lot of value in the stories and parables in the book, just like I do with the Bible. I read large parts of the Old Testament as allegorical, rather than historical, and I read the BOM in the same light. Since I started viewing the BOM from this perspective, it’s been much easier for me to accept verses like this one, and other things that I considered to be inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the BOM. My testimony no longer hangs on the truth of the BOM.

Due to this stance, it’s easy for me to picture this verse as a glimpse into JS and/or Oliver Cowdery’s personal feelings that ‘blackness of skin’ was unattractive and a curse.

For somebody that has a more TBM stance on the BOM, it may be easier just to skip over the verse to avoid the awkwardness, or to look for an apologetic response to get around the issue. But, from a TBM perspective, I would imagine it would be difficult to claim that the BOM is the most correct of any book, and then start making exceptions for various verses. It was those kinds of constant mental gymnastics that caused my initial faith crisis.

I was discussing this issue with DW last night and she compared it to Martin Luther. He had held deeply anti-Semitic views that the Lutherans have long since had to come to terms with and reject. The both honor him for his accomplishments and understand that he was a complicated figure and a product of his time and environment.

Below is the change that was made in the digital version of the come follow me manual. If the Joseph Fielding Smith quote stating that dark skin was the “mark” of the curse but not the mark itself was an example of “outdated commentary” (so says a LDS church representative), then this quote below represents the current church position

What was the curse that came upon the Lamanites?

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” (“President Nelson Remarks at Worldwide Priesthood Celebration” [June 1, 2018], newsroom.ChurchofJesusChrist.org).

IMO, this new section does not really identify or reject the racism. “The nature and appearance of this mark [of dark skin] are not fully understood.” This seems to me to give wiggle room to those that want to continue to believe that dark skin was the mark of the curse and a punishment for disobedience while providing some distance and plausible deniability to those in the church that want to see things through a more racially progressive lens.t

It reminds me of the statement put out by the church in 1968:

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God but which He has not made fully known to man.

This statement was a baby step towards repealing the ban. While some church leaders had been rather explicit in defending and justifying the ban, here it said that the reasons for the ban were “not made fully known to man.” It took an additional 9 years after this statement came out that the church was ready to end the ban and much, much longer before the church was ready to disavow the justifications that had been put forward in support of the ban. (arguably, we are still today in a position of justifying and defending the ban – just by saying that God commanded it and did not explain his reasons then later commanded its repeal)

Perhaps this new step in changing the digital version of the come follow me manual is a harbinger or forerunner of additional changes yet to come. Maybe someday we can have a discussion in SS about how Nephi was a product of his time and might have been wrong. Maybe God didn’t have anything to do with the Lamanites skin pigmentation after all.