Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?

[_thews]

So per BC's link, the dark skin was the sign of the curse, not the curse itself. And how does this help things exactly?

What kind of help are you looking for?

How do you interpret "White and delightsome" BC?

[_Jason Bourne]

I am told that the Church is now taking the position that the references to dark skin in the Book of Mormon were a metaphor and not actual skin color. Uhhhhhh, is this argument seriously being made? Is there a thread on this someone can point me to? Who is making the argument? Is there any evidence that the Church is actually taking this position???

The only person I have heard make this argument is Brant Gardner on an Mormon Stories podcast that you can find here:

http://mormonstories.org/307-311-transl ... t-gardner/

It is in one of the later hours.

Essentially he argues that darkness is a spiritual status and biblically the term having ones skin darkened, or other similar references to darkness, referred to spiritual status and not too actual skin color. He applies the same idea to the passages in the Book of Mormon about this.

I think he is way off base on this.

[_lulu]

The doctrine:

2 Nephi 5:20–25. The Lamanites Were Cursed• Verses 20–25 in 2 Nephi 5 answer at least four questions about the curse that came to the Lamanites:
1. What was the curse?
The curse is clearly defined in verse 20 as being “cut
off from the presence of the Lord.”
2. What caused the curse?
According to verse 21, the cause of the curse came
“because of their iniquity” and “hardened . . . hearts.”
Since the days of Adam’s Fall, wickedness has
resulted in being cut off from the presence of the
Lord (see 1 Nephi 2:21; 2 Nephi 4:4; 9:6; Alma 9:13;
Ether 10:11).
3. What was the mark or sign set upon the
Lamanites?
It is also explained in verse 21 that so “they might
not be enticing unto my people [the Nephites] the
Lord did cause a skin of blackness to come upon
them [the Lamanites].” It would appear that this was
done to limit the spreading of more wickedness.
Later Alma suggested this same motive when he
explained that “the skins of the Lamanites were
dark . . . that thereby the Lord God might preserve
his people, that they might not mix and believe
in incorrect traditions” (Alma 3:6, 8). Throughout
scripture we find warnings of the Lord not to marry
unbelievers (see Deuteronomy 7:2–3; 2 Corinthians
6:14); the result of doing so was often that the
righteous were turned away from the Lord (see
Deuteronomy 7:4; 1 Kings 11:4; D&C 74:5).
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. . . .
“The dark skin of those who have come into the
Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the
curse. . . . These converts are delightsome and have
the Spirit of the Lord” (Answers to Gospel Questions,
comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., 5 vols. [1957–66],
3:122–23).
4. What was the result of the curse?
Finally in verse 24 we learn that the result of the
curse—being cut off from the presence of the
Lord—is that they “become an idle people, full of
mischief and subtlety.”
One great blessing is that the curse is only valid as
long as people are wicked. If they repent, the “curse
of God [will] no more follow them” (Alma 23:18).
There are many examples of righteous Lamanites
who repented and enjoyed the Spirit of the Lord; one
of them even became a prophet (see Helaman 13:5).
Book of Mormon Student Manual Chapter 8

That's just personal opinion. It's not official church doctrine.

[_harmony]

Finally in verse 24 we learn that the result of the
curse—being cut off from the presence of the
Lord—is that they “become an idle people, full of
mischief and subtlety.”

According to AoF2, we believe people will be judged on their own sins, not for the sins of their lineage or their family.

God does not punish innocents.

Our leaders need to read their own scriptures, instead of listening to the cultural prejudices of their time. Then they wouldn't look foolish and backward to subsequent generations.

[_MCB]

According to AoF2, we believe people will be judged on their own sins, not for the sins of their lineage or their family.

Since when have the articles of faith superseded all other LDS scripture? In practice, many, if not most LDS ignore them. I suspect they were written as mere PR.

Muslims have a practice of examining contradictions between their scriptures, and declaring that one or the other has been abrogated, while acknowledging the existence of the one nullified. What would happen if GC were to go through this review?

[_Themis]

The only person I have heard make this argument is Brant Gardner on an Mormon Stories podcast that you can find here:

http://mormonstories.org/307-311-transl ... t-gardner/

It is in one of the later hours.

Essentially he argues that darkness is a spiritual status and biblically the term having ones skin darkened, or other similar references to darkness, referred to spiritual status and not too actual skin color. He applies the same idea to the passages in the Book of Mormon about this.

I think he is way off base on this.

I like Brant, but unfortunately when it comes to LDS issues you can see a lack of objectivity in his pursuit of apologia.

[_Infymus]

Check this out. Isn't this site run by the same guy that runs FAIR? (It appears it is.....see the copyright information at the bottom of the page)

http://www.blacklds.org/changes-to-lds- ... -footnotes

Yes, this is the whole More Good Foundation cancer.

[_ldsfaqs]

"Color" in the Book of Mormon was ALWAYS primarily "metaphorical".... The same way color references in the Bible were always primarily metaphorical.

People who actually read the scriptures have always known this.

Of course, it is also true that there DID seem to be some skin color differences between the two major groups, which would make sense if one was more modern and more Hebrew and the other more primitive. However, we also know from the Book of Mormon that even Lamanites were called WHITE.... Clearly, color in the Book of Mormon was primarily a metaphor in reference to spirituality and purity.

[_DarkHelmet]

"Color" in the Book of Mormon was ALWAYS primarily "metaphorical".... The same way color references in the Bible were always primarily metaphorical.

People who actually read the scriptures have always known this.

Of course, it is also true that there DID seem to be some skin color differences between the two major groups, which would make sense if one was more modern and more Hebrew and the other more primitive. However, we also know from the Book of Mormon that even Lamanites were called WHITE.... Clearly, color in the Book of Mormon was primarily a metaphor in reference to spirituality and purity.

Why would one group be more modern and the other more primitive when they came from the same family? And why would the "modern" group be lighter skinned than the "primitive" group.

I do agree that the Book of Mormon uses skin color to distinguish between the spiritual and non-spiritual people. The lighter the skin, the more spiritual the person is. The darker the skin, the more wicked. For some reason apologists don't think it's racist.

[_lulu]

"Color" in the Book of Mormon was ALWAYS primarily "metaphorical".... The same way color references in the Bible were always primarily metaphorical.

That's just personal opinion. It's not official church doctrine.