Why is the Church still promoting the idea that black skin is inferior?

[_I have a question]

Can the Church really take any credible stance on racism in general, and the treatment of black people in America specifically, while the following remains as doctrine within the canon?

21 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.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 5?lang=eng

Surely it is beyond time for this racist passage (and others) to be removed from the canon completely?

[_moksha]

Apologists have contended that the skin referred to is actually leather loincloths, thus as a punishment for their iniquities, God decided to turn their underwear dark and that all future underwear by these people would be dark. On a cheerful note, many Latter-Day Saints have held the belief that Lamanites can shop at their local Walmart and purchase clean white Fruit of the Loom briefs. Hope that helps.

If this question was directly asked of the First Presidency, my guess is that they would state that black skin is not inferior. However, they would not repudiate the Book of Mormon. It, therefore, represents a Catch-22 situation.

[Guest]

Apologists have contended that the skin referred to is actually leather loincloths, thus as a punishment for their iniquities, God decided to turn their underwear dark and that all future underwear by these people would be dark. On a cheerful note, many Latter-Day Saints have held the belief that Lamanites can shop at their local Walmart and purchase clean white Fruit of the Loom briefs. Hope that helps.

An argument so silly as to be beyond stupid.

"God caused them to wear dark underwear as a curse!"

Was the color of underwear that black men wore pre 1978 the reason they could not get the priesthood?

Assuming for a moment that Nephite's and Lamenites actually existed, then all a Lamenite had to do was put on different colored clothes and he was a Nephite? In other words he could remove God's curse by a change of underwear!

/boggle

[_Shulem]

Make sure students understand that the curse mentioned in this chapter was separation from God. The changing of the Lamanites’ skin was only a mark or sign of the curse.

"ONLY a mark or a sign of the curse", see, it was "Only", just "ONLY" a sign much like masonic SIGNS performed in the temple are ONLY signs of the token which they represent. The sign and the token go together in the temple (hand in hand) just like black skin and the Mormon curse. So, the sign is the dark skin and the token is the curse.

Evil Mormonism. Hypocrites! Filthy liars!

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a church of the devil!

I so testify,

Shulem

[_Shulem]

Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon is utter TRASH. Time to take out the garbage and openly accuse the Mormons for their TRASH which they have thrown into the faces of millions of people for nearly 200 years.

The Book of Mormon is SICK SICK SICK!!!

Book of Garbage. The Mormons can keep their garbage! Racist garbage.

[_Stem]

Yes well, they doubled down that the Lamanites were forced to wear black under britches due to their being cursed.

Kevin Christensen wrote a recent piece for Interpreter and I offered a couple of comments over at MD&D and yep, he's like, "the natural effects of the metaphor through which you choose to view and value a range of information that Sproat and I and Nibley and Sorenson and Gardner, and others have provided: "God decided to curse the Lamanites with dark colored underpants."

Mr. Bukowski chimed in saying I should put a sock in it because there are black Mormons.. He even names a black person he once met and says he's a really nice guy. For some reason the way he put it, it seems, he thought I should be surprised by such a possibility.

If you want (although, I might not really recommend):
https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72 ... es/page/2/

[_Dr LOD]

The reason the article by Sproat was not “at the table” is because it is so amazingly absurd. The full implications of their position undercuts the authority of just about every modern LDS prophet. As well as digging a deeper hole for the institutionalized racism inherent in the LDS church and culture.

[_Philo Sofee]

Their underwear as colored as the curse?!? HOWLING LAUGHTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Apologetics is just so lost these days........

[_I have a question]

“We join with many throughout this nation and around the world who are deeply saddened at recent evidences of racism and a blatant disregard for human life. We abhor the reality that some would deny others respect and the most basic of freedoms because of the color of his or her skin."

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2020/6/1/ ... ints-naacp

"It behooves each of us to do whatever we can in our spheres of influence to preserve the dignity and respect every son and daughter of God deserves."

I find Mr Nelsons laudable exhortations somewhat hollow (two-faced?) given the ongoing promotion within the Church's canon of the idea that God cursed a section of humanity and used a black skin to show they were cursed and undesirable.

Mr Nelson, it is within your sphere of influence to remove racist passages from the Book of Mormon, and to apologise for the Priesthood Ban, are you going to practice what you preach?

[_moksha]

Does anyone know the Community of Christs response to that skin curse idea?