Sister, we need your testimony, as so many of our African-American brothers and sisters, and others, struggle with this! Grateful to hear that you have overcome this stumbling block. Stay strong, and God bless you.
Let's look at ot from Lanen and Lemles points of view. The much younger brother uses a tazer on me . Made me make a boat if I didn't I got shocked . Then he made me get on the boat and travel to a new land . We could have all went are separate ways . Then when we got to the new lands Nephi tried to take readership. And Nephis God cursed our wife's to be ugly instead of changing his people he cursed ours . How nice . And Nephi split the people when we wouldn't let him be leader snuck off made his own kingdom. Curse my wife's and children you get genosided
One issue I have with this new interpretation is that members of the church, including the leaders, interpreted these passages literally for decades. Did those leaders, including apostles, interpret this incorrectly? This feels like an apologetic reinterpretation. I'm not saying what it should be, because viewing it as non-racial is definitely a nicer interpretation, but I'm saying how it had been viewed for the majority of the history of the church. I can find general conference talks to support this.
@@joaop.barata6062 continuing revelation looks like incorrect interpretations being promulgated throughout the church and leadership only to be corrected much later?
@@joaop.barata6062 there are lots of reasons why this might be a bad way of doing revelation. For one, it leads people astray of the true meaning of the scriptures to allow them to be taught and to believe one thing for decades and decades. Two, it can cause people to lose faith. Did you know that people were excommunicated for their opposition to the church's policy regarding the exclusion of black people from the temple and priesthood? Only to have that policy reversed a few years later? Also, why would ongoing revelation not be celebrated? Instead the campaign to change the meaning of the scriptures seems to be a quieter effort. There were no proclamations or first presidency announcements. Suddenly it wasn't literal anymore, despite being taught by prophets as being literal forever. I think this is the membership and some in the leadership just trying to make the scriptures more palatable for our modern sensibilities, not actually change anything. No revelation needed. But as far as I can tell, no one in leadership is even claiming revelation. That's just a way for you and others to make it make sense in the context of the church as we know it.
@@brningman I'm not saying revelation was involved when leaders were teaching dark skinned people weren't valiant in the war in Heaven, or other similar teachings. I'm saying revelation was involved when those notions were corrected. You mention the Priesthood ban, I have more reasons to believe that when introduced, it was not racially motivated, than to believe it was. I do believe it took longer than it ought to, to be lifted, due to prejudice, however. And I have reason to believe that Brigham Young, at the very least, himself believed it came from God. I also believe Church leaders were trying to make sense of something they had no explanation for, and in error, came to believe and teach false doctrines. Infact, those teachings were never really doctrine, because the 12 at any given time couldn't get to agreement on the issue. It's not like those teachings were essential to the gospel anyway. It's good to remember that prophets and apostles are just as fallible and prejudiced as the rest of us. That much, we can learn from the scriptures.
What a beautiful tribute to the facts of ancient scripture I think sometimes we interpret the writing of ancient scripture whether it be the book of Mormon, or the writing of Paul in the New Testament, etc. from end of current day, instead of when it was written.
So you’re admitting that Jo and the other leaders were just men of their day, not speaking for loving God who transcends time? When y’all LOVE to use the term “presentism” it actually harms your case much more than it helps it.
@tomasina10 it is not presentism. there have been plenty of people from when Joseph wrote the racism into his book in 1830s that condemned racism. There were many people in 1979, who condemned the racism of the Mormon church, and there were many many many people in between those years that condemned the racism that the Mormon church pushed. It also doesn’t make sense for you to be using the “men of their day” argument when the entire basis of your church is its claim that it doesn’t serve the culture, but serves God and supposedly has a “prophet” that speaks for God, yet your “prophets” pushed racism for decades instead of opposing the racism. Your church even banned interracial marriage until 2013.
Or it really could mean darker colored skin, since the scriptures say it was to help prevent the Nephites from co-mingling with the Lamanites, who were the same race, by the way, but tended towards spiritual darkness at that time. We need to be careful not to over-apply the disingenuous hyper sensitive political correctness of our day to things in the past that we really have little knowledge and/or context for. Kind of like polygamy, or only the Levites holding the Levitical priesthood, or the firstborn getting a double inheritance, or the Israelites snubbing the Samaritans, or Christ only preaching to Israelites and not gentiles, etc., etc.
Political correctness? Does that mean you believe the the ban on black people was of god too? So you think they turned black like sub Saharan Africans in the blink of an eye??? I don’t think so. Makes more sense it being spiritual thing.
If modern day prophets job is to decipher scripture, and generations of them quite literally taught that the skin of blackness was indeed skin color… in fact Elder Kimball went so far as to say Native American children in Mormon homes had a noticeable change in their skin color… why should we assume that skin of blackness is anything but what prophets taught?
Well if some prophets say one thing, and some prophets say another, how do you assess who is correct? Through careful study, and comparing both statements to the other scriptures we have. Which is what this video does.
@@jaybravo2199 "How would you define a false prophet?" The topical guide is useful for this - some scriptural references for "false prophet" are: prophet, which shall presume to speak a word … which I have not commanded, Deut. 18:20. prophet that teacheth lies, Isa. 9:15. prophets prophesy falsely, Jer. 5:31 (14:14). Those seem to be good enough. The question then becomes, does this mean that a Prophet speaks only the words God commands? Thus they don't have any agency, and are infallible? If a prophet or Apostle teaches something incorrect, does that disqualify them from being a Prophet and Apostle? If so, it would seem that many Prophets of scripture sin, and some even fall from grace for a time (see Jonah, Moses, Peter, etc). As such, what is too much? And who determines when that threshold has been hit? And if a Prophet cannot prophesy falsely, does that mean each Prophecy is given him in vision directly from God? Or can He feel inspired to prophesy based on the Spirit of God in him? And at these times, does the Spirit of God burn away fallibility and imperfect communication, or is it God inspiring and speaking through a mortal and fallible man, fallibilities included? If you have answers to these complex questions, I'm all ears! "we are forced to accept two possible scenarios:" Proceeds to present a false dichotomy
@@JJPrizeDistributionComitteeLol, your right, it has literally been black and white, and no one for two full centuries ever disagreed about this subject. Everyone was always in lock step, and they all taught it without reservation over the pulpit regularly. XD
Even at age 11 I knew, from what my Indian Placement Program sister told me, that with us they spent FAR more time inside, and in NorCal, not Arizona. I can also tell you her face, arms and legs became much closer to her un-tanned skin color-which wasn’t all that much darker than mine, just a different undertone. Even if the main intent of the BoM wording is spiritual, Lamanites hanging out outdoors much of the day in a large swath of North & South America would be far more than if they were “an idle people”.
Yes and then they were divided and God made the Laminates ugly so that the Nephites would never want to mix with the Lamanites, and if they did they would receive the same mark. I find this video kinda stupid and politically correct. Just read the Book of Mormon and it clearly says what it says and it makes sense.
@@PastGenspeople that are critical of the scriptures either or non-believers without a testimony. They will most probably run back into the dark and the fog pray for them and let the Lord deal with them. I'm sure if it snowed black snow they would still have the same attitude. I think the good people and the Christians need to grow a thick skin. This way the fiery darts don't penetrate. You ever hear of the word, ignore people that call you names. A word cannot hurt you if you do not hear it.
It explicitly says God cursed them by turning their skin dark, your leaders have reiterated that over and over. Y’all just run from that in the last couple decades because it looks awful, opposit of Christ commanding love. Look at your preisthood ban, you aren’t fooling anyone.
@@PeteBooboo "You ever hear of the word, ignore people that call you names." We used to call it "sticks & stones" will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
I broke down and cried after seeing this video. It’s an answer to prayer. It’s been a struggle for both my husband and I. We’ve thought of leaving the church because of this and one other issue. Anyway thank you from the bottom of my heart for this video. God bless.
The issue of “blacks” being denied the priesthood and temple attendance until 1978? Brigham Young’s (and other leaders) comments about the “doctrine of the negro”? That it will “always be so” (that they can’t hold the priesthood) ?
There are many nonsense videos against The Church of Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints but Ignored them because I had spiritual foundation. I know that no doctrine taught of the church that make someone worse.
It doesn’t matter if their skin was dark or not. People need to stop pitting people against each other. This wasn’t racism if their skins were dark. It was God that did it, and he did it as a reminder for them and everyone to remember to be obedient, the same as he divided the languages of those at the Tower of Babel. We need to just remember to keep the commandments and stop judging others. Let God be the judge.
Do some research there was no tower of babel---it was impossible. The book is not historical Even the so called only true church is now admitting that.
It always worries me when people say things like "Well, the scriptures explicitly say "X", but what the Lord *really* meant was something else" and then try to back up their claims with their own opinions or academic scholarship. That usually is the first step on their path to personal apostasy. They're essentially saying that either they can speak for the Lord or that they know better than the Lord who gave the scriptures. There are multiple references in the Book of Mormon to skin color. As other people have mentioned, it's kind of hard to call the skin color issue a problem of racism when the Lamanites and Nephites all had the same ancestors. For me, I'm willing to acknowledge that God's ways are above my ways, and if there are things in the scriptures that I don't understand, I can accept that my mind isn't able to comprehend everything that God can comprehend - I don't look to 'scholars' to explain what the Lord (or Nephi or Alma or Mormon) actually meant to write.
2 Nephi 5-21-22 clearly states the skin of blackness is to make the Lamanites loathsome in the eyes of the Nephites for the purpose of clearly defining the two groups and keeping them separated. Simply wearing black animal skins or painting their faces or getting tattoos or being spiritually dark doesn't accomplish the purpose of the curse because at any time, a Lamanite could just not do that and then he or she would look like a Nephite. These theories also ignore the fact that today's descendants of Laman have darker skins! God took the family of Adam and Eve, who were originally all the same race, and separated them into different races as they spread across the earth. For whatever reasons, God divided the nations before they came into mortality and enforced that separation with race, culture, language, geographical locations, etc. As far as the Lamanites go, we only know why the original group was cursed. Their descendants are not cursed. Children are innocent when they enter the world. God is the Master Psychiatrist. When we are all done with this mortal life, we will see the wisdom and love God used to put us in the best circumstances for our advancement and preparation for life in Eternity. Remember a whole third of us were dumb enough to fight Heavenly Father. It could be that some of us who made it to mortality have to go through all kinds of misery to fully and finally appreciate what awaits them after this life. Something to consider: If a white guy and a Black guy achieve the same success in life, who had to work harder for it? So who gets more credit? Being born into a non-white race could be a blessing. In my opinion, we each arrive here with custom challenges. The particular race we are born into is just part of the complex custom-made set of circumstances God set up for each of us. That's what I think.
That's the best explanation I have read yet. I believe the skin actually turned black and Farher did it. Just like Jesus applied different things for the blind. We know He loves every one of us but we have to have faith in His methods. He doesn't have to explain everything to everyone to meet our demands. That's why we need faith and to wait upon Him to let us know Line upon Line.
"a Lamanite could just not do that and then he or she would look like a Nephite." Ya, just like how an Orthodox Jew could take off his yamaka and not be clearly identified as Jewish. I mean, they could, but under this theory they would just be throwing away their cultural heritage and commitment to their culture and values.
@@tastelesstube I think you have mixed up a few different stories. A third of our brothers and sisters followed Lucifer and rebelled against Heavenly Father when He proposed that Jesus be our Savior. This is referred to as the war in Heaven. Lucifer and his followers were cast out of Heaven and down to the earth to become Satan and his devils. Their fate is they will never gain physical bodies and progress past where they are now. The theory that Black people were fence-sitters in the premortal life is totally made up. Church authorities have made it clear nobody knows why Black people are Black. We don't need to know, anyway. We need to pay attention to our own faults and weaknesses and seek Heaven's help to overcome them. I see race as one of the many stumbling blocks God puts in our path to test us. People who freak about what color someone is need to repent.
There is another aspect that wasn’t covered in the video. It’s an idiom that means “gloomy.” See Nahum 2:10 (footnote a), Jeremiah 8:21 (footnote b; also v. 19-22), Joel 2:6 (footnote a). All of these verses are in the context of facing the judgements of God, in this instance, this was Babylons invasion of Israel and was actually in a timeframe just after Lehi’s family left Jerusalem. This is a contemporary example of this type of language. Just like in today’s society being sad can be described as feeling blue or having the blues. Even the word melancholy has its origins to the belief that “black bile” was the cause of depression). Lamentations 5:9-12 the word translated to “black”comes from a word that means “yearning” for food during a famine (see strong concordance)
Exactly. This was not covered, and I believe it is the true meaning of the word "blackness." It's about understanding the culture of the people. We, as a people, never referred to each other as skin tones until much later in human history. Johann Blumenbach is one to look to for some of that and his doctorate degree in classifying the people of the world. Before him, most people are characterized by where they are from. Their country or origin. If we look detailed at the Bible, the only reference of "white skin" is referred to leprosy. Marvin Perkins does a great job of talking about this information many years ago.
While I appreciate the intention of this video, it does gloss over the specific scriptural statement that the Lord placed the mark upon them. Every example that is given is of the Lamanites marking themselves in some manner. If this were the case, then Samuel would not be “a Lamanite” because he wouldn’t have marked himself with any of these forbidden methods.
At that point in the BOM, though, Nephites and Lamanites were merely spiritual and cultural distinctions, not lineage distinctions. Samuel the Lamanites could literally have been more closely related to Nephi
Samuel was called a Lamanite because he was not a member of the Nephite church. Marvin Perkins does an excellent job if you care to look him up. The skin is part of the idiom like in Lamentations 5:10 and Job 30:30.
@@Kaydubbbbso how did they know he was a Lamanite while standing on the wall? Did they ask each other before they tried to shoot him: “hey does anyone know this guy? No? Must be a Lamanite then…”
@@TheJanesaw they knew because he was not part of the Nephite group. The Nephites rejected Samuel. Nobody had to ask around. He kept himself outside of the group and on the wall. We do not actually know if people asked around or not.They didn’t even include his prophecies until the Lord told them they were amiss for not including them.
I remember that I was on my mission when the Prophet Spencer W Kimball spoke in general conference about how the curse of black skin was being removed as they ran the Indian Placement Program in the 1970s. Certainly in that time we all knew that the Book of Mormon was referring to an actual curse of dark skin just as Africans had been given the curse of Cain which resulted in black skin for the reason of separation of our races from intermarrying. Unfortunately with time, people like to rewrite history. I lived it. Let's not change history to be politically correct. Instead face the hard truths. We had no problem with the doctrines of the church with respect to blacks. We were taught that if God is the one who created the curse of black skin on some races, there was nothing to do but accept his will. How can you argue with God. We should not try and whitewash our LDS heritage. The church has changed a lot of things over the years that seems to be done to make the religion more palatable to people. Is that God's will, or is the church gone into a state of apostasy? Or could it have never really been true?
I’ve read in some lds sources in last few years that , Joseph smith ordained some black men the melchesidec priesthood and Brigham young came in and said they couldn’t have it, but they said he could’ve said no at that time because the country was going through a lot of prejudice and to save the black saints as well as white it was taken for a time. Brigham young said it was temporary, for a time. I admire all black saints who have known the past history of this and still get baptize . It’s a trial and a true testimony of your faith
@@MaryBethMarvil It’s contradictory to argue that God would withdraw privileges, like the priesthood, from an entire group to shield them from societal prejudice. This would mean God is protecting against inequality by enforcing inequality. Also, this argument is not even consistent with Mormon history. Isn't Mormon history replete with stories of the members being persecuted for the blessing of the restoration?
@@paulmartinezsd you're right. All the current "reasoning" attempts due to trying to avoid the condemnation of current PC dominating culture, is going to have holes in it at some point if you really take it seriously. I never saw any inconsistency in withholding blessings for whatever reason the Lord saw fit. It has been done all through history. Abraham and everyone else of his day, to a few thousand years forward were all denied the fullness of the gospel, and North Koreans are still being "denied". Most civilizations never had the temple ordinances, and many did not even have Christiantiy. Moses was denied entrance to the promised land, and Joseph Smith was denied his 40th birthday, going West with the Saints, as well as having his own physical posterity raised in the very gospel he restored.. Everyone who dies young is denied celestial marriage, temple covenants, and the blessings of posterity. But whatever denial it is, it's temporary. It should be obvious that this world was not designed for the kind of "fairness" that the modern generation thinks they're owed or entitled to.
Because people want to see race in everything. We are devolving into tribalism. Also, if there is any possible way to misinterpret scripture, don't worry, the critics of the church will find it and spin it to their benefit.
I understand that when all governments collapse in the last days that every family will govern themselves and exist in family groups or tribes.@@jeffreyharris3440
@ns Joseph Smith said they were the same race. Nephites who joined the Lamanites were "marked by God" in Alma 3. But they didn't literally get marked by God. They marked _themselves_.
@@jeffreyharris3440 we do not need critics to misinterpret the scriptures, we do it ourselves just fine. There was no skin color change due to sin: Idioms are not for idiots. 😂 Idioms do not make sense from one language or culture to another. Scripture list compiled from video “ Blacks in the Scriptures” by Marvin Perkins Mat 22:36-40. All doctrine fits into loving God and neighbor. D&C 1:24-28 all people including church leaders make mistakes. The Lord is OK with it. D&C 35:23. The Holy Ghost proves prophet’s words. Race theory invented by Johann Friedrick Blumenbach 1775. Later tried to recall his publication.People are people. All shades of brown. Black and white mixed makes gray. Idioms: phrases that do not mean what the words literally say: That smells fishy,There is a dog buried here (Swedish),He is a hard nut to crack,Break a leg, Give it a shot, It’s raining cats and dogs. Curse: separation from God and the Spirit. NOT skin color changes. Moses 5:36,38-39 Cain cursed from God’s presence. D&C 29:41 Black and white are idioms. Darkness or gloominess, dejection= black. Not skin color Righteousness, spiritual purity, happiness = white. All people are shades of brown, not shades of gray. Jeremiah 8:21 black means gloomy Jeremiah 14:2 black means gloomy,Joel 2:6 Nahum 2:10 black means frustration Job 30:30 skin is black. Sad because of trials Lamentations 5:10 skin is black like an oven. Gloomy because of starvation. 2Samuel 13:19. Tamar put ashes on her head to show her mourning. She made herself black with ashes. Gloomy 2 Nephi 5:21 full of 10 idioms. Can you see them? We are so used to idioms in our language, we can’t even see them. 1Samuel 16:7 the lord looks on the heart. How could He change appearances His children, and then claim He is only looking on the heart? He does not change skin color as a result of sin. Laman and Lemuel did NOT change skin color. Jacob 3:8 skin is part of the idiom like Job 3:30. 3 Nephi 2:15 skin is part of the idiom. Gloominess was removed and gladness and joy prevailed. Just like lamentations 5:10 Alma 3:4-6 . Why did they have to distinguish themselves after the manner of the Lamanite? A: because they had the same skin color. Most likely a tattoo was the distinction. People mark themselves with their tattoos. ALMA 55:8-9. A search had to be done. It was not obvious by skin color to distinguish Nephites from Lamanites. Then, Laman had to tell them that he was a Lamanite. And those with him were not obviously seen as Nephites. Lamanites could not tell skin color of Nephites. Substitution trio of same meanings: 2 Nephi 26:33. Alma 1:30, Alma 11:44 These are idioms! These three phrases are interchangeable:1. Black or white. 2. in or out of the church, and, 3. wicked or righteous. These three interchangeable phrases explain the idiom! Skin color is a great blessing given by God to help regulate sun exposure for health in sunny places (dark brown) and to regulate more vitamin D3 production in less sunny places by (lightest brown) Lehi’s people were dark when they left Jerusalem, as natives from Middle East, and descendants of Joseph and the Egyptian princess Asenath. Possibly even darker than other Hebrews. How many generations of Joseph’s male descendants married beautiful Egyptian princesses? How did this affect the gene pool of the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim? D&C 4:5 qualifications for priesthood D&C 36:4-5 all to receive priesthood D&C 63:57 D&C 121:21-23, 24 persecutors to not hold priesthood but will be forgiven if they repent.
Just my opinion, i think it refers to aura not necessarily literal skin color. Again you are right , one cannot take 21st century lense to understand ancient scriptures.
Yes! I have absolutely seen a 'white' person, and thought I was looking at something dark. While having also looked at someone 'black' and totally leaving feeling I had seen someone white. It is not often, but when it happens, it's very funny to look back on.
The only reason this theory exists is because we're looking at it from a 21st century lens. The plain reading of the text is that skin meant skin, and that dark skin was a sign of disfavor with God. That's what church leaders and manuals taught for 150+ years, because it wasn't a problem for people back then. But now that we have a modern view of race, we realize it IS a problem, so we suddenly have to do mental gymnastics to change the meaning of the BoM so it isn't as bad as it sounds. It's an argument made out of necessity to maintain a position, not an argument made from evidence.
If it wasn’t about race then why couldn’t Black folks hold the priesthood or enter the temple until 1978? If the prophets communicate God’s will, why was there ever any misinterpretation with regard to the idea of black skin being interpreted as race? I’ve seen folks in these comments cite modern dictionary definitions of the word “white.” Since the BOM was translated from an ancient language into English that was useful for folks to understand in the mid 19th century and today, perhaps a better definition to cite would be a mid 19th century definition of the words “skin” and “blackness.” Clearly, BY and his successors had a specific understanding of what the words meant given the policies that he enacted that were kept in place for over 100 years.
If it was about race, then why did the Church never segregate its congregations when it was cool and everyone else was doing it? Why stop at the priesthood ban? More... Why were these words "written", supposedly by Joseph Smith, who was himself a voice for the ending of slavery, under whose presidency black members of the Church received the priesthood and temple ordinances. Why does the very same book denounce racism and discrimination? Why did black members who held the priesthood prior to the ban, continue to hold the priesthood after the ban? You see, we can't answer the question why the priesthood ban happened. But before one can say beyond reasonable doubt that the motivation behind it was racism, there's a lot more questions they need to answer first.
Brigham Young, experienced things we cannot begin to imagine amongst a time when the members of the church themselves were being horribly discriminated against for many reasons. On top of claiming all other religions to be false, the Book of Mormon was a threat to all Christianity of time, the intentions of polygamy were largely a cause for the hatred and after all that is the Church was against slavery which was reason enough alone for their extermination. Brigham Young’s role in leading The Saints was to keep them safe and provide them the best possible leadership for the times they were in. Most people do not understand how prophets can be inspired to give guidance without even knowing the real reasons for it.
@@AnnoyedUser-xv7qo The church does not have an official ban in interracial dating or marriage. However, I did read remarks by one of the General Authorities in which he counseled people to seek out mates of the same race simply to eliminate one of the many points of potential conflict in the marriage. In the Bible, God commanded people not to mix races in marriage which can make sense if you remember God created the races for His purposes.
I don't suppose that it matters that the Lamanites and Nephites were both descended from Lehi who descended from Manasseh. Thus they were the SAME race, notwithstanding the color of their skin.
Which is why I chose to no longer follow him and I’m perfectly okay going to wherever he is not. If he is in fact real at all and actually the way the scriptures have shown him to be.
"According to the mark that was SET upon their fathers for their rebelliousness". To me, this is something that the Lord put on them. It doesn't seem like it was clothing/decorations that they got to choose. I still don't understand what the curse was, but whatever it was, the Lord gave it to them and the curse followed them through the generations.
I appreciate the work that has gone into helping us understand the meaning of "skin of blackness". Thank you to the scholars and the team from Scripture Central for the hard work, the research and critique in breaking down all avenues to this meaning!
Nephi made it clear. His brothers weren't considered to have black skin when they tried to kill him multiple times before they landed in the new World. It's only after Leo dies that they receive the black skin. Wonder why that is, if their hearts had not changed why were they not called black skin before?
This isn’t hard work, she is simply being dishonest. Your scriptures very clearly say skin of blackness, that is explicitly clear, and what it means. Not only is the Texas self clear, but your leaders again, and again, and again for 150 years said that it was about skin and forbid block people from having the priesthood from entering the temple and from entering your celestial kingdom. They are just trying to walk that back now because they realize that it is terrible PR. I find it extremely interesting that your church claims to have prophets speaking for God and yet when the rest of the nation put forward civil rights in the 1960s, your church waited until 1979 to lift the priesthood and temple bans and forbid interracial marriage until 2013.
Original 1830 Text (2 Nephi 12, p. 117): “…and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.” Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, 1840 edition) “…and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white pure and a delightsome people.” Still Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, editions until 1981): “…white and delightsome…” Even Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, editions until 1981): “…pure and delightsome…” Before 1978, dark-skinned males were not allowed to hold positions of priesthood authority within the Mormon Church. Today Mormon scriptures continue to teach dark skin is a curse from God and a sign of His displeasure (See 1 Nephi 12:23; 2 Nephi 5:21; Alma 3:6). Brigham Young, second president and prophet of the LDS church referred to those with dark skin as being “cursed with a s(k)in of blackness” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 272). The Church appears to be struggling with its early statements about people with dark skin. Rather than allow the Book of Mormon to speak for itself, they have altered it to minimize the impact of early Church doctrine.
If we take the book of Mormon and try to change the meaning of words, that is theorist historical practices. Or revisionist history. The book says one thing which is pretty clear but then we apply a different meaning with a modern lens and perspective. The book of Mormon follows a common belief at the time of the mound builders mythology which promoted colonialism. We can say this and that is what the book of Mormon meant but there's no way to know for sure. Prophets have not even been consistent because Joseph Smith had a revelation promoting intermarriage with indigenous women to lighten their skin. Later prophets have promoted the skin lightening theory.
Original 1830 Text (2 Nephi 12, p. 117): “…and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.” Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, 1840 edition) “…and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white pure and a delightsome people.” Still Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, editions until 1981): “…white and delightsome…” Even Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, editions until 1981): “…pure and delightsome…” Before 1978, dark-skinned males were not allowed to hold positions of priesthood authority within the Mormon Church. Today Mormon scriptures continue to teach dark skin is a curse from God and a sign of His displeasure (See 1 Nephi 12:23; 2 Nephi 5:21; Alma 3:6). Brigham Young, second president and prophet of the LDS church referred to those with dark skin as being “cursed with a s(k)in of blackness” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 272). The Church appears to be struggling with its early statements about people with dark skin. Rather than allow the Book of Mormon to speak for itself, they have altered it to minimize the impact of early Church doctrine.
@@daverome1142 I’m pretty sure we both know what someone is referring to when they say black skin and a flat nose. But keep telling yourself it all means something else. I can’t ask Brigham Young anything, we won’t be in the same place. I replied to you in hopes you would see the truth of what is going on. If you don’t change you will be able to ask him yourself one day.
Again I did not make that statement, so I am not sure why I am all the sudden responsible for something someone said 150ish years ago. Maybe you should take some blame for it, you had ancestors living at the time of Young. Why did they go and put him in his place? I blame you for your ancestors not doing that.
I havent watched the video yet, but im glad your covering this topic. Ive always thought of the "skin" of blackness to be like their countenance, or like God gave adam and eve "skins" to wear when they discovered their nakedness, they can be washed clean and white in the blood of the lamb. A.k.a garments. Also, the curse wasnt a skin of blackness, the curse was to be separated from Gods spirit. The dark countenance or "skin" of blackness was merely a sign of the curse.
I'm sure the Nephites and the lamanites and all of the people back then are laughing about these discussions people are confused about, what does it matter anyway, it's a dumb conversation. Leave it alone no need to make a mountain out of a molehill. Main thing keep reading the book of Mormon🙏👍
Considering the many uses of 'skin' or 'garment' in relation to 'the covering' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, I think it is the same here. I have come to understand this black skin, given by the Lord, is a witness of which god Laman and Lemuel have chosen to follow, which was NOT the same God as Abraham. Only those who chose to follow Lehi and Nephi, those who had been called and ordained of God, could have their skins and garments made white through the blood of our Savior Jesus Christ. This principle of needing to have our garments washed clean has been around since the days of Eve and Adam. Jacob refers to this again just a few chapters later. The skins of the wicked will be black, not only because of their own sins but also all those whose sins will fall upon their head because of their corrupt leadership, teachings, and traditions.
So you’re saying that skin of blackness doesn’t mean skin of blackness? So Canaanites weren’t actually black either? Gee it’s no wonder no one can understand the scriptures when words don’t mean what words say but something else open to interpretation? I think if Good wants to make someone’s skin dark he can do it.
My in-laws are JW's. When I pointed out the scripture that says old men will have dreams and young men will have visions, their response was "It doesn't mean that." It means something totally different! When I joined a lunchtime Bible study group at work, the scripture came up "No man can see God." I asked, "So what about the scripture that says "Moses and the 70 elders of Israel saw the God of heaven..." and they all gasped and one guy shoved his hands out at me and said in a panic "No! No! It doesn't mean that!" Good heavens no wonder people are forever learning and never arriving at the truth! (But they are quick to condemn us because we believe the Bible is Word of God as far as it is translated correctly.) 🤪
6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. Alma chapter 3 talks again about the skin of blackness. It is what it is. It’s so simple.
Thanks so much for this excellent video! Growing up I heard every negative myth and fallacy around this topic. It was very had thinking some of these ideas were true. However, I knew regardless of how i felt and if I didn't like something it didn't matter I had received a witness the church was true and I would be faithful no matter what. As I kept learning and studying though, overwhelmingly the message of the BoM is that God loves all His children, "black and white, bond and free, male and female." Heavenly Father helped me see that He loves me totally and completely. He loves us all, we are His sons and daughters made in His image, and no blessing will be denied to any faithful person! I kept studying and over the years learned about these explanations that totally dispelled the false beliefs I was once taught. Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith. I didn't totally understand at first, but I trusted God and He lead me to the truth! Thank you scripture central for shedding light on this topic to get rid of false teachings and spread light and truth! Grateful for all you at SC do!
Dino, Before I was baptized in 1953, at age 25, there were hundreds of passages in the Bible I couldn't understand, yet somehow, I kept my belief that somehow it was OK as the words of The Savior always sat warmly in my heart. I wasn't going to reject it because I didn't understand. I always accepted my intellectual limits. When I read The Book of Mormon for the first time, it seemed very acceptable to me, notwithstanding the difficult trudge going through the plates of Isiah. When I was baptised, I received a confirmation I wish every member could have received. It was amazing. As I studied in the ensuing years perpleing questions that rattled my understanding were just ignored. Here it is in 2024 and I have resolved most of those bumps. I feel sorry for the couple that got up and walked out of church when this scripture (about black skin) was explained in error. I, too, was going to do the same but something pushed me down after I said to my wife, c'mon honey, let's go. I'll never forget both experiences. If one is to endure to the end, (especially today) you must have the help of The Holy Ghost.
Original 1830 Text (2 Nephi 12, p. 117): “…and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.” Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, 1840 edition) “…and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white pure and a delightsome people.” Still Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, editions until 1981): “…white and delightsome…” Even Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, editions until 1981): “…pure and delightsome…” Before 1978, dark-skinned males were not allowed to hold positions of priesthood authority within the Mormon Church. Today Mormon scriptures continue to teach dark skin is a curse from God and a sign of His displeasure (See 1 Nephi 12:23; 2 Nephi 5:21; Alma 3:6). Brigham Young, second president and prophet of the LDS church referred to those with dark skin as being “cursed with a s(k)in of blackness” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 272). The Church appears to be struggling with its early statements about people with dark skin. Rather than allow the Book of Mormon to speak for itself, they have altered it to minimize the impact of early Church doctrine.
If those passages are not specifically and directly referring to skin, then how do we account for the Native Americans and the blacks having dark skin?
That’s a biological thing, because these people lives generally outdoors and I’m hotter areas, generational began to have darker and darker skin becuase the melanin within protects them
I find these arguments convincing that the Lamanites’ skin color could have not literally changed, but I’m still not convinced that that’s not a possibility, with how consistently it’s described
While white and black can be use symbolically, that doesn't mean you can just write off anytime they are used as symbolic. They can be actual as well and you have to look at the context. It feels like a lot of what this video does is try to hammer round pegs into square holes to try and appease those who are not comfortable with the clear and plain meaning of the scriptures. The Book of Mormon lays out very clearly that the dark skin was a literal, visual thing put upon the Lamanites by God, not by themselves. The purpose for marking the Lamanites with a dark skin was specifically to make them visually distinct from Nephites to keep them separated (Alma 3:14). This prevented Lamanites from infiltrating Nephite society and corrupting it from within with the wicked traditions of their fathers. It couldn't do that if it was something removable, or if it was not something visual and obvious. The bit where the Amlicites mark themselves on their foreheads again shows this is clearly a visual distinction. Their children would not 'become' fair if this was some kind of tattoo or body paint the they just stopped using. Everyone would start out as fair if that was the case and it wouldn't be remarkable that their children no longer had the mark. I really don't like that you avoid giving reference for what you quote, and in some cases you misrepresent what is said. For example look at Alma 3:5-6. You cut out bits of that and put it together to make it sound like the dark skins are only referring to what they were wearing, but if you read the full verses that is just not so. It says "and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth." And with that it is done describing what they wore, with no comment on the color of their loincloth. Then it goes on to say "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers," It doesn't say the skins worn by the Lamanites were dark, it says that their own skin was dark, and it was dark as a result of mark put on their ancestors by God, so it would be something generically inherited. There is nothing to justify it being a reference to their attire. You also have the incident in Alma 55 where they needed someone to infiltrate a Lamanite stronghold, so they specifically seek out someone of Lamanite decent for the job. The guards see him coming, see he is of Lamanite decent, and automatically assume he is on their side and let him in. If it was not possible to visually tell a Nephite apart from a Lamanite they would not have take the time to find a Lamanite for the job, and the guards would not have been so quick to accept his story and let him in. A good point you missed is that Lamanites and Nephites were not of different races, they were both of the house of Israel and are constantly referred to as such and as brethren to the Nephites. The fact of the matter is that God did mark the Lamanites with a dark skin just as it says. And that is the extent of the curse. Skin color and nothing more. If that is a challenge for someone's faith I hope they study further to see and accept the truth.
You’re saying apologetics is wresting the scriptures? You obviously are ignoring the historical parallel use of the terms. This is completely consistent with the historical use of these idioms. It’s apostates who are wresting the scriptures by using presentist views onto societies in the past. Why do critics of apologists always dodge the issues?
@@vendingdudesif you want to know something about the scriptures, you first pray and then study and it would help if you listen to the spirit, that way you would understand what it's talking about. Isaiah and other scriptures it's not that difficult. People make it harder than what it has to be.. it's like the scriptures already give you the two numbers in the math problem, 1 + 1=( ). The spirit will give you the answer if you ask, since you can't figure it out😞
If God wants to mark people with different colors of skin, based on their righteousness, that's his prerogative. Whatever color we are, it behooves each of us too strive to live as righteous a life as possible. Black, brown and red skinned people walking the earth today are proof of this. It's not clothing or paint.
You can find many of them in the Book of Mormon: Another testament of Jesus Christ videos created by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Search Book of Mormon on YT and you'll find them. The tree of life will be in the 1 Nephi 8 video.
Really great video! I deeply appreciate the scholarly research and deep consideration on this sensitive topic. We know the BOM is true and thus helps us understand
Since I got baptized I always somehow felt it was not the skin color. and today in my Sunday School class. I asked my class when reading about this. How do you perceive a person with a lot of challenges let's say, a person with anger, jealousy, stress, and any other thing that makes your spirit feel dark or when you are thinking or invited to do something that is not right. do not you feel something dark and heavy comes around? This is how we came to the conclusion just right before I watched your video.
There are some intriguing thoughts here; but if “skin of blackness” doesn’t refer to some physiological feature akin to race or ethnicity, then isn’t it a misappropriation of 2 Ne 26:33 and Jacob 3:9 to cite them as though they condemn racism? It seems to me like some apologists are trying to pick and choose-we are expected to believe that the parts of the BoM that seem to accept race-based distinctions aren’t actually talking about “race” as we know it today, but we are simultaneously assured that the parts of the BoM that seem to condemn such distinctions *are* talking about race. Additionally, appeals to Joseph Smith seem a little . . . selective, since IIRC he was also apparently on-record suggesting that the Lamanites (native Americans) would be “whitened” through intermarriage of their daughters with Church elders of European ancestry. I suspect that many BoM apologists are trying to follow the late 20th century social ideal of a “color-blind society”. That’s all well and good; but now that social mores are evolving and insisting on one’s own “color blindness” is increasingly seen to itself be a sign of systemic racism-it’ll be interesting to see if the modern “the BoM actually isn’t referring to race” approach has any real staying power over the next couple of decades.
Apologists have absolutely no credibility, they lack intellectual integrity and this is a literal insult to people's intelligence. This curse in the BOM about dark skin as well as the curse mentioned in Pearl of Great Price was the basis for Brigham Young priesthood ban in the early days of the church. For them today to say that is not about skin color is absolutely disgusting. The LDS church refuses to accept responsibility for any past mistakes and sins but with great hypocrisy preach repentance to others from their pulpits.
@@FFM115 I think the Church has actually been more careful than many apologists have been-for example, the Church statement quoted in the video carefully uses the present rather than the past tense (ie, “the Church rejects the idea that skin IS a sign of a curse . . .”) The Church has also never come out and said that the priesthood ban was a mistake; though many apologists clearly wish that it would. I think there’s been a lot of good work done by the LDS apologetic community. But sometimes I think they get a little too wrapped up in seeking approval from folks-especially academics-who are not of our faith; and lose sight of the fact that as a church we will never, *ever* have the full approval of outsiders. Our own scripture says that this will be the case. The role of an apologist isn’t just to say “hey, deep down we’re just like you!”; it’s to clearly, truthfully, and fearlessly acknowledge the tensions between us and broader society and the things that make us unique.
@@mgy401 my original comment was deleted which doesn’t surprise me, apologists are a disgrace and do more harm than good to the church and to Christ’s gospel. They simply cannot handle the truth, they hide behind their narrative, they avoid any sincere open discussion.
Their spiritual condition ultimately became their physical condition and unfortunately their offspring had to bear the consequences of their fore fathers curse, doesn't mean people can't change doesn't mean that it can't be removed. We see later the laminates became righteous so what does that say about agency. There is also the opposite example were the curse is removed in the Book of Mormon and their skin became white and fair (Third Nephi 2:14-16) . why does this bother people so much. I think we are truly living in the days that Isaiah foretold when people just wouldn't be able to handle hard truth and prefer lies of soft language to make them feel more "comfortable". ( Isaiah 30:10 ) Who say to the seers, “Do not see,” And to the prophets, “Do not prophesy to us right things; Speak to us smooth things, prophesy deceits.
But the church teaches you are not responsible for the sins of your father (that is why there is no original sin). Generations facing consequences goes against other church teachings.
"Look what heavenly father has done, see my skin, isn’t it pretty and white. Heavenly father made my skin white. All righteous Lamanites now have white skin. Isn’t it wonderful. Oh, I look so pretty!" From a 1980's LDS kids cartoon.. You might want to rewrite history to make it appear acceptable to a modern audience, but I'd love to hear your explanation for why this was taught to children. Or maybe you have an alternative interpretation for this cartoon. What do you think the message was for kids? Do you think little kids could see a different interpretation?
You are into something about this skin being beyond pure racism. I would like to add that there are cosmic parallels to white and black, for when the Sun is at its peak during the Summer Solstice everything remains white and has life, and when it's the Winter Solstice everything turns dark and black and full of death and decay. These metaphors are setting up the story of enlightenment of the path that these tribes will take. Truly a cosmic story held in the BOM.
Sigh. When are we going to stop giving in to people being oversensitive. It doesn't matter. I'm a gentile, am I going to be angry that God went to the Jews first with the gospel. Nope. Good thing it never bothered me, guess I don't need a video. We all know inside it's what we do that matters. Satan divides and God unifies. If something is dividing us, it isn't good.
I don't I think this video is a waste of time, no need for it. It is up to the reader to do his or her own homework and study. Just maybe you can pray first and then listen to the Holy Spirit wow I bet nobody thought of that. People make reading the scriptures harder than what it needs to be , keep it simple and try not to WOD up the scipture please.
There is a belief that we are all descendants of Noah whose three sons were the origin ofwhat we know to be African, Asian, and Caucasians. We've been taught that the Native Americans, who do have a darker pigment, are the descendants of the Lamanites. Why do we down play and try to excuse what is written over and over in the BOM, that the skin was not made Black (maybe Brown, but darker than the Nephite)? So these new claims are saying that either Nephi or Joseph Smith didn't know what they were doing when they wrote it down? I am not White, and it's never bothered me that to initially, keep the Nephites and Lamanites seperate they had to be distinguishable. Yes we get it that the words Pure, Fair, and Black can mean many different things, but let's just keep it simple.
Some of the scriptures in the BofM clearly are referring to an actual physical change in appearance. Other references seem to be making spiritual parallels. They are both true. We don’t need to be ashamed of a book that was written over a 1000 years ago. Their outlook of the world is not a direct reflection of our own today. The mental gymnasts people go thru to attempt to wiggle around this is astonishing. 2 Nephi 26:33 which is quoted in this video is proof enough of the truth that God denies none to come unto Him. By the way, the church is growing in leaps and bounds in Africa. People there don’t seem to have an issue with this. Could it be they recognize this was from another time and it doesn’t apply to them? The irony is it is our generation that is obsessed with race. We mark it when we apply for jobs or school. It’s appalling that we’re even asked. We celebrate “name your race” week or month. It’s silly.
I'm not convinced the skin is purely like an animal skin, painting, or a tattoo. It's because of these sections in 2 Nephi 5:21"that they might not be enticing unto my people" and this later "And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed" This above phrases seem to suggest this cursing was genetic and in the skin itself. But are we sure of the color of the skin? Blackness by itself is not a color. Possibly it was a color not seen in any groups of humans today.
I think these thoughts kind of go against what the Lord has taught like in 1 Samuel 16:7. Also in Alma 55 the Nephi army tricks a Lamanite army just by having someone that is a descendant of Laman say he's a descendent. Thus there was no outward appearance in "skin" that helped them tell the difference between each other. This was all about their spiritual countenance. An idiom that is used in their language that translates differently from that in English.
@@robertjoaquinfoster We aren't sure the exact color of this curse. It says it was like "flint". It almost has to be genetic because in 2 Ne 5:23 it says "And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing." The Lamanites in reality were likely White people and they had their skin turned into a gray-black color. No ethnicity today has this color of skin. The story you mention of Lamanite appearing as a Nephite could be because the curse was removed at that point.
The curse was being cut off from God, which is not genetic, but if a nephite married outside of the covenant, then their children would grow up without the gospel and therefore be separated from God.
You're missing the point. In 2 Nephi 5:21, try replacing " a skin of blackness" with the following " . . . that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of difference to come upon them." God could also have used any type of difference other than skin color. It doesn't matter. We are all alike unto God. We are all His children. Jesus came and showed us the way to love one another. That's what matters.
Why be afraid of the truth? Skin was the word translated. I take it for face value. No need to be apologetic. The BOM also notes how the Lamanite posterity would later be blessed.
Good video. My friend asked me a question and I'm not sure how to answer. Please help. "If the Book of Mormon passages don't refer to black skin, why did apostles and prophets interpret it that way for 130 years & ban black people from holding the priesthood? One of their primary roles is to help us understand scripture." I have no idea how to answer him. He will not accept that they were influenced by norms of the time because another primary role is not be swayed by precepts of men. Any help you or anyone else can offer is much appreciated!
Your friend is correct. The leaders were supposedly influenced by God and the holy ghost I thought? Isn't that the role of prophets? And the leaders made it clear that the racism was God's law. Brigham young specifically stated that it was the law of God and will always be so to kill those who have interracial sexual relations.
I always thought it was interracial marriage. The Lamananites mingled with the dark skinned natives (out of the covenant people, similar to the Samaritans) and their kids would have darker skin. Nothing magical. Just genetics.
The amount of mental gymnastics this requires is bewildering. It’s really not this complicated its just hard for people to accept because they make assumptions as to what it would mean if it is in fact talking about skin.
@@Kalenwilliams1393 it is mental gymnastics, you would have to ignore canon as well as prophetic statements by early prophets and apostles all the way up to the 1970’s. To accept that it is talking about skin doesn’t contradict anything, to say that it doesn’t contradicts A LOT.
"Denieth none that come unto him, black and white...." not tattooed and white, painted and white or he who wears black..... Seems to me that this refers to people of all skin colour who can come unto Christ, something almost all people can agree to.
My 12 year old son and I had a good insight while discussing race... and by the way diversity is so good and love how the Lord loves all of us and especially those who choose him. My son asked, about the tower of babel and were other races formed then. I told him I wasn't sure but their language was changed at that time. But it got me thinking that in the beginning there was just Adam and Eve. Therefore, we can conclude, seeing there are several races now, that God created these distinctions of His children. I won't claim to know the reasons why, but the truth remains that God created them and all are alike unto God. That being said, please read Jacob 3 and you'll know that there was indeed a change to the skin of the Lamanites, as Jacob is calling out the iniquity of the Nephites (who seem to esteem themselves better than the Lamanites because of their skin), Jacob 3:5 "Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness' AND the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you..." I don't think we need to hide from the fact that God creates divisions among His children. It is okay if their actual skin was changed, so what?! We all come from several beautiful races and are still part of the human family, even of the Ancient of Days and have unique gifts and qualities, every one of us and "all are alike unto God!."
It’s very clear that their skin was darkened to differentiate the Lamanites from the Nephites. It’s not stating that dark skin is bad. However, it’s clearly not referring to a dark state of mind. There’s nothing to apologize for. It is what it is…
This was incredibly helpful! Thank you for synthesizing the scholarship so that we can explore some additional possible interpretations of this topic other than the oft-repeated ones. Keep up the great work!
Alma 55:4 also suggests the dark skin wasn’t racial… otherwise Moroni wouldn’t have had to search for descendants of Laman in the same way Idris Elba doesn’t play James Bond in Europe
Yes, very good example. That story makes it clear it's about the accent, not the appearance. Notice Moroni has the descendant of Laman talk to the Lamanite guards, while Moroni's other Nephite soldiers go with him and are standing right there!
In support of the idea that "skin" refers to clothing (animal skins), look at Alma 13, verses 11-12, which talks about how through the Atonement "their garments are made white", also referencing clothing in its symbolism. In other words, through rebellion against God there is "skin of blackness" but through repentance and the Atonement "their garments are made white". Has nothing to do with skin color. "skin (clothing) of blackness" is symbolic of the spiritual state of one that rejects God just as "garments (clothing) made white" is symbolic of the opposite. Also, with reference to those scriptures in Lamentations using "black" and "white" to refer to people's spiritual state (not physical), Lamentations was written by Jeremiah, who was a contemporary of Nephi, i.e., it's not unreasonable to believe Nephi would use the imagery in the same way as Jeremiah. (see also other instances where Jeremiah used this imagery of someone appearing "black" but it's clearly not referring to their physical appearance in Jeremiah 8:21 & 14:2). Also see Jacob 3:8, Jacob teaching his people at a time when the Nephites were wicked "I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins [the Lamanites] will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God." It's pretty clear he's not talking about their literal skin color, but rather their spiritual state.
Great video and context, my only issue is the reaffirmation of the narrative Brigham Young and other prophets continued to share and stand on about the black (AFRICAN) race in early church history until the early 70s.
Even if it was a physical darkening of the skin, possibly from mixing with a people already living in the land where they settled, it would be the most easily seen feature at a distance, to let one group know not to join with, and adopt the practices and beliefs of another group. An extra arm or head would be extremely unlikely. Hair can be shaved, and all other features would require close proximity to notice. But as pointed out in this video, it doesn't have to refer to physical skin color, or at least not always, though that does seem to be the case when they are looking for pure descendants of Laman among the 2,000 Stripling Warriors, to act as spies. So if physical appearance was required to infiltrate the Lamanites, that would preclude body paint, tattoos and clothing alone.
Well said. 👏 Except one small thing, it wasn't among the Stripling Warriors it was just among Moroni's men and it turned out to be one of the former servants of the king killed by Amalickiah. Source is Alma 55: 4-5. 👍 Easy mistake considering how close it is to the chapters on those awesome young men. 😁
If the skin of blackness cursed was literal, it is not what matters to God on this latter days. Obedience is what Our Heavenly Father requires from us. I think it is better that we don’t emphasize on that verses.
Regardless of how Latter-day Saints interpret the “skin of blackness“ - I interpret it as literal since “the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth” - we must not pass any interpretation of modern or ancient scripture through the filter of 21st-century political correctness in order to appease those in the great and spacious building who created the false doctrine of political correctness in the first place. If the Lamanites literally had black skin that was not paint or a tattoo, so be it. If it was a literal curse, so be it. That occurrence has nothing to do with anyone who has dark skin today. We Latter-day Saints have nothing for which to apologize on any point of our divine doctrine. The Book of Mormon is the true word of God. That is not my opinion, that is my testimony. The world will accept or reject that testimony, but I will never waiver in my testimony to be accepted by the world.
cain and able were same family but cain had skin color literally changed making him easy to see and tell the difference...so makes sense lamanites had a change too either by choice or not. another group is talked about painting themselves in blood...ew...which would look gross and reddish to brown
To me, The curse was not the darkening of skin but the separation from the righteous. We were definitely marked darker…that’s the only explanation on how I can explain my skin color…it makes sense to me.. literal skin darkening to separate the wicked from the righteous..Christ coming and dying for our sins the curse is then null and void and now we are known by our fruits and not our skin color anymore…
What a great information! Love that exploring all posible explanation to that dark mark do bring different perspectives. This does not affects my testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon., however adds clarity to its content. Thank you!
INSANE. IT MEANS SKIN---NOT SOME MENTAL GYMNASTIC ridiculous attempt to make it OK---absolutely embarrassing. Why the ban? Why did president kimball say "see their skin is lightening"----he didn't say tattoos, or body paint, or anything else.
It’s totally what it sounds like. Why else would black people not be granted the priesthood? It’s interesting how Mormon “revelation” changes with the culture.
Black people not getting the priesthood and the Book of Mormon “skin of blackness” are two separate things. Native Americans, which LDS believe might contain some relation to the lamanites, received the priesthood even though they were of actual darker skin. Interesting, right?
If it is OK, I would like to use you as an example. You have very dark eyes, but when we look into your eyes, we can see the light. This is so with all good people. But it is also true with evil people and you can see the darkness through their eyes. I believe it is the spiritual thing. I have witnessed and have testimony of these things by personal experience. When someone changes either too good or evil.
The angel showed Nephi see the mother of Jesus She was a White beautiful young fair These are some words We understand that Mary,,would look like all rest of the other people around her,dark Isrealites... 7:15
I almost did not join the, "Church of Jesus Christ of LDS", because our black brethren could not hold the Priesthood. I was so grateful when they were finely allied to hold the priesthood! 😀
We’ve only had the Book of Mormon for a few centuries. Scholars are still interpreting and reinterpreting the Bible, and we’ve had that text for thousands of years. We don’t fully know everything about the Book of Mormon. We are all learning and will continue to learn. The errors of interpretation are those of men, and even prophets are still men and fallible. I’m grateful that the church has continued to update and correct doctrine as our understanding has been deepened and clarified through time.
These theories you've put together so well was very enlightening. One thought I had was that since the unbelief of the Lamanites led to a lifestyle that was conducive to sun exposer, the naturally tanned skin was interpreted as being a dark skin that resulted from the curse of unbelief. However, everything you shared makes a lot more sense, not to mention, all the research that supports these theories. Alma 3:4 And the Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for they had marked themselves with red in their foreheads AFTER THE MANNER of the Lamanites; nevertheless they had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites. It would seem clear that this verse is supporting your theories. 'After the manner of the Lamanites' seems to suggest the Lamanites were culturally inclined towards marking their skins with paints and other substances. Isn't interesting that when members leave the church, it's not uncommon for them to get piercings and tattoos? Makes me think it's comparable to the Amalekites.
Excellent observation. It’s like they need to prove they aren’t part of “that other group” so they dye their hair, get tattoos and piercings. There are groups of people that I find “not enticing”. Cool to see it reflected as almost an eternal principle.
@@Caballerorightnow The curse is self inflicted through the natural consequences of taking on false beliefs through poor choices. The marking seems to be a common, and hence natural, outward expression that follows this state of mind, or that of being founded on false beliefs. Like the Amalekites, the curse upon the Lamanites, and all of its implications, was ultimately self inflicted and a natural result of their own choices, either willfully or ignorantly through false traditions: "Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation." (Alma 3:19)
Then why were African Americans denied the priesthood? Wasn’t that also from scripture & revelation? Not try to start a debate, just an honest question.
African Americans were denied the priesthood because of racism. When the policy was changed Feb 5 1852, it was pre-civil war. Violence was a reality inflicted on all races who opposed slavery and lived outside of the normal divisions of slaves and masters in the United States. Hundreds of thousands of people died in the civil war fighting over it. The doctrine of Cain as an excuse to justify slavery was in use in the 1700s. It was not part of the restoration. I believe that Brigham Young considered the racism of most in the US, and the safety of a barely surviving frontier people and pulled the plug on ordaining anyone else of African descent. Safety from who and what? The Civil War. Safety for who? The small branches of the church scattered across southern and northern states who would have simply been killed by Protestant slave owners for believing that “ bond and free were alike unto God”There were many other factors as well.
We sound silly wrapping ourselves into pretzels trying to explain this away. These explanations are worse than how people received the text itself. I like the former way of answering this question, we don't know.
Unbelievable. If it weren’t about literal skin color, then why were people with dark skin not allowed to participate in all church ordinances? Nice try.
Has nothing to due with skin color and everything to do with lineage. For example if ancient times those that were from the tribe of Levi held what is called the Levitical Priesthood. They had duties & responsibility of teaching of the Law, offering the sacrifices, maintaining the Tabernacle and the Temple etc... If you were not from the tribe of Levi you simply could not do those responsibilities even if you wanted to. the 12 tribes of Israel shared the same Father but all had similar and different duties. Certain tribes were not allowed to officiate in Priesthood. That does not mean that they were less loved by their Father in Heaven.
@nycboxing8359 "less loved" by God isn't the issue. Did you miss the part were they weren't allowed to hold the priesthood until the late 70s? Where they only finally stopped the segregation, upon threat of losing their tax exempt status, over their continued racism?
Original 1830 Text (2 Nephi 12, p. 117): “…and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.” Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, 1840 edition) “…and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white pure and a delightsome people.” Still Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, editions until 1981): “…white and delightsome…” Even Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, editions until 1981): “…pure and delightsome…” Before 1978, dark-skinned males were not allowed to hold positions of priesthood authority within the Mormon Church. Today Mormon scriptures continue to teach dark skin is a curse from God and a sign of His displeasure (See 1 Nephi 12:23; 2 Nephi 5:21; Alma 3:6). Brigham Young, second president and prophet of the LDS church referred to those with dark skin as being “cursed with a s(k)in of blackness” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 272). The Church appears to be struggling with its early statements about people with dark skin. Rather than allow the Book of Mormon to speak for itself, they have altered it to minimize the impact of early Church doctrine.
LOVE THIS!!! 🙌 I always knew there were rational reasons for this language regarding cultural and historical significance of the text. 💖 Thank you for your thorough dedication! 🤓
Excellent analysis. Please discontinue the use of low-quality, royalty-free, 3-chord background “music” in future videos. This ‘audio wallpaper’ is distracting and unnecessary.
@@chadstaten5586 I was replying to your comment “excellent analysis “. I don’t care about the music. I care about your soul. I’m not trolling you. I get nothing out of this. I don’t want to argue with people. I just want you to take a step back and examine this religion.
For anyone still hung up on the idea that black and white has anything to do with the color of the pigment of the skin of people in the Book of Mormon, please look up the word “white” in the 1828 Webster dictionary and read it very carefully. These definitions are what the word “white” meant at the time that the Book of Mormon was translated. Also, bear in mind, no where in the Book of Mormon does it refer to “white skin” or to skin that is white in color. To use any other definition or to infer skin color is to place your own meaning and bias on the word. For those that won’t take the time, here are the definitions: WHITE, adjective [G.] 1. Being in the color of pure snow; snowy; not dark; as white paper; a white skin. 2. Pale; destitute of color in the cheeks, or of the tinge of blood color; as white with fear. 3. Having the color of purity; pure; clean; free from spot; as white robed innocence. 4. Gray; as white hair; a venerable man, white with age. 5. Pure; unblemished. No whiter page than Addisons remains. 6. In a scriptural sense, purified from sin; sanctified. Psalms 51:7. So, by these definitions, the people that were not under the curse were one or more of the following: (a) people the color of snow (b) perpetually white with fear (c) a pure, clean people (d) all were gray with age (e) they were purified from sin, sanctified. It’s clear that the message of the Book of Mormon is that Christ would come, did come and will come again to this earth so that all men and women who have or will ever live may be purified, may be made clean through His atonement and may be sanctified. Again, purified, made clean and sanctified…not turned the color of snow, perpetually full of fear or gray with age. That is my conclusion, but you are welcome to come to your own.
And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; 16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair
@@anthonyrippa686 are you using a current definition of the word “white” and reading race into this verse? The current definition of “white” has added a race component to the definition, but not so with the 1828 definition. Are you suggesting that the Nephites were the literal color of snow? Again, carefully read the definition from 1828 and put aside your present understanding of the word, then choose a definition that best reflects turning from wickedness, repenting and becoming righteous. If you come up with skin turning the color of snow or milk as the definition that best describes the reversal of a self-induced curse, well, then, that’s your choice. You might want to also look up “skin” in the 1828 dictionary…it’s pretty interesting. Here’s one definition: 3. The body; the person; in ludicrous language
@@anthonyrippa686 yes, you are really good at copying and pasting. What your pasted quotes seem to lack is any context or explanation as to your point. I can copy/paste, too pres·ent·ism /ˈpreznˌ(t)iz(ə)m/ noun uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts. "What Is a Hebrew Idiom? A Hebrew idiom is an expression, usually a verb with a noun as its direct object, that has a meaning which differs from the normal meaning attached to the words that comprise the idiom."
Wow, the amount of mental gymnastics that one has to go through just to stay in this church is astounding. How about Joseph Smith was writing a book that explained where the indigenous people came from. He noticed that their skin was darker, so he needed a way to change their skin to a darker tone. So, he used a curse, the same curse that was used to justify slavery at the time. You can read comments from actual LDS prophets who specifically state it refers to their skin. Spencer W Kimball believed that peoples skin were becoming white and delightsome based on their membership in the church 😅😅😅
I have always thought of the phrase skins of blackness as symbolic of the Mark of The Beast or the act of choosing to follow Satan in thoughts and deeds.
I prefer to read the BOM as it is, this is pure speculation about what the verses in various writings you have quoted. If I’m white or black and someone says I’m white or black then they are correct. This is really reaching of LDS culture to become PC. If a scripture says their skins were black I’m pretty sure their skin was black. I’m wondering what other parts of the BOM you don’t agree with. Are we picking and choosing what scriptures we don’t like and changing them to something that meets our own beliefs. TH-cam content creators have to be taken with a big dose of salt.
It comes from the Qur'an. Ali 'Imran 3:106. "On the Day when some faces will be (lit up with) white, and some faces will be (in the gloom of) black: To those whose faces will be black, (will be said): "Did ye reject Faith after accepting it? Taste then the penalty for rejecting Faith." - A. Yusuf Ali
once I understood some ways that Heavenly Father deals with His children in all of the books of scripture, I realized that the curse is actually just a natural consequence of not letting God prevail in our lives. when that happens, the spirit ceases to guide us and we are left to wander until we turn (repent/change/face) to God again. the Curse is lifted once we let God prevail again. I appreciated that the mark was described as something that people do to themselves to separate themselves from the truths that they hate. many people see it as a "culture" that they hate, so they go against the culture. thats understandable to some degree. but it is still a reality that we often mark ourselves through our thoughts and actions and where we choose to go, and they separate us from the Saints of Jesus Christ.
Yeah this interpretation is super lame. Suggesting that the dark skin is figurative can't be consistently applied to all the verses that talk about this which clearly indicate that it was a visible sign and distinguishing factor. You're just letting your political persuasions skew your scriptural interpretation
I supposed it was that they came from a covenant family and the skin represented a covenant lineage and relationship, and the blackness was a tainting of the skins, clothed by the Savior or of the covenant and it being unwashed, unbaptized and not dressed further in priesthood and authority. Thus the blackness is the reflection of lack of repentance. I figured it had little to nothing to do with literal pigmentation. But today we can see tattoos, piercings as clutter or associated with unclean living. Though we “don’t judge” we also are not blind to the countenance of one’s appearance which often reflects an individuals lifestyle choices.
The theories presented concerning ancient history are outlandish. Why must hard things be rationalized? I agree with the presenter from the 12 minute mark to the end only. Thanks for ending with correct doctrine.
Great video. As an African American, I have never seen these passages as racial. I have always seen them as a state or level of spirituality.
Yep! Again, God is NOT a Respecter or Men…it has to be in a spiritual sense🤷🏾♀️I’m only cursed based on me not following Father’s ways.
Sister, we need your testimony, as so many of our African-American brothers and sisters, and others, struggle with this! Grateful to hear that you have overcome this stumbling block. Stay strong, and God bless you.
Let's look at ot from Lanen and Lemles points of view. The much younger brother uses a tazer on me . Made me make a boat if I didn't I got shocked . Then he made me get on the boat and travel to a new land . We could have all went are separate ways . Then when we got to the new lands Nephi tried to take readership. And Nephis God cursed our wife's to be ugly instead of changing his people he cursed ours . How nice . And Nephi split the people when we wouldn't let him be leader snuck off made his own kingdom. Curse my wife's and children you get genosided
Lamen sorry the spell corect dosnt like the names
Same here. That is what I have always read and thought.
One issue I have with this new interpretation is that members of the church, including the leaders, interpreted these passages literally for decades. Did those leaders, including apostles, interpret this incorrectly? This feels like an apologetic reinterpretation. I'm not saying what it should be, because viewing it as non-racial is definitely a nicer interpretation, but I'm saying how it had been viewed for the majority of the history of the church. I can find general conference talks to support this.
Yes, they were incorrect. That's what continued revelation looks like.
@@joaop.barata6062 continuing revelation looks like incorrect interpretations being promulgated throughout the church and leadership only to be corrected much later?
@@brningman why not
@@joaop.barata6062 there are lots of reasons why this might be a bad way of doing revelation. For one, it leads people astray of the true meaning of the scriptures to allow them to be taught and to believe one thing for decades and decades. Two, it can cause people to lose faith. Did you know that people were excommunicated for their opposition to the church's policy regarding the exclusion of black people from the temple and priesthood? Only to have that policy reversed a few years later? Also, why would ongoing revelation not be celebrated? Instead the campaign to change the meaning of the scriptures seems to be a quieter effort. There were no proclamations or first presidency announcements. Suddenly it wasn't literal anymore, despite being taught by prophets as being literal forever. I think this is the membership and some in the leadership just trying to make the scriptures more palatable for our modern sensibilities, not actually change anything. No revelation needed. But as far as I can tell, no one in leadership is even claiming revelation. That's just a way for you and others to make it make sense in the context of the church as we know it.
@@brningman I'm not saying revelation was involved when leaders were teaching dark skinned people weren't valiant in the war in Heaven, or other similar teachings.
I'm saying revelation was involved when those notions were corrected.
You mention the Priesthood ban, I have more reasons to believe that when introduced, it was not racially motivated, than to believe it was. I do believe it took longer than it ought to, to be lifted, due to prejudice, however. And I have reason to believe that Brigham Young, at the very least, himself believed it came from God.
I also believe Church leaders were trying to make sense of something they had no explanation for, and in error, came to believe and teach false doctrines.
Infact, those teachings were never really doctrine, because the 12 at any given time couldn't get to agreement on the issue. It's not like those teachings were essential to the gospel anyway.
It's good to remember that prophets and apostles are just as fallible and prejudiced as the rest of us. That much, we can learn from the scriptures.
What a beautiful tribute to the facts of ancient scripture I think sometimes we interpret the writing of ancient scripture whether it be the book of Mormon, or the writing of Paul in the New Testament, etc. from end of current day, instead of when it was written.
TOTALLY true …it is called presentism when We insist ancient people think and have meanings etc exactly like Us in 2024 .
why say "interpreting"
it's the words plainly written my friend
it's not unclear its very plainly written 😞
So you’re admitting that Jo and the other leaders were just men of their day, not speaking for loving God who transcends time? When y’all LOVE to use the term “presentism” it actually harms your case much more than it helps it.
@@timmiestabrnak You are ridiculous and obviously looking to put down the Prophet and the Book of Mormon . Move along , I am NOT your huckleberry
@tomasina10 it is not presentism. there have been plenty of people from when Joseph wrote the racism into his book in 1830s that condemned racism. There were many people in 1979, who condemned the racism of the Mormon church, and there were many many many people in between those years that condemned the racism that the Mormon church pushed. It also doesn’t make sense for you to be using the “men of their day” argument when the entire basis of your church is its claim that it doesn’t serve the culture, but serves God and supposedly has a “prophet” that speaks for God, yet your “prophets” pushed racism for decades instead of opposing the racism. Your church even banned interracial marriage until 2013.
Or it really could mean darker colored skin, since the scriptures say it was to help prevent the Nephites from co-mingling with the Lamanites, who were the same race, by the way, but tended towards spiritual darkness at that time. We need to be careful not to over-apply the disingenuous hyper sensitive political correctness of our day to things in the past that we really have little knowledge and/or context for. Kind of like polygamy, or only the Levites holding the Levitical priesthood, or the firstborn getting a double inheritance, or the Israelites snubbing the Samaritans, or Christ only preaching to Israelites and not gentiles, etc., etc.
Take a look at my response. We're on the same page.
Well said.
Amen!!!
Political correctness? Does that mean you believe the the ban on black people was of god too?
So you think they turned black like sub Saharan Africans in the blink of an eye??? I don’t think so. Makes more sense it being spiritual thing.
Exactly
If modern day prophets job is to decipher scripture, and generations of them quite literally taught that the skin of blackness was indeed skin color… in fact Elder Kimball went so far as to say Native American children in Mormon homes had a noticeable change in their skin color… why should we assume that skin of blackness is anything but what prophets taught?
Well if some prophets say one thing, and some prophets say another, how do you assess who is correct?
Through careful study, and comparing both statements to the other scriptures we have. Which is what this video does.
@@jaybravo2199 "How would you define a false prophet?"
The topical guide is useful for this - some scriptural references for "false prophet" are:
prophet, which shall presume to speak a word … which I have not commanded, Deut. 18:20.
prophet that teacheth lies, Isa. 9:15.
prophets prophesy falsely, Jer. 5:31 (14:14).
Those seem to be good enough. The question then becomes, does this mean that a Prophet speaks only the words God commands? Thus they don't have any agency, and are infallible? If a prophet or Apostle teaches something incorrect, does that disqualify them from being a Prophet and Apostle? If so, it would seem that many Prophets of scripture sin, and some even fall from grace for a time (see Jonah, Moses, Peter, etc). As such, what is too much? And who determines when that threshold has been hit? And if a Prophet cannot prophesy falsely, does that mean each Prophecy is given him in vision directly from God? Or can He feel inspired to prophesy based on the Spirit of God in him? And at these times, does the Spirit of God burn away fallibility and imperfect communication, or is it God inspiring and speaking through a mortal and fallible man, fallibilities included?
If you have answers to these complex questions, I'm all ears!
"we are forced to accept two possible scenarios:"
Proceeds to present a false dichotomy
@@JJPrizeDistributionComitteeLol, your right, it has literally been black and white, and no one for two full centuries ever disagreed about this subject. Everyone was always in lock step, and they all taught it without reservation over the pulpit regularly. XD
Even at age 11 I knew, from what my Indian Placement Program sister told me, that with us they spent FAR more time inside, and in NorCal, not Arizona. I can also tell you her face, arms and legs became much closer to her un-tanned skin color-which wasn’t all that much darker than mine, just a different undertone.
Even if the main intent of the BoM wording is spiritual, Lamanites hanging out outdoors much of the day in a large swath of North & South America would be far more than if they were “an idle people”.
@@wylldflower5628 so… the curse could be lifted with… sun block?
Are farmers and ranchers cursed as well?
the passage in 2Nephi 5 cannot be racial because Laman, Lemual , Sam,& Nephi are of the same family!!
Yes and then they were divided and God made the Laminates ugly so that the Nephites would never want to mix with the Lamanites, and if they did they would receive the same mark. I find this video kinda stupid and politically correct. Just read the Book of Mormon and it clearly says what it says and it makes sense.
Like this lady said in the video, your skin doesn’t become black if you are white and vice versa. It’s just scientifically impossible.
@@PastGenspeople that are critical of the scriptures either or non-believers without a testimony. They will most probably run back into the dark and the fog pray for them and let the Lord deal with them. I'm sure if it snowed black snow they would still have the same attitude. I think the good people and the Christians need to grow a thick skin. This way the fiery darts don't penetrate. You ever hear of the word, ignore people that call you names. A word cannot hurt you if you do not hear it.
It explicitly says God cursed them by turning their skin dark, your leaders have reiterated that over and over. Y’all just run from that in the last couple decades because it looks awful, opposit of Christ commanding love. Look at your preisthood ban, you aren’t fooling anyone.
@@PeteBooboo "You ever hear of the word, ignore people that call you names." We used to call it "sticks & stones" will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
I always feel bad for Nephi. He just breaths and his brothers want to kill him. Poor dude!
…he always had God backing him. I feel bad that his descendants let him down. 😔
Oh, I agree with you!
It's ok he wasn't real.
@@captainmerca341 🤣🤣🤣
Who doesn't have dysfunctional issues that's really opens our eyes to letting us know that you know even back then families had dysfunctional issues.
I broke down and cried after seeing this video. It’s an answer to prayer. It’s been a struggle for both my husband and I. We’ve thought of leaving the church because of this and one other issue. Anyway thank you from the bottom of my heart for this video.
God bless.
Really, this nonsense helped you?
@@MemyzelphandI "nonsense" lol did you not watch this video?
@@GwPoKo Unfortunately, I watched it to the end.
The issue of “blacks” being denied the priesthood and temple attendance until 1978? Brigham Young’s (and other leaders) comments about the “doctrine of the negro”? That it will “always be so” (that they can’t hold the priesthood) ?
There are many nonsense videos against The Church of Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints but Ignored them because I had spiritual foundation. I know that no doctrine taught of the church that make someone worse.
It doesn’t matter if their skin was dark or not. People need to stop pitting people against each other. This wasn’t racism if their skins were dark. It was God that did it, and he did it as a reminder for them and everyone to remember to be obedient, the same as he divided the languages of those at the Tower of Babel. We need to just remember to keep the commandments and stop judging others. Let God be the judge.
fetch for real
He didn’t make anyone’s skin any color for a reminder! Why can’t you accept that He made different skin colors simply because He wanted to?
@@Dnell-tb1ydBecause that runs contrary to every LDS doctrinal authority on this matter until very recently (like the last 5-10 years).
Do some research there was no tower of babel---it was impossible. The book is not historical Even the so called only true church is now admitting that.
Alma chapter 3 talks again of the skin of blackness in a very literal sense. It is what it is.
It always worries me when people say things like "Well, the scriptures explicitly say "X", but what the Lord *really* meant was something else" and then try to back up their claims with their own opinions or academic scholarship. That usually is the first step on their path to personal apostasy. They're essentially saying that either they can speak for the Lord or that they know better than the Lord who gave the scriptures.
There are multiple references in the Book of Mormon to skin color. As other people have mentioned, it's kind of hard to call the skin color issue a problem of racism when the Lamanites and Nephites all had the same ancestors.
For me, I'm willing to acknowledge that God's ways are above my ways, and if there are things in the scriptures that I don't understand, I can accept that my mind isn't able to comprehend everything that God can comprehend - I don't look to 'scholars' to explain what the Lord (or Nephi or Alma or Mormon) actually meant to write.
2 Nephi 5-21-22 clearly states the skin of blackness is to make the Lamanites loathsome in the eyes of the Nephites for the purpose of clearly defining the two groups and keeping them separated. Simply wearing black animal skins or painting their faces or getting tattoos or being spiritually dark doesn't accomplish the purpose of the curse because at any time, a Lamanite could just not do that and then he or she would look like a Nephite. These theories also ignore the fact that today's descendants of Laman have darker skins! God took the family of Adam and Eve, who were originally all the same race, and separated them into different races as they spread across the earth. For whatever reasons, God divided the nations before they came into mortality and enforced that separation with race, culture, language, geographical locations, etc. As far as the Lamanites go, we only know why the original group was cursed. Their descendants are not cursed. Children are innocent when they enter the world. God is the Master Psychiatrist. When we are all done with this mortal life, we will see the wisdom and love God used to put us in the best circumstances for our advancement and preparation for life in Eternity. Remember a whole third of us were dumb enough to fight Heavenly Father. It could be that some of us who made it to mortality have to go through all kinds of misery to fully and finally appreciate what awaits them after this life. Something to consider: If a white guy and a Black guy achieve the same success in life, who had to work harder for it? So who gets more credit? Being born into a non-white race could be a blessing. In my opinion, we each arrive here with custom challenges. The particular race we are born into is just part of the complex custom-made set of circumstances God set up for each of us. That's what I think.
That's the best explanation I have read yet. I believe the skin actually turned black and Farher did it. Just like Jesus applied different things for the blind. We know He loves every one of us but we have to have faith in His methods.
He doesn't have to explain everything to everyone to meet our demands. That's why we need faith and to wait upon Him to let us know Line upon Line.
That’s exactly what I understood. Thanks for reading my mind.
"a Lamanite could just not do that and then he or she would look like a Nephite."
Ya, just like how an Orthodox Jew could take off his yamaka and not be clearly identified as Jewish.
I mean, they could, but under this theory they would just be throwing away their cultural heritage and commitment to their culture and values.
Nowhere in the Bible does state or suggest that a third of the angels were sent to earth with black skin bc they were neutral in battle.
@@tastelesstube I think you have mixed up a few different stories. A third of our brothers and sisters followed Lucifer and rebelled against Heavenly Father when He proposed that Jesus be our Savior. This is referred to as the war in Heaven. Lucifer and his followers were cast out of Heaven and down to the earth to become Satan and his devils. Their fate is they will never gain physical bodies and progress past where they are now. The theory that Black people were fence-sitters in the premortal life is totally made up. Church authorities have made it clear nobody knows why Black people are Black. We don't need to know, anyway. We need to pay attention to our own faults and weaknesses and seek Heaven's help to overcome them. I see race as one of the many stumbling blocks God puts in our path to test us. People who freak about what color someone is need to repent.
There is another aspect that wasn’t covered in the video. It’s an idiom that means “gloomy.” See Nahum 2:10 (footnote a), Jeremiah 8:21 (footnote b; also v. 19-22), Joel 2:6 (footnote a).
All of these verses are in the context of facing the judgements of God, in this instance, this was Babylons invasion of Israel and was actually in a timeframe just after Lehi’s family left Jerusalem. This is a contemporary example of this type of language.
Just like in today’s society being sad can be described as feeling blue or having the blues. Even the word melancholy has its origins to the belief that “black bile” was the cause of depression).
Lamentations 5:9-12 the word translated to “black”comes from a word that means “yearning” for food during a famine (see strong concordance)
Exactly. This was not covered, and I believe it is the true meaning of the word "blackness." It's about understanding the culture of the people. We, as a people, never referred to each other as skin tones until much later in human history. Johann Blumenbach is one to look to for some of that and his doctorate degree in classifying the people of the world. Before him, most people are characterized by where they are from. Their country or origin.
If we look detailed at the Bible, the only reference of "white skin" is referred to leprosy.
Marvin Perkins does a great job of talking about this information many years ago.
Exactly !!!
Then how do you explain the reference to black skin and flat nose? Flat nose really?! JD 7 page 290 Brigham Young himself.
@@johnstark-StarkAvionicsnot sure what your getting at. Can you describe what Cain looked like? A flat nose isn’t a specific racial trait.
While I appreciate the intention of this video, it does gloss over the specific scriptural statement that the Lord placed the mark upon them. Every example that is given is of the Lamanites marking themselves in some manner. If this were the case, then Samuel would not be “a Lamanite” because he wouldn’t have marked himself with any of these forbidden methods.
At that point in the BOM, though, Nephites and Lamanites were merely spiritual and cultural distinctions, not lineage distinctions. Samuel the Lamanites could literally have been more closely related to Nephi
Samuel the Lamanite is a good counter point. There are other Lamanites as well who were righteous. Clearly not a behavioral or custom ID here.
Samuel was called a Lamanite because he was not a member of the Nephite church. Marvin Perkins does an excellent job if you care to look him up. The skin is part of the idiom like in Lamentations 5:10 and Job 30:30.
@@Kaydubbbbso how did they know he was a Lamanite while standing on the wall? Did they ask each other before they tried to shoot him: “hey does anyone know this guy? No? Must be a Lamanite then…”
@@TheJanesaw they knew because he was not part of the Nephite group. The Nephites rejected Samuel. Nobody had to ask around. He kept himself outside of the group and on the wall. We do not actually know if people asked around or not.They didn’t even include his prophecies until the Lord told them they were amiss for not including them.
I remember that I was on my mission when the Prophet Spencer W Kimball spoke in general conference about how the curse of black skin was being removed as they ran the Indian Placement Program in the 1970s. Certainly in that time we all knew that the Book of Mormon was referring to an actual curse of dark skin just as Africans had been given the curse of Cain which resulted in black skin for the reason of separation of our races from intermarrying. Unfortunately with time, people like to rewrite history. I lived it. Let's not change history to be politically correct. Instead face the hard truths. We had no problem with the doctrines of the church with respect to blacks. We were taught that if God is the one who created the curse of black skin on some races, there was nothing to do but accept his will. How can you argue with God. We should not try and whitewash our LDS heritage. The church has changed a lot of things over the years that seems to be done to make the religion more palatable to people. Is that God's will, or is the church gone into a state of apostasy? Or could it have never really been true?
I’ve read in some lds sources in last few years that , Joseph smith ordained some black men the melchesidec priesthood and Brigham young came in and said they couldn’t have it, but they said he could’ve said no at that time because the country was going through a lot of prejudice and to save the black saints as well as white it was taken for a time. Brigham young said it was temporary, for a time. I admire all black saints who have known the past history of this and still get baptize . It’s a trial and a true testimony of your faith
@@MaryBethMarvil It’s contradictory to argue that God would withdraw privileges, like the priesthood, from an entire group to shield them from societal prejudice. This would mean God is protecting against inequality by enforcing inequality. Also, this argument is not even consistent with Mormon history. Isn't Mormon history replete with stories of the members being persecuted for the blessing of the restoration?
@@paulmartinezsd you're right. All the current "reasoning" attempts due to trying to avoid the condemnation of current PC dominating culture, is going to have holes in it at some point if you really take it seriously. I never saw any inconsistency in withholding blessings for whatever reason the Lord saw fit. It has been done all through history. Abraham and everyone else of his day, to a few thousand years forward were all denied the fullness of the gospel, and North Koreans are still being "denied". Most civilizations never had the temple ordinances, and many did not even have Christiantiy. Moses was denied entrance to the promised land, and Joseph Smith was denied his 40th birthday, going West with the Saints, as well as having his own physical posterity raised in the very gospel he restored.. Everyone who dies young is denied celestial marriage, temple covenants, and the blessings of posterity. But whatever denial it is, it's temporary. It should be obvious that this world was not designed for the kind of "fairness" that the modern generation thinks they're owed or entitled to.
I don't understand how people say it is a racism issue. The Lamanites were the same race as the Nephites.
Because people want to see race in everything. We are devolving into tribalism.
Also, if there is any possible way to misinterpret scripture, don't worry, the critics of the church will find it and spin it to their benefit.
Until God changed the Lamanites.
I understand that when all governments collapse in the last days that every family will govern themselves and exist in family groups or tribes.@@jeffreyharris3440
@ns Joseph Smith said they were the same race. Nephites who joined the Lamanites were "marked by God" in Alma 3. But they didn't literally get marked by God. They marked _themselves_.
@@jeffreyharris3440 we do not need critics to misinterpret the scriptures, we do it ourselves just fine. There was no skin color change due to sin:
Idioms are not for idiots. 😂
Idioms do not make sense from one language or culture to another. Scripture list compiled from video “ Blacks in the Scriptures” by Marvin Perkins
Mat 22:36-40. All doctrine fits into loving God and neighbor. D&C 1:24-28 all people including church leaders make mistakes. The Lord is OK with it. D&C 35:23. The Holy Ghost proves prophet’s words. Race theory invented by Johann Friedrick Blumenbach 1775. Later tried to recall his publication.People are people. All shades of brown. Black and white mixed makes gray.
Idioms: phrases that do not mean what the words literally say:
That smells fishy,There is a dog buried here (Swedish),He is a hard nut to crack,Break a leg, Give it a shot, It’s raining cats and dogs.
Curse: separation from God and the Spirit.
NOT skin color changes. Moses 5:36,38-39 Cain cursed from God’s presence. D&C 29:41
Black and white are idioms. Darkness or gloominess, dejection= black. Not skin color
Righteousness, spiritual purity, happiness = white. All people are shades of brown, not shades of gray. Jeremiah 8:21 black means gloomy Jeremiah 14:2 black means gloomy,Joel 2:6 Nahum 2:10 black means frustration Job 30:30 skin is black. Sad because of trials Lamentations 5:10 skin is black like an oven. Gloomy because of starvation. 2Samuel 13:19. Tamar put ashes on her head to show her mourning. She made herself black with ashes. Gloomy
2 Nephi 5:21 full of 10 idioms. Can you see them? We are so used to idioms in our language, we can’t even see them.
1Samuel 16:7 the lord looks on the heart. How could He change appearances His children, and then claim He is only looking on the heart? He does not change skin color as a result of sin. Laman and Lemuel did NOT change skin color. Jacob 3:8 skin is part of the idiom like Job 3:30. 3 Nephi 2:15 skin is part of the idiom. Gloominess was removed and gladness and joy prevailed. Just like lamentations 5:10
Alma 3:4-6 . Why did they have to distinguish themselves after the manner of the Lamanite? A: because they had the same skin color. Most likely a tattoo was the distinction. People mark themselves with their tattoos. ALMA 55:8-9. A search had to be done. It was not obvious by skin color to distinguish Nephites from Lamanites. Then, Laman had to tell them that he was a Lamanite. And those with him were not obviously seen as Nephites. Lamanites could not tell skin color of Nephites.
Substitution trio of same meanings:
2 Nephi 26:33. Alma 1:30, Alma 11:44
These are idioms! These three phrases are interchangeable:1. Black or white. 2. in or out of the church, and, 3. wicked or righteous. These three interchangeable phrases explain the idiom!
Skin color is a great blessing given by God to help regulate sun exposure for health in sunny places (dark brown) and to regulate more vitamin D3 production in less sunny places by (lightest brown)
Lehi’s people were dark when they left Jerusalem, as natives from Middle East, and descendants of Joseph and the Egyptian princess Asenath. Possibly even darker than other Hebrews. How many generations of Joseph’s male descendants married beautiful Egyptian princesses? How did this affect the gene pool of the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim?
D&C 4:5 qualifications for priesthood
D&C 36:4-5 all to receive priesthood
D&C 63:57
D&C 121:21-23, 24 persecutors to not hold priesthood but will be forgiven if they repent.
Just my opinion, i think it refers to aura not necessarily literal skin color. Again you are right , one cannot take 21st century lense to understand ancient scriptures.
Right, I've heard "countenance" used to describe it too.
Yes! I have absolutely seen a 'white' person, and thought I was looking at something dark. While having also looked at someone 'black' and totally leaving feeling I had seen someone white. It is not often, but when it happens, it's very funny to look back on.
What the heck, you using the word aura seriously? lol an aura is not a thing 😂
The only reason this theory exists is because we're looking at it from a 21st century lens. The plain reading of the text is that skin meant skin, and that dark skin was a sign of disfavor with God. That's what church leaders and manuals taught for 150+ years, because it wasn't a problem for people back then. But now that we have a modern view of race, we realize it IS a problem, so we suddenly have to do mental gymnastics to change the meaning of the BoM so it isn't as bad as it sounds. It's an argument made out of necessity to maintain a position, not an argument made from evidence.
@@clarklawlor419exactly. Just bending over backwards for something we all know is ridiculous
If it wasn’t about race then why couldn’t Black folks hold the priesthood or enter the temple until 1978? If the prophets communicate God’s will, why was there ever any misinterpretation with regard to the idea of black skin being interpreted as race?
I’ve seen folks in these comments cite modern dictionary definitions of the word “white.” Since the BOM was translated from an ancient language into English that was useful for folks to understand in the mid 19th century and today, perhaps a better definition to cite would be a mid 19th century definition of the words “skin” and “blackness.” Clearly, BY and his successors had a specific understanding of what the words meant given the policies that he enacted that were kept in place for over 100 years.
If it was about race, then why did the Church never segregate its congregations when it was cool and everyone else was doing it? Why stop at the priesthood ban?
More...
Why were these words "written", supposedly by Joseph Smith, who was himself a voice for the ending of slavery, under whose presidency black members of the Church received the priesthood and temple ordinances.
Why does the very same book denounce racism and discrimination?
Why did black members who held the priesthood prior to the ban, continue to hold the priesthood after the ban?
You see, we can't answer the question why the priesthood ban happened. But before one can say beyond reasonable doubt that the motivation behind it was racism, there's a lot more questions they need to answer first.
Brigham Young, experienced things we cannot begin to imagine amongst a time when the members of the church themselves were being horribly discriminated against for many reasons. On top of claiming all other religions to be false, the Book of Mormon was a threat to all Christianity of time, the intentions of polygamy were largely a cause for the hatred and after all that is the Church was against slavery which was reason enough alone for their extermination. Brigham Young’s role in leading The Saints was to keep them safe and provide them the best possible leadership for the times they were in.
Most people do not understand how prophets can be inspired to
give guidance without even knowing the real reasons for it.
Yeah, it was always about race. We were taught in seminary, priesthood classes, and Sunday school, that black skin was the mark of Cain.
Why don't they allow interracial dating?
@@AnnoyedUser-xv7qo The church does not have an official ban in interracial dating or marriage. However, I did read remarks by one of the General Authorities in which he counseled people to seek out mates of the same race simply to eliminate one of the many points of potential conflict in the marriage. In the Bible, God commanded people not to mix races in marriage which can make sense if you remember God created the races for His purposes.
I don't suppose that it matters that the Lamanites and Nephites were both descended from Lehi who descended from Manasseh. Thus they were the SAME race, notwithstanding the color of their skin.
Well, by that logic we are all of the same race now. We all descended from common ancestors.
Of the same family does not mean of the same race.
@glazeandscumble There is only the human race. Black, white, brown are not races. That is a modern construct designed to cause division
If God made people skin Black, so be it. God is God and he can do what ever he wants. Just like how God marked the skin of Cane... let truth be truth.
God did not change Cain’s skin color. His curse was separation from the face of god.
@@Kaydubbbb Read Genesis 4 then read Moses 7, then ponder...
Which is why I chose to no longer follow him and I’m perfectly okay going to wherever he is not. If he is in fact real at all and actually the way the scriptures have shown him to be.
"According to the mark that was SET upon their fathers for their rebelliousness". To me, this is something that the Lord put on them. It doesn't seem like it was clothing/decorations that they got to choose. I still don't understand what the curse was, but whatever it was, the Lord gave it to them and the curse followed them through the generations.
It was an attitude!
Jacob 3:5 tells exactly what the curse is
@@zjco9344 in your humble opinion, what you you understand Jacob 3:5 to mean?
@@ChristopherWood-n7q I'm guessing you're ready to gaslight the scripture and previous prophets teachings.
I appreciate the work that has gone into helping us understand the meaning of "skin of blackness". Thank you to the scholars and the team from Scripture Central for the hard work, the research and critique in breaking down all avenues to this meaning!
Nephi made it clear. His brothers weren't considered to have black skin when they tried to kill him multiple times before they landed in the new World. It's only after Leo dies that they receive the black skin. Wonder why that is, if their hearts had not changed why were they not called black skin before?
This isn’t hard work, she is simply being dishonest. Your scriptures very clearly say skin of blackness, that is explicitly clear, and what it means. Not only is the Texas self clear, but your leaders again, and again, and again for 150 years said that it was about skin and forbid block people from having the priesthood from entering the temple and from entering your celestial kingdom. They are just trying to walk that back now because they realize that it is terrible PR. I find it extremely interesting that your church claims to have prophets speaking for God and yet when the rest of the nation put forward civil rights in the 1960s, your church waited until 1979 to lift the priesthood and temple bans and forbid interracial marriage until 2013.
Thank you! We’ve got some amazing researchers helping us.
Then how do you explain the reference to black skin and flat nose? Flat nose really?! JD 7 page 290 Brigham Young himself.
Original 1830 Text (2 Nephi 12, p. 117):
“…and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.”
Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, 1840 edition)
“…and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white pure and a delightsome people.”
Still Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, editions until 1981):
“…white and delightsome…”
Even Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, editions until 1981):
“…pure and delightsome…”
Before 1978, dark-skinned males were not allowed to hold positions of priesthood authority within the Mormon Church. Today Mormon scriptures continue to teach dark skin is a curse from God and a sign of His displeasure (See 1 Nephi 12:23; 2 Nephi 5:21; Alma 3:6). Brigham Young, second president and prophet of the LDS church referred to those with dark skin as being “cursed with a s(k)in of blackness” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 272). The Church appears to be struggling with its early statements about people with dark skin. Rather than allow the Book of Mormon to speak for itself, they have altered it to minimize the impact of early Church doctrine.
If we take the book of Mormon and try to change the meaning of words, that is theorist historical practices. Or revisionist history. The book says one thing which is pretty clear but then we apply a different meaning with a modern lens and perspective. The book of Mormon follows a common belief at the time of the mound builders mythology which promoted colonialism. We can say this and that is what the book of Mormon meant but there's no way to know for sure. Prophets have not even been consistent because Joseph Smith had a revelation promoting intermarriage with indigenous women to lighten their skin. Later prophets have promoted the skin lightening theory.
Original 1830 Text (2 Nephi 12, p. 117):
“…and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.”
Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, 1840 edition)
“…and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white pure and a delightsome people.”
Still Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, editions until 1981):
“…white and delightsome…”
Even Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, editions until 1981):
“…pure and delightsome…”
Before 1978, dark-skinned males were not allowed to hold positions of priesthood authority within the Mormon Church. Today Mormon scriptures continue to teach dark skin is a curse from God and a sign of His displeasure (See 1 Nephi 12:23; 2 Nephi 5:21; Alma 3:6). Brigham Young, second president and prophet of the LDS church referred to those with dark skin as being “cursed with a s(k)in of blackness” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 272). The Church appears to be struggling with its early statements about people with dark skin. Rather than allow the Book of Mormon to speak for itself, they have altered it to minimize the impact of early Church doctrine.
This is the best explanation on the subject I have ever heard. I have heard parts of this before. But this was a wonderful compilation. Thank you.
Then how do you explain the reference to black skin and flat nose? Flat nose really?! JD 7 page 290 Brigham Young himself.
How would I know what he meant? Sounds like you should contact Brigham Young for further clarification.
@@daverome1142 I’m pretty sure we both know what someone is referring to when they say black skin and a flat nose. But keep telling yourself it all means something else. I can’t ask Brigham Young anything, we won’t be in the same place. I replied to you in hopes you would see the truth of what is going on. If you don’t change you will be able to ask him yourself one day.
Again I did not make that statement, so I am not sure why I am all the sudden responsible for something someone said 150ish years ago. Maybe you should take some blame for it, you had ancestors living at the time of Young. Why did they go and put him in his place? I blame you for your ancestors not doing that.
I havent watched the video yet, but im glad your covering this topic. Ive always thought of the "skin" of blackness to be like their countenance, or like God gave adam and eve "skins" to wear when they discovered their nakedness, they can be washed clean and white in the blood of the lamb. A.k.a garments.
Also, the curse wasnt a skin of blackness, the curse was to be separated from Gods spirit. The dark countenance or "skin" of blackness was merely a sign of the curse.
I'm sure the Nephites and the lamanites and all of the people back then are laughing about these discussions people are confused about, what does it matter anyway, it's a dumb conversation. Leave it alone no need to make a mountain out of a molehill. Main thing keep reading the book of Mormon🙏👍
@natandjoec Good points!
@@PeteBoobooNeither people exist! Native Americans are from Asian descent not Middle Eastern Jews! DNA proves this!
Considering the many uses of 'skin' or 'garment' in relation to 'the covering' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, I think it is the same here. I have come to understand this black skin, given by the Lord, is a witness of which god Laman and Lemuel have chosen to follow, which was NOT the same God as Abraham. Only those who chose to follow Lehi and Nephi, those who had been called and ordained of God, could have their skins and garments made white through the blood of our Savior Jesus Christ. This principle of needing to have our garments washed clean has been around since the days of Eve and Adam. Jacob refers to this again just a few chapters later. The skins of the wicked will be black, not only because of their own sins but also all those whose sins will fall upon their head because of their corrupt leadership, teachings, and traditions.
@@rebeccapetersen6237 Beautifully put comment 😊
So you’re saying that skin of blackness doesn’t mean skin of blackness? So Canaanites weren’t actually black either? Gee it’s no wonder no one can understand the scriptures when words don’t mean what words say but something else open to interpretation? I think if Good wants to make someone’s skin dark he can do it.
My in-laws are JW's. When I pointed out the scripture that says old men will have dreams and young men will have visions, their response was "It doesn't mean that." It means something totally different! When I joined a lunchtime Bible study group at work, the scripture came up "No man can see God." I asked, "So what about the scripture that says "Moses and the 70 elders of Israel saw the God of heaven..." and they all gasped and one guy shoved his hands out at me and said in a panic "No! No! It doesn't mean that!" Good heavens no wonder people are forever learning and never arriving at the truth! (But they are quick to condemn us because we believe the Bible is Word of God as far as it is translated correctly.) 🤪
6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. Alma chapter 3 talks again about the skin of blackness. It is what it is. It’s so simple.
Loved the invites. Music was distracting.
Yes, why do you think that you need "music" under the narration? It's not actually music. They are sound bites. Very distracting.
Thanks so much for this excellent video! Growing up I heard every negative myth and fallacy around this topic. It was very had thinking some of these ideas were true. However, I knew regardless of how i felt and if I didn't like something it didn't matter I had received a witness the church was true and I would be faithful no matter what.
As I kept learning and studying though, overwhelmingly the message of the BoM is that God loves all His children, "black and white, bond and free, male and female." Heavenly Father helped me see that He loves me totally and completely. He loves us all, we are His sons and daughters made in His image, and no blessing will be denied to any faithful person!
I kept studying and over the years learned about these explanations that totally dispelled the false beliefs I was once taught. Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith. I didn't totally understand at first, but I trusted God and He lead me to the truth! Thank you scripture central for shedding light on this topic to get rid of false teachings and spread light and truth! Grateful for all you at SC do!
Dino, Before I was baptized in 1953, at age 25, there were hundreds of passages in the Bible I couldn't understand, yet somehow, I kept my belief that somehow it was OK as the words of The Savior always sat warmly in my heart. I wasn't going to reject it because I didn't understand. I always accepted my intellectual limits. When I read The Book of Mormon for the first time, it seemed very acceptable to me, notwithstanding the difficult trudge going through the plates of Isiah. When I was baptised, I received a confirmation I wish every member could have received. It was amazing. As I studied in the ensuing years perpleing questions that rattled my understanding were just ignored. Here it is in 2024 and I have resolved most of those bumps. I feel sorry for the couple that got up and walked out of church when this scripture (about black skin) was explained in error. I, too, was going to do the same but something pushed me down after I said to my wife, c'mon honey, let's go. I'll never forget both experiences. If one is to endure to the end, (especially today) you must have the help of The Holy Ghost.
@@edwardgabriel5281 Love this brother! Very moving! Touched my heart.
Then how do you explain the reference to black skin and flat nose? Flat nose really?! JD 7 page 290 Brigham Young himself.
Original 1830 Text (2 Nephi 12, p. 117):
“…and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.”
Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, 1840 edition)
“…and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white pure and a delightsome people.”
Still Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, editions until 1981):
“…white and delightsome…”
Even Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, editions until 1981):
“…pure and delightsome…”
Before 1978, dark-skinned males were not allowed to hold positions of priesthood authority within the Mormon Church. Today Mormon scriptures continue to teach dark skin is a curse from God and a sign of His displeasure (See 1 Nephi 12:23; 2 Nephi 5:21; Alma 3:6). Brigham Young, second president and prophet of the LDS church referred to those with dark skin as being “cursed with a s(k)in of blackness” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 272). The Church appears to be struggling with its early statements about people with dark skin. Rather than allow the Book of Mormon to speak for itself, they have altered it to minimize the impact of early Church doctrine.
@@richlopez5896 thank you but I know all this 👍
If those passages are not specifically and directly referring to skin, then how do we account for the Native Americans and the blacks having dark skin?
That’s a biological thing, because these people lives generally outdoors and I’m hotter areas, generational began to have darker and darker skin becuase the melanin within protects them
Great information but the background music is too loud - irritating and distracting.
I loved it 😉
I find these arguments convincing that the Lamanites’ skin color could have not literally changed, but I’m still not convinced that that’s not a possibility, with how consistently it’s described
While white and black can be use symbolically, that doesn't mean you can just write off anytime they are used as symbolic. They can be actual as well and you have to look at the context. It feels like a lot of what this video does is try to hammer round pegs into square holes to try and appease those who are not comfortable with the clear and plain meaning of the scriptures.
The Book of Mormon lays out very clearly that the dark skin was a literal, visual thing put upon the Lamanites by God, not by themselves. The purpose for marking the Lamanites with a dark skin was specifically to make them visually distinct from Nephites to keep them separated (Alma 3:14). This prevented Lamanites from infiltrating Nephite society and corrupting it from within with the wicked traditions of their fathers. It couldn't do that if it was something removable, or if it was not something visual and obvious. The bit where the Amlicites mark themselves on their foreheads again shows this is clearly a visual distinction. Their children would not 'become' fair if this was some kind of tattoo or body paint the they just stopped using. Everyone would start out as fair if that was the case and it wouldn't be remarkable that their children no longer had the mark.
I really don't like that you avoid giving reference for what you quote, and in some cases you misrepresent what is said. For example look at Alma 3:5-6. You cut out bits of that and put it together to make it sound like the dark skins are only referring to what they were wearing, but if you read the full verses that is just not so. It says "and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth." And with that it is done describing what they wore, with no comment on the color of their loincloth. Then it goes on to say "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers," It doesn't say the skins worn by the Lamanites were dark, it says that their own skin was dark, and it was dark as a result of mark put on their ancestors by God, so it would be something generically inherited. There is nothing to justify it being a reference to their attire.
You also have the incident in Alma 55 where they needed someone to infiltrate a Lamanite stronghold, so they specifically seek out someone of Lamanite decent for the job. The guards see him coming, see he is of Lamanite decent, and automatically assume he is on their side and let him in. If it was not possible to visually tell a Nephite apart from a Lamanite they would not have take the time to find a Lamanite for the job, and the guards would not have been so quick to accept his story and let him in.
A good point you missed is that Lamanites and Nephites were not of different races, they were both of the house of Israel and are constantly referred to as such and as brethren to the Nephites.
The fact of the matter is that God did mark the Lamanites with a dark skin just as it says. And that is the extent of the curse. Skin color and nothing more. If that is a challenge for someone's faith I hope they study further to see and accept the truth.
Wresting scriptures with apologetics doesn't exactly go with Nephi telling people how he glories in plainess.
You’re saying apologetics is wresting the scriptures? You obviously are ignoring the historical parallel use of the terms. This is completely consistent with the historical use of these idioms.
It’s apostates who are wresting the scriptures by using presentist views onto societies in the past.
Why do critics of apologists always dodge the issues?
And Nephi also thinks Isaiah is easy to understand
@@vendingdudesif you want to know something about the scriptures, you first pray and then study and it would help if you listen to the spirit, that way you would understand what it's talking about. Isaiah and other scriptures it's not that difficult. People make it harder than what it has to be.. it's like the scriptures already give you the two numbers in the math problem, 1 + 1=( ). The spirit will give you the answer if you ask, since you can't figure it out😞
Sounds like you dont like the mental gymnastics.
If God wants to mark people with different colors of skin, based on their righteousness, that's his prerogative. Whatever color we are, it behooves each of us too strive to live as righteous a life as possible. Black, brown and red skinned people walking the earth today are proof of this. It's not clothing or paint.
Where did you get your explanations? Speculating?
I have learned so much from your videos. Be happy. Love you.
I love the pictures shown in the video. The tree of life, the white garments etc. Where can those be found?
Amazing video!
You can find many of them in the Book of Mormon: Another testament of Jesus Christ videos created by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Search Book of Mormon on YT and you'll find them. The tree of life will be in the 1 Nephi 8 video.
Thanks for the comment. The images are A.I. generated by some talented editors.
Really great video! I deeply appreciate the scholarly research and deep consideration on this sensitive topic. We know the BOM is true and thus helps us understand
Then how do you explain the reference to black skin and flat nose? Flat nose really?! JD 7 page 290 Brigham Young himself.
Since I got baptized I always somehow felt it was not the skin color. and today in my Sunday School class. I asked my class when reading about this. How do you perceive a person with a lot of challenges let's say, a person with anger, jealousy, stress, and any other thing that makes your spirit feel dark or when you are thinking or invited to do something that is not right. do not you feel something dark and heavy comes around? This is how we came to the conclusion just right before I watched your video.
Then how do you explain the reference to black skin and flat nose? Flat nose really?! JD 7 page 290 Brigham Young himself.
If what this video is claiming is true, then why have previous prophets and apostles referred to it as black skin?
The video is disseminating falsehoods
There are some intriguing thoughts here; but if “skin of blackness” doesn’t refer to some physiological feature akin to race or ethnicity, then isn’t it a misappropriation of 2 Ne 26:33 and Jacob 3:9 to cite them as though they condemn racism?
It seems to me like some apologists are trying to pick and choose-we are expected to believe that the parts of the BoM that seem to accept race-based distinctions aren’t actually talking about “race” as we know it today, but we are simultaneously assured that the parts of the BoM that seem to condemn such distinctions *are* talking about race.
Additionally, appeals to Joseph Smith seem a little . . . selective, since IIRC he was also apparently on-record suggesting that the Lamanites (native Americans) would be “whitened” through intermarriage of their daughters with Church elders of European ancestry.
I suspect that many BoM apologists are trying to follow the late 20th century social ideal of a “color-blind society”. That’s all well and good; but now that social mores are evolving and insisting on one’s own “color blindness” is increasingly seen to itself be a sign of systemic racism-it’ll be interesting to see if the modern “the BoM actually isn’t referring to race” approach has any real staying power over the next couple of decades.
Apologists have absolutely no credibility, they lack intellectual integrity and this is a literal insult to people's intelligence. This curse in the BOM about dark skin as well as the curse mentioned in Pearl of Great Price was the basis for Brigham Young priesthood ban in the early days of the church. For them today to say that is not about skin color is absolutely disgusting. The LDS church refuses to accept responsibility for any past mistakes and sins but with great hypocrisy preach repentance to others from their pulpits.
@@FFM115 I think the Church has actually been more careful than many apologists have been-for example, the Church statement quoted in the video carefully uses the present rather than the past tense (ie, “the Church rejects the idea that skin IS a sign of a curse . . .”) The Church has also never come out and said that the priesthood ban was a mistake; though many apologists clearly wish that it would.
I think there’s been a lot of good work done by the LDS apologetic community. But sometimes I think they get a little too wrapped up in seeking approval from folks-especially academics-who are not of our faith; and lose sight of the fact that as a church we will never, *ever* have the full approval of outsiders. Our own scripture says that this will be the case. The role of an apologist isn’t just to say “hey, deep down we’re just like you!”; it’s to clearly, truthfully, and fearlessly acknowledge the tensions between us and broader society and the things that make us unique.
@@mgy401 my original comment was deleted which doesn’t surprise me, apologists are a disgrace and do more harm than good to the church and to Christ’s gospel. They simply cannot handle the truth, they hide behind their narrative, they avoid any sincere open discussion.
Their spiritual condition ultimately became their physical condition and unfortunately their offspring had to bear the consequences of their fore fathers curse, doesn't mean people can't change doesn't mean that it can't be removed. We see later the laminates became righteous so what does that say about agency. There is also the opposite example were the curse is removed in the Book of Mormon and their skin became white and fair (Third Nephi 2:14-16) . why does this bother people so much. I think we are truly living in the days that Isaiah foretold when people just wouldn't be able to handle hard truth and prefer lies of soft language to make them feel more "comfortable". ( Isaiah 30:10 ) Who say to the seers, “Do not see,” And to the prophets, “Do not prophesy to us right things; Speak to us smooth things, prophesy deceits.
But the church teaches you are not responsible for the sins of your father (that is why there is no original sin). Generations facing consequences goes against other church teachings.
"Look what heavenly father has done, see my skin, isn’t it pretty and white. Heavenly father made my skin white. All righteous Lamanites now have white skin. Isn’t it wonderful. Oh, I look so pretty!"
From a 1980's LDS kids cartoon.. You might want to rewrite history to make it appear acceptable to a modern audience, but I'd love to hear your explanation for why this was taught to children. Or maybe you have an alternative interpretation for this cartoon. What do you think the message was for kids? Do you think little kids could see a different interpretation?
You are into something about this skin being beyond pure racism. I would like to add that there are cosmic parallels to white and black, for when the Sun is at its peak during the Summer Solstice everything remains white and has life, and when it's the Winter Solstice everything turns dark and black and full of death and decay. These metaphors are setting up the story of enlightenment of the path that these tribes will take. Truly a cosmic story held in the BOM.
Sigh. When are we going to stop giving in to people being oversensitive. It doesn't matter. I'm a gentile, am I going to be angry that God went to the Jews first with the gospel. Nope. Good thing it never bothered me, guess I don't need a video. We all know inside it's what we do that matters. Satan divides and God unifies. If something is dividing us, it isn't good.
I LOVED, LOVED, this video. Thank you for the perspectives I had never considered.
I don't I think this video is a waste of time, no need for it. It is up to the reader to do his or her own homework and study. Just maybe you can pray first and then listen to the Holy Spirit wow I bet nobody thought of that. People make reading the scriptures harder than what it needs to be , keep it simple and try not to WOD up the scipture please.
There is ONLY ONE EXPLANATION---DARK SKIN. DONT WHITEWASH IT---to make it sound "oK"
There is a belief that we are all descendants of Noah whose three sons were the origin ofwhat we know to be African, Asian, and Caucasians. We've been taught that the Native Americans, who do have a darker pigment, are the descendants of the Lamanites. Why do we down play and try to excuse what is written over and over in the BOM, that the skin was not made Black (maybe Brown, but darker than the Nephite)? So these new claims are saying that either Nephi or Joseph Smith didn't know what they were doing when they wrote it down? I am not White, and it's never bothered me that to initially, keep the Nephites and Lamanites seperate they had to be distinguishable. Yes we get it that the words Pure, Fair, and Black can mean many different things, but let's just keep it simple.
Some of the scriptures in the BofM clearly are referring to an actual physical change in appearance. Other references seem to be making spiritual parallels. They are both true. We don’t need to be ashamed of a book that was written over a 1000 years ago. Their outlook of the world is not a direct reflection of our own today. The mental gymnasts people go thru to attempt to wiggle around this is astonishing. 2 Nephi 26:33 which is quoted in this video is proof enough of the truth that God denies none to come unto Him.
By the way, the church is growing in leaps and bounds in Africa. People there don’t seem to have an issue with this. Could it be they recognize this was from another time and it doesn’t apply to them?
The irony is it is our generation that is obsessed with race. We mark it when we apply for jobs or school. It’s appalling that we’re even asked. We celebrate “name your race” week or month. It’s silly.
I'm not convinced the skin is purely like an animal skin, painting, or a tattoo. It's because of these sections in 2 Nephi 5:21"that they might not be enticing unto my people" and this later "And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed"
This above phrases seem to suggest this cursing was genetic and in the skin itself. But are we sure of the color of the skin? Blackness by itself is not a color. Possibly it was a color not seen in any groups of humans today.
Red man vs. Tan man
I think these thoughts kind of go against what the Lord has taught like in 1 Samuel 16:7. Also in Alma 55 the Nephi army tricks a Lamanite army just by having someone that is a descendant of Laman say he's a descendent. Thus there was no outward appearance in "skin" that helped them tell the difference between each other. This was all about their spiritual countenance. An idiom that is used in their language that translates differently from that in English.
@@robertjoaquinfoster We aren't sure the exact color of this curse. It says it was like "flint". It almost has to be genetic because in 2 Ne 5:23 it says "And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing."
The Lamanites in reality were likely White people and they had their skin turned into a gray-black color. No ethnicity today has this color of skin. The story you mention of Lamanite appearing as a Nephite could be because the curse was removed at that point.
The curse was being cut off from God, which is not genetic, but if a nephite married outside of the covenant, then their children would grow up without the gospel and therefore be separated from God.
@@sarahorme9415Aren't children unaccountable? They couldn't be cursed until the age of accountability correct?
You're missing the point. In 2 Nephi 5:21, try replacing " a skin of blackness" with the following " . . . that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of difference to come upon them." God could also have used any type of difference other than skin color. It doesn't matter. We are all alike unto God. We are all His children. Jesus came and showed us the way to love one another. That's what matters.
Why be afraid of the truth? Skin was the word translated. I take it for face value. No need to be apologetic. The BOM also notes how the Lamanite posterity would later be blessed.
Good video. My friend asked me a question and I'm not sure how to answer. Please help.
"If the Book of Mormon passages don't refer to black skin, why did apostles and prophets interpret it that way for 130 years & ban black people from holding the priesthood? One of their primary roles is to help us understand scripture."
I have no idea how to answer him. He will not accept that they were influenced by norms of the time because another primary role is not be swayed by precepts of men.
Any help you or anyone else can offer is much appreciated!
Shared **
Your friend is correct. The leaders were supposedly influenced by God and the holy ghost I thought? Isn't that the role of prophets? And the leaders made it clear that the racism was God's law. Brigham young specifically stated that it was the law of God and will always be so to kill those who have interracial sexual relations.
We’ve got a great podcast that goes deep into this. Find race and the priesthood here: doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/church-history-matters-podcast/
@scripturecentralofficial why did you delete my comment when all I did was quote your prophet
I always thought it was interracial marriage. The Lamananites mingled with the dark skinned natives (out of the covenant people, similar to the Samaritans) and their kids would have darker skin. Nothing magical. Just genetics.
You dont need to apologize for the scriptures, it says what it says.
Then how do you explain the reference to black skin and flat nose? Flat nose really?! JD 7 page 290 Brigham Young himself.
I actually agree with you, which is part of the reason I ultimately decided to leave after 35 years of church membership
You did absolutely awesome job in explaining this concept, also other videos you made truly enjoy and gain a lot of knowledge and insight. Thank you.
The amount of mental gymnastics this requires is bewildering. It’s really not this complicated its just hard for people to accept because they make assumptions as to what it would mean if it is in fact talking about skin.
100%. My thoughts exactly
Is there a rule written somewhere that if you’re against the Church you have to use the words mental gymnastics?? So overused.
@@Kalenwilliams1393 it is mental gymnastics, you would have to ignore canon as well as prophetic statements by early prophets and apostles all the way up to the 1970’s. To accept that it is talking about skin doesn’t contradict anything, to say that it doesn’t contradicts A LOT.
The best and official answer is "We don't know." Probably not best to speculate
"Denieth none that come unto him, black and white...." not tattooed and white, painted and white or he who wears black.....
Seems to me that this refers to people of all skin colour who can come unto Christ, something almost all people can agree to.
My 12 year old son and I had a good insight while discussing race... and by the way diversity is so good and love how the Lord loves all of us and especially those who choose him. My son asked, about the tower of babel and were other races formed then. I told him I wasn't sure but their language was changed at that time. But it got me thinking that in the beginning there was just Adam and Eve. Therefore, we can conclude, seeing there are several races now, that God created these distinctions of His children. I won't claim to know the reasons why, but the truth remains that God created them and all are alike unto God.
That being said, please read Jacob 3 and you'll know that there was indeed a change to the skin of the Lamanites, as Jacob is calling out the iniquity of the Nephites (who seem to esteem themselves better than the Lamanites because of their skin), Jacob 3:5 "Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness' AND the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you..."
I don't think we need to hide from the fact that God creates divisions among His children. It is okay if their actual skin was changed, so what?! We all come from several beautiful races and are still part of the human family, even of the Ancient of Days and have unique gifts and qualities, every one of us and "all are alike unto God!."
It’s very clear that their skin was darkened to differentiate the Lamanites from the Nephites. It’s not stating that dark skin is bad. However, it’s clearly not referring to a dark state of mind. There’s nothing to apologize for. It is what it is…
💯
This was incredibly helpful! Thank you for synthesizing the scholarship so that we can explore some additional possible interpretations of this topic other than the oft-repeated ones. Keep up the great work!
Thank you!
Then how do you explain the reference to black skin and flat nose? Flat nose really?! JD 7 page 290 Brigham Young himself.
Alma 55:4 also suggests the dark skin wasn’t racial… otherwise Moroni wouldn’t have had to search for descendants of Laman in the same way Idris Elba doesn’t play James Bond in Europe
Yes, very good example. That story makes it clear it's about the accent, not the appearance. Notice Moroni has the descendant of Laman talk to the Lamanite guards, while Moroni's other Nephite soldiers go with him and are standing right there!
Seems there had to be something physical for Captain Moroni to search for.
@@ryancormack6934 there might have been, but the whole episode sounds like My Fair Lady or the bar scene in Inglorious Basterds
@@ryancormack6934 criminal or similar “merit”-based tattoos seem like the closest modern equivalent to the physical aspect
I love your videos and the research that you put into them. As a struggling member, thank you
In support of the idea that "skin" refers to clothing (animal skins), look at Alma 13, verses 11-12, which talks about how through the Atonement "their garments are made white", also referencing clothing in its symbolism. In other words, through rebellion against God there is "skin of blackness" but through repentance and the Atonement "their garments are made white". Has nothing to do with skin color. "skin (clothing) of blackness" is symbolic of the spiritual state of one that rejects God just as "garments (clothing) made white" is symbolic of the opposite.
Also, with reference to those scriptures in Lamentations using "black" and "white" to refer to people's spiritual state (not physical), Lamentations was written by Jeremiah, who was a contemporary of Nephi, i.e., it's not unreasonable to believe Nephi would use the imagery in the same way as Jeremiah. (see also other instances where Jeremiah used this imagery of someone appearing "black" but it's clearly not referring to their physical appearance in Jeremiah 8:21 & 14:2).
Also see Jacob 3:8, Jacob teaching his people at a time when the Nephites were wicked "I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins [the Lamanites] will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God." It's pretty clear he's not talking about their literal skin color, but rather their spiritual state.
Great video and context, my only issue is the reaffirmation of the narrative Brigham Young and other prophets continued to share and stand on about the black (AFRICAN) race in early church history until the early 70s.
Even if it was a physical darkening of the skin, possibly from mixing with a people already living in the land where they settled, it would be the most easily seen feature at a distance, to let one group know not to join with, and adopt the practices and beliefs of another group. An extra arm or head would be extremely unlikely. Hair can be shaved, and all other features would require close proximity to notice. But as pointed out in this video, it doesn't have to refer to physical skin color, or at least not always, though that does seem to be the case when they are looking for pure descendants of Laman among the 2,000 Stripling Warriors, to act as spies. So if physical appearance was required to infiltrate the Lamanites, that would preclude body paint, tattoos and clothing alone.
Well said. 👏 Except one small thing, it wasn't among the Stripling Warriors it was just among Moroni's men and it turned out to be one of the former servants of the king killed by Amalickiah. Source is Alma 55: 4-5. 👍 Easy mistake considering how close it is to the chapters on those awesome young men. 😁
@@BoMwarriorVlog Even so, the point that it has to be a direct descendant of Laman, which could only be for physical characteristics, still applies.
And the mental gymnastics continues! Well done on the re-write of history!
If the skin of blackness cursed was literal, it is not what matters to God on this latter days. Obedience is what Our Heavenly Father requires from us. I think it is better that we don’t emphasize on that verses.
I don’t believe there needs to be explanation to the words in the Book of Mormon. It is what it is. Heavenly Father will one day explain.
Regardless of how Latter-day Saints interpret the “skin of blackness“ - I interpret it as literal since “the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth” - we must not pass any interpretation of modern or ancient scripture through the filter of 21st-century political correctness in order to appease those in the great and spacious building who created the false doctrine of political correctness in the first place. If the Lamanites literally had black skin that was not paint or a tattoo, so be it. If it was a literal curse, so be it. That occurrence has nothing to do with anyone who has dark skin today. We Latter-day Saints have nothing for which to apologize on any point of our divine doctrine. The Book of Mormon is the true word of God. That is not my opinion, that is my testimony. The world will accept or reject that testimony, but I will never waiver in my testimony to be accepted by the world.
How can it be considered racial when both Nephites and Lamanites both come from the same family?
cain and able were same family but cain had skin color literally changed
making him easy to see and tell the difference...so makes sense lamanites had a change too
either by choice or not.
another group is talked about painting themselves in blood...ew...which would look gross and reddish to brown
To me, The curse was not the darkening of skin but the separation from the righteous. We were definitely marked darker…that’s the only explanation on how I can explain my skin color…it makes sense to me.. literal skin darkening to separate the wicked from the righteous..Christ coming and dying for our sins the curse is then null and void and now we are known by our fruits and not our skin color anymore…
What a great information! Love that exploring all posible explanation to that dark mark do bring different perspectives. This does not affects my testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon., however adds clarity to its content. Thank you!
Then how do you explain the reference to black skin and flat nose? Flat nose really?! JD 7 page 290 Brigham Young himself.
INSANE. IT MEANS SKIN---NOT SOME MENTAL GYMNASTIC ridiculous attempt to make it OK---absolutely embarrassing. Why the ban? Why did president kimball say "see their skin is lightening"----he didn't say tattoos, or body paint, or anything else.
It’s totally what it sounds like. Why else would black people not be granted the priesthood? It’s interesting how Mormon “revelation” changes with the culture.
Black people not getting the priesthood and the Book of Mormon “skin of blackness” are two separate things. Native Americans, which LDS believe might contain some relation to the lamanites, received the priesthood even though they were of actual darker skin. Interesting, right?
If it is OK, I would like to use you as an example. You have very dark eyes, but when we look into your eyes, we can see the light. This is so with all good people. But it is also true with evil people and you can see the darkness through their eyes. I believe it is the spiritual thing. I have witnessed and have testimony of these things by personal experience. When someone changes either too good or evil.
The angel showed Nephi see the mother of Jesus
She was a White beautiful young fair
These are some words
We understand that Mary,,would look like all rest of the other people around her,dark
Isrealites... 7:15
I almost did not join the, "Church of Jesus Christ of LDS", because our black brethren could not hold the Priesthood. I was so grateful when they were finely allied to hold the priesthood! 😀
Then how do you explain the reference to black skin and flat nose? Flat nose really?! JD 7 page 290 Brigham Young himself.
We’ve only had the Book of Mormon for a few centuries. Scholars are still interpreting and reinterpreting the Bible, and we’ve had that text for thousands of years. We don’t fully know everything about the Book of Mormon. We are all learning and will continue to learn. The errors of interpretation are those of men, and even prophets are still men and fallible. I’m grateful that the church has continued to update and correct doctrine as our understanding has been deepened and clarified through time.
Quit trying to be politically correct. And make excuses.
These theories you've put together so well was very enlightening. One thought I had was that since the unbelief of the Lamanites led to a lifestyle that was conducive to sun exposer, the naturally tanned skin was interpreted as being a dark skin that resulted from the curse of unbelief. However, everything you shared makes a lot more sense, not to mention, all the research that supports these theories.
Alma 3:4 And the Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for they had marked themselves with red in their foreheads AFTER THE MANNER of the Lamanites; nevertheless they had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites.
It would seem clear that this verse is supporting your theories. 'After the manner of the Lamanites' seems to suggest the Lamanites were culturally inclined towards marking their skins with paints and other substances.
Isn't interesting that when members leave the church, it's not uncommon for them to get piercings and tattoos? Makes me think it's comparable to the Amalekites.
Bingo. I've made this observation as well. It's uncannily common.
Excellent observation. It’s like they need to prove they aren’t part of “that other group” so they dye their hair, get tattoos and piercings. There are groups of people that I find “not enticing”. Cool to see it reflected as almost an eternal principle.
Ok so they marked themselves… but first God cursed them with blackened skin ( or countenance).
@@Caballerorightnow The curse is self inflicted through the natural consequences of taking on false beliefs through poor choices. The marking seems to be a common, and hence natural, outward expression that follows this state of mind, or that of being founded on false beliefs. Like the Amalekites, the curse upon the Lamanites, and all of its implications, was ultimately self inflicted and a natural result of their own choices, either willfully or ignorantly through false traditions:
"Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation." (Alma 3:19)
Then why were African Americans denied the priesthood? Wasn’t that also from scripture & revelation? Not try to start a debate, just an honest question.
African Americans were denied the priesthood because of racism. When the policy was changed Feb 5 1852, it was pre-civil war. Violence was a reality inflicted on all races who opposed slavery and lived outside of the normal divisions of slaves and masters in the United States. Hundreds of thousands of people died in the civil war fighting over it. The doctrine of Cain as an excuse to justify slavery was in use in the 1700s. It was not part of the restoration. I believe that Brigham Young considered the racism of most in the US, and the safety of a barely surviving frontier people and pulled the plug on ordaining anyone else of African descent. Safety from who and what? The Civil War. Safety for who? The small branches of the church scattered across southern and northern states who would have simply been killed by Protestant slave owners for believing that “ bond and free were alike unto God”There were many other factors as well.
We sound silly wrapping ourselves into pretzels trying to explain this away. These explanations are worse than how people received the text itself. I like the former way of answering this question, we don't know.
Unbelievable. If it weren’t about literal skin color, then why were people with dark skin not allowed to participate in all church ordinances?
Nice try.
Maybe because of their misinterpretation of Scriptures.
That was my question too. Black folks couldn't participate until 1978.
Has nothing to due with skin color and everything to do with lineage. For example if ancient times those that were from the tribe of Levi held what is called the Levitical Priesthood. They had duties & responsibility of teaching of the Law, offering the sacrifices, maintaining the Tabernacle and the Temple etc... If you were not from the tribe of Levi you simply could not do those responsibilities even if you wanted to. the 12 tribes of Israel shared the same Father but all had similar and different duties. Certain tribes were not allowed to officiate in Priesthood. That does not mean that they were less loved by their Father in Heaven.
@nycboxing8359 "less loved" by God isn't the issue. Did you miss the part were they weren't allowed to hold the priesthood until the late 70s? Where they only finally stopped the segregation, upon threat of losing their tax exempt status, over their continued racism?
Original 1830 Text (2 Nephi 12, p. 117):
“…and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.”
Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, 1840 edition)
“…and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white pure and a delightsome people.”
Still Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, editions until 1981):
“…white and delightsome…”
Even Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, editions until 1981):
“…pure and delightsome…”
Before 1978, dark-skinned males were not allowed to hold positions of priesthood authority within the Mormon Church. Today Mormon scriptures continue to teach dark skin is a curse from God and a sign of His displeasure (See 1 Nephi 12:23; 2 Nephi 5:21; Alma 3:6). Brigham Young, second president and prophet of the LDS church referred to those with dark skin as being “cursed with a s(k)in of blackness” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 272). The Church appears to be struggling with its early statements about people with dark skin. Rather than allow the Book of Mormon to speak for itself, they have altered it to minimize the impact of early Church doctrine.
LOVE THIS!!! 🙌 I always knew there were rational reasons for this language regarding cultural and historical significance of the text. 💖 Thank you for your thorough dedication! 🤓
Then how do you explain the reference to black skin and flat nose? Flat nose really?! JD 7 page 290 Brigham Young himself.
Excellent analysis.
Please discontinue the use of low-quality, royalty-free, 3-chord background “music” in future videos. This ‘audio wallpaper’ is distracting and unnecessary.
Then how do you explain the reference to black skin and flat nose? Flat nose really?! JD 7 page 290 Brigham Young himself.
@@johnstark-StarkAvionics …and that has what to do with audio wallpaper “music” exactly?
@@chadstaten5586 I was replying to your comment “excellent analysis “. I don’t care about the music. I care about your soul. I’m not trolling you. I get nothing out of this. I don’t want to argue with people. I just want you to take a step back and examine this religion.
Mental gymnastics at its finest.
PC gymnastics for the intellect.
For anyone still hung up on the idea that black and white has anything to do with the color of the pigment of the skin of people in the Book of Mormon, please look up the word “white” in the 1828 Webster dictionary and read it very carefully. These definitions are what the word “white” meant at the time that the Book of Mormon was translated. Also, bear in mind, no where in the Book of Mormon does it refer to “white skin” or to skin that is white in color. To use any other definition or to infer skin color is to place your own meaning and bias on the word. For those that won’t take the time, here are the definitions:
WHITE, adjective [G.]
1. Being in the color of pure snow; snowy; not dark; as white paper; a white skin.
2. Pale; destitute of color in the cheeks, or of the tinge of blood color; as white with fear.
3. Having the color of purity; pure; clean; free from spot; as white robed innocence.
4. Gray; as white hair; a venerable man, white with age.
5. Pure; unblemished.
No whiter page than Addisons remains.
6. In a scriptural sense, purified from sin; sanctified. Psalms 51:7.
So, by these definitions, the people that were not under the curse were one or more of the following:
(a) people the color of snow
(b) perpetually white with fear
(c) a pure, clean people
(d) all were gray with age
(e) they were purified from sin, sanctified.
It’s clear that the message of the Book of Mormon is that Christ would come, did come and will come again to this earth so that all men and women who have or will ever live may be purified, may be made clean through His atonement and may be sanctified.
Again, purified, made clean and sanctified…not turned the color of snow, perpetually full of fear or gray with age. That is my conclusion, but you are welcome to come to your own.
And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; 16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair
@@anthonyrippa686 are you using a current definition of the word “white” and reading race into this verse? The current definition of “white” has added a race component to the definition, but not so with the 1828 definition. Are you suggesting that the Nephites were the literal color of snow? Again, carefully read the definition from 1828 and put aside your present understanding of the word, then choose a definition that best reflects turning from wickedness, repenting and becoming righteous. If you come up with skin turning the color of snow or milk as the definition that best describes the reversal of a self-induced curse, well, then, that’s your choice. You might want to also look up “skin” in the 1828 dictionary…it’s pretty interesting. Here’s one definition:
3. The body; the person; in ludicrous language
@adamfoster3493 "the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them."
@@anthonyrippa686 yes, you are really good at copying and pasting. What your pasted quotes seem to lack is any context or explanation as to your point. I can copy/paste, too
pres·ent·ism
/ˈpreznˌ(t)iz(ə)m/
noun
uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.
"What Is a Hebrew Idiom?
A Hebrew idiom is an expression, usually a verb with a noun as its direct object, that has a meaning which differs from the normal meaning attached to the words that comprise the idiom."
I would never call the Book of Mormon raciest....Id call it fiction.
Wow, the amount of mental gymnastics that one has to go through just to stay in this church is astounding. How about Joseph Smith was writing a book that explained where the indigenous people came from. He noticed that their skin was darker, so he needed a way to change their skin to a darker tone. So, he used a curse, the same curse that was used to justify slavery at the time. You can read comments from actual LDS prophets who specifically state it refers to their skin. Spencer W Kimball believed that peoples skin were becoming white and delightsome based on their membership in the church 😅😅😅
I never saw it as racist. Amazing how some people view things
So explain the priesthood ban for blacks?
I hear crickets@@theb2694
she actually proved her own point.... "amazing how some people view things"@@theb2694
I have always thought of the phrase skins of blackness as symbolic of the Mark of The Beast or the act of choosing to follow Satan in thoughts and deeds.
Then how do you explain the reference to black skin and flat nose? Flat nose really?! JD 7 page 290 Brigham Young himself.
I prefer to read the BOM as it is, this is pure speculation about what the verses in various writings you have quoted. If I’m white or black and someone says I’m white or black then they are correct. This is really reaching of LDS culture to become PC. If a scripture
says their skins were black I’m pretty sure their skin was black. I’m wondering what other parts of the BOM you don’t agree with. Are we picking and choosing what scriptures we don’t like and changing them to something that meets our own beliefs. TH-cam content creators have to be taken with a big dose of salt.
for real
It comes from the Qur'an. Ali 'Imran 3:106. "On the Day when some faces will be (lit up with) white, and some faces will be (in the gloom of) black: To those whose faces will be black, (will be said): "Did ye reject Faith after accepting it? Taste then the penalty for rejecting Faith."
- A. Yusuf Ali
once I understood some ways that Heavenly Father deals with His children in all of the books of scripture, I realized that the curse is actually just a natural consequence of not letting God prevail in our lives. when that happens, the spirit ceases to guide us and we are left to wander until we turn (repent/change/face) to God again. the Curse is lifted once we let God prevail again. I appreciated that the mark was described as something that people do to themselves to separate themselves from the truths that they hate. many people see it as a "culture" that they hate, so they go against the culture. thats understandable to some degree. but it is still a reality that we often mark ourselves through our thoughts and actions and where we choose to go, and they separate us from the Saints of Jesus Christ.
I remember how when the curse was lifted the black fell off like scales FROM THE EYES?
Yeah this interpretation is super lame. Suggesting that the dark skin is figurative can't be consistently applied to all the verses that talk about this which clearly indicate that it was a visible sign and distinguishing factor. You're just letting your political persuasions skew your scriptural interpretation
I supposed it was that they came from a covenant family and the skin represented a covenant lineage and relationship, and the blackness was a tainting of the skins, clothed by the Savior or of the covenant and it being unwashed, unbaptized and not dressed further in priesthood and authority. Thus the blackness is the reflection of lack of repentance. I figured it had little to nothing to do with literal pigmentation. But today we can see tattoos, piercings as clutter or associated with unclean living. Though we “don’t judge” we also are not blind to the countenance of one’s appearance which often reflects an individuals lifestyle choices.
The theories presented concerning ancient history are outlandish. Why must hard things be rationalized? I agree with the presenter from the 12 minute mark to the end only. Thanks for ending with correct doctrine.