Mormons: why are people born with dark skin?

[sweetnay]

Please correct me if I’m wrong but do Mormons really believe that blacks are born with dark skin because of their neutrality against Satan/Jesus’ bro in the pre-existence? And that those valiant spirit children who fought Satan/Jesus’ bro, received bodies that were “light and delightsome”? And if the priesthood ban and alleged “curse” on blacks was lifted in 1978, how do mormons account for people still being born with dark skin? Hmmmmm

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Well, the issue was that they had inherited this “curse” through Cain. Up until the Civil Rights Movement, blacks couldn’t go to heaven as free men/women. This tells you that the Mormon faith is pretty mainstream to an evident extent-- or rather, unorthodox.

Just my :twocents:.

I don’t think a Mormon could really explain why the colored, such as myself, would explain this-- primarily because it is mythology.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[MelanieAnne]

I was once told by a Mormon (the son of a bishop who was himself black) that the Mormon religion believed that black skin was the “mark of Cain” and that once all the people had been born who should have been born through the line of Abel, who had been murdered by Cain, then the “mark” was lifted and then the blacks were given the priesthood. That’s what I was TOLD. If that conflicts with someone’s understanding, don’t flame me.

According to this same person, blacks were not prevented from going to heaven before that, but they were restrained from the priesthood. How much else they were deprived of? I wasn’t told about that.

 

[SedesDomi]

Please correct me if I’m wrong but do Mormons really believe that blacks are born with dark skin because of their neutrality against Satan/Jesus’ bro in the pre-existence? And that those valiant spirit children who fought Satan/Jesus’ bro, received bodies that were “light and delightsome”? And if the priesthood ban and alleged “curse” on blacks was lifted in 1978, how do mormons account for people still being born with dark skin? Hmmmmm

Joseph Smith ordained at least one Black man as priest, so the ban appeared sometime after his 1844 death, most likely during Brigham Young’s presidency.

 

[Jerusha]

My speculation is that the “black” man who was ordained to the priesthood was probably very light.

The stigma of darkness was established in the Book of Mormon in reference to the Natives of the Americas. It was extended to people of African descent through (I hate to use the word here) logic.

It is my understanding that the LDS took slaves with them to Utah.

 

[dianaiad]

My speculation is that the “black” man who was ordained to the priesthood was probably very light.

The stigma of darkness was established in the Book of Mormon in reference to the Natives of the Americas. It was extended to people of African descent through (I hate to use the word here) logic.

It is my understanding that the LDS took slaves with them to Utah.

Your speculation would be dead wrong, Jerusha.

A point of FACT, here, in case anybody cares (mostly they don’t, I notice)

It wasn’t skin color. How do I know this?

Because only those of a certain ancestry were banned the priesthood; blacks of African descent. Indians (from India) Austrailian aborigines and South Sea Islanders were all given the priesthood despite being far darker of skin than most African Americans (who, through inter-racial mixing, sometimes have considerably less melanin than their African brethren.)

Yes, some Mormons took their slaves with them to Utah. These families had their slaves before they joined; buying a slave after becoming a Mormon was severely frowned upon–Joseph Smith ran for President on an abolitionist ticket. Between the years of 1847 and 1852, there were about a hundred slaves in Utah. Brigham Young moderated that status in 1852, changing it to ‘indentured servitude’ so that the slaves were freed…and then worked for a period of years under contract to the families they came over with. Brigham Young, who was a ‘moderate’ racist (he was greatly against slavery, but let’s face it, he did think that blacks were inferior) was very much an abolitionist himself.

VERY much against the wills of the Mormons, Utah territory was made ‘slave territory’ when it was admitted AS a territory.

The above facts may or may not alter your perceptions of us…doesn’t matter much. Just thought I would inject some reality to the situation.

 

[Jerusha]

Sure, Natives were a step upward from darker-skinned people, because they were Joos. Mixing was still frowned upon. Lets face it, it only takes a few generations of mixing for them to look white. My native ancestry basically only shows in my face and foot shape (narrow heel, large forefoot)

Thank you for giving me information on the slavery situation in Utah.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Joseph Smith ordained at least one Black man as priest, so the ban appeared sometime after his 1844 death, most likely during Brigham Young’s presidency.

This was Elijah Abel. He was ordained an Elder and later a seventy by Zebedee Coltrin. He was endowed in Nauvoo. After Smith’s murder, Brigham Young imposed priesthood restrictions for African Americans. He taught that Blacks were a perpetual slave race, and even in the mormon Celestial Kingdom they would serve the men who had become gods.

Abel married Mary Ann Adams. He petition both Brigham Young and John Taylor for his wife’s temple endowment and sealing. Both men denied this request.

Other early Black LDS were denied temple sealings. Jane Manning James petitioned several times to be sealed to her husband, even after his death. She was denied this. She provided proof that before Jospeh Smith’s death, he had promised her that the two of them would be sealed. So, John Taylor allowed Jane to be sealed to Joseph Smith, as a servant. She was denied the endowment and she continued her petitions to be endowed, until her death.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Your speculation would be dead wrong, Jerusha.

A point of FACT, here, in case anybody cares (mostly they don’t, I notice)

It wasn’t skin color. How do I know this?

Because only those of a certain ancestry were banned the priesthood; blacks of African descent. Indians (from India) Austrailian aborigines and South Sea Islanders were all given the priesthood despite being far darker of skin than most African Americans (who, through inter-racial mixing, sometimes have considerably less melanin than their African brethren.)

All people of darker skin were denied the mormon priesthood. This policy was changed by David O. McKay who removed the ban on for people of the Pacific Islands, stating that they were descended from Lamanites, not Africans.

Yes, some Mormons took their slaves with them to Utah. These families had their slaves before they joined; buying a slave after becoming a Mormon was severely frowned upon–Joseph Smith ran for President on an abolitionist ticket.

Smith spoke out against slavery AND abolition. In Nauvoo, one of the major political mistakes he made was using the block vote of the LDS in Nauvoo. He promised the LDS vote to one party, that were anti-abolitionist, and to another party, that were pro-abolitionist.

Between the years of 1847 and 1852, there were about a hundred slaves in Utah. Brigham Young moderated that status in 1852, changing it to ‘indentured servitude’ so that the slaves were freed…and then worked for a period of years under contract to the families they came over with. Brigham Young, who was a ‘moderate’ racist (he was greatly against slavery, but let’s face it, he did think that blacks were inferior) was very much an abolitionist himself.

Young was a flaming racist! He believed very much that Blacks were inferior. His writings make this very clear.

Mormons established slavery in the territory when they arrived with slaves, in 1847. The 1850 census shows 50 Blacks living in the Utah territory, with 24 being free. The 1860 shows 59 Blacks living in the Utah territory, 30 who were free.

VERY much against the wills of the Mormons, Utah territory was made ‘slave territory’ when it was admitted AS a territory.

The Utah territory legislature passed laws in 1852 that recognized the legality of slavery. Slavery remained legal in UT until federal law abolished slavery in 1862. A few slaves were emancipated by their masters, but the majority only did so after the law changed in 1862.

The above facts may or may not alter your perceptions of us…doesn’t matter much. Just thought I would inject some reality to the situation.

Your “facts” are not really facts.

 

[dianaiad]

Sure, Natives were a step upward from darker-skinned people, because they were Joos. Mixing was still frowned upon. Lets face it, it only takes a few generations of mixing for them to look white. My native ancestry basically only shows in my face and foot shape (narrow heel, large forefoot)

Thank you for giving me information on the slavery situation in Utah.

I’m certain, Jerusha, that you will figure out a way to use it to advance your agenda, as your reference to ‘joos’ clearly illustrates.

 

[Jerusha]

Doesn’t the Book of Mormon consistently refer to the Jews as a stiff-necked people, stubborn, when all peoples are stubborn when the status quo is threatened? Why does the BOM refer to them as Jesus-killers?

Would Jesus be crucified if he had said similar things in this time? I believe so, given the willful nature of man.

Why does the BOM establish a pre-Christian form of Christianity, if it isn’t because its writers believed that Judaism is inferior to Christianity, even when they are in a time when there was nothing better?

I am sorry, but the BOM is consistently anti-Semetic.

Yes, Natives can identify with the Jewish experience, but that does not make us Jewish.

 

[Publisher]

As I understand it, the dark skinned people of African descent were banned from priesthood. During the war in heaven those who were “less valiant” in supporting Christ side of the battle, were “cursed” to be born with dark skin as the mark of their sitting on the side lines and not making a choice to follow the plan of salvation as outlined by Christ against the plan of salvation as outlined by Satan…the story of the two “offers” is found in the Book of Moses I believe.

The offspring of Cain had a “mark set upon” them…dark skin…but only of African descent…East Indian and Aborigines also have dark skin but they aren’t descended from Cain.

The “dark skin” of the Native American people was placed upon them for following the brother of Nephi…Laman…hence Lamanites…in time through the work of Christ they might once again be “white and delightsome”…this tale is from the Book of Mormon…it has nothing to do with the “curse” upon those of African descent.

 

[dianaiad]

All people of darker skin were denied the mormon priesthood. This policy was changed by David O. McKay who removed the ban on for people of the Pacific Islands, stating that they were descended from Lamanites, not Africans.

Smith spoke out against slavery AND abolition. In Nauvoo, one of the major political mistakes he made was using the block vote of the LDS in Nauvoo. He promised the LDS vote to one party, that were anti-abolitionist, and to another party, that were pro-abolitionist.

Young was a flaming racist! He believed very much that Blacks were inferior. His writings make this very clear.

Mormons established slavery in the territory when they arrived with slaves, in 1847. The 1850 census shows 50 Blacks living in the Utah territory, with 24 being free. The 1860 shows 59 Blacks living in the Utah territory, 30 who were free.

The Utah territory legislature passed laws in 1852 that recognized the legality of slavery. Slavery remained legal in UT until federal law abolished slavery in 1862. A few slaves were emancipated by their masters, but the majority only did so after the law changed in 1862.

Your “facts” are not really facts.

And your presentation is not terribly objective, not to mention your complete lack of attributions (except for the census which actually shows that there were FEWER slaves in Utah than the number I stated)

Joseph Smith ran on an ABOLITIONIST ticket. that wasn’t a terribly popular stand in Illinois, or Missouri. Here is a copy of "General Smith’s Views’ which represented his platform. He ran on the idea of, among other things: freeing the slaves by 1860 (or ‘now’); disbanding penitentiaries and making crime punishable by ‘community service’ unless it is for murder; limiting the size of congress, lowering congressional paychecks, advocating a tariff and lowering all other taxes, expanding the idea of freedom of speech and religion.

You can see the whole thing here:

tinyurl.com/afj769

In the following pamphlet announced by his nominating committee, the only thing he changed was a call for a national bank. Abolition of slavery was still a vital “plank” of his platform.

When figuring out what a candidate is "running on,’ you can generally trust the literature HE publishes. To do otherwise is like, well…claiming that Obama ran on a rightwing conservative ticket. that might make the Democrats who are having problems with him right now feel better, but it’s not exactly true, is it?

 

[dianaiad]

Doesn’t the Book of Mormon consistently refer to the Jews as a stiff-necked people, stubborn, when all peoples are stubborn when the status quo is threatened? Why does the BOM refer to them as Jesus-killers?

Would Jesus be crucified if he had said similar things in this time? I believe so, given the willful nature of man.

Why does the BOM establish a pre-Christian form of Christianity, if it isn’t because its writers believed that Judaism is inferior to Christianity, even when they are in a time when there was nothing better?

I am sorry, but the BOM is consistently anti-Semetic.

Yes, Natives can identify with the Jewish experience, but that does not make us Jewish.

And you find the term ‘Jesus-killers’ in the BoM, WHERE, precisely?

Jerusha, your statements in this matter are factually incorrect.

 

[why_me]

And you find the term ‘Jesus-killers’ in the BoM, WHERE, precisely?

Jerusha, your statements in this matter are factually incorrect.

Actually, it was the catholic church that had a problem with jews killing christ. But that has changed recently. No church is perfect since a church is made up of human beings. The more radical catholics seem to have forgotten the catholic church’s imperfections.

 

[why_me]

Doesn’t the Book of Mormon consistently refer to the Jews as a stiff-necked people, stubborn, when all peoples are stubborn when the status quo is threatened? Why does the BOM refer to them as Jesus-killers?

Would Jesus be crucified if he had said similar things in this time? I believe so, given the willful nature of man.

Why does the BOM establish a pre-Christian form of Christianity, if it isn’t because its writers believed that Judaism is inferior to Christianity, even when they are in a time when there was nothing better?

I am sorry, but the BOM is consistently anti-Semetic.

Yes, Natives can identify with the Jewish experience, but that does not make us Jewish.

I think that you know the history of the catholic church and the jews right? Not exactly, a pro-jewish history. And so, the book of mormon is anti-semitic? What about the new testament? It could be claimed that the new testament is slanted against the jews because the writers of the new testament wanted to enjoy Roman favors when it came to christian understandings and beliefs.

 

[Jerusha]

Sorry. I posted a reply but it didn’t go through.

Yes, the Catholic Church has had a problem iwth antisemitism. People couldn’t understand in the context of their own times, the nature of the problems that Paul and the Apostles had with the Jews.

Somewhere, I don’t know where, it says something like “who else but the Jews would kill God?” I really don’t have the time to look it up. That is the one that really sticks in my mind, there are others.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes, the Catholic Church has had a problem with antisemitism. People couldn’t understand in the context of their own times, the nature of the problems that Paul and the Apostles had with the Jews.

I thought the Apostles were Jews.

 

[Stephen168]

I was once told by a Mormon (the son of a bishop who was himself black) that the Mormon religion believed that black skin was the “mark of Cain” and that once all the people had been born who should have been born through the line of Abel, who had been murdered by Cain, then the “mark” was lifted and then the blacks were given the priesthood.

This is the first time I’d heard this reasoning. I have been wondering how the Mormon Church got away from the Mark of Cain story.

 

[MelanieAnne]

This is the first time I’d heard this reasoning. I have been wondering how the Mormon Church got away from the Mark of Cain story.

Stephen bear in mind, that’s what I’ve been TOLD. I don’t have a reference. And from other threads in this forum, it would appear that, at least on many subjects, you can get just about as many opinions as you get answers about things. This may merely be one person’s opinion for all I know. Or something they were told, etc. etc. Many things in Mormonism seemed to have evolved over time such that things that were once taught are no longer taught ~ and I’m talking about just in the last decade or two, not over the entire history of the church. So this may or may not be a “current” explanation.

I think, looking at this thread as a whole, that we can all agree that times have changed and over hundreds, if not thousands, of years, certain beliefs that were taken for granted before have proven to be erroneous and we have corrected those things and moved on, or at least tried to. It is often inaccurate to look that situations hundreds of years in the past through our 21st century eyes without putting the situation in context. And there’s certainly no reason to get into a tit-for-tat over which church’s history is more riddled with problems.