Is the Book of Mormon "skin of blackness" curse racist? | Ep. 202

The Book of Mormon describes a curse that was pronounced upon a group of wicked people called the “Lamanites.” This curse was associated with a “skin of blackness.” While many plausible alternative explanations have been put forward in the past, many people still interpret this curse in a racial/racist sense. But is that what is really going on here? Research suggests otherwise. In this episode, David shows that sometimes what may be the easiest reading (from a modern perspective) may not be the correct reading.
Video transcript: saintsunscripted.com/faith-an...
- UPDATE: “'Life and Death, Blessing and Cursing': New Context for 'Skin of Blackness' in the Book of Mormon," by T. J. Uriona (BYU Studies): tinyurl.com/mpv6fkmv
- “The Inclusive, Anti-Discrimination Message of the Book of Mormon,” by David M. Belnap (Interpreter Journal): bit.ly/3Ev6Rf9
- “Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon: A Textual Exegesis,” by Ethan Sproat (BYU Studies): bit.ly/3RYMMDb
- “Demythicizing the Lamanites’ ‘Skin of Blackness’,” by Gerrit M. Steenblik (Interpreter Journal): bit.ly/3IlT9NR
- “Nahum’s Rhetorical Allusions to Neo-Assyrian Treaty Curses,” by Gordon Johnston in Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (Oct.-Dec. 2001), pgs. 415-436: bit.ly/3RH4xXG
Notes:
- Notice also that in the example from Lamentations 4, we find that the “blacker than a coal” description is associated with symptoms of starvation that physically affected the way the people looked: “...they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick.”
- It may be worthwhile to note that, as foreigners in a strange new land, Lehi’s family may have been particularly susceptible to New World illnesses - that would be especially true if the Lehites mixed with indigenous peoples.
- As an interesting and potentially coincidental side note - If you had leprosy as an ancient Israelite, you were unclean, and the Law of Moses demanded you do certain things. One of those things was to shave your head. Interestingly the Nephites portray the Lamanites as having shaved heads. Perhaps this was simply an intimidation technique, or perhaps it’s an indication of their affliction.
- According to the Nepal Leprosy Trust, “The conditions described [referring to biblical leprosy] could include boils, carbuncles, fungus infections, infections complicating a burn, … favus of the scalp, scabies, patchy eczema, phagedenic ulcer, and impetigo or vitiligo on people.”
- From “Religion of a Different Color” by Paul Reeve (pg. 56), regarding 19th century usage of the term “black,”
“The Book of Mormon confirmed in their [Latter-day Saints’] minds the long-standing Judeo-Christian notion that skin color was a curse; but the book added its own twist. Ironically, the curse in the Book of Mormon was ‘a skin of blackness’ that Mormons applied to Native Americans, not to African Americans. Like other Euro-Americans, nineteenth-century Mormons sometimes described Indians as their ‘red brethren,’ ‘red neighbors,’ or ‘untutored red men.’ The color they ascribed to Native Americans therefore did not fit the color of the Book of Mormon curse, a fact that Mormons failed to reconcile.”
- Just a note regarding the difficulty of researching Preclassic Mayan diseases: “Due to the typically poor bone preservation at Early and Middle Preclassic sites, reporting of skeletal pathology data is inconsistent. Thus, lesions resulting from disease and trauma are often reported when present, but we lack appropriate frequency data to carry out any sort of comparative analyses.” Source: bit.ly/3I43j4t (Published in 2021)
- A few scriptures from the Book of Mormon about diseases:
Mosiah 17:16-17 And it will come to pass that ye shall be afflicted with all manner of diseases because of your iniquities. Yea, and ye shall be smitten on every hand, and shall be driven and scattered to and fro, even as a wild flock is driven by wild and ferocious beasts. [Note that the footnote attached to “diseases” takes you straight to the curses listed in Deuteronomy 28]
Alma 9:22 Yea, and after having been delivered of God out of the land of Jerusalem, by the hand of the Lord; having been saved from famine, and from sickness, and all manner of diseases of every kind; and they having waxed strong in battle, that they might not be destroyed; having been brought out of bondage time after time, and having been kept and preserved until now; and they have been prospered until they are rich in all manner of things
Alma 46:40 And there were some who died with fevers, which at some seasons of the year were very frequent in the land-but not so much so with fevers, because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots which God had prepared to remove the cause of diseases, to which men were subject by the nature of the climate.

[@carlosenriqueulloa]

This is how I see the BOM as a person of color: At the end of the book, the light-skinned people die because they were evil. The dark-skinned people survive, and are promissed that some day they will re-join God's people. You would basically have to ignore the whole arch of the book to claim it's racist.

[@foodismed1cine]

That's a really good point!

[@towardcivicliteracy]

If we took the Book of Mormon narrative as simplistically as so many people in modern times do--people that seem to have their whole psychology and life consumed with the fear of racism, and obsessed with pointing out the supposed sins of others--by their own standards the Book of Mormon is racist toward white people. But, their arguments are incoherent on their face, at every turn.

[@butthatsnottrue.]

If black people aren't cursed then who is haha? Why do we worship the "people of color"

[@andrewh7868]

Interesting point. I've never considered that.

[@butthatsnottrue.]

Let's face it the white people are gonna be enslaved and ethnically cleansed from their land. Idk what is happening why are we all race traitors to the whites? We all see they are under attack yet nobody cares?

[@dinocollins720]

As a black member of the church, I know and testify that God loves us all! We are all His children! When we truly understand that, nothing else really matters. Great video! Thank you!

[@SaintsUnscripted]

Thank you.

[@igoldenknight2169]

Amen!

[@bsc78]

God loves you *and* the church got it wrong. It was racist.

[@tpbarron]

Amen and amen! ❤

[@ryanorionwotanson4568]

Why don't you magically change back though? Lol... It's freemason nonsense

[@EdnaHarper-do8mn]

Thank you for this explanation. It was difficult for me to deal with when becoming a member of the LDS faith in my late 50’s (as a Native American). Your presentation helps me understand a bit more and I’m so grateful. Thank you!

[@randomango2789]

It’s sad that a man well advanced into his 50s cannot see the lies and inconsistencies of Mormonism. Especially since you’re Native American, you should be old enough to recognize that dark skin being a curse was an official teaching in the LDS church. How can a grown adult like yourself still fall for childish lies? Repent and return to Christ by following the true gospels.

[@f50koenigg]

Are you still a member of lds?

[@EdnaHarper-do8mn]

I’m still a member - and I feel God alone can clear our minds and hearts. He knows us individually. God will wipe away our tears and sooth our emotions. He, alone, can respond but I think that when we see Him ..,, we won’t need to ask anything. We’ll all feel His love and compassion.

[@f50koenigg]

@@EdnaHarper-do8mn So what did you substitute for coffee and tea?

[@PastGens]

I’m so glad your a member experiencing the blessings that come with the fullness of the Gospel. I do want to ask if you knew that the mark was racial, would it influence you being a member of the church or not?

[@igoldenknight2169]

I appreciate this episode very much! I am biracial, and this topic has always been a glaring one for me and to members of my family. This topic needs to be addressed more often because so many of my fellow Church members do not know this or understand it which has and can cause harm. The first person I heard speak on this subject in this light was Marvin Perkins years ago. I heard him first speak at a Genesis Group gathering. The language concerning “curse”, “black”, “white”, “pure”. These are called Hebrew Idioms. They are found in the Bible like some of which mentioned in this video. White and Black did not refer to the color of there skin. They refer to righteousness and wickedness. The pure and impure. Those inside the Church and outside it. Jacob 3:8 is one scripture that if read with the perspective that the mark was physical “black skin”, then The Book of Mormon would be saying God judges us by the color of our skin. Which isn’t true. Thank you for making this video, and I pray for more light on this subject from the brethren.

[@starfox6693]

mixed ethnicities languages and cultures is what makes the whole human race. as a believer i try not to emphasize so much on wrongly wording brethren as white or black because the lord don't judge people that way and the ancient context in my opinion is speaking about a condition not like commonly known today

[@starfox6693]

we may be many cultures and ethnicities but we're only one human race and the lord judges nobody the way humans judge. you are loved by the lord brethren

[@ThePlanOfSalvation]

I also saw Marvin Perkins videos which explained this.

[@Dino23968]

I got a question of the day for Mormons: Is it a mortal sin/blasphemy for any Christian to seek immortality(wether physical or metaphysical)?

[@thefelicits]

And why is it that black refers both to wickedness and skin colour? (Hint, it's racism)

[@CodyCreel]

This conversation was never a fun conversation to have with non believers haha

[@rckburris]

It certainly isn't! In fact this is one question that I dread when someone brings it up. I have finally learned to admit that I do not understand this verse or the priesthood restriction. I leave it at that. I won't even try to answer it anymore.

[@CodyCreel]

@@rckburris they have a good video on it, and it isn’t a good anwser but the best anwser to it was that the restriction was a huge misunderstanding and that won’t satisfy critics but with my bias’s and collected evidence I can put a little faith that it was a misunderstanding

[@rckburris]

@@CodyCreel I agree that it has to be a huge misunderstanding. What I don't got, though, is why it took the church so long to correct it.

[@CodyCreel]

@@rckburris because they probably had inherit racist basis’s so that made them not question the Preisthood restriction

[@qtasabutton21]

You want to know why you can’t answer it? Because it’s wrong on so many levels, and god loves ALL of his children and we (native Americans) were never cursed. It’s just the racism bleeding through those pages written during a racist era. That’s all. At the end of the day hod loves ALL of his children.

[@TimDavie5]

David, another excellent treatment of a complex issue! I’m blown away that in 18 minutes you can cover so much ground in a balanced, thoughtful, open way. Really great stuff. Love the concept that the easiest reading to us in the 21st century may not be the right reading. Thank you! 🙏

[@palimpalim5291]

No, this is a lousy treatment. Philosophies of men, mingled with scripture. Open your own eyes. Open the Book of Mormon. Lamanites HAVE darker skin.

[@natandjoec]

​@@palimpalim5291the scriptures are clear. Skin was not the curse. The curse was people who removed themselves from Christs light no longer had his spirit to strive with them. So many people get caught up on the skin thing. Ugh.

[@palimpalim5291]

@@natandjoec It is false doctrine to claim the Lord did not put a SIGN of the curse on the Lamanites by making their skin darker because it very, very clearly is. This whole "it is metaphorical" is an attempt of false prophets to inject woke ideology into the Word of God. Alas too many members let themselves be brain washed by satanic media propaganda and reject eternal truths by being "offended" because they cut themselves off from truth and don't understand simple concepts of the gospel.

[@Gerald-ge3or]

​​@@natandjoecDark skin WAS the curse. People love to go to racism on these verses. However, I am aware of people who go to places that are sacred to them. In those sacred places they are given a garment. They call it a skin. The garment is white. Similarly, I am aware of another group of people that completely rebel against the first group, having formerly received the garment of white however, they no longer wear that garment. In fact, in there rebellion, they wear I black garment. I don't think these verses are about their own skin. I believe they are talking about something much different than simply racism. It's easy to find judgement and criticism in ignorance and use that to condemn people with false presumptions. Sooooo, you're BOTH right! Because the dark skin IS the spirituality. 😊

[@sleepingwithcats5121]

The fact is, we say black magic, a dark day, witches wear black etc.... It's a descriptive way of saying... bad, negative, evil.... this is all ridiculous as far as I'm concerned. Good video David, thanks.

[@welcome2school]

Also we say "lighten up" when we mean "be more hopeful" has nothing to do with skin color.

[@ZMellinger]

@@welcome2school i always thought lighten up referred to weight, as in lightening the load. having a weight taken off your shoulders type thing

[@soulfullyone1233]

I'm keeping an open mind to interpretation, but on your point, the text mentions 'Skin' of blackness... at what point do we stop and just ask ourselves, based on our history, is it more probable that they are referring to some metaphorical sense of blackness, or the blackness referring to people of colour. Let's be reasonable here, I'm not saying the original scriptures are necessarily racist, BUT I do question Joseph Smiths motives and feel a bit of bias from his time had slipped in. I mean, how would you interpret a translation mentioning blackness and curses as a white man in the 1800's where racism was a normal part of society? And when you draw that into consideration, what else could've been injected with bias based on the times? We see that these scriptures were encouraged to be taken literally when people of colour weren't allowed into temples, untill the civil rights movement had arisen and Joseph was forced to roll with the changing climate. But this is just my speculative take, I can't confirm it with fact, but we are all leaning on a 'hunch' here and my senses are telling me it's exactly as it reads.

[@andrewmorgan4510]

All of these theories are wild speculation. They also don’t meet the conditions of god putting a curse on them. You can’t equate the Old Testament cursings as the language is not in any way similar to the Book of Mormon texts on the curse of a skin of blackness. Another problem is we have no source text to compare with. You would think that God making a perfect translation wouldn’t leave any room for ambiguity here. If it were a disease or tattoo or face paint it would be much easier to just say that. The biggest problems with any of these theories is that essentially all of the restoration Prophets speak many times about this literally having to do with race and skin color. Even up until modern times. I recall as a child hearing The prophet of the church claiming that the shade of Native American children’s skin that had been taken from their homes and placed in LDS homes and forced to be baptized actually physically received lighter skin over time. You can watch videos of president Kimball literally making this claim. This was presented as fulfillment of Book of Mormon prophecy that when the Lamanites repented they would become white and delight some. Multiple restoration prophet, seers, and revelators pushed this narrative. So now you have a situation where if it’s not racial or based on actual skin pigmentation then the prophets we’re supposed to be following are all wrong and then how do you trust their interpretation of any of the scriptures? How can you claim they have divine revelation or even basic spiritual discernment. Also, if you do a textual analysis of contemporary texts around the time the Book of Mormon was published it becomes clear that it was about race. It would be nice if it were something else but I don’t see how the evidence supports that. Plus we haven’t even gotten into the doctrines of the curse of cain’s descendants and Ham’s descendants. There’s too close of a parallel there to assume they are unrelated. This is simply wishful thinking to try to justify that maybe the religion you were indoctrinated to believe is the only true church doesn’t have a history or horrible racist beliefs.

[@brettmajeske3525]

The Book of Mormon text explicitly rejects the idea of a "perfect translation". Why would anyone believe that is the claim being made? "Also, if you do a textual analysis of contemporary texts around the time the Book of Mormon was published it becomes clear that it was about race." This is incorrect, the terms "black" and "blackness" pre-Civil War, when referring to people, is far more commonly used to mean "dirty" or "wicked" than as a racial description. Native Americans were known as "Redskins", and Africans were known mostly as "Negros". In America at the time the Book of Mormon was published "Black" meant a non English European working a menial job, like ditch diggers or longshoreman. Irish, Swedes, Italians, and Spanish were often nicknamed "Blackie", not for their skin pigment but because they were perceived as being "dirty" or "lazy".

[@advocate7643]

@@brettmajeske3525 "most correct book"

[@brettmajeske3525]

@@advocate7643 Taking a quote out of context without explaining yourself. Joseph was talking about doctrine and the fullness of the Gospel, not grammar or translation. Shortly before he died he said that he could do a far better job of translating the Book of Mormon, but the current version was sufficient. So that is what he thought about the translation quality, sufficient.

[@advocate7643]

@@brettmajeske3525 Do you have a direct quote for that?

[@PaulWilliams-pn3fl]

Awesome commentary ! Excellent !

[@Thehaystack7999]

I always considered the darkness was meant as unrepentant, being white was repentant and armor and clothing at times reflected authorities. Skin was towards covenant people, ordinances as coverings.

[@paulblack1799]

Plus, there were at least 2 places in the original manuscript of the B of M where Joseph changed the word 'white' to 'pure', saying that if he left it as is people would get the wrong idea. Unfortunately the changes never made it to the printer's copy and we did get the wrong idea and passed it along until recently.

[@soulfullyone1233]

Does he say in these manuscripts that he didnt want the wrong idea passed or is this your assumption?

[@loudogg73]

Here's the reality. Racism is evil. Sexism is evil. Holding ill feelings toward the poor (or the rich) is evil. Here's the hard part though; having racist feelings or other prejudiced feelings does not make you an evil person, it makes you wrong about that subject and in need of repentance. We all struggle with various issues. We all need to repent. Prophets included. Worst case scenario, some BOM prophets saw their wicked brethren, also noticed a darkening skin (probably from intermarriage with existing populations) and they made an inaccurate correlation between the two things. For us today, it's a great time to apply the warning given in the very title page of the BOM, "if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

[@welcome2school]

Then how do you explain the reference to blackness of skin as a curse in the vassal contract that is quoted in the video? This find, and the verses in the Old Testament really speak to a metaphorical, not literal reading of the skin of blackness concept.

[@loudogg73]

@@welcome2school Could be. I'm just saying worst case scenario.

[@mcdonoughfamily76]

Hey David, thanks for the video. A lot of what you said in favor of a skin disease as an explanation of the curse applies even better to the tattoo theory. Tattoos were considered unclean under the Law of Moses just as skin diseases were. With this in mind, reread Alma 3. It’s a game changer. The Amlicites mark themselves in their foreheads “AFTER THE MANNER OF THE LAMANITES.” How do we miss this? It’s right there. The Amlicites mark themselves after the manner of the Lamanites, except that that the Lamanite marking was black. “The skins of the Lamanites were dark” (3:6). “Therefore, whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him” (3:10, note the passive voice there-“there was a mark set upon him”). Alma 3 has been trying to tell us all this time that the Amlicite mark was of the same type as the Lamanite mark-a mark or tattoo in the forehead (or at least somewhere on their person).

[@joeywren5799]

It's interesting, I was reading 2nd Nephi chapter 5 the other day and was really wondering about what it meant by a "skin of blackness", then this video popped up and it makes more sense. It goes to show that the Lord will answer those who truly ask and seek

[@PresidentBrighamYoung]

Brilliant job on this! I had many similar theories, but you guys brought it all together very very nicely.

[@PastGens]

Why the theories though? It’s clear that it’s racial. The Lamanites are the American Indians. Nephi saw in vision Christopher Columbus and then the settlers on the promised land and the destruction of his brothers (of course the Lamanites). Those were Indians. Doesn’t mean God hates them. Absolutely not. But the actions of their fathers have consequences and they still have that mark. Of course we do not and should not hate Indians. They are just as important and we still want them to experience the blessings of the true gospel of the Lamb. Like Joseph preaching to the Indians.

[@advocate7643]

Mental gymnastics gold medalist holy cow

[@ThePlanOfSalvation]

I always knew this could not mean Black Skin Color because Native Americans dont have Black Skin. Most people think they are talking about black people but dont know that The Book Of Mormon is about Native Americans and not Black People. Anyway this is a great video as always from the best LDS channel on KZbin. Keep up the good work!

[@user-yr9lt7dz8k]

It is very possible that the Jaredites were black people from the loins of Ham that lived amongst the people of Cush

[@joannagipson12]

I'm Black and have "brown skin " also... I have yet to see anyone with BLACK skin. There are a few here and there, but they are in small numbers 😮

[@fightingfortruth9806]

The BoM didn't say they had "black" skin. It says skin of "blackness" (and also dark skin in other places). Blackness can be shades of dark... You guys read something into this verse that doesn't exist.

[@brainwasher0]

lol so it’s all about the shade of black? That doesn’t change the racist connotations of the Book of Mormon.

[@michaelmeiring857]

This is what I've written in my booklet re the skin of blackness in the Book of Mormon: In the footnotes to 2 Nephi 5:21 the text is compared to 2 Nephi 30:6, which states “and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes.” Therefore, the “scales of darkness” (or spiritual darkness) could be seen as a euphemism for the “skin of blackness.” In other words, because of the Lamanites’ hardness of hearts, the curse is God’s abandonment of them, which is reflected in their despicable actions so that the Nephites aren’t enticed to join them (cf. Rom 1:26, 28; 2 Thess 2:11).

[@welcome2school]

The find of similar wording of skin of blackness in the succession treaty contemporary with Lehi's family is very significant. It gives a lot of context for how writers in the BoM would have used that phrase. And I have always thought that the Old Testament verses talked about here made it clear that they were using metaphors. Marvin Perkins article in LDS Living from a few years ago is very good on this topic. Sometimes when skin of blackness concepts are used in the BoM it's in close proximity with other very clear metaphors such as stiff neck and hard heart, so that's seems to support for that usage being a metaphor. Also the emphasis on the term white when talking about the fruit of the tree of life seems to show that it's more important than a simple color. There are similar references even in today's language. We say "lighten up" and we don't mean physical skin color, we mean have hope, etc. With our race saturated world it makes sense that this mistake in understanding occurred. It's a tragedy for this misunderstanding to have hurt so many people. I hope that turning to Christ can heal people hurt by this awful, painful mistake.

[@paul715]

If the mark was not dark skin, then why should we assume that 2 Nephi 26:33 was talking about white and black skin? You can't have it both ways.

[@sheldonjackson383]

💯%!

[@spideyN8R]

Is that verse talking about black and white skin? Do we actually know?

[@jcalle2]

In the context of the sentence it seems to me almost assuredly referring to color of skin. "[...]black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." All the set are identifications of people. @@spideyN8R

[@paul715]

@@jcalle2 presentism

[@sheldonjackson383]

@@spideyN8R clearly it is. ‘Progressives’ are vainly attempting to alter divine mandates to accommodate the downward ‘slippery slope’ of an increasingly degenerate world.

[@bluedreams517]

Thanks for bringing this up. This topic has been a journey for me as a mixed woman (black and white) who was raised primarily by a white mother who came from a very old school LDS background. I was first introduced to the idea of racial curses online, thought it was dumb, and then had her reinforce this. It was not a fun time and these verses were often stumbling blocks for me as I read the Book of Mormon. I'd find beautiful inspiration and then it would feel disjointed by these verses. I probably heard every last explanation for this that was still race-based and they all fell short and ran into problems. Thanks to marvin Perkins I decided to try and read it in a way that assumed it was race/skin tone oriented and allow the text to define blackness. I did a deep dive and for the first time the text not only made sense, it actually fed me spiritually. I think it's more accurate that to say that the text is "easier" to read within our modern legacy of attributing black/white to race is only somewhat true. It's easy for us to default, but it makes the text harder to digest for many and internally confusing. It leaves to a very confusing read where skin color comes and go based on ones actions/righteousness. And where the text is not internally consistent on how it treats this darkness/lightness. Personally, i lean towards the non-physiological traits (clothes, markings on the skin, and other cultural distinctions the Nephites would have found as antithetical of covenant people customs). I don't think it has to be just one thing but all or enough of them to signify separation. I believe this namely because these traits are the easiest to remove or shift based on the beliefs that people hold. The mark of the curse followed the belief patterns. When they repented, it would be removed. When they were even, it would be in place. So it would make the most sense that it would need to be things that would shift rapidly as well.

[@emmaspendlove5039]

I was just rereading the Book of Mormon and had questions about these verses on "skin of blackness". Thank you for this video

[@PastGens]

And what do you believe the mark of the skin of blackness means?

[@jahadden1]

If this is not about darker skin color, why did Spencer W. Kimball say that native americans who were joining the church were gradually getting lighter skin because of their righteousness? These attempts to rewrite history and LDS doctrine are interesting, but transparently disingenuous. For 150 years, "skin of blackness" meant dark skin in our teachings. I know that is uncomfortable, but that is what was taught. I am glad we are trying to disavow those misguided beliefs, but it would be better to own up to our racist history. (e.g. Brigham Young's horrific ideas on interracial relationships, and mound builder theory believing that only "white civilized" cultures could have built the burial mounds found in the eastern U.S.)

[@anneopinion2129]

I agree. That Kimball statement is cringe. In that same talk he said the missionaries joked that they were donating blood to help speed up the process of the Indians becoming white. It's upsetting that members try to explain 150 years of teaching away. How can someone make a theory that the skin of blackness was self inflicted like a tattoo when the book says that God caused it?

[@scottvance74]

The Book of Mormon was "written for our time" - i.e. 1830 - and the interpretation of the text by those in the 1830s is most likely to be in line with the author's intentions. Stating that the "LDS scholarly concensus" is that the curse has nothing to do with race (at 9:00) says more about these modern believing scholars than it does about the text of the Book of Mormon. Denying racism (past or present) does not make us less racist, but it might help us to make us feel better about ourselves (if that is the goal).

[@anneopinion2129]

@@scottvance74 I would add: Denying racism (past or present) does not make us less racist, but it might help us to make us feel better about the *Church and the Book of Mormon* (if that is the goal).

[@brettmajeske3525]

Kimball's comment was him repeating what he had been told by leaders from Native American branches. There is some truth in that even among darker pigmented people their skin does become even darker if they spend all their time outside in the sun. He was not speaking of his own observations, but what had been told him. That he believed it as being more than just difference between those laboring outside verse those who spend most the day inside attending school is somewhat troubling. I must mention that the understanding was not for 150 years. The earliest leaders did not seem to make that connection. It is true that by the 1950s, LDS culture seemed to have reached that assumption, but assuming that what was believed in the 1950s reflected the beliefs of 100 years previous is no different than assuming what is understood today must have been understood 100 years ago.

[@brettmajeske3525]

@@scottvance74 That modern consensus is looking back to the 1830s. It is not until the 1950s that the phrase becomes widely associated with race.

[@racerogers3082]

Amazing video I never thought about the diseases theory

[@agirlnamedchuck]

I loved this theory, of course it could mean a disease. That makes so much sense in my head, but I had never thought about it that way. Thank you!

[@PastGens]

But the Lamanites were clearly the Indians. ‘Cause of the vision Nephi had of the destruction of his brothers after the many gentiles came to the promised land (who he describes as white like his own family). Absolutely does not mean God hates any particular race. I’m just saying that the mark was racial and we don’t have to be politically correct just because of what the world says about us. Let’s stand for what is true.

[@jesuschristlives2724]

The Lord revealed to me that the dark skin meant the darkness of the spiritual skin. I've seen Satan, and his "skin" is pitch black.

[@LightPrinceApollo]

I also saw satan and I can confirm in the name of Jesus Christ and his skin is pitch black. It's spritual blackness not racially dark skinned. Race does not exist as proven by science.

[@rckburris]

I am certainly glad that you made this video in an attempt to explain this very sensitive subject. In all my years as a member of this church this one if only two issues that I have never recieved a satisfactory answer to. The other one being polygamy. This single verse in the Book of Mormon has caused my daughter to leave the church because she married a black man and states that this idea of black skin being a curse is repugnant to her. Unfortunately, I had no satisfactory answer for her. I was saddened that out of all the beautiful and inspiring testimonies of the Savior found in the book she focused solely on this one verse and it rancored her soul. As for me, I tend to skim over that verse and just accept the fact that I do not understand it.

[@bsc78]

That’s a typical Mormon view you have; that one verse ‘rancoured’ your daughters soul. Instead, you could say she discovered the Book of Mormon was not true because it happened to line up exactly with the racist views that were abundant when it was written.

[@rckburris]

@@bsc78 Just because I do not understand the verse does not mean that the book is not true. There are also verses in the Bible that I do not understand but it does not make me doubt that it is the word of God.

[@brettmajeske3525]

Elder Peter Johnson of the 70 has an interesting opinion of that verse. He points out that that the Lamanites were not Africans, and that the Skin of Blackness is not called a curse, the curse is explicitly wickedness the "skin of blackness" being a mark or that wickedness. edit: For those unaware Elder Johnson is African-American.

[@kristinrichmond8185]

@@bsc78No YOU couldn’t say that if that’s what YOU think.

[@blckprsthd4791]

@@brettmajeske3525 Who is Elder Johnson?

[@smoothie7362]

Also joseph smith was one of the few non racists back in the day. He was abolitionist which was one of the reasons his presidential campaign wasn’t very successful

[@metroidmckay]

i've been waiting ssssssssOOOOOO long for an episode on this topic. thank you uncle david

[@VICTOR7oh2]

Listen to ahmad corbitts talk about this he is incredibly smart!!

[@metroidmckay]

@@VICTOR7oh2 thank you i’ll check it out!

[@SaintsUnscripted]

Hopefully the wait was worth it!

[@palimpalim5291]

You have been misled. This is total and utter crap. The Lamanites HAVE darker skin as everyone can see by himself AND on the picture of the oppressed people of Limhi in the Book of Mormon itself. People, really, grow up! Stop borrowing (fake) light and study the scriptures yourselves! Don't be so lazy! The Book of Mormon contains ALL the answers - these frauds however do not. They are the very people meant by "philosophies of men, mingled with scripture".

[@metroidmckay]

@@SaintsUnscripted it was david always explains this stuff perfectly

[@daleclark7127]

Excellent information on this topic. Perhaps the best to date I’ve encountered. Good production and clarity in the presentation!!! Hope this helps those who struggle with these supposed issues.

[@JaySwag77]

I've had this video on my watch later playlist for a while now. I'm glad I finally got to it! Excellent research, thanks for sharing, I will be sharing this widely.

[@SaintsUnscripted]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@SaneAsylum]

I think it is important to differentiate between culture and race. Cultures are often bad, races never are. Setting people apart can be positive or negative and the means by which people are set apart is not in and of itself a negative (rather just a mark). If blackness was set upon people as a curse that isn't saying blackness is bad simply that in that thing it was a sign of something. For whatever reason.

[@palimpalim5291]

First of all: The dark skin of the Lamanites is NOT the curse, they got it as SIGN of the curse that they brought unto themselves by turning away from the coventant. Second of all, read the Bible, go to the Temple and find out what a curse is. You people seem to think that a curse equals damnation. The contrary is the truth. Without the curse that Adam brought upon us ALL there would be NO progress and our mortal existence would be totally useless. Now forget what these frauds claim and ponder real scripture. The Book of Mormon for example. Start with researching the following question: Which people is ultimately the more blessed one, the Lamanites or the Nephites? As for the topic of "race": Clearly there are 3 basic phenotypes: "African", "Asian" and "Caucasian", to use your questionable nouns. Everything is more or less a mixture. Noah had 3 sons. What a coincidence. Everything else has been created by Satanists to create division among the people.

[@bluedreams517]

Personally, As a person who is black and white, this argument never sat well with me. For one, that isn't what the references in the BoM said. Blackness was interchanged with phrases like filthiness all the time (see jacob 4). It's only our reference point of needing to soften a racist historical assumption about skin tone being a sign of a curse that led to this idea. Even if it were true, it doesn't make it feel better....it doesn't even sound right. If blackness was set upon a people as a curse, it's part of a curse. A curse that made the people denoted as undesirable to righteous people. That's by no means neutral and it just ignores that it's negative and reinforces negative reactions people have towards darker skin tones. There's better arguments and explanations that actually flow with how the text uses this term. It wasn't about race or literal skin tone period. The racist backdrop that the BoM was brought into assumed it was about race.

[@palimpalim5291]

@@bluedreams517"There's better arguments and explanations that actually flow with how the text uses this term" There is a lot of crap out there that is not true but may be more pleasing to those that have no clue what "curse" is. However, that does not change the fact that everyone with at least one working eye can clearly see that the Lamanites do have a darker skin. You can only find truth if you get rid of all the woke crap that you have let yourself get brain washed by. What is next? Let us not talk about commandments any more because it offends those that indulge in sin? Again: Stop listening to these false prophets because their lies please your ears and get your butt up and do your own research in real Holy Scripture.

[@saintinlower48]

I am going to save this because this is an excellent video on what has been an uncomfortable topic! I don’t even know how to read this in the book of Mormon.This makes so much sense. I knew it would be difficult to just take my own understanding and put it into ancient scripture. Life within the past 30 years for me with the Internet has increased my ability to learn phenomenally. But my kids, without being reminded, would not think to put in a pre-Internet life into my understanding from when I was raised.

[@lonyaofnevada]

I studied Russian while living in Ukraine a few years ago. In my class we talked about the root “чер (cher)” which comes from “чёрт (chyort)” which means devil. In Orthodox Christian Churches, depictions of demons, or “черти” are very dark black with wings. Many words, including the adjective black, the word for ink, and several others come from this word. I don’t know if the timelines match up, but it makes sense to me that this way of describing a curse would come up in ancient scripture.

[@brentyergensen2257]

Best work online. History is a mess, and one of the lessons in life is learning that fact and allowing it to be that way: confusing, incomplete, and a permanent mystery. Allow it to be a mess--that is humility. Its lazy, self righteous, and dismisses cultural conditions, language, and economics to look at the past as if we have some supposed clear understanding of their thinking, let along their intentions. Amazing work.

[@kevinferrin5695]

During the great wars of the book of Alma, Lamanites apparently could not distinguish a Lamanite and a Nephite. Now, even of the curse had been a skin color, it was only a distinguishing mark. It was not a symbol of God's hatred not that his children should despise them. Those who had the Spirit understood this. Have you ever noticed that you can detect a "blackness" in the visage of a person fallen in sin. Conversely, you can detect a "whiteness" in the visage and presence of someone who is pure. The actual skin color of the person has no bearing on that. You hardly even notice it.

[@bouji_]

Mate, the Lamanites and the Nephites never existed.

[@matthewsmith5967]

Something was brought to my attention once to suggest that it wasn't a physical skin of blackness. It's in Alma 55, in the War Chapters. Moroni has a plan to retake the city of Gid, and he searches among his men for anyone of Lamanite descent, and finds one who is named Laman. Laman takes wine with him and pretends to be an escaped Lamanite bringing stolen wine. As he approaches, the text seems to suggest that the Lamanite guards at the city of Gid are wary, unsure if he is friend or foe. However, when Laman speaks to them and declares himself a Lamanite, they immediately relax. The thing to note here is that if there was an actual literal difference between the skin colors of the Lamanites and the Nephites, wouldn't the Lamanite guards be able to tell immediately that Laman was of Lamanite descent just by looking at him? And furthermore, why do they simply relax when he just tells them that he's a Lamanite? If they were that suspicious before, why would they now suddenly be trusting? The theory I was given was that though there wasn't a meaningful difference in appearance between Lamanite and Nephite, there was in language. The idea is that the Lamanites and Nephites spoke different languages, and there was some sort of shibboleth that could easily distinguish between the two civilizations, like a noise made in speech that Nephites simply couldn't make, but a Lamanite could. The idea is that the guards "hail him" and Laman replies and explains in the Lamanite language, making sounds and saying words that a Nephite wouldn't be able to make, thus confirming that he is a Lamanite. Is that doctrine? No, no it's not doctrine. Is it true? Who knows. Is it something interesting to consider when asking if the Lamanites were cursed with literally black skin? I think so.

[@dallinbeveridge9269]

Loved it! Thanks for addressing this topic. Also the video production on these is 👌

[@SaintsUnscripted]

Glad you liked it!

[@Bishop_Spearsmith]

Thank you for addressing this not-so-easy topic. Your courage is a blessing to us. I really appreciate it.

[@tdwagner1]

Even back in 1973 when I joined the church, it was emphasized this was not physical but a symbolic darkness involving your countenance. Since leprosy is so well documents for centuries, I kinda doubt the whole plethora of skin conditions. Makes for intriguing speculation, but you are right when you say we actually don't know...yet.

[@maneevent1508]

LOL!! Then why did Brigham and Smith say blacks could not hold the priesthood

[@therealshugon1353]

This is a great video, good job, I hope in the near future you can do an episode on the blasphemy of the holy spirit commited by sherem and korihor, and finally answer an age ild question, what is blasphemy of the holy spirit?

[@jordanwutkee2548]

Three crucial Bible verses that everyone interested in this topic ought to know: Jeremiah 8:21, Joel 2:6, and Nahum 2:10. Read the footnotes, and remember that the Book of Mormon was written by men who spoke and thought in Hebrew, not English.

[@psgchisolm]

My comments on some of your major points. Obviously I'm not a scholar but just pointing out things as I see them and offering my opinion 6:24 - whats the full context of that quote? in particular whats between the ellipse. Is there any evidence that this was a common meaning of that phrase? 7:14-50 visage - "a person's face, with reference to the form or proportions of the features." ruddy - "(of a person's face) having a healthy red color." Both of those passages and Nahum 2:10 use words specifically refering to a persons face and not skin like the BoM verse. 9:23 - Just pure cope. If it was an animal skin that could be taken off wouldn't this have happened in the BoM quite regularly to infiltrate the lamanites? Additionally 3 Nephi 2:15 "And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;" note that this verse says TAKEN from them, indicating that that this was not a cultural skin that could be casually removed. 3 Nephi 4: "battle; and they were girded about after the manner of robbers; and they had a lamb-skin about their loins, and they were dyed in blood, and their heads were shorn, and they had head-plates upon them; and great and terrible was the appearance of the armies of Giddianhi, because of their armor, and because of their being dyed in blood." Making the distinction that their skin was DYED in blood. Note that unlike 2 Nephi 5:21 and 3 Nephi 2:15 it specifically says HOW the lamb-skin was worn 9:55 - Wouldn't this indicate the mark would only be worn for those things and not continually? Again his next sentence "suggests that any 'mark' ... may have been self applied" 3 Nephi 2:15 disputes this. Although what the Amlicites did might fit. 10:03 3 Nephi 2:15 again disputes this but could apply to the Amlicites. 10:10 - Alma 3:6 "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers,". Alma 3:13 "Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a amark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads." Clearly says they marked themselves and where they did so unliked the lamanites which had a curse upon all their skin. Interestingly verse 13 says "even a mark of red" could this indicate that the lamanites were similarly red skinned? 12-14 - Wouldn't this have been mentioned as a curse of blackness though and woulnd't there be regular references to the scarred diseased lamanites? 16:14 - agree, wish the early saints would have put this much thought and effort into this before blanket banning black people. 17:12 - Good point, would be interesting to see his writings on how he described Native Americans in his time. Intersting and informative video. While I disagree with many of the concepts you presented I will agree that we should always strive to review ancient words in as close to their context as possible. How this curse applied to black people when Native Americans were considered the descendents of the lamanites makes me wonder how the early saints reconciled these ideas.

[@VICTOR7oh2]

AHmad corbit of the 70 spoke about this and he is spot on, dudes a genius.

[@zionmama150]

8:21 Also, people have to understand that the term “Canaanite” is a semetic term that meant mournful or sinful. It never had anything to do with skin color, but was referring to the countenance of someone. A brightness of countenance was understood to be happiness, whereas when someone was mourning, faces lack that spark, or that are diseased as mentioned in 12:15

[@fizzii1]

Have a look at Al-Imran verses 106 and 107 in the Qur'an! Many translations in English will say that the people's faces will be either black or white on judgement day.

[@zionmama150]

@@fizzii1 metaphorical language, it is not literal

[@fizzii1]

@zionmama150 I'm not disagreeing with you though.

[@fen527]

Yes, this is how I’ve personally interpreted it. I think of mugshots or before and after photos of addicts. There’s a darkness their countenance. But once people turn their lives around, they radiate light.

[@zionmama150]

@@fen527 exactly what I was trying to say.

[@grantarnold]

Well done! Surprised you didn’t include the point Marvin Perkins made regarding Alma 55:4-5 (i.e. why would you need to “search” for someone who was a Lamanite by birth if you could easily distinguish by skin color [the inference is then: skin color was NOT different, so you had to search]).

[@paul715]

So was 2 Nephi 26:33 talking about white and black skin? You can't cherry-pick.

[@grantarnold]

⁠@@paul715not sure if you watched the video or not, but even 2 Nephi 26:33 could easily fit into the options David discussed in the segment.

[@paul715]

@@grantarnold how? Have you read 2 Ne 26 33?

[@dr33776]

​@@grantarnold3 Nephi 2:15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites Seems like there was a difference between them caused by the curse, isn't it?

[@brettmajeske3525]

Of course Nephi was not talking about skin pigment. @@paul715

[@jjhardy2000]

I like how you brought out a lot of different ideas for consideration. Someone you may want to collaborate with for additional insights is Marvin Perkins.

[@RealLadyG]

I've always felt we are cursed. How many centuries have we continued to be hated because of the color of our skin. I would not say we are blessed due to the constant hatred we face in all generations.

[@DannyAGray]

I'm assuming, by the context of your comment, that your skin is black, or a shade of it. But I would remind that there doesn't seem to be a race in the world that at one time or another hasn't been hated and persecuted. We've all been through it, and continue to go through it to one extent or another. Also remember that the word slave originally comes in reference to Slavic people who are white. The main issue is that anyone anywhere discriminates against his fellow man based on something as trivial as the shade of his skin.

[@DannyAGray]

@annebell3119 with respect to your comment, I don't believe in micro aggressions except as a way to look to be offended. I think, in comparison to any other group or society in history, any attribute that can be defined as racism in our church is extremely mild. I think Brigham Young was wrong in the priesthood ban, sure, but it was a short-lived problem. That said, most people (especially in online chat communities) were never even alive before 1978, and I think their impressions of racism are pathetic in their own heads. No offense. I travel a lot for work, and meet all kinds of wars and stakes and I get to know people personally, and I can't say I know hardly anyone - if anyone at all - who is racist, judges on the basis of race, or feels judged based on race. Granted, in sure there are many or there with a racial victim mentality - that they have to be victims - just as there are for any problem. But generally speaking, I don't see it as a living problem in the church.

[@DannyAGray]

@annebell3119 I'm curious as to your statement that you were one of few who were baptized at age 8 in 1979. Even during the priesthood ban, baptism was not withheld from blacks. There were many blacks who were baptized members of the church up and through the priesthood ban; they simply couldn't hold the priesthood or go through the temple. Perhaps it was a personal perspective of yours that, wherever you were, they simply didn't want to be baptized until the ban was lifted, but that certainly was not the rule. Perhaps you can share more insight on that.

[@DannyAGray]

@annebell3119 that does answer my question. Thank you.

[@caz2870]

5:25 That is very clear, what is written then and in the book of Mormon, regarding skin. I find it almost impossible to beleive there was no racism then, as it continues now.

[@bluedreams517]

ethnocentrism has always existed and forms of xenophobia would exist (among other ways to define in and out groups). Our current brand of racism is very much a modern legacy though, largely based on classifications and justifications based in european colonialism. It's hard for us to imagine a worldview without this influence...but it did exist.

[@MorganRhysGibbons]

This is SO GOOD I am not convinced the "skins" mentioned in the Book of Mormon are anything but a metaphor, and probably even referring to clothing, not human skin.

[@palimpalim5291]

And you are wrong, just like these scams that call themeselves "experts". Have you ever seen a Lamanite? Or the picture of the Lamanites enslave the people of Limhi in the Book of Mormon? Why do you rather believe the lies of scammers than your own eyes and the Word of God?

[@brettmajeske3525]

@@palimpalim5291 Why would the illustrations matter? They were painted over 100 years after the Book of Mormon was published.

[@palimpalim5291]

@@brettmajeske3525I am not talking about the paintings, I am talking of the antique wall painting of a dark people surpressing a lighter people that used to be in the BoM along with a picture of ancient Persian metal plates.

[@FairyKid64]

I think you make some good points, but at the same time, you say it's important to not view ancient culture and scripture from a modern context, yet, your points all revolve around defending the Book of Mormon from a modern idea of racism. Just because God used race to distinguish people doesn't mean God is racist in the sense that one race is more righteous than another. All people can come unto Christ - white, black, brown - all people. As someone who believes in the Book of Mormon, and also modern prophets, I also believe in past prophets and revelation for all ages. What was right and good for the people of the Book of Mormon is not necessarily right and good for us. It's within the realm of possibility that God did indeed turn the Lamanites' skin dark in a literal sense - meaning that He changed the pigment color of their skin. That doesn't mean they couldn't repent and partake of Salvation - in fact, that is something we saw many times in Book of Mormon times. The Lamanites were even more righteous than the fair skinned Nephites many times. All that means is that in certain situations God decides to act in ways that we as mortal human beings looking back from a modern perspective of racism don't understand, because His ways are higher than our ways: 7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55：7-9 It's similar to the issue of polygamy. God has commanded it at times throughout the scriptures and modern times, and He has also revoked it. People who try to logically argue that polygamy is always evil from a modern context do not understand the designs of God and are lacking in faith. We don't need to understand all His ways - we are only asked to follow in faith. All this said, I'm not saying that all I have said is Church doctrine - I'm just providing another perspective. If we close our minds to other perspectives, we will be missing parts of the truth.

[@SickAcousticCovers]

#1, if we read this literally it still isnt racist. The book of mormon explains further in Alma 3 that people bring curses upon themselves, so curses arent something the Lord does to us, but they are consequences to our actions. I have heard theories that there may have been another race of people that mixed with the discenters (Lamen, Lemuel, others...) which is what caused the darker skin, but whether it was this or another way, it doesn't make the consequences that came on them racist. #2 Even people on the left speak of dark skin as if it's a curse. According to sources that are often cited, they say people with dark skin in America are more likely to be in poverty, they are more likely to be discriminated against and more likely to be incarcerated. They go as far as to say that having white skin makes you privilaged. Tell me how that doesnt sound like the consequences of a curse. #3, Nephi says he glories in plainess. He specifically says that he is writing in a way that will be able to be understood by us. Additionally, we rightly claim that Joseph translated with modern audiences in mind, which is why there are aberrations in the book of mormon like the word "church". Why is this an exception? I'm not saying the interpretations mentioned in this video are wrong, but they seem more motivated by appeasing the world's judgement rather than seeking and accepting the truth whatever that may be, and yes, the things i mention above still work within the context of what the church has said in the disavowment that he referenced. What they say in that source is very carefully written, leaves more room than it first appears and what they say in it is true. With all this said, i am open to other interpretations, but the ones cited in this video to me, come up a bit short and feel like a stretch. I think citing the things mentioned will come across more like backtracking to most people and my guess is they will make the church look worse than other approaches. That's just my 2 cents.

[@jcalle2]

Agreed fully. All this seems like weaselly excuses. Furthermore I think there's a lot history of race that is being intentionally distorted--no need to distort it further.

[@brettmajeske3525]

Joseph translated with his audience in mind, which is not modern by about 200 years. "Black" and "Blackness" were common idioms at the time of the translation meaning wickedness or filthy. African's were far more likely to be called Nergo than Black. In fact the groups who were mostly likely to be called Black in the early 1800s were uneducated European immigrants. Black Irish, Black Swedes, etc. dock workers and ditch diggers, people with dirty jobs.

[@biggentallen]

Im so relieved to hear this. I thought i spent 30 years of my life being racist, but it turns out i just misinterpreted my own scriptures. They should have someone translate this book so its easier to understand. Now that it's clear what it means, maybe the church can apologize for all the prophets who taught that it was in fact talking about skin color.

[@brettmajeske3525]

Most of the people I ahve heard explicitly saying it is about race have been critics, not Prophets.

[@MamacitaBonita]

There is plenty of documentation of senior church leaders in the past discouraging interracial marriage, not allowing blacks to hold the priesthood, and other racist acts. I’ve accepted the fact that church leaders got it wrong. Apostles, Prophets, seventies, and local leaders are all subject to making mistakes just as much as I am. Personally I forgive them. We’re all trying to become better followers of Christ one day at a time.

[@brettmajeske3525]

@@MamacitaBonita Which is particularly notable since today we have an Apostle and over 20 of the 70 in interracial marriages. Things have changed.

[@blckprsthd4791]

@@brettmajeske3525 These were not critics of the church: Brigham Young (prophet), David O. McKay (prophet), Bruce R McConkie (apostle), George Albert Smith (1st presidency), Alvin R. Ryder (apostle), Mark E Petersen (apostle), Randy Bott (CES@BYU) . The list is long. Church history is replete with solid members holding and explicitly making these statements. No one can force anyone to be honest student of church history. We either are honest about it or we are not.

[@brettmajeske3525]

@@blckprsthd4791 I am unaware of Brigham Young using the Book of Mormon to justify his racism against Blacks. I never claimed that there was no racism in the Church, but other than Mark Peterson, I am unaware of those men you mention using the Book of Mormon as justification. Most of the People claiming that Book of Mormon teaches racist philosophy that I have encountered were critics not prophets. The LDS leaders who taught racism in the past rarely use the Book of Mormon as justification for the treatment of Africans, even McConkie recognized that the Book of Mormon was talking about Native Americans, not Africans, and thus the verses in the Book of Mormon cannot be used to justify the restriction.

[@Unschmuck]

I find this topic fascinating, so 🤓 nerding out here: I believe the term cursing broadly means someone who is not making covenants with God (skin= garments). Jacob 3:9 is essentially saying "Hey! Stop bullying or thinking you are better than people who don't go to church! There are many ways they are more decent to their families than you are, so watch yourself!" Relevant! 🔥❤ It was ALSO likely war paint, part of being ‘dressed in the manner of robbers’ (shaved head + loin cloth) that is usually mentioned in connection with the curse. 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.” The visual part of the curse being ‘dressed in the manner of robbers’ makes sense of 3 Nephi 2. The Lamanites did not want to be associated with the Gadianton robbers and so, in addition to joining with the Nephites and making temple covenants, they changed their manner of dress. I think the curse was only transferred to children in terms of - if you marry someone who is not making and keeping covenants with God, it is likely your children will not, either.

[@Sunshine-eo2sp]

Absolutely W episode David. Job well done.

[@palimpalim5291]

No, job failed miserably. This man is spreading lies and philosophies of men, mingled with scripture, misleading people and keeping them from searching the scriptures themselves. The darker skin was not "figuratively", they had and still have(!) darker skin. Seriously, why do you rather believe the lies of men than your own eyes? Find a Lamanite and look at his skin. Stop being sheep, people!

[@tortletrainwrek9335]

Great work. Love to learn this with y'all's help.❤

[@finicum11]

My favorite apologist just dropped a wrung with this. He definitively claimed "a racial reading is the wrong answer" after presenting alternative explanations that were all huge stretches.

[@ijn2252]

I agree. These videos are usually great and David does amazing work overall, but I feel like maybe we just don't have a good enough answer to this question yet. The physical terms used to describe the visibility of the curse don't feel adequately addressed at this point to me.

[@bouji_]

​@@ijn2252 The Lamanites never existed.

[@ijn2252]

@@bouji_ You're free to think that. The discussion presupposes a belief that they did, so you're addressing an entirely different issue.

[@bouji_]

@@ijn2252 ​ I don't have to "think" anything. I know for a fact that the Lamanites never existed because there is no evidence for their existence. I was merely answering the question for you.

[@user-ns7yd6dl6z]

Im a Hispanic memeber of the church. I was born in the USA and unfortunately, dont know any spanish. But what i do know, is that i live thw book of mormon. It is for all the world and all people.

[@thomasveech7456]

Good to acknowledge that these really were theories that many members have parroted. Equally good to acknowledge the incompatibility with other doctrines and the alternately valid interpretation in light of hebrew idiom.

[@ldfme]

As I listen I am reminded that this book is very close to modern day English language. So that our understanding can be a lot more clearer. For me the book of Mormon is and always will be a work in progress for my personal understanding each and every one of us need to pray for ourselves for understanding. Only then can we get the right answers. The more you dig the more confusing it gets and the Lord uses simplicity and at times simplicity is our stumble block. When I was introduced to the Book of Mormon I new in my heart the book was true, with out reading the full text of the book but it took me many years before I embraced the faith because I wasn't ready yet, each and everyone of use no matter our race or our skin color are children of a Loving and caring heavenly Father and when we are ready everything becomes clear. when you open your heart he will speak to you as he did in the Olds testament, the new testament, the book of Mormon, DC and all the books that are yet to come. he has never stopped talking to us

[@NotSoNaturalLife]

I think the claim that the LDS Church is racist is less about the one line in the BOM and moreso about the Churchs own interpretation of it and thus Brigham Youngs subsequent comments and Priesthood ban. I'd like to see a video explaining how Brigham Young could both be a "prophet" and also make really disturbingly racist statements

[@SaintsUnscripted]

kzbin.info/aero/PL_VwunTjPjRHTp91xM2Lxx_G8PTRsMKq4

[@tidasAYAHAYAH]

It is in fact talking about skin color( Visage means appearance; form) Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. As many were astonied at thee; his VISAGE was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men. (Isaiah 52:13-14)

[@richardmarble8898]

When the Philistines Captured the Ark of the Covenant many of them developed piles (or Hemorrhoids) among other curses. When they decided to return the ark this curse followed until the ark was returned to if's rightful place.

[@Stuartl90]

If the "skin of blackness" curse isn't meant to be taken literally (or based on race) why were black men literally banned from the priesthood?

[@thenexus1789]

This came not from a misinterpretation of the Book of Mormon but rather from the Book of Moses (Pearl of Great Price). Remember that many of the converts to Church came from a protestant background. Here in the USA, there were black slaves and many used this curse as a justification for slavery. The curse of Ham in Genesis 9 is where that idea came from. Over the last 200+ years, many Christians have moved away from that, obviously because slavery ended, and have made it now a Mormon thing. Where prophets like Brigham Young and for a long time many after him misinterpreted that black people couldn't hold the Priesthood because of the "curse of Ham". The Church has disavowed those teachings and the message in the Book of Mormon is that all are alike unto God, as explained in this video.

[@Buztroy]

This is great, can you provide the transcript for this video? I'd like to use it for future talks.

[@SaintsUnscripted]

Bookmark this saintsunscripted.com/videos/ and check it later, the Faiths & Beliefs transcripts go up there.

[@palimpalim5291]

Why would you want to use philosophies of men, mingled with scripture, for talks? That even defy reality and common sense? Or have you really never seen a Lamanite in your life?

[@thomasveech7456]

​@@palimpalim5291the idea of "races" is modern. Discrimination based on appearance is not new but the idea of races based on color is.

[@palimpalim5291]

@@thomasveech7456 What does that have to do with my reply?

[@Titiandtheband]

How can the church today disavow what prophets said in the past that black skin was a curse? It says it in the cannonised Book of Mormon that the lamanites were cursed with dark skin. As a member I always wondered what apostasy looked like And we can see it in real time with Mormon church

[@CarlosRomero-pl9tk]

Ok guys, love your channel but… as a black member of the church myself… I disagree completely with the idea that the mark on the skin given to the Lamanites was some kind of disease. Now hear me out, this argument falls apart completely when we read Jacob 3:9 when Jacob tells the Nephites to not be racist essentially. The Lamanites were dark skinned and yes, I testify that the BOM is ancient text however, it was written or translated for our day, otherwise we would not have words like “Bible” and “Chirstian” in it. I get that you guys are trying to explain this part in a way that does not sound racist, but the thing that has helped me understand this part of the Book of Mormon better is by asking the question, “ Is the book of Mormon racist?” Or in other words, is the BOM making the statement that white people are better than people of color? If this is the case, what evidence is there for that claim? As I have pondered about this question, I have gone to the Lord and this is what I have found, I will only give a few examples because they are many throughout the book: -From the very beginning, in the title page of the book, Moroni states that the book was first and foremost “written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the House of Israel.” Right out of the gate, the book includes people who are darked skinned into the fold, making them equal to others of the house of Israel. -2 Nephi 26:33, I find it interesting that the same author who wrote the words in 2 Nephi 5:21 would include even those who are dark skinned into the fold and treat them as equal. -Jacob 3:9, Let us remember that Jacob was a student of Nephi, meaning Nephi influenced Jacob. -Enos 1:13, I find it interesting that Enos’s desire (who was the son of Jacob, who was the brother of Nephi) was that if the Nephites would be destroyed, that the Lamanites would come to know the truth about their own history so that they can be saved, later on in the chapter, Enos works to include the Lamanites into the fold. -Mosiah 9:1-2. Zeniff not only sees the goodness of the dark skinned Lamanites, but defends them by shedding the blood of his own brothers (who were white) in order to preserve their lives and avoid bloodshed. -Alma 24:14,26-27. The Lamanites are converted and testify of God’s love for them, Mormon then writes “thus we see that the Lord worketh in many ways to the salvation of his people” and I’m going to stop on that one. I can go on about the Lamanites being more righteous than the Nephites, Samuel the Lamanite preaching to the Nephites, The Lord Jesus Christ rebuking his chosen 12 among these people for not including Samuel the Lamanites writings into the records, and later on, there being no more “ites” among the people, but they were “one” In my humble opinion, I think these examples need to be presented first so that people can have a bigger picture of the book of Mormon, and see that the book DOES NOT TEACH that white skinned people are better than dark skinned people. When that is established, we can then disarm not only our critics, but our own biases, and be better prepared to receive instruction and ask, “ If the changing of skin color to the Lamanites was not making a statement that blacks are less than whites or the mark of dark skin to these people in particular was not part of the curse, then why change their skin color? I have a theory and I base my theory on 2 parts from the BOM as well as the past claims from the church that polynesians are also Lamanites. I believe that the skin color change came about because there own skin color would be proof that they are of the house of Israel, I say this because unlike the Nephites, the Lamanites did not have a record of their own past like the Nephites did, and so there own history over time would have been lost as is written in Mosiah 1:1-6. If this is the case, perhaps part of the reason why Mormon wrote what he wrote in Alma 24:27 could be that, that part of their skin color was a way to bring to the remembrance to the Lamanites of their true identity. Also, I find it interesting that in the Polynesian culture, tattoos are used to basically write down their own family history. Where did this practice come from? Why write your history on your skin? They made structures and art, why not write it down on their own structures? Instead, they wrote it on their own skins. If you read all of this, great! Lol. What’s your opinion?

[@happiness9752]

Good stuff 👍 honestly, if it's written for our day and catered to the needs of our day then I don't know why it wouldn't include racism and different skin colors and how to overcome the hatred groups feel towards each other. Not to mention, if it's not about skin color then Jacob isn't talking about racism when he says "Revile not against them because of the darkness of their skins". I don't know of a more direct commandment in the Bible regarding racism than that. Also, I can't remember who it was but there was a BYU Professor named Rodney Turner, who said the Separation between the Lamanites and the Nephites initially was the help the Nephites but eventually it worked to the blessing of the Lamanites because they became more righteous and had they been a part of the Nephite society they would of been corrupted. What it comes down to, is people aren't critical thinkers. They want to believe what they want to believe without going in depth. And while I believe the Lamanites skin was changed literally, I think it was just the mark, nothing innately good or bad about it. For instance even Joseph Smith said in vision The Apostle Paul had dark skin.

[@CarlosRomero-pl9tk]

@@happiness9752 I would love to know that BYU professor because that’s the same line of thinking I’m at when it comes to this issue

[@towardcivicliteracy]

@@happiness9752 You're just pointing out that the symbol was expanded into a wider meaning by the Nephites. It still makes no sense for Lamanites, in several iterations, suddenly becoming white, if race is ALL the "skin of blackness" symbol means. My point is that a symbol need not be that one-dimensional: Nephites marrying outside of the covenant may have also become a secondary, confirmatory meaning to the original, non-racial symbol. Interestingly, Jacob mentions the righteousness of the Lamanites' marriages (to one wife) in Jacob 3:7, while rebuking the Nephites for their bigotry toward the Lamanites and their unauthorized practice of polygamy--a direct suggestion that the cursing symbolism had culturally been extended to Lamanite marriage practices by the Nephites (and became more racial in that sense, because intermarrying with surrounding peoples changed their skin colors).

[@ambermayo9443]

I had always understood the BoM to be a scripture that taught us how to deal with relationships between races, which is a definite challenge. I appreciate that the BoM tackles racism directly.

[@CarlosRomero-pl9tk]

@@towardcivicliteracy Sorry for the late reply I just saw this, listen I'm just saying that we should not erase the literal meaning of the lamanites skin turning dark. I don’t have a problem with God all of the sudden changing another person’s skin color, just like I don’t have a problem with Jesus walking on water. And even though Nephi includes the changing of their skin color in the curse, it does not mean that it was actually part of it. In 1 Nephi 2:21, the Lord is stating the curse, which is to be cut off from his presence. What if in the process of writing in this blessing and cursing language, Nephi in his eloquent self included there changing of skin color in the curse, him not knowing that it served as a blessing for the Lamanites, and since he did not teach his people the ways of the jews, generations went by and this knowledge of writing in this way might have gotten lost and perhaps the Nephites themselves associated the changing of skin color with the actual curse. Much like the Christian world for centuries associated dark skin with God’s curse, and this was because of ignorance to the ways of the jews. If that is the case, it would make sense that Mormon would depict the changing of the Lamanites skin color to white when the Nephites were on the brink of total destruction, as the curse being removed. Let us remember that Nephi did not know about the baggage that our generation has from centuries of slavery in large part because of false doctrine that has led to the interpretation of scripture in a skewed way. And I feel like it's really hard for us to see through that baggage. But to say that the skin issue was not color but some disease, again I love saints unscripted, but that sounds like white guilt. “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins…” NOT the sins of our fathers. And even though I’m black, I know that my own ancestors had something to do with our own society’s dark history of slavery. History is messy man, we need to come to terms with that. The BOM does a great job at addressing the issue of race head on. I love the bible, but it does not handle the issue of race in the same way as the BOM.

[@dinocollins720]

2 Nephi 26: 33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them ball to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. Somehow people forget the overarching message of the BOM... that God loves all His children!

[@ViajesdeFe]

Great video and interesting hypothesis! Just out of curiosity, what are some of your interpretations of Moses 7:8,22 which may sound like a naturalistic explanation for black?

[@palimpalim5291]

Interesting hypothesis, but utter nonsense. Everyone with more than two working brain cells knows that the Lamanites have darker skins because they are still there and we can look at them. These ludicrous attempts of explanation come from a lack of understanding what a curse is. These people clearly don't attend the temple often enough.

[@iconacy]

Yeah I’m pretty sure it’s black skin color that it’s talking about. I just read the scriptures you posted and there is no confusing that at all.

[@RyanMercer]

Nope, just misunderstood.

[@bsc78]

The gospel is supposed to be so simple that a child can understand it, and yet our prophets, in their efforts to backtrack, can’t figure out what this meant. Because it is man’s religion, not God’s. We shouldn’t have to produce our own videos on what our ‘theory’ is. The church sends out hundreds of thousands of missionaries supposedly teaching the benefits of prophets and how we have all the answers lol

[@brettmajeske3525]

Who has ever claimed the Gospel was simple? The Prophets do understand what the Gospel is, Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end. That is the fullness of the Gospel, and I do not think it is simple at all.

[@advocate7643]

@@brettmajeske3525 Just google "The True, Pure, and Simple Gospel of Jesus Christ"

[@ryanjackman3001]

Love this!.great content!

[@SaintsUnscripted]

Thanks so much!

[@palimpalim5291]

No. Bad content. Lies. Philosophies of men, mingled with scripture, designed to mislead you and keep you from doing your OWN research of Holy Scripture and gain knowledge of REAL divine truth. Did they really convince you to distrust your own eyes and believe that the Lamanites haven't darker skin?

[@pliniomsann]

This video is awesome 👏

[@nephite84]

I've believed the the curse was just the outcome of lamen and lamuel having interacial marriage and they're prosperity being darker due to sin, so when an outcome of a sin could be classed as a curse.

[@Titiandtheband]

This will probably get deleted but David, seriously come on stop with the gas lighting. This is why people are leaving the church because of bad arguments that not only throw your past leaders under the bus but also take massive mental gymnastics to adhere to. Spencer W Kimball was the one who helped start the native placement program in the church he often, as quoted, would comment on how natives who join the church become whiter. There are no prophets or apostles/ leaders of the church who have claimed that skin does not mean exactly what it says it means. These people saying it’s a disease or animal hides or countenance are people trying to change the past and pretend that the BOM was and is not racist. Just own it. If it was a disease then why do they not describe the marks of a disease or the open sores, etc. The Bible does. If it is animal hides then why is Nephi talking about gentiles from Europe in a vision comparing their skin to his and his people’s? And if it’s countenance then why does it use skin over and over again? They talk about people glowing with the spirit and so why not use that? Why would it switch to skin? Alma 3 talks about skin being dark as a mark that also came from their fathers. What they were handing down animal skins to wear? This is why the church is looking so weird and sad because people will take a word like skin and give it different meanings to weasel out of not looking racist because as times change the church can’t hold onto its old racism, they can’t get rid of the BOM so they will just change obvious words hoping people just go yep, ok.

[@dougzimmer9323]

In Hebrew the word for black also means gloomy. If you observe those who riot in our streets you will notice that they choose black attire and a gloomy countenence. No coincidence.

[@kennytorres2408]

David David David, can you pls talk about the Melchizedek Priesthood and the different dates it allegedly occur? i believe there is someone saying that joseph and oliver were ordained AFTER the church was restored. Please talk about that🥺🥺🥺

[@brettmajeske3525]

No one knows the actual dates, so anyone making any claims are just guessing.

[@kennytorres2408]

@@brettmajeske3525 i know, i just want him to talk about the different accounts about it hehe

[@zionmama150]

17:01 also, remember both Jesus and Joseph of Egypt (ancestor to Joseph Smith) had Canaanite blood in their family lineage. Some of the Early 1850’s Church leaders did not understand these concepts discussed in this video as that they were not scholars and when it comes to revelation, God takes things step by step and gives revelation based on good information. There was a time to gather in the grapes, as we learn from the Jewish harvests. The priesthood ban was lifted on Shavuot in 1978. Research this topic prayerfully and you’ll know why it was a timing issue and not a racial issue in God’s eyes.

[@45s262]

It would be interesting to know the thoughts and feelings of our African brothers and sisters who receive the gospel. What do they say? I just feel like every American interpretation is either influenced by racism on the one hand or the other.. those who project and those who gaslight.. I personally think skin means skin.. so if the curse is a skin of blackness then it's a skin of blackness.. The skin being black is better than the soul being black..

[@kevinfrancis4255]

You’re right. EVERYTHING nowadays is viewed through the lens of racism. Are we now at a point where we need to justify language that is used in the BofM? Maybe the Lamanites just had a cursing of black skin, period. If someone can’t accept what is in the BofM, we’ll, that’s for them to get over it.

[@miraclesfromtheashes]

Thank you for the wonderful video; it is wonderfully thought-provoking. I am thrilled that the family of God's children consists of people of all skin colors, and they are all beautiful! The most beautiful thing is seeing the Light of Christ beaming in the eyes of those who love Him, regardless of their skin color. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ and are part of our eternal family.

[@robertlong9029]

This doesn’t work we the church prevented African Americans from holding the priesthood. I am a devout believer in the church and hold a recommend. Either we made poor choices because we misinterpreted the scripture which I believe we did. Or it’s what God meant for the time it was in use.

[@brennantsullivan]

No we 100% were wrong the lord did not want that

[@user-wh1td2lx2u]

And if I'm right the layman's turned righteous and the nephites where destroyed except for three that will live a eternity

[@davidclark5714]

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!."

[@Ddreinthebay]

The genesis group of the church has a really good explanation and thought process on this!

[@ACL84Fla]

This is an incredible amount of gymnastics to try to get around what was clear in the BOM until it was "corrected" and what the church has taught for years. 2 Nephi 5:21 "For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were WHITE and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a SKIN OF BLACKNESS to come upon them" 3 Nephi 2:15 says their skin can turn white again. Spencer Kimball said that Indian children in the home placement program were often lighter than their brothers and sisters and that a 16 year old Indian LDS girl was several shades lighter than her parents. George Q Cannon was a missionary to Hawaii and said that the Hawaiians were going to become white, and were growing whiter from year to year. There is no way around it. The ban on blacks holding the priesthood was all wrapped up in this as well. The LDS church can try to change doctrine and repackage and rebrand themselves however they want but they can't get away from what has been clearly taught and accepted as doctrine for over 100 years.

[@TimDavie5]

Can’t we allow the possibility that some former leaders were just wrong about some things?

[@brettmajeske3525]

@@TimDavie5 Isn't that what is being said here? That leaders, mostly in the 20th century, misunderstood what the Book of Mormon was saying? I do not think Dave is saying no LDS leaders made mistakes, just that many people misapply modern idioms to an ancient text. The usage of black and white as racially signifiers is a very modern developement.

[@TimDavie5]

@@brettmajeske3525 Yes, sorry, I responding to the above comment, not to the video itself. I felt like this initial comment was implying that because church leaders were errant, they couldn’t be divinely appointed.

[@ACL84Fla]

What does the Bible say about when a prophet speaks? Brigham Young said when he gave a sermon it was Scripture. He also said that blacks were cursed with the mark of Cain which was a flat nose and black skin and that curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. D&C 1:38 "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, … whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same"

[@brettmajeske3525]

@@ACL84Fla Saints Unscripted has videos on those topics as well. The D&C describes the canonization process for LDS Scripture, which does not exist for either the Priesthood Restriction nor your quote from Brigham Young. There are also quotes from Brigham Young complaining about members not seeking the confirmation of the Holy Ghost when he spoke and that he was just as capable of error as anyone. So isolated quotes out of context are not helpful.

[@aritzlizarragaolascoaga6254]

Wow! I have read a lot of theories regarding this color issue & all of them sounded as palying down the race to be politically correct, but this time for the first time it's very compelling.

[@curtcrowley6659]

is it the same with(in the BoM), "White and Delightsome People"? 🤔🤔

[@davidsnell2605]

I think so, yes. As mentioned in the video, according to this theory, being "white" referred to being righteous and healthy (not cursed, health-wise), and not at all to race.

[@jamessimpson8832]

Great video! The insight and content was great and easy to follow. However, if you are going to reference Mayan people and possibilities then Hopewell and Adena people also need to be referenced and researched.

[@NerdJake]

Very good video! Especially that last thing, that Joseph would have called the native Americans red skins. Three things I think are needed to add to this video and actually make a lot of sense in the context you've given (I'm too lazy to look up the exact scriptures): 1) There is a scripture in 2. Nephi that states "all are alike unto God, old and young, male and female, black and white". This verse shows that the curse is not to be taken into a racist context. 2) Jacob calls out his people to not look down on the lamanites for their skin color. This is the reason why I actually think it is meant literal and in our centuries interpretation. However, he tells his people: "I fear that your skin will be darker before the judgement seat of God" which makes a lot more sense in the context you've given in this video. 3) When the Amlicites convert to the lamanites, it is written that they put a red mark on their forehead and thus put the curse upon themselves. This scripture indicates that the curse had actually nothing to do with the skin color itself, but that the curse was more to be visibly distinguished from the people of the covenant of the Lord, and that the black skin color was just a type of how this curse could have manifested. This speaks highly against a racist interpretation.

[@palimpalim5291]

No, very, very bad video. It ignores reality. Look at the Lamanites. They have CLEARLY darker skin. Look at the picture of the people of Limhi in the Book of Mormon being enslaved by CLEARLY darker skinned people. Stop believing frauds more than your own eyes. These people try to mislead you with the philosophies of men, so that you don't go ahead and gain REAL knowledge of truth from REAL Holy Scripture. They try to make you believe that "curse" equals "damnation" which is utter nonsense. Go to the Temple, read Pearl of Great Price and the Old Testament. Study the scriptures yourself, don't be lazy. The Creation and the Fall teach us very clearly that the true and living God - who btw. warned us of exactly these philosophies of men, mingled with scripture - BLESSES us with curses. We are ALL under the curse of Adams transgression, right? If we were not, and if Adam would not have partaken, would there be progress, or would our mortal existence be totally useless? Now - curse or blessing? Think about it.

[@user-og2wt3le4j]

Reminds me of the "Mark of Cain" from the Bible.

[@zionmama150]

If more members of the Church learned Hebrew, many of these what are termed “anachronisms” would be cleared up. Reformed Egyptian was very very likely a Hebrew-Egyptian mutt language, because the tribe of Manasseh had an Egyptian mother and Joseph (a Hebrew) father. Children learn and adopt the language of their mothers, and especially being that Manasseh was older, he was very immersed in Egyptian culture. His posterity who Lehi and Nephi are would have known language according to their ancestors.

[@adoramay9410]

There is no such thing as Reformed Egyptian. It was something Joseph Smith made up.

[@sketchygetchey8299]

I’m probably one of the few Church Members who doesn’t really see the Book of Mormon as historical (meaning I have a different interpretation of how it can be true without it needing to be historical). But if I were to see it that way, I’ve lately been wondering if Nephi himself had his own perception of what the “skin of blackness” was or if he was mistaking the inhabitants that were already there to be full blown Lamanites and everyone else just rolled with it. But that’s just me and maybe I’m seeing Nephi with a more skeptical view.

[@user-yr9lt7dz8k]

How could The Book of Mormon not be a literal historical record of God’s dealings with His covenant people in the Western Hemisphere?

[@aarontugia4432]

You're not alone, I view it the same way.🙏🏽

[@emjm9383]

thank you for your very good work here. now, can you PLEASE be done with the goofy outtakes? they really detract.

[@robertlong9029]

Why can’t we pray as a church and get to the bottom of this

[@travisdurrans8866]

Well I'm sure that would probably work, but it would require direction from the Lord to the First Presidency to organize it, and since it hasn't happened, I have to assume that the Lord doesn't see it pertinent to give an exact answer to us immediately in this moment.

[@MrArtist7777]

ALL Nephites and Lamanites had brown skin, they looked the same which is why a Nephite could not be distinguished from a Lamanite in Alma, except that the Lamanites painted a red line under their mouth, or on their forehead. Lehites are the ancestors of our modern day North American Native Americans. Mayans have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon peoples or lands, they came from Cambodia-Thailand, every scholar understands this.

[@markmorley7938]

We are off again, surely if one mentions any colour it may be deemed as racist, the world has gone mad!

[@blckprsthd4791]

The academic exercise of understanding the "skin of blackness" in modern context is commendable but it is an apologetic tactic now that the view is out of favor and unacceptable. The fact is that for a century+, members of the LDS church understood, practiced and applied it exactly as was intended. The practical application of the doctrine is demonstrated by the treatment of Jane Manning James, Elijah Abel, the segregation in Salt Lake City blood banks, etc, etc. Not to mention the prophetic statements of Bruce R McConkie, Randy Bott, et al. It is convenient to disregard the historical impact of the doctrine. The doctrine and practice also meant that early Black members could not form needed friendships, integrated into communities, business relationships, not to mention not able to marry interracially. This revisionism is one interpretation but not complete.

[@brettmajeske3525]

You mean the "prophetic statement of Bruce R McConkie" that he made over 20 years before becomming an Apostle? I do not think anyone is claiming no LDS has ever been racist, just that those racists may have made some bad interpretations. No one in the early Church used those Book of Mormon passages to mean Africans, it was understood that they meant Native Americans. It was not until the 1940s and 50s that any leader even tried to use the Book of Mormon to justify their racism against Blacks.

[@blckprsthd4791]

@@brettmajeske3525 So much to unpack here. I want to be respectful of yours and my time. My participation in this conversation is only if there is an honest engagement with LDS church history. Otherwise, it will be a waste of yours and my time. My introduction to the church's "skin of blackness" doctrine was in the mission field. I research as much as possible at the time with no internet. Actually had to go the church institute and check out "Journal of Discourses, Mormon Doctrine, Doctrines of Salvation, etc. As a convert, I think I should be allowed the chance to know what I believe. Just like any majority member would want if the the reverse was the case.

[@blckprsthd4791]

@@brettmajeske3525 (1) Bruce R. had a powerful influence on the church and members even prior to becoming an apostle. (2) that "No one in the early Church used those Book of Mormon passages to mean Africans". Please do your research. I could provide you all the statements made by Brigham Young about Africans/African descendants. Not hard to find. (3) "it was understood that they meant Native Americans". Even so, does that make it OK? (4) "It was not until the 1940s and 50s that any leader even tried to use the Book of Mormon to justify their racism against Blacks." This is wrong. It goes back to the 1800s. Again, see Brigham Young's, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph Fielding Smith, Apostle George F. Richards (spoken in conference), statements

[@brettmajeske3525]

@@blckprsthd4791 Yes much to unpack, I recognize that the history is complex and difficult. I am not trying to say that systematic racism has never existed. This episode is about the specific meaning of one phrase, not the whole problematic history of the entire church. I am curious why you felt third party published books were a better source of information than the manuals and handbooks published by the Church? As I learned from my Institute teachers back in the 80s, "Doctrines of Salvation" is all the material rejected by Deseret Press when Joseph Feilding Smith was working on "Answers to Gospel Questions". Which was the impetus for the formation of Bookcraft, so LDS, both leaders and general public, would be able to publish books rejected by Deseret Press. None of the books produced by Bookcraft were ever even remotely considered official or approved for use in Sunday School. The history behind the Journal of Discourses is even more problematic. It was copyrighted by George Watts, who would later be excommunicated, and published by Lion Press with no connection to the Church at all. Both Dessert Press and BYU Press would republish it later once the copyright expired, to preserve its historical value, just as they have with "View of the Hebrews" and "Manuscript Found". Because Brigham Young did a really poor job of recording his own sermons, JOD is often the only record for many, but exclusivity is not reliability. At best the books you listed are useful in understanding common opinions and speculation on the topics they covered. Elder Gong entered a multi-racial marriage, in the temple, in 1980. He was sealed by his father-in-law, who was at the time a member of the first Quorum of the Seventy. Elder Peter Johnson was also married in the temple in the 80s, he is African-American and a convert from Islam Nation, and his wife is not only white but a descendant of Brigham Young. Again their marriage was performed by a 70. I personally know a former Bishop who was excommunicated in the early 80s because he refused to ordain Blacks to the Priesthood. It took 30 years before he was rebaptized. His granddaughter is married to the current Bishop of that same Ward, who happens to be African American. Like I said, it gets complicated.

[@brettmajeske3525]

@@blckprsthd4791 Brigham Young made many horrible statements about "Negros", but that is completely irrelevant to the current discussion. I am unaware of any BY quotes explicitly connecting the Priesthood Ban to any passage from the Book of Mormon. I am frankly quite curious why you seem to think that policy was based on the Book of Mormon, especially since Brigham Young did personally ordain Native Americans to the priesthood, the group his believed to be Lamanites? He even set apart several as Elders and Bishops. Yes all those men said racist things, but again, that is not what we are talking about. Especially Joseph Fielding Smith and George F Richards, who were Apostles during the time I said 2 Nephi was used as justification. If you want a conversation about all the possible racism, you need to start a new thread. This one is only about how specific phrase "skin of blackness" has been understood, nothing else.

[@TheTweix]

Never thought I'd hear Geralt reading me things from the Bible. What a time to be alive.

[@johnfullmer1540]

I'm firmly convinced that the best results obtain if you just own your legacy, rather than trying to skirt around it like this. It's not a coincidence that Mormonism has various teachings about race, given that humanity's outlook on race was in such a state of flux in the early and mid 1800's. How about sharing what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and their successors actually said about this passage? Because when parishioners find out about it themselves, they are going to feel that pieces like this have deceived them.

[@brettmajeske3525]

There is not a single univocal opinion among those individuals.

[@johnfullmer1540]

@@brettmajeske3525 I'm not saying there was. What I'm saying is that most of what these individuals actually said is manifestly inconsistent with the content of this video.

[@brettmajeske3525]

@@johnfullmer1540 If you are implying that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or the majority of the following Presidents of the LDS Church made specific explicit commentary on the meaning of "skin of blackness" or "curse of blackness" prior to the 1940s, than I would disagree. Frankly the only one embracing that view prior to the 40s/50s seems to be George Q Cannon. If you mean that they made clearly racists comments in contexts outside of these verses, then I would ask why that is even relevant to the discussion of what the text means. I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Just because general systematic racism exists, does not mean that is the only possible or even reasonable interpretation.

[@PaulaSchM]

I'm pretty sure that you've mentioned in other videos that the BoM used references to the time of Joseph Smith to make itself 'understood'. So now it's the opposite? Makes no sense. Also, it seems like you believe that Indigenous Americans = 'Lamanites', but I'm sure they beg to differ. It's a shame all the hoops you have to jump to try to make the cognitive dissonance less severe. Whatever it takes to keep your worldview I guess.

[@brettmajeske3525]

"Black" was used at the time of Joseph Smith to mean wicked or filthy. Racially, Native American were called Red and Africans were more often called Negro than Black. Mark Twain called both Negro Slaves and Swedish dock workers "blackies". The term was not used exclusively to mean race until after the Civil War, and even then was inconsistent. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith or his contemporaries thought "skin of blackness" had anything to do with race.

[@fightingfortruth9806]

I am sitting here laughing at how ridiculous this is. I am amazed how you can deny plain words from the Book of Mormon. It couldn't be more clear it was literally about skin color. Wow. When Columbus arrived, the natives had dark skin. So at what point did they get dark skin? The BOM states that this curse would continue to be upon the seed of the Lamanites, so why weren't they still using one of these alternative marks you speak of? This video has to he a joke, right? You cannot be serious. My gosh I never thought I'd see the day when LDS deny the Book of Mormon so desperately. Wow!