Mormon Church Renounces Belief That Dark Skin Is Sign Of God's Disfavor

OpposingViews.com ^ | Dec. 14, 2013 | Kathryn Schroeder

[Anton.Rutter]

Free at last?

[showme_the_Glory]

evolving?

[Uncle Chip]

It must have been that Coppertone investment the Church made.

[Westbrook]

Does that mean Smith and Young were false prophets?

Can’t have it both ways.

[lurk]

The church’s teachings are malleable. Soon, they’ll fully accept gays and women in leadership.

[Benito Cereno]

So are the verses in the Book of Mormon on which this belief was based still there?

[nomad]

Given recent actions by some in that group, IF you`re CCW, it may be a sign you`d better be aware of where they are and where your weapon is.

[Logical me]

The church’s teachings are malleable. Soon, they’ll fully accept gays and women in leadership.

You want to bet that the rest of the christian churches will do it first. Some already have. Hello, Catholic.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

How in the world was this thinking included in the first place?

[Sacajaweau]

I have a circa 1878 history book from the area where Mormonism was born. It says Mormonism (a false Religion) will soon vanish.

[lurk]

The old denominations went all liberal already. The LDS church is just following along. Politics is just more high school, after all.

[svcw]

So the lds god says “black skin is a curse” and then after social pressure says “black skin is aok with me”.
Must be very confusing to belong to a group that has a god who changes his mind quite frequently.

[svcw]

15 mill world wide
5-6 mill in the US, most converts are overseas

[Sacajaweau]

The book was a history of Ontario County. The writer would be shocked.

[Scoutmaster]

I noticed the announcement declined to address the August 17, 1949 statement signed by all three members of the First Presidency, which states that the church's position regarding blacks and the priesthood has been "doctrine" of the church "from the days of its organization."

I'm delighted by the announcement, but confused. Which rules? A declaration signed by the First Presidency or an unsigned posting on the web stating the priesthood ban was never doctrine?

By the way, on the day of the posting, the 1949 statement was "black-holed" and removed from the lds.org website.

I respect the rights of FReepers and others to their religious beliefs. As a student of Mormon history, I simply get frustrated when documents that become inconvenient disappear.

[VerySadAmerican]

A miracle? Ha!

We have to keep in mind that the Book of Mormon, unlike the constitution, is a living, breathing instrument. Smith covered everything when he wrote at the end “More will be revealed later.”

[jagusafr]

A prophet who is wrong on such a fundamental level is no prophet.

[Buckeye McFrog]

I thought they denounced this in the late 1970’s?

I recall my dad coming back from a business trip to Salt Lake saying that was all the big news out there.

[Scoutmaster]

So are the verses in the Book of Mormon on which this belief was based still there?

Some, but changes made in 1981 and 2010 to the Book of Mormon removed much of the language regard black or white skin.

2 Nephi 30:6 once read:

[T]heir scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.

In 1981 that verse was changed to read, in pertinent part:

a pure and a delightsome people

The words "skin of blackness" were removed from the introductory italicized summary in 2 Nephi, Chapter 5 in the online version of the Book of Mormon in December 2010.

Several other changes were made to footnotes and chapter summaries online.

[Safrguns]

So the Mormon church has finally renounced Joseph Smith as a prophet???