These quotes make clear that not only do the church's scriptures teach that black skin is a curse from God and therefore inferior to white skin, but that the prophets of God both believed and taught that those with dark skin were "not valiant" in the pre-mortal life. Again, this line of thinking is the very definition of white supremacy, as loaded of a term as it might be, and this thinking was borne out of Joseph Smith's milieu along with the scriptures he produced.

While apologists would argue that these quotes are not from prophets, but from prophets simply "speaking as men," the undeniable fact is that these beliefs come directly from the scriptures of Mormonism. You cannot argue that these prophets were speaking as men and not as a prophets until you admit that these scriptures were also written by men and not by God.

This is a problem the church can not get away from no matter how many donations they make to the NAACP or how many times they say they can not find a reason for these teachings in the first place. At the church's "Be One" event to celebrate 40 years since the ban on members with African blood in them was lifted, President Dallin Oaks said the following:

​

"I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them. As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray — as promised from the beginning of these restrictions — that the day would come when all would enjoy the blessings of priesthood and temple. Now, on June 8, 1978, that day had come, and I wept for joy." (Dallin Oaks, 'Be One' Event)

​

The problems here should be obvious at this point, but to me what sticks out is that Oaks stood by and supported the ban until 1978 even though he now claims to find no confirmation of it. This is self-serving to Oaks to be sure, but it throws every past prophet, seer, and revelator under the bus who not only found confirmation of this ban, but cited the church's scriptures as the foundation for the ban.

Again, I know this is going to be a pretty blunt statement, but it shows that Oaks was either calculated in not speaking out against the ban because he knew he was on a track to church leadership or he was too afraid to speak out against the living prophet. People were being harmed by this policy, and Oaks stood by and watched even as he now claims he could not find any reasons for the ban. The church always puts their leaders above their members, and this is a perfect example of how they do it.

Last, Oaks reiterated that the ban was a commandment when he said "he Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants," which is a pretty stunning admission. The problem then is why God cave this commandment (or direction) to the prophets of the church and yet God didn't give Oaks a confirmation that it was from Him. Again, I ask whether Oaks was being calculated in not speaking out or too afraid to speak out.

​

While the current prophet, Russell M. Nelson. says that "prejudice, hate and discrimination are learned," he neglects to add that this church has been consistently been the one teaching these ideas in the name of God. Yes, prejudice is learned, but the church has been a large reason that people 'learned' these beliefs by inserting the predominant views of the 1820s into their scriptures.

​

How the Priesthood Ban Was Lifted

​

One of the biggest myths of church history is that the priesthood ban was lifted through a revelation from God. From the church's essay on Race and the Priesthood:

This “revelation on the priesthood,” as it is commonly known in the Church, was a landmark revelation and a historic event. Those who were present at the time described it in reverent terms. Gordon B. Hinckley, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, remembered it this way: “There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren. … Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing. … Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same.”

The reality is that it was nothing of the sort, and we have a first person account from Apostle Legrand Richards to explain how the ban was actually lifted. From his interview with Wesley Walters:

WALTERS: On this revelation, of the priesthood to the Negro, I’ve heard all kinds of stories: I’ve heard that Christ appeared to the Apostles. I’ve heard that Joseph Smith appeared; and then I heard another story that Spencer Kimball had had a concern about this for some time and simply shared it with the apostles, and they decided that this was the right time to move in that direction. Now are any of those stories true, or are they all…

RICHARDS: Well, the last one is pretty true, and I might tell you what provoked it in a way. Down in Brazil, there is so much Negro blood in the population there that it’s hard to get leaders that don’t have Negro blood in them. We just built a temple down there. It’s going to be dedicated in October. All those people with Negro blood in them have been raising the money to build that temple. And then, if we don’t change, then they can’t even use it. So Brother Kimball worried about it, and he prayed a lot about it.

He asked each one of us of the Twelve if we would pray – and we did – that the Lord would give him the inspiration to know what the will of the Lord was. And then he invited each one of us in his office – individually, because you know when you are in a group, you can’t always express everything that’s in your heart. You’re part of the group, you see – so he interviewed each one of us, personally, to see how we felt about it, and he asked us to pray about it. And then he asked each one of us to hand in all the references we had, for, or against that proposal. See, he was thinking favorably toward giving the colored people the priesthood.

Then we had a meeting where we meet every week in the temple, and we discussed it as a group together, and then we prayed about it in our prayer circle, and then we held another prayer circle after the close of that meeting, and he (President Kimball) lead in the prayer; praying that the Lord would give us the inspiration that we needed to do the thing that would be pleasing to Him and for the blessing of His children. And then the next Thursday – we meet every Thursday – the Presidency came with this little document written out to make the announcement – to see how we’d feel about it – and present it in written form. Well, some of the members of the Twelve suggested a few changes in the announcement, and then in our meeting there we all voted in favor of it – the Twelve and the Presidency. One member of the Twelve, Mark Petersen, was down in South America, but Brother Benson, our President, had arranged to know where he could be reached by phone, and right while we were in that meeting in the temple, Brother Kimball talked with Brother Petersen, and read him this article, and he (Petersen) approved of it.

WALTERS: Now when President Kimball read this little announcement or paper, was that the same thing that was released to the press?

RICHARDS: Yeah.

WALTERS: There wasn’t a special document as a “revelation”, that he had and wrote down?

RICHARDS: We discussed it in our meeting. What else should we say besides that announcement? And we decided that was sufficient; that no more needed to be said.

The entire interview can be found here

If you read the church's essay, you can see how hard they work to frame the lifting of the ban as a grand revelation from God, but when you actually look at how the ban was lifted, it was nothing more than a signed statement that allowed the church to solve an attendance problem for the Brazil temple.

It's also pretty shocking when you realize that it wasn't the Civil Rights Movement that changed the church's mind, but a desire to increase attendance at a new temple where the population was predominantly of those with dark skin. Of all of the struggles that black members of the church had dealt with since the ban was implemented, it was, as Apostle Richards admitted, the desire that "all those people with Negro blood in them" were able to attend the new temple in Brazil that finally pushed the prophets, seers, and revelators to action.

I don't know what more to say on this one, but any idea that the lifting of the ban was the kind of grand revelation that has been implied, and often taught, is simply not how it happened. More importantly, even with a statement that lifted the ban on members with African blood from attending the temple or receiving exaltation, the church still left all of the scriptures that led to the ban in place.

 

Implications of the Church's Teachings on Race for the Idea of Prophetic Revelation

When I began studying church history, I noticed an unmistakable pattern that all prophets from Joseph Smith to Russell Nelson are simply inserting their own personal biases and environment into the word of God to teach what they believed long before holding the power to do anything about it. I believe that Russell Nelson's wife Wendy put it better than I ever could:
 

"It is as though he's been unleashed. He's free to finally do what he came to earth to do. … And also, he's free to follow through with things he's been concerned about but could never do. Now that he's president of [the Church], he can do those things." (Mormon Newsroom)
 

As we covered previously in a post about how revelation has changed during the church's history, the first major 'revelation' of Russell Nelson as prophet was to implement a change he had fought for his entire life: not using the name Mormon. Yet we can see by looking at Nelson's previous talks along with the prophets during those times that Nelson was unsuccessful in that mission until he lived long enough to claim that authority.

When Joseph Smith was rejected by women he propositioned for polygamy, he would tell these young women that they were given by God to them through revelation and if they rejected him further, Joseph Smith told them that an angel with a drawn sword told him if they did not marry him as polygamous wives, he would lose his life. We cover all of this in our overviews on polygamy, but it is important in understanding how revelation is used by prophets to obtain their personal desires.

In other words, Joseph Smith used the idea of revelation constantly to insert his own worldviews and desires into the church, because as prophet he was trusted and followed completely. If Joseph Smith asked for something on his own, he would be much more likely to be rejected compared to when he told his followers that the request was from God. It's how Joseph got Martin Harris to pay for the Book of Mormon, got women to enter into marriage and sexual relations with him, and how he increased his authority by changing the priesthood restoration and First Vision accounts. More relevant to this topic, this is also how Brigham Young implemented the ban on blacks, and why every prophet until 1978 believed that black skin was a curse for those who were less valiant in the pre-mortal life.

Because this church claims to be the 'only true and living church,' it becomes an even bigger problem that they championed white supremacist beliefs for about 150 years and still teach it in their scriptures. There is a reason that the church's prophets believed they could turn the Native Americans white by teaching them the gospel or even adopting Native American children into their families. From Prophet Spencer W. Kimball:

 

"I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today as against that of only fifteen years ago. Truly the scales of darkness are falling from their eyes, and they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people." (Spencer W. Kimball, October 1960 General Conference)

This is a teaching that is racist, harmful, and just factually false. How could a church truly led by a fair and loving God teach that those who are not white are from a cursed lineage. Why should every black person (or Native American) pay for the sin of their fathers? And even if you make room for the possibility that God would command this, you then have to ask what kind of God would design a world where he would punish the descendants of black and brown people in order to elevate white people?

I don't think there's a better way to illustrate that this church is led by men and not God than this: We are to believe that God sent an angel with a drawn sword to force Joseph Smith to marry and have sex with many young women who follow him, but allowed His other prophets to make up and teach racist doctrine for 150 years without being corrected by a revelation or any visits from an angel?

 

Apologetic Responses to the Issues with Race and the Scriptures of Mormonism

​

There have been many apologetic answers to deal with the racism that is embedded in the scriptures of Mormonism, and I want to cover the most common ones here.

​

Skin Does Not Actually Mean Skin

​

In response to the Come Follow Me issue in 2020, an article began making the rounds from the Salt Lake Tribune titled "What if 'skin' doesn't mean human skin" by Holly Richardson. This is a common apologetic that attempts to relieve the Book of Mormon from the teachings of the curse of dark skin by claiming that "skin" doesn't actually mean 'skin,' but instead means clothes.

You can read the entire article here. From the article by Holly Richardson:

​

"What if our interpretation was a cultural artifact of the mid-1800s, when slavery was still legal in the United States? What if we have misunderstood words like “skin” and “black” and “dark”? Could there be another interpretation?

I believe there is.

In 2015, Ethan Sprout, a professor of English at Utah Valley University, published an article in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies that explored the idea of “skin” or “skins” referring to clothing and not to human skin.

Pointing to verses in Alma 3:5-6, he shows us why we can interpret “skin” as clothing: First, the Lamanites were naked, “save it were the skin which was girded about their loins,” and then, “the skins of the Lamanites were dark.” He asks — as we should ask — do they not refer to the same thing? Clothing, or garments? Surely that is a possibility."

​

As we've previously pointed out, this argument is just silly. Look at how Richardson frames the text of Alma 3:5-6 above to give the "possibility" that skins being worn over their loins equates to the skin that was darkened by the curse. Now let's look at Alma 3:5-6 in its entirety:

​

"5 Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth.

6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men."

​

It is just silly to think that the same "skin which was girded about their loins" is being referred to in verse six. If the author of the Book of Mormon here was trying to make that direct connection, he would not mention the skin that was girded about their loins and then follow with five other items before coming back to the same "skin." Also, to make this connection we would have to believe that they are still wearing the clothes from their fathers or that every piece of clothing they create instantly turns dark as Alma 3:6 states "the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers." I hope you can see why this apologetic is so disingenuous - the verse states "according to the mark which was set upon their fathers," which just doesn't make sense if referring to clothes, but makes perfect sense if it is referring to human skin.

​

Furthermore it is insulting to tell members that God would "curse" the skins covering their loins as a way to "not be enticing" to the white and delightsome. Have you even found someone to not be attractive because they are wearing dark clothing? Are women not enticing in black clothing, because if so there is some serious issues with all of the black dresses and lingerie that is sold. This argument is silly and it is insulting to our common sense, lived experience, and teachings from this very church. And apologists know on some level how ridiculous this argument is, which is why even after this carefully selected text in the article, it is still called by Richardson as merely "a possibility." Just as we see with the Gospel Topics essays, they throw out a bunch of possibilities and hope members will settle on one and stop digging deeper.

​

One more point from this article that I want to highlight which is the end of Richardson's article:

​

"For Latter-day Saints who truly believe that God is no respecter of persons, doesn’t it make sense to ask ourselves if there could possibly be other interpretations from a translated record written over 2000 years ago than the one passed down through the lens of Civil War and then Civil Rights culture? That perhaps our lens of white privilege has colored our view? I believe we can and should be asking those kinds of questions, especially as members of a church that began because of a counter-cultural question asked by a teenage boy."

This ending is really curious to me, because Richardson is making the point that critics have been making for almost 200 years: the Book of Mormon is written as if the author was only familiar with 19th century ideas and writings. There's nothing that matches ancient history of the Americas, and there's nothing that matches future events unknown to the author. Everything points to a 19th century worldview including the use of the King James Bible which is not even considered the more accurate translation as scholars have found older manuscripts to give us a better understanding of what the original texts actually said.

The reason the Book of Mormon discusses how the Native Americans got here is because that was a hot topic around Joseph Smith's lifetime. And it's the same reason people wondered how they got dark skin, because as the white settlers they felt superior to them and to their culture, but still couldn't make sense of their heritage. The racism of the 19th century made its way into the Book of Mormon not because we are misreading it today, but because Joseph Smith was writing the Book of Mormon using the sources and questions surrounding him.

So maybe the real question Richardson should be asking here is not if there's another way to read the literal words in the Book of Mormon, but what all of these 19th century problems being in the Book of Mormon tell us about its authenticity as an ancient scripture preserved by God.

​

Just as the church has attempted to redefine what translation means, here they are trying to tell us that what the scriptures say at face value isn't correct, and Joseph Smith identifying the Native Americans as Lamanites because of their dark skin was just a coincidence.

​

Prophets Were Not Asking the Right Questions

​

One apologetic answer to this is that the prophets weren't asking the right questions. In a lengthy interview with Jim Bennett, who wrote a response to the CES Letter, he repeatedly says that early prophets just weren't asking if this is wrong because they were in an environment of racism and weren't thinking about the policy and teachings being wrong.

But if that is the case, what is the point of having a prophet to receive revelation on the issues of the day? Why is this church always behind society as a whole on the issues that matter most to people? And what does that say about the implication that Joseph Smith that he was constantly asking God about what young women he could marry and have sex with if God only gives us the information we are seeking answers for?

In other words, this argument just does not fit with the concept of a true and living church, but it fits perfectly with a church led by men who are only capable of putting their own worldview into the voice of God to get their followers to adhere to policies and beliefs that they hold themselves.

I don't want to get into revelation too much here, but if you have never seen the video on spiritual witnesses, I highly recommend it to everyone as it details how every religion uses the idea of a spiritual witness to confirm truth, and obviously not everyone in this video can be correct. There is also a clip of a woman in an LDS offshoot church speaking about how she received a spiritual witness of polygamy from God just as the church did until it was revoked, which is odd if personal revelation comes from a consistent and unchanging God.

 

The Church in an American Racial Culture

 

In the church's Gospel Topics essay on Race and the Priesthood, they have a section titled "The Church in an American Racial Culture." Within this section they note that the church was created during a time "amidst a highly contentious racial culture in which whites were afforded great privilege."

This is, of course, factually true but it completely misses the point. The entire reason for having a living prophet of God is to guide us through difficult times to do the right thing, not to just continue on with harmful policies because it was what people were doing at the time.

Furthermore, the essay cites the beginning of the ban under Brigham Young in the following way:

"In 1850, the U.S. Congress created Utah Territory, and the U.S. president appointed Brigham Young to the position of territorial governor. Southerners who had converted to the Church and migrated to Utah with their slaves raised the question of slavery’s legal status in the territory. In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah. According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel. Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father. Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained."

This really sums up the problem for the church's claims to being a church led by God so well: Brigham Young was the first leader of the Utah territory and he chose to make it a slave state. As a living prophet of God, Brigham chose to make Utah a slave state.

Apologists can argue that Brigham was a product of his time all they want, but the fact is that his decisions had tremendous impact on the church and almost every one of his major contributions to doctrine have since been proven to be horribly wrong including the Adam-God doctrine, blood atonement, and the ban on members of African descent from receiving the priesthood and any chance at exaltation.

Last, this essay states the following that I cited above:

"According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel. Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin."

This is not just "one view," but the view of the church. They literally teach in their scriptures that blacks descended from Cain and thus had dark skin. I don't know how else to phrase this, but they are literally stating that Joseph Smith was incorporating ideas that "had been promulgated in the United States since at least the 1730s" directly into the Books of Moses and Abraham. This is a huge admission by the church, even if they likely did not want members to connect the dots as to what they were saying.

As I've been saying above, this is why lifting the ban is only a piece of the puzzle. The racist teachings from "at least the 1730s" were written directly into the church's scriptures and remain there today as doctrine. When apologists say that prophets were products of their time, they don't realize just how accurate they are. The problem here is that Joseph Smith left the fingerprints of his time all over every scripture he wrote, and as society has moved on from the harmful teachings of that era, they remain untouched in the scriptures of Mormonisn.

 

Conclusion

Clearly this is a very difficult topic, and I know if you're a believing member this information probably either has your stomach in knots because of how damning the history of the church is with regards to race, or very angry at me for writing about it. All I can say is that as difficult as it was reading about church history and having any shred of belief crumble from doing so, I am much happier knowing that I have been ahead of current prophets in treating everyone with the dignity and respect they deserve. While leaders have begun to embrace black members since 1978, they have shifted to demonizing the LGBT community, and as we know God gave a revelation in 2015 that was reversed just 3.5 years later. I knew in 2015 that it was wrong to condemn gay members as apostates, and I surely knew before Russell Nelson reversed that policy via revelation that it was going to get removed by the church eventually due to the fact that younger generations are not willing to take the nonsensical disdain that the church continues to push towards the LGBT community.

But give credit where credit is due - Russell Nelson is absolutely right when he teaches that "prejudice, hate and discrimination are learned." He's just being very careful not to mention that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not only used God to teach this prejudice to members for 150 years, but that they're still teaching it in their scriptures today even if they carefully edit quotes of past leaders in their manuals and lessons. And that leaves the church with the most impossible choice: Keep these racist ideas in their scriptures and never fully escape the prejudice they teach their members every Sunday, or change the scriptures and finally admit that Joseph Smith was the creator of the Book of Mormon, Moses, and Abraham as a man - not as the inspired (or literal) word of God.

In Nelson's statement on race, he said that "any of us who has prejudice toward another race needs to repent!" My response to Nelson is simple: You first. Until the church truly repents and apologizes for their history of racism that continues today in their scriptures, they are no better than those they scold in his statement, and no amount of public relations events or donations will change that.

Again, I realize this is a very difficult and sensitive topic, but if we look at the definition of white supremacy and then look at both the church's scriptures and statements from those who claimed to speak for God, there is simply no escaping the reality that this church is based on the idea that white people are favored by God, and that dark skinned people will once again become white and delightsome as they come unto Christ and lift the curse. That is an abhorrent teaching, and it is one that the church will never be able to run away from no matter how much they rebrand their past.

​

In this overview I tried to provide a wide array of the scriptures that led to these beliefs about the curse of dark skin for Native Americans, Polynesians, and those of African descent along with a selection of quotes from church leaders that solidify that this was the true, literal belief of the church for almost 140 years.

I also tried to cover the most common apologetics about the curse of dark skin in the Book of Mormon because I think it is incredibly important to understand what apologists are seeking to do when they talk to members. In previous overviews I have covered how apologists want to redefine what translation means, and in this overview they are attempting to redefine what the word skin means.

As I said at the beginning, when I was still a believing member of the church the only two problems I was aware of were polygamy and the racism that stemmed from both the 'ban on blacks' and the 'curse of dark skin.' Those problems would occasionally bother me even though I was too afraid to hop on the computer and start searching for information, and I can only say I wish that I had looked into this once I first started realizing that it was wrong. Even though it would have caused me a lot of anguish much earlier, it would have saved me a lot of time having questions about these problems.

Sometimes the hardest part about learning these issues is ripping off the band-aid. I know from talking to so many over the last few years that we all have different reasons for leaving (or staying), but that the hardest part of all is getting to a place mentally where we can even entertain the possibility that the church is not true. I wrote a blog post about this when I first started the site about how it's OK to let go of your beliefs temporarily to put them to the test, and I still believe that today.

If you really want to know if this church is true, you need to let go of your predetermined conclusions and evaluate the information the same way you would any other religious leader, church, or organization. That might be the most difficult thing to get our minds to do, but it is the most important one if you want to know what is true and what is not.

Check us out on Twitter or Facebook as well for future posts and updates, and thank you again for reading!

​

Next Overview Topic: The Temple Endowment and Masonry

​

Resources:

​

• Come Follow Me: What is the Curse of Dark Skin in 2 Nephi? (January 19, 2020): In the 2020 Come Follow Me printed manual, the church points out that the curse of dark skin in the Book of Mormon is a literal curse of a dark skin. They scrubbed this quote in the electronic version, and it caused a bit of controversy. We took a look at the changes the church made, and how they cut around a pivotal quote to make it sound much less offensive than it is when looked at as Prophet Joseph F. Smith originally spoke it.

• Come Follow Me: What If 'Skin' Doesn't Mean Human Skin? (January 30, 2020): This was a blog post follow-up to our initial post about the 2020 Come Follow Me manual's reference to the curse of dark skin, and a look at an apologetic article that "skin" doesn't mean "skin," but clothing. We go through the article point by point to explain why this apologetic simply does not work both within the text of the Book or Mormon or the teaching of it by prophets and other leaders.

• Timeline: Ban on Blacks for Priesthood and Temple Ordinances: A quick look at the timeline of the ban on black members from the priesthood in the church, and what led to the ban being lifted in 1978.

• Church Scriptures and Quotes From Leaders on the Ban on Blacks for the Priesthood/Temple Ordinances: A rundown of some quotes from both LDS scriptures (Book of Mormon, Abraham, and Moses) and leaders on what the curse of dark skin was, and how they spoke of black people while speaking for God.

• Official LDS Essay on Race and the Priesthood, Annotated: Our annotations to the official church Gospel Topics essay on Race and the Priesthood. This is the most important piece to read, as it details the church's positions on what led to the ban on blacks as well as what led to the ban being lifted. It includes a lot of the quotes and timeline from above in order to answer the church's claims in the essay.