Did Nephi Jump To An Unwarranted Conclusion? Re: Blackness

[David T]

Due to the discussion in this thread concerning the problematice nature of the so-called 'skin of blackness' that divided the Lamanites and Nephites, and in trying to work through my own understanding of the issue at hand, I returned again to 2 Nephi 5. Since my Book of Mormon reading (accompanied by the fantastic and intelligent insights in Grant Hardy's Understanding the Book of Mormon, and Brant Gardner's wonderful and exhaustive 'Second Witness' commentary) was already in Chapter 4, I decided to re- read all of 2 Nephi up to the events of 2 Nephi 5, where the first notion of the 'skin of blackness' comes. I was reading it very closely, and, with this specific issue in mind, I realized two things that I had never seen before, that, I believe, have important implications for any interpretation as to what happens (Whether you believe it was always understood to be literal, or always meant to be metaphorical) concerning the Lamanites:

1) The announcement and implication of any 'curse' happens after the Nephites have already sent themselves into exile away from the newly-titled Lamanites. There's even possibly an implication that not only had Nephi been made King, but also time passed sufficiently to build the temple, and to establish a society before the 'curse' was made known. IE, There are no Nephite eyewitnesses to the initiation of the 'curse', and any associated 'marking', including King Nephi himself.

2) While Nephi states that the anouncement of the curse and marking comes from God, he does not quote the Lord giving the explanation of a skin of blackness - that appears to be an extrapolation and an interpretation of Nephi's own!

20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly 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.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that amixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

25 And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to astir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction.

To recap: here is what Nephi reports the Lord actually said:

• Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.
  
• I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
  
• And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing [ie, cut off, and made loathsome].
  
• They shall be a scourge unto thy seed,
  

Nephi goes further with his interpretation than he actually claims came directly by the revelation. He shows his interpretation of " that they might not be enticing unto my people" meaning that "the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

Again:

1) No Nephites, including Nephi, claim to be eyewitnesses to the initiation of the curse and associated marking that would make them 'not enticing'.

2) Nephi's reporting of the Lord's words do not specify any change in physical appearance, or even lightness/darkness.

Is it possible that down the road, an indigenous tribe with significantly darker skin tones encountered and battled the Nephite colony, and Nephi interpreted them as being the "loathsome" and "cut off" "scourge" who may have been connected with his brothers' people? Could an event like this have solidified a key interpretation of what it meant to be 'loathsome'? Could the interpretation be based on a practical episode rather than the direct revelation and understanding recieved? Could King Nephi have codified the misunderstanding as a ban against mixing with those of darker skin generally, rather than the actual injunction by the Lord to not mix with those who 'would not hearken unto' the Lord's principles, and not 'repent'?

With this in mind, I think it's significant that the modern explanatory header to Chapter 5 in the updated online edition of the Book of Mormon currently reads this:

The Nephites separate themselves from the Lamanites, keep the law of Moses, and build a temple—Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites.

When it used to read this:

The Nephites separate themselves from the Lamanites, keep the law of Moses, and build a temple—Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge unto the Nephites.

Edited April 5, 2012 by David T

[David T]

[TJayT]

This is a fascinating theory. I'll have to go back and re-read 2 Nephi.

[zerinus]

This is a fascinating theory. I'll have to go back and re-read 2 Nephi.

I did a search, and extracted all the verses in the Book of Mormon that directly relate to this subject. Here is the result:

2 Nephi 5:

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly 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.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

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; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.

8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.

9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.

Alma 3:

7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.

3 Nephi 2:

15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year.

Unless you are going to argue that in the Book of Mormon white doesn't mean white, black doesn't mean black, skin doesn't mean skin, color doesn't mean color, and dark doesn't mean dark, Lord doesn't mean Lord; I don't see how one can drive that argument home. And if those words don't mean what they are supposed to mean, then this verse doesn't say what it is supposed to say either:

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 all 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.

Edited April 5, 2012 by zerinus

[David T]

Zerinus, I actually think you may misunderstand my point, and are arguing against something I didn't say. I'm not arguing for a metaphorical view of those passages.

It seems the individual who initiated the skin color explanation of God's mark for the cursed ones was Nephi. This was passed down as fact, even though Nephi - nor anyone else - quotes the Lord as saying he changed the skin color. I believe Nephi believed those with darker skin were the cursed and associated with the Lamanites, as did those he passed the tradition on to.

The Lord said he would make them loathsome, and a scourge, due to their not following the commandments, or repent.

Nephi, who was not present when the change he believes took place, seems to make the initial connection between 'loathsome' and 'skin of blackness'.

None of the later prophets cite the Lord saying he made their skin dark - they rely on the tradition.

Fascinating insight from the scriptures you posted, Zerinus, the 'Word of God' stated by Jacob that you cited, specifically goes against using the skin as a sign of unrighteousness! "Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.'

The only 'word of God' specifically cited on the subject never insinuates the skin color had anything to do with the curse of unrighteousness, and, in the Jacob quote, specifically says that this is not the case! In other words, very clearly, "Stop discriminating because of skin color!"

Deeply believed false traditions die hard - even in the face of a direct clarifying revelation on the subject.

Mormon, when abridging his records, seems to be explaining and reinforcing the common strand of the tradition (the 'folklore?') as descriptive dramatic explanation.

Edited April 5, 2012 by David T

[Log]

DavidT, I'll weigh in later.

[Jaybear]

Zerinus, I actually think you may misunderstand my point, and are arguing against something I didn't say. I'm not arguing for a metaphorical view of those passages.

It seems the individual who initiated the skin color explanation of God's mark for the cursed ones was Nephi. This was passed down as fact, even though Nephi - nor anyone else - quotes the Lord as saying he changed the skin color. I believe Nephi believed those with darker skin were the cursed and associated with the Lamanites, as did those he passed the tradition on to.

Your theory doesn't explain this passage: And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

[Log]

Your theory doesn't explain this passage: And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

His theory also doesn't explain the germ theory of disease. So what?

I've heard about pulling a jaybear, but dang, this is the first time I've seen the entire process in one thread.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Log

[David T]

Your theory doesn't explain this passage: And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

I wrote above:

"Mormon, when abridging his records, seems to be explaining and reinforcing the common strand of the tradition (the 'folklore?') as descriptive dramatic explanation. "

I don't think its too outlandish to call it a flourish of artistic licence in using a belief he held to visually and dramatically describe a conversion experience from the past (I don't believe in this section we have any indication he's directly quoting a source document). By the time Mormon was living, however, we've learned in 4 Nephi that all Nephite/Lamanite distinctions were chosen associations, and not lineage-based. all had intermarried and bred for over 400 years by that point as well.

Edited April 5, 2012 by David T

[David T]

DavidT, I'll weigh in later.

Looking forward to it!

[David T]

Also, Brant Gardner, I've seen you lurking in this thread. if you have the time, I'd love to get your impressions on the inherent strengths or weaknesses of this particular position, as laid out in this thread.

I have been greatly enlightened by your work, some of which has sent me along the lines that brought to this point to begin with, caused me to revise previous misconceptions and assumptions, and to seriously read and approach the Book of Mormon as a legitimate ancient record, with all that is associated with it.

I know you have been in very strong support of the 'metaphorical'/idiomatic reading of these passages, but wondered if you felt this thread's approach was a valid and useful reading, and if not, why?

Anyone's thoughts, criticisms, questions, and concerns are welcome, and invited!

Edited April 5, 2012 by David T

[cinepro]

That actually is a fascinating theory.

The only flaw I can see is that some people theorize that the Nephites were also intermingling with the natives. I think I've even seen people suggest that Lehi's group intermingled soon after landing, and that the separation of the Nephites from the Lamanites included all those natives who wanted to follow Nephi.

So your theory would require that the Nephites didn't mingle until much later (if at all), and the Lamanite intermarriages happened after the Nephites left.

Since I don't believe the Book of Mormon describes people who are not Jaredite, Mulekite or Lehite at all, I'll leave further exploration of this issue to someone who does believe the Lehites intermingled.

[David T]

That actually is a fascinating theory.

The only flaw I can see is that some people theorize that the Nephites were also intermingling with the natives. I think I've even seen people suggest that Lehi's group intermingled soon after landing, and that the separation of the Nephites from the Lamanites included all those natives who wanted to follow Nephi.

So your theory would require that the Nephites didn't mingle until much later (if at all), and the Lamanite intermarriages happened after the Nephites left.

Since I don't believe the Book of Mormon describes people who are not Jaredite, Mulekite or Lehite at all, I'll leave further exploration of this issue to someone who does believe the Lehites intermingled.

Thanks, Cinepro. That very issue is part of why I'd be interested in some input from someone like Brant Gardner.

[Log]

Mr. T,

Some preliminary thoughts.

Nephi says the Lord caused the skin of blackness to come upon his brethren. Nephi being who he was, I think it would require some affirmative evidence to show he was mistaken. How tightly we wish to define brethren (solely Laman and Lemuel, or their whole familes? Were the wayward sons of Ishmael included as well? Their families?) also has some bearing on the issues.

Sherem was an outsider - he was not Nephite, and it appears he was not Lamanite. His treatment does not appear to accord with having the "skin of blackness." He worked his way through the Nephite society, even until he was given access to the prophet, Jacob. He was sufficiently important in their society that he was able to call a convocation of the people prior to his death.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Log

[CV75]

Due to the discussion in this thread concerning the problematice nature of the so-called 'skin of blackness' that divided the Lamanites and Nephites, and in trying to work through my own understanding of the issue at hand, I returned again to 2 Nephi 5. Since my Book of Mormon reading (accompanied by the fantastic and intelligent insights in Grant Hardy's Understanding the Book of Mormon, and Brant Gardner's wonderful and exhaustive 'Second Witness' commentary) was already in Chapter 4, I decided to re- read all of 2 Nephi up to the events of 2 Nephi 5, where the first notion of the 'skin of blackness' comes. I was reading it very closely, and, with this specific issue in mind, I realized two things that I had never seen before, that, I believe, have important implications for any interpretation as to what happens (Whether you believe it was always understood to be literal, or always meant to be metaphorical) concerning the Lamanites:

1) The announcement and implication of any 'curse' happens after the Nephites have already sent themselves into exile away from the newly-titled Lamanites. There's even possibly an implication that not only had Nephi been made King, but also time passed sufficiently to build the temple, and to establish a society before the 'curse' was made known. IE, There are no Nephite eyewitnesses to the initiation of the 'curse', and any associated 'marking', including King Nephi himself.

2) While Nephi states that the anouncement of the curse and marking comes from God, he does not quote the Lord giving the explanation of a skin of blackness - that appears to be an extrapolation and an interpretation of Nephi's own!

To recap: here is what Nephi reports the Lord actually said:

• Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.
  
• I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
  
• And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing [ie, cut off, and made loathsome].
  
• They shall be a scourge unto thy seed,
  

Nephi goes further with his interpretation than he actually claims came directly by the revelation. He shows his interpretation of " that they might not be enticing unto my people" meaning that "the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

Again:

1) No Nephites, including Nephi, claim to be eyewitnesses to the initiation of the curse and associated marking that would make them 'not enticing'.

2) Nephi's reporting of the Lord's words do not specify any change in physical appearance, or even lightness/darkness.

Is it possible that down the road, an indigenous tribe with significantly darker skin tones encountered and battled the Nephite colony, and Nephi interpreted them as being the "loathsome" and "cut off" "scourge" who may have been connected with his brothers' people? Could an event like this have solidified a key interpretation of what it meant to be 'loathsome'? Could the interpretation be based on a practical episode rather than the direct revelation and understanding recieved? Could King Nephi have codified the misunderstanding as a ban against mixing with those of darker skin generally, rather than the actual injunction by the Lord to not mix with those who 'would not hearken unto' the Lord's principles, and not 'repent'?

With this in mind, I think it's significant that the modern explanatory header to Chapter 5 in the updated online edition of the Book of Mormon currently reads this:

The Nephites separate themselves from the Lamanites, keep the law of Moses, and build a temple—Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites.

When it used to read this:

The Nephites separate themselves from the Lamanites, keep the law of Moses, and build a temple—Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge unto the Nephites.

Makes a good deal of sense. Related to this, even when Nephi himself speaks of “black” and “white” people (2 Nephi 26:33) he is likely referring to hair and not skin color (3 Nephi 12:36), as in “old” and “young” (Alma 1:30; 11:44).

Nephi seems to have been a very sentitive person, and was obviously sensitive to his being able to make mistakes (1 Nephi 19:6). To me, if this represents such a mistake, it doesn't seem to be a doctrinal one and shows once again that the Lord prevails "after all (accurate / correct or not) we can do."

[zerinus]

Zerinus, I actually think you may misunderstand my point, and are arguing against something I didn't say. I'm not arguing for a metaphorical view of those passages.

It seems the individual who initiated the skin color explanation of God's mark for the cursed ones was Nephi. This was passed down as fact, even though Nephi - nor anyone else - quotes the Lord as saying he changed the skin color. I believe Nephi believed those with darker skin were the cursed and associated with the Lamanites, as did those he passed the tradition on to.

The Lord said he would make them loathsome, and a scourge, due to their not following the commandments, or repent.

Nephi, who was not present when the change he believes took place, seems to make the initial connection between 'loathsome' and 'skin of blackness'.

None of the later prophets cite the Lord saying he made their skin dark - they rely on the tradition.

Fascinating insight from the scriptures you posted, Zerinus, the 'Word of God' stated by Jacob that you cited, specifically goes against using the skin as a sign of unrighteousness! "Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.'

The only 'word of God' specifically cited on the subject never insinuates the skin color had anything to do with the curse of unrighteousness, and, in the Jacob quote, specifically says that this is not the case! In other words, very clearly, "Stop discriminating because of skin color!"

Deeply believed false traditions die hard - even in the face of a direct clarifying revelation on the subject.

Mormon, when abridging his records, seems to be explaining and reinforcing the common strand of the tradition (the 'folklore?') as descriptive dramatic explanation.

Whichever way you are interpreting it, it doesn't make sense. There is nothing in the context to suggest that Nephi had "misunderstood" anything, and there is nothing in the text of the Book of Mormon to suggest that Jacob, Alma, and other Nephite prophets had been repeating his misunderstanding. That reading simply isn't there.

[David T]

Whichever way you are interpreting it, it doesn't make sense. There is nothing in the context to suggest that Nephi had "misunderstood" anything, and there is nothing in the text of the Book of Mormon to suggest that Jacob, Alma, and other Nephite prophets had been repeating his misunderstanding. That reading simply isn't there.

You mean apart from Jacob's declared revelation that says they shouldn't be discriminating based on skin color (what Nephi described as the mark placed by God to help discern who was righteous and not)?

Edited April 5, 2012 by David T

[zerinus]

You mean apart from Jacob's declared revelation that says they shouldn't be discriminating based on skin color (what Nephi described as the mark placed by God to help discern who was righteous and not)?

Nor sure what that is supposed to prove.

[Log]

Nor sure what that is supposed to prove.

He's presuming his theory, that Nephi's account of the "skin of blackness" being put upon his brethren is a false assumption, is true... so Jacob's reference would be Jacob repeating Nephi's mistaken assumption.

Needless to say, Jacob is only repeating Nephi's mistake if Nephi was, in fact, mistaken.

That proposition is, at a minimum, controversial.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Log

[David T]

Nor sure what that is supposed to prove.

Nephi claims God put a skin of blackness on people in order for the Nephites to be repelled by them, so they don't intermingle.

Jacob shares a revelation saying skin color doesn't matter as an indication of righteousness, and shouldn't be a judging factor.

This is inconsistent. To me, it appears that either Jacob's revelation and Nephi's interpretation cannot both be correct. Or, inbetween the death of Nephi and this book of Jacob, God changed the rules.

Edited April 5, 2012 by David T

[Log]

Nephi claims God put a skin of blackness on people in order for the Nephites to be repelled by them, so they don't intermingle.

Jacob shares a revelation saying skin color doesn't matter, and shouldn't be a judging factor.

This is inconsistent. To me, it appears that either Jacob's revelation and Nephi's interpretation cannot both be correct. Or, inbetween the death of Nephi and this book of Jacob, God changed the rules.

You have not correctly read Jacob. He is instructing them to not revile - "To reproach; to treat with opprobrious and contemptuous language" - against the Lamanites for their dark skins, neither their ritual uncleanness. The Nephites were in the habit of feeling pretty good about themselves as the chosen people of God, as opposed to those dirty Lamanites, you see.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Log

[BCSpace]

With this in mind, I think it's significant that the modern explanatory header to Chapter 5 in the updated online edition of the Book of Mormon currently reads this:

The Nephites separate themselves from the Lamanites, keep the law of Moses, and build a temple—Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites.

When it used to read this:

The Nephites separate themselves from the Lamanites, keep the law of Moses, and build a temple—Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge unto the Nephites.

It's only significant in that one will have to actually read the scriptural text or the official doctrine to find it rather than skim over the synopsis and draw unwarranted conclusions. From the Church's doctrine on 2 Nephi 5 in the recently updated Book of Mormon Institute manual:

2 Nephi 5:20–25. The Lamanites Were Cursed

• Verses 20–25 in 2 Nephi 5 answer at least four

questions about the curse that came to the Lamanites:

1. What was the curse?

The curse is clearly defined in verse 20 as being “cut

off from the presence of the Lord.”

2. What caused the curse?

According to verse 21, the cause of the curse came

“because of their iniquity” and “hardened . . . hearts.”

Since the days of Adam’s Fall, wickedness has

resulted in being cut off from the presence of the

Lord (see 1 Nephi 2:21; 2 Nephi 4:4; 9:6; Alma 9:13;

Ether 10:11).

3. What was the mark or sign set upon theLamanites?

It is also explained in verse 21 that so “they might

not be enticing unto my people [the Nephites] the

Lord did cause a skin of blackness to come upon

them [the Lamanites].” It would appear that this was

done to limit the spreading of more wickedness.

Later Alma suggested this same motive when he

explained that “the skins of the Lamanites were

dark . . . that thereby the Lord God might preserve

his people, that they might not mix and believe

in incorrect traditions” (Alma 3:6, . Throughout

scripture we find warnings of the Lord not to marry

unbelievers (see Deuteronomy 7:2–3; 2 Corinthians

6:14); the result of doing so was often that the

righteous were turned away from the Lord (see

Deuteronomy 7:4; 1 Kings 11:4; D&C 74:5).

Some people have mistakenly thought that the

dark skin placed upon the Lamanites was the

curse. President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972)

explained that the dark skin was not the curse:

“The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so

that they could be distinguished from the Nephites

and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark

skin was the sign of the curse [not the curse itself ].

The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the

Lord. . . .

“The dark skin of those who have come into the

Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the

curse. . . . These converts are delightsome and have

the Spirit of the Lord” (Answers to Gospel Questions,

comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., 5 vols. [1957–66],

3:122–23).

4. What was the result of the curse?

Finally in verse 24 we learn that the result of the

curse—being cut off from the presence of the

Lord—is that they “become an idle people, full of

mischief and subtlety.”

One great blessing is that the curse is only valid as

long as people are wicked. If they repent, the “curse

of God [will] no more follow them” (Alma 23:18).

There are many examples of righteous Lamanites

who repented and enjoyed the Spirit of the Lord; one

of them even became a prophet (see Helaman 13:5).

https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/library/manuals/institute-student/book-of-mormon-student-manual_eng.pdf

There are those who postulate that instead of a change in skin color there was a tattoo instead but that is currently incompatible with LDS doctrine as one can plainly see; especially with the carryover into modern times where "dark skin is no longer considered to be the sign of the curse" as per the above.

[David T]

BCSpace, I'm aware of the current official literature's acceptance that the Lamanites were turned into dark skinned people. I'm aware that Nephi and other Book of Mormon authors believe this is the case as well. I am questioning this assumption in the spirit of President Uchdorf's message:

"Unfortunately, we sometimes don't seek revelation or answers from the scriptures or the handbooks because we think we know the answers already. Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit.

"Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn't get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?"

[David T]

You have not correctly read Jacob. He is instructing them to not revile - "To reproach; to treat with opprobrious and contemptuous language" - against the Lamanites for their dark skins, neither their ritual uncleanness.

I see that I over generalized my paraphrase. You're correct in that. However, in the passage, Jacob is still specifically saying that many of the Lamanites are more righteous than the Nephites, in spite of their dark skin.

Nephi expresses his understanding that the dark skin is a sign to distinguish those with unrighteousness and unrepentant attitudes. Jacob - within the same generation - is now saying this isn't a reliable indicator. Something still seems very off to me.

Edited April 5, 2012 by David T

[Log]

I see that I over generalized my paraphrase. You're correct in that. However, in the passage, Jacob is still specifically saying that many of the Lamanites are more righteous than the Nephites, in spite of their dark skin.

Nephi expresses his understanding that the dark skin is a sign to distinguish those with unrighteousness and unrepentant attitudes. Jacob - within the same generation - is now saying this isn't a reliable indicator. Something still seems very off to me.

I edited my post above, and will repeat it: "The Nephites were in the habit of feeling pretty good about themselves as the chosen people of God, as opposed to those dirty Lamanites, you see."

The Nephites were destroying the united order among them - what Nephi calls living "after the manner of happiness" - and pimping their daughters out to the local tribes and taking multiple wives themselves.

Not good stuff. The Lamanites, so far as we know, were doing none of this stuff.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Log