Blackness in the Book of Mormon

[cinepro]

It also happens that certain passages in the Book of Mormon talk about garments as white or filthy in the exactly the same way that it talks about skins, and in other proximate places and contexts, it is very clear that skins can be garments. So there is a layer of ambiguity in the language that is usually ignored in these kinds of discussions. But in every case, the thing that distinguishes the approval or disapproval is not physical appearance, or lineage, but personal righteousness. And what makes the garments white is the atonement.

That's a good point. But you forgot to actually cite the scriptures you were thinking of...

Upon investigation, it appears that when talking about "garments" and whiteness in the Book of Mormon, it is very, very obvious what is being talked about. There is no confusion, and no way it could be interpreted as a literal, physical reference. It is totally different than the claims made about "dark skin" and curses.

For example,

Alma 5

[21]I say unto you, ye will know at that day that ye cannot be saved; for there can no man be saved except his garments are washed white; yea, his garments must be purified until they are cleansed from all stain, through the blood of him of whom it has been spoken by our fathers, who should come to redeem his people from their sins.

[22] And now I ask of you, my brethren, how will any of you feel, if ye shall stand before the bar of God, having your garments stained with blood and all manner of filthiness? Behold, what will these things testify against you?

[24] Behold, my brethren, do ye suppose that such an one can have a place to sit down in the kingdom of God, with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob, and also all the holy prophets, whose garments are cleansed and are spotless, pure and white?

[27] Have ye walked, keeping yourselves blameless before God? Could ye say, if ye were called to die at this time, within yourselves, that ye have been sufficiently humble? That your garments have been cleansed and made white through the blood of Christ, who will come to redeem his people from their sins?

Alma 7

[25] And may the Lord bless you, and keep your garments spotless, that ye may at last be brought to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the holy prophets who have been ever since the world began, having your garments spotless even as their garments are spotless, in the kingdom of heaven to go no more out.

Alma 13:11-12

Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb.

Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God,could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.

The meaning is clear to anyone who reads it. Not even a Prophet or Apostle could mistake those claims as literal. It just isn't possible to conclude that they were using the actual blood of Jesus (before he was even born) to wash their white clothes to make them even cleaner. They don't say that "others could see their newly washed white clothes", or that "they knew someone was OK to marry if their garments had been washed white by Jesus's blood." The only person who can see these dirty or white garments is God; there is no indication that they were worried about their brethren seeing their "dirty clothes".

The metaphor is obvious. Sin is like making your clothes dirty, and Jesus's atonement is like cleaning your clothes. And nowhere does it say that God is the one that made their clothes dirty in the first place; after all, if it were literal, they could just get new clothes.

Ultimately, the obviously metaphorical use of "white garments" is a good argument for the literal interpretation of dark skin, because it provides a clear contrast to how the Book of Mormon uses metaphors.

[cinepro]

Unfortunately, I don't see this position as making very much headway anytime soon among critics.

Wait a second, you were trying to convince the critics?

With all due respect, why do you care what the critics think of whether or not the Book of Mormon uses "dark skin" literally? After all, if the critics are right and the BoM really does have a 19th century origin, then Joseph Smith would be the ultimate authority on whether or not it was a metaphor, and he has spoken out on that issue (and he said "It's literal").

No, the critics are the least of your worries. After all, critics aren't going to do any "damage" to the Church by telling people the curse was literal, because with the exception of (let me count)....6 people, LDS already believe it was literal. So, you should really only care about what the mainstream, chapel Mormons think, especially the leaders, and that means you have two serious problems:

1. The Book of Mormon really seems to describe it as a literal, physical description (and an alternate reading requires convoluted and obscure arguments).

2. The leaders of the LDS Church have pretty much set themselves up as the authorities on Book of Mormon interpretation, and they have uniformly taught that it was a literal change. They have never publicly acknowledged it might just be a metaphor, or that there is uncertainty on the matter.

The only way to overcome issue #1 is for the text of the Book of Mormon to be changed, which could happen. But it won't happen until #2 is taken care of, and the Church leaders start acknowledging (or even teaching) that references to "dark skin" are metaphorical.

Until that happens, I just don't think it will be possible for apologists to convince mainstream members of the Church that "dark skin" is metaphorical, and the Lamanites weren't cursed with a dark skin, and that Native Americans and other new-world inhabitants didn't have dark skin as a result of the curse.

Frankly, no one would be more thrilled than the critics to see improvement in this regard. We just know it's not going to happen unless you have really, really good arguments, and we're not going to slap you on your backs and tell you you're doing a great job when your arguments really aren't that great.

So I sincerely mean it when I say, Good luck! You have a monumental task ahead of you.

[Brant Gardner]

The meaning is clear to anyone who reads it. Not even a Prophet or Apostle could mistake those claims as literal. It just isn't possible to conclude that they were using the actual blood of Jesus (before he was even born) to wash their white clothes to make them even cleaner.

Interesting analysis. Your contention is that it must be metaphorical because it doesn't make sense literally. Apply that definition to "skin of darkness" and you will conclude it is also metaphorical. You don't make things clean by washing them in blood, and skin color doesn't change overnight (other than through tanning booths or modern spray cans).

What you seem to be saying is that a statement is metaphorical if you are familiar with the metaphor, and it is literal if you are more familiar with the phrase being used literally. Both of those instances depend upon your understanding, not that of whomever wrote the words (metaphor or literal).

How might you know if "skin of darkness" is a metaphor if you are unfamiliar with the metaphor? you can examine the text. That is what I did, and that examination convinced me that my previous position that it must be literal (based on tradition) must be wrong.

As you say, it doesn't make sense literally, therefore it is metaphorical (of course, there are more data than that to bolster the conclusion).

[cinepro]

What you seem to be saying is that a statement is metaphorical if you are familiar with the metaphor, and it is literal if you are more familiar with the phrase being used literally. Both of those instances depend upon your understanding, not that of whomever wrote the words (metaphor or literal).

No, I'm saying "dark skin" isn't a metaphor because it was used to avoid intermarrying between groups of people, and the Lord caused it to come upon them specifically so they wouldn't be "enticing" to another group of people.

As for the time frame, I don't remember the Book of Mormon (or anyone else) saying it happened overnight. Who knows how long it took? But if God wanted it to happen overnight, He could make it so.

Saying that "the Lord caused someone to have a wicked or sinful heart so that another group of people would be able to identify them to avoid intermarriage" makes as much sense as saying that "Being sinful gave me a stain on a on a white shirt that I had, so I used some of Jesus's blood (hundreds of years before He was born) to clean it out".

[Nevo]

Upon investigation, it appears that when talking about "garments" and whiteness in the Book of Mormon, it is very, very obvious what is being talked about. There is no confusion, and no way it could be interpreted as a literal, physical reference. It is totally different than the claims made about "dark skin" and curses.

Is it so different?

Compare the following passages:

"O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that [the Lamanites'] skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God." (Jacob 3:8 )

"O then ye unbelieving, turn ye unto the Lord; cry mightily unto the Father in the name of Jesus, that perhaps ye may be found spotless, pure, fair, and white, having been cleansed from the blood of the Lamb at that great and last day." (Mormon 9:6)

In light of Mormon 9:6 (as well as the passages that use the garment metaphor), I don't think it's a great stretch to read the discussion of skin color in Jacob 3:8 metaphorically. Garments and skins could both function metonymically in these passages to designate the entire person.

Consider in this connection the following passage from the Similitudes of Enoch:

"And the righteous and elect shall have risen from the earth . . . and they shall have been clothed in garments of glory, and these shall be the garments of life from the Lord of Spirits: and your garments shall not grow old, nor your glory pass away before the Lord of Spirits." (1 Enoch 62:15-16)

Most scholars interpret the "garments of glory" in which the risen saints are clothed as resurrected bodies (see A.J.M. Wedderburn, Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against Its Graeco-Roman Background [WUNT 44; T

[Uncertain]

Is it so different?

Compare the following passages:

"O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that [the Lamanites'] skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God." (Jacob 3:8 )

"O then ye unbelieving, turn ye unto the Lord; cry mightily unto the Father in the name of Jesus, that perhaps ye may be found spotless, pure, fair, and white, having been cleansed from the blood of the Lamb at that great and last day." (Mormon 9:6)

In light of Mormon 9:6 (as well as the passages that use the garment metaphor), I don't think it's a great stretch to read the discussion of skin color in Jacob 3:8 metaphorically. Garments and skins could both function metonymically in these passages to designate the entire person.

Consider in this connection the following passage from the Similitudes of Enoch:

"And the righteous and elect shall have risen from the earth . . . and they shall have been clothed in garments of glory, and these shall be the garments of life from the Lord of Spirits: and your garments shall not grow old, nor your glory pass away before the Lord of Spirits." (1 Enoch 62:15-16)

Most scholars interpret the "garments of glory" in which the risen saints are clothed as resurrected bodies (see A.J.M. Wedderburn, Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against Its Graeco-Roman Background [WUNT 44; T

[cinepro]

I complete accept that occasionally the BOM uses whiteness or whiter skin color as a metaphor just at this particular point I do not see any good reason to suppose all references to skin color are metaphorical. And I see some good reasons to view at least some of the skin color references as literal. I have already pointed out at least one example in the BOM where there appears to be an easily observable difference in true descendants of Laman. In addition as others have pointed out it is difficult to see how a completely metaphorical mark will discourage intermarriage.

x2

[Jason]

I have already pointed out at least one example in the BOM where there appears to be an easily observable difference in true descendants of Laman. In addition as others have pointed out it is difficult to see how a completely metaphorical mark will discourage intermarriage.

However that difference may not be skin color - in fact it seems quite likely to me to be a difference in speech pattern.

One trick the Dutch used to catch German spies during WWII was to ask them to pronounce "Scheveningen", the name of a popular beach in The Hague. Non-native speakers usually butchered the pronunciation badly and so were caught.

[Uncertain]

However that difference may not be skin color - in fact it seems quite likely to me to be a difference in speech pattern.

One trick the Dutch used to catch German spies during WWII was to ask them to pronounce "Scheveningen", the name of a popular beach in The Hague. Non-native speakers usually butchered the pronunciation badly and so were caught.

Hi Jason,

Certainly differences in speech is one possibility. However I find it to be the less likely interpretation for a couple of reasons.

1. It is completely ad hoc at no point in the text does it state Laman spoke a different language than the Nephites. In fact as I already mentioned I am aware of no place in the BOM where it states the Lamanites spoke a different language than the Nephites.

2. Moroni apparently required a "true" descendant of Laman. If indeed all that was needed is someone who spoke Lamanite fluently and was familiar with Lamanite customs. A true descendant of Laman would not seem to be required. For example I know many Americans of foreign born ancestry that are the second or third generation born in America. And they are very fluent in English and quite familiar with American customs. The requirement to get a "true" descendant of Laman implies a genetic component.

3. Remember Laman was accompanied by some of Moroni's men and that they were all supposed to be escaped Lamanite prisoners. Which means the Nephites with Laman had to be able to pass as Lamanites. Which means if it was just a Language or culture issue they already fit the bill. Which means Moroni already had native Nephites in his army that spoke Lamanite fluently and had enough knowledge of culture issues that they could pass as Lamanites. So why in the world did he need a "true" descendant of Laman as part of his subterfuge? He already had men that could pass as Lamanites. We know this because they did pass as Lamanites they successfully fooled the guards into thinking they were escaped Lamanites held prisoner by the Nephites.

All of this is easily explained by viewing Laman as having a darker skin than the Nephites and by virtue of this fact easily passing as a Lamanite. And Moroni's men accompanying Laman were Nephite defectors. It does not require any assumptions that are not fully supported by a straightforward reading of the text itself.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Jason]

1. It is completely ad hoc at no point in the text does it state Laman spoke a different language than the Nephites. In fact as I already mentioned I am aware of no place in the BOM where it states the Lamanites spoke a different language than the Nephites.

An entirely different language is not required to see regional differences. If the Nephites and Lamanites shared a culture and language but had different dialects and speech patterns then Laman could have simply had a speech pattern readily identifiable to the Lamanites.

Though we share a language I would have a hard time passing for a Scottsman in downtown Glasgow, for instance.

2. Moroni apparently required a "true" descendant of Laman.

"True" does not appear in the text. In fact, the man they find - Laman - isn't necessarily a "true" descendant of Laman. He is identified only as one of the servants of the king who Amalikiah killed, not as a "true descendant of Laman". So certainly he was someone familiar with the cultural norms and speech patterns of the Lamanites at the time, but we can't say anything about his actual lineage. We only know that he fit what Moroni wanted for the job.

3. Remember Laman was accompanied by some of Moroni's men and that they were all supposed to be escaped Lamanite prisoners. Which means the Nephites with Laman had to be able to pass as Lamanites.

Which speaks against the idea that skin color was distinct between the two sides, since they apparently could pass for Lamanites as long as they were accompanied by someone who was from the Lamanite culture who could do the talking for them.

All of this is easily explained by viewing Laman as having a darker skin than the Nephites and by virtue of this fact easily passing as a Lamanite. And Moroni's men accompanying Laman were Nephite defectors. It does not require any assumptions that are not fully supported by a straightforward reading of the text itself.

Or you could assume that Laman knew how to talk like a Lamanite and that Moroni's men accompanying him were about the same color as the Lamanites, and so could pass for them as long as someone else did the talking. Again, without any assumptions not fully supported by a straightforward reading of the text, which makes no mention of Moroni's men appearing to be anything but Lamanites to the Lamanite guards (Laman says "Behold, I am a Lamanite. Behold, we have escaped from the Nephites," with no explanation that his friends are Nephite defectors and not actual Lamanites).

[Uncertain]

An entirely different language is not required to see regional differences. If the Nephites and Lamanites shared a culture and language but had different dialects and speech patterns then Laman could have simply had a speech pattern readily identifiable to the Lamanites.

Though we share a language I would have a hard time passing for a Scottsman in downtown Glasgow, for instance.

"True" does not appear in the text. In fact, the man they find - Laman - isn't necessarily a "true" descendant of Laman. He is identified only as one of the servants of the king who Amalikiah killed, not as a "true descendant of Laman". So certainly he was someone familiar with the cultural norms and speech patterns of the Lamanites at the time, but we can't say anything about his actual lineage. We only know that he fit what Moroni wanted for the job.

Hi Jason,

You are correct Laman is not described as a "true" descendant of Laman. But he is described as a descendant of Laman which again implies a genetic component is necessary.

Which speaks against the idea that skin color was distinct between the two sides, since they apparently could pass for Lamanites as long as they were accompanied by someone who was from the Lamanite culture who could do the talking for them.

How does it speak against a skin color distinction? Remember at this point Nephite defectors are fighting on the Lamanite side so a group of mixed color escaped prisoners would not necessarily be at all unusual.

Or you could assume that Laman knew how to talk like a Lamanite and that Moroni's men accompanying him were about the same color as the Lamanites, and so could pass for them as long as someone else did the talking. Again, without any assumptions not fully supported by a straightforward reading of the text, which makes no mention of Moroni's men appearing to be anything but Lamanites to the Lamanite guards (Laman says "Behold, I am a Lamanite. Behold, we have escaped from the Nephites," with no explanation that his friends are Nephite defectors and not actual Lamanites).

This only works if we have Moroni's men standing around not saying anything. So you don't think the Lamanite guards would not have asked them questions like "How did you escape from the Nephites"? and "My name is Frank what is your name?" and "Where are you from I am from city X". Plus remember apparently all Laman had to do was say "Fear not; behold, I am a Lamanite. Behold, we have escaped from the Nephites, and they sleep; and behold we have taken of their wine and brought with us." And the Lamanite guards "received him with joy". I don't know about you but it does not appear there is all that much esoteric cultural information in those couple of lines a native born Nephite could not easily master .

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Brant Gardner]

No, I'm saying "dark skin" isn't a metaphor because it was used to avoid intermarrying between groups of people, and the Lord caused it to come upon them specifically so they wouldn't be "enticing" to another group of people.

Which reading is still dependent upon your understanding that a different skin color might not be enticing. That is a relatively modern opinion. Anciently, there wasn't so much distinction about skin color, but there was about many other things, which they considered to be visible, but which we would not (again I recommend the Personality of Paul)

As for the time frame, I don't remember the Book of Mormon (or anyone else) saying it happened overnight. Who knows how long it took? But if God wanted it to happen overnight, He could make it so.

If it took a generation, then it was ineffective to make the distinction you are suggesting. If you really want to press the "God could do it" idea, then he could also make things white with blood (which, being a miracle, would be even more spectacular--maybe like burning a sacrifice after drenching it in water).

Saying that "the Lord caused someone to have a wicked or sinful heart so that another group of people would be able to identify them to avoid intermarriage" makes as much sense as saying that "Being sinful gave me a stain on a on a white shirt that I had, so I used some of Jesus's blood (hundreds of years before He was born) to clean it out".

And yet it would make sense in the ancient world. That again is the difference. The difficulty isn't really in the text, it is that our assumptions are so ingrained that we can't see anything other than what we originally assume.

The solution, as you suggested, was to determine when the literal reading doesn't fit reality. You don't clean garments with blood and you don't make anyone black or white based on their sinfulness or righteousness (remember, there are few white people--pinkish, but rarely albino; Native Americans are not black in any sense of the color). Since "black" is applied to Native Americans in Joseph Smith's time, surely they saw them as the people reference, but that particular black (even while explaining a pigmentation change) was still metaphorical, because it cannot have been descriptive. Even the literal reading is metaphorical (ironic, isn't it).

[Jason]

You are correct Laman is not described as a "true" descendant of Laman. But he is described as a descendant of Laman which again implies a genetic component is necessary.

Or the speech patterns and mannarisms of a Lamanite. Laman, the man they actually found, was someone who had been raised in the Lamanite culture. "A descendant of Laman" could simply mean "someone who was raised as a Lamanite." If they had said something like "true descendant" you might have a stronger basis for saying it must mean something genetic.

How does it speak against a skin color distinction? Remember at this point Nephite defectors are fighting on the Lamanite side so a group of mixed color escaped prisoners would not necessarily be at all unusual.

Possibly. Or possibly there was no skin color distinction and Moroni's men could appear to be Lamanites if they didn't say much.

This only works if we have Moroni's men standing around not saying anything. So you don't think the Lamanite guards would not have asked them questions like "How did you escape from the Nephites"? and "My name is Frank what is your name?" and "Where are you from I am from city X".

Quite possibly they didn't mingle with the Lamanite guards much, no. The record doesn't go into much detail.

At my most fluent, if I restricted myself to a few words here and there ("fought our way out" - "the name's Jan") I could pass myself off as a native Dutchman. It's when I started talking at length that they would begin to notice my American accent.

Certainly the Lamanites didn't appear very suspicious of the idea that Laman and his men happened to have conveniently stolen a large amount of Nephite wine during their escape, so maybe they weren't the brightest of guards.

Plus remember apparently all Laman had to do was say "Fear not; behold, I am a Lamanite. Behold, we have escaped from the Nephites, and they sleep; and behold we have taken of their wine and brought with us." And the Lamanite guards "received him with joy". I don't know about you but it does not appear there is all that much esoteric cultural information in those couple of lines a native born Nephite could not easily master.

But remember that this is a translation, and a translation from an abridged account written several centuries after the event. Laman could have told their cover story at great length, with only this bit of it related in the record. And if Laman was speaking with a dense Lamanitish accent with Lamanitish slang there is no way for us to tell, except by noting that the Lamanite guards "received him with joy".

[Uncertain]

Or the speech patterns and mannarisms of a Lamanite. Laman, the man they actually found, was someone who had been raised in the Lamanite culture. "A descendant of Laman" could simply mean "someone who was raised as a Lamanite." If they had said something like "true descendant" you might have a stronger basis for saying it must mean something genetic.

Hi Jason,

Or it could mean Laman was a descendant of Laman. Look if you are bound and determined to read this as referring to a language or cultural difference. I am not going to be able to change your mind. When we are reduced to arguing over what descendant really means I take it as a sign it is time to agree to disagree and let the readers decide what interpretation they find most convincing.

Quite possibly they didn't mingle with the Lamanite guards much, no. The record doesn't go into much detail.

At my most fluent, if I restricted myself to a few words here and there ("fought our way out" - "the name's Jan") I could pass myself off as a native Dutchman. It's when I started talking at length that they would begin to notice my American accent.

Here is the problem. According to the text we do have Laman had to say two sentences and the guards received him with joy. Which strongly implies it is an easily noticeable difference. Which means if it was a language issue it is an immediately noticeable language issue. Which in turn implies if the Nephites opened their mouths at all they would quickly be found out if they not have whatever "it" is that distinguishes Lamanites from Nephites. It is frankly unbelievable that the guards would not have asked at least a few simple questions of this group of recently escaped prisoners. And if Moroni's men had "it" than a descendant of Laman was not needed. Yes it is possible that Laman had to go into exhaustive detail to convince the Lamanite guards and we just do not have that part of the record. But according to the record we do have Laman just had to say a couple of sentences and he was immediately believed. I am not sure appealing to some unknown record we do not currently possess that will vindicate your position is all that convincing.

Also remember this is really in many ways a minor point. All I am trying to demonstrate with this example is there is something different about descendants of Laman that enables them to be quickly identified as a Lamanite. It seems you agree with this part you just think the difference is something besides skin color. At this point I am comfortable letting the readers decided what they find more convincing.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Jason]

Also remember this is really in many ways a minor point. All I am trying to demonstrate with this example is there is something different about descendants of Laman that enables them to be quickly identified as a Lamanite. It seems you agree with this part you just think the difference is something besides skin color. At this point I am comfortable letting the readers decided what they find more convincing.

Quite right.

It's possible that Laman's main advantage in appearing trustworthy to the Lamanite guards was in fact his skin color.

My point is simply that this story of Laman does not demonstrate that the difference must have been skin color.

[cinepro]

Which reading is still dependent upon your understanding that a different skin color might not be enticing. That is a relatively modern opinion.

Just to be clear, that isn't a "reading", per se. That is what the "text" says:

2 Nephi 5:21

...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.

So, if you could, please make that verse "unmetaphorical" and just have it say what you think it says literally. That would clear it up tremendously. If it really is a metaphor, make it literal and plain.

Because I still have no idea what you think "skin of blackness" is a metaphor for that would make someone who was "white, exceedingly fair and delightsome" become "unenticing" to another group of people.

[Uncertain]

My point is simply that this story of Laman does not demonstrate that the difference must have been skin color.

We are agreed I don't think this passage requires it being skin color. I happen to think skin color makes the most sense given the totality of evidence. But I can see how others could disagree.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Brant Gardner]

Because I still have no idea what you think "skin of blackness" is a metaphor for that would make someone who was "white, exceedingly fair and delightsome" become "unenticing" to another group of people.

Yes. That is still the problem. You don't see it as metaphorical, therefore you can't understand it as a metaphor. As I have said before, the answer is to learn more about the nature of prejudice in the ancient world. Remember the evidence Hamba Tuhan was presenting? There is a much different set of assumptions happening that don't fit our conceptions. You assume that we could see a pigmentation color and therefore they would be unenticing. The ancients would assume that they could see sinfulness and therefore the people (as a stereotype) become unenticing. Stereotypes defined the way the groups were seen, and it didn't require skin color.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Which reading is still dependent upon your understanding that a different skin color might not be enticing. That is a relatively modern opinion. Anciently, there wasn't so much distinction about skin color, but there was about many other things, which they considered to be visible, but which we would not (again I recommend the Personality of Paul)

If it took a generation, then it was ineffective to make the distinction you are suggesting. If you really want to press the "God could do it" idea, then he could also make things white with blood (which, being a miracle, would be even more spectacular--maybe like burning a sacrifice after drenching it in water).

And yet it would make sense in the ancient world. That again is the difference. The difficulty isn't really in the text, it is that our assumptions are so ingrained that we can't see anything other than what we originally assume.

The solution, as you suggested, was to determine when the literal reading doesn't fit reality. You don't clean garments with blood and you don't make anyone black or white based on their sinfulness or righteousness (remember, there are few white people--pinkish, but rarely albino; Native Americans are not black in any sense of the color). Since "black" is applied to Native Americans in Joseph Smith's time, surely they saw them as the people reference, but that particular black (even while explaining a pigmentation change) was still metaphorical, because it cannot have been descriptive. Even the literal reading is metaphorical (ironic, isn't it).

Brant, can you revisit the blog post we made on the subject and make any clarifications for me? Maybe a part 2 is in order.

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/09/al...nd-book-of.html

[Nevo]

At least as I read this passage the Nephites "hate" the Lamanites in part because of the "curse" that has come upon their skin. Jacob is condemning this practice and to make his point he uses skin color metaphorically as a play on words regarding the literally darker skin of the Lamanites. I mean in verse 9 Jacob again references the darker Lamanite skin color right after he just gets done telling the Nephites the Lamanites are more righteous than them. If he was using skin color as a metaphor for wickedness he just undercut one of his main points. I mean he just got done describing how the Lamanites are more righteous than the Nephites but none the less they have "darker" skin (i.e. are more sinful).

Hi Uncertain,

Thanks for your post. I realized even as I was posting my earlier comment on Jacob 3:8 that the passage does seem to play off an actual difference in skin color. At the same time, I am struck by the close connection between dark skin ("the cursing which has come upon their skins") and "filthiness" in Jacob 3. This seems to be an ingrained stereotype. Evidently the Nephites perceive the Lamanites as dark-skinned and filthy and culturally inferior, but is that perception accurate? Of course, there's no way to tell for sure, but I think we should at least question it given what we know about ingroup/outgroup dynamics.

In addition as others have pointed out it is difficult to see how a completely metaphorical mark will discourage intermarriage.

I assume the Lamanites looked different from the Nephites irrespective of skin color (presumably they wore distinctive clothing, hair styles, etc.). In any case, though, ingroup/outgroup distinctions don't require real physical differences. They can be illusory, like Benjamin Franklin's description of immigrants from Sweden and other northern European countries as being generally "of a swarthy complexion." I think more than anything it was the Lamanite culture or way of life that the Nephites found "loathsome".

I do respect your even handed approach and knowledge of LDS arcana so I am curious how you view the references to skin color as a whole. Are they all non literal?

Thanks for the kind words. To answer your question, I don't know if all the references to skin color are non-literal. In some places, I admit, a straightforward reading of the text does seem to suggest a literal interpretation. But even if Lamanites did, as a rule, have darker skins than Nephites at certain points in Book of Mormon history â?? and it's hard to see why they would if the Nephites also intermarried with local populations as Nephite population growth dynamics seem to require â?? this would not mean that the Nephites' interpretation of the dark skin was correct.

I have not made a careful systematic study of the Book of Mormon, but I know Brant has, so his opinion carries a lot of weight with me. And it coheres with my own readings on constructions of "blackness" and "whiteness", social identity theory and stereotyping. On the other hand, I'm not sure that the Book of Mormon wasn't influenced by popular nineteenth-century ideas about Indians and the notion of dark skin being the mark of a divine curse.

[juliann]

A quick search for "white" in the Bible produced references to animals, milk (teeth are made white by milk), fabric and even the white of an egg. These are things that we would recognize to be literally white. White skin was not a good thing. Literal whiteness was unclean, as in the descriptions of skin disorders and Miriam turning white as snow when she became leprous as a punishment. So white is not something that was used to describe natural skin color. It might be more out of place to demand that white be used to describe skin color than black.

Using light and dark as metaphor applied to bodies and body parts is spelled out clearly in Luke:

Luk 11:34 "The eye is the lamp of your body; when your eye is clear, your whole body also is full of light; but when it is bad, your body also is full of darkness.

Luk 11:35 "Then watch out that the light in you is not darkness.

Luk 11:36 "If therefore your whole body is full of light, with no dark part in it, it will be wholly illumined, as when the lamp illumines you with its rays."

[Helmuth]

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/09/al...nd-book-of.html

Thank you Life for a very educational half hour reading that and the "Top Five Myths". Very good thoughts.

[Uncertain]

Hi Uncertain,

Thanks for your post. I realized even as I was posting my earlier comment on Jacob 3:8 that the passage does seem to play off an actual difference in skin color. At the same time, I am struck by the close connection between dark skin ("the cursing which has come upon their skins") and "filthiness" in Jacob 3. This seems to be an ingrained stereotype. Evidently the Nephites perceive the Lamanites as dark-skinned and filthy and culturally inferior, but is that perception accurate? Of course, there's no way to tell for sure, but I think we should at least question it given what we know about ingroup/outgroup dynamics.

I assume the Lamanites looked different from the Nephites irrespective of skin color (presumably they wore distinctive clothing, hair styles, etc.). In any case, though, ingroup/outgroup distinctions don't require real physical differences. They can be illusory, like Benjamin Franklin's description of immigrants from Sweden and other northern European countries as being generally "of a swarthy complexion." I think more than anything it was the Lamanite culture or way of life that the Nephites found "loathsome".

Thanks for the kind words. To answer your question, I don't know if all the references to skin color are non-literal. In some places, I admit, a straightforward reading of the text does seem to suggest a literal interpretation. But even if Lamanites did, as a rule, have darker skins than Nephites at certain points in Book of Mormon history â?? and it's hard to see why they would if the Nephites also intermarried with local populations as Nephite population growth dynamics seem to require â?? this would not mean that the Nephites' interpretation of the dark skin was correct.

I have not made a careful systematic study of the Book of Mormon, but I know Brant has, so his opinion carries a lot of weight with me. And it coheres with my own readings on constructions of "blackness" and "whiteness", social identity theory and stereotyping. On the other hand, I'm not sure that the Book of Mormon wasn't influenced by popular nineteenth-century ideas about Indians and the notion of dark skin being the mark of a divine curse.

Fair enough thank you for your thoughts.

Uncertain

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thank you Life for a very educational half hour reading that and the "Top Five Myths". Very good thoughts.

Indeed, Gardner's take on the Book of Mormon is a great read. I know his 6-volume set is expensive, but try buying one volume at a time as you go. It is worth it.

http://store.fairlds.org/prod/p1589580419.html

[Ray Agostini]

Yes. That is still the problem. You don't see it as metaphorical, therefore you can't understand it as a metaphor. As I have said before, the answer is to learn more about the nature of prejudice in the ancient world. Remember the evidence Hamba Tuhan was presenting? There is a much different set of assumptions happening that don't fit our conceptions. You assume that we could see a pigmentation color and therefore they would be unenticing. The ancients would assume that they could see sinfulness and therefore the people (as a stereotype) become unenticing. Stereotypes defined the way the groups were seen, and it didn't require skin color.

That still doesn't make sense to me in light of:

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.

What does "skin" mean??

Why would "the Lord God" "cause" a "skin of blackness" to come upon anyone if it wasn't literal? Isn't that like saying, stating it from your viewpoint, that "the Lord God caused them to become sinful?" Going by your definition of "sinfulness" (not as skin colour) as being what was "unenticng".