Blackness in the Book of Mormon

[juliann]

Again, haven't seen a good response.

Nary a one. I'd accept something that is just responsive.

[sethpayne]

deleted

[juliann]

deleted

[sethpayne]

deleting evidence of my stupidity and insensitivity.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't think that's very funny at all, Seth. There are real people from many angles who have real struggles with the issue of blacks and the priesthood and various scriptures.

http://www.untoldstoryofblackmormons.com/

http://www.blacksinthescriptures.com/

http://www.blacklds.org/

[sethpayne]

I don't think that's very funny at all, Seth. There are real people from many angles who have real struggles with the issue of blacks and the priesthood and various scriptures.

http://www.untoldstoryofblackmormons.com/

http://www.blacksinthescriptures.com/

http://www.blacklds.org/

Good point. I deleted the original post.

[juliann]

deleted

[LifeOnaPlate]

Good point. I deleted the original post.

[sethpayne]

I did not realize that this was a stereotype, no. Also, this was not intended jab.

My sincere apologies if I have been offensive in any way.

[Olavarria]

I think its possible that references to skin color can be literal or symbolic depending on what the author was looking at. Unless we see what he saw; we will never know.

JULLIAN

We are a church of living prophets. That is not arguable.

Please give me a statement supporting a racist reading of any scripture from our last two living prophets since Pres. Monson has been in a relatively short time. This is the second or third request and all I see is a a lot of unrelated dodging.

This seems to be your mantra. BTW, it is a very good rule and one the bretheren seem to follow.

HW: There still is some confusion that polygamy is definitively and unequivocally disallowed in this world. What will happen in the next? There is a perception that polygamy is part of the afterlife. Could you talk a little about that?

DHO: If I talked about that Iâ??d be making doctrinal statements where the prophet has not chosen to make doctrinal statements, so I think I shouldnâ??t say anything except to affirm that a lot of people, myself included, are in multiple-marriage situations.

It would be interesting to document which teachings on race,evolution, polygamy,God the Father,AdamALL 16 President's of the Church aggree on. That might be one way to define doctrine. Once the living President takes a different view from his predecessors then you can dump all previous views into the dumpster of folklore.

[cinepro]

Once the living President takes a different view from his predecessors then you can dump all previous views into the dumpster of folklore.

Your comment got me thinking. Other than Brigham Young's teachings on Adam/God and Blood Atonement (which have been specifically addressed by subsequent leaders), and OD1 and OD2, when has a latter day Prophet actually taken a different view on a doctrinal issue from his predecessors?

[paulpatter]

Btw, the choices have been made clear - you either accept the BoM as entire truth and history, or you reject it altogether. Don't even think of a "middle road", because that would be compromise.

You seem to believe that Joseph Smith--a mortal, unschooled, very young man who openly admitted to making mistakes in his personal life--was incapable of error in producing the Book of Mormon. Did he believe that the book contained the "entire truth and history"? Apparently not, to wit: "And now, if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

Aren't those Joseph Smith's words, or do I err?

In any event, I know these are the words of Joseph Smith: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct [emphasis added] of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book" (from the introduction). Clearly, Joseph Smith never claimed the book was perfect; hence, "most correct."

[juliann]

There has also been at times a tendency to read modern racial concepts into ancient documents and to see color prejudice where none existed. . . . But these scholars who have allowed ancient art to speak for itself argue that the so-called ugliness or comic exists primarily in the minds of the modern beholders, not in the eyes of the ancient artists, and that Negro subjects are among some of the finest and most sympathetically executed pieces to have come from the workshops of ancient artists. The view of blacks as the equivalent of slaves or savages has sometimes given rise to an unwillingness to accept the implications of the ancient evidence.

Frank M. Snowden, Jr., Before Color Prejudice: The Ancient View of Blacks (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass., 1983), 64.

It is difficult to say with certainty what conditions may have been the most influential elements in the formation of the attitude of the ancient world towards blacks. Scholars disagree as to the precise stage in the history of race relations at which color acquired the importance it has assumed in the modern world. One point, however, is certain: the onus of intense color prejudice cannot be placed upon the shoulders of the ancients.

Frank M. Snowden, Jr Before Color Prejudice: The Ancient View of Blacks (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass., 1983), 108

The more I find of this (and this is just the beginning) the problem is with those who can't let go of their modern racial concepts. And this is not being written by "apologists". So I'm asking again....given a reasonable alternative, what is motivating those who demand we hold on to racial concepts?

[Theseus]

You seem to believe that Joseph Smith--a mortal, unschooled, very young man who openly admitted to making mistakes in his personal life--was incapable of error in producing the Book of Mormon. Did he believe that the book contained the "entire truth and history"? Apparently not, to wit: "And now, if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

Aren't those Joseph Smith's words, or do I err?

In any event, I know these are the words of Joseph Smith: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct [emphasis added] of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book" (from the introduction). Clearly, Joseph Smith never claimed the book was perfect; hence, "most correct."

Joseph said that the preface was a translation from the plates, which would mean those are Mormon's words, not Joseph's (although some people would probably agree with you that they are Joseph Smith's words).

[BlueDreams]

Playing fairly late in the game....but I figure, why not.

- I believe the two biggest problems facing a purely metaphorical reading of the Book of Mormon is that it clearly claims that God caused something to happen that was meant to prevent intermarriage. I think that is terribly problematic to a metaphorical reading. I suppose it's possible the report is just plain erroneous...?

"clear" is, believe it or not relative. It is clear that something changed to prevent intermarriage. What that is doesn't have to be big, just enough to be culturally repugnant. The blackness could simply be the distinctive and vastly foreign differences that the lamanites were apparently adopting. They were being enveloped into the predominant cultures that would have been completely alien to the Nephite groups. These aren't cultures where the difference would have simply been a citizenship change, but a change of dress, style, culture, and probably body modifications. Preventing intermarriage on a large scale is fairly easy....simply make the idea of the group in question repugnant. Would you marry your first cousin? No, its culturally odd to us. Would I marry someone who's cut their tongue in half, tatooed their body to look scaley, and filed their teath into fangs? No, that's just creepy to me. Whatever it was, it doesn't need to be as big as a complete skin change, but enough for it to be culturally unacceptable to want that.

- If it is a metaphor, it is a really, really bad one in that it has tricked latter-day Prophets for decades and decades.

It's a metaphor that worked in their culture, but fell apart in a culture who's changed there ideas on social constructs, skin color, and race. This effects how you see it and how I see it (they're different).

- I haven't "proposed" any racist readings. I'm just the messenger. The idea that the Book of Mormon describes literal skin darkening among the Lamanites was taught far before I came along, and by far greater authorities on the scriptures than I.

Yes it was...still is...doesn't mean its right. It's clear to most because of this. Everybody saw it because it was like one of those optical illusions where the picture changes just by our perspective. For ever we've been seeing one picture when it could easily be another.

- If the "metaphorical" reading is indeed the correct one (and I hope somehow it is), then the Church should clarify the language in the Book of Mormon so there can be no mistake. It should also begin to promote the metaphorical understanding through official curriculum and publications, and act (through its ownership of Deseret Book) to diminish the spread of the old "literal" interpretation in doctrine-related books to Church members (such as "Mormon Doctrine").

I don't think its stop-the-presses type of importance. Both ideas have their reasoning and none of it is connected to my salvation, standing in the church, etc. So not that important.

My view has always been one leaning to the metaphorical on this because that was actually what made more sense to me. It's probably because I've grown up in a world that is blurred by racial lines. Sure the language seems strong....that was always what set alarm bells off in my head. What was white and black to them back then anyways? It couldn't be much because of the stories like the interraction you'd see with laman the lamanite decendant and the gaurds. Imagine if the divide was actually as wide as it is today between label of white and black and this were two very tense and seperate groups meeting up. There's the one black guy and then theres these white guys behind him. The two black soldiers would go along the lines of "You can enter, but what the crap are these people behind you doing here." Black Laman would then have to explain they're cool because they're with me. To me, if the differences were that visible it would have been obvious from the beginning that they're different, he wouldn't have to explain he's lamanite because it would show in his genes, and the first responce would have been assuring the gaurds the white guys were okay. Instead it's tense from the beginning, Laman has to reassure them that he's lamanite, and the only reason its reassuring is because he sounds right. Its more like the interaction I get when I'm hanging with my latin buddies. I'm brown, they're shades of brown, I can dance well and the girl I'm with speaks fluent spanish....obviously I must be latin too....That's what that story reminds me of. The first one speaks, says he's latin with a perfect dialect, and they just assume the others are too. If you look and act the part, the only thing to give it away is your voice. These Nephites apparently looked and acted the part.

In fact, that's what most of the stories remind me of. I know that color is no real barrier to mixing it up and I could see it happening enough with the people continually ebbing and flowing into each others groups. I know that whenever they mixed, the genetics would be a game of russian roulette when it comes to skin color. Black and white is a binary system that I've always considered BS. There is no binary to color. We range and these -ites would be no different. The change in color is simply too quick to be literal in my mind.

I'm not an apologist, I'm not a geneticist. But I'm mixed and have had a viewpoint that has vastly differed from the monoracials I've lived around. For the mormon versions the idea of black lamanites may seem "clear." For me who's always seen race differently, it makes little sense. We do need to look at each reference individually, but at the same time it still needs to fit in with the rest of the text....which it doesn't. That mouths dropped does show the vast spread in the belief of it realistic. That mouths drop doesn't mean its the most obvious. It just means it's what their modern minds have most easily interpreted to be. It's like when I was surprised to find out that some people are surprised that race and color are two seperate entities. Or how some are surprised that the BoM probably didn't happen across most of the 2 continents. It's accepted because it's assumed....we've learned to look a picture a certain way. It doesn't mean that it is the only way to see the picture and nor need it be the correct one.

Sorry if this rambles....I'm pretty tired.

With luv,

BD

[Olavarria]

The more I find of this (and this is just the beginning) the problem is with those who can't let go of their modern racial concepts. And this is not being written by "apologists". So I'm asking again....given a reasonable alternative, what is motivating those who demand we hold on to racial concepts?

I personally think the concept of "race" is a fantasy that exists only to gratify sinful pride.

When you can't accomplish something, take pride in those with the same hide.

[Olavarria]

Cinepro

Your comment got me thinking. Other than Brigham Young's teachings on Adam/God and Blood Atonement (which have been specifically addressed by subsequent leaders), and OD1 and OD2, when has a latter day Prophet actually taken a different view on a doctrinal issue from his predecessors?

Even then the different view taken is carefully worded so as not be an actual refutation of a previous position.

Adam God

"We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." Spencer W. Kimball

Dumps on Adam-God but does so in a way that keeps him in harmony with BY and others.

Polygamy

"Celestial marriage--that is, marriage for time and eternity--and polygamous or plural marriage are not synonomous terms. Monogamous marriages for time and eternity, solemnized in our temples in accordance with the word of the Lord and the laws of the Church, are Celestial marriages."

Heber J. Grant

Anthony W. Ivins,

J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

James R. Clark, Messages Of The First Presidency, 5:329.

Again, notice that it doesn't refute any past teachings. It only says that the monogamous temple sealings are Celestial because they are "in accordance with the word of the Lord and the laws of the Church". Also, polygamy is not a synonym for celestial; just see section 132 and the whole bit of the one man who holds the keys.

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursueâ??to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

. . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

Again, no refutation of past doctrine, thus post manifesto polygamy running all the way to JFS.

Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in Godâ??s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

Sincerely yours,

Spencer W. Kimball

N. Eldon Tanner

Marion G. Romney

Again, no refutation of past teaching, if anything the claim is made that a lifting of the ban is a very old teaching.

Blood Atonement

Ive got nothing.

So Cinepro, it would seem that even in refuting old teachings, the Presidents haven't refuted anything. Nor should they have too. I believe in following the living prophet. If he says march west then we march west; but there aren't enough presidents of the church to do the thinking for all of us You raised an excellent point.

[Maya]

Hi Her Amun, long time no see...

Anyway I red some of the answers here and I just feel I need to put my 5 pence wort here.

Firs I dont think Amuns idea would cut feet off anyone. I am sure profets were also men of their own age in many things.

Anyway my, whi is not at all scolastic or red a lot... IMHO that I just have tought all by my self in my littele brain... I knw it is dangerous it hurts.. but sitl:

To begin with: I have a frend who once asked me what is it that makes my and my friends childrens eyes and our eyes shine so beautifuly? Yes we both were members of LDS Church... not may over there is.

You know when peopel have been in the Temple and they come back.. they shine, even teh black people seem ... light/white.

In the BoM it says that the figure of a person dargened... (not sure if you would use figure in this, but someone has torn the beginning of H in my English vocabulary). The persons outlook changed to dark from light not skin.

A few months ago I was listening to back yard professors ipod about quantiteory or something. I remember he was talking about those small intelligneces that have been found bounching around... and that there are darkparticles and light ones... For some reason I figured this:

When we are good we draw to us the light particles and thus we shine. If we are bad the shiny light parts go form us and the dark ones take their place. These small particles are inteligent and they do as they see best, they "judge" our deeds and act accordingly.

To me it seeme that a finnish author and fairytail teller was not so far from truth in a story called the pearl of Adalmina where some kids get black spots on them when theya re bad and at the end as the king comes they try to hide as they are so black of the spotsm but the king has them washed clean again.

I think that when we are ressurected we see where we belong, as those that have been really good and done our HFs will are so shiny and light that others cant endure them, and teh bad doers escape to the darkness as they can not endure the light. We judge ourselves.-- doesnt it say somethig like that in the scriptures too.

Lately I been also thinking that there is a lot truth about the oldtime tribal religions where they thanked for each bear, moose, they killed, and never killed for fun just for need. If all these small intellignces really make everysingle thing by rearanging their postition... we really can thank for everything around us, and we should too adn we do it through Jesus to our HF. Every flower ever stone is made of these small lively intelligences.

BYP also said that Jesus offer for mankind was nesessary in order to satisfie the rightousness. In order to satisfie the small intelligences. Man could not just be saved without someone to suffer for all that was done wrong, it had not been rigious. Only rightfulness keeps the world from destruction and falling back in to small unorganized particles.

[Calm]

that Negro subjects are among some of the finest and most sympathetically executed pieces to have come from the workshops of ancient artists.

....The more I find of this (and this is just the beginning) the problem is with those who can't let go of their modern racial concepts. And this is not being written by "apologists". So I'm asking again....given a reasonable alternative, what is motivating those who demand we hold on to racial concepts?

This reminds me of the description of the righteous Lamanites. Some passages are absolutely beautiful.

[DH]

Even in Modern English we have expressions like "Her face darkened with anger" and "He brightened at the prospect." However, we don't typically say that "Her skin darkened with anger" or "His skin lightened at the prospect" (although flushing with anger might actually change a person's color). The examples from the Qu'ran don't say "skin" either, but refer to the face. I don't know Arabic or any other Semitic language, but could this be a similar case? I just have a hard time believing that given how many times the Book of Mormon specifically refers to skin color, that the authors didn't actually mean skin color.

DH

[juliann]

Even in Modern English we have expressions like "Her face darkened with anger" and "He brightened at the prospect." However, we don't typically say that "Her skin darkened with anger" or "His skin lightened at the prospect" (although flushing with anger might actually change a person's color). The examples from the Qu'ran don't say "skin" either, but refer to the face. I don't know Arabic or any other Semitic language, but could this be a similar case? I just have a hard time believing that given how many times the Book of Mormon specifically refers to skin color, that the authors didn't actually mean skin color.

DH

What is the difference in saying a face or skin darkened with anger? I don't see any difference in quibbling over the word skin than the word adieu. Here is an example of how skin was used in Christian times. You need to remember that the BOM was saying all are alike to God, black or not. So at some point we have to make a decision which we are going to take literally. I think the latter.

The imagery of Ethiopians and their color was much more than a literary device: it was a dramatic means of presenting cardinal tenets of Christianity that were to be translated into practice. The Ethiopian eunuch, a high official of the queen of Ethiopia and in charge of all her treasure, was said to have been the first Gentile to receive from Philip the mystery of the divine Word. It is not certain whether Philiopâ??s baptism of the Ethiopian was a straightforward record of actual events, suggested by hints in the Old Testament, or was included to illustrate the fulfillment of the promise of bearing witness â??to the ends of the earth.â? What is clear, however, is that for the readers of Acts the message was unequivocal: the Ethiopian man, as the eunuch was described, meant a black man and, in the minds of most, a Negro from the south of Egypt. The eunuch came to be admired as a model of the diligent reader of the Scriptures, John Chrysostom, for example, pointed to the eunuch as one who, though a barbarian without advantages, read the Scriptures in spite of other important matters occupying his attention. Prepared for baptism by the reading of the prophet, the eunuch prefigured the peoples of the Gentiles, changed his skin, and in the opinion of Jerome, provided an answer to Jeremiahâ??s question, â??Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?â?

Frank M. Snowden, Jr, Before Color Prejudice: The Ancient View of Blacks (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass., 1983), 105.

Now surely no one is going to insist that Chrysostom was claiming an Ethiopian's skin acutally turned white.

[DH]

What is the difference in saying a face or skin darkened with anger? I don't see any difference in quibbling over the word skin than the word adieu. Here is an example of how skin was used in Christian times. You need to remember that the BOM was saying all are alike to God, black or not. So at some point we have to make a decision which we are going to take literally. I think the latter.

Now surely no one is going to insist that Chrysostom was claiming an Ethiopian's skin acutally turned white.

Perhaps I should clarify that myself, I believe that all are alike to God, regardless of skin color, but am not sure the Nephites believed the same way I do. I'm just wondering if the Nephites' reasoning went something like this, "They look different than we do, therefore they're bad," and turned that into "God cursed them with dark skin because they're bad." Perhaps there's even a little scapegoating going on--it's often convenient to make peace among your own people by uniting them against those who are different.

Regarding your last sentence, are you suggesting that God did not really give the Lamanites a dark skin, or turn them light again when they converted to the Gospel? In other words, are we to take the Book of Mormon figuratively on this point, not literally? Just a question--I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing, just trying to understand where you're coming from. Thanks.

DH

[Maya]

I also been thinking that Nefities would only marry rigious people and as Lamanities did not think of rigiousness as Nephities they married to people that already were there in South America and thus inherited the dark skin from those. Then again as they become the good people they married the white Nephities and thus their skin turned whiter again... but I dont think this is so good an expalanation as the light and dark is. Ofcourse God might have waived his macigal stick to do it too, but I believe that miracles are mostly things that can one day be explained, but it wont take anything from it that when they happened it was a mere miracle to the people around.

When Jesus comes and the heavens rull open like a papyrus (dont know the englis here I hope you recognize what I talk about) It will be a miracle to us... but when we are told how it was possible it is no more miracle...

I too think it would be interesting to know about the word skin... where did that come from, did it really mean just skin pigment or lightness. But it really seems to be enheritable in some cases anyway...

[juliann]

When the BOM speaks of dwellings does anyone assume that they are referring to houses with toilets, TV and sprinklers? Why not? That is what it means to us. Why is it that seems laughable but so many continue to insist that their thinking in all things is just like us? For black (remember, it is black not brown) skin to be repulsive requires some evidence that ancients had that view or one has to advocate a 19th century origin. Even the ancients had different names for different colors of skin, with Ethiopian being the darkest.

So for those who can't let go of modern thinking when it comes to skin color we need two things:

1. Evidence for that kind of thinking in the cultures of the time. Someone really does have to come up with that before continuing to insist that ancient thinking is just like ours when it is not even arguable on a casual basis that it is like ours. Remember, Moses married a "black" woman. Give evidence that Moses was repulsed by skin color.

2. Explanation of what color black skin really is and why there is no evidence of black skin in the indigenous population.

3. If the position is that it isn't really black then explain why brown skin which was repulsive when there were shades of brown skin in their home and neighboring cultures.

Perhaps the Nephites did have some racist leanings. That is possible. But that cannot be the default position without explaning why or how the Nephites have acquired modern attitudes.

[Calm]

Then again as they become the good people they married the white Nephities and thus their skin turned whiter again... but I dont think this is so good an expalanation as the light and dark is.

Yeh, the problem here is that if dark skin was to prevent the Nephites from intermarriage with the Lamanites, then that dark skin existed for the righteous Lamanites (except possibly in the case of 3 Ne 2) as much as it did for the unrighteous ones and the supposed inherent revulsion/racism would have discouraged the Nephites from accepting the Lamanites fully into their society...and why would God want to prevent intermarriage among righteous people or the full interaction between the two groups? Seems to me he would be encouraging them to become one society and the scriptures bear this out.