Native American Skin Color

[Bernard Gui]

Spencer Kimball's comments about apparent changes in Native American skin color are often brought up to prove some sort of point or another.

http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Pictures/American-Indians-00.html

Decide for yourself.

Bernard

Edited June 16, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Was the Lamanitish curse reinstated after its removal?

3 Nephi 2:15-16

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.

Bernard

[BlueDreams]

Spencer Kimball's comments about apparent changes in Native American skin color are often brought up to prove some sort of point or another.

I have not seen that quote used "often." Rarely/almost never would be more appropriate online. And definitely never for offline living. But no, I think Kimball was wrong. I have a number of Native friends and one half native bro. There skin tone ranges based on basic genetic rules and whether they're mixed with anything else.

Was the Lamanitish curse reinstated after its removal?

3 Nephi 2:15-16

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.

1.) The curse was not their skin tone

2.) My personal experience with skin color, race, and perceptions about it, tells me that it isn't the way we're reading, per se. Coloring distinction are often based heavily on perception than actual distinction. My guess is that there wasn't much coloring difference between them in the first place at this point, the cultural barriers between them were already faltering, and I would assume that the distinctiions placed between them physically heavily lost their significance as people mixed and intermingled.I don't believe that one day all the lamanites woke up, looked at their arms and realized they'd become 4 shades lighter overnight. After Christ's coming to the America's all human distinctions (the various -ites) were removed and they were one people. Physical appearance was never mentioned again as a defining characteristic of anybody.So I doubt it. My personal belief is that they were probably about the same shade then as they are now.

With luv,

BD

[Thinking]

My personal experience with skin color, race, and perceptions about it, tells me that it isn't the way we're reading, per se. Coloring distinction are often based heavily on perception than actual distinction. My guess is that there wasn't much coloring difference between them in the first place at this point, the cultural barriers between them were already faltering, and I would assume that the distinctiions placed between them physically heavily lost their significance as people mixed and intermingled.I don't believe that one day all the lamanites woke up, looked at their arms and realized they'd become 4 shades lighter overnight. After Christ's coming to the America's all human distinctions (the various -ites) were removed and they were one people. Physical appearance was never mentioned again as a defining characteristic of anybody.So I doubt it. My personal belief is that they were probably about the same shade then as they are now.

So their skin became white does not mean their skin became white.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I feel really metaphorically blue that this issue is still being debated in 2012. The "skins" of blackness and whiteness were clearly idiomatic expressions. See the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness. See the Bible. See Brant Gardner. I'm native american, and my skin is neither black nor white.

Listen to Locke:

[Log]

The "skins" of blackness and whiteness were clearly idiomatic expressions.

If it pleases you to believe that, then, by all means, knock yourself out. It would be helpful if someone were to establish any ancient (and, preferably, Semitic) usage of this purported "idiomatic expression." That would be the one thing Brant Gardner lacks to make his case - but that is also exactly what is necessary to make his reading even plausible. There being no textual problems a non-literal reading solves, the literal reading is to be preferred. See here.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Log

[Rivers]

1.) The curse was not their skin tone

I think that having white skin is a curse. If I go out in the sun without smothering myself with sunscreen, I get fried.

[Bernard Gui]

Whatever the sign of the Lamanitish curse was, it was

completely removed by the time of 4 Nephi.

My question is, on what scriptural basis is a darker skin equated with modern

Native Americans? Does this passage indicate the curse and the sign were reinstated?

Mormon 5

15 And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.

16 For behold, the Spirit of the Lord hath already ceased to strive with their fathers; and they are without Christ and God in the world; and they are driven about as chaff before the wind.

17 They were once a delightsome people, and they had Christ for their shepherd; yea, they were led even by God the Father.

18 But now, behold, they are led about by Satan, even as chaff is driven before the wind, or as a vessel is tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer her; and even as she is, so are they.

Bernard

[Thinking]

The "skins" of blackness and whiteness were clearly idiomatic expressions.

Clearly?

[Log]

Whatever the sign of the Lamanitish curse was, it was

completely removed by the time of 4 Nephi.

Unfortunately, there is no sign in the text that this claim is true.

[Bernard Gui]

Unfortunately, there is no sign in the text that this claim is true.

Here is my understanding...

The Lamanites who were converted before the Gadianton wars united with the Nephites

for the purpose of mutual defense. The curse and it's sign were removed from them.

Thereafter, they were considered Nephites.

The same thing had happened earlier when the Anti-Lehi-Nephis were converted.

The survivors of the cataclysm at the death of Jesus were the more righteous

parts of the Nephites and Lamanites. After his visit, all survivors were converted, and the people

united again under the name Nephites. There were no longer divisions among them.

They intermarried freely. They all became fair and delightsome.

The final division of the people into Lamanites and Nephites was based on religious and political

differences, not lineage, hence the question about restoration of the curse and it's sign, which

originally was placed on the descendants of Laman and Lemuel and those who united themselves with them. The survivors of the great final wars were a mixture of all the peoples of the Book of Mormon.

Perhaps I misunderstand.

Bernard

Edited June 18, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Log]

After [Christ's] visit, ... the people united under the name Nephites. There were no longer divisions among them. They intermarried freely. They all became fair and delightsome.

The people who became "fair and delightsome" were the descendants of Nephi sometime around the 59th year - the text does not include the descriptor "white". The text says nothing about the seed of his brethren becoming white in this post-resurrection time. Mormon seems to have stuck pretty much to the history of the children of Nephi, and left the history of the seed of his brethren out of it.

The text also doesn't say the people united under the name Nephites; since the Nephites and the Lamanites no longer hated each other, there were no longer the political / tribal distinctions made - no -ites of any kind - around the 100th year through the 110th year. I cannot imagine that genealogy ceased to be a cultural factor, however. I agree it is possible that Mormon did not intend that his description of these cultural features were intended to pertain solely to these years, and not earlier. But, that is where they occur in the text.

As to intermarriage between the children of Nephi and the seed of his brethren, the text is silent.

The divisions that began again sometime between 110 and 194 AD were most likely, in my estimation, along the old tribal / ethnic lines.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Log

[Bernard Gui]

Which makes me wonder, since the curse was removed from the Anti-Nephi-Lehis, why do we depict

Helaman's 2000 soldiers as dark-skinned Lamanites?

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

The people who became "fair and delightsome" were the descendants of Nephi sometime around the 59th year - the text does not include the descriptor "white". The text says nothing about the seed of his brethren becoming white in this post-resurrection time. Mormon seems to have stuck pretty much to the history of the children of Nephi, and left the history of the seed of his brethren out of it.

The curse was removed from the righteous Lamanites during the Gadianton wars. They indeed became white and were called Nephites. They survived the cataclysm. All the survivors were called the people of Nephi.

The text also doesn't say the people united under the name Nephites; since the Nephites and the Lamanites no longer hated each other, there were no longer the political / tribal distinctions made - no -ites of any kind - around the 100th year through the 110th year. I cannot imagine that genealogy ceased to be a cultural factor, however. I agree it is possible that Mormon did not intend that his description of these cultural features were intended to pertain solely to these years, and not earlier. But, that is where they occur in the text.

During the Gadianton wars, the Lamanites who joined the Nephites were called Nephites. In 4 Nephi all the people are called the people of Nephi.

As to intermarriage between the children of Nephi and the seed of his brethren, the text is silent.

They were one people and they were married and given in marriage. Perhaps this is a clue why Mormon insisted he was a pure descendant of Lehi and Nephi.

The divisions that began again sometime between 110 and 194 AD were most likely, in my estimation, along the old tribal / ethnic lines.

I guess we'll have to disagree on that one. I think it's quite clear the division was first religious and then political.

Bernard

Edited June 18, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Monster]

It was clearly taught and assumed by early leaders that skin color was the issue. That dark skin was bad and lights skin was good. It is only now that it offends the sensibilities that we try and alter our understanding of what the actual meaning of the curse was. Just like the blacks it was taught for years they were inferior and skin color was the identifier. But now we try to take the position we never really believed that because it is not acceptable in the society we find our selves in.

My point is beliefs like this just adapt to the times. Some will always find a way to interpret any scripture to fit their modern sensibilities. Just like our ancestors interpreted it to fit their beliefs at the time. If you took these modern notions back 100 years and tried to present them you would be ridiculed. Imagine in another 200 years how different interpretations of everything held as sacred will be.

[Log]

The curse was removed from the righteous Lamanites during the Gadianton wars. They indeed became white and were called Nephites. They survived the cataclysm. All the survivors were called the people of Nephi.

3 Nephi 2:15 is the one time in the entirety of the Book of Mormon in which the skins of any Lamanites were made white, but it was not the only time the curse of God, or the state of being cut off from the presence of the Lord, was removed from some of them, which has nothing to do with 4 Nephi and the rest of the Lamanites who were not referenced in 3 Nephi 2:15. 4 Nephi does not say that all the survivors of the destructions of the wicked were called the people of Nephi, which is why you are unable to cite a scriptural reference which shows otherwise.

During the Gadianton wars, the Lamanites who joined the Nephites were called Nephites. In 4 Nephi all the people are called the people of Nephi.

If you could show that verse in 4 Nephi, then I would agree with you. Having read it myself last night pretty closely in writing the response you are apparently rejecting without apparent justification, I missed it entirely.

They were one people and they were married and given in marriage. Perhaps this is a clue why Mormon insisted he was a pure descendant of Lehi and Nephi.

Once again, 4 Nephi says no such thing: it is silent on the issue of intermarriage, and it specifies "they were in one, the children of Christ," ie, religiously. 4 Nephi is a rather short book.

I guess we'll have to disagree on that one. I think it's quite clear the division was first religious and then political.

There is nothing in 4 Nephi which precludes descendants of Laman and Lemuel and Ishmael from being those who rebelled from the Church, and I think that's what happened. But you're free to disagree.

Which makes me wonder, since the curse was removed from the Anti-Nephi-Lehis, why do we depict

Helaman's 2000 soldiers as dark-skinned Lamanites?

Perhaps because the text doesn't say their skins were made white. 3 Ne 2:15 is the sole instance in the book of skins being made white.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Log

[BlueDreams]

So their skin became white does not mean their skin became white.

I say my skin becomes white during the winter from time to time. It does not mean I start looking like an irish gal. It was relative to my own indicators of light and dark and based on my perceptions. Though I'm sure there were some physical distinctions between Lamanites and Nephites at the beginning, Those distinctions were probably heavily eroding for centuries. Dissaffected Nephites had been joining the lamanites for a while and converted Lamanites had been joining the Nephites for a century or 2 as well. How they talk about the two groups in the war chapters gives credence that physical indicators were not good markers for group affiliation. So when I read this, it's seems more likely to be tied with perception and mindset rather than actual coloring.

I think that having white skin is a curse. If I go out in the sun without smothering myself with sunscreen, I get fried.

Hey having more melanin is no garantee of freedom from sunburn. Up untill this last summer it was for me. I could go hours in the sun without fear of burning. And when I did (6 hrs later), it never hurt. For some reason my skin has changed. I now burn in about 40 min and I don't tan as dramatically as I used to. You have no idea how jipped I felt when I realized this.

With luv,

BD

[AddamS]

So Spencer Kimball noticed that Native American children who went from living on reservations to spending less time in the sun weren't as dark skinned as those that spent all of their days outdoors?

Call Encyclopedia Brown, we got a mystery here...

[bcuzbcuz]

Did Joseph Smith have any contact with any indigenous people prior to his writing the Book of Mormon? Did he have any contact with them after he wrote the Book of Mormon?

Photographs did not exist at the time he wrote the BofM so any pictures portraying native peoples would be hand drawn. Edward S. Curtis' world famous collection "The North American Indian" (of which I have a copy) of photogravures from the US and Alaska came out in 1907. To those unacquainted with actual native peoples, the hand drawn pictures and even the black and white photogravures could give a depiction that would imply native people are "black".

But the only time I ever heard, from my more than 15 years of working and living amongst a variety of tribes and bands in British Columbia, any native person ever call another native person 'black' was when it was used as an insult and denigration (this very word gives a clear indication of its base).

Native peoples are not black (nor red). There are distinctive features but it has nothing to do with how close to God one lives.

[ANACO]

Did the Maya have white skin before the Lehites and Mulekites allegedly arrived in Mesoamerica?

[DBMormon]

what about this proof?

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&biw=1024&bih=655&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnso&tbnid=rN2ECOXeGMvUwM:&imgrefurl=http://latterdaymainstreet.com/2010/12/18/racist-mormon-action-figures-here/&docid=7T3iy6uQf4ja7M&imgurl=http://latterdaymainstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Laman-Lemuel.jpg&w=536&h=650&ei=R7fhT72RJYeq2gX175zuCw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=780&vpy=69&dur=2757&hovh=247&hovw=204&tx=126&ty=164&sig=110013021727108422265&page=2&tbnh=146&tbnw=119&start=15&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:15,i:140

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&biw=1024&bih=655&tbm=isch&tbnid=neka9jqfMZaNFM:&imgrefurl=http://taleof2nations.blogspot.com/2008/08/history-of-cross_08.html&docid=KZ_b9Oc7XZZJxM&imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RCLB5VzpoR0/TPR29yrJegI/AAAAAAAAAkM/lMSqSH1C9ps/S730/mayan-pottery-chama-valley.jpg&w=730&h=371&ei=iLfhT56KJsbI2wXjr4HyCw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=331&sig=110013021727108422265&page=1&tbnh=96&tbnw=189&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:73&tx=152&ty=37

????? how about that??????

[BlueDreams]

Reelmormon,

The action figures convinced me. They're so life like.

[DBMormon]

BlueDreams - I knew all you needed was evidence. Well now you have it. I can also prove He-Man had the sword of laban as well

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=he-man&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1024&bih=596&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=rT3bzlqQHDoxWM:&imgrefurl=http://www.cedmagic.com/featured/he-man/he-man-power.html&docid=WMwD7Z9oPMz5hM&imgurl=http://www.cedmagic.com/featured/he-man/he-man.jpg&w=400&h=306&ei=f-rhT_bXMsuF0QH7kYDsAw&zoom=1

So see all we need is a little openmindeness!!!!

I thought we could all use a giggle.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I was listening to a Nibley lecture last night (Teachings of the Book of Mormon, Semester 1, Lecture 18, 2 Nephi 3–8, circa 1988), and he had an interesting little tidbit:

Now this cursing. There's a great deal said about this race business in the Book of Mormon. It's very clear what it is -- it's a cultural thing. It tells us here in verse 21, "Wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome." That doesn't mean they had complexions of milk, that they were pale white and ghostly. That's not healthy anyway. Nor does it mean that the others were coal black.

Black is much too strong a word to use here, if you are using it literally. But, as I've said before, it applies just as much in shāḥōr and lābān as it does in Hebrew and Aramaic, and also in Arabic. Anything that's abyaḍ is good, delightful, pleasant; and everything that's aswad isn't. In the paintings, whether it's Greek vase paintings or wall paintings in Egypt, the people who live in the bayt al-shaîr, "the houses of hair, out in the desert are always painted with dark complexions. The people who live in the bayt al-hajar, "the houses of stone," are always depicted with light complexions. The women never went out; they would paint their faces with white lead, as a matter of fact. It's a cultural thing. [...]

One was "exceedingly fair and delightsome," and the other was a skin of blackness. As I said, shāḥōr is a skin of blackness, which means dark. A good source for that would be Morris Jastrow's Aramaic Dictionary. For the word black, it gives dark, unpleasant -- everything sort of uncomplimentary. We don't need to linger on that. Here it is [in verse 23]; it says it's a cultural affair. If you mixed your seed with them, you got the same cursing. If you intermarry with them, you are sharing their culture, and you become just like them.

In other words, it is not a racial thing because you can get it yourself. "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." [...] Not that they don't have their virtues, and the Lamanites certainly did. But racial change isn't necessary for this at all. After all, they are members of the same family; we know that.

Again, it is quite clearly an idiomatic expression which is used not only in the Book of Mormon, but multiple times in the Bible as well, for instance at Job 30:26, which says:

When I looked for good, then evil came unto me: and when I waited for light, there came darkness. My bowels boiled, and rested not: the days of affliction prevented me. I went mourning without the sun: I stood up, and I cried in the congregation. I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls. My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.

"Goodness," in this verse, is equated with "light"; "evil" is equated with "darkness." This is not some modern PC apologetic stance, this is correctly situating ancient texts in their unique cultural (and temporal) context. Since the Book of Mormon was published in America only three decades prior to the Civil War -- which was fought largely over slavery -- of course the first readers would interpret the verses in an anachronistic way, but if we're granting that the Book of Mormon is truly an ancient text, then the possibility -- no, the probability -- of modern interpretive lenses introducing anachronistic readings must be raised.

("I feel blue today" does not mean I have literally turned blue. "I gave the project the green light" does not mean I literally took down a traffic light and handed over the green light to a project. To "catch someone red-handed" does not mean that someone's hands literally turn red when committing a crime. "That new intern is still way too green to be given this responsibility" does not mean you've hired a martian. "She was green with envy" does not mean that someone literally turned green. A "white lie" is not literally white.)

The same as in Joel 2:6: "Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness." The same as in Jeremiah 8:21: "For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me."

Psalms 78:2 says "I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old." A "saying" cannot literally be "dark" -- "darkness" is, as usual, used metaphorically. It's the same world-conception as, for instance, Doctrine & Covenants 93, where "light" is a metaphor for truth and goodness:

The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth. Light and truth forsake that evil one. [...] And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers. But I have commanded you to bring up your children in light and truth.

The text of the Book of Mormon simply does not make sense unless dark and light are read metaphorically. For one thing, there are variations in skin tone that make it nonsensical to say that these women both have a "skin of blackness"; as these pictures show, black skin and tanned skin are both, frankly, gorgeous, but my mesoamerican ancestors are not black; they have their own beautiful skin tones.

Edited June 20, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Log]

"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, when you get something like that anywhere else in ANE useage, give me a call. No amount of pictures is going to overcome your burden of proof. That *some* authors used colors metaphorically *at some times* is an exceedingly poor argument that any particular mention of color is to be interpreted metaphorically - especially when there is no content behind the metaphor given. Whatever content you choose to insert has to account for the anti-enticing factor. Good luck!