Lamanite And Nephite Skin Color

[why me]

http://www.blacklds.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/How-to-reach-African-Americans.pdf

It seems that this link brings a new explanation for lamanite and nephite skin color when it comes to curses and color meanings. I would be interested in what you think.

The information is contained on pages 9 to 21. A skim of the pages would do the trick.

[changed]

I agree that "light/brightness" - like the light of Christ, or the light of the sun represents seeing things clearly in the daytime, and darkness / clouded vision / night is symbolic of not seeing clearly, a gloomy disposition.

I also think that "skin" might be in reference to garments - that when we are righteous our garments are a protection and a light unto us, but when we are not righteous, we lose that protection.

Jasher 7:24And the garments of skin which God made for Adam and his wife, when they went out of the garden, were given to Cush.

at least, often clothing was made out of animal skins, so places where God curses someone's skin - could be talking about their garments.

Edited October 18, 2012 by changed

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Good paper. I admit I feel just the teensiest bit of smug validation that I came to the same conclusion quite independently. The references are clearly idiomatic expressions; the books simply wouldn't make sense if they were referring to literal skin color.

[media=]

Some obligatory linkage:

Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood by his son for BYU Studies

What Does the Book of Mormon Mean by “Skin of Blackness”? by Brant Gardner

Edited October 18, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[why me]

i think that the piece I linked to makes a great read and gives a new understanding of skin color and curse. Plus, it seems to mesh with the bible understanding also. And it does make sense that it was not about skin at all.

[volgadon]

i think that the piece I linked to makes a great read and gives a new understanding of skin color and curse. Plus, it seems to mesh with the bible understanding also. And it does make sense that it was not about skin at all.

I'm not too sure about that. To me it seems that it was about skin colour, or, rather, about the causation. People were not ignorant of the sun's effect on skin, but could see one group's skin colour as caused by natural effects, whereas another's was the result of sin. Goes to a group's perception of what caused things to be so.

[USU78]

In the Song of Songs, was she sunburned or cursed that the other women made fun of her for being black?

[volgadon]

In the Song of Songs, was she sunburned or cursed that the other women made fun of her for being black?

She was very quick to defend herself from any accusations.

[why me]

I'm not too sure about that. To me it seems that it was about skin colour, or, rather, about the causation. People were not ignorant of the sun's effect on skin, but could see one group's skin colour as caused by natural effects, whereas another's was the result of sin. Goes to a group's perception of what caused things to be so.

However, the problem that we have is that when lamanites became righteous they were instantly turned to white. This would seem like an impossiblity. White had to mean something different than skin color. If i were brown and I lost my skin color to white because I was now righteous, I would be very angry.

[Cobalt-70]

I think this is a case that many faithful Mormons want so badly for these passages in the Book of Mormon not to be racist that they are willing to adopt an extremely unnatural reading of the text. If 99% of the people reading the Book of Mormon for the first time understand these passages to be racially-oriented, then what are we doing? Coming up with these clever misreadings of the text doesn't help our proselytizing efforts, because we don't come across as credible. The moment we lose our credibility, nobody is going to listen to whatever else we have to say.

Let's just fess up. The Book of Mormon is racist. But so what? Lots of 19th century books were racist. Or, if you think that the book is actually an ancient history of the Indians, that just means it's that much older and therefore that much more likely to be racist. The bible is pretty racist too, and not to mention sexist and homophobic. Lets just either (1) admit that the Book of Mormon is racist, and disavow that racism, or (2) change the Book of Mormon and get rid of the racist parts.

[Ahab]

I think this is a case that many faithful Mormons want so badly for these passages in the Book of Mormon not to be racist that they are willing to adopt an extremely unnatural reading of the text. If 99% of the people reading the Book of Mormon for the first time understand these passages to be racially-oriented, then what are we doing? Coming up with these clever misreadings of the text doesn't help our proselytizing efforts, because we don't come across as credible. The moment we lose our credibility, nobody is going to listen to whatever else we have to say.

Let's just fess up. The Book of Mormon is racist. But so what? Lots of 19th century books were racist. Or, if you think that the book is actually an ancient history of the Indians, that just means it's that much older and therefore that much more likely to be racist. The bible is pretty racist too, and not to mention sexist and homophobic. Lets just either (1) admit that the Book of Mormon is racist, and disavow that racism, or (2) change the Book of Mormon and get rid of the racist parts.

Okay, it's a book about races, if you think of different cultures as different races. Now what? Disavow the races or the mention of different races? Why would I want to do that?

So now what? oh, sexist and homophobic. Well, sexist, yeah, if you think any mention of a person's sex makes something sexist.

Homophobic, though? No, neither the Bible or the Book of Mormon says anything about any kind of fear of homosexuals, which we all are, by the way.

So now what? What's on your agenda?

[volgadon]

However, the problem that we have is that when lamanites became righteous they were instantly turned to white. This would seem like an impossiblity. White had to mean something different than skin color. If i were brown and I lost my skin color to white because I was now righteous, I would be very angry.

If the curse is considered lifted, then dark skin colouring won't serve as an indicator of a lack of purity and righteousness.

[volgadon]

I think this is a case that many faithful Mormons want so badly for these passages in the Book of Mormon not to be racist that they are willing to adopt an extremely unnatural reading of the text. If 99% of the people reading the Book of Mormon for the first time understand these passages to be racially-oriented, then what are we doing?

Correcting a widespread misreading.

[volgadon]

Also, as Nabokov once observed, the more widely read a book is, the less likely it is to be properly understood by the public at large.

[why me]

If the curse is considered lifted, then dark skin colouring won't serve as an indicator of a lack of purity and righteousness.

But according to the book of mormon, suddenly skins were turned white because of their righteousness. This is why I have a hard time believing that it was all about skin color. The color white and black in the book of mormon would need to refer to something else beside skin.

[Spammer]

Alternatively, the BoM really is a 19th Century work of fiction and it's author intended 'black skin' to refer to pigment and epidermis - in keeping with racist theories dominant at the time.

[why me]

Alternatively, the BoM really is a 19th Century work of fiction and it's author intended 'black skin' to refer to pigment and epidermis - in keeping with racist theories dominant at the time.

Except that black skin would refer to a certain group of people: the slaves. The lamanites did not have black skin. And how to explain a sudden turn of skin color when the lamanites became righteous? It is an impossiblity unless the color white does not refer to skin color but to purity and righteousness.

[Law22]

Except that black skin would refer to a certain group of people: the slaves. The lamanites did not have black skin. And how to explain a sudden turn of skin color when the lamanites became righteous? It is an impossiblity unless the color white does not refer to skin color but to purity and righteousness.

Why do you think this is an impossibility?

[Sevenbak]

Personally, I find modern attempts that try to make the scriptures politically correct by todays standards, unsavory. Let it be what it has always been taught. New interpretations don't get very far with me, especially in light of historical references.

It looks like I'm mostly alone in this view here, but it's my view, for better or worse.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Sevenbak

[Bernard Gui]

Alternatively, the BoM really is a 19th Century work of fiction and it's author intended 'black skin' to refer to pigment and epidermis - in keeping with racist theories dominant at the time.

In the 19th Century, American writers did not describe Native Americans as black skinned.

[Bernard Gui]

I think this is a case that many faithful Mormons want so badly for these passages in the Book of Mormon not to be racist that they are willing to adopt an extremely unnatural reading of the text. If 99% of the people reading the Book of Mormon for the first time understand these passages to be racially-oriented, then what are we doing? Coming up with these clever misreadings of the text doesn't help our proselytizing efforts, because we don't come across as credible. The moment we lose our credibility, nobody is going to listen to whatever else we have to say.

Let's just fess up. The Book of Mormon is racist. But so what? Lots of 19th century books were racist. Or, if you think that the book is actually an ancient history of the Indians, that just means it's that much older and therefore that much more likely to be racist. The bible is pretty racist too, and not to mention sexist and homophobic. Lets just either (1) admit that the Book of Mormon is racist, and disavow that racism, or (2) change the Book of Mormon and get rid of the racist parts.

Lamanites and Nephites were not of different races. There is nothing racist in the Book of Mormon.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Law22]

Lamanites and Nephites were not of different races. There is nothing racist in the Book of Mormon.

Seriously? I know you're baiting, but I'll ask anyway. How do you interpret the "white and delightsome" stuff?

[why me]

Seriously? I know you're baiting, but I'll ask anyway. How do you interpret the "white and delightsome" stuff?

White can also be interpreted as 'pure' depending on its context. For example, the virgin mary was referred to as 'white' which can be interpreted as 'pure'.

[Sevenbak]

Again, I think this whole notion of redefining according to modern sensibilities is way too politically correct.

The correlated manuals of the Church have as good an explanation as I've seen. This is from the Institute BoM manual. It quotes Joseph Fielding Smith, from his "Answers to Gospel Questions."

What was the mark or sign set upon the Lamanites?

It is also explained in verse 21 that so “they might not be enticing unto my people [the Nephites] the Lord did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them [the Lamanites].” It would appear that this was done to limit the spreading of more wickedness. Later Alma suggested this same motive when he explained that “the skins of the Lamanites were dark … that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions” (Alma 3:6, 8). Throughout scripture we find warnings of the Lord not to marry unbelievers (see Deuteronomy 7:2–3; 2 Corinthians 6:14); the result of doing so was often that the righteous were turned away from the Lord (see Deuteronomy 7:4;1 Kings 11:4; D&C 74:5).

Some people have mistakenly thought that the dark skin placed upon the Lamanites was the curse. President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) explained that the dark skin was not the curse:

“The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse [not the curse itself]. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord. …

“The dark skin of those who have come into the Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse. … These converts are delightsome and have the Spirit of the Lord” (Answers to Gospel Questions, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., 5 vols. [1957–66], 3:122–23).

http://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-8-2-nephi-4-8?lang=eng

[Vookman]

My wife had the opportunity to work with all of the presiding brethren for many years, including Presidents Hinckley and Monson. She had been contacted by a production company which was planning to do a cheap film about the Book of Mormon. They asked her to change the skin color of the white actors playing Lamanites to a dark color (my wife does hair and make-up for movies). She was going to be working with President Hinckley the following week, so she suggested they get his opinion about the "change" of skin color.

While preparing him for the event, she asked him if it was OK to ask him a question. He said yes, and so she said "Do believe the Lamanites skin color was changed, or did the skin of darkness refer to some kind of spiritual darkness?" President Hinckley replied "We don't know, we weren't alive back then." He then went on to say that it was his belief that it was a spiritual darkness and not a literal change of skin color. Since I got this second hand from my wife the day she spoke with him, I think this is a fairly accurate report.

[bTW, hair and make-up work is really essential now that the Church uses high definition cameras and the stark lighting in the conference center. It is not a vanity issue, it is a technical issue. It is pretty easy to see how important it is when you see how shiny and washed out the brethren look in GC now that they have stopped using trained professionals. Bad makeup distracts from the messages being given by subconsciously drawing the focus of viewers away from the visual points of focus, the eyes and mouth of the speakers. It can also make speakers look ill when the make-up is bad. Just a little info so as not to imply there is some vanity happening when they use my wife or other professional make-up folks.]

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Some have claimed it's an "unnatural" but "clever misreading" of the text; some have asserted that it's merely an attempt to "make the scriptures politically correct" by "redefining according to modern sensibilities." Critics snicker knowingly at the "Mopologists" while refusing to give any apologia for their own position, which is simply assumed to be the obvious, "plain" reading, no defense or interpretation required.

I guess I'm part of the 1%, because I've simply never read the infamous verses that way. Before I converted, I heard from every corner that the Book of Mormon was a horrible racist book, so as I read it the first time, I kept waiting for that to show up. I got to the infamous passages, and while I could see how they could be interpreted differently, it seemed immediately apparent that it was the anachronistic 19th century American focus on racial issues which had wrenched the verses out of the ancient context. Even if the book is fiction, it's obviously influenced by Biblical language.

I have no problem admitting -- no, actively pointing out -- any places where the authors of the Bible and the Book of Mormon are racist and sexist and homophobic and immoral, and in fact I'm on record as having done so numerous times on this board. I'm a history major; I'm well aware that the human record is full of extremely nasty stuff. If the Book of Mormon idiom was speaking in racial terms rather than about metaphorical righteousness/unrighteousness, I'd have absolutely no problem "admitting" it, while simply pointing to the "errors of men" caveat. But that's simply not the case in this particular instance.

If one has read the Bible thoroughly, the Book of Mormon idiom is entirely unsurprising. It's like Joseph Smith's "Nauvoo" theology; it's only surprising if one has never read the Bible closely. Pretty much everything Joseph taught is Biblical; whether he was legitimately inspired or not, what he did was synthesize Biblical teachings in a brilliant way that clarified and sharpened the message.

So, since apparently people don't actually click on links, here are some Biblical verses:

Joel 2:6: "Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness."

Jeremiah 8:21: "For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me."

Lamentations 4:8 "Their visage is blacker than a coal."

Genesis 3:21 "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them."

Numbers 31:20 "And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats’ hair, and all things made of wood."

Job 16:15 "I have sewed sackcloth upon my skin, and defiled my horn in the dust."

Ezekiel 16:10 "I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers’ skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk."

Revelation 22:11: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still."

Psalms 14:3 "They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: [in that] there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

Zechariah 3:3 "Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment."

Psalms 78:2: "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 entire symbolic complex is talking about "filthy" or "clean" "garments" or "skins" of "Light" and "Darkness".

On the other hand, we also find in the Book of Mormon such powerfully egalitarian principles as:

2 Nephi 26:33 "For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."

Black and White are states of being explicitly distinguished from the black slaves and white people of Joseph's 19th century world (which, incidentally, had no trouble differentiating between Curse-of-Cain "blacks" and Native American "reds"). This verse is saying that God does not deny the "black" [hearted] sinner nor privilege the righteous "white and delightsome" [of heart], regardless of their melanin levels. (And let's not forget that "black-hearted" is just as metaphorical; no one's heart literally turns black just because they're a yellow-bellied meanie.)

My Mesoamerican ancestors were tan; black and white skin and everything in between are all equally beautiful, and contrary to statements from our (explicitly fallible) leaders in more racist eras, no one's skin is going to turn a different color if we just behave. Personally, I'm uncomfortable dividing the world into even conceptual Blacks and Whites since I think we're all kinda muddled and [metaphorically] Grey, but in context, this is simply not referring to pigmentation.

That this is still an issue makes me very blue.

Metaphorically, if that wasn't clear.

Edited October 20, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith