Lamanite And Nephite Skin Color

[Sevenbak]

None of those speak of skin color. The Book of Mormon does, very specifically.

And it also speaks of those that mingle their seed having the same thing happen to future offspring.

That can be seen as offensive to modern culture, but the Lord isn't racist, so there's no reason to view his words as such. His ways are not our ways.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"Face" and "visage" include [metaphorical] skin color. Job 29 says "I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls. My skin is black upon me." If he's not using metaphors, then we have to believe that he is literally genetically related to a mythical creature of another species; there's lots of other crazy stuff in the Bible, so what the heck, maybe that's true too.

The bottom line is, if God really thinks black skin is a curse, He is most definitely a racist God and I'm not particularly interested in worshipping such a being.

[Bernard Gui]

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

First, define race. Then define racism.

[Law22]

First, define race. Then define racism.

No, I don't think I will. This is all just silly.

[Law22]

If the church did not believe the references were to an actual change in skin color, someone please explain the following:

At the October 1960 LDS Church Conference, Spencer Kimball utilized 2 Nephi 30:6 when he stated how the Indians "are fast becoming a white and delightsome people." He said, "The [indian] children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation" (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-3).

During the same message Kimball referred to a 16-year-old Indian girl who was both LDS and "several shades lighter than her parents..." He went on to say, "These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated."

[Tacenda]

If the church did not believe the references were to an actual change in skin color, someone please explain the following:

At the October 1960 LDS Church Conference, Spencer Kimball utilized 2 Nephi 30:6 when he stated how the Indians "are fast becoming a white and delightsome people." He said, "The [indian] children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation" (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-3).

During the same message Kimball referred to a 16-year-old Indian girl who was both LDS and "several shades lighter than her parents..." He went on to say, "These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated."

There were several LDS families I knew growing up that would take in indian children, interesting.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

In a racist era, many members of the Church obviously did believe the references were to an actual change in skin color. We were wrong, due to a misreading of the text, but a misreading does not change the original intent of the actual text. The D&C states that inasmuch as we err, we will eventually be corrected if we're willing to be taught. Comments like President Kimball's were precisely what I was referring to just seven posts back when I noted that "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." We have to look at the entire historical progression of the ideas.

Edited October 21, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[volgadon]

If the church did not believe the references were to an actual change in skin color, someone please explain the following:

At the October 1960 LDS Church Conference, Spencer Kimball utilized 2 Nephi 30:6 when he stated how the Indians "are fast becoming a white and delightsome people." He said, "The [indian] children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation" (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-3).

During the same message Kimball referred to a 16-year-old Indian girl who was both LDS and "several shades lighter than her parents..." He went on to say, "These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated."

No one is disputing that this was the prevalent view in the church a few generations ago.

[volgadon]

In a racist era, many members of the Church obviously did believe the references were to an actual change in skin color. We were wrong, due to a misreading of the text, but a misreading does not change the original intent of the actual text. The D&C states that inasmuch as we err, we will eventually be corrected if we're willing to be taught. Comments like President Kimball's were precisely what I was referring to just seven posts back when I noted that "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." We have to look at the entire historical progression of the ideas.

You said it much better than I.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Ah, but you said it much more succinctly. I declare a tie!

[Law22]

In a racist era, many members of the Church obviously did believe the references were to an actual change in skin color. We were wrong, due to a misreading of the text, but a misreading does not change the original intent of the actual text. The D&C states that inasmuch as we err, we will eventually be corrected if we're willing to be taught. Comments like President Kimball's were precisely what I was referring to just seven posts back when I noted that "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."

I agree that the references were born of a racist era, and the Mormon Church was certainly not alone in this. I also agree that they were all wrong in that racism is wrong. What I don't get is how you know that, in the case of the Mormon Church, it was due to a misreading of the the text? Also, how do you know what the original intent of the text was? Also, do you really believe that a Prophet of the Mormon Church misread the text?

[Law22]

The truly interesting thing about this is the number of decades that the references were believed to be about skin color, and the timing and manner and reasons that that has now changed to a belief that the references were metaphorical.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

What I don't get is how you know that, in the case of the Mormon Church, it was due to a misreading of the the text? Also, how do you know what the original intent of the text was? Also, do you really believe that a Prophet of the Mormon Church misread the text?

Where else would the idea come from, if not a misreading of the texts we've been discussing? I've already attempted at length to show what I believe the original intent of the text was; namely, a complex of interrelated symbols describing various facets of a sort of Manichaean struggle between the Darkness and the Light, as reified through filthy/pure skins/garments. (see the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness) And yes, I "really believe" that "a Prophet of the Mormon Church misread the text." The First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility. The infallibility is not given to men. They are fallible. No President of the Church has claimed infallibility.

Edited October 21, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Law22]

Where else would the idea come from, if not a misreading of the texts we've been discussing? I've already attempted at length to show what I believe the original intent of the text was; namely, a complex of interrelated symbols describing various facets of a sort of Manichaean struggle between the Darkness and the Light, as reified through filthy/pure skins/garments. (see the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness) And yes, I "really believe" that "a Prophet of the Mormon Church misread the text." The First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility. The infallibility is not given to men. They are fallible. No President of the Church has claimed infallibility.

Well, your beliefs notwithstanding, and with all due respect, you could be wrong, couldn't you?

Personally, I believe that nobody misread anything back in the day, and today, as someone has already said here, people are misreading the text in order to divorce themselves - and, for some reason, the church - from the racism.

Lets be honest though. The real problem here is that if indeed it was a reference to a change in actual skin color, it would make God racist, and nobody wants to believe that. Alternatively, it was not God who said these things (via the Prophet). So, if we're now going to reconcile this stuff with contemporary sensibilities concerning skin color and race, and also preserve our faith and belief in the Book of Mormon, it simply must have been a metaphorical reference.

[Kemara]

It is not accurate to say the Mormon Church had any single position on almost anything. The Mormon Church is very diverse in membership and opinion. If what is meant by "the Mormon Church" is "the commonly held view of the membership of the Church", or “the commonly held view of the Church hierarchy" then, when qualified as such, that would be more accurate. For example, matters concerning race and the priesthood had been a hotly debated topic long before the equal rights movement ramped up its efforts against the Church. During the presidency of David O. McKay the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve had diverse views on the matter of race and priesthood. As for the matter of the Book of Mormon and its references to dark skin and loathsomeness, I believe Hugh Nibley published ‘Lehi in Desert’ in 1952 and ‘Since Cumorah’ in 1967. In these books this widely read (by the Mormon Church hierarchy as well) member of the Mormon Church posits that the whole dark skin loathsome narrative is metaphorical. So it is hardly accurate to say that the symbolic/metaphoric position is a new one and is based on current sensibilities.

[volgadon]

I agree that the references were born of a racist era, and the Mormon Church was certainly not alone in this. I also agree that they were all wrong in that racism is wrong. What I don't get is how you know that, in the case of the Mormon Church, it was due to a misreading of the the text? Also, how do you know what the original intent of the text was? Also, do you really believe that a Prophet of the Mormon Church misread the text?

Very simple. If one doesn't believe that the BoM was a creation of Joseph Smith's 19th c mind, one is going to seek to read the book in something approaching an ancient context. If we leave behind American constructs of race and look to the Bible and other ancient sources (also bearing in mind that Freiberg's Viking Nephites are just plain silly), it is easy to see a symbolic use of white/black, as well as a different conception of causation. The Song of Solomon shows that people weren't ignorant of the sun's affect on skin colour, and that even if we acknowledge a physical element to the BoM writings on black/white skins that is not the same as a racial divide.

Texts are very easy to misread or misconstrue, especially when there are time and cultural gaps. Here are some examples off the top of my head.

H. G. Wells, in his War of the Worlds, describes couple out in the park love making. A modern reader applying only his understanding to the text might come away with the impression that Wells was describing copulation in public. He wasn't.

Anton Chekhov's Cherry Orchard was originally a comedy of manners, satirising the backwards and hidebound society it portrays. Deliberate alterations by the theatre company in the premiere's casting have ensured that people ever since have viewed it as a particularly maudlin piece of nostalgia.

Fairport Convention popularised the old ballad Matty Groves. The subject is how the nobleman's wife has an affair while he is gone, and would have gotten away with it were it not for a little page boy who ran off to reveal the secret to his master. A certain folkie (I can't remeber who) quipped that the page was a snitch, a snivelling, snot-nosed brat called Gavin. Certainly works for modern sensibilities, but in the ballad itself, the page is presented entirely positively, risking his life crossing a raging river in order to protect his master's honour.

Many people view Somerset Maugham's Rain as a story about hypocritical missionaries in the South Seas. Such a reading completely misses what the author was saying. The whole point was that Mr. Davidson, who gave one the impression of "suppressed fire," was not sexually immoral. He gave in to temptation (ironically, born of a lack of love towards people) and as a result of immense guilt, slit his own throat with a razor.

As a final example of an epic misreading, the Israeli writer Meir Shalev was approached by a Belgian journalist with a question. Shalev had written a family memoir entitled in English "My Russian Grandmother and Her American Vacuum Cleaner." The reporter, in all seriousness, asked if this book about Shalev's Zionist grandmother with a vacuum cleaner wasn't an allegory of the ethnic cleansing conducted against the Palestinians. Shalev, though taken aback, responded to the journalist by reminding him that it was an American vacuum cleaner, too.

What am I trying to say? Even if I believed that God dictated a perfect, inerrant and infallible text to prophets (not a belief I hold), readers will be readers. Misreadings are to be expected, so searching the text for the intended meaning is an important endeavour.

[Law22]

It is not accurate to say the Mormon Church had any single position on almost anything. The Mormon Church is very diverse in membership and opinion. If what is meant by "the Mormon Church" is "the commonly held view of the membership of the Church", or “the commonly held view of the Church hierarchy" then, when qualified as such, that would be more accurate. For example, matters concerning race and the priesthood had been a hotly debated topic long before the equal rights movement ramped up its efforts against the Church. During the presidency of David O. McKay the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve had diverse views on the matter of race and priesthood. As for the matter of the Book of Mormon and its references to dark skin and loathsomeness, I believe Hugh Nibley published ‘Lehi in Desert’ in 1952 and ‘Since Cumorah’ in 1967. In these books this widely read (by the Mormon Church hierarchy as well) member of the Mormon Church posits that the whole dark skin loathsome narrative is metaphorical. So it is hardly accurate to say that the symbolic/metaphoric position is a new one and is based on current sensibilities.

Thank you for the clarification. Still, maybe instead of "hardly accurate" we could say "not wholly accurate?"

Anyway, still leaves the other issue. Your thoughts on that?

[Storm Rider]

Well, your beliefs notwithstanding, and with all due respect, you could be wrong, couldn't you?

Personally, I believe that nobody misread anything back in the day, and today, as someone has already said here, people are misreading the text in order to divorce themselves - and, for some reason, the church - from the racism.

Lets be honest though. The real problem here is that if indeed it was a reference to a change in actual skin color, it would make God racist, and nobody wants to believe that. Alternatively, it was not God who said these things (via the Prophet). So, if we're now going to reconcile this stuff with contemporary sensibilities concerning skin color and race, and also preserve our faith and belief in the Book of Mormon, it simply must have been a metaphorical reference.

There is not a doubt in my mind that we have had leaders that were racist and supported their views with scriptural texts. There is not a doubt that many other leaders were not racist and used scriptural text to support their views. The Book of Mormon is not racist to me. Joseph's correction of the text in the 1840 edition makes it clear to me that the intention of the verses has to do with purity than skin color. When I read the texts I also comprehend them in that way.

Let's be honest? I agree let's be honest and admit what is so without paiting with such a broad brush stroke. Do we have racists in the Church today? Of course; we also have rapists, murders, liars, adulterers, homosexuals; you name the sin and we have members who do it. We also have members that are full of charity, faith, joy, peace, love, and mercy. Sometimes we find these several of these traits in the same individuals.

We repeatedly demand perfection of leaders and other members when we ourselves plead daily for the Lord to have mercy on us and our families. We want to blame the Church for the actions of individuals. I am not sure if we ever are going to learn.

[Law22]

There is not a doubt in my mind that we have had leaders that were racist and supported their views with scriptural texts. There is not a doubt that many other leaders were not racist and used scriptural text to support their views. The Book of Mormon is not racist to me. Joseph's correction of the text in the 1840 edition makes it clear to me that the intention of the verses has to do with purity than skin color. When I read the texts I also comprehend them in that way.

Let's be honest? I agree let's be honest and admit what is so without paiting with such a broad brush stroke. Do we have racists in the Church today? Of course; we also have rapists, murders, liars, adulterers, homosexuals; you name the sin and we have members who do it. We also have members that are full of charity, faith, joy, peace, love, and mercy. Sometimes we find these several of these traits in the same individuals.

We repeatedly demand perfection of leaders and other members when we ourselves plead daily for the Lord to have mercy on us and our families. We want to blame the Church for the actions of individuals. I am not sure if we ever are going to learn.

I question that Joseph Smith made any such change. From Fairmormon.org: "This change was originally made in the 1840 edition but went unnoticed until the preparation of the 1981 edition." I find this extremely difficult to believe, especially when we look at recorded Mormon history and all of the people and Prophets that very clearly didn't get the memo.

Btw, so there are charitable rapists, joyful liars, faithful adulterers, and merciful murderers among the LDS brethern?

[volgadon]

Personally, I believe that nobody misread anything back in the day, and today, as someone has already said here, people are misreading the text in order to divorce themselves - and, for some reason, the church - from the racism.

Not a very tenable accusation when we are willing to concede that it has been read as racist for many years, even by church leaders.

[Kemara]

Still, maybe instead of "hardly accurate" we could say "not wholly accurate?"

We could also say that "you were wrong and now you are splitting hairs".

[Calm]

I question that Joseph Smith made any such change. From Fairmormon.org: "This change was originally made in the 1840 edition but went unnoticed until the preparation of the 1981 edition." I find this extremely difficult to believe, especially when we look at recorded Mormon history and all of the people and Prophets that very clearly didn't get the memo.

so in your opinion the church is outright lying about this? Are you saying the change is a forgery or that the leaders knew and intentionally wasn't changed?

[Storm Rider]

I question that Joseph Smith made any such change. From Fairmormon.org: "This change was originally made in the 1840 edition but went unnoticed until the preparation of the 1981 edition." I find this extremely difficult to believe, especially when we look at recorded Mormon history and all of the people and Prophets that very clearly didn't get the memo.

Btw, so there are charitable rapists, joyful liars, faithful adulterers, and merciful murderers among the LDS brethern?

I don't know how anyone can question whether JS made the changes, it is historical record. The only tenable position position is why the LDS Church did not adopt the 1840 edition rather than the 1838 edition that was printed in England. I am working from memory, but my recollection is that Brigham perceived they owned the rights to the English edition. He left the 1840 edition and it was adopted by the RLDS faction.

No, it was not unknown to the leaders.

[Calm]

You are right that the RLDS used the 1840 edition: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_Editions_(1830-1981)

[Kemara]

What I don't get is how you know that, in the case of the Mormon Church, it was due to a misreading of the the text?

Academic rigor is how I know. For example see, Gardner, Brant A (2011) Second Witness, Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 2. Brant provides an excellent historical and academic explanation of the use of metaphor as it relates to the dark skin loathsome narrative.

Also, how do you know what the original intent of the text was?

Academic rigor is how I know. For example see, Skousen, Royal (2005) Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Volume 4, Part 2. Royale provides an excellent historical and academic explanation of the textual variants at it relates to the dark skin loathsome narrative. It will also significantly challenge your disbelief that Joseph Smith made changes to the skin narrative in 1840. (I wonder why he made those changes, was it pandering to the sensibilities of the day do you think?)

Also, do you really believe that a Prophet of the Mormon Church misread the text?

I only have the words of various Prophets to go on that relate to this matter. To a man, the answer would be yes.

What I don’t get is how you know that, in the case of the Mormon Church, the changes were made due to racism issues? Please cite your academic references.

Also, how do you know what the original intent of the text was? Please cite your academic references.

Also, please cite references from Prophets of the Mormon Church who support your inferred position that a Prophet couldn’t misread the text. Careful with this one now, keep things in context.

Finally I will refer you to an article written by Brant Gardner where, if you are open to an academic and historical perspective, you will see that your “modern cultural assumption that a skin of blackness must equal black skin” is not necessarily correct. As Brant also says, and anyone who is interested in an academic analysis would likely agree, “The text is the final arbiter of such questions.” It doesn’t matter what anybody says about the skin narrative, if that isn’t what the text says, then it isn’t what the text says. http://www.fairblog....-anyone-notice/

My final question to you: What did you think of the links Jeremy Orbe-Smith provided for you to read? I can’t wait to get you thoughts on the historical use of skin narratives similar to those of the Book of Mormon.