Lamanite And Nephite Skin Color

[Kemara]

Good paper. I admit I feel just the teensiest bit of smug validation that I came to the same conclusion quite independently.

Jeremy, I don’t want to burst any bubbles (well deserved though they are) but you were not the only one who arrived at this conclusion quite independently. My Father, in the early 1980’s, was the first person I knew of to ever point out the dark skin / light skin metaphor. According to him the Maori had a similar, though not frequently used, metaphor, calling other tribes with whom there was some sought of enmity black, even if they were exactly the same colour. The east coast tribes would sometimes talk about the enmity that existed with northern tribes as being because the northern tribes were black. This use of metaphor went a step further in later years where in some instances the northern tribes were referred to as Africans to symbolize just how much more black their enemies were in comparison to themselves. Very ironic to use this metaphor if you ask me as there were some very dark skinned Maori back in the day.

This may possibly (I really have no idea if I am right or even in the ball park) be one of the reasons (the other being that most Maori identified with Nephi rather than Laman) why the Moari were never concerned about the Book of Mormon's use of this type of metaphor.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Hah, don't worry, I wasn't under the delusion I was the only one who'd thunk that up. Great story.

[volgadon]

The typical Ukrainian is black.

Please tell me if you thought I was claiming that Ukrainians are black as in Sub-Saharan Africa black. I'm sure that was probably the initial reaction of many. Goes right to constructs of colour, as in Slavic languages, by calling someone black, you mean they have black or dark hair, and often a tan, too.

[Law22]

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

Hey I was being . . . charitable.

[Kemara]

Hey I was being . . . charitable.

So was I.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Kemara

[Bernard Gui]

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

Well, if you can't define race or racism, how do you know what they are?

The Lamanites and Nephites were of the same family. They were not

different races. At times, their favorable standing with God was reversed. At one time, the

divisions between them were erased. At the end of the Book, they were completely mixed together.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

Hey I was being . . . charitable.

So no clarification on how Joseph Smith didn't actually edit "white" to "pure" back in 1840?

[David T]

My currently preferred reading is that in the text, it refers to both - but that King Nephi was mistaken when it came to believing that something literally and physically changes Lamanite skin tone.

Notice that Nephi makes the assertion that the 'skin of blackness' came upon the Lamanites after he had already left their city. Therefore, he was not an eyewitness.

There is nobody who claims to see a physical change - Laman and Lemuel or others of the first generation never appear to show up on the scene again. No specific before-after contrast could be made.

What Nephi specifically learned from the Lord was that those he should avoid would be made loathsome to his people - perhaps when a raiding tribe of darker-skin natives (that were loathsome to him ) came to attack, Nephi assumed this was what was described to him by the Lord. He jumped to a conclusion... one that sort of stuck by means of tradition, but the righteous-unrighteous usage still became the dominant usage, even while the tradition of an original physical change was still clinging in the back of their minds.One that made a lot less sense, because of their eventual interbreeding.

Everyone would have looked pretty similar after a couple generations.

Edited October 22, 2012 by David T

[Rivers]

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.

Likewise if you look at it from the point of view that it is 19th century literature, it is very easy to see racism.

[volgadon]

Likewise if you look at it from the point of view that it is 19th century literature, it is very easy to see racism.

Of course, just as one can see in Meir Shalev's memoirs of how his cleaning-obsessed, Zionist grandmother in the Jezreel Valley of the 1930s was given a brand new vacuum cleaner an allegory of ethnic cleansing, even though nothing could have been further from the author's mind.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

African American slaves didn't have black skin, either.

[Law22]

So was I.

See how well we can get along?

[Kemara]

See how well we can get along?

Indeed my friend, indeed.

[Calm]

Law 22, thank you for your help in improving the FAIR wiki

[Cobalt-70]

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.

I'm a little disturbed by this for quite a different reason. It reminds me of the old 20th century Westerns where to get Indian actors, they just got white guys and painted them brown. Sorry, but Native Americans are not just bronzed white guys.

[Calm]

I know a company who did BoM stories using kids and volunteer actors for the bit parts, not a big enough concern to be able pay or attract enough native Americans to cover their needs so i can understand the thinking of using makeup to come up with the needed types. Having said that I think it would be better to distinguish between Lamanites and Nephites using clothing style rather than skin colour or facial features, probably more accurate anyway (which is how this company chose to approach it).

Edited October 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[why me]

African American slaves didn't have black skin, either.

And they have been referred to as having black skin by the whites at that time. If Joseph wrote this book, he would not have referred to lamanites as black since this would have caused confusion with whom this book was about. The white americans knew the difference between skin color. If anything the lamanites would have been referred as red skin or at least a brownish red color.

[why me]

I'm a little disturbed by this for quite a different reason. It reminds me of the old 20th century Westerns where to get Indian actors, they just got white guys and painted them brown. Sorry, but Native Americans are not just bronzed white guys.

See the bright side. He said spiritual darkness and not skin color. Now ain't that wonderful?

[MormonMason]

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.

It is not so much an impossibility. We have identified the genes responsible for melanin production. A few carefully placed mRNAs potentially can change skin colors within weeks. Sometimes this happens spontaneously, with or without righteousness.

Michael Jackson is an example of this kind of change that can occur. His genes stopped directing melanin production due to a disorder and he ended up having a very light skin in patches, which he ended up blending and hiding with makeup. I see no problem with the idea that people could and did change skin color. There is no problem from a scientific standpoint. Genes can be switched on and off with the right mRNAs.

But, there is also the standpoint of genetics. Intermarrying with those of lighter skin will produce offspring who are lighter over a couple of more generations. This standpoint is hinted at in the 1831 marriage revelation, where intermarrying of whites to daughters of the Lamanites was suggested.

I also know of another anomaly that can occur when it comes to skin color and race. There was a couple that were married and had fraternal twins. One twin appeared to be black and the other had much lighter skin. At first, people thought it was "mailman syndrome." However, genetic testing revealed that the father was father to both the children.

How did this situation obtain? Both the man and woman had African ancestry, if I recall correctly. In a fluke of genetics, the melanin and other genes were combined just right for one of the twins to have active genes that produced the appearance of the African phenotype and the other twin lacked the active genes.

Edited October 22, 2012 by MormonMason

[Cobalt-70]

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

That's not exactly true. In 1841, a writer commented on old legends about the existence of "white and black Indians." (A legend Joseph Smith evidently was familiar with, hence the Book of Mormon.) The skin of darker Native Americans was occasionally called "black." But Smith's choice of the word "black" probably had most to do with parallels with the curse of Canaan, and the fact that the color black is a symbol of evil fitting for the skin of the supposedly evil "Lamanites."

[why me]

That's not exactly true. In 1841, a writer commented on old legends about the existence of "white and black Indians." (A legend Joseph Smith evidently was familiar with, hence the Book of Mormon.) The skin of darker Native Americans was occasionally called "black." But Smith's choice of the word "black" probably had most to do with parallels with the curse of Canaan, and the fact that the color black is a symbol of evil fitting for the skin of the supposedly evil "Lamanites."

In the text, the writer makes a claim that no black indians have been found and then calls the american indian red skinned. I would think that if Joseph wrote the book he would have used red skinned and not black to correlate with the fact that no black indians have been discovered. Notice the footnote for black in the text when you click the word 'occasionally'.

Nice try though. Also, please tell us how joseph wrote the book of mormon...please give time and place and how he bought all the paper needed and feathered pens also without being noticed. And what happened to the rough drafts. Thanks.

Edited October 22, 2012 by why me

[Cobalt-70]

In the text, the writer makes a claim that no black indians have been found and then calls the american indian red skinned. I would think that if Joseph wrote the book he would have used red skinned and not black to correlate with the fact that no black indians have been discovered. Notice the footnote for black in the text when you click the word 'occasionally'.

That was my point, that in the early 19th century, people didn't really quite know what the range of skin tones were among Native Americans. Books like the one I cited had to debunk old legends that there were "black and white Indians," and they had to positively educate their viewers on the nature of Native American skin tones. Most people in New England like Joseph Smith probably never saw a Native American unless they traveled to an Indian reservation or to the Western frontier (which Smith did not do until 1831). They didn't have photographs. There were a few paintings that showed skin tones, but these were mostly in galleries in major cities, or in private collections. People would have understood, at least, that the Native Americans were "dark skinned." And any stereotypical "savage" is likely to be envisioned with very dark skin. In any event, to an average early 19th century white New Englander like Joseph Smith, I don't think there was much appreciation for the fine variations of skin tone among the non-white.

Furthermore, if the Book of Mormon doesn't have anything to say about skin color, then what about Alma 3:6: "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion..."? This says exactly the same thing as other passages that use the word "black." Are we to interpret "the skins of the Lamanites were dark" as figurative also, when this comes in the middle of a passage about how they wear loincloths, shear their heads, and go around almost naked, and that this "mark" was given "that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren"? How more clear could it be that this is a physical description of their skin tone?

Nice try though. Also, please tell us how joseph wrote the book of mormon...please give time and place and how he bought all the paper needed and feathered pens also without being noticed. And what happened to the rough drafts. Thanks.

I think you are just being flippant here. Smith certainly dictated the Book of Mormon. The question is whether the text he saw written upon his magic seer stone came more from a imaginative (though earnest and in my view God-inspired) mind, or from a set of metal plates that he never actually looked at while translating, written in an unknown language that he never learned.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[why me]

That was my point, that in the early 19th century, people didn't really quite know what the range of skin tones were among Native Americans. Books like the one I cited had to debunk old legends that there were "black and white Indians," and they had to positively educate their viewers on the nature of Native American skin tones. Most people in New England like Joseph Smith probably never saw a Native American unless they traveled to an Indian reservation or to the Western frontier (which Smith did not do until 1831). They didn't have photographs. There were a few paintings that showed skin tones, but these were mostly in galleries in major cities, or in private collections. People would have understood, at least, that the Native Americans were "dark skinned." And any stereotypical "savage" is likely to be envisioned with very dark skin. In any event, to an average early 19th century white New Englander like Joseph Smith, I don't think there was much appreciation for the fine variations of skin tone among the non-white.

I think that you are projecting in this post. Americans would have understood that the indians had darker skin than whties but then again so did the slaves. I don't think that many whites would consider the indian black. But they would have considered the slave black. The indians would have been considered red. I also believe that new englanders would have known the difference between the color of the slave and indian. They weren't so uniformed. We also need to remember that the indian was around in the late 1700's in New England.

The point about the book of mormon is that the lamanites do not resemble the american indian at all. It seems to be a different culture from the book of mormon. I see no similiarities.

[Law22]

Law 22, thank you for your help in improving the FAIR wiki

You're welcome. . . How did I do that?

[Calm]

I thought the part you quoted was inaccurate, put it to my fellow FAIRites who agreed and one edited it to be more accurate.

Edited October 23, 2012 by calmoriah