Where Did The Different Races And Ethnicities Come From?

[Sevenbak]

The Book of Omni doesn't say they were all the same.  Just because there is no reference in that short book isn't an indication.  Jarom and Enos don't mention it either.  But Alma does, many generations later.   In fact, he spends considerable time and many verses on the subject of the mark that distinguished the Nephites and Lamanites still.  Alma begins the reference by talking about the Amlicites who placed their own mark on themselves, resulting in the long reference to the Lamanite mark and why it distinguished them from the Nephites.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Sevenbak

[Sevenbak]

I think it was simply a political homogeneity among similarly skin colored people,  

You'll have to show me where they were the same.  I missed that.

[thesometimesaint]

You'll have to show me where they were the same.  I missed that.

 

Skin color is enough of a marker that any difference would easily be seen and avoided. but from the record intermarriage happened very soon after landfall.

[Sevenbak]

Skin color is enough of a marker that any difference would easily be seen and avoided. but from the record intermarriage happened very soon after landfall.

You'll have to point me to a specific reference, I'm just not seeing it in the text...

[BlueDreams]

Thanks.  I've read his and other's take on it, and don't agree that that's ALL it was, although that was part of it. I see it as a politically correct attempt to conform to today's standards. It's an interesting theory, but doesn't match the correlated teachings and manuals. The Church teaches that the mark was a result of disobedience and was placed upon them in order to keep them separate from God's people.  The curse was a separation from God.  Frankly, I don't know why people get so worked up about Nephi's scriptures.  This was under the law of Moses, long long before Paul had his vision of the clean and unclean, long long before the Gospel was sent to the Gentiles.   God's people were kept separate in many instances where God wanted a people wholly obedient and separate from other cultures.  This is no different.  The Lamanites rejected Him, so God rejected them, and placed a mark to keep them from mingling with his people.  Again, I don't see it as racist.  Those are modern sensibilities, but it was God's doing, long ago.  

 

Here's the correlated teaching from one of several manuals that address Nephi's words.

 

"Why was the mark of dark skin set upon the Lamanites?  This was a specific mark or sign of a specific set of circumstances.  Nephi explained, "that they [the Lamanites] might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them" (2 Nephi 5:21)  Alma gave a similar explanation:  "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.) These explanations are consistent with other scriptural warnings that the people of the Lord should not marry unbelievers because the result of doing so was often that the righteous would turn away from the Lord. (see Deuteronomy 7:2-4; 1 Kings 11:4; 2 Corinthians 6:14; D&C 74:5)"

 

 

I’ve been debating whether to respond to this, but it’s really bothering me.

I also watched Perkins, which brought me to study out this issue more deeply. Needless to say, I’ve reached a very different conclusion and agree moreso with Perkins, where prior I didn’t because any other reading seemed weak. Yet the reading as you’ve ascribed it also has some major problems with it, that have consistently eaten at me.

1.       The only argument I’ve really seen to perkins and similar views seems to follow this call for orthodoxy/traditional viewing and that to try otherwise is “PC.” It effective shuts down all other potential answers as bringing in the philosophies of men into scripture….which is ironic (see point 6).

2.       The reading in this traditional sense reads disjointedly. It makes absolutely no sense for a book that is to be written for our day to enrich our understanding of the Gospel would have something so completely disconnected to what we need today and yet seemed to be such an important point to them and was edited by 2 men post Paul and Christ and the separation things. We do not need people assuming one’s skin tone is a mark of some ancestral curse….it doesn’t lead to anything enlightening. The only thing it can lead to is a stale and confusing reading of various scripture or racism. And it’s just not true. No one has gotten lighter in skin tone, by making covenants with God. No one. Ever. It just doesn’t fit the reality of our own day. And once does not equal a pattern, as you’ve kept mentioning. Because there is not a single other scripture that states this outside of the BoM pre-Christ’s coming without the inference to what black or dark is referring to on our part.

3.       Insisting that manuals and teachings point to this, thus it’s the more likely answer, doesn’t work. For one, manual, teachings, etc can and have been terribly wrong. For another, it can be contradictory, such as this statement: “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”     

4.       As I mentioned, the explanations around it still sound racist. Not that you are racist…I don’t believe that. But the idea is. For example to assume that skin tone may just be the residual of various marks to various cursings from disobedience/apostasy is a problem. It begs the question of what will ultimately happen to the variations of skin when everything is cleaned up. It leaves skin tone as, at best, a reminder of being in a fallen land. And it is never pale skin that is a mark of some curse….not really….because that’s definitely not what any scripture says ever. And separating marks and curses does not make this better. For one, that distinction isn’t actually seen much in the BoM, which uses it interchangeably (see Alma 3:6). And for another, it reads as a crappy technicality. And most other explanations equally fall flat.

5.       You mentioned that you don’t understand why people get worked up about Nephi’s scripture. I don’t know how well I could explain it without being personal. But in short it’s all the minor implications (whether meant or not…and usually not that) that stem from such a reasoning. It’s the idea of having your people cursed and marked….a mark of not only skin, but a darker tone that’s synonymous with uncouthness, savagery, and unappealing aesthetics. It’s the disjointed readings. It’s the hailing to many historically racist ideas about NA’s…and black people….and brown people in general. It’s that all the pontificating in the world does not remove the deep gut sense that it’s racist that comes from years as living breathing and being brown. And as much as I’d try to move around it, that sense would never fully go away when reading so literally.

6.        And lastly the problem to me is that reading in the ‘most obvious’ way doesn’t actually match up with their time and culture. It matches up with ours, particularly in the 18^th-19^th century, about race and where it all came from. Something that wasn’t actually scripture, but cropped up and became an assumed position. Something that is heavily disavowed and was used to justify horrifying abuse to humanity. The question that is not mentioned in the manual you’ve quoted is, to me, the crux of the issue: what did “black skin” mean to them and how do the scriptures actually define it? What is the actual pattern to it in the scriptures? This conclusion is not what I found. And the one that I did find was far more congruent and patterned in the scripture than what you’ve mentioned. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

[Sevenbak]

Hi Blue.  I appreciate your post, as well as the general sensitivity of this topic.  However, I just can't come to the same conclusion, with either the interpretation of the text, or the summation of the 'racism' being inherent to the 18th century instead of the Nephites.  I've explained this in a previous post, but will attempt to make my point clearer.

 

Nephi and Alma were writing about what the Lord had done, and they were "Old Testament" Jews, if you will.  They lived under the ancient Mosaic Law, a law that was full of even more horrific things, according to modern sensibilities, and PCisms, regarding racism.  There was so much done by command of the Lord in the OT in regard to "racism", as it's viewed today, that I think it vital to show how much God was willing to do to keep His people separate from others that would thwart His designs for a "righteous people", if you will.    There was mass genocide, on multiple occasions, slaying of entire cities, including women and children, all in the name of God, in order to not have His people mixing.  God even ordered the slaughter of tens of thousands of Jews as well as the Moabite women whom they mingled with… again, all in the name of keeping his people separate.    There are many many other similar instances.   Was the Lord justified in the slaughter of so many thousands of innocent children because they had a different ethnicity?  That, I think is the real question we should be asking here.

 

The chapter heading of Deuteronomy 7, sums up what I'm saying here:  "...Marriages with them are forbidden lest apostasy result—Israel has a mission as a holy and chosen people..."

 

This was acceptable to them. This, to them, was the Lords will.  Given that this history was had on the brass plates, was this acceptable to Nephi when his brothers brought down a similar, although much gentler wrath from the Lord?  I think it was.   Do we understand it, all the why's, what's and wherefores?  I don't.  But I know that I should trust what the Lord and His prophets do above the arm of flesh, so to speak... that's all I'm saying.  Like you, I debated even getting in on this thread, as it is a really contested issue and a very sensitive one, but I think the point needs to be made, again, that God is not a racist.  His ways are simply not our ways… that's the bottom line for me.  We don't have to agree, that's just my take on it.

 

Cheers.

[Calm]

"There was mass genocide, on multiple occasions, slaying of entire cities, including women and children, all in the name of God, in order to not have His people mixing."

That was more like the North and South US fighting each other than racism. It was on the tribal or national level, not "race" as we define it now. They could be identical in "race" but of a different religion, under a different leader, living in a different part of the land, etc. Put them all in loincloths and have them keep their mouths shut and one might not have been able to tell them apart to a great extent.

Edited September 7, 2014 by calmoriah

[BlueDreams]

What Cal said, basically...no, but seriously, no. The example you gave of the Moabites, for example, are distant cousins to the Israelites (Lot's eldest daughter's son)....and according to the BD were "akin to the Israelites, and spoke a language that closely resembled Hebrew." Basically their main difference wasn't phenotype but beliefs, customs, and political boundaries.  Again we're reading their ethnic differences in a similar way we view ethnic differences now (particularly in the U.S.)....where ethnicity is often synonymous with groups that have different physical features as well as cultures and backgrounds.  It's still at times condoned genocide. I agree that the God of the OT was pretty harsh (which is another reason why I like the BoM....there's more nuance and congruency in the OT God and the NT version, through one continuous story). But it's not the same as say the genocide of NA's from European conquerors/setters and more like our  civil war, or the Hutu's/Tutsis, or most the wars in Europe, etc. What physical differences are there are negligible and superfluous to the actual wars which circled around ethnic solidarity, boundary/power struggles, and conflicting ideologies.

 

 For these groups, yes that is a good question. But don't confuse ethnic groups with race, because they are not one and the same, especially in the examples you've given. The only example of  racial mingling that I can easily think of in what would in our day be considered different races would be the marriage of Moses to the Ethiopian....and far from leading to his smiting, it led to Miriam and Aaron's punishment for disapproving. What you get from the OT depiction is pretty straight-forward. It's not that God cares about the "ethnicity" or "race" of the person, but whether they were willing to follow his ways and wouldn't threaten His covenant people (either through temptation or overpowering them). In the BoM the lesson is clearer still, the people were separate and should remain so....unless one or the other's beliefs changed. And then the groups would be considered the same with whatever dfferences between them minor (at least from the Nephite perspective, you only get pieces to what the Lamanites thought of all the Nephite dissenters and what you see doesn't exactly scream unified people). 

 

What I do agree with is that God is not racist....Not because I want to gentrify and modernize God to match my sensibilities. But for me it's because none of the skirmishes, fights, and struggles that are narrated, no matter how bloody, had anything to actually do with race in the way that we define race today. All that mattered (and still matters) to Him was Identity. Do you identify and actively partake of the covenant, or have your ways "marked" you as outside the covenant? Again the scripture definitions of black and white are not our post-colonial definitions of black and white. it's these modern definitions that 'color' our readings of these texts. But I don't blame anyone for seeing it that way. For me and my readings it was like that optical illusion with the old/young woman. When you're used to seeing it only in one way, it's hard to orient to another view.

 

I'm not saying that the traditional view isn't possible and there may have been distinctions. I'm saying that it's unnecessary to read it as such and considering the implications that come from such a reading I'm ok to let it go, because no matter the justifications, the idea that God would use ones skin tone to mark a curse and that certain races originate from a smattering of curses is racist. Just saying God isn't racist while insisting this perspective, does not make it so. I have never seen a good argument for it. Even the one that you're alluding to  (God wasn't racist, the people were), doesn't make sense. Because in the end it means that the Lord maximized on a people's earthly prejudices that are inherently ungodly. In a sense such cursing/marks furthers racism that God doesn't actually condone. That doesn't sound much like God either, considering His goal is to help them see as He does and that the prophets early on were constantly trying to fight against the people's unnecessary prejudice of the Lamanites. Nor does it explain how something generally seen as unchangeable....changed.....rapidly, just by conversion. 

 

It's because of the massive holes and incongruency to what I do know of the nature of God that makes me weary of this line of thought. The reason I was hesitant is because the few times I have jumped in with discussion on this, the opposing view goes nowhere, relying heavily on derivatives of the argument of we don't understand why God does what he does and why he would play into racism, we just have to accept by faith that that's what He did and it wasn't really racist. And that doesn't cut it, especially if I am to seek to become like Him and see as He sees.

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 7, 2014 by BlueDreams

[katherine the great]

Sevenbak:  Can you please connect any Biblical passage (that is used in the "correlated" material to explain Nephi's statements) to skin color?  Every one of those "supporting" biblical scriptures is referring to behavior and unbelief--NOT skin color.  Just review them please and share the connection to skin color.

[Stone holm]

BlueDreams

 

There is really no way to read the passages except to come up with a racist result.  My view is that the Nephites like the early Brethren in the Restoration were in fact racist, so to expect that a history, even a sacred history, written down by them would not have racist overtones in it is to expect something that would be more miraculous than what we have any right to expect.  While the passages which were preserved are unfortunate, the Lord would have foreseen that the Book of Mormon would come forth in a very racist time and for some reason that we still do not quite fathom, He did not seek to eradicate that racism for over a century after the Book of Mormon came forth.

 

It is an unfortunate, but accurate statement of our history.

[BlueDreams]

BlueDreams

 

There is really no way to read the passages except to come up with a racist result. 

 

Except that I did and now still do. Prior (literally a few months ago) I would have agreed with you. Now I do not read it that way at all but see it more as a juxtaposition of our understanding of race and color. Thought I don't fully see it as an absolute change in skin tone, The language (and my minimal discussion with a professor) is that they were probably something that is more closely related to colorism in certain communities (especially in certain ethnicities). It's quite common for skin tone (but of the same race) to be considered lower class and tier because of a significantly darker tone and this was a common belief in that region that Nephi would have come from. And a symbolic phrasing that would have been understood as synonymous with what described as lower human behavior. That the light/dark motif and wording would be switched out with other equally utilized terms when describing them, including light, garments, clouds, scales, etc. And only some of these do we ever read literally. They're largely symbolic idioms used to connect to important ideas/themes that are interlinked with their culture. All of them are utilized and altered just as rapidly (conversion purifies, whitens, makes clean, and replaces with light....not slowly, but like a light switch much of the time...which isn't how race works). I don't think it's racist like unto the 1800's, because their point of reference on race were completely different. The scope of race and it's understanding has not remained static for 2-3,000 yrs. 

 

Basically my point isn't thata they actually were clean from all prejudices based on skin or decent....because, even if purely symbolic, they obvious got some issues. But that the idea that God literally changed their race is holey and is probably incorrect and that that's probably not how they actually defined the mark.

 

With luv,

BD    

[77623091143]

I am surorise to see such a question as this being asked. The answer is obvouse. The so called elephant in the room no one wants to look at. The truth hiding in plain sight.

[ERayR]

I am surorise to see such a question as this being asked. The answer is obvouse. The so called elephant in the room no one wants to look at. The truth hiding in plain sight.

 

Well. don't keep us in suspense.

Edited September 9, 2014 by ERayR

[77623091143]

Well. don't keep us in suspense.

Do the work yourself and get the reward...or don't. It is not my job to do teach you, but your resposibility to lear.

[Stone holm]

Except that I did and now still do. Prior (literally a few months ago) I would have agreed with you. Now I do not read it that way at all but see it more as a juxtaposition of our understanding of race and color. Thought I don't fully see it as an absolute change in skin tone, The language (and my minimal discussion with a professor) is that they were probably something that is more closely related to colorism in certain communities (especially in certain ethnicities). It's quite common for skin tone (but of the same race) to be considered lower class and tier because of a significantly darker tone and this was a common belief in that region that Nephi would have come from. And a symbolic phrasing that would have been understood as synonymous with what described as lower human behavior. That the light/dark motif and wording would be switched out with other equally utilized terms when describing them, including light, garments, clouds, scales, etc. And only some of these do we ever read literally. They're largely symbolic idioms used to connect to important ideas/themes that are interlinked with their culture. All of them are utilized and altered just as rapidly (conversion purifies, whitens, makes clean, and replaces with light....not slowly, but like a light switch much of the time...which isn't how race works). I don't think it's racist like unto the 1800's, because their point of reference on race were completely different. The scope of race and it's understanding has not remained static for 2-3,000 yrs. 

 

Basically my point isn't thata they actually were clean from all prejudices based on skin or decent....because, even if purely symbolic, they obvious got some issues. But that the idea that God literally changed their race is holey and is probably incorrect and that that's probably not how they actually defined the mark.

 

With luv,

BD

If that works for you, I guess its fine. Sounds pretty much like trying to hide a blemish with spin to me. That would still leave The Lord responsible for leaving passages in a sacred book, that He would have had to realize that 99% of the readers would take as racist. Better in my mind to just acknowledge the racism and understand that for most of human history, racism was considered acceptable.

[DBMormon]

Evolution

[JLHPROF]

Evolution

 

From what point - from lower life forms?  from Noah's descendants?  from Adam's descendants?

 

I evolved from my ancestors, but they were humans just like me, spirit children of our Heavenly Father.  And I am sure they were descended through Noah and his sons and their wives, although my family history hasn't quite got back that far yet.

[thesometimesaint]

From what point - from lower life forms?  from Noah's descendants?  from Adam's descendants?

 

I evolved from my ancestors, but they were humans just like me, spirit children of our Heavenly Father.  And I am sure they were descended through Noah and his sons and their wives, although my family history hasn't quite got back that far yet.

 

All the evidence points to evolution from Adam and Eve in what was to become modern day Kenya some 250,000 years ago.

[BlueDreams]

If that works for you, I guess its fine. Sounds pretty much like trying to hide a blemish with spin to me. That would still leave The Lord responsible for leaving passages in a sacred book, that He would have had to realize that 99% of the readers would take as racist. Better in my mind to just acknowledge the racism and understand that for most of human history, racism was considered acceptable.

 

That's fine, it's not hiding a blemish, but pointing out the limits/contradictions of said blemish.And there's a lot of things that have been used in scripture that have been taken incorrectly or to justify false beliefs because the language corroborated with a cultural custom. And it still happens. God can't be held responsible because we reach false conclusions and maintain them based on our own racist/sexist/ignorant societal beliefs....even when it doesn't actually measure up. The belief, on the surface, works. But like most false assumptions, the devil is in the details....it's those details where the paradigm begins to fall apart. And those holes have always been there, we just didn't see them because of our own cultural blindspot. But don't blame God for our own fallen, limited minds. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

[Sevenbak]

"There was mass genocide, on multiple occasions, slaying of entire cities, including women and children, all in the name of God, in order to not have His people mixing."

That was more like the North and South US fighting each other than racism. It was on the tribal or national level, not "race" as we define it now. They could be identical in "race" but of a different religion, under a different leader, living in a different part of the land, etc. Put them all in loincloths and have them keep their mouths shut and one might not have been able to tell them apart to a great extent.

Sorry, I've been out of commission for a few days due to surgury.    Cal, I think you made my point.   "It was on a tribal or national level, not "race" as we define it now.

The point of my comparison is that the Nephites and Lamanites were brothers, cousins, a splintered tribe.  They had simmilar divisions and commandments to keep themselves seperate and pure in order to be obedient.  The fact that they had an added "mark" to keep them divided was from God, but the principle of keeping themselves seperate was the same.

[Sevenbak]

What Cal said, basically...no, but seriously, no. The example you gave of the Moabites, for example, are distant cousins to the Israelites (Lot's eldest daughter's son)....and according to the BD were "akin to the Israelites, and spoke a language that closely resembled Hebrew." Basically their main difference wasn't phenotype but beliefs, customs, and political boundaries...

Hi Blue, as mentioned, the point was that there was a commanded seperation, and for all the harsh realities of the Lamanites being seperate, and yes, the text describes is a mark, specifically mentioning their skins becoming dark, etc., the Jews, of which the Nephites came from, had seen much worse in the name of God.  I stil think we give our modern sensibilities way too much credit for understanding these ancient texts. 

[Sevenbak]

Sevenbak:  Can you please connect any Biblical passage (that is used in the "correlated" material to explain Nephi's statements) to skin color?  Every one of those "supporting" biblical scriptures is referring to behavior and unbelief--NOT skin color.  Just review them please and share the connection to skin color.

Kat, that wasn't the intent of my post.  There are enough correlated modern scriptures and statments explaining Nephi's and Alma's statements to skin color.    The bibilical references was about the apparent harshness of God's chosen people in ancient times in seperating from, even completely destroying those who would make them unpure.  This is NOT about skin color, it's about rightousness. 

 

The mark was a mark. Period. 

 

We also need to remember that often times the Lamanites were more rightous than the Nephites, and at those times had way more blessings from God than the Nephites did.

 

It should also be noted that the Book or Mormon was written primarily for them.  And it will be them, the Lamanites who will inherit this land, who will build up the New Jerusalem, etc.  We adoted Gentiles are just along for the ride.

[Calm]

There are enough correlated modern scriptures and statments explaining Nephi's and Alma's statements to skin color. 

 

I can't remember if you have read or been directed to read Marvin Perkin's FairMormon Presentation which transcript is now online for reading.  I think he very effectively disproves this claim of yours by going through the scriptures and showing how they are linked demonstrates it is a spiritual cursing of a separation from God.

[Sevenbak]

You might want to read my initial post again. We're now going in circles.  The cursing was a seperation from God.  The change in skin color was a mark, but not the curse itself.

 

Here, again, is what the Church teaches.  It's a little over halfway down, talking about 2 Nephi 5:19-25.  I find President Joseph Fielding Smith's comments in the current manual to be very enlightening, give the PC sensibilities of today, let alone his day.  He was very forward thinking on this.

[katherine the great]

Kat, that wasn't the intent of my post.  There are enough correlated modern scriptures and statments explaining Nephi's and Alma's statements to skin color.    The bibilical references was about the apparent harshness of God's chosen people in ancient times in seperating from, even completely destroying those who would make them unpure.  This is NOT about skin color, it's about rightousness. 

 

The mark was a mark. Period. 

 

How is this not about skin color?  The "mark" is dark skin.  It is being presented as a visible sign of unrighteousness so that the righteous will not marry them.  (I can't even believe I'm saying this.)  My question is:  Since when has skin tone prevented anyone from marrying someone else?