Where Did The Different Races And Ethnicities Come From?

[ERayR]

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?

 

Caused by who knowa what.  Was it a change in lifestyle or intermarriage with a darker skin indigenous people?

[katherine the great]

Caused by who knowa what.  Was it a change in lifestyle or intermarriage with a darker skin indigenous people?

Thank you ERay.  You have proposed a viable mechanism of skin color change.  (I'm still grappling with the fact though that it happened during Nephi's lifetime, unless that was an extrapolation of a later editor.)  That aside though, I still have yet to see skin color ever being a barrier to mixing.  Some would say that segregation in the South is an example, but all we have to do is look at African Americans today to see that there was always plenty of mixing going on.

[BlueDreams]

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. 

 

As you mentioned, we're going in circles. I'm pretty sure I've made my point on this fairly clear. To say they literally changed skin tone beyond a glorified suntan is to read in our "modern sensibilities" into ancient text. The reason we don't see that as so now is because the modern sensibilities used was modern in the 19th century, that we've moved away from, but maintained this reading because - like many scriptural interpretations = it's just been assumed as correct. But most of the explanations given about this fall apart in more thorough readings. This isn't my modern sensibilities kicking into overdrive, it's a simple question of what did they see as "blackness" and could it be read differently than what we've interpreted as? The answer is yes and most definitely....and IMHO it reads far more congruently with the other scriptures if done so.  

 

And the mark and the curse are only distinguished by us to distance and meet up with our "modern sensibilities" (and the stubborn fact that NA's, black folk, and other dark people don't magically get lighter in a generation or less after baptism is probably a better explanation for why this distinguishing was made in our dispensation). The scriptures make very little distinction but make it sound more like two sides of the same coin. So mark and cursings are used interchangeably in depiction in all the scriptures (not just the BoM) that mention marks and cursings. 

 

Also, while I'm at it....I'm not super apt to taking JFS' interpretation over the statement made very recently in the blacks and priesthood article. And it (again) follows the assumption that we know what "dark skin" means and that it's exactly as we would see it today from a eurocentric american standpoint.

 

So please, stop assuming that to read it otherwise is to impose a modern sensibility into scripture, when all we've ever done with these verses is read it with our modern understanding of race and color.

 

With luv,

BD

[Sevenbak]

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?

Yes the MARK is dark skin, but it's not the curse.  And to your question, apparently is worked for the Nephites, and was the main reason the Lord did it.  I don't think it always worked, but for most, it was enough of a deterrent.   That's my point, and I believe the point Nephi and Alma was making when they wrote those most politically incorrect words.  

 

"...that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

 

How can anyone read that any other way?

[Sevenbak]

Caused by who knowa what.  Was it a change in lifestyle or intermarriage with a darker skin indigenous people?

Mixing with indigenous peoples just doesn't fit the text, nor the correlated teachings from the manuals.   It happened quickly, to Laman, Lemuel, and Ishmael's sons and daughters, not just to subsequent generations.  

 

"and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael,…"

Edited September 23, 2014 by Sevenbak

[Sevenbak]

As you mentioned, we're going in circles. I'm pretty sure I've made my point on this fairly clear. To say they literally changed skin tone beyond a glorified suntan is to read in our "modern sensibilities" into ancient text. The reason we don't see that as so now is because the modern sensibilities used was modern in the 19th century, that we've moved away from, but maintained this reading because - like many scriptural interpretations = it's just been assumed as correct. But most of the explanations given about this fall apart in more thorough readings. This isn't my modern sensibilities kicking into overdrive, it's a simple question of what did they see as "blackness" and could it be read differently than what we've interpreted as? The answer is yes and most definitely....and IMHO it reads far more congruently with the other scriptures if done so.  

 

And the mark and the curse are only distinguished by us to distance and meet up with our "modern sensibilities" (and the stubborn fact that NA's, black folk, and other dark people don't magically get lighter in a generation or less after baptism is probably a better explanation for why this distinguishing was made in our dispensation). The scriptures make very little distinction but make it sound more like two sides of the same coin. So mark and cursings are used interchangeably in depiction in all the scriptures (not just the BoM) that mention marks and cursings. 

 

Also, while I'm at it....I'm not super apt to taking JFS' interpretation over the statement made very recently in the blacks and priesthood article. And it (again) follows the assumption that we know what "dark skin" means and that it's exactly as we would see it today from a eurocentric american standpoint.

 

So please, stop assuming that to read it otherwise is to impose a modern sensibility into scripture, when all we've ever done with these verses is read it with our modern understanding of race and color.

 

With luv,

BD

I think we're at an impasse, and so I will respectfully have to agree to disagree.