Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon

[Kevin Christensen]

I recently got round to reading Ethan Sproat's essay, "Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon" in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2015. 

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=3592&index=6

It's very interesting, and I'm sympathetic with the thesis and impressed by the work, having noticed and on occasion commented informally here on the equivalent use of skins and garments in several Book of Mormon passages, such as Alma 5:21-22 and others.  In looking around the web to see how much discussion that essay has generated, I notice only a couple of footnotes at Book of Mormon central. And one mention during a discussion of a Michael Austin post on Feb 3 2016 at BCC on Laman's Curse.  One reader there pointed to the essay and asked whether anyone had read it.  The discussion goes on for a while but apparently no one bothered to read it or consider the essay and it's profound implications for the discussion.  Only one commentator made this statement in what I assume was a direct response to the recommendation Sproat's essay be considered:

Quote

I’ve seen arguments by those who try to explain that “skin” in the Book of Mormon really means a “spiritual skin,” something metaphorical. But that is what we might call wresting the scriptures. It’s an attempt to take the inherent racist attitudes that are plain in the book and twist them to something more politically correct. It’s very obvious that “skin” in the Book of Mormon means “skin.” Just as “north” means “north,” not some other direction.

That particular comment stands out to me in relation to this leading point in Sproat's essay:

Quote

Alma 3:5–6 is comprised of two sentences, in each of which the word skin(s) appears. Commentaries handle the two sentences in one of three ways: (1) by treating both of them independently, as if two very different things were at issue; (2) by commenting on only the second of the two sentences, remaining silent about the first; or (3) by failing to comment on either sentence.³ All three of these approaches miss the fact that, when read in context, the use of skins in the second sentence appears to form part of a historical explanation of the use of skin in the first sentence. Here is the text:

“Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth. 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 against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.” (Alma 3:5–6)⁴

According to a reading I will defend in the course of this article, this passage suggests the possibility that “the skins of the Lamanites” are to be understood as articles of clothing, the notable girdle of skin that these particular Lamanites wear to cover their nakedness. Significantly, these are the only two references to skins in Alma 3, which contains the Book of Mormon’s most thorough explanation of the Lamanite curse and the curse’s relationship to skins. Thus situated, Alma 3:5–6 might serve as an interpretive Rosetta stone. If both instances of skins in Alma 3:5–6 refer to clothing, then the other five references to various-colored or cursed skins in the Book of Mormon could also refer to clothing and not—as traditionally assumed—to human flesh pigmentation.

Notice the knee-jerk argument I quoted earlier, that "skin means skin" and the appeal to "obviousness", the charge of "wresting the scriptures" and no evidence that the one who made the objection had read or considered the scriptural evidence cited in Sproat's essay.  Notably in Alma 3:5-6, that the "skin girded about their loins" contradicts the objection that "skin means skin", that is the word "skin" always refers to human epidermis.  Skins can also be garments.

The parable of the sower explains that the same words can yield very different harvests, depending on the context in which they are placed, and the care and nurture given.  "Know ye not this parable?  How then shall ye know all parables?"  And Joseph Smith has some choice comments about how the LDS often resist anything that goes against their traditional reading. 

It's a very good essay with several fresh insights, very much worth careful reading deserving of more discussion that it has apparently received. I think it could have been strengthened by more comparison with the several passages discussing filthy and clean garments that directly parallel the passages about white, pure and filthy skins.  It's clear from Austin's BCC essay on Laman Curse, and various discussions by Gardner, Nibley, Sorenson, and others that there are cultural aspects to both the ancient patterns of language that we have in the text, as well as 19th century cultural assumptions at work in the early LDS interpretations.  Words do not speak for themselves, pointing unambiguously to some uninterpreted object, but must be interpreted.  And sometimes we misinterpret, like Nicodemus talking to Jesus about being born again.  Misinterpretation is a hazard of our common humanity.  But to recognize that 19th century, and sometimes 21st century assumptions have colored our readings, does not mean that we ought to be bound to mistakes and misreadings.  If we dare to seek for greater light and knowledge, it can often be found in the most unexpected places, or even the most familiar words.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited January 21, 2017 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[Mark Beesley]

"If we dare to seek for greater light and knowledge, it can often be found in the most unexpected places, or even the most familiar words."

AMEN!

[strappinglad]

What would it mean to have cursed garments ?

[halconero]

19 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

What would it mean to have cursed garments ?

Jacob, the brother of Nephi, is the most glaring example of this. In his sermon on chastity, pride and riches, comforting the broken hearted, etc he says that he is obligated by God to do so in order to rid his garments of the blood and sins of that people. In other words, his stain would be neglecting his priesthood duties in preaching repentance and inviting others to come to Christ. Perhaps to have cursed garments signifies a neglect of gospel covenants, promises, and duties, which Laman and Lemuel most certainly did.

People can draw their own temple parallels of course, but remember that the promises therein are contingent on faithfully keeping our covenants and enacting our duties.

[strappinglad]

Is that to say , then , that the curse of the Lamanites and likely the curse of Cain was strictly a spiritual curse which was manifest by behaviors and attitudes , rather than any type of physical mark which could be easily recognized at a distance.?

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

What would it mean to have cursed garments ?

2 Nephi 8:14 "clothed with purity, even with the robe of righteousness" Jacob speaking as a consecrated High Priest on the Day of Atonement

Jacob 1:19 "laboring...their blood might come upon our garments... and we would not be found spotless"

Jacob 3:5, "cursing which has come upon their skins..."

Jacob3:8-9 "their skins shall be whiter than yours

Try Mosiah 3:28, rid my garments of your blood (temple and high priest on day of atonement context)

Alma 5:21-24, garments stained with blood and all manner of filthiness contrasted with prophets whose garments are cleansed, and are spotless, pure and white

Alma 7:25, garments spotless... in the kingdom of heaven

Alma 13:11-12, garments washed white through the blood of the Lamb... garments made white, being pure and spotless"

Alma 34:36

Helaman 9:31-34 (where the symbolic use and the literal use combine, as the blood on garments testify to the sins committed)

3 Nephi 19:25 (literal in a different way, transfiguration)  compare with Moroni 7: the sons of God,...we shall be like him... purified even as he is pure"

3 Nephi 27:19 "washed their garments in my blood"

4 Nephi 24 (pride and costly apparel)

Mormon 9:34, garments and the priestly obligation to testify to "rid our garments of the blood of our brethren")

Ether 12:37 "thy garments shall be made clean...sitting down in the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father"

Ether 12:38, "my garments are not spotted with your blood"

Moroni 10:31, "put on thy beautiful garments, O daughter of Zion"   

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA                                                                                

[Kevin Christensen]

32 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Is that to say , then , that the curse of the Lamanites and likely the curse of Cain was strictly a spiritual curse which was manifest by behaviors and attitudes , rather than any type of physical mark which could be easily recognized at a distance.?

Yes.  Except in the case reported in Alma 3:13-19 where the Amlicites "began to mark themselves in their foreheads" (a parody of the mark in Ezekiel 9:4, which was the Name)

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Marmonboy]

47 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Is that to say , then , that the curse of the Lamanites and likely the curse of Cain was strictly a spiritual curse which was manifest by behaviors and attitudes , rather than any type of physical mark which could be easily recognized at a distance.?

Behaviors and attitudes can be seen at a distance, based on posture, body language, style choices, etc.

[Calm]

Clothing can even be more likely to stand out than skin color if wearing pants and long sleeves or everyone is out in the sun a lot, especially in a society that didn't have glasses as everything blurs after a certain distance.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Calm

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

What would it mean to have cursed garments ?

Not sure I buy the idea myself but the mark of the curse was sometimes self-inflicted. The Amlicites were not marked in the traditional way the curse was but the Book of Mormon is clear that their self-marking counts.

So don't wear black....could make you cursed. I guess I have to burn a lot of my wardrobe.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Is that to say , then , that the curse of the Lamanites and likely the curse of Cain was strictly a spiritual curse which was manifest by behaviors and attitudes , rather than any type of physical mark which could be easily recognized at a distance.?

Yes. Add to this that different groups who have been separate for any amount of time would likely have different clothing, adornment, maybe even hair styles, etc. 

[strappinglad]

I can understand the spiritual cursing but there is Genesis 4 : 15 which seems to indicate something more in Cain's specific case.

One would hope that the curse removal consisted of more that a clothing change as we see from all defendants in a criminal trial try to dress like fine upstanding citizens.

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I can understand the spiritual cursing but there is Genesis 4 : 15 which seems to indicate something more in Cain's specific case.

One would hope that the curse removal consisted of more that a clothing change as we see from all defendants in a criminal trial try to dress like fine upstanding citizens.

Are you assuming the Curse of Cain was dark skin? I think that has been thoroughly discredited. It is, in fact, the Bible that assures me that these associations in the BOM are unsustainable.

Edited January 20, 2017 by juliann

[strappinglad]

17 minutes ago, juliann said:

Are you assuming the Curse of Cain was dark skin? I think that has been thoroughly discredited. It is, in fact, the Bible that assures me that these associations in the BOM are unsustainable.

I'm open to suggestions as to what the ' mark ' was that the Lord placed on Cain so as to assure that he would not be accosted and killed on sight. If you discard skin color fine. How about a set of horns, or a third eye, or... something , anything that would be a red flag to all. Of course there is always , " it is all metaphor " as a solution.

[juliann]

27 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I'm open to suggestions as to what the ' mark ' was that the Lord placed on Cain so as to assure that he would not be accosted and killed on sight. If you discard skin color fine. How about a set of horns, or a third eye, or... something , anything that would be a red flag to all. Of course there is always , " it is all metaphor " as a solution.

Why do you go to skin color as the default setting? At best, it is a who knows. I think it has been well documented how justifications for slavery popularized the skin default setting. This has been discredited, there is no basis for it aside from that. That they had to move to post-flood Noah to keep it going should make that very clear. 

Can you explain why Cain and dark skin would go together?

[strappinglad]

Funny how even when I agree with you , I still seem to be disagreeing with you.

I wonder what scriptures the Arabs and the tribes of Africa used to justify slavery of the black man . Oh , and the Romans.... etc.

Edited January 20, 2017 by strappinglad

[Calm]

Generally slavery of outsiders didn't need to be justified by anything but that they were different.  The Israelites/Jews enslaved a number of peoples, skin color was never used as an excuse that I can recall.  They even enslaved their own people, though iirc they had to free them when jubilee came around and debts were forgiven.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Calm

[amo]

18 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

...It's very interesting, and I'm sympathetic with the thesis and impressed by the work,..

 

I wonder if pres. Kimball would have felt the same, had he had the chance to read it too.

[pogi]

19 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Skins can also be garments.

Interesting theory!

How would one explain the following verses under this theory?

Quote

 

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done (Alma 5: 21,23)

 

Here are my questions:

First, is the only distinguishing physical feature between the Nephites and the Lamanites a black loin cloth?  What if the Lamanite's decided to wear a white loin cloth one day, would they suddenly become "enticing" to the Nephite's again?

Second, verse 23 seems to favor the black epidermis theory in that all of the seed will be cursed with the same cursing.  If the black loin cloth is the mark of the curse, why would that necessarily be passed on to all of the seed who mixed with the Lamanites?  A black epidermis makes much more sense in this application.

[Kevin Christensen]

2 Nephi 25 talks about how we cannot understand the things of the Jew like unto them save we are taught after their manner.  That is, there are culturally specific ways of saying things that do not easily translate across cultures.  If the apple doesn't fall far from the tree says the same thing as a reference to a chip off the old block, then it turns out that the words really say nothing about trees, chips, block, and falling, but do say something about appearance and behavior.

From Lamantations 4:

Quote

 Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire:

 Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick.

Notice that Nararites can be both white and pure, and "more ruddy in body than rubies" before their cultural decline to where "their visage is blacker than coal."

Nibley and Sorenson have both offered several examples from Ancient Near Eastern expressions and culture, as has Brant Gardner.  I'm away from my books, but as an example, for instance, Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon, Semester 1: Lecture 18

Quote

Now this cursing. There’s a great deal said about this race business in the Book of Mormon. It’s very clear what it is—it’s a cultural thing. It tells us here in verse 21, “Wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome.” That doesn’t mean they had complexions of milk, that they were pale white and ghostly. That’s not healthy anyway. Nor does it mean that the others were coal black. Black is much too strong a word to use here, if you are using it literally. But, as I’ve said before, it applies just as much in shāḥōr and lābān as it does in Hebrew and Aramaic, and also in Arabic. Anything that’s abyaḍ is good, delightful, pleasant; and everything that’s aswad isn’t. In the paintings, whether it’s Greek vase paintings or wall paintings in Egypt, the people who live in the bayt al-shaîr, “the houses of hair, out in the desert are always painted with dark complexions. The people who live in the bayt al-hajar, “the houses of stone,” are always depicted with light complexions. The women never went out; they would paint their faces with white lead, as a matter of fact. It’s a cultural thing. Of course, if you live that way, you become dark. Also, the camps of natives, Asiatics or anything like that, become garbage dumps. They live by hunting and plunder. They are not cultivating the soil and are not bound to work too much. So they become slovenly and dark in their manner. They become dirty, different, smelly and all that sort of thing. That’s what it means by loathsome—dirty, smelly, not very well groomed or anything like that. This is a cursing. When you see a person who is white and exceedingly fair and delightsome, you are not going to see a platinum blond necessarily. Though you do find them. This is the thing that always bowled me over among the Hopis. Every tenth child is a blond, not an albino at all. They will have red hair and blue eyes. I thought, well it’s an oddity—some missionary, some Scandinavians have intermarried with them. That wasn’t it at all. These were all native Hopi kids, and every tenth one was a perfectly good blond, as blond as anybody you ever saw. And yet it was quite normal. Nobody was upset by it or anything like that.

One was “exceedingly fair and delightsome,” and the other was a skin of blackness. As I said, shāḥōr is a skin of blackness, which means dark. A good source for that would be Morris Jastrow’s Aramaic Dictionary. For the word black, it gives dark, unpleasant—everything sort of uncomplimentary. We don’t need to linger on that. Here it is [in verse 23]; it says it’s a cultural affair. If you mixed your seed with them, you got the same cursing. If you intermarry with them, you are sharing their culture, and you become just like them. In other words, it is not a racial thing because you can get it yourself. “And because of their cursing which was upon them, they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.” Well, there are lots of races like that. All you have to do is watch Channel 26 and you can be introduced to all sorts of tribes like that. With this National Geographic Studies you see tribes like that everywhere. Not that they don’t have their virtues, and the Lamanites certainly did. But racial change isn’t necessary for this at all. After all, they are members of the same family; we know that.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited January 20, 2017 by Kevin Christensen

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I'm away from my books, but as an example, for instance, Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon, Semester 1: Lecture 18

Quote

Here it is [in verse 23]; it says it’s a cultural affair. If you mixed your seed with them, you got the same cursing. If you intermarry with them, you are sharing their culture, and you become just like them. In other words, it is not a racial thing because you can get it yourself.

First of all, keep in mind that I haven't made up my mind one way or another on this subject.  I am open to all ideas, but I do find some difficulties in Nibley's approach.

Vs. 23 doesn't mention getting the curse yourself for mixing with the Lamanites as Nibley suggests.  The scripture explicitly states that their seed will be cursed with the same cursing, the mark of which Ethan Sproat's suggests is a black loin cloth.

Quote

And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed... (Alma 5: 23) 

If the curse was simply a cultural affair as Nibley suggests, why does he think that cultural influence is a one way street which inevitably leads to the adoption of Lamanite culture?  If a Nephite man or woman had a child with a Lamanite woman or man, and the child was raised in the Nephite culture, where would the heavier cultural influence be? Would the child's loin cloth inevitably be black due to the curse, even while living among the Nephites?

Because the scriptures do not state that the curse will be passed to the Nephite parent, but rather specifically mentions their seed, it seems like strong evidence for the black epidermis interpretation.  If the mark of the curse was black epidermis, it makes sense that the curse "shall be" passed to the children.  But if the curse is the culture, and the mark of the curse is a black loin cloth, I fail to see why a mixed child must of necessity become a Lamanite in culture and dress.

 

Edited January 20, 2017 by pogi

[Kevin Christensen]

One very strong evidence against the black epidermis interpretation is that the Native Americans are not black, and there is no reason to suppose that Joseph Smith, who knew something about the redman, and who knew something about blacks and slavery and where they originally came from, would have used that language in a translation of a document about forbears of those people.

Nibley talked about this several times, as have others, like Sorenson and Gardner, and several people here.

Quote

Now this cursing. There’s a great deal said about this race business in the Book of Mormon. It’s very clear what it is—it’s a cultural thing. It tells us here in verse 21, “Wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome.” That doesn’t mean they had complexions of milk, that they were pale white and ghostly. That’s not healthy anyway. Nor does it mean that the others were coal black. Black is much too strong a word to use here, if you are using it literally. But, as I’ve said before, it applies just as much in shāḥōr and lābān as it does in Hebrew and Aramaic, and also in Arabic. Anything that’s abyaḍ is good, delightful, pleasant; and everything that’s aswad isn’t. In the paintings, whether it’s Greek vase paintings or wall paintings in Egypt, the people who live in the bayt al-shaîr, “the houses of hair, out in the desert are always painted with dark complexions. The people who live in the bayt al-hajar, “the houses of stone,” are always depicted with light complexions. The women never went out; they would paint their faces with white lead, as a matter of fact. It’s a cultural thing. Of course, if you live that way, you become dark. Also, the camps of natives, Asiatics or anything like that, become garbage dumps. They live by hunting and plunder. They are not cultivating the soil and are not bound to work too much. So they become slovenly and dark in their manner. They become dirty, different, smelly and all that sort of thing. That’s what it means by loathsome—dirty, smelly, not very well groomed or anything like that. This is a cursing. When you see a person who is white and exceedingly fair and delightsome, you are not going to see a platinum blond necessarily. Though you do find them. This is the thing that always bowled me over among the Hopis. Every tenth child is a blond, not an albino at all. They will have red hair and blue eyes. I thought, well it’s an oddity—some missionary, some Scandinavians have intermarried with them. That wasn’t it at all. These were all native Hopi kids, and every tenth one was a perfectly good blond, as blond as anybody you ever saw. And yet it was quite normal. Nobody was upset by it or anything like that.

One was “exceedingly fair and delightsome,” and the other was a skin of blackness. As I said, shāḥōr is a skin of blackness, which means dark. A good source for that would be Morris Jastrow’s Aramaic Dictionary. For the word black, it gives dark, unpleasant—everything sort of uncomplimentary. We don’t need to linger on that. Here it is [in verse 23]; it says it’s a cultural affair. If you mixed your seed with them, you got the same cursing. If you intermarry with them, you are sharing their culture, and you become just like them. In other words, it is not a racial thing because you can get it yourself. “And because of their cursing which was upon them, they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

That is Semester 1, Lecture 18. and here is another interesting comment from Semester 2, Lecture 44;

Quote

The Amlicites had marked themselves. Where do we get the ethnic mark? What makes a race here? Well, they decided to be Lamanites. They identified with the Lamanites. This happens again and again. “They had marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites; nevertheless they had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites. [So there were different degrees; they looked like Lamanites because of that mark.] Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins.” Well, people who went around like that all the time would certainly have darker skins than the people who didn’t. This makes the blackness.

Notice he is going to tell us in this chapter that the Lamanites put the marks on themselves. They marked themselves, not knowing that they were fulfilling the promise of the Lord that he would mark them. A way of life produces this darkening of the skin, and it’s the same way all over the world. You have the bayt al-shaîr and the bayt al-hajar. The people that live in the stone houses have white complexions, and the people that live in the tents (the houses of goat’s hair) have dark complexions. Among the Arabs they always distinguished between these people. They are the same people, the same blood, but there is a great deal of difference between them. One is much lighter than the other. It’s the same thing in Greek vase paintings. The women were always painted with white faces because they were in the house all the time. They also used white lead. The men were always painted quite bronze, especially in those marvelous paintings from the various islands. They show these things very clearly—the dark and the light. The Egyptians were the same way, too. The women were always painted a very pale color, and the men were always a dark brown. It’s a matter of living outdoors. This would account for one part of their .

For example there’s Santorini, the ancient island of Thera, the one that blew up. There we find these marvelous paintings from 1600 B.C. They are gorgeous paintings. But always the men are dark, and the women are white. It’s the same thing here. They marked themselves and went around naked, so they were going to get that way. You’ll find if you go down and live with those people, you get that way. You very soon get that desert varnish on your face. You learn to walk with a drag of your feet because you are walking in the sand. And you don’t try to walk straight. Why should you when you are slogging through the sand? You get to look and feel just like an Indian there.

Verse 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.” Well, who set it on them? Their fathers set it on them. It was a way of life and culture. Where do racial characteristics come from in the first place? They come from environment, don’t they? Adaptation, segregation. Everybody agrees on that. People in the North want to get all the sun they can, so I have no pigmentation at all. If I lived in the South, I’d have to be protected from the sun, so I would be dark. This is the way it goes.

Question: So it was their fathers that placed the curse upon them, [because of] the way of life that they chose?

Answer: Yes, their way of life. They chose it; they took to this way of life by their own free will.

The reason I like these lines of thought (Nibley has several running at once)  is that they counter a trend to treat the Book of Mormon as a discredited and morally dubious etiological myth.  There was such thinking going on before the Book of Mormon was published, and early Mormons could not help but be saturated in such thinking when they approached the Book of Mormon.  It's the same sort of thing where the noted scholar and famous literary critic Harold Bloom says the Book of Mormon is about the Lost 10 tribes when, had he bothered to read it, he would have seen that it in the Book of Mormon the Lost 10 Tribes are lost.  It takes some serious effort to see past what we expect to see.  It takes time and nurture and good soil to see what it really going on.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited January 23, 2017 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[juliann]

For an analogous situation, 19th c. Mormons were assigned unfavorable characteristics that were thought to be visible, even to the point of making them part of another despised ethnic group. Mark Twain assigned "ugly" to all Mormon women. We do the similar things today.

[mfbukowski]

On 1/19/2017 at 3:28 PM, Marmonboy said:

Behaviors and attitudes can be seen at a distance, based on posture, body language, style choices, etc.

Like the time in the '70's while I lived in New York city and I was walking down a dark street and I saw 5 guys walking in my direction.  I had no doubt what was about to happen and I was right.  Their body language said it all. They got all my money but other than that, I was left unscathed thank God.

[waveslider]

I don't see why people are so hung up on the mark of the curse. It seems we are missing the whole point. We need to define what the real curse is. The curse is being separated from God, and God's people. They receive no spiritual guidance from our Father in Heaven. It seems to me that is a much worse curse than merely being a different color than some people. They were marked in what ever way they were marked. Sometimes it is skin color. Sometimes it is being crippled in some way. Neither one means that all people of color, or all people who are crippled in some way, are cursed.

This judgemental attitude isn't anything new as evidenced here:

"2  And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
3  Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents:....."
John 9:2-3

Yet we do know that sometimes being crippled is the mark of a curse from sinful behavior as evidenced by the man who was healed by the pool of Bethesda, by Christ, since the man couldn't get into the water to be healed when the water started to be disturbed. We know this because even though the Savior wasn't around long enough for the healed man to point out who it was that healed him and told him to take up his bed, on the Sabbath day, to the Pharisees, but he later saw him at the temple and said:

".......Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee."
John 5:14

It is no more bigoted to talk about being marked as cursed by skin coloration than it is by being a cripple. It is only bigoted if it is misconstrued to believe that all who have certain skin coloration, or all who are crippled in some form, are cursed. Just my two cents worth anyway.