Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, waveslider said:

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.

Waveslider, it's in your very inference that skin color is in someway in parallel at any point to being a cripple that is inherently a problem. In no way is my skin tone indicative of my righteousness nor is it on the list of things that will change in the resurrection. It is not an obvious inheritance of the trappings of a fallen world. And it sure isn't a disability that impedes me. The sun allergy, sure. My skin, no.  

It's also in the history of how it was (mis)used to cover a variety of sins and maintain treating children of God differently. It allowed the attitude you named in the disciples toward the blind man to remain intact for generations towards people who's impediment wasn't inherited by a disability but in social structuring that favored one people while oppressing and killing others. If one understands the history and cost that these misinterpretations had, you'd get why people get "caught up" on them.

It's in how disjointed it makes scriptures and impedes their capacity to be applied today. How would one "apply" said scriptures....scripture written in mind for our day....with the language of curses being indicative by at least a few groups skin tone (particularly people of native american and/or black african decsent)? As I've pointed out, last time I check my skin tone hasn't changed based on how righteous I've been. I haven't gotten lighter by how much I attended the temple. It's stupid. My skin is a perfect middle tone of my parents drastically different skin tone. Nothing more.  And again, if you carry out your analogy toward the passage in John 9, where the works of God were made manifest....by curing the man of his blindness. I should be getting "cured" of my perfectly wonderful pigmentation.  

It also puts into question which groups of people are marked with a "curse" shown by skin tone. And if you follow the line of thought, it should also make them unattractive to the "righteous" lines of people. Which again....super holey. Didn't work. And, yes, Racist.

I'm no longer hung up on the mark of the curse, because I don't believe in the racist historical line of thought that gave us the incorrect interpretation in the first place. Letting it go, delving into all the cursing/mark references to better understand these passages, etc has given me the promises of the BoM. Ie. Sciptures that apply for my time. It led to greater understanding of the scriptures, unity in ideas and testimony throughout the texts, etc. 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

On 1/19/2017 at 1:03 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

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.

 

Interesting stuff. I haven't finished reading it, but agree in part with what I have. I am someone who leans more to a "spiritual skin," and I don't feel as though I came to the conclusion by "wresting the scriptures." Quite the opposite. I think such a knee jerk response is similar to when people find any view that goes against common assumptions.

I also think the idea found in the article (as much as I've scanned so far, at least) also can be easily aligned with a spiritual mark view just fine. Skin as garments is still a token or symbolic indicator. And much of the language surrounding all cursed peoples follows inferences to temple practice and covenant language.

 

 With luv,

BD

[Freedom]

This speaks to the great difficulty in reading a translation of an ancient text without knowing the context. Such a challenge has lead to young earth creationism because of a failure to see Genesis 1 as a liturgical text, and to understand how ancient writers were writing 'His story' rather than history. Function played a large part in their pros. We forget that in today's literature we have both expository writings and poetic writing, but back in the day they were were one and the same. This helps us understand the story of Nephi and Laban, turning it from a brutal story of a seemingly unnecessary decapitation to a kingly ascension story modeled after the epic story of David and Goliath. 

A simple English expression such as 'running out of milk' can be rather mystifying. For one, English does not have a single word to convey this idea. But further, to me this expression should been you have too much milk, so much so that you are running out of a pool of it. We take so many of our figures of speech for granted we do not consider how strange they sound if translated literally. But never mind figures of speech, just seemingly ordinary words can become a stumbling block. Naughty comes from naught or nothing, it evolved into being evil until today it means simply badly behaved. Having said that, how would you interpret this phrase from if we pretend it comes from an 18th century novel "Naughty were his efforts". So does this mean his efforts  came of nothing, or were they evil, or simply inappropriate? 

If I were to tell you to prepare the chickens, you would assume we were having dinner and you needed to cook them. If I said prepare the horses, you would assume we were going for a ride because in our culture we ride horses and do not eat them. What would you do, however, if you arrived at the stable and a worker there advised you that I come from a country where we raise horses for meat. You would have to return to get some clarification before proceeding. 

So it is with the Book of Mormon. The book was written for us but not to us and therein lies the problem with the term 'skin'. 

 

[waveslider]

14 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Waveslider, it's in your very inference that skin color is in someway in parallel at any point to being a cripple that is inherently a problem. In no way is my skin tone indicative of my righteousness nor is it on the list of things that will change in the resurrection. It is not an obvious inheritance of the trappings of a fallen world. And it sure isn't a disability that impedes me. The sun allergy, sure. My skin, no.  

It's also in the history of how it was (mis)used to cover a variety of sins and maintain treating children of God differently. It allowed the attitude you named in the disciples toward the blind man to remain intact for generations towards people who's impediment wasn't inherited by a disability but in social structuring that favored one people while oppressing and killing others. If one understands the history and cost that these misinterpretations had, you'd get why people get "caught up" on them.

It's in how disjointed it makes scriptures and impedes their capacity to be applied today. How would one "apply" said scriptures....scripture written in mind for our day....with the language of curses being indicative by at least a few groups skin tone (particularly people of native american and/or black african decsent)? As I've pointed out, last time I check my skin tone hasn't changed based on how righteous I've been. I haven't gotten lighter by how much I attended the temple. It's stupid. My skin is a perfect middle tone of my parents drastically different skin tone. Nothing more.  And again, if you carry out your analogy toward the passage in John 9, where the works of God were made manifest....by curing the man of his blindness. I should be getting "cured" of my perfectly wonderful pigmentation.  

It also puts into question which groups of people are marked with a "curse" shown by skin tone. And if you follow the line of thought, it should also make them unattractive to the "righteous" lines of people. Which again....super holey. Didn't work. And, yes, Racist.

I'm no longer hung up on the mark of the curse, because I don't believe in the racist historical line of thought that gave us the incorrect interpretation in the first place. Letting it go, delving into all the cursing/mark references to better understand these passages, etc has given me the promises of the BoM. Ie. Sciptures that apply for my time. It led to greater understanding of the scriptures, unity in ideas and testimony throughout the texts, etc. 

 

With luv,

BD

I think you need to go back and actually read what it is I have written. You have completely misunderstood what I have said and replied to a knee jerk reaction to what it is you think I was saying, without seeing what it is that I am actually saying. You can't deny that there was at least some sort of mark placed upon the people to differentiate them from the righteous, but not all people in history are cursed even if they have some similar qualities that can be misconstrued as being the mark of a curse as well, by ignorance. If you don't read the whole thing, at the very least, pay particular attention to the last sentence I wrote:

18 hours ago, waveslider said:

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.

I'm sorry if you are offended. I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone.

Edited January 23, 2017 by waveslider
mispelling and grammar

[BlueDreams]

9 hours ago, waveslider said:

I think you need to go back and actually read what it is I have written. You have completely misunderstood what I have said and replied to a knee jerk reaction to what it is you think I was saying, without seeing what it is that I am actually saying. You can't deny that there was at least some sort of mark placed upon the people to differentiate them from the righteous, but not all people in history are cursed even if they have some similar qualities that can be misconstrued as being the mark of a curse as well, by ignorance. If you don't read the whole thing, at the very least, pay particular attention to the last sentence I wrote:

I'm sorry if you are offended. I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone.

I'm not offended. But I've seen you're reasoning before in other venues and from other people. And I can most definitely deny that said "some sort of mark" was a change in skin tone, eye color, or any other random phenotype. Just as I can deny that the people literally carried a dark veil over them, had scales on their eyes, kept dark clouds about them, and other similar imagery used interchangeably with a "skin of blackness." 

Waveslider, the problem with your comparison is that you are comparing an abject disability (whether from a curse or not, it's still a disability) to an innocuous phenotypic difference that all humanity has. I'm not saying you're bigoted or even racist. But that the idea is still placing racial differences in direct analogy to a genetic/environmental defect that afflicts certain populations....that is a racist construct. It also divorces the idea from all of its historical uses, problematic implimentations, how the curse(s) were seen or used in the LDS church, and the populations these curses were ascribed to. While then saying " I don't see why people are so hung up on the mark of the curse." All of that is the big deal.  I have seen people reinterpreting what was and is racism to make it more palatable. Often this is done by ignoring, or maintaining ignorance of what the weight of these ideas cost in the form of black and brown bodies the world over, and particularly in the Americas.  This doesn't actually make it more palatable to those who are most likely to have this apply. These explanations fall way short and ignoring the history leaves to painful stumblingblocks. 

Also, a curse and it's mark are perpetually going to be a negative thing. You can't put all the negative on the curse and insist the mark was innocuous when the scriptures description of both is inherently bad. And where the mark and the curse are also interchangeably used, such as in 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 trasngression and rebellion...."    

Ignoring all this (and that's a lot to ignore IMO), the basic problem I have is with what you're drawing a comparison with. So I'm asking for you to find one time, minus hypothetically a phenotypic mark, that God cursed someone with something that in most cases outside the cursing, it's sign would be considered neutral. As in if this naturally occurred without a curse, most wouldn't find this as naturally a negative experience to some extent.

All the curses I can think of that entailed some outward sign or experience are inherently negative with or without an edict of cursing: separations from God, increase in struggle, enslavement and oppression, delays from the promised land, wanderings in wildernesses,  Pesitlence, illness, leprosy, floods, famines, fires, earthquakes, disabilities and crippling, etc. All not something you'd be okay happening on a normal day. That's the problem to me and it still infers that dark skin is either a singular exception (in which case one has to ask why THIS singular exception) or that their is something inherent negative, debilitating, or abhorrent in differing skin tones.

With luv,

BD  

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by BlueDreams

[waveslider]

9 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm not offended. But I've seen you're reasoning before in other venues and from other people. And I can most definitely deny that said "some sort of mark" was a change in skin tone, eye color, or any other random phenotype. Just as I can deny that the people literally carried a dark veil over them, had scales on their eyes, kept dark clouds about them, and other similar imagery used interchangeably with a "skin of blackness." 

I think therein lies our disagreement. I tend to believe the scriptures, that there was some form of, "mark," placed upon these people who turned from God, at least in this one incidence:

"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 against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.
7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.
8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction."
Alma 3:6-8

As to the exact form of that mark, I am not certain, only that there was some way in which they were differentiated from God's people, at that time. It is evident by this statement, "....this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren...," that this, "mark," was distinguishable in some perceptible way. This in no way, shape or form implies that all people who have certain qualities that can be mistaken, through ignorance, as being similar are also marked. This was my whole point in the first place. If you want to deny that there was no such thing as a, "mark," then I will agree to disagree with you and leave it at that.

[pogi]

On 1/21/2017 at 11:10 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

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.

According to accounts, Joseph simply "read aloud the words that appeared on the instrument".  This suggests that Joseph did not apply his own understanding of Native Americans as being "redman" in the translation, but simply read the words from the seer stone or U and T.  If that is accurate, it doesn't pose a problem for the black epidermis interpretation.  https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng

What the Nephite's called "black" in skin tone may not be what we know as "black" today, but simply was in reference to a darker skin tone.  "Black" is more a reference to race than anything else as skin tone varies significantly within races, and there are some "blacks" who are much lighter in skin tone than some "redman".

I view the mark of the curse (darker skin tone) as simply a distinguishing factor.  Any discrimination or perception of inferiority or uncomeliness due to skin tone is a product of Nephite racism who may have viewed the mark as the curse itself.  That is ridiculous when you consider that Adam and Eve were most likely black (at least that is what my biology teacher taught me - that the first man was black...and I believe him.)

Just as it would be racist to discriminate against an entire race with a darker skin tone, it would be just as racist to discriminate against an entire race with red dots on their forehead. So why do we have a problem with viewing skin tone as a mark of a curse but we don't have a problem with the red dot as a mark of a curse?  Should Hindus be equally offended because the mark of the curse for the Amalekites was a red dot on the forehead?  Skin tone and red dots were simply used as distinguishing marks and were not the curse itself.   

I don't think we can escape the racism of the Nephite's no matter how you look at it.  They were either racists of skin color, or racist of culture (loin cloth color, etc.).  The Nephite's clearly viewed the Lamanite way of life as inferior.  To say, that all Lamanites who wear a black loin cloth are inferior is just as racist as saying all Lamanites who have a darker skin tone are inferior.  Discriminating based on cultural dress, skin color, or hunting practices is racist.  There is no way around it.   

For example, the Nephites viewed the hunting of wild animals as indicative of the Lamanite curse. That is the way of life of many cultures throughout history and is just as racist a view as anything else.  Nibley doesn't argue against a darker skin tone, he simply suggests that it is due to more sun exposure because of their "way of life".  Either way, the Lamanites were discriminated against because of darker skin tone.  It doesn't matter if the darker skin tone is inherited or if it is from more sun exposure due to a race's culture - it is all racism.  I think that some people just view it as more PC if the skin tone is not inherited.  It is still racism though.

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by pogi

[theplains]

On 19/01/2017 at 7:20 PM, juliann said:

Are you assuming the Curse of Cain was dark skin? I think that has been thoroughly discredited.

You would think differently if you were living in the days when the LDS publication "The Way to Perfection"
came off the press.

Thanks,
Jim

[juliann]

26 minutes ago, theplains said:

You would think differently if you were living in the days when the LDS publication "The Way to Perfection"
came off the press.

Thanks,
Jim

How would you know that?  Of course, you neglect to inform that was in 1931 when such views were not particularly shocking. I was living when similar wishful racist thinking was still in LDS writings. It was wrong then, it is wrong now. And it has been discredited so I don't know what your point is.

[clarkgoble]

I think the theory is that in mesoAmerica both the skins of animals and often paints were commonly used. The curse in this case would be the wearing of both these dyes and clothing with the clothing having a bit of a ritual aspect to it. (As do the verses in the Book of Mormon often) So when Nephi dissenters leave they take up these behaviors.

The curse of Cain seems quite different and unfortunately largely picked up from southern racist apologetics for slavery in the 19th century. While there's obvious semiotic drift in how people familiar with the 'curse of cain' rhetoric read the Book of Mormon I tend to see that as more distorting than informative. (Which isn't to dispute it matters for understanding how early people would read the Book of Mormon) 

A lot depends upon what premises you bring to interpreting the text. Do you read it primarily in terms of its 19th century context or primarily in terms of its purported context. How you read it will vary quite a bit by what context you supply. I think even in terms of its purported context that one could argue that some thought the Lamanites literally were cursed with dark skin. Again that could be explained by simple mixing with an indigenous people. Although likely the Nephites as 6th century Palestianians would have had fairly dark skin. So it'd have been relative at best. I think the argument for it being something other than a miraculous change in skin is demanded by the text. Especially by how the Nephite dissenters merge so quickly.

I'm certainly not saying there might not be remaining issues. Although I think the believer can accept accidents of the text affected by Joseph Smith's cultural presuppositions. i.e. the idea that the meaning of the text can be slightly distorted by Joseph's understanding even if the gist of the text comes through well enough.

[BlueDreams]

On 1/24/2017 at 8:35 AM, waveslider said:

I think therein lies our disagreement. I tend to believe the scriptures, that there was some form of, "mark," placed upon these people who turned from God, at least in this one incidence:

"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 against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.
7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.
8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction."
Alma 3:6-8

As to the exact form of that mark, I am not certain, only that there was some way in which they were differentiated from God's people, at that time. It is evident by this statement, "....this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren...," that this, "mark," was distinguishable in some perceptible way. This in no way, shape or form implies that all people who have certain qualities that can be mistaken, through ignorance, as being similar are also marked. This was my whole point in the first place. If you want to deny that there was no such thing as a, "mark," then I will agree to disagree with you and leave it at that.

The mark, in my mind, can still have physical manifestations just not genetic/phenotypic ones. I state this for the way both their curse and mark is described (or not) in all scriptures. I'm looking for congruency and something that gives answers. For this to fit scripture, you need a mark that is immediately removed with repentance and implemented when one crosses a point of severe rebellion/apostacy. Phenotypic changes cannot be added and removed on command let alone by our personal choices. Ironically this passage can easily support a differing theory by indicating what the mark is (ie. taking on traditions that include violent rebellion from God's chosen ways). And because these changes are a major them in the BoM, it also should probably fit the purpose of the Book of Mormon and be applicable to our day. It also needs to take into account of what is mentioned in the Gospel Topics essay that was approved by the Church. 

As you mentioned, we will probably have to agree to disagree. One passage and one quote is not enough, IMO to disseminate the patterns and uses. 

 

With luv,

BD

[waveslider]

26 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

The mark, in my mind, can still have physical manifestations just not genetic/phenotypic ones. I state this for the way both their curse and mark is described (or not) in all scriptures. I'm looking for congruency and something that gives answers. For this to fit scripture, you need a mark that is immediately removed with repentance and implemented when one crosses a point of severe rebellion/apostacy. Phenotypic changes cannot be added and removed on command let alone by our personal choices. Ironically this passage can easily support a differing theory by indicating what the mark is (ie. taking on traditions that include violent rebellion from God's chosen ways). And because these changes are a major them in the BoM, it also should probably fit the purpose of the Book of Mormon and be applicable to our day. It also needs to take into account of what is mentioned in the Gospel Topics essay that was approved by the Church. 

As you mentioned, we will probably have to agree to disagree. One passage and one quote is not enough, IMO to disseminate the patterns and uses. 

 

With luv,

BD

I personally won't limit what type of mark God can set upon those who choose evil, genetic or not, it's still a mark set by God. There is nothing we can do to remove such a curse, except ask God to remove it. Repentance itself doesn't necessarily remove a curse, although many times God sees that and will remove it. If God decides to remove it, it will be removed, even instantaneously, if He so chooses. It doesn't matter if it is genetic or not, God can, and does, still work miracles, as He always has. Hence the reason I think we are doing ourselves a complete disservice by getting hung up on the actual type of mark that was set upon evil people, as opposed to understanding why the curse was placed there in the first place. But I will let that just be my opinion. You are free to have your own. So thank you for acknowledging that we will probably have to agree to disagree. I will do so with much aloha to you!

[Calm]

I don't see Bluedreams as limiting what God can or cannot do, but rather focusing on what the scriptures have actually said God has done and what they haven't said.

[waveslider]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't see Bluedreams as limiting what God can or cannot do, but rather focusing on what the scriptures have actually said God has done and what they haven't said.

This seems limiting to me:

16 minutes ago, waveslider said:

The mark, in my mind, can still have physical manifestations just not genetic/phenotypic ones.

 

[pogi]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Or, is this a sign that Nephite racism made its way into parts of the Book of Mormon - just like sexism made its way into parts of the Bible? 

 President Uchtdorf's statements in a 2013 general conference may give a little weight to the idea that Nephite racism may be found in the Book of Mormon:

Quote

In the Book of Mormon, both the Nephites as well as the Lamanites created their own “truths” about each other. The Nephites’ “truth” about the Lamanites was that they “were a wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people,” never able to accept the gospel. The Lamanites’ “truth” about the Nephites was that Nephi had stolen his brother’s birthright and that Nephi’s descendants were liars who continued to rob the Lamanites of what was rightfully theirs. These “truths” fed their hatred for one another until it finally consumed them all.

Needless to say, there are many examples in the Book of Mormon that contradict both of these stereotypes. Nevertheless, the Nephites and Lamanites believed these “truths” that shaped the destiny of this once-mighty and beautiful people.

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng

Edit: Oh great!  I quoted myself and instead of creating a new post, it replaced the post that I quoted myself in...that sucks!

That is not BlueDreams quote, that is from my last post.  Is there any way to undo an edit?

Edited January 25, 2017 by pogi

[champatsch]

Kevin,

When there is grammatical possession in the text, it conveys that the skin is part of the body of the possessor (8 times: Jacob 3:5, 8, 9; Mosiah 17:13; Alma 3:6; 20:29; 44:18; 3 Nephi 2:15). Otherwise it is an article of clothing (5 times: Enos 1:20; Alma 3:5; 43:20; 49:6, 3 Nephi 4:7).  Other textual evidence points to human skin, not garment skin in 2 Nephi 5:21.

When referring to skin color, white and black in Jacobean times could simply mean relatively lighter- and darker-skinned:

1604 OED E. Grimstone tr. D’Acosta’s Hist. Indies ii. xi. 106

Under the same line . . . lies a part of Peru, and of the new kingdome of Grenado, which . . . are very temperate Countries, . . . and the inhabitants are white.

1553 OED EdenTreat. New Ind. (Arb.) 14

The bodyes of men begin to waxe blacke and to be scorched.

Recast: Men’s bodies start getting tan and sun-burned.

Edited January 25, 2017 by champatsch
Jacobean

[Kevin Christensen]

16 hours ago, champatsch said:

Kevin,

When there is grammatical possession in the text, it conveys that the skin is part of the body of the possessor (8 times: Jacob 3:5, 8, 9; Mosiah 17:13; Alma 3:6; 20:29; 44:18; 3 Nephi 2:15). Otherwise it is an article of clothing (5 times: Enos 1:20; Alma 3:5; 43:20; 49:6, 3 Nephi 4:7).  Other textual evidence points to human skin, not garment skin in 2 Nephi 5:21.

When referring to skin color, white and black in Jacobean times could simply mean relatively lighter- and darker-skinned:

1604 OED E. Grimstone tr. D’Acosta’s Hist. Indies ii. xi. 106

Under the same line . . . lies a part of Peru, and of the new kingdome of Grenado, which . . . are very temperate Countries, . . . and the inhabitants are white.

1553 OED EdenTreat. New Ind. (Arb.) 14

The bodyes of men begin to waxe blacke and to be scorched.

Recast: Men’s bodies start getting tan and sun-burned.

I's not just a matter of grammatical possession, there is also the matter of known colliquial usage for overall moral behavior and lifestyle, as pointed out by Nibley and Sorenson, and some examples we've cited from the Bible, as well as the places where prophets used references to clean and filthy garments in the same contexts and for the same purposes.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[pogi]

20 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

The mark, in my mind, can still have physical manifestations just not genetic/phenotypic ones. I state this for the way both their curse and mark is described (or not) in all scriptures. I'm looking for congruency and something that gives answers. For this to fit scripture, you need a mark that is immediately removed with repentance and implemented when one crosses a point of severe rebellion/apostacy. Phenotypic changes cannot be added and removed on command let alone by our personal choices. Ironically this passage can easily support a differing theory by indicating what the mark is (ie. taking on traditions that include violent rebellion from God's chosen ways). And because these changes are a major them in the BoM, it also should probably fit the purpose of the Book of Mormon and be applicable to our day. It also needs to take into account of what is mentioned in the Gospel Topics essay that was approved by the Church. 

As you mentioned, we will probably have to agree to disagree. One passage and one quote is not enough, IMO to disseminate the patterns and uses. 

 

With luv,

BD

Hi BD, let me try this again.  My first response was eaten up by a strange glitch.

I do think you give a pretty good argument here and think there are a few things you may want to consider as well.  First, there doesn't seem to be very strong evidence that the mark of the curse was "immediately" removed or implemented.  The BoM is fairly explicit that those Nephites who intermingled with the Lamanites would not receive the mark of the curse, but their children would.  Similarly, there is no evidence that King Limhi had the mark removed after conversion.  The BoM states that the Lamanites "became" white, and specifically mentions their "sons and daughters" became whilte like unto the Nephites.  This, to me, is all evidence that there was no immediate change in skin color based on righteousness or wickedness, but that genetic inheritance and mutation was in play.  This resulted in racial diversity and I believe, racial prejudice. 

To be honest, I don't know quite what to make of the "mark" of the curse.  The stated purpose of the mark was for discrimination (that they might not be "enticing" to the Nephites).  It doesn't really matter what the mark was.  The mark could have just as easily been a white skin if the Lehites were originally darker in color.  I just find it hard to believe that God would place a mark on a people for the purpose of discriminating based on skin tone, cultural dress, or face paint.  It is my belief that Nephite racism made its way into the BoM, just like sexism made its way into the Bible.  

I don't believe that all "black" Lamanites were "lazy" and that all "white" Nephites were industrious.  I don't believe that all Lamanites were wicked and all Nephites were righteous. I think the Nephites took genetically imposed racial diversity as a sign of a curse.  Many of the Lamanite religious traditions were polluted, but that doesn't mean they all had cold hearts.  Did the Lord really want the Nephites to discriminate because of their LOOKS?  Did God really want the Nephites to not interact with the Lamanites because of their skin color, dress, etc.?  

The sons of Mosiah went against the dominant prejudiced views of the Nephites and decided to interact with those who looked different from themselves.  Rather than being cursed for intermingling with the Lamanites, they were blessed for doing what others believed couldn't be done due to the racial prejudice and false traditions of Nephite fathers.   

Interstingly, the curse was lifted among the Lamanites because a few humble Nephites (not Lamanites) decided to go against the false traditions of their fathers to intermingle with the Lamanites.

 

  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

First, there doesn't seem to be very strong evidence that the mark of the curse was "immediately" removed or implemented.  The BoM is fairly explicit that those Nephites who intermingled with the Lamanites would not receive the mark of the curse, but their children would.  Similarly, there is no evidence that King Limhi had the mark removed after conversion.  The BoM states that the Lamanites "became" white, and specifically mentions their "sons and daughters" became whilte like unto the Nephites.  This, to me, is all evidence that there was no immediate change in skin color based on righteousness or wickedness, but that genetic inheritance and mutation was in play.   

While that's possible, I think 3 Nephi 2:15 suggests that it wasn't just children whose skin changed but also the parents. Although of course it could be read either way. I'm certainly not faulting the idea that it's primarily a phenotype change due to heredity. The problem with the phenotype interpretation (as critics have long noted) is that it only happens with intermarriage. That is one might not expect it to be a massive change but that it'd take a fair bit of time - multiple generations assuming they did intermarriage strongly. This suggests whatever did happen happened too fast for it to be heredity. Skins as clothing type or literal marking of the skin (either paint or tattoos) makes far more sense.

The main argument for skin as clothing is Alma 3:5 where skin was girded about their loins. We know from 3 Ne 4:7 about being dyed in blood too. The main verse read for skin as their physical skin is Alma 3:6, but again, the prior verse describes the skins as girded about their loins. So the mark seems to be these skins they gird themselves with which are dark while the Nephites is light. That 3 Ne 4 account talks about lamb skins. It's not quite clear what creature that means. Some have speculated bighorn sheep but that seems dubious to me. It's interesting that they note the material there though which seems significant and perhaps opposed to the other sections. My understanding is that in mesoamerica it's usually maguey or cotton that they use. Honestly much of the mark could just be a shift in fabric with white cotton being significant to the Nephites for some reason. From what little I know of mayan clothing, animal skins were often worn for war and removed as a sign of defeat.

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

While that's possible, I think 3 Nephi 2:15 suggests that it wasn't just children whose skin changed but also the parents. Although of course it could be read either way. I'm certainly not faulting the idea that it's primarily a phenotype change due to heredity. The problem with the phenotype interpretation (as critics have long noted) is that it only happens with intermarriage. That is one might not expect it to be a massive change but that it'd take a fair bit of time - multiple generations assuming they did intermarriage strongly. This suggests whatever did happen happened too fast for it to be heredity. Skins as clothing type or literal marking of the skin (either paint or tattoos) makes far more sense.

The main argument for skin as clothing is Alma 3:5 where skin was girded about their loins. We know from 3 Ne 4:7 about being dyed in blood too. The main verse read for skin as their physical skin is Alma 3:6, but again, the prior verse describes the skins as girded about their loins. So the mark seems to be these skins they gird themselves with which are dark while the Nephites is light. That 3 Ne 4 account talks about lamb skins. It's not quite clear what creature that means. Some have speculated bighorn sheep but that seems dubious to me. It's interesting that they note the material there though which seems significant and perhaps opposed to the other sections. My understanding is that in mesoamerica it's usually maguey or cotton that they use. Honestly much of the mark could just be a shift in fabric with white cotton being significant to the Nephites for some reason. From what little I know of mayan clothing, animal skins were often worn for war and removed as a sign of defeat.

There certainly are challenges for either interpretation.  If this was indeed a God imposed mark as the BoM suggests, then a genetic mutation could easily be passed in a single generation to the children.  The fact that the mark is only spread to Nephite children (and not the parents) through intermarriage, persuades me to believe that we are not talking about loin cloths here.  Cultural influence is not a one way street for children of mixed parents, yet the mark does appear to be a one way street for all mixed children.  Why must a mixed child with a Nephite mother or father be marked with the Lamanite culture and dress, even if living among the Nephites?  It doesn't make much sense.  

Either way, I have difficulty accepting that God encouraged/s discrimination based on appearances, or imposed a blanket ban on all intermarriages to Lamanites. I personally believe that the Nephites simply found opportunity to discriminate, and that it was not condoned by God as evidence by the sons of Mosiah being blessed for their color/loin cloth blindness.   The "mark of the curse" was nothing more than a product of Nephite racism, or "Nephite truth" as President Uchtdorf called it. 

 

[BlueDreams]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

Hi BD, let me try this again.  My first response was eaten up by a strange glitch.

no worries, i've been down for the count anyways. Had a heavier client load and migraines hit. But I hate when the internet eats my posts....I had that happen responding to this post right now. It was ridiculously long and thorough. And now it's all gone.....UGH! I have a few responses to what you've said....but now I'm out of time. This is something I've given probably a little more than the average amount thought on. I've sluggishly worked on a paper for this very topic and studied out both the Nephites and Lamanites verses, but the curses/markings in the Pearl of Great Price and Old Testament in much the way Calm ascribed (trying to let the texts define what God did or didn't do). To be quick, discrimination by custom is not racism by the definition of racism. Ethnocentrism (if of an ethnic group....at first this wouldn't have applied to the lamanites) and prejudice, feasibly, but not racism. I think it's sometimes helpful to imagine what would make someone unappealing to a group of people who are actively pursuing the Lord compared to groups or people that are very apparently not. For extreme examples of generally repellent symbols, think of the Nazi use of the swastika. The symbol and those that wear or use it generally are met in neighborhoods with distrust and dislike...even if these neighborhoods are mostly of the same racial group. They're symbols that have become synonymous with violence, death, intolerence, and hatred. Or more recently the ISIS symbol. It's not racism....not at first at least....to find those proclaiming such as part of their identity as repellent.  

The groups for the initial lamanites described were in a similar place. Their leaders (Laman and Lemuel), though having moments of more righteous attitudes, are separated because they were violent, angry, and hostile towards their brother to the point of plotting to murder him....more than once. They had a tendency to do things that in their times would have felt like denying/ignoring/mocking God's commands on top of this. Their lifestyle was not in alignment with their fellow kin to such an extent that if we had a relative of similar attributes we would naturally be repulsed. (who has warm fuzzies to the violent jealous sibling who plots to harm you and tends towards behaviors that offend your religious and spiritual beliefs while trying to assert power and dominance....or the ones that have a tendency to encourage them and enable their behaviors). I would imagine the people of Nephi at first were sorrowful for their lost brethren, but in no mood to allign with them because their lives were antithetical to their own. The marks as outward symbols The more prejudiced behaviors - where there is more of what I would describe as bigotry, ethnocentrism, or at least feelings of being better than their kin - aren't seen immediately until the Nephites begin to become more prideful and there is longer term distance/continued fighting between the groups. I think you begin to really see that in Jacob 3. 

 

Geeze....I can already tell this is going to be a longer post. I'm going to try to keep this shorter though, if I can. But for me the problem is in some of the underlying assumptions that I'm seeing. You're working with the assumption that God actively phenotypically changed them. I'm working on a different version of both the curse and the mark. One that can be easily removed (well easier than skin). Comes in gradations, and have varying descriptions that all describe degrees of righteousness and closeness to God's ways (which, tying to the main article, I think fits as well sense clothing played key roles in temple rites). This assumption is important because it literally can filter some of the ways we read the texts themselves....we favor or hone in on dark skins and inadvertently don't pay as close attention to other passages describing them.

:::will write more later. This was all that made it through before it deleted everything:::

Edited January 27, 2017 by BlueDreams

[pogi]

8 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Had a heavier client load and migraines hit.

That is never a good combo!

After reviewing Alma 3 more closely.  I am starting to see things that I haven't noticed before.  Here are the verses that I have been studying:

Quote

4 And the Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for 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.

Interesting that the mark of red on the forehead was originally a Lamanite marking, but is nowhere mentioned as a "mark of the curse" for the Lamanites. As we all know, the Lamanite mark was instead a dark skin.  The Amlicites adopted the red mark, and for some reason it became viewed as a mark of the curse unto the Amlicites, even though they never were marked with "black skin" and the red was never viewed as a mark for the Lamanites.

I always interpreted vs. 9 to mean that anyone who intermingled with the Lamanites would receive the same mark (black skin), but The Amlicites clearly intermingled with the Lamanites and never received black skin, but instead adopted the red forehead of the Lamanites.  This means that the "same curse" as mentioned in vs. 9, is not in reference to any markings at all, but is instead in reference to the actual curse of being separated from the Lord.  This does give credence to the idea that the Lamanites did not have actual black skins, because the children of the Amlicites did not become black that I am aware of. 

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 against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.

10 Therefore, whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him.

First thing I noticed is how vs 10 clarifies verse 9, specifying exactly who was cursed and why.  Up until this point, I had a hard time accepting the black skin as a cultural clothing mark because I couldn't accept that a mixed child must inevitably adopt Lamanite culture and dress.  However, I now see that vs. 10 clarifies that it is only the children of those who are "led away", or adopt the ways of life and live among the Lamanites who are cursed.  It doesn't state that they receive "the same" mark; instead, in verse 10 it simply states that they receive "a" mark, which is not of necessity a black skin as evidenced by the Amlicites red foreheads and non-black "skin".  Reading it in this light does give the interpretation of a cultural mark more credence.

13 Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads.

I also had a hard time accepting that the mark was cultural, because vs. 7 clearly states that "God set the mark upon them".  Somehow I missed vs. 13 which states that the Amlicites also had the "mark set upon them", yet they also clearly marked themselves. In other words, they were marked by God, through self application.  I suppose the same could be true for the Lamanites.

14 Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.

15 And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also.

16 And again: I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed.

18 Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them.

19 Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation.

I have some more thinking to do, but I do see how these verses could mean that any "mark" set by God, is always self-applied, and that the black skin is not necessarily inherited by all mixed children.  In short, I now see that these verses could be interpreted that an unspecific, self-applied, mark will be adopted by those who are led away to adopt the ways of the Lamanites, ultimately resulting in the "same curse" of separation from God if they continue in their ways.

I am still having trouble with a visual mark being applied by God however.  I still lean towards the idea that the Nephites simply interpreted these markings to be signs of a curse, which evolved into a reason for ethnocentrism and prejudiced/bigoted views.  I don't believe that God wants us to physically avoid people who look different from us - not even if they are bearing a swastika symbol.  It took a few brave and humble young Nephite souls to look past the mark before any healing could take place among the Lamanites.  In a way, it was partly bigoted Nephite beliefs which kept/prolonged the Lamanites under the curse. 

[BlueDreams]

Kay, trying again:

Quote

 

I do think you give a pretty good argument here and think there are a few things you may want to consider as well.  First, there doesn't seem to be very strong evidence that the mark of the curse was "immediately" removed or implemented.  The BoM is fairly explicit that those Nephites who intermingled with the Lamanites would not receive the mark of the curse, but their children would.  Similarly, there is no evidence that King Limhi had the mark removed after conversion.  The BoM states that the Lamanites "became" white, and specifically mentions their "sons and daughters" became white like unto the Nephites.  This, to me, is all evidence that there was no immediate change in skin color based on righteousness or wickedness, but that genetic inheritance and mutation was in play.  This resulted in racial diversity and I believe, racial prejudice. 

 

To the first point, yes there is pretty strong evidence that the mark of the curse was immediately removed. As mentioned the term “mark” is interchanged with the word curse. It’s our modern reading and need to place some space between the idea of skin color being a curse that has led to our need to read them as separately. The scriptures don’t. For example when the curse is first implemented in 2 Nephi 5 20-25 doesn’t use the term mark once. Instead it says: “I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.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.” In it there is the consistent out clause for the removal of said curse. Repentence. It also notes that the curs is “to be cut off from the presence of the Lord.”

We also tend to ignore the other ways the curse/mark is described previous to this. Before it’s implementation it’s alluded to at least 2 other times in 1 nephi 2, 12….and before alma 3 another couple of times in Enos and Jacob (also their later apostacy in 2 Ne 30:6). Each time, instead of skins they use varying ways to describe the cut off presence. This includes filthy or white garments, a singular skin being placed over them, Scales of darkness, clouds or mists of darkness, removal of light etc. Their behaviors and customs antithetical to the Law of Moses and Gospel are also highlighted in these descriptions. All of them come with the assumption that they can change when the choose to repent.

When read with other synonymous phrases it’s pretty clear that the people taught by the sons of Mosiah most definitely had immediate removal. See alma 19:6 and 23:17-18:

19:6 Now, this was what Ammon desired, for he knew that king Lamoni was under the power of God; he knew that the dark veil of unbelief was being cast away from his mind, and the light which did light up his mind, which was the light of the glory of God, which was a marvelous light of his goodness—yea, this light had infused such joy into his soul, the cloud of darkness having been dispelled, and that the light of everlasting life was lit up in his soul, yea, he knew that this had overcome his natural frame, and he was carried away in God—

    Notice the phraseology and continued use of dark/light to indicate an immediate change on the contingency of repentance

In 23:18 (with the assertion that the curse and the mark are interchangeable, it’s stated explicitly that the curse did “no more follow them.”)

This also happens in helaman 5 and being made white happens twice in 3 Nephi. The one you mentioned and again to all when they are in communion with Christ. The description you point to is just a catch all to what was happening to the lamanites who were in larger masse converting at that time…..ie. repenting. It indicates not just a change for the first generation converts, but how their children were now being raised within the covenants and laws of God.

Your last point was something that never made sense to me. I am mixed and so is the majority of my family and that’s just not how genetics works. It’s how American culture has framed race but it’s not really what’s happening. I look very distinctive from both of my parents. No one who would see me would assume that I was straight up Nigerian or straight up white. Maybe Latina, but that’s an ethnicity not a race. So to me, even if we were to assume this, it’s more problematic because it reads an American view of race into the text. Other modern day cultures, even, have differing ways of viewing race and what intermarriage does to race. This explanation also goes beyond the text itself. They indicate and immediate change. Even if you were to read that it was the children who had the full extent of the curse/mark…..Laman and Lemuel and his followers were already married to other Israelites and were largely already well on their way to adulthood, if not adults. Unless you’re speaking of grandchildren and general posterity….which again, goes beyond the text into extrapolating based on our own sensibilities. Basically with this line of reasoning, we are still imposing are expectation into the text instead of allowing the text to define the terms itself. When you do, as the article did as well, It doesn’t denote a major physical change and moreso desecration and removal of Temple rites and covenants and the emblems used to denote such.
 

Quote

 

To be honest, I don't know quite what to make of the "mark" of the curse.  The stated purpose of the mark was for discrimination (that they might not be "enticing" to the Nephites).  It doesn't really matter what the mark was.  The mark could have just as easily been a white skin if the Lehites were originally darker in color.  I just find it hard to believe that God would place a mark on a people for the purpose of discriminating based on skin tone, cultural dress, or face paint.  It is my belief that Nephite racism made its way into the BoM, just like sexism made its way into the Bible.  

I don't believe that all "black" Lamanites were "lazy" and that all "white" Nephites were industrious.  I don't believe that all Lamanites were wicked and all Nephites were righteous. I think the Nephites took genetically imposed racial diversity as a sign of a curse.  Many of the Lamanite religious traditions were polluted, but that doesn't mean they all had cold hearts.  Did the Lord really want the Nephites to discriminate because of their LOOKS?  Did God really want the Nephites to not interact with the Lamanites because of their skin color, dress, etc.?  

 

Honestly, this reminds me a lot as to how I felt about the text when I was still trying to work out how an imposed physical mark or color change could be worked. It never fully fit. But it very much matters what the mark is-ish. A phenotypic genetics based mark, as I mentioned has some serious implications that veer towards racism. No matter how one writes it, it places born skin color on the same level as plagues, disabilities, and natural disasters. Other marks, such as removal of temple emblems and adoption of cultural practices antithetical to the gospel is another thing all together. This to me falls into the 2nd definition of discrimination as “recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.” The first fits into unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things. The Nephites later veered into the latter when they became more wicked. And the BoM also agrees that not all of them had cold hearts or were purely wicked. It’s shown in the actions of enos and the sermon in Jacob 3. Many knew that these were still children of God and had redeemable characteristics.

Quote

 

The sons of Mosiah went against the dominant prejudiced views of the Nephites and decided to interact with those who looked different from themselves.  Rather than being cursed for intermingling with the Lamanites, they were blessed for doing what others believed couldn't be done due to the racial prejudice and false traditions of Nephite fathers.   

Interstingly, the curse was lifted among the Lamanites because a few humble Nephites (not Lamanites) decided to go against the false traditions of their fathers to intermingle with the Lamanites.

 

The way I read the mark/curse rhetoric in scriptures have also given me a different perspective on the sons of Mosiah. To me, they were so successful not because they went against dominant prejudices about differing looks but because the identified and knew personally that they were basically Lamanites without the title. Read Alma 36 and how he describes their state. They were “seeking to destroy the church of God,” “racked with eternal torment,” experiencing the pains of a damned soul (ie. One separated from the presence of God), etc. His/their release was also found by turning to Christ and finding joy/”marvelous light.” They could touch them in a way that few could because they knew exactly where they were in a spiritual sense. They had been lost and separated from God too.

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

That is never a good combo!

After reviewing Alma 3 more closely.  I am starting to see things that I haven't noticed before.  Here are the verses that I have been studying:

I have some more thinking to do, but I do see how these verses could mean that any "mark" set by God, is always self-applied, and that the black skin is not necessarily inherited by all mixed children.  In short, I now see that these verses could be interpreted that an unspecific, self-applied, mark will be adopted by those who are led away to adopt the ways of the Lamanites, ultimately resulting in the "same curse" of separation from God if they continue in their ways.

I am still having trouble with a visual mark being applied by God however.  I still lean towards the idea that the Nephites simply interpreted these markings to be signs of a curse, which evolved into a reason for ethnocentrism and prejudiced/bigoted views.  I don't believe that God wants us to physically avoid people who look different from us - not even if they are bearing a swastika symbol.  It took a few brave and humble young Nephite souls to look past the mark before any healing could take place among the Lamanites.  In a way, it was partly bigoted Nephite beliefs which kept/prolonged the Lamanites under the curse. 

I do think that at times, God does expect us to separated from those who may place our life or freedom at risk. Which is exactly what the Lamanites were. And that in some environments the level of corruption and cultural toxicity can mean more intense separations. This doesn't make sense if we think of these things as innocuous cultural, traditional, or dress choices. But these aren't it. I personally don't know if there was a very real mark. As you noted the "mark" was transient and more indicative of allegiance to enemy groups and calls for violent rebellion and decent than something that was static and attained consistently. I personally feel the mark was anything that indicated a living hatred, violence, and rejection of God's ways. There were groups within these cultures that obviously began to have more openness to the Lord's truth.  Particularly the original Lamanites. And as I mentioned the actual bigotry and mischaracterization of the Lamanites didn't happen immediately, but over time and a change in how the Nephites were in righteousness. The change from boundaries for basic safety and preservation of both Gospel life to bigotry wasn't all at the commencement of the curse. 

One other note, I think the Curse/Mark are what generally happens whenever one becomes separated from "the presence of the Lord"....not necessarily focusing on specific dress style as indicative. But more so what their varying actions represented. Being separated from the Lord means that our fullest selves cannot be made manifest, there is often a description of losing blessing in the land itself, etc. It's a loss of covenant, temple rites, and sacred knowledge. I think many of the descriptions given aren't meant to point to cultural distinctions but major spiritual disruptions.  

 

With luv,

BD   

[pogi]

On 1/27/2017 at 5:58 PM, BlueDreams said:

One other note, I think the Curse/Mark are what generally happens whenever one becomes separated from "the presence of the Lord"....not necessarily focusing on specific dress style as indicative. But more so what their varying actions represented. Being separated from the Lord means that our fullest selves cannot be made manifest, there is often a description of losing blessing in the land itself, etc. It's a loss of covenant, temple rites, and sacred knowledge. I think many of the descriptions given aren't meant to point to cultural distinctions but major spiritual disruptions.  

I agree with this.   That is how I view the curse as well, more indicative of behavior/practices/beliefs which separate them from the Lord.  I am not convinced that there was any external marking related to the curse.  I still view that as something the Nephite's later attributed to the curse without good cause.  As you point out in 1 and 2 Nephi and other earlier scriptures, the term "mark" is not associated with a curse at all.  The visible external marks worn by the Lamanites seems to be a case of false association with the curse. 

This is further evidenced by the description of the removal of the curse of Lamoni in Alma 19:6 that you point out.  The removal of the curse was more the removal of the "dark veil of unbelief" and being filled with the light of the glory of God.  There is absolutely no indication that any external visible marks were removed or changed in any way.  Lamoni's skin did not turn from black to white, and his cultural dress/face paintings were not removed or changed.  Lamoni's father immediately recognized that Ammon was a Nephite (presumably because he dressed like one and didn't have any red forehead markings etc.), but he was not upset by Lamoni's dress etc.  There is no indication of any external changes of appearance or dress whatsoever, even though the curse had been removed.  

Another example is Abish - the female Lamanite servant who had been converted for many years due to a miraculous vision of her father.  Despite the fact that her family had all converted for many years, there was no external changes to her appearance, and she lived freely among the Lamanites, presumably wearing the same dress and face paintings.  Abish would have been falsely judged of any Nephite as a cursed Lamanite woman due to the false association of any markings with a curse.

If Martin Luther King Jr. was a righteous Lamanite in that day, he might have said something like this:

"I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their loin cloth, but by the content of their character". 

Good luck on your paper BD, I would love to read it when it is finished!

Edited January 30, 2017 by pogi