Origins: Native Americans as a Lost Tribe

[smac97]

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As a youngster I believed that one of the unique teachings of our church was the origin story for Native Americans.

Same here.  However, I have never been taught, nor have I ever believed, that the Native Americans were exclusively descended from Lehi.

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In fact, it seemed like Mormonism thrived, at least in part, during its early years because it answered a burning question that hovered in the early 19th century ether; where did the Indians come from and what was their nature?

I question that.  Much of the growth of the Church "in the early 19th century" was through missionary work in Europe.  Such folks, I think, hardly considered the origins of Native Americans to be an important question, let alone a "burning" one.  I also question whether the origins of the Native Americans was a significant religious question to those who joined the Church in the U.S. and Canada. 

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The Book of Mormon answered those questions, showing the indigenous Americans to be of ancient Hebrew origins.

Well, to some extent.  But I question whether "those questions" had a religious/spiritual dimension to early 19th century converts to the Church.  

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Years later, and I was just reminded of this today, I learned that the idea of Native Americans being one of the lost tribes of Israel was not unique to Mormonism

CFR, please, that "the idea of Native Americans being one of the lost tribes of Israel" exists in Mormonism at all.  I am familiar with Simon Southerton's "Losing a Lost Tribe" Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews (the former referencing this notion in the title, and the latter using this notion as a key premise), but where did the LDS Church teach that Native Americans descended from the lost tribes?  

My understanding is that this has never been a teaching of the Church.  3 Nephi describes a visit by the resurrected Christ to the Nephites in the New World.  Significantly, 3 Nephi 17:4 quotes the Savior saying "But now I go unto the Father, and also to show myself unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not lost unto the Father, for he knoweth whither he hath taken them."  So the Savior, speaking to the Nephites, referenced the "lost tribes" as being located somewhere else.  3 Nephi 16:1 likewise quotes the Savior as referencing "other sheep which are not of this land" (subsequently referenced in chapter 17 as the "lost tribes").  Verse 2 then has the Savior telling the Nephites that "them of whom I speak have not as yet heard my voice," and that He had "{not} manifested {him}self unto them."  Since the Nephites had, at that point, "heard {His} voice," those "lost sheep" (that is, the lost tribes) are someone other than the Nephites.

The entry in the The Book of Mormon student manual about 3 Nephi 16 states: "Verses 1–3 of 3 Nephi 16 make it clear that there are 'other sheep' besides the Nephites and that the Savior planned to visit them. We are told in 3 Nephi 17:4 that these other sheep are the 'lost tribes of Israel.' The Good Shepherd watches over all His flocks, caring for them as needed."

In 1 Nephi 22:3-4, Nephi states that “…it appears that the house of Israel, sooner or later, will be scattered upon all the face of the earth, and also among all nations.  And behold, there are many who are already lost from the knowledge of those who are at Jerusalem.  Yea, the more part of all the tribes have been led away: and they are scattered to and fro upon the isles of the sea; and whither they are none of us knoweth, save that we know that they have been led away.”  In other words, the dispersal of the lost tribes occurred after Lehi and his family left Jerusalem.

In 2 Nephi 29:12-13, Nephi quotes the Lord as saying: “For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.  And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews.”  In other words, the Lord explicitly differentiates "the lost tribes of Israel" from "the Nephites."

Elder Mark E. Peterson wrote that "the Ten Tribes are lost," and that we "do not have any indication in the revelations as to their whereabouts."  Contrast this with the teachings of the LDS Church that the whereabouts of the descendants of the Nephites (the Native Americans, who are also descended from other non-Nephite ancestors as well) are known.

Joseph Fielding McConkie noted (in response to the question "do we have any scriptural clues as to the whereabouts of the lost tribes?"): 

Quote

 

Clues, no. Plain statements, yes. On this matter we have the united testimony of the Standard Works. Enoch in the prophetic description of the last days spoke of "righteousness and truth" sweeping the four quarters of the earth "as with a flood," to gather out the "elect" and bring them to the New Jerusalem (Moses 7:62). In the biblical statements we begin with Moses, the first prophet to prophesy to the nation of Israel. Moses, as we have already seen, prophesied that all the tribes of Israel would be scattered to the ends of the earth should they break that covenant that entitled them to a promised inheritance in the land of Palestine. Yet, he also prophesied of a day of gathering and restoration, the responsibility for which he placed upon the shoulders of the tribe of Joseph, or more specifically, Ephraim and Manasseh. Like the horns of unicorns, he said, they would gather the people from the ends of the earth (Deut 33:17; 30:3). In the New Testament, Christ spoke of gathering the "elect from the four winds" (Matt 24:31) and James addressed his epistle "to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" (Jas 1:1).

Describing this day of restoration, Isaiah said that the Lord would "assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth" (Isa 11:12). To Ezekiel the Lord said, "I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where you have been scattered" (Ezek 11:17). Again he said: "I will bring them out from the people, and gather them from the countries" (Ezek 34:13). And still again he said, "I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side" (Ezek 37:21.)

Mormon, in like manner, taught: "I write unto all the ends of the earth; yea, unto you, twelve tribes of Israel" (Morm 3:18). In fact, the Book of Mormon tells us that the Three Nephites "shall minister unto all the scattered tribes of Israel, and unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, and shall bring out of them unto Jesus many souls" (3 Ne 28:29). With specific reference to the lost tribes rather than all the house of Israel, Nephi said they had been "scattered upon all the face of the earth, and also among all nations" (1 Ne 22:3, 4, 5). The dispersion of all the tribes of Israel is taught with unquestioned authority in 3 Nephi...

 

So clearly a differentiation between Native Americans (and Lehi, one of their progenitors).  Also consider this "I Have a Question" response in the September 1976 Ensign (emphasis added):

Quote

While Spaulding’s manuscript said nothing about the origin of the American Indians, there were many people during Joseph Smith’s lifetime and earlier in American history who believed that the Indians were the descendants of the lost ten tribes of Israel. A number of books had been written on the subject. As settlers from Europe came in contact with the Indians of North America, they were naturally curious about the origins of these people. Theologians especially looked to the Bible for answers, and some speculated that the lost tribes were the ancestors of the Indians. Joseph Smith might easily have been familiar with this theme.

Therefore, during the past thirty years some non-Mormon scholars, realizing the weakness of the Spaulding manuscript theory, have postulated that Joseph Smith might have gained some of the ideas for the Book of Mormon from a book by Ethan Smith entitled View of the Hebrews, first published in Vermont in 1823, with a revised, enlarged edition published in 1835. In this book Ethan Smith endeavored to show, on the basis of scientific research of the time, that the American Indians were the descendants of the lost tribes of Israel.

But although the Book of Mormon does report several migrations of small groups of Israelites to the western hemisphere, it does not say that the native peoples of America were of the lost ten tribes. 

Also consider these remarks by Truman G. Madsen published in the December 1983 Ensign (emphasis added):

Quote

In 1843 Joseph Smith mentioned Ethan Smith as an example of one writer who took seriously Old World connections to the Americas. 60 But Ethan Smith contended that the American Indians descended from the Lost Tribes. That is not what the Book of Mormon claims. As B. H. Roberts wrote in 1932, “Early authorities on Indian antiquities assigned to the Indians a Hebrew origin by claiming they were descendants of the Lost Tribes, [but] that, of course, you remember, is not the Book of Mormon attitude. While assigning to them Israelitish origin it nowhere claims that they are the Lost Tribes, but instead in the main are derived from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh with a slight infusion of the tribe of Judah through the advent of the people of Mulek who came from Jerusalem at the destruction of the family of Zedekiah, an account of which you may read in the Book of Mormon.” 61.

...

  60. See Times and Seasons 3 (June 1842), pp. 813–14. See also Bruce D. Blumell’s comment in Ensign, Sept. 1976, pp. 84–87.
  61. B. H. Roberts to Elizabeth Skolfield, March 15, 1932.

And these remarks by Elder Oaks from the April 2006 General Conference (emphasis added):

Quote

The Lord not only manifests Himself to all nations; He also commands that they write His words:

“Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. …

“… For I command all men … that they shall write the words which I speak unto them. …

“For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it” (2 Ne. 29:8, 11–12; see also 1 Ne. 13:38–39).

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon teaches that all of these groups will have the writings of the others (see 2 Ne. 29:13).

We conclude from this that the Lord will eventually cause the inspired teachings He has given to His children in various nations to be brought forth for the benefit of all people. This will include accounts of the visit of the resurrected Lord to what we call the lost tribes of Israel and His revelations to all the seed of Abraham. The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows one way this can occur.

And on and on and on.  As far as I can see, the LDS Church has never taught that the Native Americans are descended from the lost tribes, or that Lehi and his family were part of the lost tribes.  To the contrary, there are extensive scriptural references and remarks by past and present general authorities which plainly differentiate the lost tribes from Lehi and from the Native Americans (who, again, are not exclusively descended from Lehi).

So back to my CFR.  Besides the fans of Simon Southerton and Ethan Smith (among which, I suspect, are very, very few faithful and informed Latter-day Saints), who has harbored or advanced, in your words, "the idea of Native Americans being one of the lost tribes of Israel?"  'Cuz it certainly is not the LDS Church.

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

and had been an idea floating around for at least a couple of hundred years. If my understanding is correct, the early puritans believed the NA's were of Hebrew descent.

There was speculation about that in the 19th century, yes.  But I am not persuaded that speculation played much of a role (a "burning question," as you put it) in the conversion of the early saints in Europe, or even in the U.S. and Canada.

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

They found evidences in the language and cultural practices like circumcision and a dislike of swine.

Aside from books like View of the Hebrews, are there any short reviews of how/when this origin story first developed? I'd love to find a podcast or essay as well as hearing your thoughts about the early development of this idea in early colonial America.

Bro. McConkie's article (linked to above) might have some useful information for you.  This Google search could also be useful.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As a youngster I believed that one of the unique teachings of our church was the origin story for Native Americans. In fact, it seemed like Mormonism thrived, at least in part, during its early years because it answered a burning question that hovered in the early 19th century ether; where did the Indians come from and what was their nature? The Book of Mormon answered those questions, showing the indigenous Americans to be of ancient Hebrew origins.

Years later, and I was just reminded of this today, I learned that the idea of Native Americans being one of the lost tribes of Israel was not unique to Mormonism and had been an idea floating around for at least a couple of hundred years. If my understanding is correct, the early puritans believed the NA's were of Hebrew descent. They found evidences in the language and cultural practices like circumcision and a dislike of swine.

Aside from books like View of the Hebrews, are there any short reviews of how/when this origin story first developed? I'd love to find a podcast or essay as well as hearing your thoughts about the early development of this idea in early colonial America.

See Dan Vogel, Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon: Religious Solutions from Columbus to Joseph Smith (Signature Books, 1986), reviewed by Kevin Christensen, http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=msr .

Vogel also has a lecture on YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG0xgHx8ZxY , although it contains major errors on DNA and other matters.  Vogel's primary raison d'etre is anti-Mormon and so is unable to provide a balanced appraisal.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

haha... yeah right...  21 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.

You've convinced me...

"haha... yeah right."  Is that how a historian evaluates texts?  Through ridicule?

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

haha... yeah right...  21 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.

You've convinced me...

Strange, isn't it, that Joseph Smith was steeped in the entrenched and systemic racism against Native Americans and/or black people and yet in the entirety of The Book of Mormon text there is only one reference to a "skin of blackness."  As Brandt Gardner notes, "all other references are only to 'darkness.'"  Gardner does a good job of addressing this issue, including Sorenson's and Nibley's position that the reference to "blackness" is "precisely metaphorical" (though others have a more literal interpretation).  I encourage you to give it a read.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

As a bigot yourself I would think you would appreciate the artistry of what we did.

This is not helpful.

-Smac

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

This is not helpful.

-Smac

I found it helpful. After he started an inane derail on how the founders of my faith are all racist bigots I appreciate the symmetry of acknowledging that we do not need to look deep into the past to find heroic examples of bigotry. Instead we discover the true bigots were here amongst us all along.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I found it helpful. After he started an inane derail on how the founders of my faith are all racist bigots I appreciate the symmetry of acknowledging that we do not need to look deep into the past to find heroic examples of bigotry. Instead we discover the true bigots were here amongst us all along.

Again, not helpful.  Returning railing for railing is not going to advance the discussion or invite the Spirit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, not helpful.  Returning railing for railing is not going to advance the discussion or invite the Spirit.

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps it fails on those two points but it does help me entertain myself.

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Perhaps it fails on those two points but it does help me entertain myself.

This board has suffered much recently because of acrimony and spite.  Let us not give ourselves over to such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[PeterPear]

On 7/28/2017 at 7:53 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

This commonly held belief was born out of the bigotry and racism of that era.  Early Americans could not conceive that the Native (Dark and Loathsome)  American populations could be responsible for the vast network of interconnecting roads, villages , mounds and defensive structures the whites discovered spread across America...surely, in their minds, only a White and Delightsome people could have built something so great and vast.  It has to be the Lost Tribes of Israel .  Joseph coopted his widely held point of view, including the racism, into his Book of Mormon.

One of the greatest offensive ideas to come from the Book of Mormon is the notion that dark skinned Native Americans were not capable of building the great cities, temples, archeological discoveries in the Americas...that it had to somehow be attributed to the white and delightsome Nephites 

You obviously don't know The Book of Mormon, but prefer to misrepresent it because of your lying spirit, to use a phrase from The Book of Mormon and your attempts to belittle the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Reread 3 Nephi Ch 9 and you'll read a list of Lamanite cities, including one called Jerusalem, wherein earlier in 80 B.C. Aaron, son of King Mosiah taught the King over all the land, the father of King Lamoni.

Poster removed

[Darren10]

14 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This commonly held belief was born out of the bigotry and racism of that era.  Early Americans could not conceive that the Native (Dark and Loathsome)  American populations could be responsible for the vast network of interconnecting roads, villages , mounds and defensive structures the whites discovered spread across America...surely, in their minds, only a White and Delightsome people could have built something so great and vast.  It has to be the Lost Tribes of Israel .  Joseph coopted his widely held point of view, including the racism, into his Book of Mormon.

One of the greatest offensive ideas to come from the Book of Mormon is the notion that dark skinned Native Americans were not capable of building the great cities, temples, archeological discoveries in the Americas...that it had to somehow be attributed to the white and delightsome Nephites 

The narrative of the Jaredites had no mention of differenciating skin color but they were likely darker in tone than the "typical" Nephite. And here we read:

Quote

23 And it came to pass that Coriantum did walk in the steps of his father, and did build many mighty cities, and did administer that which was good unto his people in all his days. And it came to pass that he had no children even until he was exceedingly old.

Ether 9

Furthermore, when Amon and the sons of Mosiah preached a ong the Lamanites, it mentiones them going from "city to city", from "places of worship" including "synagogues". King Lamoni had his horses prepared, which maturally takes preparation and planning keep horses, esoecially if it involves training. Thise "dark skinned people" in the Book of Mormon were not so stupid after all. 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please, that "the idea of Native Americans being one of the lost tribes of Israel" exists in Mormonism at all.  I am familiar with Simon Southerton's "Losing a Lost Tribe" Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews (the former referencing this notion in the title, and the latter using this notion as a key premise), but where did the LDS Church teach that Native Americans descended from the lost tribes?  

---------

So back to my CFR.  Besides the fans of Simon Southerton and Ethan Smith (among which, I suspect, are very, very few faithful and informed Latter-day Saints), who has harbored or advanced, in your words, "the idea of Native Americans being one of the lost tribes of Israel?"  'Cuz it certainly is not the LDS Church.

This is a good point even if it is presented in a condescending fashion. As a representative of the unfaithful and uninformed  Latter-day Saints who may have erroneously thought of the BoM people being a lost tribe, I will offer just a couple of reasons why I think some of us, as uninformed as we are, may have been honestly mistaken in the assumption of Lehites being a lost tribe.

1- "Other Sheep I have that are not of this fold" - is something I've heard in reference to both the lost tribes and the BoM peoples. It's kind of an easy assumption to jump to then that the BoM peoples are one of the lost tribes even if they aren't.

2- People of Israel who have relocated across the earth can be considered lost to the people of Israel- even if it's not technically accurate as a Lost Tribe.  I think that sometimes there is a more generalized reference to lost tribes being anyone that isn't easily identified as one of the tribes of Israel.

Both of these seem to be based on erroneous assumptions so I grant your point and have no CFR to offer (& I have no desire to scour LDS.org to refute)

I appreciate your point but wish it was made with less superiority.

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

This board has suffered much recently because of acrimony and spite.  Let us not give ourselves over to such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

BORING!!!!

Continue to entertain us without the name calling.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

BORING!!!!

Maybe. But it will be impossible to have any kind of discussion if we resort to name calling--especially bigot, racist, homophobe etc.

Surely you can see that, right? So don't be a wanker.  

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe. But it will be impossible to have any kind of discussion if we resort to name calling--especially bigot, racist, homophobe etc.

Surely you can see that, right? So don't be a wanker.  

I agree so we should be as insulting as possible to those who start throwing punches like that to hopefully ridicule them away. Please stop sabotaging this effort.  

[hagoth7]

On 7/28/2017 at 9:59 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

There are always exceptions to the rule...thanks for sharing one of them

In the mouth of two or three:

2. From a Canadian..https://archive.org/details/shortstatementof00rand

[omni]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Strange, isn't it, that Joseph Smith was steeped in the entrenched and systemic racism against Native Americans and/or black people and yet in the entirety of The Book of Mormon text there is only one reference to a "skin of blackness."  As Brandt Gardner notes, "all other references are only to 'darkness.'"  Gardner does a good job of addressing this issue, including Sorenson's and Nibley's position that the reference to "blackness" is "precisely metaphorical" (though others have a more literal interpretation).  I encourage you to give it a read.

Thanks,

-Smac

The prevailing interpretation has always been (and I would argue remains so today) that the "skin of blackness" was referring to a literal change in skin color.

If the scriptures in question are indeed metaphorical, why do you believe Church leaders are leaving it to apologists to correct the errant doctrine / belief?

It would seem to me that a commonly held belief of God punishing his children with dark skin would be corrected pretty quickly and decisively if the Brethren didn't believe it themselves. 

 

Edited July 29, 2017 by omni

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe. But it will be impossible to have any kind of discussion if we resort to name calling--especially bigot, racist, homophobe etc.

Surely you can see that, right? So don't be a wanker.  

Oh, I don't know. You once carried on just fine after calling someone, even by inference, a homophobe. 

And, hehehe, you said "wanker".

[smac97]

7 hours ago, omni said:

The prevailing interpretation has always been (and I would argue remains so today) that the "skin of blackness" was referring to a literal change in skin color.

Perhaps.  Frankly, I'm not sure this verse is given a lot of attention within the Church.  It does not constitute a significant point of doctrine.  In any event, I think this verse is better understood not in terms of literal versus figurative (as you seem to do), but rather "social" versus "racial."  As Gardner aptly notes:

Quote

Where Rodney Turner clearly believes that the change is not metaphorical, Sorenson just as clearly declares it to be precisely metaphorical. Nibley stands on the metaphorical side of the issue, though he still suggests that exposure to the sun could create the “blackness.” With this much disagreement on a single phrase in the text, how can we know how it should be read? There are some keys that we should use, and the very first is to remember the dangers of reading ourselves into a text in ways that the text did not intend.

...

Even though skin color has come to be associated with race, the value of relative skin color was social, not racial. In Elizabethan England and in earlier Roman culture, the dark skin was the sign of a common laborer, and the lighter, whiter skin the sign of nobility. This perceived difference was simply related to sun exposure, indicating whether the person was required to work outside for a living. The Romans used a chalk-based compound to lighten their skins to further this perceived difference.

...

The Book of Mormon is, in fact, racist, although not at all in the usual sense of the term. It represents a particular culture with a distinctive worldview. Even though it was written for a future audience, it was written in a time and manner that reflected the social constructions of the authors, not those of modern readers. This referential gulf between intent and interpretation explains our tendency to read “skin of blackness” with modern racial overtones.

I think many who read this verse fall prey to the fallacy of presentism ("the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past").

Quote

If the scriptures in question are indeed metaphorical, why do you believe Church leaders are leaving it to apologists to correct the errant doctrine / belief?

I'm not sure the verse is purely metaphorical.  Rather, I think the issue is better understood, as Gardner puts it, as being "social, not racial."  His example of "dark skin" in Elizabethan England is instructive.  Many cultures value lighter skin over darker, but for social reasons, not racial ones.  As a missionary in Taiwan I recall there being all sorts of steps taken by Taiwanese folks to keep their skin lighter.  They used umbrellas on sunny days, or else hats with very broad brims.  They had temporary sleeves (with elastic gatherings at each end) they would put on when driving around on scooters.  I even recall a mini-scandal that arose when news outlets discovered a Utah-based company was selling "skin whitening" products in Asian countries but not the U.S.  Consider, for example, this article on this last subject:

Quote

The skin whitening market in Asia is a booming one but it is also one that can be misunderstood, particularly in the West or where cultural, social, and physiological behaviour is different.

One particular area where this is highlighted is in advertising where reactions from the outside of many skin whitening products are extreme, but this is only because different cultures have a different understanding of the ageing process, according to expert and president of SEERS Consulting, Dr Alain Khaiat.

“There is generally a misunderstanding, as Asian people do not look at skin whitening as a way to become white-skinned or Caucasian,” he tells CosmeticsDesign-Asia.com. “Rather, there are two components – social and physiological – behind the trend.”

Social and physiological components

Firstly, as has been documented before, paler skin was associated with high society traditionally, as it meant that you were out of the sun – not like the workers who would have been outside. Also in India, women from high society would live inside.

So pale skin, not affected by sun exposure etc, means that the skin presents less signs of ageing, which gives the person the image that they are from a higher class.

Perhaps more telling is the physiological component, as it highlights that the skin whitening market is the equivalent to anti-ageing outside of Asia because the signs of ageing present themselves differently.

“The first sign of ageing on Asian skin is pigmentation, not wrinkles – as is the norm in Western culture. This normally shows itself as spots on the upper eye to begin with,” explains Dr Khaiat.  

“In the West spots/ freckles are associated with sun exposure and are often a sign of beauty. For Asians this is not the case as it is their sign of ageing, not wrinkles. So Asians want a product that decreases the signs of ageing – by evening the skin tone.”

...

“Skin whiteners are not products to make people look Caucasian – they are used to even the skin tone. In Asia skin whitening is about getting rid of the signs of ageing. It is anti-ageing.”

Almost in the same way that those from Western culture typically want to get a sun tan and have bronzed skin, Asian people do not understand this view, says Khaiat.

I don't think Chinese people who seek to lighten their skin are "racist," nor do I believe Caucasians to seek to darken their skin (tanning and the like) are racist.  These preferences are generally social constructs, not racial ones.

I am not prepared to pass sweeping negative judgments on entire cultures because of their perspectives on skin pigmentation are different from mine.  Frankly, I'm not sure the "racial" sensibilities of John Q. American in 2017 are presumptively the most reasonable and correct approach to that issue.  

Skin color/tone/pigmentation means different things to different people in different cultures at different times.  Meanwhile, the LDS Church has made its position on issues of racism (in its pejorative sense) in the "Race and the Priesthood" essay ("Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.") and in many, many other published-to-the-world statements.  So I can't agree with your statement that "Church leaders are leaving it to apologists to correct the errant doctrine / belief."  

Quote

It would seem to me that a commonly held belief of God punishing his children with dark skin would be corrected pretty quickly and decisively if the Brethren didn't believe it themselves. 

I encourage you to give this matter some further thought and study.  I do not think you are correctly characterizing the position of the Church or its leaders.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 30, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is a good point even if it is presented in a condescending fashion.

I did not intend to be condescending.  I apologize for coming across that way.  Honest.

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As a representative of the unfaithful and uninformed  Latter-day Saints who may have erroneously thought of the BoM people being a lost tribe, I will offer just a couple of reasons why I think some of us, as uninformed as we are, may have been honestly mistaken in the assumption of Lehites being a lost tribe.

1- "Other Sheep I have that are not of this fold" - is something I've heard in reference to both the lost tribes and the BoM peoples. It's kind of an easy assumption to jump to then that the BoM peoples are one of the lost tribes even if they aren't.

Okay.  Yet now that you appear to recognize your assumption was erroneous, and that this assumption is both unsupported and contradicted by the scriptures and the teachings of the Church, you still seem to be finding fault.

I don't want to alienate you (further), so I won't press this point except to respectfully request that you reconsider your position in light of your updated understanding of this issue.

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

2- People of Israel who have relocated across the earth can be considered lost to the people of Israel- even if it's not technically accurate as a Lost Tribe. 

I quite agree.  But then what's your beef?  The LDS Church teaches that a very small group of pre-exilic Israelites sailed from the Arabian Peninsula to somewhere in the Americas, that over centuries they developed into, generally speaking, two social/cultural groups (Nephites and Lamanites), that the former eventually wiped out the latter, and that these people "are among the ancestors of the American Indians."  We've known this for quite a while.  So are you suggesting that 19th-century curiosity about the origins of the Native Americans somehow constitutes evidence of The Book of Mormon being fabricated by Joseph Smith and/or contemporary hucksters?

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think that sometimes there is a more generalized reference to lost tribes being anyone that isn't easily identified as one of the tribes of Israel.

Both of these seem to be based on erroneous assumptions so I grant your point and have no CFR to offer (& I have no desire to scour LDS.org to refute)

I appreciate your point but wish it was made with less superiority.

I did not intend to make it with "superiority."  I was trying to be civil and respectful.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Johnnie Cake]

On 7/28/2017 at 8:04 PM, The Nehor said:

As a bigot yourself I would think you would appreciate the artistry of what we did.

Your post is a perfect example of the double standard on this board. I would be banned for a comment like this towards another board member while you, a valued believer, carry on with impunity. 

[Honorentheos]

On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 9:26 AM, RevTestament said:

A View of the Hebrews is the best known example I can think of. There was a Scotsman who wrote extensively of Indian practices and posited a belief that the Indians he encountered were Hebrews, but he was not taken seriously. The reference is James Adair, and iirc it was The History of the American Indians or similar and was published a little earlier - around 1775. Many other colonists such as William Penn commented on the natives of the Northeast, and how their appearance was remarkably European - that they could pass off as Italians or similar, so my guess is the idea went back to the time of the founding of the colonies. Initially, the British were not near so brutal with the Natives they encountered as the Spanish - who sought to enslave them from the time of Christopher Columbus, but unfortunately the idea of manifest destiny took root, and presidents such as Andrew Jackson passed measures which essentially kicked the Natives to the curb. In fact it was only a few months after the Book of Mormon was published that its prophecy regarding the Natives being forced out began to be fulfilled with the passage of the Indian Removal Act signed by President Andrew Jackson two months later on May 28, 1830. For other examples of your specific question, I would look in magazines and such which published common ideas. It was a fairly common speculation in New England. However, I believe the Natives of the NE area are different. They are still different to this day - genetically, and otherwise. The surviving art of these Natives reflects that as well. Many portraits depict Natives that looked remarkably European.

King Philips War occurred within a generation of the pilgrims landing and arose out of cultural conflict. The history of European/Native American relations didn't take a turn south so much as arose out of very real cultural differences that appear to be largely unavoidable. I don't believe one can argue the European settlers of the Americas were originally benevolent. Nor were the Natives benevolently minded to ever-increasing numbers of European setters taking land. War was a constant threat or actuality in some form or other.

 

[Bernard Gui]

On 7/28/2017 at 7:53 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

This commonly held belief was born out of the bigotry and racism of that era.  Early Americans could not conceive that the Native (Dark and Loathsome)  American populations could be responsible for the vast network of interconnecting roads, villages , mounds and defensive structures the whites discovered spread across America...surely, in their minds, only a White and Delightsome people could have built something so great and vast.  It has to be the Lost Tribes of Israel .  Joseph coopted his widely held point of view, including the racism, into his Book of Mormon.

One of the greatest offensive ideas to come from the Book of Mormon is the notion that dark skinned Native Americans were not capable of building the great cities, temples, archeological discoveries in the Americas...that it had to somehow be attributed to the white and delightsome Nephites 

Except that all the greatest accomplishments of the Lehites that would remain today came after Christ's visit when the Lamanites and Nephites became one people and reconstructed all their damaged and destroyed infrastructure. Not to mention that Lamanites and Nephites were the same race.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, omni said:

The prevailing interpretation has always been (and I would argue remains so today) that the "skin of blackness" was referring to a literal change in skin color.

If the scriptures in question are indeed metaphorical, why do you believe Church leaders are leaving it to apologists to correct the errant doctrine / belief?

It would seem to me that a commonly held belief of God punishing his children with dark skin would be corrected pretty quickly and decisively if the Brethren didn't believe it themselves. 

 

All of which is moot because at the coming of Christ the Lehites were once again united and the curse and its sign were removed.

[Bernard Gui]

On 7/28/2017 at 9:10 AM, cacheman said:

There were definitely a number of racist theories and legends in those days surrounding the Native Americans and their origins.  One of the legends described an intellectually superior group of white indians that despite being outnumbered, they knew the art of war and were able to build 'fortifications' to help defeat them.  The inferior 'black indians', after many defeats imitated the white indians' fortifications and breastworks in order to exterminate the white indians in a final battle.  Legends like this were used to explain the existence of the mounds in Ohio and surrounding areas.  Of course, later Zelph, the white lamanite was found in this general area.  It's not hard to imagine that Joseph Smith was aware of these legends.

There were many "white" Lamanites. In fact all Lamanites after Jesus' visit were white.