The strangest part of The Book of Mormon

[Rivers]

I’ve been reading through the Book of Mormon lately.  There’s much to love in the book.  It lifts me up and brings me closer to God.  

But I fail to wrap my head around the parts that talk about people receiving darker skin for wickedness and turning white when they become righteous.  I’m familiar with the theory that it’s all metaphorical but I’m not sold on it.

 

I wouldn’t even necessarily call it racist.  I just think the whole thing is weird. It’s a big distraction in an otherwise great book.  Its like watching a really good movie but having one particular annoying character or bad subplot diminish the experience.  Or like walking around in comfortable shoes but with a pebble inside.

Is there a way to frame this aspect of the B.O.M. in a more positive light?  

[Hamba Tuhan]

I did my PhD research using 16th-century documents created by Europeans in 'India'. These documents often talk about skin colour in a way that only makes sense if it's related to perceived states of 'civilisation'. The closer to Europeans in behaviour, the whiter the people were, and vice-versa. This allowed Jesuits writing about the island of New Guinea to claim that the people living in the interior were black whilst those living along the coasts were whiter, with some being almost as white as Europeans. In other cases, clerics noted how white a particular local ruler was in contrast to his people ... i.e., how understandable/approachable the Europeans found him. It was a wish for many Jesuits to serve in Japan so that they could be amongst white people like themselves.

With this background, I just don't get tripped up by these passages in the Book of Mormon.

And this is before even dealing with the fact that the text completely deconstructs any notions of 'race' after seemingly introducing them.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Rajah Manchou]

Agree with Hamba Tuhan. The concept of white/dark skin in many Asian cultures is much more nuanced than it is for those of us that are accustomed to attaching racial categories to those terms. People can chang color literally overnight, appearing ขาว (white) in the morning and ดำ (black) when they come home at night. While it is true that dark coloration usually has a negative connotation, it has more to do with someone having the ill fortune of working too long, usually outside, when everybody really would prefer to be comfortable indoors with the air con. I've heard people of darker complexion call people of lighter complexion 'black' and vice versa. I've even been told at times that I am more white and at other times more black.

Also, people aren't always so offended by the categories like we are in the west. I work with the Karen in Burma and they often remind me how they are the big brother with dark skin because their ancestors had to work hard in the fields, and I am the little white brother whose ancestors didn't. The implication being that my ancestors were lazy and spoiled. I may be more 'literate' but they are more wise, and they are still the elder brother.

Once you get used to this way of interpreting the terms, they really don't bother any more. 

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Rivers said:

I’ve been reading through the Book of Mormon lately.  There’s much to love in the book.  It lifts me up and brings me closer to God.  

But I fail to wrap my head around the parts that talk about people receiving darker skin for wickedness and turning white when they become righteous.  I’m familiar with the theory that it’s all metaphorical but I’m not sold on it.

I wouldn’t even necessarily call it racist.  I just think the whole thing is weird. It’s a big distraction in an otherwise great book.  Its like watching a really good movie but having one particular annoying character or bad subplot diminish the experience.  Or like walking around in comfortable shoes but with a pebble inside.

Is there a way to frame this aspect of the B.O.M. in a more positive light?  

I don't know if it's positive, but the Lord certainly communicates with people in the "language" and "currency" of their times. The skin color (figurative or literal) obviously was meaningful to this particular group of His children (for whatever reason or tradition), so He used it to segregate the unbelieving from the faithful and the covenant-keepers from the breakers. Nephi understood this was the nature and the future effect of the curse as he said, not long after it was set, "[the Lord] denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."

[Kevin Christensen]

See 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

Quote

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

“Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth. And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.” (Alma 3:5–6)⁴

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

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

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsbug, PA

[rpn]

http://blacksinthescriptures.com/

If you listen to the videos here, your concerns might be eased.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

See 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

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

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsbug, PA

Comparing Alma to 2 Ne 5 seems to put defeat the notion that it's all metaphorical though:

Quote

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

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

It would be a pretty awkward reading to see this as God putting darker colored clothes on the Lamanites, as this curse got instituted.  It'd mean people walking around and seeing people wearing dark clothes as unattractive.  The first mention of skin in Alma, though, is clear--it's animal skin used to cover their extremeties.  It has nothing to do with the second mention of skin, which clearly speaks to the curse that is well-defined in 2 Nephi.  It'd be pretty awkward too, to read back into 2 Nephi that the loin cloths were changed to dark colors for the Lamanites.  

[Exiled]

The title page to the book of mormon warns of mistakes of men. Like the priesthood ban, the skin color curse is definitely a mistake of 19th century men trying to give a reason for the differing skin color of native americans.

[JAHS]

Something  Brigham Young once said might apply:
"I feel to bless this people, and they are a God-blessed people. Look at them, and see the difference from their condition a few years ago! Brethren who have been on missions, can you see any difference in this people from the time you went away until your return? [Audience voices: "Yes."] You can see men and women who are sixty or seventy years of age looking young and handsome; but let them apostatize, and they will become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil."

Here president Young is making an observation based on his past experience of what he saw happen to people when they apostatized from the church.  Perhaps not an actual physiological change in their skin color, but figuratively speaking, their countenance and souls become black and wrinkled in appearance.  (JOD Vol 5 p. 332)

 

[Kevin Christensen]

There is 2 Nephi 25:1-5 on the importance of getting the cultural conditioning out of our own eye, and reading texts in light of the culture of the authors:

Quote

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

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1135&index=18

There is a lot more on this, from Nibley (in various chapters of his Book of Mormon class) and Sorenson and others.  And it also ties in with the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth.  The difference between open-ended looking for further light and knowledge, and huddling down behind social orthodoxy.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Comparing Alma to 2 Ne 5 seems to put defeat the notion that it's all metaphorical though:

It would be a pretty awkward reading to see this as God putting darker colored clothes on the Lamanites, as this curse got instituted.  It'd mean people walking around and seeing people wearing dark clothes as unattractive.  The first mention of skin in Alma, though, is clear--it's animal skin used to cover their extremeties.  It has nothing to do with the second mention of skin, which clearly speaks to the curse that is well-defined in 2 Nephi.  It'd be pretty awkward too, to read back into 2 Nephi that the loin cloths were changed to dark colors for the Lamanites.  

This is why it doesn't matter if one interprets the text as literal or figurative, or even what "skin" means. The text only conveys how the Lehites saw, reported and explained things, and how the Lord communicated principles of their preserving their covenant obligations among them, first with individuals and families and expanding into tribes and nations. This can be traced throughout the book as Lamanites took the covenant upon themselves ( Anti-Nephi-Lehies, Helaman 5, Samuel, etc.), and how the curse was removed when the two nations became one under Christ in the years surrounding His appearance to them (3 Nephi 2:15 through 4 Nephi 1:17).

Edited May 31, 2018 by CV75

[hope_for_things]

7 hours ago, Rivers said:

I’ve been reading through the Book of Mormon lately.  There’s much to love in the book.  It lifts me up and brings me closer to God.  

But I fail to wrap my head around the parts that talk about people receiving darker skin for wickedness and turning white when they become righteous.  I’m familiar with the theory that it’s all metaphorical but I’m not sold on it.

 

I wouldn’t even necessarily call it racist.  I just think the whole thing is weird. It’s a big distraction in an otherwise great book.  Its like watching a really good movie but having one particular annoying character or bad subplot diminish the experience.  Or like walking around in comfortable shoes but with a pebble inside.

Is there a way to frame this aspect of the B.O.M. in a more positive light?  

Simplest answer is usually the right one.  Joseph Smith is the author of the book, and the words reflect his ideas about race.  

[cinepro]

7 hours ago, Rivers said:

Is there a way to frame this aspect of the B.O.M. in a more positive light?  

If the question is "Is there a way to honestly frame this aspect of the B.O.M in a more positive light that makes more sense than the obvious reading?", the answer is, sadly, "no."

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35666_eng.pdf?lang=eng

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Simplest answer is usually the right one.  Joseph Smith is the author of the book, and the words reflect his ideas about race.  

Or just that ancient peoples were nearly universally racist and xenophobic. 

Also while there's clear Nephite xenophobia and racism to the Lamanites, note how the book often undercuts this. Sometimes explicitly such as in 2 Ne 26:33 or Jacob 2:35 but also things narratively such as Jesus' rebuke over neglecting to include Samuel the Lamanite's prophesies (presumably out of racism). For much of the narrative, the Lamanites show themselves better than the Nephites with most of the problems with Lamanites primarily caused by Nephite dissenters. So the book is more complicated than normally portrayed.

Edited May 31, 2018 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Or just that ancient peoples were nearly universally racist and xenophobic. 

Also while there's clear Nephite xenophobia and racism to the Lamanites, note how the book often undercuts this. Sometimes explicitly such as in 2 Ne 26:33 or Jacob 2:35 but also things narratively such as Jesus' rebuke over neglecting to include Samuel the Lamanite's prophesies (presumably out of racism). For much of the narrative, the Lamanites show themselves better than the Nephites with most of the problems with Lamanites primarily caused by Nephite dissenters. So the book is more complicated than normally portrayed.

That most ancient cultures were racist by our modern standards seems fairly clear, I agree with that.  

[Eek!]

I have a hard time buying into the "God curses people with dark skin for wickedness" claim.   There are way too many wicked white folks out there for that to be the way things really work.  And didn't the "white and delightsome" Nephites later significantly out-do the Lamanites when it came to wickedness?   So either God is unfair, or the claim is mistaken.  

Is it possible not everything that made the final edit into a book of scripture legitimately qualifies as "the word of God"? 

Perhaps the author of those specific words, whether Nephi or Mormon or Joseph Smith, believed that a curse from God was the best explanation for observed differences in skin color.  I doubt that would be the first time someone's opinion got written into God's mouth. 

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, Eek! said:

I have a hard time buying into the "God curses people with dark skin for wickedness" claim.   There are way too many wicked white folks out there for that to be the way things really work.  And didn't the "white and delightsome" Nephites later significantly out-do the Lamanites when it came to wickedness?   So either God is unfair, or the claim is mistaken.  

The typical more naturalistic reading is that the descendents of Laman and Lemuel simply merged with indigenous groups who had darker skin than the Jews. (Although the Jews would have been quite dark compared to northern Europeans - more akin to a typical contemporary Palestinian) The Jews already had prohibitions against intermarriage often seeing it as a form of apostasy. So there's more going on here than it appears at first glance. That the Nephites interpreted this in a racist way seems clear. But again that was rather typical for the xenophobia common in the ancient world. 

And of course the text makes this more complex. Once Lamanites were converted, then it appears intermarriage was't an issue even if racism persisted for a period until the coming of Christ. (Again treatment of Samuel by the Nephites is the classic example)

I should add that just as treatment in the Book of Mormon is uneven, it was uneven historically among the ancient Jews. So you have the narrative of Ruth for instance where there's intermarriage. There's quite a few other narratives in the OT that involve intermarriage treated positively. Generally it's seen as around time of the exile that intermarriage becomes so serious. Some suggest that Ezra's treatment there is due to living in a non-Jewish land. Others suggest this was merely the way the religion/culture evolved around that time and may reflect life at the time of Lehi as well. Some stories set in earlier period show strong xenophibia of such relationships such as in the story of Samson. While the Deuteronomic code doesn't forbid intermarriage, it does list several Canaanite tribes that are absolutely off limits. (Deuteronomy 7:3-4) It's quite plausible that the Nephite tradition reflects the place of Deuteronomy among them. There's even an odd tradition that arises out of Deuteronomy with the development of later Rabbinical Judaism where marriage to a gentile doesn't count as marriage. It's hard not to see a certain echo with Jacob 2 there.

The point is that Nephite actions aren't not necessarily praised in the text and are in keeping with the complexity in the purported culture they arise out of.

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Agree with Hamba Tuhan. The concept of white/dark skin in many Asian cultures is much more nuanced than it is for those of us that are accustomed to attaching racial categories to those terms. People can chang color literally overnight, appearing ขาว (white) in the morning and ดำ (black) when they come home at night. While it is true that dark coloration usually has a negative connotation, it has more to do with someone having the ill fortune of working too long, usually outside, when everybody really would prefer to be comfortable indoors with the air con. I've heard people of darker complexion call people of lighter complexion 'black' and vice versa. I've even been told at times that I am more white and at other times more black.

Also, people aren't always so offended by the categories like we are in the west. I work with the Karen in Burma and they often remind me how they are the big brother with dark skin because their ancestors had to work hard in the fields, and I am the little white brother whose ancestors didn't. The implication being that my ancestors were lazy and spoiled. I may be more 'literate' but they are more wise, and they are still the elder brother.

Once you get used to this way of interpreting the terms, they really don't bother any more. 

More examples are from the Bible itself. It speaks about having black skin as meaning being cast out. Job gets a skin of blackness as everyone treats him as cursed of God.

The Lamanites were cast out because they didn't follow the law. They stole from and murdered the Nephites. I believe they also intermarried with natives they met in the years after landing, whereas I believe the Nephites went into the interior of the land where there were few natives. However, they considered these natives as Lamanites too with corrupted speech. So they just had a different look to them.  There are several clues in the Book of Mormon that the skins of darkness is not a literal reference to genetically darker skin. First, is when the Lamanites convert to Christ the "scales" (another metaphorical term) of darkness will fall from their eyes, and they will become white. Notice when Christ appears the people become whiter - as white as him. JS called a converted Lamanite, Zelph, a white Lamanite. Finally, the Book itself says God treats all people, white and black the same and invite them all to Him. 2 Nephi 26:33. There is very good scriptural reason to believe that the skins of darkness was a cultural or metaphorical reference like the scales over their eyes, although I believe with intermarriage, change in speech, adoption of some native practices, etc, the Nephites  could tell the Lamanites apart both physically and in countenance. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by RevTestament

[USU78]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Comparing Alma to 2 Ne 5 seems to put defeat the notion that it's all metaphorical though:

It would be a pretty awkward reading to see this as God putting darker colored clothes on the Lamanites, as this curse got instituted.  It'd mean people walking around and seeing people wearing dark clothes as unattractive.  The first mention of skin in Alma, though, is clear--it's animal skin used to cover their extremeties.  It has nothing to do with the second mention of skin, which clearly speaks to the curse that is well-defined in 2 Nephi.  It'd be pretty awkward too, to read back into 2 Nephi that the loin cloths were changed to dark colors for the Lamanites.  

Their hearts were hard and black, impenetrable to things of the Spirit: their very skin was hard and black like Flint, impenetrable to things of the Spirit.

Poetry is hard.

[Rivers]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

If the question is "Is there a way to honestly frame this aspect of the B.O.M in a more positive light that makes more sense than the obvious reading?", the answer is, sadly, "no."

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/35666_eng.pdf?lang=eng

😞

[cinepro]

7 minutes ago, Rivers said:

😞

The whole book is pretty amazing.  Alma, Moroni and the others all look like Frankie Avalon or Matthew McConaughey .  The Lamanites all look like Wes Studi or Sacheen Littlefeather.

Edited May 31, 2018 by cinepro

[Jeanne]

This is awful...but I would in my TBM days frown upon the people (friends) that were from the  seed of Mannaseh..(sp)  Ouch..I wish I could have so many do overs because of the lineage defined by the Book of Mormon!

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The whole book is pretty amazing.  Alma, Moroni and the others all look like Frankie Avalon or Matthew McConaughey .  The Lamanites all look like Wes Studi or Sacheen Littlefeather.

Well at least we can take comfort knowing it was published before the lifting of the ban when it was acceptable for members to be racist.

oh wait:  his replaces Book of Mormon Reader Illustrated by Jerry Thompson and Robert T. Barrett © 1978, 1985, 1997 by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America 

[stemelbow]

48 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Their hearts were hard and black, impenetrable to things of the Spirit: their very skin was hard and black like Flint, impenetrable to things of the Spirit.

Poetry is hard.

Don't be so hard on yourself.  I think you picked up easily on the racist metaphors that got into print.  

[Rivers]

Historically, Lehi’s party and the Mulekites wouldn’t have been Caucasian right?  They wouldn’t have looked like Matthew McCaugnehey.  I assume the Lamanites were given a darker tan and the Nephites only looked light in comparison.