Darker skin from iniquity?

[juliann]

OK, you can attempt convincing people of a less offensive reading, Julianne, but as cinepro stated, it will be an uphill battle. The text is clear, and 175 years worth of interpretations from mormon leaders makes it really tough on you. The dark skin curse makes most mormons squirm, and most non-mormons read it and find it offensive. I understand your frustration.

The text is "clear"? As a grad student I was told never to say that...all it does is show that it is not clear or nothing would need to said. All I see in your continued insistence that it is going to be impossible to change a reading is that you are hoping it does not change. It has already changed. Look at this board. If you seriously think that Mormons are going to have their leaders lecturing from the pulpit about tolerance and equality in God's eyes while the conregation runs to the parking lot to chortle about cursed black skin...well, what can I say. I am assuming you are aware of the growing body of such lectures....maybe you are not.

[juliann]

The "seers" have already abandoned their translation duties to traditional (but inspired) translation departments. In the future, will leaders confine themselves to the realm of unscholarly proclamations, for fear of their words being branded as insignificant "personal, fallible opinion", or future translation abilities proving their gifts inadequate?

Well, you can continue to hope! Really, Cinepro...the acid is almost eating up my monitor.

[juliann]

I'm sorry juliann, but I disagree. It is completely scriptural.

Fair enough....you can find cursed lineages in the scriptures. You can also find the opposite. I give you that and up the ante with a couple of prophets....

[Pace Nielsen]

Fair enough....you can find cursed lineages in the scriptures. You can also find the opposite. I give you that and up the ante with a couple of prophets....

I call your raise. Give me the quotations.

[juliann]

I call your raise. Give me the quotations.

My database is on my PC. I've been messing around with the laptop avoiding life all day. Gimme a few hours to get back to it.

[Moksha]

Has anyone suggested that the cursing of skin to a darker color was simply a manifestation of 19th Century racism? That century is over and we as 21st Century Americans no longer hold the view that dark skin is cursed. So why are we making such a big deal over it?

[Laban the Younger]

Has anyone suggested that the cursing of skin to a darker color was simply a manifestation of 19th Century racism? That century is over and we as 21st Century Americans no longer hold the view that dark skin is cursed. So why are we making such a big deal over it?

Well, I agree with you. It is a manifestation of 19th century racism.

[Addictio]

For the record, let me note that there are a good many contemporary, educated and careful readers of the BoM who advocate its historicity and yet also do not accept Brant's claim that the BoM's references to differences in skin color are better/best understood as metaphorical rather than as literal (pigmentary) in character.

Most recently, consider Blake Ostler's current Sunstone article. As Ostler points out, the BoM explains clearly, and more than once, that the emphasized difference in skin color was intended and was understood by the writers to function as a visible marker to discourage the "mixing of seed" between the Nephites and Lamanites. If it were worth the trouble, we could also collect relevant quotes from, for example, D. Peterson, J. Tvednetes, J. Sorenson and R. Bushman reflecting their belief that the Book refers to literal and perceptible differences in skin color.

I mention this partly because I happen to agree with what I take to be Ostler's (and on this thread, cinepro's) rather straightforward apprehension of the text's meaning, particularly when it takes the time, as initially in II Nephi 5 and in Alma 3, to describe and reiterate what is happenning with skin color, and why. To me, the more interesting question is not whether the BoM reports and refers to the existence of literal, perceptible differences in skin color, which it plainly does, but why it does. (In my view, Ostler's explanation based on imaginary -- and implausible -- patterns of New World intermarriage doesn't work.)

As I noted above, Brant's "wholly metaphorical" position is sufficiently problematic that it is not shared by many oft-quoted contemporary readers and academics who also, like Brant, believe in and advocate BoM historicity. That by itself doesn't mean he's mistaken, of course, though it may reflect a rather idiosyncratic interpretive position. What it does show is that the difference of opinion or debate about what the BoM claims or means about skin color should not be understood or characterized as principally (much less essentially) a difference between defenders and critics of ancient BoM authorship.

[juliann]

Fair enough....you can find cursed lineages in the scriptures. You can also find the opposite. I give you that and up the ante with a couple of prophets....

I call your raise. Give me the quotations.

I'm assuming the scripture verses are self-evident. Quotes....

First, as background:

The word

[juliann]

Well, I agree with you. It is a manifestation of 19th century racism.

"19th century racism" would not have allowed for this: , "he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he 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." 2 Nephi 26:33.

One has to start much, much earlier to trace race theory:

The first known invocation of the curse in English writing was in George Best

[juliann]

As I noted above, Brant's "wholly metaphorical" position is sufficiently problematic that it is not shared by many oft-quoted contemporary readers and academics who also, like Brant, believe in and advocate BoM historicity. That by itself doesn't mean he's mistaken, of course, though it may reflect a rather idiosyncratic interpretive position. What it does show is that the difference of opinion or debate about what the BoM claims or means about skin color should not be understood or characterized as principally (much less essentially) a difference between defenders and critics of ancient BoM authorship.

This always comes last. "You are not a typical X, Y or Z." You seem to have missed a lot...which is understandable considering the length of this thread. Brant has always included the obvious...the authors saw the world in those terms. That is what we are doing when we bring out the almost ritualistic polemic...which includes physical attributes. They wrote about the world in the cateogories that were natural to them. We call it "racism" now. They just saw it as a natural division between the sacred and profane, clean and unclean....as the biblical authors did. The color of the skin could be lilly white or burnished brown. The point is to keep yourself separate by setting up boundary markers. The same insults are used again and again against the "other" despite the passage of time. It is a rote exercise that serves a social purpose. There are just too many instances where Lamanites/Nephites are indistinguishable....such as Moroni having to find a Lamanite to trick the Lamanite guards with wine...but the Lamanite brings some Nephites along with him. This was obviously not a matter of color but probably one of language. (Alma 55). A rigid insistance of curse=color simply does not fit the text because the text is built upon covenant/curse formulas. That does not have to exclude their sometimes using color as a part of the boundary system if there were some noticeably darker inhabitants. But even this would not remain consistent throughout the timespan of the text and thus becomes fairly useless.

Do you disagree with Malina? We have a perfect example of the importance of the head/face in 2 Nephi 30:6: "Their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes;

[Moon Quaker]

Not to derail or sidetrack, but this is why some believers in the BoM see the BoM as 19th-century "inspirational" literature and not a true history; because they study it from a textual standpoint and not a theological one.

[Pace Nielsen]

juliann,

I appreciate you taking the time to give all those quotations. Let me express my desire to stay true to their message.

At the same time I don't personally believe that the doctrine "family lineages can be cursed" is racist. I don't think those quotations spoke to this subject.

Best,

Pace

[Addictio]

Juliann:

My previously-expressed opinion about the value of trying to converse with you hasn't changed; my comments accordingly were not intended to elicit a response from or begin a dialogue with you.

Anyway, to summarize for thread-clarity, my own position, which I've simply noted and have not tried here to support or demonstrate, is:

...not whether the BoM reports and refers to the existence of literal, perceptible differences in skin color, which it plainly does, but why it does.

I take that to be Ostler's position, as well as the position apparently adopted (at least in the past) by the other BoM-historicity advocates I mentioned. Again, that descriptive observation, if correct, goes not to the merits of the interpretive issues, but rather is intended to illustrate and support the last sentence of my post:

What it does show is that the difference of opinion or debate about what the BoM claims or means about skin color should not be understood or characterized as principally (much less essentially) a difference between defenders and critics of ancient BoM authorship.

That positions on the interpretive issue of skin color don't reflect or get expressed in accordance with those typical partisan lines is to me quite unusual and interesting. Perhaps it means there are some people on the ancient authorship side of things who think the meaning of repeated references to dark and light skin color may be both culturally influenced and empirically based. But no matter.

I'm no longer interested in debating the meaning of BoM skin color references principally because it is clear to me that the event scenario entailed by the ascendant Sorenson/Roper account of early Nephite and Lamanite populations radically changes the biological and cultural context in which Nephi and Jacob would have lived and written. In that inferred context, I think the occurrence of pejorative references to dark skin color among Lamanites is itself hardly explicable, whether interpreted as empirically descriptive (pigment-based) or not.

[Calm]

In that inferred context, I think the occurrence of pejorative references to dark skin color among Lamanites is itself hardly explicable, whether interpreted as empirically descriptive (pigment-based) or not.

Reasoning, please? It appears you are saying that ancient MesoAmericans did not engage in this type of language. Could you clarify what you mean?

[Zakuska]

Has anyone suggested that the cursing of skin to a darker color was simply a manifestation of 19th Century racism? That century is over and we as 21st Century Americans no longer hold the view that dark skin is cursed. So why are we making such a big deal over it?

Because Prophets of God where who said it and we have to find anything we can to discredit those hell bowned mormons.

[juliann]

I appreciate you taking the time to give all those quotations. Let me express my desire to stay true to their message.

At the same time I don't personally believe that the doctrine "family lineages can be cursed" is racist. I don't think those quotations spoke to this subject.

OK, I understand where we are not connecting. I still think that modern scripture precludes passing on any acts of the parent to the child, however....including our Articles of Faith.

[juliann]

My previously-expressed opinion about the value of trying to converse with you hasn't changed; my comments accordingly were not intended to elicit a response from or begin a dialogue with you.

Whatever. I suppose this is your way of saying you will not be responding to the experts that have been quoted, either. Philosophical lectures are fine to a point...but a discussion generally gets to the stage when the experts need to be addressed and documentation supplied.

[Brant Gardner]

I happened to be reading in Mormon this afternoon and came across the following description of the Nephites who survived the devastation at Cumorah:

Mormon 5:15

15 And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.

So much for "white" Nephites. When they become unrighteous they become "filthy, and a loathsome people." Specifically moreso that the Lamanites. For those who might not be acquainted with the text, the dark/loathesome pair contrasts to white/delightsome and occurs in connections where the "dark" might be blackness or, as here, simply filthiness. The word "filthy" stands in exactly the same semantic position as dark/black in parallel phrases.

[tithulta]

Dark/light is not an "apologetic" issue. It is worldwide metaphor. Dark, foreboding skies....black for mourning... I think the greater question is why you critics are working overtime trying to make this "racial".

The underlying racial elements have an impact on a widespread level. Black girls today still find the white doll more attractive. I can only imagine the implications LDS doctrine has had on black members. I have seen the effects of the curriculum that teach "Faith is Knowledge." The history of the church casts a shadow that has far worse effects on dark people.

The past leads us into the future. Racism is a big deal, especially in a Christian religion because the higher law is the antithesis of racism. Comments of the past carry power into today. I have seen some good quotes regarding events in 1978, but they create a huge problem with the LDS religion. How can one tell when one of your prophets is acting as a fallible human, or as G-d's tool.

The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence" (Mormon Doctrine, p.527, 1966 ed.).

"Joseph Smith had declared that the Negroes were not neutral in heaven, for all the spirits took sides, but 'the posterity of Cain are black because he (Cain) committed murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity'" (The Improvement Era, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.105).

"there is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less" (Doctrines of Salvation 1:61).

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so" - Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, 10:110).

"And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God" - John Taylor (Journal of Discourses 22:304).

"Why is it, in fact, that we should have a devil? Why did the Lord not kill him long ago? Because he could not do without him. He needed the devil and a great many of those who do his bidding to keep men straight, that we may learn to place our dependence on God, and trust in Him, and to observe his laws and keep his commandments. When he destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth" (Journal of Discourses 23:336).

'Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their father's rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the Priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we are now entitled to.' - Brigham Young

"When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity" - Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses 2:143)

"...that mark shall remain upon the seed of Cain until the seed of Abel shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not receive the Priesthood, until the time of that redemption" (History of Wilford Woodruff, p.351, as printed in The Way to Perfection, p.106)

For those who don't consider this an apologetic issue, you are very wrong, because this demonstrates the fallibility of your entire system. There is NO WAY to determine when a prophet is acting on God's behalf or his own.

" I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. " - Brigham Young

[Moksha]

So much for "white" Nephites. When they become unrighteous they become "filthy, and a loathsome people." Specifically moreso that the Lamanites. For those who might not be acquainted with the text, the dark/loathesome pair contrasts to white/delightsome and occurs in connections where the "dark" might be blackness or, as here, simply filthiness. The word "filthy" stands in exactly the same semantic position as dark/black in parallel phrases.

More manifestations of 19th Century racism. You know, as long as we keep covering it up, it is going to plague us.

[juxtaposed]

Well, I agree with you. It is a manifestation of 19th century racism.

"19th century racism" would not have allowed for this: , "he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he 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." 2 Nephi 26:33.

That's not quite true.

That line would have been quite compatible with a good chunk of 19th century racism, and much of the culture that Joseph Smith grew up around.

By the late 18th century (and continueing up through the Civil War), the Methodist religion in particular (which Joseph Smith was certainly influenced by) was already pushing an "equality in Heaven" view. They had begun denouncing slavery as an immoral practice, and suggested that all races were equal under God, thus the enslavement of one human by another was wrong. The belief that blacks could have an equal place in Heaven (if they became good Christians!) was quite commonplace in Northern Methodist culture...

Not that racism wasn't there too. Oh no, virulent racism was rampant. Along with this came the idea that AT THE MOMENT blacks were much worse off than whites. They were naturally inferior, pagan, and would probably have a more challenging time becoming good Christians than the superior whites, even though they COULD have an equal place in Heaven.

The Methodist's early proposals for illegalizing slavery usually involved putting all the slaves on a boat, and sending them back to Africa, because otherwise their primitive ways would infect modern American society. Then, of course, they could go colonize Africa and make them more like the white people. A more conservative approach was to suggest slowly educating the slaves, like children, until they were good enough to become proper citizens.

It really fits quite well with 2 Nephi 26:33.

In a nutshell: many 19th century Methodists would agree that God accepts all races equally, but not being white is a natural disadvantage. The early church's view really is not that different from other cultures of the time... but people have made the issue seem so black & white these days.

[juliann]

The underlying racial elements have an impact on a widespread level. Black girls today still find the white doll more attractive. I can only imagine the implications LDS doctrine has had on black members.

Why imagine? Use the stats. LDS score with the less prejudiced groups despite the priesthood ban. The use of the Bible to justify slavery has done irreparable harm. That is why so much of Christianity remains segregated to this day. The rationalizations pulled from any religious text to justify bigotry is appalling. But it happened. The irony is that Mormons get it from both sides...our doctrine is "racist" and blacks should stay away...yet the critics shed huge crocodile tears over how many have been "hurt" by staying away. Give me a break. When you turn from this topic you will be insulting blacks who are Mormon for being dupes. And when you stop boxing with your strawman maybe you can tell us who you think you are arguing with.

How can one tell when one of your prophets is acting as a fallible human, or as G-d's tool.

When the red light on his head lights up? What kind of a question is that? I've always been kinda ticked off that God just didnt' give Moses a machine gun. And why the heck didn't he just put libraries in all the cities so these poor slobs could be as smart and wonderful as we are?

The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence" (Mormon Doctrine, p.527, 1966 ed.).

Oh, YAWN. We have been acknowledging all of this for pages. I suppose you missed the part where McConkie said

[juliann]

Mormon 5:15

15 And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.

This has gotten to the point of a kind of sick absurdity. We actually have a group of people here who are demanding a text be read as racist because that is how it was decades before. When it is pointed out that a racist reading is improper and does not fit the text, we are treated to a barrage of ugly and very old quotes.

No matter that it becomes nonsensical in verses like these. Where are all the black filthy Nephites? What unfortunate racial group can they pin that on?

[tithulta]

How does that answer the question about how you tell when a prophet is representing himself, or G-d? You cannot. Who is to say that the statements in '78 aren't the same? Who is to say that the Church didn't want to pay property tax? Non-profits in Wisconsin were falling prey because of racist practices, who is to say that the Church wasn't next?