Forewarning: This post contains some potentially challenging ideas that will not be well suited for those who are seeking LDS gospel basics. For such individuals, I recommend Mormon.org, which is an excellent introduction. The following represents my personal opinions on an advanced topic.
In the so-called "Nephi's Psalm" of the Book of Mormon we find these inspiring words:
O Lord, wilt thou encircle me around in the robe of thy righteousness! … Wilt thou not place a stumbling block in my way … . (2 Nephi 4:33).
There is an actual Hebrew concept of "stumbling block" that comes from the word mikshowl (Strong's H4383). Ironically, there is a potential stumbling block in the Book of Mormon that appears to revolve around skin color and race in the chapter following Nephi's psalm. I am referring to some difficult wording found in the fifth chapter of 2nd Nephi.
The words of concern are as follows:
2 Nephi 5: 20-23 [emphasis mine]
20Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.
21And 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.
22And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23And 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.
The "cursed" people described in these Nephite verses are the Lamanites. To the modern reader the apparent racial overtones are striking and very disturbing. But, these words require a deeper analysis than what appears on the surface. There are multiple issues that suggest that a careful interpretation is needed. Why?
First, the ancestors of both Nephites and Lamanites were Semitic peoples with dark skin. Curse aside, the dark Lamanites never literally had "a skin of blackness," and the Nephites never had a skin of whiteness.
Second, it is insufficient to think of Lamanites in strict racial terms. They were more of a political alliance with a significant mixture of peoples. For example, the Zoramites were formerly Nephites who dissented and joined the Lamanites (see Alma 31: 8 and Alma 43: 4). Also, Alma 17: 19-21 makes it clear that some “Lamanites” were actually descendants of Ishmael. A strict racial definition of “Lamanite” falls apart.
Third, the cited verses might be impacted by the prejudices of the Nephites toward the Lamanites. Scripture is NOT independent of the human personality.
Fourth, in scientific terms we now understand that skin coloration has NOTHING to do with righteousness or wickedness. Skin color can only rapidly change by interbreeding with indigenous peoples of "other" ethnic origin.
Fifth, among the prominent definitions for the adjective "black" in the 1828 Webster's dictionary are: "sullen; having a cloudy look or countenance" and "atrociously wicked." Not only are there alternate ways to interpret the term "black" in the English translation of the Book of Mormon, but there are reasons to think that the phrase "skin of blackness" might have an idiomatic meaning in ancient Middle Eastern culture.
For example, in the context of encouraging Muslims to stay united and to hold fast to their covenants, the Qur'an (translation by Maulana Muhammad Ali, 2002) provides these words:
The Family of Amran 3:105-107 [emphasis mine]
105 And be not like those who became divided and disagreed after clear arguments had come to them. And for them is a grievous chastisement.
106 On the day when (some) faces turn white and (some) turn black. Then, as to those whose faces are black: Did you disbelieve after your belief? So taste the chastisement because you disbelieved.
107 And as to those whose faces are white, they shall be in Allah's mercy. Therein they shall abide.
The footnote to verse 106 reads (emphasis in the original, cited above): "By faces turning white is meant their being expressive of joy, and by their turning black, their being expressive of sorrow.
In the Old Testament we find verses with a similar configuration:
Joel 2:6
6 Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness.
Nahum: 2:10
10 She is empty, and void, and waste: and the heart melteth, and the knees smite together, and much pain is in all loins, and the faces of them all gather blackness.
The word "blackness" in these cited verses comes from the vague Hebrew term pa'ruwr (Strong's H6289) that roughly means glow, heat, or black. Interestingly, the English Standard Version (ENS) translates this Hebrew term as "pale." Thus, the cited verses in the ENS make reference to "all faces" that "grow pale" -- the opposite of black.
The important Hebraic concept not to miss is that individuals in anguish, pain, and embarrassment are sometimes described as having a change in facial countenance. Whether the translation is black or pale, the associated context is that of sorrowful pain. If a literal color of "blackness" was required, then a term like shachor (Strong's H7838) would be used instead of pa'ruwr. For example, references can be found for shachor in the context of black hair (Lev. 13:31, 38) and black horses (Zec. 6:2, 6).
In this short essay, I make no pretense about solving any of the important language issues raised in the fifth chapter of 2nd Nephi. My goal here was more modest. However, I do think it would be nice in future editions of the Book of Mormon to have a footnote of explanation for modern readers. Investigators (and LDS members) need to understand that racism is a sin, and that ultimately we are ALL sons and daughters of God, equal in His eyes. Possible misinterpretations of particular Book of Mormon passages should never detract from that message of welcome and love.
There is NO moral basis for any sense of racial superiority. (See other essays on this blog concerning racism). Both science and our religion teach us that we are (whether black, white, red, yellow, and brown) all derived from a common set of ancestors.
Consider the following: If our origins were based in Africa, as modern scientists contend, then all of us have black ancestors. I do not know the color of Adam's skin, but it does NOT matter. Black is beautiful, and we all are.
Personal Postscript: This past Sunday I was privileged to attend LDS worship services with all my three sons, my beautiful daughter-in law, and my cute 6-month old granddaughter. The congregation consisted of "downtown metropolitan" residents. Of the many LDS congregations I have witnessed, I have seldom felt more unity, welcome, and friendship. The bright faces of those people came in all skin colors, all levels of financial prosperity, and all types of clothing, plain to fancy. I especially appreciated the testimony of a young lady who spoke in a yellow t-shirt, which advertised a Catholic university.
Diversity matters. Diversity is needed.
Copyright © 2011 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
17 comments:
I have always taught that the dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites as a "sign" of their curse, but did not necessarily represent the curse itself. If you read the text of 2 Nephi 5:20-21 closely, you will see that the curse placed upon the Lamanites was being “cut off from the presence of the Lord,” or, in other words, having access to the temple restricted. The Lamanites' darkened skin served to distinguish themselves from the Nephites in order to keep the unbelievers and believers from mixing.
That the darkened skin was only a sign of the curse and not the curse itself, is further emphasized later in the BofM when the curse was removed from a group of Lamanites after the conversion of King Lamoni’s father and his people throughout seven lands. “The king and those who were converted were desirous that they might have a name, that thereby they might be distinguished from their brethren” (Alma 23:18). In a clear allusion to the temple, the “new name” that they received was Anti-Nephi-Lehi. Thus, after returning to the temple (i.e., God’s presence), Mormon explains that “the curse of God did follow them no more” (Alma 23:20). Once the curse was removed, it should be noted that no mention is made of any alteration in skin color. Instead, the converted Lamanites were once again allowed access to the Lord's temple.
Jeremy:
Your understanding may well be correct, but it is a bit too literal for my taste.
As I tried to indicate in the blog essay, a strict change in physical color creates a number of problems, not the least of which is the charge of racism.
As indicated, someday I would love to see a footnote or two in the Book of Mormon that would provide doctrinal clarification for us troubled modern readers.
I also dont feel like the "skin of Blackness"is literal. This is how I think of it: The Atonement has been referred to as a covering or a cloak or even a coat. The coat of skins given to Adam and Eve in the garden represents the atonement. Being made of animal skins verses the fig leaves (a poor counterfit) that Satan has them make.
So it makes sense to me that the skin of blackness is loss of the power of the atonement. In that way being cursed or cut off from the presence of God. "skin" being used the same as covering.
Also, it would be really hard to add in a explanation for reades, becuace everyone understands the scriptures differently at different times on their lives and to absolutely pef something down as the end all, limits what the scripture can mean. I hope that makes sense.
Like some poeple will read my comment and say "she's wack-a-do, I have never heard that before." While someone else might immedialty understand. Both are ok. we are just all at different points.
Shantel:
I very much like your interpretations. My only disagreement would be that I think clarification would be useful not only for people like me, but also for new readers who are investigating the Church. It is a shame when such verses get in the way of membership. I think they sometimes do.
Brant Gardner has made similar arguments. http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/09/all-are-alike-on-racism-and-book-of.html
Two weeks ago, there was an interesting article in the SL Tribune on a change made in the heading to 2 Ne 5 (not sure if that had anything to do with this post)--http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50882900-76/mormon-book-changes-church.html.csp
I can understand that. I cringe a little when someone pulls out their handy copy of "Mormon Doctorine" to explain something for a lesson or talk. I think Bruce R. McConkie said some really great things, that are for members that can discriminate and use the spirit to tell them what is right for them - but he can be alienating for new or struggling members. I get that. I wish there was a way to mend that. That makes it hard for some people investegating.
That skin of blackness is so ingrained in our culture. My Ute Indian sister my parents adopted was told her skin would lighten if she kept to the church. She is now a grandmother, and is still dark-skinned. I hate that they told her that. What a loss of having the chance to lover her culture and her dark skin.
Bryan:
It was those changes in chapter headings that provoked this essay. I just did not cite them, since they were peripheral to the way my essay developed.
Shantel:
Your comments are always most cogent and thoughtful.
I like this, S. Faux. Very thoughtful. I woud love to see a move away from the literalism infects out interpretations. This would make a nice footnote in future additions.
This is total speculation, but it is possible for skin to rapidly change color in two other ways: from the sun, and from dirt. Considering the notion that it is alluded that the Lamanites also became more savage, it is possible that the "skin of blackness" could be a lesser sense of hygiene, greater exposure to the elements through lack of housing/clothing or geographical location, or possibly intermingling with other peoples already in America who were not of the covenant.
At any rate, it really doesn't matter.
SFaux,
You and I both agree that this topic has nothing to do with personal salvation, but it is interesting to explore. So here I go with my 2 cents (yes, that's all it's worth).
"First, the ancestors of both Nephites and Lamanites were Semitic peoples with dark skin."
Don't know about this one. Many Jews today have white looking skin. They don't look dark skinned to me.
"Curse aside, the dark Lamanites never literally had "a skin of blackness," and the Nephites never had a skin of whiteness."
The BofM is clear on this matter - the Lamanites were dark skinned and the nephites were white skinned. I accept this. If we are too uncomfortable with this notion it is because we are very sensitive about racial issues and equality based on race. We hate to think of skin color represented some sort of curse or a vestige of an ancient curse.
"skin coloration has NOTHING to do with righteousness or wickedness"
I agree. I think 'curse' is more related to God withdrawing blessings. The purpose of skin coloring was more to keep the people separate to avoid intermingling. This sort of thing happens throughout the old testament with God's chosen house of Israel. The Jews were forbidden to intermarry.
Fortunately, in today's world skin color today has nothing to do with righteousness. Blacks, asians, and native Americans have equal opportunity for achieving salvation, regardless of skin color. That is all that matters.
Dave C.:
As always, I appreciate your reactions.
My opinion on this particular topic is also only worth 2 cents. I jokingly tell my colleagues at work that I try to never let the facts get in the way of my opinions. In any case, I seem to have opinions on everything.
No doubt there are racial issues in the Book of Mormon that make me very uncomfortable, as you hinted. Someday, I hope to find a line of reasoning that will make me more comfortable. This essay represents my most current attempt.
On the other hand, no set of scripture is designed to make us fully comfortable.
In general, I am more interested in figurative significance than literal significance as I read the scriptures. That is my bias. Thus, this posted essay is best seen as the reasons why I think "skin of blackness" is figurative, not literal.
As SilverRain observed, certain levels of darkness can be obtained by becoming dirty in a literal sense. For Nephi, who was e very spiritual man, that blackness/darkness could be obtained by becoming spiritually defiled, unclean. Rebellion certainly would do that.
It is no new thing that faces can be filled with light or darkness. Light and truth is often parallels in Scripture, because of how spiritual truth/light can dispel spiritual error/darkness in the same way that light literally dispels darkness.
It is no new thing to me, either, that in several languages there are phrases that reflect the "fallen countenance" (as, e.g. in the case of Cain in Genesis) by saying the face has "blackened." A particularly interesting is the one in Finnish, as the people who came up with that had no connections with anyone more than a slight degree darker than them.
All in all, we should in any case be "enlightened" enough to look past skin color. Did not the Lord tell Samuel (a dark-skinned Semite, too) not to look on the outside, when he sent him to anoint a king for Israel instead of Saul?
P.S. A blogger quoted an unnamed historian claiming that Joseph Smith, when emending the text of the BofM for the 1842 edition, was torn between "a pure and delightsome" and "a white and delightsome" within the same context (topically, if not textually same, that is).
While J.S. could be said to have been a product of his day—and thus unable to see the notions of color here as racist as we tend to do—there is still the business about light vs. darkness paralleling truth vs. error or lie.
I have to point out that it is possible for the skin color of a family line to change over generations by intermarrying into families with darker skin. Skin can become darker over generations when individuals continue to marry into families with dark skin. The child's skin color will be darker than their light-skinned parent.
The reverse can also happen. Skin can become lighter over generations when individuals with dark skin consistently marry into families with light skin. The children will have skin lighter than the dark-skinned parent.
I like to think about the anti-Nephi-Lehis and how they were distinguished for their zeal. Undoubtedly they would be excellent spouses and any good Nephite would be lucky to marry one of them.
S. Faux:
I have thought a lot about this topic. I felt you gave a very clear understanding of it. I am not as good as you are at expressing thoughts, but I agree with what you said. Thanks for the incite.
Nate
FYI, here's Nibley on this:
From Nibley's "Since Cumorah" chapter 8:
The dark skin is mentioned as the mark of a general way of life; it is a Gypsy or Bedouin type of darkness, "black" and "white" being used in their Oriental sense (as in Egyptian), black and loathsome being contrasted to white and delightsome (2 Nephi 5:21-22). We are told that when "their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes" they shall become "a white and delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:6; "a pure and delightsome people,"edition), and at the same time the Jews "shall also become a delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:7). Darkness and filthiness go together as part of a way of life (Jacob 3:5, 9); we never hear of the Lamanites becoming whiter, no matter how righteous they were, except when they adopted the Nephite way of life (3 Nephi 2:14-15), while the Lamanites could, by becoming more savage in their ways than their brother Lamanites, actually become darker, "a dark, filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been . . . among the Lamanites" (Mormon 5:15). The dark skin is but one of the marks that God places upon the Lamanites, and these marks go together; people who joined the Lamanites were marked like them (Alma 3:10); they were naked and their skins were dark (Alma 3:5-6); when "they set the mark upon themselves; . . . the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God," when he said, "I will set a mark on them. . . . I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren. . . . I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee [Nephi] and thy seed" (Alma 3:13-18). "Even so," says Alma "doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation" (Alma 3:19). By their own deliberate act they both marked their foreheads and turned their bodies dark. Though ever alert to miraculous manifestations, the authors of the Book of Mormon never refer to the transformation of Lamanites into "white and delightsome" Nephites or Nephites into "dark and loathsome" Lamanites as in any way miraculous or marvelous. When they became savage "because of their cursing" (2 Nephi 5:24), their skins became dark and they also became "loathsome" to the Nephites (2 Nephi 5:21-22). But there is nothing loathsome about dark skin, which most people consider very attractive: the darkness, like the loathsomeness, was part of the general picture (Jacob 3:9); Mormon prays "that they may once again be a delightsome people" (Words of Mormon 1:8; Mormon 5:17), but then the Jews are also to become "a delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:7)—are they black?
When I was reading the book of Mormon the first time, that verse drew very swift anger and disgust from me and I almost didn't join the church. The missionaries that taught me kind of talked me through it, and I did get baptized, but their words were not nearly as articulate and helpful to me on this issue than this is, so thanks for tackling this one! =)
Post a Comment