Dark Skins of the Lamanites

[Guest Lovely12]

Yellowlight, I shoud clarify that only some of the new translations by Joseph Smith were printed. My scriptures has the new translation and updated footnotes.

I don't have all of my refences with me right now.

Here is a ref from blacklds.org

In 1840 the Book of Mormon was "carefully revised by the translator" Joseph Smith and in that edition the words "white and delightsome" were changed to "pure and delightsome." This change seems to reflect the Prophet’s concern that modern readers might misinterpret this passage as a reference to Latter-day racial changes rather than righteousness. Unfortunately for subsequent LDS interpreters, following the Prophet’s death, the changes in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon were not carried over into subsequent LDS printings, which were based upon the edition prepared by the Twelve Apostles in Great Britain. Consequently, Latter-day Saints did not reap the benefit of the Prophet’s clarification until it was restored in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon. Interpreting this passage as meaning that conversion leads to a change of skin color echo a misinterpretation of the Book of Mormon text rather than an anachronism in the text itself.

The Charge of ‘Racism’ in the Book of Mormon | Blacklds.org

Edited June 19, 2009 by Lovely12

[Dravin]

Here we have Captain Moroni, I believe, that has found a decendent of Laman amongst the Nephites to go and deceive a guard who was over the nephites. Wouldn't he had stuck out like a "sore thumb" if he was darker (black skin) then the nephites (white skin) he was walking with?

How doesn't it work? It doesn't say how intensive the search was, and depending on just how many of Lamanite decent (with Lamanitish features however one wants to define those) it still could have been quite the search if they found him in some squad digging a ditch 50 miles away and he was one of 200 of Lamanite decent in the Army, the majority of those (Lamanitish decent) in the Nephite nation being the people of Ammon, and not to be found serving in the Army (Sons of Helaman excluded), now if every second man could pass as a Lamanite then a search doesn't make much sense, but if the rank and file was Nephite it makes perfect sense even if Lamanites had purple skin.

Additionally why select a Lamanite? If they looked the same why wouldn't a Nephite have worked for the plan? Just have him try to pass off as a Lamanite? There is a strong implication of that there were some features, whether physical or cultural (say an accent) that would defferentiate between the two and necessitate finding somebody with the right background. For instance a black man (or even a red headed blue eyed guy like myself) wouldn't be sought out for undercover operations where they had to pass themselves off as Korean. Now it says he sought a descendant of Laman, was that because he was seeking physical characteristics such as those passed on by genetics that would be considered Lamanitish (could be skin tone, could be something like eyes, a classic Lamanite nose or what have you)? Or was it because he was seeking somebody who was a descendant of Laman because they had the proper walk, accent, or something else and Lamanitish families were famous for not discarding these customs? Was it a combination of both?

Honestly I don't know but the classic idea of a darker skinned (Personally I tend to think Native American coloration for Lamanites, not black) Lamanite being sought out and chosen because he had the right skin color for the job is not at all at odds with the scriptures from what I can see.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Dravin

[Vort]

I'm curious to know if the Lamanites and Nephites were actually different skin complexions, then how does one explain Alma 55: 3-9?

Here we have Captain Moroni, I believe, that has found a decendent of Laman amongst the Nephites to go and deceive a guard who was over the nephites. Wouldn't he had stuck out like a "sore thumb" if he was darker (black skin) then the nephites (white skin) he was walking with?

It looks like you have misread this exchange. Moroni found a Lamanite descendant to send on a mission to deceive Lamanite guards. His general demeanor, including his skin color, allowed him to pull it off.

Or do you mean it's unusual that Moroni had to "make a search" to find the guy? Remember that he was in charge of an army of thousands, and doubtless did not know every man individually. When he wanted a Lamanite descendant, he probably said to his chief captains, "Find me a Lamanite descendant", and then they went back to their men and found one.

With a careful reading of the Book of Mormon, it is inescapable to conclude that the Lamanites had darker skin than the Nephites, and that the Nephites considered this darker skin to be a "curse", or more precisely (which the Nephites usually weren't), the mark of a curse.

Also, in 1840 Joseph Smith revised the words "white and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome". I believe the prophet did this so readers would not misinterepret.

Fascinating Book of Mormon change that, imo, gives some insight into the translation process and into the mind of Nephi. To wit:

This statement was made by Nephi himself toward the end of his writing. The text of the Book of Mormon makes it very clear that the Nephites considered dark Lamanite skin a curse and viewed it as a bad thing. I assume that Nephi, the primal leader of the Nephites, had this same attitude. When he wrote this statement, I expect he actually wrote "WHITE and delightsome" (or its Hebrew equivalent in "reformed Egyptian"). Joseph Smith dutifully translated this phrase as Nephi wrote it. But later, the Prophet reread the passage and realized that, though Nephi may have written "white", what he intended was something like "clean" or "unspotted" or "pure". (Remember what the Lamanite's dark skin signified in Nephi's mind.) So the Prophet made the change to a wording that more accurately reflected Nephi's mind and attitude rather than his word choice.

Another possibility: Reformed Egyptian was clearly an extremely compact shorthand for writing, which is why the Nephites used it. It also was clearly not phonetic (or at least mostly non-phonetic), and almost certainly had a highly restricted vocabulary. It's possible that the reformed Egyptian way of writing "pure" was the same as "white", and Joseph Smith simply used the wrong synonym when translating the first time.

We have no way of knowing, of course, but these seem the most obvious and likely reasons to me.

I believe it is all symbolic and not a literal skin change. Just like one might say, "you have to toughen your skin". We don't really mean that we will make our skin tough.

If you read the Book of Mormon carefully, I think you'll agree that the whole skin color argument was indeed literal, and that it meant a lot to the ancient Nephites. They appear often not to have completely understood what it all meant, equating God's curse on the Lamanites to their darker skin color rather than to their "lost" state.

I understand you're taking this whole thing very personally, so I hope I'm not offending you. In my experience, especially in matters of religion, if I temporarily divorce myself from my personal feelings on a matter and look at the matter objectively, I often gain insight and deeper understanding that then allows me to get past my own feelings.

I would go more into detail, but I have to get back to homeschooling my kids!

We homeschool, too. Hoemskoolrz Untie!

[Guest Lovely12]

Dear Vort,

Yes, Homeschoolers rule! I love it!

Well, I am not nearly as knowledgeable as many of you on the topic, but I do have my faith. I believe strongly that "things are not as they may seem" and that when the "the day" comes, many are in for a RUDE awakening.

I was just sharing my thoughts.

Take care and God bless.

[pam]

Lovely I think you are so correct. When the day comes a "rude awakening" will be an understatement.

[Traveler]

In general it is understood in science that all mankind have descended from a single genetic parent. It has also been found that certain climates give sight advantage to blue eyes where other climates give advantage to brown eyes and so forth. The same is true for skin pigments.

Currently there is diversity in every human population and looking at short term characteristics does not give a full picture. And with the freedom to go almost anywhere and have a family we really need to get over the concept of genetic races. Like many spending habits it is just unsustainable. With selective breeding in semi isolated populations we can pronounce certain features in the short term but to create genetic race type would take longer than human recorded history to track such a thing – not likely.

Let’s use chickens as an example because the breeding cycle is much shorter. With selective breeding we can have a population of giant white chickens. But this is not a true race. With the same giant white chickens we could selectively breed a population of dwarf black chickens. I do not have a link but I believe this particular scientific experiment has been proven and done.

I really believe we would do much better toward our neighbor and have greater scientific basis if we would all just get over this silly notion of multiple human races. I cannot think of a single intelligent or true thing that such a notion brings to the table – either religiously, socially, economically, politically or scientifically. By any stretch of intelligence the false theory of race adds nothing of benefit to any thinking.

The Traveler

Edited June 19, 2009 by Traveler

[Traveler]

Dear Vort,

Yes, Homeschoolers rule! I love it!

Well, I am not nearly as knowledgeable as many of you on the topic, but I do have my faith. I believe strongly that "things are not as they may seem" and that when the "the day" comes, many are in for a RUDE awakening.

I was just sharing my thoughts.

Take care and God bless.

As far as the RUDE awakening goes - at least for some of us. Already been there - done that. But then I have always tried to think of myself as a fast (not slow) learner. But I will admit some things have been learned with more difficulty than others.

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

We know from our biology classes that skin color is not the result of a curse or a blessing.

We also know from our biology classes that life and good health are not the results of a curse or a blessing.

We also know from our economics classes that financial prosperity is not the result of a curse or a blessing.

We also know from our history classes that liberty and security are not the results of a curse or a blessing.

And we know from our physical geography classes that good soil, plenty of rain, and a long growing season are not the results of a curse or a blessing.

Is anything the result of a curse or a blessing?

[Dravin]

I really believe we would do much better toward our neighbor and have greater scientific basis if we would all just get over this silly notion of multiple human races. I cannot think of a single intelligent or true thing that such a notion brings to the table – either religiously, socially, economically, politically or scientifically. By any stretch of intelligence the false theory of race adds nothing of benefit to any thinking.

The Traveler

I think you are fighting common usage versus science. Kinda like theories. While I agree that race has very little if no validity as a scientific term, in general conversation though it does have its uses as referring to a demographic tending to share certain genetic characteristics. Now if you want to say that's just being lazy, then I'm probably inclined to agree with you, but something like, "African-Americans are more likely to have a stroke than Caucasians" has some utility. Now any truth to that statement is because there are different genetic (and possibly cultural) variables at play, kind like the whole Hemophilia/Other Issues with certain royalty, and not because they are so genetically different from Caucasians or in the case of the Hapsburgs (IIRC) are so above the common folk.

I may be missing something obvious, something nuanced, both or something completely different.

[Traveler]

I think you are fighting common usage versus science. Kinda like theories. While I agree that race has very little if no validity as a scientific term, in general conversation though it does have its uses as referring to a demographic tending to share certain genetic characteristics. Now if you want to say that's just being lazy, then I'm probably inclined to agree with you, but something like, "African-Americans are more likely to have a stroke than Caucasians" has some utility. Now any truth to that statement is because there are different genetic (and possibly cultural) variables at play, kind like the whole Hemophilia/Other Issues with certain royalty, and not because they are so genetically different from Caucasians or in the case of the Hapsburgs (IIRC) are so above the common folk.

I may be missing something obvious, something nuanced, both or something completely different.

There may be some benefit in utilizing some partially filtered statistical data for various demographic conclusions but that does not mean that there is long term or scientific basis. Without indebt analysis the actual reason for different statistics could be diet, exercise, rest cycles and stress. All of which would provide more useful information to all.

Many think that using the “N” word is degrading to various elements of society and that such things engender sloppy and prejudicial thinking that really does not benefit anybody. As I have observed the use of the term race to describe various human demographics – I am personally convinced that the use of that term does just as much damage to social thinking and misunderstanding each other as any term currently in use. It is the basis for more degrading abuses and foolishly characterizing our neighbors (next door or abroad) than any other factor of our day and age.

And so I am on a personal crusade to educate all I can – So that if people insist in using the race term they do so knowing the possible harm to do to themselves and others.

The Traveler

Edited June 19, 2009 by Traveler

[Dravin]

So basically the negative aspects it brings to the table over shadows any possible benefit of convenience such terms have?

I still feel like I'm missing part of what you are trying to say.

[pam]

Is convenience of such importance when it brings a negative connotation?

[Dravin]

Is convenience of such importance when it brings a negative connotation?

Depends how you weight either of them.

I suppose I've just got the public service announcements about African-Americans and strokes on my mind and am wondering how you would communicate such a thing without using such demographic terms as African-Americans or something else as a euphemism for such. Now I'm ignorant (and feeling particularly slow today) but I think Traveler may be trying to say that it isn't all that useful to begin with, just tell sedentary people who eat way to much cholesterol or what have you to cut it out and visit a doctor.

[Traveler]

So basically the negative aspects it brings to the table over shadows any possible benefit of convenience such terms have?

I still feel like I'm missing part of what you are trying to say.

I am saying that all benefits could be utilized with more accurate terminology and it is misleading in that many people without thinking believe that there is substance or actual basis for the use of the term. All of which are just not true.

I also object to swearing for the same reasons - the terms are inaccurate and used because of ignorance of accurate terminology.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

So would you say with my response to Pam I'm getting closer to understanding your position?

Edit: Okay, I just noticed the thanks, I'm assuming that means:

[Genie]

He can be taught!

[/Genie]

Edited June 19, 2009 by Dravin

[Vort]

In general it is understood in science that all mankind have descended from a single genetic parent.

Not any science I have ever heard.

It has also been found that certain climates give sight advantage to blue eyes where other climates give advantage to brown eyes and so forths.

I have never heard any such thing. Reference, please?

Currently there is diversity in every human population and looking at short term characteristics does not give a full picture.

What is a "short term characteristic"? Do you have an example? In contrast, what might be a "long term characteristic"?

And with the freedom to go almost anywhere and have a family we really need to get over the concept of genetic races. Like many spending habits it is just unsustainable.

In what sense is the concept of race "unsustainable"?

What do "spending habits" have to do with anything?

With selective breeding in semi isolated populations we can pronounce certain features in the short term but to create genetic race type would take longer than human recorded history to track such a thing – not likely.

What, in your view, does it mean to "create [a] genetic race type", and why would doing so "take longer than human recorded history to track"?

Let’s use chickens as an example because the breeding cycle is much shorter. With selective breeding we can have a population of giant white chickens. But this is not a true race.

How do you define a "true race"?

With the same giant white chickens we could selectively breed a population of dwarf black chickens. I do not have a link but I believe this particular scientific experiment has been proven and done.

Do you understand the distinction between "race" and "species"?

Do you understand the concept of genetic mutation?

I really believe we would do much better toward our neighbor and have greater scientific basis if we would all just get over this silly notion of multiple human races.

How is the notion "silly"?

How would we "do much better toward our neighbor" by ignoring the notion of race?

In what way would we "have greater scientific basis" by doing so?

I cannot think of a single intelligent or true thing that such a notion brings to the table – either religiously, socially, economically, politically or scientifically. By any stretch of intelligence the false theory of race adds nothing of benefit to any thinking.

Here are a few examples off the top of my head demonstrating some of the benefits that the notion of race contributes to religious, social, economic, political, or scientific thinking:

• Tay-Sachs disease and Canavan disease are both demonstrably more common among Ashkenazic Jews.
• Sickle-cell anemia is almost unknown among Europeans, but highly prevalent (about 4%) among west Africans.
• Many heart-failure medications are less effective in African Americans than in whites, suggesting that the disease may develop differently in different races.
• Northern Europeans have much lighter skin and hair, thinner lips, and longer noses than African racial groups.

[deseretgov]

I believe strongly that "things are not as they may seem" and that when the "the day" comes, many are in for a RUDE awakening.

Yes I agree.

Here are a few examples off the top of my head demonstrating some of the benefits that the notion of race contributes to religious, social, economic, political, or scientific thinking:

Tay-Sachs disease and Canavan disease are both demonstrably more common among Ashkenazic Jews.

Sickle-cell anemia is almost unknown among Europeans, but highly prevalent (about 4%) among west Africans.

Many heart-failure medications are less effective in African Americans than in whites, suggesting that the disease may develop differently in different races.

Northern Europeans have much lighter skin and hair, thinner lips, and longer noses than African racial groups.

So how do you determine what "race" a person belongs too? Where do you draw the line? If a person of african descent has a child with a person of european descent what race is that child? Or is it it's own race? If that is the case there would have to be a racial term for every possible variation.

So is race determined by national origin? That can't be it because in the United states there are so many genetic variations. Is it from ancient national origin? But then that can't be it either because of mixing, what race would the child be?

How do you personally classify races?

It reminds me of the race my friend and I made up one day:

The Algerswiamjachiblaxicans.

----------------------------

I think that the description in the Book of Mormon is has both spiritual and physical implications. Yes their skin was made dark but that doesn't mean the Nephites where whities. They were brown too. The Lamanites were just made darker. It also doesn't mean that all dark skin is the sign of a curse. It just means that the specific group called the Lamanites had their skin made darker as a way to seperate them from the Nephites.

It doesn't mean that my wife(a Filipina with brown skin) was cursed at some point.

Edited June 21, 2009 by deseretgov

[Vort]

So how do you determine what "race" a person belongs too? Where do you draw the line?

I don't know. The racial classification I grew up with -- Caucasian (white), Negro (black), and Oriental/Mongolian (east Asian) -- is clearly deficient in adequately representing genetic reality. But that does not mean, as Traveler claimed, that we need to "just get over this silly notion of multiple human races" or that "the false theory of race adds nothing of benefit to any thinking".

How do you personally classify races?

I personally use the common American societal classifications of black, white, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian, while recognizing that lots of others (e.g. Maori) exist and the aforementioned classes are actually conglomerations of many racial types.

It reminds me of the race my friend and I made up one day:

The Algerswiamjachiblaxicans.

Sounds pretty good to me.

I think that the description in the Book of Mormon is has both spiritual and physical implications. Yes their skin was made dark but that doesn't mean the Nephites where whities. They were brown too. The Lamanites were just made darker.

I expect you're right. If the Lehites (and for that matter, Jesus) were like typical Middle Easterners, they certainly would not look like Swedes.

It also doesn't mean that all dark skin is the sign of a curse.

Nor do I believe the Book of Mormon suggests any such thing.

It just means that the specific group called the Lamanites had their skin made darker as a way to seperate them from the Nephites.

It doesn't mean that my wife(a Filipina with brown skin) was cursed at some point.

Agreed.

But you bring up an interesting point, that a familial curse is not the same thing as a personal curse. What I mean is this: If a couple apostatize from the Church and raise their children as atheists, they have in effect cursed themselves and their children by removing the blessings of the gospel from their lives. But it does not follow that the children have therefore been personally cursed by God. Similarly, even if we believe that some certain dark skin (or some other genetically inherited trait) was given as a "curse" from God, it does not follow that the descendants who inherit that characteristic are personally cursed by God.

[deseretgov]

I don't know. The racial classification I grew up with -- Caucasian (white), Negro (black), and Oriental/Mongolian (east Asian) -- is clearly deficient in adequately representing genetic reality. But that does not mean, as Traveler claimed, that we need to "just get over this silly notion of multiple human races" or that "the false theory of race adds nothing of benefit to any thinking".

Yes I don't thinkn we should dismiss the genetic factors. As you said there are certain health risks(or benefits) associated with certain genetic types. This obviously should not be dismissed.

What I disapprove of is the classification of people into groups based on skin color, or other external characteristics, or national origin(African Americans, Hispanic Americans). If we are talking politically then they are all Americans regardless of their skin color or where they come from, except in cases of dual citizenship.

But classification based of genetics for the sake of health isn't really a problem for me. I may have an allergy to certain anasthetics. If I do it would have come from my mother. This information is important to know.

People with certain genetic characteristics will have different responses to medicines. But there's no reason to say,"Your skin is darker so you must respond better to XYZ." Only analysis of the persons individual characteristics can determine that, not observations based on skin color.

Anyway i just keep typing and I don't think it makes any sense so I'll stop.

But you bring up an interesting point, that a familial curse is not the same thing as a personal curse. What I mean is this: If a couple apostatize from the Church and raise their children as atheists, they have in effect cursed themselves and their children by removing the blessings of the gospel from their lives. But it does not follow that the children have therefore been personally cursed by God. Similarly, even if we believe that some certain dark skin (or some other genetically inherited trait) was given as a "curse" from God, it does not follow that the descendants who inherit that characteristic are personally cursed by God.

Hmm. That is interesting.

[Vort]

We know from our biology classes that skin color is not the result of a curse or a blessing.

Which of our biology classes discussed divine blessings or cursings? I'm pretty sure none of mine did, even those I took at BYU.

[Dale]

Part of the curse of race in the book was to make Lamanites the victim of Nephite white pride. In and of itself being of a different race is not a curse, but being victim's of white prejudice would have made it seem like a curse to Lamanites.

[Vort]

Part of the curse of race in the book was to make Lamanites the victim of Nephite white pride. In and of itself being of a different race is not a curse, but being victim's of white prejudice would have made it seem like a curse to Lamanites.

Whence do you derive this strange doctrine?

[Hemidakota]

I think Dale was bringing neurotic sarcasm to the thread. But he is right in the end. We see it today in our own society where others look down upon those whose skin pigmentation is different, language barrier issues, culture up bringing, and so forth.

[Vort]

I think Dale was bringing neurotic sarcasm to the thread. But he is right in the end.

If you believe so, then please explain to me what is meant by "being victim's [sic] of white prejudice", and how that differs from being victims of black prejudice, or of some other sort of prejudice.

[Moksha]

Which of our biology classes discussed divine blessings or cursings? I'm pretty sure none of mine did, even those I took at BYU.

That is good to hear.

:)