What is the mark of Cain?

[carlimac]

Another Primary lesson question. I didn't even touch on it with the kids today because I didn't understand it.

So the Lord said to Cain that he would put a mark on him because of killing Abel. I gather from the scriptures that it was a mark of protection for Cain. But I don't really get that. Can someone explain it?

And do we or do we not believe it was dark skin like with the Lamanites?

[skippy740]

Race and the Priesthood

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.9 According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.10 Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.11 Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.

The curse of Cain was often put forward as justification for the priesthood and temple restrictions. Around the turn of the century, another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings.

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think that the best Primary answer is "Lots of people have had lots of ideas; but we aren't really sure, exactly."

Given that Moses 5:40 talks about a "mark" applying to Cain and then Moses 7:22 notes that all of his seed were black, it's easy--but not necessarily correct--to say that the "mark" was indeed dark skin. Re the article Skippy quotes, I would note that the Church currently disavows the idea "that black skin is [as of the time of writing--2014] a sign of divine disfavor or curse". It does not say that God never used skin color, in the ancient past, to designate family lines that ought to remain separate at that particular point in time--indeed, any plain-textual reading of the Book of Mormon indicates to the contrary.

But then again, it would be odd for God to take a "mark" that was supposed to apply to Cain specifically (and, we presume, exclusively), and then have it get passed on to every one of Cain's descendants. So, with your question as it applies to Cain specifically, I think we're back to the "we don't know" standby.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[carlimac]

OK on the Blacks and the Priesthood thing. I knew about that, but what I really don't get is how putting a "mark" on Cain would protect him from his enemies. Wouldn't a mark of some kind make him stick out more- make him easier to find? I'm baffled.

Question from the Primary manual: "How did the Lord protect Cain from being murdered? (Moses 5:40.)"

Moses 5:40 "And I the Lord said unto him: Whosoever slayeth thee, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And I the Lord set a *mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."

*cross reference in Moses 7:22 says the seed of Cain were black.

[Just_A_Guy]

Whatever the mark was, Adam's seed knew what it meant and knew what the penalty would be for hurting Cain--as Lamech's boast to his wives in Moses 5:47-48 makes clear.

[bytebear]

So what is the lesson for us today? What are we supposed to convey to the kids? That some people are so bad we should just avoid them?

[rameumptom]

Whatever the mark was that was placed on Cain, according to scripture, was not as a curse. It was set up to protect Cain from anyone seeking to harm him!

The curse was developed much later, primarily by Christians to justify enslaving black people, who they were convinced were descended from Cain and/or Ham.

[Irishcolleen]

According to the Bible, no one alive today would have the mark of Cain as all his descendents would have died in the flood during Noah's time.

[whirlieking]

According to the Bible, no one alive today would have the mark of Cain as all his descendents would have died in the flood during Noah's time.

My understanding, or what ive heard anyways, is that Ham's wife was of cain's descent. I am not sure where the reference is but that is how his seed would have continued if this is true.

Edited February 13, 2014 by whirlieking
not clear, and sounded too definitive

[Irishcolleen]

My understanding is that Ham's wife was of cain's descent. I am not sure where the reference is but that is how his seed continued.

I've never seen that in any of the geneologies. Also, there is no indication in the Bible that the mark was even put on Cain's descendents. Genesis 4 only says the mark was put on Cain. So it is stretching the Biblical text to believe the mark was even on the descendents.

[MarginOfError]

My understanding is that Ham's wife was of cain's descent. I am not sure where the reference is but that is how his seed continued.

I've never seen that in any of the geneologies. Also, there is no indication in the Bible that the mark was even put on Cain's descendents. Genesis 4 only says the mark was put on Cain. So it is stretching the Biblical text to believe the mark was even on the descendents.

Presumably, the LDS reference is in Abraham 1:21-23. But the idea was common in Christianity long before it was put into Abraham. And even in the text of Abraham, the conclusion requires a lot of interim assumptions that don't really have a firm basis.

[RMGuy]

I am grateful for Skippy's comments. I will say that when I was a youth in the church I heard it taught that the mark of Cain was a curse and that that curse was a skin of blackness. I will add that I disagree with that teaching. When you read the scriptures in Moses that talk about a Mark you will not it cross references to the BOM and references to the Lamanites. Read 2Ne 5:21 and I think you can see what that idea came from in the church. Even though we disavow it now.

[whirlieking]

Presumably, the LDS reference is in Abraham 1:21-23. But the idea was common in Christianity long before it was put into Abraham. And even in the text of Abraham, the conclusion requires a lot of interim assumptions that don't really have a firm basis.

Yeah I wasn't very clear, that was just what I heard and I wasn't sure what the source was.

Ive been meaning to look stuff up this week but I havent had time, but I just wanted to clear up my comment. Im about to edit it to make it clearer.

[bytebear]

Genesis 4:11-16 references it long before the Book of Abraham.

[bluedreams]

Given that Moses 5:40 talks about a "mark" applying to Cain and then Moses 7:22 notes that all of his seed were black, it's easy--but not necessarily correct--to say that the "mark" was indeed dark skin. Re the article Skippy quotes, I would note that the Church currently disavows the idea "that black skin is [as of the time of writing--2014] a sign of divine disfavor or curse". It does not say that God never used skin color, in the ancient past, to designate family lines that ought to remain separate at that particular point in time--indeed, any plain-textual reading of the Book of Mormon indicates to the contrary.

I think that's way too much extrapolation and finagling of a statement to make it work within the previous ideas about this topic. Especially when the context of the article makes it pretty clear that all racist ideas, past and present, are disavowed. To me, this idea was one of many to get the boot.

So the Lord said to Cain that he would put a mark on him because of killing Abel. I gather from the scriptures that it was a mark of protection for Cain. But I don't really get that. Can someone explain it?

And do we or do we not believe it was dark skin like with the Lamanites?

Funny enough I just finished extensively studying it out for myself. As I mentioned above I see that mark/curse = dark skin as an interpretation (notably an understandable one) that is racist (note the diff of racist idea v. racist people. Very few people that i've met who've held this racist idea have been racists themselves). This study entail thoroughly reading the scriptures from the 3 main groups mentioned with a curse of blackness: Cain's, Ham's, and the Lamanites. I meant for it to be simple, but it turned into about 5 pages of notes on Word. So I'll just give you my synopsis of the parts pertaining to both Cain and Ham.

I believe that the mark and curse can be used interchangeably. The mark, in effect was the decree for separation from the Lord, and subsequently his people. Cain had done all the heavy lifting to make this happen by rejecting God, having his countenance, fall, and finally killing Abel/choosing Satan's ways. In short this is a form of permanent excommunication of sorts. He was outside the covenant meaning he was no longer under the same responsibility/jurisdiction as the other seed of Adam. The Lord punished him for it and no one else was allowed to do the same. Whether the mark was physical or not, no one can really know and it's unnecessary, IMO for it to be so. There were, at best, thousands of people around (probably hundreds). The mark could be simple and a new command/mandate for separation from the covenants.

Ham also is cursed in a similar fashion. The assumption of black skin as the curse is made through the Book of Moses description of them as black. This is, IMO, an incomplete reading. Genesis 9 also make the account, but footnoted, is a JST reference that describes the curse as a "veil of darkness" that "shall cover him and he shall be known among all men." What does this entail? Well, to me the entirety of the chapter, earlier, is discussing a reestablishment of the covenants of the Lord. It references or uses language that hails back to the creation account as well as, for us, the temple...including signs, tokens, and everlasting covenant. This veil of darkness is shutting out from partaking in the covenants of the Lord. Besides mark, skin, veil, and scales to denote this black/white motif, also cloud, garments, and countenance have been used in scriptures.

Basically from what I studied "blackness/black/dark" in these accounts are better defined in the scriptures as being removed from God and His Covenants/Blessings. For us, even now, black often means a person with dark skin tone. The problem came when we converged the 2 definitions into one. This, to me, is what is disavowed.

With luv,

BD

Edited February 13, 2014 by bluedreams

[Just_A_Guy]

I think that's way too much extrapolation and finagling of a statement to make it work within the previous ideas about this topic. Especially when the context of the article makes it pretty clear that all racist ideas, past and present, are disavowed. To me, this idea was one of many to get the boot.

If you're talking about the "Mark of Cain" specifically, I'm inclined to agree; for the reasons I outlined previously.

If you're talking about use of skin color to designate separate peoples: I stand by the plain text of the Book of Mormon (the "skin-of-blackness=separation-from-covenant" explanation becomes tautological and untenable in that context) and the plain text of the Church's statement (it would have been very easy, and conclusive, for the Church to deny "that black skin is or ever was a sign of divine disfavor or curse", and they didn't).

[bluedreams]

If you're talking about the "Mark of Cain" specifically, I'm inclined to agree; for the reasons I outlined previously.

If you're talking about use of skin color to designate separate peoples:

I'm talking about all of them. They have parallel language and accounts given. It's an obvious pattern in explanation and description between the 3. It's folly to look at one and no look into the other.

I stand by the plain text of the Book of Mormon (the "skin-of-blackness=separation-from-covenant" explanation becomes tautological and untenable in that context) and the plain text of the Church's statement (it would have been very easy, and conclusive, for the Church to deny "that black skin is or ever was a sign of divine disfavor or curse", and they didn't).

That's the thing I'm standing by the plain text both the Book of Mormon, Bible, and PoGP....as well as principles found throughout all the standard works (For my study I read only the standard works, nothing else). As well as the Spirit and modern day revelation and the plain counsel. It's similar to why I (and most LDS) don't believe in a literal 7 day creation with 24 hr periods. Or why Eve isn't made literally from one of Adam's rib. Etc. One can believe these if they so want. But for me they've always had holes. I never believed, really, that the Lamanites skin turned dark or light like a light switch.

It always felt wrong for me as a person, my understanding of God, and how God sees his children. Why would brown skin ever be seen as unappealing? Mine certainly isn't. If this is people-centric, why aren't NA's and indigenous populations turning white? If God was just keeping with their own racist ideas....why in the world would the Lord of truth and light perpetuate and feed off of such a terrible belief structure? Why, if their skin were so distinctive, did a lamanite spy for the nephites have to declare that he was a lamanite? Why did the lamanites become white twice? There were so many immediate problems to it I didn't know where to start. I believed more in maybe a natural mixing with indigenous populations and more of a gradual change that the people slowly learned not to see diffs anymore. But that also had problems and was more like a bandaid answer to the problem. And with your response, this also make little sense, considering the BoM is one of the most purpose driven books. It was compiled, shortened, and given specifically with us in mind. This distinction was important and had spiritual implications. It should be applicable to us today.

Basically there are 4 major answers that have commonly been given (God literally changed their skin in short periods, it was a natural change over time, the people were racist in the BoM and God went with it or never felt the need to correct it, the BoM is racist). And they all fall flat to me. They all have the same crutch on injecting modern sensibilities about what is black and white into the Bible/BoM as well as selectively highlighting certain black/white motifs surrounding color while completely ignoring others (including 1 or 2 directly footnoted in the text) despite abject parallels in language and context. And the only explanation for any of these is some mix of things like: it is what it is, it was their time, it's a mystery, the mark/curse to 2 distinctive things (they're not), we must hold to traditional beliefs even when unpopular, etc. They hit brick walls in understanding and knowing God better and what we are striving to reach for. They are inert and I've never received solid revelation and opening of understanding through them like I have other plain and precious truths.

You're welcome to your beliefs. But just like the belief of 7-day creationism I feel no need to defend or perpetuate them. What I've learned through earnest study, prayer, and careful reading gives me a far more congruent, beautiful, and intricate understanding of a powerful motif. It gives me the peace about these scriptures that I've never had, allows me to equally apply them to our day, and gives me a better understanding of God, His mercy, Truth, and His holy covenants. All I get from old beliefs that follow disavowed ideals is at best a block and mystery and at worst discomfort of something that appears racist.

With luv,

BD

Edited February 13, 2014 by bluedreams

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm talking about all of them. They have parallel language and accounts given. It's an obvious pattern in explanation and description between the 3. It's folly to look at one and no look into the other.

Err . . . one (Moses) comes from a Hebrew account which was probably a translation from an older Semitic language. Another comes from the Book of Abraham, and frankly we don't know what language that was written in--the papyri we have don't match up with the text of the book. The third comes from the Book of Mormon, which was written in some kind of haphazard and unprecedented effort to use Egyptian hieroglyphs to represent the Hebrew language. The folly, I think, is to try to force the English versions of all three accounts into the same linguistic paradigm and come up with a new literary universe where "skin" never means "skin".

Why would brown skin ever be seen as unappealing? Mine certainly isn't. If this is people-centric, why aren't NA's and indigenous populations turning white?

Oh, my goodness. Where did I--or anyone, for that matter--ever say that the Lamanites' skin was supposed to be ugly?

If God was just keeping with their own racist ideas....why in the world would the Lord of truth and light perpetuate and feed off of such a terrible belief structure?

To say that implementing a regimen where two groups of people with different skin tones are supposed to stay away from each other makes God racist, is as problematic as saying that my telling half my squabbling children to wear blue shirts and the other half to wear purple shirts--and blue-shirts need to stay away from purple-shirts until I say otherwise--makes me a racist. It just doesn't compute. God is not "my race" or "your race". He's above twenty-first-century sociological constructs.

Why, if their skin were so distinctive, did a lamanite spy for the nephites have to declare that he was a lamanite?

Why, if there were no distinction, did that spy say "Behold [look!], I am a Lamanite"?

Why did the lamanites become white twice?

You'll have to show me that second reference. But I would ask: If the "skin of darkness", for the Lamanites, was merely a sign of a broken covenant or separation from God, then why does the Book of Mormon present it as a separate event when LDS theology teaches that loss of the spirit is essentially contemporaneous with sin? Why doesn't Nephi talk about Laman and Lemuel having a "skin of blackness" during their many rebellious periods before their final separation from Nephi? And why does Mormon bring it up in Alma 3 in the midst of a discussion about how the Amlicites, too, had physically marked themselves so as to visually distinguish themselves from the Nephites? And if we use your interpretation, doesn't Alma 3:8 force us to the nonsensical conclusion that the only reason God removes the Spirit/blessings of the Covenant from sinners, is so that they won't procreate with those who are still keeping the covenant?

There were so many immediate problems to it I didn't know where to start.

I'm going to respectfully suggest that the most pressing problem is that modern identity politics have made us hyper-sensitive to these kinds of issues, to the point that we would rather re-interpret words in a manner contrary to their plain and ordinary meanings than read them in a way that requires us to adjust our perceptions or worldviews.

And with your response, this also make little sense, considering the BoM is one of the most purpose driven books. It was compiled, shortened, and given specifically with us in mind.

And it condemns racism very strongly--see, e.g., Jacob 3:9 ("Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins"). Unless, of course, we use your proposed definition of "skin", in which case Jacob's warning has nothing to do with race.

They all have the same crutch on injecting modern sensibilities about what is black and white into the Bible/BoM as well as selectively highlighting certain black/white motifs surrounding color while completely ignoring others (including 1 or 2 directly footnoted in the text) despite abject parallels in language and context.

I don't think it's "sensibilities" so much as it is "language". And the issue doesn't hinge on the literal-versus-metaphorical usage of words "black" or "white" in isolation; it's the usage of the word "skin". "Skin" means "skin" every time it's used in the Book of Mormon. It doesn't mean "aura" or "spirit" or what-have you. It means "skin".

They hit brick walls in understanding and knowing God better and what we are striving to reach for. They are inert and I've never received solid revelation and opening of understanding through them like I have other plain and precious truths.

Beware. You're implying that people who don't think like you do, somehow have an inferior spiritual relationship with the Father. I could just as easily (and, I hope, erroneously) suggest that it is you who are blocking true revelation by starting with an twenty-first-century-politically-correct assumption, concluding ab initio that the Book of Mormon just can't mean what it says it means and that God must not act in a way you think would be unseemly for Him to act, and then developing a new theology from there.

It gives me the peace about these scriptures that I've never had, allows me to equally apply them to our day, and gives me a better understanding of God, His mercy, Truth, and His holy covenants. All I get from old beliefs that follow disavowed ideals is at best a block and mystery and at worst discomfort of something that appears racist.

I certainly wouldn't presume to argue with you over your own spirituality. :) I am going to express my hope that we can be honest and accurate about which notions have been "disavowed" and which ones have not been; and I hope you'll permit me the liberty of pointing out what I fear to be the flaws in your proposed reading of the Book of Mormon.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[bluedreams]

Err . . . one (Moses) comes from a Hebrew account which was probably a translation from an older Semitic language. Another comes from the Book of Abraham, and frankly we don't know what language that was written in--the papyri we have don't match up with the text of the book. The third comes from the Book of Mormon, which was written in some kind of haphazard and unprecedented effort to use Egyptian hieroglyphs to represent the Hebrew language. The folly, I think, is to try to force the English versions of all three accounts into the same linguistic paradigm and come up with a new literary universe where "skin" never means "skin".

Genesis and Moses speak of the same accounts and all of them come from the same faith tradition. And all of the ones I've mentioned are interpreted through the same man (JS...remember that I used the JST for the Genesis 9 verse). All of them have at one point or another been interpreted in the last 300 years by our cultures to infer darker skin. That is enough reason for me to compare, contrast, and draw parallels. It's not a new literary universe. I listed 7 terms used interchangeably to explain the same thing. They're used largely symbolic with a very few times being literal (though in a way that's usually visionary or singularly exceptional) that's and all having a very different significance than what we normally would give them. It's unnecessary to give skin a special singular literal meaning when so much else simply isn't. Because skin can still be define as skin and fits well with the other 6 terms used anyways (such as a covering, film, etc).

Oh, my goodness. Where did I--or anyone, for that matter--ever say that the Lamanites' skin was supposed to be ugly?

It's one of many descriptions mentioned for what the "black skin" made them to the Nephites. Frankly, ugly's a little gentle considering the book prefers the term “to make them loathsome” to the Nephite which is defined as repulsive. There are a list of implications that are just as lovely when this is taken literally.

To say that implementing a regimen where two groups of people with different skin tones are supposed to stay away from each other makes God racist...

You do realize, you're describing segregation right?

is as problematic as saying that my telling half my squabbling children to wear blue shirts and the other half to wear purple shirts--and blue-shirts need to stay away from purple-shirts until I say otherwise--makes me a racist. It just doesn't compute. God is not "my race" or "your race". He's above twenty-first-century sociological constructs.

Exactly, and IMHO it is our 21st, 20th, 19th, and 18th century sensibilities that read into both biblical and BoM texts the racial ideas of their/our times.

Why, if there were no distinction, did that spy say "Behold [look!], I am a Lamanite"?

Yeah, still read it as excessive if they all looked the same. Think of it this way. If the personal was black and he went up to a bunch of black guys....why in the world would he shout out "look, I am a black man!" I'd be astounded if they didn't look at him and said "behold, it's captain obvious." And more problematic, is how he would explain having a bunch of Nephites behind him. It should be more along the lines of "look I'm a black man, pay no attention to the white burly men behind me...no really they're lamanites too, I swear." And there's a problem that they'd have to look and ask for descent. If he was one brown guy in a sea of white men, there would have been no need to really look around. They needed someone who knew the culture and the language natively. The problem still stands. The story still reads holey to me. It may not to you. But to be frank I'm not likely to be convinced otherwise anymore than I am 7 day creationism. I get where you get it. I've seen your reason in various forms throughout my life. I reject it for the various holes and painful implications and the overall fracturing of what is a beautiful motif.

You'll have to show me that second reference.

To be exact, they all (all the various -ites) turned white like Jesus during prayerful union with Him. It’s in 3rd Nephi. Though from my readings the scripture that describes the lamanites turning white en masse is actually the third major account of en masse change from dark to light. The other two used clouds of darkness/pillar of fire and light/dark sight as their chosen motifs to describe the same thing.

It's in But I would ask: If the "skin of darkness", for the Lamanites, was merely a sign of a broken covenant or separation from God, then why does the Book of Mormon present it as a separate event when LDS theology teaches that loss of the spirit is essentially contemporaneous with sin?

Sinning is not the same as excommunication. It's not the same as abject seperation from God's covenanted/chosen people. Still much of the language and black/white motifs that describe sin and conversion parallel it anyways.

And why does Mormon bring it up in Alma 3 in the midst of a discussion about how the Amlicites, too, had physically marked themselves so as to visually distinguish themselves from the Nephites?

As an immediate indication of integrating into their ways, behaviors and actions. Again Black = separated from the ways/covenants of the Lord. Then how the Lamanites are black is thoroughly described in this verse (shaved heads, red marks, wild, blood-thirst….in everyway removed from the lives of the Lord’s covenant people). The mark is a sign of where the Amlicites now stand. They brought the curse literally upon themselves....and this passage also make it pretty clear that everybody who is cursed/marked (this is one verse where curse/mark are very much used interchangeably), brought it upon themselves (everybody). If the mark is literally a dark skin tone, the children have no accountability to receiving that from their parents. No one chooses their color. If it's traditions/culture/separation the mark can always be removed by repentance. The removal of the curse/mark follows a simply solution through the BoM: repent and it's immediately gone.

And if we use your interpretation, doesn't Alma 3:8 force us to the nonsensical conclusion that the only reason God removes the Spirit/blessings of the Covenant from sinners, is so that they won't procreate with those who are still keeping the covenant?

I’m not sure if I follow you….No, that’s not at all what I get from that verse. The reason is pretty straight forward: so their children won’t believe in incorrect traditions and lead to destruction. Think Solomon, the people left on the earth after the City of Enoch. The curse is incorrect traditions that are loathsome and lead to destruction. It's because the true ways would begin to corrode as other distorted traditions are allowed in. It’s happened many times in the OT, NT, BOM, and our day as well IMHO.

I'm going to respectfully suggest that the most pressing problem is that modern identity politics have made us hyper-sensitive to these kinds of issues, to the point that we would rather re-interpret words in a manner contrary to their plain and ordinary meanings than read them in a way that requires us to adjust our perceptions or worldviews.

And I believe the re-interpretting started 2-3 centuries ago with their identity and race issues that was intrinsically embedded….I worked within what I saw which was fairly similar to your reading. I did so because the alternatives brought up were not good enough. This was holey, but I’d largely accepted that and moved on, believing. I finally listened to one that gave a good explanation and also had the problems re-assert in various ways. I explored the issue more deeply after that. My perception has changed.

And it condemns racism very strongly--see, e.g., Jacob 3:9 ("Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins"). Unless, of course, we use your proposed definition of "skin", in which case Jacob's warning has nothing to do with race.

Yep.

And racism can still be seen as condemned throughout the standard works with or without that interpretation.

I don't think it's "sensibilities" so much as it is "language". And the issue doesn't hinge on the literal-versus-metaphorical usage of words "black" or "white" in isolation; it's the usage of the word "skin". "Skin" means "skin" every time it's used in the Book of Mormon. It doesn't mean "aura" or "spirit" or what-have you. It means "skin".

I said nothing about auras. And as I said before, the same language and words and promises black/white skin is used also for clouds, countenance, garments, veil, etc.

Beware. You're implying that people who don't think like you do, somehow have an inferior spiritual relationship with the Father. I could just as easily (and, I hope, erroneously) suggest that it is you who are blocking true revelation by starting with an twenty-first-century-politically-correct assumption, concluding ab initio that the Book of Mormon just can't mean what it says it means and that God must not act in a way you think would be unseemly for Him to act, and then developing a new theology from there.

No. I am still learning. And there are other areas that others are far better than I am. This hardly makes me somehow more spiritual. I had one revelatory process. That certainly doesn’t put me above another. I’ve met people who have ideas that I disagree with who are still impressive and powerful, spiritually speaking.

You’ll have to understand that this process had it’s culmination in the last week. It has been a very beautiful, spiritual event. It’s also been a more painful one as well. I think, because it’s new, both points are coming out more than they usually would in my writing. Funny enough, this forum had a number of items that kinda nudged this process along while I was lurking about some threads. So after I was all done and had pulled up every verse that I could find through my scriptures and the LDS.org (thank you search engines)… and had others opened to me… and talked with the Guy Upstairs (as I affectionately call Him)… and made darn sure this wasn’t me and my own desires getting in the way…this is in small part what I received. This isn’t my usual board, but I thought I’d take another peak and the first thread on top was this one. It’s exuberance that your reading, nothing more...well, sometimes playful sarcasm -> my east coast side often gets the best of me.

I certainly wouldn't presume to argue with you over your own spirituality. :) I am going to express my hope that we can be honest and accurate about which notions have been "disavowed" and which ones have not been; and I hope you'll permit me the liberty of pointing out what I fear to be the flaws in your proposed reading of the Book of Mormon.

That’s actually what I wanted a little. I keep expecting to find a flaw or 3 like I did with the others. But it’s like everything has finally just clicked. I don’t expect to convince you. I remember both you and another while lurking in a thread as believing quite adamantly about your positions. But I wanted a moment to better flesh out my thoughts in my head/writings and see what would come. So thank you for a little of that opportunity. I probably won’t have time to answer much more than this. I’m in Grad school currently and today was a strangely slower day. Those never last.

Also I very rarely jump to a conclusion. I prefer to sit, stew, think, counter-think, and then type carefully. This was a relatively fast post (the scriptures you mentioned were ones that I’ve been looking and studying up on extensively) and I still was writing for an hour. Also I doubt we’ll agree on what has been disavowed. I doubt we’ll agree on this. That is not my expectation. I see it one way, you see it another.

With luv,

BD

[Just_A_Guy]

Genesis and Moses speak of the same accounts and all of them come from the same faith tradition.

Doesn't matter. They're independent texts, and need to be approached on their own terms.

And all of the ones I've mentioned are interpreted through the same man (JS...remember that I used the JST for the Genesis 9 verse).

A fair point; but then you need to look and see how Smith himself was interpreting those texts as of 1830-1831. During this period he discusses, with some close associates, the possibility of "lightening" the Lamanites by having the (European-descended) Church elders enter into (presumably polygamous) marriages with Native American women. And in 1834 you have Zion's Camp coming on the remains of Zelph, whom Joseph described (as cited by three different sources) as "a white Lamanite, a large, thick-set man".

If you're going to point out that all three sources were washed through the filter of Joseph Smith as translator, OK, then. But at the time Smith produced all of those translations, he clearly believed that the skin of darkness on the Lamanites was a literal thing.

It's one of many descriptions mentioned for what the "black skin" made them to the Nephites. Frankly, ugly's a little gentle considering the book prefers the term “to make them loathsome” to the Nephite which is defined as repulsive. There are a list of implications that are just as lovely when this is taken literally.

Not scripturally. The skin tone wasn't supposed to make them "loathsome". The only rationale we get for the skin change is Alma 3:8:

And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

You do realize, you're describing segregation right?

Well, that's exactly what I was talking about regarding trying to force God into a twenty-first century paradigm. God is above race. He has every right to define groups and tell those groups to stay away from each other, just as I have every right to tell my squabbling children to go play in separate rooms. That's very different than the rationale behind segregation, which was "I consider you inferior based on nothing more than your appearance, and I don't want to be inconvenienced by or reminded of your existence, so please, get away from me".

Yeah, still read it as excessive if they all looked the same. Think of it this way. If the personal was black and he went up to a bunch of black guys....why in the world would he shout out "look, I am a black man!" I'd be astounded if they didn't look at him and said "behold, it's captain obvious."

Err . . . it was the Lamanites who had stopped the spy (Laman) for interrogation. He's not being "captain obvious". He's saying "hey-geniuses--I'm one of you. Duh!"

And more problematic, is how he would explain having a bunch of Nephites behind him. It should be more along the lines of "look I'm a black man, pay no attention to the white burly men behind me...no really they're lamanites too, I swear."

There are two possibilities here, and the answer could be either or both of them. First, Read verse 8 (Alma, chapter 55). They waited until evening to pull this stunt; and at this stage of history both Nephite and Lamanite soldiers were mostly covered in armor and/or thick clothing. You could get away with it, if the mostly-covered Nephite troops hung back under cover of darkness while Laman went forward to parley.

And, second, you assume that Laman's contingent was made up of Nephites. But we know that Laman was one of the servants of the Lamanite king Amalickiah murdered (Alma 55:5), and we know that a group of those servants escaped and joined the Ammonites (Alma 47:29), and we know that Laman had become an officer in the Nephite army with men under his command even before he was selected for this mission (Alma 55:6), and we know that he only took "a small number" of that group with him. It's entirely possible that this mission was entirely carried out entirely by Lamanite dissenters.

And, going back to the text, note verse 4 --Moroni doesn't seek for someone who was raised among the Lamanites; he seeks for someone who was descended from Lamanites.

To be exact, they all (all the various -ites) turned white like Jesus during prayerful union with Him. It’s in 3rd Nephi.

Oh, 3 Ne 19:25--got it. But then, that refers to "countenance", not "skin", which is why I think even conservative readers would agree with you that that's some sort of "glowing" phenomenon, not an actual change in skin tone.

The other two used clouds of darkness/pillar of fire and light/dark sight as their chosen motifs to describe the same thing.

Are you talking about Book of Mormon accounts? And if so, do they specifically use the word "skin"?

Sinning is not the same as excommunication. It's not the same as abject seperation from God's covenanted/chosen people. Still much of the language and black/white motifs that describe sin and conversion parallel it anyways.

I see where you're going from a social point of view (though it's worth noting that both Mosiah 26 and Moroni 6 describe excommunication-type processes among the Nephites, and neither of those chapters refer to a "curse" or "skin of darkness"). But theologically--vis-à-vis the presence of the Spirit and one's relationship with God--I don't think this is sound. Loss of the Spirit is loss of the Spirit.

As an immediate indication of integrating into their ways, behaviors and actions. Again Black = separated from the ways/covenants of the Lord. Then how the Lamanites are black is thoroughly described in this verse (shaved heads, red marks, wild, blood-thirst….in everyway removed from the lives of the Lord’s covenant people). The mark is a sign of where the Amlicites now stand. They brought the curse literally upon themselves....and this passage also make it pretty clear that everybody who is cursed/marked (this is one verse where curse/mark are very much used interchangeably), brought it upon themselves (everybody).

That's certainly one interpretation. Let's compare it with the text itself.

What the passage makes clear is that the Amlicites physically marked themselves with red in the forehead (v. 4); and the Lamanites did likewise as well as shaving their heads and wearing only a loincloth and, as appropriate armor (v. 5); and the skins of the Lamanites (no mention of the Amlicites here) were "dark" according to a "mark" set by the Lord (v. 6) which affected the children of Laman, Lemuel, and Ishmael (v. 7), and that the purpose of this mark was to distinguish the seed of the above-stated individuals from the seed of "their brethren" (Nephi and those who followed him) (v. 8).

If the mark is literally a dark skin tone, the children have no accountability to receiving that from their parents. No one chooses their color.

However we may define "accountability" or "fairness", the text itself--particularly v. 8--shows that the mark applied to "the seed". It was hereditary.

If it's traditions/culture/separation the mark can always be removed by repentance. The removal of the curse/mark follows a simply solution through the BoM: repent and it's immediately gone.

I don't know about "immediately"; but that contingency is contemplated by the plain text of the Book of Mormon.

I’m not sure if I follow you….No, that’s not at all what I get from that verse. The reason is pretty straight forward: so their children won’t believe in incorrect traditions and lead to destruction.

Not quite. Per Alma 3:8, "[T]his was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix".

And I believe the re-interpretting started 2-3 centuries ago with their identity and race issues that was intrinsically embedded….

Obviously, we can't go back beyond 1830-1831 with regard to the Book of Mormon; but I've gone up to that point already--the idea of the Lamanite "mark" as a literal change in skin color goes all the way back to Joseph Smith himself.

I worked within what I saw which was fairly similar to your reading. I did so because the alternatives brought up were not good enough. This was holey, but I’d largely accepted that and moved on, believing.

What was "holey", other than that it offended your own self-image and your own twenty-first century sociological sensibilities?

I said nothing about auras. And as I said before, the same language and words and promises black/white skin is used also for clouds, countenance, garments, veil, etc.

Then what does the idiom "skin of blackness" mean?

--Excommunication/separation? Odd, then, that the parts of the Book of Mormon that specifically deal with this procedure, omit this verbiage. Odd how "skin of blackness" or "skin of darkness" is never applied to--say--the people of Ammonihah, or the Zoramites, or the Amlicites, or the Gadianton robbers.

--Wickedness? Then why is it spoken of as something that God caused to come upon them separately and distinctly from their own misdeeds?

From Alma 3 we know that there is a mark--spoken of in context of other physical differences--that applies only to the Lamanites, which distinguished them from the seed of Nephi and his followers. It was hereditary, it was exclusive to the Lamanites, and it was visible.

Joseph Smith identified it with skin color. The modern LDS Church continues to do so in--for example--the seminary teacher's manual, in the institute student's manual, in the simplified Book of Mormon Stories manual--all of which were correlated after 2007. 2003's Book of Mormon Study Guide takes a similar view. No official LDS source endorses the reading of the Book of Mormon that you present. You seem to suggest that the curse and the mark and the curse were basically one and the same thing; which is in clear contravention of the teachings of Joseph Fielding Smith as relayed in several of the sources named above to the effect that the curse and the mark of the curse were separate.

You talk about "holey" theories. The theory of a non-literal "mark" requires me to believe, not only the plausible notion that "black" or "dark" or "white" don't literally mean "black" or "dark" or "white"; but also that "skin" doesn't mean "skin", that a hereditary mark was not hereditary, that a visually distinguishable mark was not visually distinguishable, that "behold" means "listen", that "seed" doesn't mean "seed" . . . ad infinitum. Such gymnastics are attractive for many reasons--but fidelity to the plain text, it would seem, is not among those reasons.

You’ll have to understand that this process had it’s culmination in the last week. It has been a very beautiful, spiritual event. It’s also been a more painful one as well. I think, because it’s new, both points are coming out more than they usually would in my writing.

I understand, and I hope you understand I went through a similar process sometime ago that led me to a completely opposite conclusion. I rarely mention it, because--frankly--it's not pertinent to online discussions such as this. It's neither binding nor, I suspect, persuasive authority for you, any more than your experiences are binding or (no offense) persuasive authority for me given the experiences I personally feel I've had. So with due deference to what I'm sure is a sacred experience for you; in this forum I prefer to stick to a textual argument in conjunction with the official statements of the Church leadership. As for our personal experiences: Someday, in a future life, I'm sure we'll meet, shake hands warmly, one of us will say "D'oh!", and we'll both chuckle and move on to another topic.

But I wanted a moment to better flesh out my thoughts in my head/writings and see what would come. So thank you for a little of that opportunity. I probably won’t have time to answer much more than this. I’m in Grad school currently and today was a strangely slower day. Those never last.

I am painfully familiar with that amazing feeling that is a mixture of busy-ness, exhilaration, and impending doom, that comes with a postgraduate education. Good luck with it!

I appreciate this exchange as well--we disagree, of course; but I've found the discussion edifying and enlightening (and you've forced me to do some homework, which is always a good thing) so thanks for that. :)

Edited February 15, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[bluedreams]

First off....it's saturday! I cannot tell you how happy it is to be a long weekend. I still won't be able to write much.

A fair point; but then you need to look and see how Smith himself was interpreting those texts as of 1830-1831. During this period he discusses, with some close associates, the possibility of "lightening" the Lamanites by having the (European-descended) Church elders enter into (presumably polygamous) marriages with Native American women. And in 1834 you have Zion's Camp coming on the remains of Zelph, whom Joseph described (as cited by three different sources) as "a white Lamanite, a large, thick-set man".

Yes, but they also believed the BoM took place over a larger geography...and there were parts that he was surprised by. JS also believed the Blacks of his day were still under the curse of Cain and Ham, even though he translated Gen 9 as "veil of darkness" coming over. The problem with these connections are apparent and largely non-existent unless you go in already believing that dark skin is a curse, Cain and Ham had the same descendants, and that those descendants are now all Africans. And yet he believed blacks were the "sons of Canaan/Ham" and the "sons of Cain". He translated, but it doesn't mean he didn't incorrectly interpret meaning from it based on his day. JS was just as fallible as any other prophet. So basically I think the translations are true, but that their interpretations were based on the racism of their day.

If you're going to point out that all three sources were washed through the filter of Joseph Smith as translator, OK, then. But at the time Smith produced all of those translations, he clearly believed that the skin of darkness on the Lamanites was a literal thing.

Yes, And that BY thought that, and a litany of believers and prophets previously. There was plenty that they thought on topics of color and scriptures that I most definitely believe are wrong and feel no need to perpetuate as correct interpretations.

Not scripturally. The skin tone wasn't supposed to make them "loathsome". The only rationale we get for the skin change is Alma 3:8:

The direct wording is to make them not enticing as seen in 2 Ne 5:21: "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" Followed by "And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities." The antonym of enticing is repel, repulse, or disgust. Loathsom is defined as disgust or repulsive. v22 is repeating or marking the fruition of v21. It is very apparent from the language that scripturally, whatever the skin of blackness is defined as, it was meant to make them repulsive to the Nephites.

k....running low on time, I work the temple in the afternoons, so even my saturdays aren't the freest. I still want a little time to dither about . THe rest will be shorter

Well, that's exactly what I was talking about regarding trying to force God into a twenty-first century paradigm. God is above race. He has every right to define groups and tell those groups to stay away from each other, just as I have every right to tell my squabbling children to go play in separate rooms. That's very different than the rationale behind segregation, which was "I consider you inferior based on nothing more than your appearance, and I don't want to be inconvenienced by or reminded of your existence, so please, get away from me".

Shorty: the first part seems contradictory to me that God is somehow above race.....and then supposedly created racial distinctions based on curses to subsections of the populations.

Err . . . it was the Lamanites who had stopped the spy (Laman) for interrogation. He's not being "captain obvious". He's saying "hey-geniuses--I'm one of you. Duh!"

There are two possibilities here, and the answer could be either or both of them. First, Read verse 8 (Alma, chapter 55). They waited until evening to pull this stunt; and at this stage of history both Nephite and Lamanite soldiers were mostly covered in armor and/or thick clothing. You could get away with it, if the mostly-covered Nephite troops hung back under cover of darkness while Laman went forward to parley.

And, second, you assume that Laman's contingent was made up of Nephites. But we know that Laman was one of the servants of the Lamanite king Amalickiah murdered (Alma 55:5), and we know that a group of those servants escaped and joined the Ammonites (Alma 47:29), and we know that Laman had become an officer in the Nephite army with men under his command even before he was selected for this mission (Alma 55:6), and we know that he only took "a small number" of that group with him. It's entirely possible that this mission was entirely carried out entirely by Lamanite dissenters.

It wasn't. They search and search and found 1 dude who was a descendant of laman. The rest were Moroni's men (Nephites). I thought of that too, but the people would get close enough to exchange large quantities of liqour....they weren't hiding in the corners. As for the 1st point, we'll read that consistently different.

And, going back to the text, note verse 4 --Moroni doesn't seek for someone who was raised among the Lamanites; he seeks for someone who was descended from Lamanites.

At this point there is very little difference (minus the strippling warriors, who don't take place in this account).

Oh, 3 Ne 19:25--got it. But then, that refers to "countenance", not "skin", which is why I think even conservative readers would agree with you that that's some sort of "glowing" phenomenon, not an actual change in skin tone.

Exactly. The same wording is used in parallel fashion. Again, my point is that the terms used are interchangeable veil=garment=cloud=skin=mark=countenance.

Are you talking about Book of Mormon accounts? And if so, do they specifically use the word "skin"?

Yes, and no, and that's the point.

I see where you're going from a social point of view (though it's worth noting that both Mosiah 26 and Moroni 6 describe excommunication-type processes among the Nephites, and neither of those chapters refer to a "curse" or "skin of darkness"). But theologically--vis-à-vis the presence of the Spirit and one's relationship with God--I don't think this is sound. Loss of the Spirit is loss of the Spirit.

After 3 nephi, skin of darkness is never mentioned again. I don't have time to read Mosiah 26 right now, but not all of the Black/white motifs are an official explusion. Many of the black/white motifs are to the loss of the Spirit. But it's not the only way to describe. But the motif and parallel language is used to the stongest of conversion and some of the most powerful rebellions against the ways of the Lord.

That's certainly one interpretation. Let's compare it with the text itself.

What the passage makes clear is that the Amlicites physically marked themselves with red in the forehead (v. 4); and the Lamanites did likewise as well as shaving their heads and wearing only a loincloth and, as appropriate armor (v. 5); and the skins of the Lamanites (no mention of the Amlicites here) were "dark" according to a "mark" set by the Lord (v. 6) which affected the children of Laman, Lemuel, and Ishmael (v. 7), and that the purpose of this mark was to distinguish the seed of the above-stated individuals from the seed of "their brethren" (Nephi and those who followed him) (v. 8)

.

I already have compared it to the text. I see it very differently

However we may define "accountability" or "fairness", the text itself--particularly v. 8--shows that the mark applied to "the seed". It was hereditary.

See above

I don't know about "immediately"; but that contingency is contemplated by the plain text of the Book of Mormon.

My readings, I feel, indicate an immediate change and removal of the curse/mark. The reason we often haven't recognized it is because the wording used doesn't state skin.

Not quite. Per Alma 3:8, "[T]his was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix".

I read that very differently now.

What was "holey", other than that it offended your own self-image and your own twenty-first century sociological sensibilities?

There were the ones I listed and the fact that the reading/interpretation of such fits so snuggly with 19th century sogiological ideals including the one-drop rule, segregation, distinguishing of capacities by race, etc. All of the readings defined black and white by what we knew at that time of black and white. And that these scriptures were used to continue with that racist ideology. That the groupings are more complex than the initial reading, as you've pointed out. That white is white in appearance...until it's not for some reason (like the second whitening that you see as symbolic) I'm not saying that the motif is used for every case in every moment of sin, but that it fits better in the larger motifs used throughout the texts.

You talk about "holey" theories. The theory of a non-literal "mark" requires me to believe, not only the plausible notion that "black" or "dark" or "white" don't literally mean "black" or "dark" or "white"; but also that "skin" doesn't mean "skin", that a hereditary mark was not hereditary, that a visually distinguishable mark was not visually distinguishable, that "behold" means "listen", that "seed" doesn't mean "seed" . . . ad infinitum. Such gymnastics are attractive for many reasons--but fidelity to the plain text, it would seem, is not among those reasons.

Again, my reasoning, is fidelity to the plain text. I read nothing but the plain text for it. I get and understand that the text is very able to be read the other way. But I'm saying that it's very possible to read it in another fashion and for it to work. I never did because the arguments for them seemed forced. I stuck with the other paradigm and made it work, even though it never really made sense. Someone gave me a real response that seemed very feasible (it was in the blacks and the scriptures presentations tagged here). I went to read and discovered more from doing so.

But as you mentioned, I'm ok to disagree. Personally (and no offense to you as well) I think this older view is probably going to die out. I am curious though, what did you learn, spiritually significant from this view of literal phenotypic change. I know what I learned or saw from it on note of spiritual significance when I believe a version of it (it's still funny to put that in the past when it was about a week or 2 ago). But I wonder what you saw. I never believed in what I've called the light switch color change, so it would be nice to know how it enriches your spiritual knowledge and fits within that. On this point I probably won't debate or prod but just say ok. I like to understand as fully as I can another's perspective... it's who I am and even part of my degree now.

Also the only reason I mention spiritual experience at all, is just to have an idea of where I'm coming from. Often the wording I've seen against the idea is more about the idea of wresting or rationalizing the scriptures away. I wanted it to be understood that the process was exactly the opposite for me.

I am painfully familiar with that amazing feeling that is a mixture of busy-ness, exhilaration, and impending doom, that comes with a postgraduate education. Good luck with it!

Yep, fun stuff.

I appreciate this exchange as well--we disagree, of course; but I've found the discussion edifying and enlightening (and you've forced me to do some homework, which is always a good thing) so thanks for that. :)

As have I, sorry it's not more in depth. I would post my explanations/notes in full, but I'm still reading over them and looking through them, and whatnot.

Have a good weekend

With luv,

BD

Edited February 15, 2014 by bluedreams

[Just_A_Guy]

Yes, but they also believed the BoM took place over a larger geography...

I think BoM Archaeology students would debate you on that one, but I digress. The bottom line is, if you're going to say "The PoGP and BoM read the same because they all originated with Joseph Smith and he was trying to express similar ideas into his own verbiage"--OK, but then you've got to give some deference to what those ideas really were.

He translated, but it doesn't mean he didn't incorrectly interpret meaning from it based on his day.

Joseph Smith's knowledge of the Nephites and Lamanites went beyond the text of the Book of Mormon.

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.

Also

[Describing Moroni's visits to him]I was informed that I was chosen to be an instrument in the hands of God to bring about some of his purposes in this glorious dispensation.

I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people was made known unto me:

The direct wording is to make them not enticing as seen in 2 Ne 5:21: "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" Followed by "And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities."

You continue to conflate "the curse" and "the mark of the curse".

Going back to the parent/kids with shirts analogy. If I put half my kids in blue shirts and the other half in purple shirts and say "blue shirts, stay away from the purple shirts", and thereafter the blue-shirted kids act accordingly--is it because they find purple shirts disgusting, or is it because they know what those purple shirts represent?

It is very apparent from the language that scripturally, whatever the skin of blackness is defined as, it was meant to make them repulsive to the Nephites.

Or that it was, for the time being, a visible indicator of a less-visibly obvious curse that is further defined in verses 24-25.

Shorty: the first part seems contradictory to me that God is somehow above race.....and then supposedly created racial distinctions based on curses to subsections of the populations.

Not at all. God didn't tell them to stay away from each other because they were different skin tones; he made them different skin tones to remind them to stay away from each other. The skin tone had nothing to do with God's love for, or treatment of, any particular group. God didn't identify with any particular group more because they supposedly "looked like Him".

It wasn't. They search and search and found 1 dude who was a descendant of laman. The rest were Moroni's men (Nephites).

Depends on whether you read verses 4-5 and emphasize "found" or "one". If I say "And it came to pass, in 1863, that Abraham Lincoln caused that America should be searched for an honorable black man; and they found one, whose name was Frederick Douglass"--no one would read me as saying that Lincoln only found one (no more) honorable black men.

I thought of that too, but the people would get close enough to exchange large quantities of liqour....they weren't hiding in the corners. As for the 1st point, we'll read that consistently different.

Again--it was night, they were covered, they may even have been Lamanites by ancestry, and "exchange" (a word which isn't in the scriptural account, by the way) doesn't require direct contact or even close simultaneous proximity.

At this point there is very little difference [between raised by and descended from Lamanites] (minus the strippling warriors, who don't take place in this account).

The stripling warriors were operating contemporaneously in the western theater. As supreme commander of the Nephite armies, Moroni would have known that. Finding someone who spoke Lamanitish would have been relatively easy (Moroni probably spoke it himself, having negotiated with Zerahemnah; and Teancum certainly did, having addressed Zerahemnah's troops directly). Non-native speaking proficiency could be excused, what with all the Zoramites and Amlicites and Amalekites and Moriantonites running around the Lamanite camps. Moroni wasn't looking for someone who could blend in by sound; he was looking for someone who could blend in by appearance--hence his request for someone descended from the Lamanites, and Laman's later encouragement that the Lamanites behold, rather than hear, the evidence of his nationality.

Exactly. The same wording is used in parallel fashion. Again, my point is that the terms used are interchangeable veil=garment=cloud=skin=mark=countenance.

You're assuming the consequent. You assume it's not literal, specially select other non-literal instances, ignore the literal instances, and therefore conclude that it's not literal.

After 3 nephi, skin of darkness is never mentioned again.

Indeed. And 3 Ne 2:15 proposes why. After that you still get apostasy and casting out--but you never again have reference to a physical mark.

I don't have time to read Mosiah 26 right now, but not all of the Black/white motifs are an official explusion. Many of the black/white motifs are to the loss of the Spirit. But it's not the only way to describe. But the motif and parallel language is used to the stongest of conversion and some of the most powerful rebellions against the ways of the Lord.

Then why does Mormon abandon this imagery right after the coming of Christ and the event spoken of in 3 Ne 2:15? Surely more people were converted--and even apostatized--after Christ's coming?

See above [re the mark's being hereditary]

I don't see you addressing that at all. Did I miss something?

My readings, I feel, indicate an immediate change and removal of the curse/mark. The reason we often haven't recognized it is because the wording used doesn't state skin.

Uh, 3 Ne 2:15 states "their skin became white like unto the Nephites".

I read that very differently now.

OK; but the plain meaning of the text is what it is.

There were the ones I listed . . .

I don't recall you listing any textual issues at all; nor any really insurmountable contextual/narrative issues.

. . . and the fact that the reading/interpretation of such fits so snuggly with 19th century sogiological ideals including the one-drop rule, segregation, distinguishing of capacities by race, etc.

With all due respect, it sounds like my earlier suggestion was more or less accurate--you found it offensive to your own self-image and your own twenty-first century sociological sensibilities, went looking for an alternate explanation, and found it.

Again, my reasoning, is fidelity to the plain text.

Haven't you just stated to the contrary?

I read nothing but the plain text for it.

This doesn't seem to square with your later admission that you've drawn from the blacks and the scriptures presentation (Marvin Perkins' stuff, presumably).

I get and understand that the text is very able to be read the other way.

Well, and that the fact that the institutional Church endorsing that "other way" of reading the text . . .

But I'm saying that it's very possible to read it in another fashion and for it to work. I never did because the arguments for them seemed forced.

You were right--the arguments you once rejected, and now embrace, are forced. They only work once you assume, at the outset, what you want the scripture to say; and then willfully blind yourself to anything that conflicts with the theory you've constructed.

But as you mentioned, I'm ok to disagree.

Sure; but I would just ask you to beware the approach to results-oriented scriptural interpretation that you have been taught in those Blacks and the Scriptures presentations. I know some other mods here think pretty highly of them, so I try to measure my criticism. But I think the fundamental gospel narrative is almost always that it is we, not the scriptures or the Church or God Himself, who need to change; and I think Marvin Perkins is pushing a narrative that is almost the exact opposite and, ultimately, could be used to justify almost anything. Brother Perkins is playing with fire, and I hope it doesn't blow up in his face.

I am curious though, what did you learn, spiritually significant from this view of literal phenotypic change. I know what I learned or saw from it on note of spiritual significance when I believe a version of it (it's still funny to put that in the past when it was about a week or 2 ago). But I wonder what you saw. I never believed in what I've called the light switch color change, so it would be nice to know how it enriches your spiritual knowledge and fits within that. On this point I probably won't debate or prod but just say ok. I like to understand as fully as I can another's perspective... it's who I am and even part of my degree now.

I think there are a few things that have been revealed or reinforced to me through my study, though I won't go into detail here. In summary:

--Lineage matters. We inherit specific attributes and blessings from our ancestors. (Obviously, these inheritances can also run by adoption.) We are bound, to our ancestors and our children, far more tightly than we think we are.

--What we do, affects those who come after us. We can build, or sever, multi-generational legacies; and those legacies are dependent to a large degree on what happens within the walls of our own homes.

--There is a connection between lineage, family, the temple, and the priesthood office of patriarch.

--There is a time and a place to rescue people. There's also a time and a place where all you can do is stand out of the damage path until they're ready to be helped. This may take days, or months, or years, or sometimes, generations.

--God knows exactly what each of our individual situations is. He places us in--indeed, sometimes creates--the specific circumstances that each of us need so that our mortal sojurn will serve its appointed purpose.

--God doesn't play by our rules. We really are Newton's proverbial children, playing on a seashore, while a vast ocean of truth lies undiscovered before us. The things that we find so important are generally things that are utterly beneath God's notice (or would be, but for His love for us). My squawking about "God doing this would mean He loves so-and-so more than me!!!" is about as accurate as similar statements my three-year-old makes about me.

--There will be many people willing to preach us the philosophies of men--mingled with scripture. The most skillful of those people, will leave us thinking that their interpretations and their agendas were actually our own ideas, and they will create the impression that "someday, the Church will inevitably change to my way of thinking--once these less enlightened folks at the helm (bless their hearts!) have died off".

--God loves us more than we could possibly imagine. Race has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[bluedreams]

Sorry, I won't have time to go through this point by point. But I wanted to thank you for summarizing your thoughts.

I mean that sincerely. There were other parts that triggered more scripture study into language that's tied to the curse post-3 Nephi. It was extremely fruitful. My study feels more complete. We will not agree on this any time soon, of course, and I'm sorry I cannot better explain myself at the moment. It's jumbled in about 10 pgs of notes. Pulling out one or 2 points feels incomplete and like trying to pull out a single thread from a spider's web. Maybe I'll post them here for people to see in a week or two. There's a few other places that I want to present the information to first.

With luv,

BD