What does the word "skin" mean in the Book of Mormon? Black vs. White

[NeedleinA]

I was in a little discussion earlier today regarding this subject, so I thought I might share a couple of thoughts and hear yours.

The word "skin" is used in various parts of the scriptures. Some examples in the Book of Mormon referring to the Lamanites are:
2 Nephi 5:21 - "did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them"
3 Nephi 2:15 - "And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;"

Looking at the 2 Nephi 5:21 footnotes:

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

Footnote (d) for "skin" links to 2 Nephi 30:6 and reads: 
6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall (a)know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their (b)scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a (c)delightsome people.

Footnote for (b) for "scales of darkness" then takes you to:
TG (Topical Guide) Darkness, Spiritual
TG (Topical Guide) Spiritual Blindness

As you personally follow these footnotes: Skin of blackness------> Scales of darkness--------> Spiritual Darkness

Because of their wickedness, were the Lamanites given actual dark skin (organ that surrounds their mortal body) OR rather did their sins cast them into a Spiritual Darkness? I absolutely have thoughts regarding this subject, but would like to hear yours. Thanks!

 

Edited July 23, 2016 by NeedleinA

[Just_A_Guy]

I think it was some of both.  I do suspect that the Nephites tried to observe the Mosaic proscriptions about intermarrying with foreign peoples; whereas the Lamanites probably tended not to be so picky about their choice in partners.  This would have resulted, over time, in the Lamanites adopting physical characteristics of the indegenous cultures and leave them physically somewhat distinct from the Nephites; it would also explain why the Lamanites seemed to enjoy a numeric advantage over the Nephites for most of the period before Christ's coming; and it would partially explain why the Nephite merger with the (ostensibly, but not provably, Israelite-descended) Mulekites was such an earth-shaking development in Nephite culture that shortly thereafter, a group of "pure descendants of Nephi" (Zeniff) would withdraw from Nephite society entirely.  

Edited July 21, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[zil]

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

In the online lds.org version of the Book of Mormon the footnotes are currently missing.

Are you sure you don't need to scroll up and click the "Show Footnotes" link?

 

[NeedleinA]

11 minutes ago, zil said:

Are you sure you don't need to scroll up and click the "Show Footnotes" link?

 

Uhhh.... just...uhhh checking to see if anyone was paying attention Thanks Zil!

[zil]

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

did their sins cast them into a Spiritual Darkness

This is a given, so the question isn't so much an "or" question as an "in addition to" question.

Personally, I have no idea what the answer might be, and I'm OK whichever way the truth lies (since I don't really think the answer has any practical impact on how we ought to live our lives).  That said, I grew up learning that the mark on Cain (to keep everyone from killing him) was dark skin, and that the Lamanites did indeed have darker skin - though it probably got that way over time rather than in an instant*.  The over-time bit makes you wonder if that was just a consequence of them playing in the sun in little more than a loincloth...

The most compelling argument against skin color from that other discussion is that "black" and "white" were not used to describe skin color in the times these records would have been written - if that's true, then it seems pretty clear we're not talking about actual skin color here.

*Imagine the shocker that would have been. I think the Lamanites might have had a few defectors in the next instant (though visits from angels weren't enough, so maybe not, maybe they just would have ranted and raved about how unfair it was, and how it was all Nephi's fault, probably put something in the water, and then renewed their plans to hunt him down and roast him on a spit**).

**Apologies to those who wanted the edited, non-violent version of the Book of Mormon.

[Guest]

@NeedleinA

JAG is pretty much where I am on this.  I tend to think there is a bit of shorthand in statements like this that mixes up lines of cause and effect.  To say "the Lord did cause a skin of blackness..."  I see:

1) There is the figurative language that you mentioned in the OP.
2) Because the Lord did not bless the Lamanites, they did not have the technology that the Nephites had.  They'd have to spend more time out in the sun because they may not have even had structures and proper clothing and became tanned.  This is, not permanent, so it would be possible for them to lose this pigmentation.
3) Often times, I see the Lord using some physical manifestation such as this as a visible metaphor to his people.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think where some go too far, is in suggesting that there was never any visible/ethnic/genetic difference at all.  Racism in the Book of Mormon was a thing, and was condemned by at least one Nephite prophet (Jacob 3:5, 9).

Edited July 21, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Somewhat of a tangent here:

I remember a couple of non-LDS friends came to our house and saw the standard LDS version of a Jesus portrait on the wall.  One happened to comment that someone really ought to paint one of Him with dark skin because that was His "real" skin color.  He was a carpenter who probably spent many hours out in the sun.  No doubt he was quite tanned at least.

I rebutted with a story of a co-worker when I was roofing houses.  That was certainly a job that had us out in the sun a lot.  A couple of guys never got a tan but burned a lot.  There was me -- but I always wore a hat and a shirt.  My arms got tanned, but not severely.

Then there was the "Polynesian" guy.  One day he said "(so-n-so) thought I was Polynesian".  We all stopped our work in a second and in unison asked,"You're not Polynesian?" Not only his skin color, but his build, some facial features, his hair and style of clothing and accessories sure seemed like a Polynesian or at the least, a surfer dude.

He then took off his watch (none of us wore watches because of the tan line).  He pointed to the white skin under his watch and said,"That's my real skin color".

So, what does "real skin color" mean?

[Sunday21]

I am trying to remember where this happened in the Book of Mormon...later on in the book, the nephites ask a converted lamanite to fool the Laminities. The Laminities believe that the converted Laminite is one of them not when they see him but when they hear him speak. This suggests that the two tribes look very similar. seriously with people switching sides all the time there must have been quite a bit of mixing.

[LeSellers]

54 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I remember a couple of non-LDS friends came to our house and saw the standard LDS version of a Jesus portrait on the wall.  One happened to comment that someone really ought to paint one of Him with dark skin because that was His "real" skin color.  He was a carpenter who probably spent many hours out in the sun.  No doubt he was quite tanned at least.

You (or he) meant like this:

Quote

The Real Face Of Jesus

Advances in forensic science reveal the most famous face in history.

 

From Popular Mechanics, but I saw it in Time or Newsweek decades earlier.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

The word "black" in the AV Old Testament represents several different Hebrew words.

Quote

שָׁחוֹר    שָׁחֹר shâchôr    shâchôr
From shâchar ; properly dusky, but also (absolutely) jetty: - black.

שָׁחַר shâchar
A primitive root; properly to dawn, that is, (figuratively) be (up) early at any task (with the implication of earnestness); by extension to search for (with painstaking): - [do something] betimes, enquire early, rise (seek) betimes, seek (diligently) early, in the morning).

קָדַר qâdar
A primitive root; to be ashy, that is, dark colored; by implication to mourn (in sackcloth or sordid garments): - be black (-ish), be (make) dark (-en), X heavily, (cause to) mourn.

אִישׁוֹן 'ı̂yshôn
Diminutive from 'ı̂ysh; the little man of the eye; the pupil or ball; hence the middle (of night): - apple [of the eye], black, obscure.

שָׁחַר shâchar
A primitive root (rather identical with shâchar through the idea of the duskiness of early dawn); to be dim or dark (in color): - be black.

This is more than merely academic. We do not know which word(s) Joseph saw on the plates.

Lehi

 

Edited July 21, 2016 by LeSellers

[Just_A_Guy]

FWIW, though, Joseph's knowledge of the Nephites and Lamanites wasn't limited to the text of the plates or his translation thereof.  Lucy Mack Smith recalled that before Joseph even had the plates,

Quote

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

In trying to make sense of this talk about "skin of blackness" as it appears in the Book of Mormon, one aspect that is frequently overlooked is what Joseph himself seemed to believe that it meant.  This might be worth checking into, because it seems reasonable to infer that Joseph either saw Nephite society in vision or else that he got a lot more detail from Moroni than we now have any record of.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[NeedleinA]

I have enjoyed reading the view points expressed by everyone thus far. I honestly had intended to sit and offer remarks to each one individually. I think instead I would like to share a publication by Brant A. Gardner off of FairMormon.org.This is not for the faint of heart and will take minor investment to read, HOWEVER, I promise you that the 20 minutes it probably takes to read, will have some lasting impact on the way your view "skin" "blackness/white" and "race" in the BOM and scriptures. Perhaps the best article I have ever read on the subject. I realize this will scare away most casual folks, BUT there are a handful of you here that I know are more inclined to actually dig a little deeper. Enjoy and I look forward to your thoughts.

FairMormon Article  What Does the Book of Mormon Mean by “Skin of Blackness”?

...The “skin of blackness” was certainly intended to be a pejorative term, but it was not a physical description. Modern readers may be uncomfortable with Nephite racial prejudices, but they existed. They were not, however, based on skin color as has been part of the more modern U.S. culture. Nephite prejudices were developed on distinctions more common to the ancient world and used reasons other than pigmentation.

Edited July 25, 2016 by NeedleinA

[NeedleinA]

14 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

I am trying to remember where this happened in the Book of Mormon...later on in the book, the nephites ask a converted lamanite to fool the Laminities. The Laminities believe that the converted Laminite is one of them not when they see him but when they hear him speak. This suggests that the two tribes look very similar. seriously with people switching sides all the time there must have been quite a bit of mixing.

Bingo Sunday!

"Captain Moroni, working to free Nephite prisoners, sends wine to their Lamanite guards, hoping to intoxicate them (Alma 55). Because they would not accept such a gift from a Nephite, Moroni finds a Lamanite in his own troops, a former guard of the Lamanite king. Accompanied by other Nephites, this soldier takes the wine to the guards, and Moroni’s plan is successful. Of significance is the fact that Moroni had to “search” for a Lamanite soldier. Had he been “black” in contrast to the “white” of the Nephites, his identity should have been readily apparent. Furthermore, on his mission to the guards, Nephites accompany him. A color difference should have immediately been apparent to the guards, but they do not notice the discrepancy. The best explanation for needing an authentic Lamanite is that Moroni needed his language skills, not his skin color, for the ruse."

[tesuji]

Some more good info on this topic:

Question: What was the Lamanite curse?
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Lamanites/Curse/What_was_it

Race on the Priesthood
https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood

[Guest]

@NeedleinA,

Some of the arguments in the article seem pretty good.  Others are rather weak.  This reinforces my position that it was both physical and spiritual/cultural.

One thing he skips over is that the text of the BoM was changed.  The original text in most places said "white" instead of "fair".  So, that tends to destroy that particular argument based on this verbiage.

The "searching" for a Lamanite is also rather weak.  Moroni could not know all the so-n-so with his 10,000 and the other guy with his 10,000 ...  So, it would stand to reason that he'd have to search no matter what.  Besides, we're not talking about DARK skin like that coming out of Africa or Australian Aborigines. How dark is a modern American Indian.  And how much lighter if he started working an office job where he was away from the sun a lot?  Such a slight difference would not be readily apparent from a distance.

Regarding the language differences -- I'm not readily convinced that there was a language difference.  (This particular issue, to me, neither enforces nor rebuts either position).  Whenever anyone went to the Lamanites, nothing is said about a language barrier.  Was it really that common for people to learn a foreign language of a nation that so few ever communicated with?  It's more likely that the language was as similar as US and British.  But the reason a native speaker would be valuable would be because of idiomatic expressions and accent.  Some accents are easy to mimic; others, not so much. 

The biggest thing that all this skips over is the phrase "that they might not be enticing to my people".  What is the explanation for this?  If it were a physical change (whether pigmentation or facial formation or otherwise) that is readily understandable -- by the law of "average beauty".  Was there any evidence that any cultural/spiritual trait that was readily apparent that would prevent "enticement"?

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not readily convinced that there was a language difference.

We read in Mosiah that the priests of Noah had to teach the Lamanites the "language of Nephi". Admittedly, this could have meant that they needed to teach them to write, not speak, it because the next few verses talk about their writing.

BTW, this is the only place in scripture that mentions government-run, tax-funded welfare schools. And it ain't for good reasons. And thus we see …

Lehi

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Bingo Sunday!

"Captain Moroni, working to free Nephite prisoners, sends wine to their Lamanite guards, hoping to intoxicate them (Alma 55). Because they would not accept such a gift from a Nephite, Moroni finds a Lamanite in his own troops, a former guard of the Lamanite king. Accompanied by other Nephites, this soldier takes the wine to the guards, and Moroni’s plan is successful. Of significance is the fact that Moroni had to “search” for a Lamanite soldier. Had he been “black” in contrast to the “white” of the Nephites, his identity should have been readily apparent. Furthermore, on his mission to the guards, Nephites accompany him. A color difference should have immediately been apparent to the guards, but they do not notice the discrepancy. The best explanation for needing an authentic Lamanite is that Moroni needed his language skills, not his skin color, for the ruse."

I have a man-crush on Gardner; but on this particular issue (which is set inside an article that is, on the whole, awesome) I think he's overreaching.  Partly for the reason Carb suggests--Moroni surely wasn't acquainted with every single soldier of his, which would have necessitated a "search" of some sort; and also because Alma 55:8 clearly says that they waited until evening to deploy the ruse (why wait for dark, if everyone looked the same?).  And if you want to deploy really nit-picky readings, it could be pointed out that in verse 8 Laman doesn't say "listen, I speak like a Lamanite"; he says "behold ["look!" or "see!"], I am a Lamanite".

Moreover, if Nephites existed in a color-blind world, then Nephi's statement in 2 Nephi 26:33 that "he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God", has absolutely nothing to do with race; and the Church's use of the phrase "all are alike unto God" to decry racism is disingenuous at best.  Ditto for Jacob's warning not to revile against the Lamanites because of the color of their skins.

[NeedleinA]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 Was there any evidence that any cultural/spiritual trait that was readily apparent that would prevent "enticement"?

Admittedly with all the smart people here, I'll have to try to bite off bits/questions as time permits (occasionally I have to pretend I'm at work). So... since I wasn't a Nephite, I can't say with certainty if this would have swayed my attraction to a Lamanite and prevented enticement. Writers in the Book of Mormon at least mentioned them, so they must have been unique or different to normal life, otherwise why mention it at all.

Alma 3: 13-14
13 Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads.
14 Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.

Enos 1:20: “The Lamanites...  their heads shaven"
Alma 3:4: " And the Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for they had marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites; nevertheless they had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites."

Shaved heads, marked foreheads...is there much more one needs to do to prevent enticement?

 

Edited July 22, 2016 by NeedleinA

[Sunday21]

20 hours ago, zil said:

This is a given, so the question isn't so much an "or" question as an "in addition to" question.

Personally, I have no idea what the answer might be, and I'm OK whichever way the truth lies (since I don't really think the answer has any practical impact on how we ought to live our lives).  That said, I grew up learning that the mark on Cain (to keep everyone from killing him) was dark skin, and that the Lamanites did indeed have darker skin - though it probably got that way over time rather than in an instant*.  The over-time bit makes you wonder if that was just a consequence of them playing in the sun in little more than a loincloth...

The most compelling argument against skin color from that other discussion is that "black" and "white" were not used to describe skin color in the times these records would have been written - if that's true, then it seems pretty clear we're not talking about actual skin color here.

*Imagine the shocker that would have been. I think the Lamanites might have had a few defectors in the next instant (though visits from angels weren't enough, so maybe not, maybe they just would have ranted and raved about how unfair it was, and how it was all Nephi's fault, probably put something in the water, and then renewed their plans to hunt him down and roast him on a spit**).

**Apologies to those who wanted the edited, non-violent version of the Book of Mormon.

Thanks for the apology! I am trying to get over it!

[Sunday21]

13 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Thanks for the apology! I am trying to get over it!

I can think of reasons for the explicit violence in the Book of Mormon. For example later generations might argue that the lamanities were not so bad. There was after all a musical written from the point of view of Judas, the name is sacreligious to me.

[tesuji]

10 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

I can think of reasons for the explicit violence in the Book of Mormon. For example later generations might argue that the lamanities were not so bad. There was after all a musical written from the point of view of Judas, the name is sacreligious to me.

Wasn't there a whole thread recently on violence in the Book of Mormon? I can't find it now.

[Sunday21]

2 minutes ago, tesuji said:

Wasn't there a whole thread recently on violence in the Book of Mormon? I can't find it now.

Yes. That was me having the collywobbles.

[NeedleinA]

5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I have a man-crush on Gardner; props for publicly admitting a man crush

Moreover, if Nephites existed in a color-blind world, then Nephi's statement in 2 Nephi 26:33 that "he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God", has absolutely nothing to do with race; 

I will come back to some of your & Carb's overlapping concerns, just little later. Headed out to dinner, it's the weekend, finally!

Okay to your question regarding 2 Nephi 26:33. I agree, Nephi's comment in this verse has nothing to do with race, the part of "black and white" OR rather "wicked and righteous"

2 Nephi 26:33: and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female;...
Alma 11:44: Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous

Black = Wicked (out of the church)
White = Righteous (in the church)

Alma 1:30: and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need

Edited July 22, 2016 by NeedleinA

[NeedleinA]

On 7/21/2016 at 4:05 PM, zil said:

The most compelling argument against skin color from that other discussion is that "black" and "white" were not used to describe skin color in the times these records would have been written - if that's true, then it seems pretty clear we're not talking about actual skin color here.

Here is a fun little bit of information from Wikipedia: Color Terminology for Races
"In some societies and among some anthropologists, color terminology was used to label races, sometimes in addition to a non-color term for the same race. Identifying races in terms of their human skin color has been common since at least the Physiognomica falsely attributed to Aristotle."

Physiognomica redirects to = Physiognomonics (Greek: Φυσιογνωμονικά, Latin: Physiognomonica) is an Ancient Greek treatise on physiognomy casually attributed to Aristotle (and part of the Corpus Aristotelicum) but now believed to be by an author writing approximately 300 BC. 
versus
2 Nephi 26:33 About 559-545 B.C.- For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and heinviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Color Terminology of Races article continued...
"One of the earlier uses of the concept of “black” as a metaphor for race was first used at the end of the 17th century when a French doctor namedFrançois Bernier (1625–1688), an early proponent of scientific racism, divided up humanity based on facial appearance and body type. He proposed four categories: Europeans, Far Easterners, Lapps, and Blacks.[2] The first major scientific model was created in the 18th century when Carl Linnaeusrecognized four main races: Europeanus which he labeled the white race, Asiaticus, which he labeled the yellow race, Americanus, which he labeled the red race, and Africanus, which he labeled the black race.[3] By adding the brown race, which he called "Malay" for Polynesians, Melanesians of Pacific Islands, and aborigines of Australia,[4] Linnaeus' protégé, anthropology founder Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752–1840), came up with the five color typology for humans: white people (the Caucasian or white race), more or less black people (the Ethiopian or black race), yellow people (the Mongolianor yellow race), cinnamon-brown or flame colored people (the American or red race) and brown people (the Malay or brown race). Blumenbach listed the "races" in a hierarchic order of physical similarities: Caucasian, followed by Americans (Amerindian), followed by Mongoloid, followed by Malayan, followed by Africoid peoples. Rand McNally's 1944 map of races describes Amerindians as being the copper race or copper people.[5]...

...According to conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza, "Blumenbach's classification had a lasting influence in part because his categories neatly broke down into familiar tones and colors: white, black, yellow, red, and brown."