So my youngest son came home from his seminary class and mentioned that their lesson had covered the split between the people of Nephi and the people of his brothers Laman and Lemuel, including touching on 2 Nephi 5:21 where the Lamanites were cursed with "a skin of blackness" so "that they might not be enticing unto my people." (See also Alma 3:6-7).
Historically within the Church there was never any question but that this referred to a literal change of skin color. But with the advent of the civil rights movement, the extension of the priesthood to the blacks in the 1970s, and the more recent racist "anti-racist" ideology, that position has become increasingly unpopular. (See, e.g., "The Lamanite curse" which seems to include the most prevalent theories to explain the curse). Thus, for instance, in the aforementioned article it explains away the earlier interpretation of the passage as being due to systemic racism:
Many LDS have traditionally assumed that the "mark" was a literal change in racial skin color. There are certainly verses which can be read from this perspective. A key question, however, is whether modern members read the Book of Mormon's ideas through their own society's preoccupations and perspectives. American society was (and, to an extent, continues to be) convulsed over issues regarding race, especially black slavery and its consequences.
As a result, nineteenth- and twentieth-century members may have read as literal passages which were far less literal to the Nephites. ...
The problem with trying to interpret the verse as referring to anything but skin color is that the verse is plain about what it is saying. The many LDS scholars and members that argue it has nothing to do with skin color have to resort to torturing the language and dizzying mental gymnastics to get around the plain text.
Thus, a popular theory is that the dark skin wasn't literal but that Mormon was engaging in symbolism: e.g., we speak of the good being represented by light and evil by darkness, and so "light skin" and "black skin" do not represent skin colors, but rather represent that one group followed the path of light (i.e., righteousness) and one followed the path of darkness (i.e., wickedness). The curse, per this theory, is that Lamanites separated themselves from the Lord (or, alternatively, that the Lord withdrew his Spirit from them) and therefore were cut off from the light. And it was this being separated or cut off that resulted in them being spiritually "dark". But this argument fails because that is not what the text actually says. Moreover, if it was a spiritual darkness and not physically dark skin, then the Lamanites that converted would have instantly become "white" rather than only after a long period of time living among and intermingling with the Nephites (see 3 Nephi 2:14-16).
The FAIR article above goes a step further and latches onto a single incident hundreds of years later to disingenuously argue that there was no physical change to skin color. The incident in question is where Captain Moroni uses a small group of men to help take a Lamanite stronghold serving as a prisoner-of-war camp (Alma 55). The plan he hatched was that a small group would approach the guards at the gates of the stronghold and trick them into thinking that they were fellow Lamanites who had escaped from the Nephites with a quantity of wine in order to get the Lamanite guards drunk so they would fall asleep, which plan was successful. After the guards were asleep, weapons were thrown over the walls to the prisoners inside so that when the guards later awoke, there found themselves surrounded by armed Nephites both within and outside the city, and surrendered.
Apparently key to the plan was to find a Lamanite to accompany the small unit and talk to the Lamanite guards, for Mormon relates in his history that after Captain Moroni had announced his plans to take the stronghold, "he caused that a search should be made among his men, that perhaps he might find a man who was a descendant of Laman among them." (Alma 55:4). The author of the FAIR article contends that "[i]f skin color is the issue, then a single Lamanite with a group of Nephites should be easy to spot" and asserts that there must have been something more than skin color--an accent or dialect or mannerism that was distinctive--that was critical to Captain Moroni's plan to infiltrate the Lamanite stronghold. He continues:
A "native" Lamanite was probably needed because there were differences in language or pronunciation between cultural Nephites and Lamanites (compare between Ephraim and others' shibboleth, Judges 12:6). Note that the Book of Mormon says that "when the Lamanites heard these words," they relaxed and accepted the Lamanite decoy with his Nephite troops. What they could see had not changed, and surely if a dark-skinned Lamanite shows up with a white-skinned bunch of Nephites, they would be suspicious no matter what he said. But, if Nephites and Lamanites are indistinguishable on physical grounds if dressed properly, then their sudden reassurance when a native Lamanite speaks is understandable.
Here are the flaws in this argument. First, the author seems to assume that Captain Moroni's army was drawn up in front of him and small enough that he could simply look out and spot a dark skinned person amongst a sea of white faces. The reality is that the army was probably spread out in an encampments, with groups of soldiers around fires or tents rather than drawn up in parade formation, so it was natural that he would have subordinates find a suitable man.
Second, the author takes an either/or approach: that either skin color was important, or that the man's manner of speaking was important. It was probably both (although as a Semitic people, a tanned Nephite probably was probably pretty dark complexioned, even before considering what admixture might have come from the people of Zarahemla).
Third, the author ignores that the operation was carried out in dim light, which suggests that there were physical differences that would have been spotted in the daylight.
And when it was evening Laman [the Lamanite volunteer] went to the guards who were over the Nephites, and behold, they saw him coming and they hailed him; but he saith unto them: Fear not; behold, I am a Lamanite. Behold, we have escaped from the Nephites, and they sleep; and behold we have taken of their wine and brought with us.
(Alma 55:8; emphasis added).
My son came home with a new explanation--one which I've never heard before--which was that the Lamanites had dark skin because they had tattooed their skin to make it dark. The teacher further explained that this was described in the text as being "black skin" because the writers did not have a word for tattoos. This appears to be a means of reconciling what the text says versus not wanting to interpret it in a "racist" fashion.
This argument fails for a couple reasons. First, tattoos were wide spread throughout the ancient world (see, e.g., this article about tattoos in ancient Egypt), so the Nephites would have had a word, term or phrase for it. In fact, prohibitions against being tattooed are in the Bible, including Leviticus 19:28 ("Ye shall not make many cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord."). Thus, it is clear that the Israelites knew about and had terms to describe tattoos long before Lehi and his family left Judah, so if the text had meant tattoos, it would have used a similar term to that in Leviticus. There may even be a reference to this in Alma 3 where it mentions that the Amlicites had "marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites," before delving into the differences between the Amlicites and the Lamanites, including that "the skins of the Lamanites were dark".
Second, it is not supported by the text. Reading everything in context, it is clear that the skin coloring was inheritable; something, again, made clear by the fact (as mentioned above) that it took a number of generations for the Lamanites that settled among the Nephites to become "white," suggesting an intermarriage between those Lamanites and Nephites--something that seemed to have occurred on a wider scale after Christ's appearance to the Lamanites and Nephites after his resurrection. We get a hint of this intermix because it was a point of pride for Mormon that he was "a pure descendant of Lehi." (3 Nephi 5:20).
My experience is that scripture, while it can have many layers of meaning, is generally best interpreted as meaning what it says, particularly when reporting (as in this case) something historical. That means not reading more or less into it than what it says.
The primary problem people have with the curse being dark skin is that they assume, if read literally, that all other incidents of dark skinned people is because God cursed those people for wickedness, which is racist and not acceptable. But this isn't what the passage says and to interpret it that ways simply reveals the implicit racism of the liberals and leftists.
What the passage actually relates is that in this particular case, this particular group (the Lamanites) were cursed and that the curse took the form of darker skin. It does not talk about Africans, Indians, Polynesians, any other group having dark skin. That is, it does not say that dark skin generally is a curse from God; only that it was the mark of the curse in this particular case. Moreover, the curse was later removed and, therefore, probably does not have any application to any living group today.
We also do not know the mechanism of the curse. Perhaps it was something in the way of a miracle, like the angels blinding the men beating down the door to Lot's house, the killing of the firstborn of Egypt, the splitting of the Red Sea, the daily manna during the 40 years in the desert, or Miriam's sudden curse of leprosy. Perhaps--and this is my personal belief--it was due to intermarriage with a native population. We do know that God has forbidden his chosen people at various times and places from intermarrying with other groups (see, e.g., Genesis 6:2-3, Genesis 24:3, Exodus 34:16, Deuteronomy 7:3, 1 Kings 11:2). Consequently, if the Lamanites were wicked, it would be natural that part of that wickedness would be violating the prohibition against marrying outside the House of Israel.
So why does any of this matter? Why is it even important whether the "black skin" was literal or metaphorical? Because it has to do with accurate and faithful interpretation of scripture. As the author of the FAIR article points out, "[a] key question, however, is whether modern members read the Book of Mormon's ideas through their own society's preoccupations and perspectives." That is exactly what he is doing, interpreting the Book of Mormon through the modern preoccupation with racism.
If, as that author suggests, "black skin" does not actually mean black skin, then what other scripture becomes mutable as philosophies and fashions change? The argument over the nature of the curse is another example of the attempt to secularize sacred scripture and so it should, properly, be opposed.
No comments:
Post a Comment