6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark,
according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon
them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their
brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and
holy men. 7 And their brethren sought to destroy them,
therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them,
yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish
women.
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. 9 And it came to pass
that whosoever
did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon
his seed.
10 Therefore, whosoever suffered himself to be led away by
the Lamanites was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him.
11
And it came to pass that whosoever would not believe in the tradition
of the Lamanites, but believed those records which were brought out of
the land of Jerusalem, and also in the tradition of their fathers, which were
correct, who believed in the commandments of God and kept them, were called
the Nephites, or the people of Nephi, from that time forth—12
And it is they who have kept the records which are true of their people, and
also of the people of the Lamanites.
Alma 3:6-12 (Emphasis mine)
After explaining to the reader how the Amlicites marked
themselves to separate themselves from the Nephites, he continues to explain “the
skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon
their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression.” This refers back to Nephi’s comments where he
said that “[the Lord] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a
sore cursing, because of their iniquity.
For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had
become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and
delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did
cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord
God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall
repent of their iniquities. And cursed
shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed
even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done” (2 Nephi
5:21-23).
Critics of the Book of Mormon claim this is evidence of
racism in the Book of Mormon, calling “a skin of blackness” a curse. This begs the questions is this a valid
criticism? Why or why not? Not surprisingly, the response to their
simplistic charge is a detailed response.
We live in a society where racism is a charge that is used indiscriminately. Some supporters of President Obama accuse his
critics of racism. If he were white,
they wouldn’t feel the same way, the claim.
A group of liberal journalists seriously (and secretly) considered
randomly selecting a conservative journalist and calling him a racist, knowing
the charge was false. This would force
him to waste time defending himself.
(Sadly, not one single person said they shouldn’t do it because it was wrong. They were more concerned about how they would
look if there were caught!) It is not
surprising that critics would eventually result to this charge.
As we look at this issue, we need to remember that this charge
is made based on late 20th/early 21st century
values. You cannot place our values on
people in the past. Values and norms
change. What is acceptable 200 hundred
(or 2500) years ago is not necessarily acceptable today. Any comments must be examined
based on the norms of the day.
Why would Nephi considered “a skin of blackness” a
curse? From the record, we learn that
Nephi was a devout Jew. The Bible “disapproves
of the people of Israel marrying foreigners (see, for example, Genesis 24:3,
37; 27:46; 28:1—2, 6—9; 9:11—12).” [1] When the family split, Nephi tell us that the
group that would become known as the Lamanites “did become an idle people, full
of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey” (2
Nephi 5:24).
The Lamanites would intermarry with the indigenous
population, whose skin was darker than theirs was. Basic genetics tells us the genes for darker
skin are dominant. Over time, the skin
of the descendants of Laman and Lemuel’s group begin to have darker skin.
The Lamanites rejected the word of the Lord. They married foreigners, of which Nephi would
have disapproved. To Nephi, the dark skin would represent a
curse. It has nothing to do with the
darkness itself, but what it represents.
Nephi’s writings would show that skin color was unimportant.
He would write that “[the Lord] inviteth 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” (2 Nephi
26:33/emphasis mine). These are hardly
the words of a racist belief.
John Tvetdnes points out other evidence in the Book of
Mormon.
“But racism in its typical sense does not seem to have been
prevalent among the Nephites, considering the numbers who dissented from
Nephite culture at various times to join the Lamanites. And it is
recorded that whenever the Lamanites converted to the Nephite religion, the
barriers separating these people dissolved (Alma 27:21—27; 3 Nephi
2:13, 14; 4 Nephi 1:17). Even before they were converted, the
Nephites considered the Lamanites to be brethren, a term used more than fifty times in reference to the
Lamanites in the Book of Mormon. This is hardly a term that one
would expect to find in a society that holds racist views toward a neighboring
people.” [2] (Emphasis
mine)
We next need to look at the question, what is the
curse? Is it a different color skin or
something else? Once again, we turn to
the scriptures.
“And because of their cursing which was upon
them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did
seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey” (2 Nephi 5:24/emphasis mine).
The curse caused them to “become an idle people, full of
mischief and subtlety.” Are the critics
claiming that a “skin of blackness” caused this change? Are they claiming this is what the Book of
Mormon teaches?
Once again, I turn to the writings of John Tvetdnes.
“As reported in Alma, the Lord, speaking to Nephi,
distinguished between the curse and the mark. ‘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’ (Alma 3:14/emphasis in
original). At the time this promise was given to Nephi, the curse had already been
enacted, while the mark, a change in skin color, was yet to come. The
Lord also told Nephi that others who mingled with the Lamanites
(including his own posterity) would be both cursed and marked …
“Nephi described how the Lamanites, as a result of their
consistent rebellion against God and because of the hardness of their hearts,
were cursed by being ’cut off from the presence of the Lord’ (2 Nephi
5:20). This curse also resulted in the Lamanites being separated from God's
people with the departure of Nephi (2 Nephi 5:1—7). In connection with the curse of
separation, the Lord is said to have set a mark upon the Lamanites. The purpose of the mark, according
to the Book of Mormon, was to distinguish the Lamanites from the Nephites so
that the Nephites would not intermarry with them and accept incorrect
traditions …
“A change in skin color would obviously not make the
Lamanites ‘idle’ or ‘full of mischief. ‘ These were cultural, not racial, traits.
To the Nephites, who followed the law of Moses (Jarom 1:5), the Lamanite
practices of ‘drink[ing] the blood of beasts’ (Jarom 1:6) and ‘feeding upon
beasts of prey’ (Enos 1:20) would have been abhorrent, being forbidden in the
Mosaic code (Leviticus 7:26—27; 11:13—20).” [3]
(Emphasis mine, unless noted)
It is obvious that the curse was being cut off from the Lord
and all that that entails. It has nothing
to do with skin color.
What about Mormon’s claims that the black skin was the
curse? John Tvetdnes writes:
“Despite statements by such leaders as Nephi and his brother Jacob
(Jacob 3:5), some later Nephites considered being cut off from the
presence of God as well as the mark upon the Lamanite skins to be a curse (Alma
3:6-11) …
“While at least some of the Nephites disdained the Lamanites
because of their skin color, the Lord was concerned about the sinful
nature of the Lamanites and merely used their physical characteristics to deter
the Nephites from accepting their wicked ways.” [4]
(Emphasis mine)
But what about Joseph Smith?
If you believe he wrote the Book of Mormon, doesn’t it represent his
racial beliefs? There is no evidence to
support that claim. John Tvetdnes
examines the beliefs and actions of Joseph Smith.
“Because some critics consider Joseph Smith to be the author
of the Book of Mormon, they see its supposed ‘racist’ epithets as
reflecting nineteenth-century American views rather than the views of the
ancient Nephites. This view ignores some important facts:
- “There is no evidence, other than later hearsay, to indicate that Joseph Smith believed that skin color made someone inferior. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that he considered black Africans to be just as capable as whites, given the same opportunities; he also favored freeing the slaves.
- “At least two black men were ordained as elders during Joseph Smith's time, and the Prophet himself signed the ordination certificate of one of them. That man, Elijah Abel, was later ordained a seventy and served as a missionary.
- “The Book of Abraham, frequently cited by later generations as evidence that blacks should not be ordained to the priesthood, says nothing about skin color and, in any event, describes a struggle between Abraham and the Egyptian king over patriarchal authority, not priesthood in general (Abraham 1:21—31). One cannot read into the text anything about Egyptus being a descendant of Cain or having a black skin. Indeed, the idea of Ham having married a Cainite woman was prevalent among nineteenth-century American Protestants, from whom Latter-day Saints picked up the idea.” [5] (Emphasis mine)
The truth is there is no basis for the claim of racism. What we are seeing is people placing their
personal beliefs onto people who lived long ago.
John Tvetdnes concludes:
“[T]hat while some Nephites seem to have been racist
in the sense that they were repulsed by the skin color of the Lamanites, this
was not a general cultural trait. The critics' assertions, therefore, are
fatally flawed on two counts. First, the appearance of racism in the Book
of Mormon is not evidence of a nineteenth-century origin or of authorship by
Joseph Smith. Second, in spite of its frank documentation of
racist feeling, the Book of Mormon is not in itself a racist document. In fact,
it advocates and even idealizes the exact opposite: rather than promoting
concepts of racial inferiority, the events and teachings within it
clearly suggest that people of different ethnic backgrounds and traditions can
truly overcome old hatreds and misconceptions and attain peace, happiness, and
unity through the gospel of Jesus Christ.” [6]
(Emphasis mine)
No comments:
Post a Comment