If the Lamanites skin was actually darker and they married Nephites who had less dark skin, wouldn’t their kids end up getting a lighter skin? Not always but most of the time? Sort of like when an African American person has a baby with a white person. Just my thought an uneducated as it is.

I like #1 and #2. Both could be the explanation and I would bring it up. I hate the idea of ignoring those verses. They have always bugged me and both 1 and 2 give me something to chew on vs the inaccurate, tired explanation that kept the Blacks from receiving the Priesthood.

I have seen firsthand how someone’s appearance can change when they accept the gospel. You could take a “before” and “after” picture of the guy who was my last baptism on my mission. At best, the two pictures would look like they were related, but not the same person. A change in habits, lifestyle, and attitude can bring a change in how someone looks.

I also saw this in one of my first clients as a young attorney. She and her husband would have knock down, drag out fights, and she showed it. I saw her again about a month after her husband died, and I didn’t recognize her–she looked years younger now that her life circumstances had changed.

My understanding of this passage, in conjunction with other scriptures, requires distinguishing between “mark” and “curse.” Though separate, they are sometimes interrelated elements. I agree with the summary conclusion and supporting data found in:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Lamanites/Curse

which indicates that the curse was more spiritual (loss of the Spirit and Gospel blessings) and the mark was physical (skin color, mark on forehead (ie. Amlicites), etc.) as well as symbolic in nature. An enlightening read!

CS Eric has a point; I’ve seen it, too. Heck, I’ve experienced it.

But I’d still say “I think this is a crock.” Like Job.

#4 annegb – What do you mean? What exactly is “a crock”?

I think Job is a crock. I think a lot of things in scripture is——you should see what I write in them! Considering all the records that were made and how they were passed around, they would have to be. I’m reading Matt Bowman’s book and the Book of Mormon went through processes, as well. Not as much, but still.

Nephi and his family had to be dark—they were Jews, after all. I don’t understand a lot of the scientific implications. It drives me crazy how we say “oh, this isn’t what that means” when years ago the general authorities said that’s exactly what it meant.

I’m keeping my own counsel.

#13- Annegb – I distinctly remember sitting in seminary class, reading the OT and thinking, “This is crazy! No way is this real.” And that was years before I read the OT book The Songs of Solomon. If those chapters aren’t about sex, I’ll eat my knee high pantyhose. I once got into an argument with an Evangelical preacher who was insisting the Song of Sol. was describing his love for the Church, not for a woman. I told him if there was a Church with ‘heaving breasts like mountains of bejeweled fruits’ (my own exaggeration there) no man would ever be an atheist. The OT just annoys the heck out of me.

Annegb—So you don’t think the story of Job is a complete fabrication, but more of a wild exaggeration? I think one of Job’s spiritual gifts was the ability to endure massive and enormous suffering patiently in a way few of us ever could. If there are any doubts regarding Job’s story, the Lord pretty much corroborates it (but maybe not every biblical detail)in D&C 121:10 when he basically tells Joseph that his suffering at Liberty Jail is nothing compared to Job’s. I think that’s a great lesson for any of us who thinks our suffering is too much to bear. Well, I know exactly what I would say every time someone complained about their suffering. (“You are not yet as Job, so quit your yapping!”) :)

Tiger, you’re full of crap comparing Joseph Smith in jail to Job. We’re supposed to believe God makes a deal with the devil to torment one of his children?? No way.

I think it’s an allegory—a story—that some monk in the dark ages should be included in the Bible. I don’t think Job’s a real person. Also I’m intrigued by the name of one of his friends–Elihu, which is kind of close to Eloheim.

Back to the D&C: I don’t buy every word there literally, either. I have found in all the scriptures, words that strike to my heart as I study and prayer, my reservations be damned.

#18 Yes, LiZ, let’s all hope…! Unfortunately, I’m already married (and quite happily, I should say…!) and I am a full time therapist…and not a very good one, apparently. (You did catch my tongue-in-cheek “smiley face” at the end of my #17, no?) : )

#19 Annegb, perhaps you need to re-read D&C 121 (one of my absolute favorite sections), because HF is clearly confirming that Job was a real person, or, at the very least, confirming the blblical story of Job. If Job was a fictional character then why make any mention of him to Joseph? Just saying…

#21- Tiger- alright. I missed your smiley face in my extreme hurry to tell you off. Be glad you are not married to me. I am known for talking too much, overreacting to events and defending the underdog to the death.

A very few years ago Pres. Faust introduced his Conference talk with a detailed narration of The Little Engine That Could. Ever since then, I have had great faith in the knowledge that somewhere in this physical world of ours there really, truly, and in all tangible reality is a real live train engine that speaks aloud in English, as he climbs those hills, “I think I can! I think I can!”

Because surely Pres. Faust’s use of the story means it is objectively real as well as metaphorically true. Because surely Pres. Faust wouldn’t lie, or use a literary device in place of cold, hard, literal, journalistic, historical fact.

Actually, you have a point there, Tiger. When I die, one of the first things I’m going to ask God is “what’s the deal with Job?”

Ardis, I never stop wishing you’d stayed here.

I’m a literalist. A literal reading of D&C 121 does not logically require that Job literally existed and literally suffered as in the Biblical account.

To use D&C 121 as support of a literal Job, is an _inference_. Furthermore, I think such an inference is quite a leap in logic.

However, that said, I do believe there was an actual person named Job as described in the Bible, who suffered pretty much along the lines as described.

The book of Job is a parable. A pretty obvious one at that. It is designed to teach the principle that no matter what adversity we suffer in life, we cannot curse God because we don’t have his perspective. The lesson is that if we bear our suffering well, God will reward us in the end with more than what we lost during our adversity.

The fact that the Lord refers to the parable when answering Joseph’s prayers from Liberty Jail is perfectly appropriate because the Lord inspired the prophet who wrote the parable in the first place and referring to that parable was the perfect way to teach Joseph that same principle. If Joseph had been in a different situation, the Lord might have referred to the Prodigal Son, or the Good Samaritan. Both parables with fictional characters that teach important principles. If the Lord taught with parables and fictional characters while on the earth, why wouldn’t he continue to do so afterward?

Back to the OP, the verses are potentially problematic but there are explanations other than racism. The ones that have been offered are certainly possibilities and do not necessarily contradict the language of the verses. For myself, I believe the intermarriage theory. This is something that happened over time, and either Nephi or Mormon just didn’t explain it very well. It’s not the only time that happens in the BoM. Alma makes a complete hash of the resurrection.

My beef with the story of Job is how he lost everything and then got everything and more back. How come in all the scripture stories, when sacrifices need to be made to teach a man a lesson, they always seem to involve women and children dying?
Job’s wives and children all were killed, but not to worry! He got more after he passed his test, so its all good.
The same thing in the BoM when women and children were repeatedly thrown off cliffs and burned in fires so some stupid man would humble himself.
I long for the day when men are punished for their own sins and God keeps the innocent women and children out of His lesson.
That is something I will be asking when I get to the next life.

Who would they inter-marry with that would change the color of their skin.

Well if you believe that the Lamanites were cursed with a darker skin than the Nephites, which is what we are told in 2 Nephi 5:

And he 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.

Then you could also believe that they became lighter skinned as they joined the Nephites and intermarried with them. Not sure why that’s confusing.

To me, the whole skin of blackness thing has nothing to do with race. This is something that supposedly occurred among two societies that were closely related and lived near each other thousands of years ago. It has nothing to do with race. It doesn’t impact any person or group that we know of today, because there is no direct racial or genetic connection that we know of between the Lamanites and any modern people.

The Church taught for a while that the Lamanites were “the principle ancestors of the American Indians (Native Americans)”, but that idea has been discredited and we no longer teach that. This story is not about race at all. Anyone who tries to extrapolate inferences about race from the Book of Mormon or the Bible is completely wrong.

Tiger, #32: “These last four words infer that …”

Writers and speakers _imply_.

Readers and listeners _infer_.

Grammar-cop out.

Ardis, saw bro. Taylor tonight, he mentioned you were a friend of his son’s and that you were very literal sometimes, with a great sense of humor ;)

“Because surely Pres. Faust’s use of the story means it is objectively real as well as metaphorically true. Because surely Pres. Faust wouldn’t lie, or use a literary device in place of cold, hard, literal, journalistic, historical fact.”

Not racism, but repentance. I have seen many who have made a complete turn-around when they joined the Church. Their countenance did change. There may be more to these verses…our ways are not God’s ways. Just impossible to fully understand…not really meant to fully understand things. We’re still on the milk diet!