 |
| The many faces of Brazil: these pictures illustrate the great deal of ethnic diversity to which the Americas have been no stranger throughout the ages. |
In chapter one, verse fourteen of his book, Jacob made it clear that from this point on he would refer to anyone who wanted to destroy the people loyal to Nephi as "Lamanites"; on the other hand, those who had been loyal to Nephi were placed under the heading of "Nephites." He mentions other "-ites" (such as Ishmaelites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lemuelites, etc.), but proceeds to tell his readers that his narrative is going to simply stick with that broad pair of somewhat loosely defined monikers. These umbrella titles leave a lot of wiggle room for interpretation: a lot of people could fall under their broad designations, which may or may not have included cultures/cities/people who were already living in the Americas before the Lehite colony arrived. After all, the book of 2 Nephi already starts speaking of "wars" between the two main divisions of the Lehite colony. Even with the most generous numbers we could give their group, the family of Lehi would still hardly warrant the use of such terminology. I mean, I've seen family disputes and sibling rivalry, but I would hardly call it "war." Using that word implies far larger numbers.
Of course, discussion of any peoples outside the Book of Mormon text is all speculation; and there are countless articles and papers written by scholars of the Book of Mormon who debate the possibilities of early interactions Lehi's family might have had with indigenous peoples. In the end: who knows? What's important is that the record admittedly addresses the issues between cultures and peoples in the Nephite world using a broad duality (of which the groundwork is laid in Lehi's dream with the duality between the Tree of Life and the Great and Spacious Building: the whole Book of Mormon is really an account of this larger--and often unseen--war being waged for the souls of men).
I only bring up the speculation on cultural interaction, however, because in the book of Jacob you immediately see the introduction of what appear to be issues relating to "race" between the two factions that were formed after Lehi's death. Because there are still so many questions relating to the verses that I want to talk about, I'm going to tread carefully and I'm going to stick to the lessons and doctrine that are intended in these verses.
And what is intended? We are told numerous times by the various contributors to the Book of Mormon that their intent for the record is to bring people to Christ, to aid in the gathering of Israel and the restoration of their descendants to the truth--to help them remember their covenants with God. In fact, in this very chapter, our candid author tells us: "Nephi gave me, Jacob, a commandment concerning the small plates, upon which these things are engraven ... that I should write...a few of the things which I considered to be most precious; that I should not touch, save it were lightly, concerning the history of this people which are called the people of Nephi." And then a couple verses later, Jacob tells us just what he means when he says, "precious": "preaching which was sacred, or revelation which was great, or prophesying." Politics, literature, art, music, fashion trends, lottery numbers--none of that was included in the aforementioned definition.
Thus, we really don't know anything about the Nephite culture. We think we do, but it's a teaspoon from the Mediterranean.
An analogy might serve to illustrate what I mean here:
Imagine the United States was completely wiped off the face of the map. Then, imagine a thousand
years from now that the only record available to future generations about the U.S. was the Doctrine & Covenants. The Doctrine & Covenants is an excellent book of scripture, and there are flashes and glimpses of the political and social structure of the United States: one could even glean a general sense of so-called "American culture" in the nineteenth century from its study. But there's no way that person would have the slightest clue about the Revolutionary War, issues of prejudice in places like New York with Italian and Irish immigrants, racial tensions between the U.S. and Native Americans, the war with Mexico, or a whole host of other things I could list. Even such a behemoth topic in American history like slavery would not be fully understood: the issue of slavery in America is touched on a little bit in the Doctrine & Covenants, and perhaps even our fictitious future archaeologists would be able to find evidence of the American Civil War with which they could corroborate Joseph Smith's prophecy in D&C 87, but it still would not lend them any great understanding of the complex tangle of issues that, even to this day, surround slavery. |
| If your only view of New York City was from a tunnel in Central Park (which is where the picture was taken)... |
The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants have their individual roles to play in God's plan, of course, but one could argue that their purposes are similar. More than that, it's plain that, whatever may be said of what they are, there's no doubting what they aren't: exhaustive records of the secular history of the inhabitants of the American continents, be they ancient or modern.
 |
| ...then you would never really know just how big New York City really is. |
such a distorted sense of the role that the Israelites had in the wider world during Biblical times by an exclusive study of the Old Testament, is it not just as likely we are prone to create an equally distorted view of the Nephite nation within the broader context of the nations and cultures around them? The Bible contains crucial information to be sure, but there was still a lot of stuff that happened outside of what we read in its pages. Empires and civilizations like the Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians and Persians only cared about Palestine because it happened to be the only gas station along that stretch
 |
| The Merneptah Stele: "The text is largely an account of Merneptah's victory over the Libyans and their allies, but the last few lines deal with a separate campaign in Canaan...and include the first probable instance of the name 'Israel' in the historical record." It says: "Israel is laid waste." (from Wikipedia, "Merneptah Stele) |
My point with all of this is that we do not really know if the divisions between Nephite and Lamanite were really as simple as two opposing world views, or if their ethnic diversity really was contained to a convenient binary of "dark" and "light." And I acknowledge that throughout the Book of Mormon, prophets were quick to point out cases in which it was the Nephites who were "wicked" and the Lamanites who were "righteous": there's a constant drumbeat for the message that salvation comes down to an individual issue, not race, culture, membership, or anything else. So, even with this simple duality, we find greater complexity behind it in the text. That being said, I believe it's important to maintain an open mind when reading the Book of Mormon. The purpose of the book was never to paint a complete picture, but rather to act as a "voice from the dust." We cannot use the limited scope of its historical narrative to be our absolute boundaries for the conditions of its people. It's all about the message--always about the message.
Now that I've set the stage using my typically long-winded approach...
In chapter 3, Jacob uses Nephite pride as a means to call them to repentance. In this sermon (which is actually contained across chapters 2 & 3), we see that he has to broach a somewhat unpleasant subject: that of chastity, fidelity, and even monogamy. Apparently the Nephites were applying some fairly liberal interpretations to references in their scriptures concerning plural marriage (one man, many wives). And it should be noted that, again, this too contributes to the possibility of there being more people involved in their story at this point than simply those who came across the ocean on Nephi's ship: something like "many wives and concubines" can only come about when there is, for lack of a better term, a "surplus" of women (the opposite of that term would be, I suppose, the song entitled, "It's Raining Men"). A smaller group--like those who came across on Nephi's boat--would be more given to straight-up "pairing off."
Anyway! There were a number of ways Jacob could have approached the issue. One of these would have been to simply tell the people that they had to stop what they were doing and repent. It's not the most original approach but what it lacks in style it makes up for in directness. But such an approach would not have been good enough. Jacob instead used what was perhaps the most effective tool at his disposal: the Nephite pride I mentioned earlier.
This approach chosen by Jacob implies that the Nephites thought they were better than the Lamanites. I assume that this mindset was partially because of their view that they were the ones continuing the Abrahamic Covenant through their branch of Lehi's family tree (like the Pharisees and Sadducees during Christ's mortal ministry); it was probably also due in part to their difference in lifestyle (i.e. Nephite "civilization" and architecture as opposed to the Lamanites' more "hunter-gatherer" culture); and Jacob makes some references that would appear as if the Nephites' dim view of their Lamanite cousins also had a racial basis. These "racial" references, if taken at face value, are a little problematic, however. I'll explain why (and I will try to do it in a manner that retains the intent for why Jacob included them--which is the same intent for anything in the Book of Mormon: to bring others to Christ).
Now, I don't know exactly (nor does anyone, in my opinion) what physical implications are meant by the verses in 2 Nephi 5 where Nephi mentions a "skin of blackness" coming upon the Lamanites. Whatever they may be, Jacob uses this issue to really get under the Nephites' skin (pun intended) when he points out to them that "the Lamanites, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which has come upon their skins, are more righteous than you." Jacob expounds on this argument by pointing out that the Lamanites had kept God's commandments concerning marriage and fidelity; that whatever they had lost in rejecting the prophetic callings of their forefathers, Lehi and Nephi, they had at least held onto some core family values: "Behold, their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their husbands; and their husbands and their wives love their children." Then, in the coup de grace that would really demonstrate the hypocrisy of Nephite "racial superiority" (that's a harsh label for their mindset, I know, but I'm not sure what else to call it), which they had apparently tied in with their continuation of the Law of Moses and other traditions, Jacob says, "O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours." In other words, race has got nothing to do with it because God doesn't look on the outward appearance anyway, but rather the inward; it was like Christ said to his disciples, that "whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man (or, from the outside in), it cannot defile him ... That which cometh out of the man (or, from the inside out), that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." A man can do everything possible to create an appearance of righteousness, but the stuff on the outside doesn't mean anything: it's the stuff on the inside that matters, because that's where a man's true intentions are--whether they be righteous or wicked.
Before we pursue that train of thought further, however, I want to pause and take a closer look at this issue of the Lamanites' skin color. Hugh Nibley has a few compelling thoughts on this, in which I hope you'll indulge me as I quote them in their near-entirety. Something I should add, however, is that much of Nibley's profile that he created of Lehi and his family (and thus of the roots of Nephite culture) comes from studies relating to Arabic peoples. He has his reasons for this, which I also find compelling, but ultimately many of his somewhat broad conclusions drawn from that mixed and varied people can and do spill over into Jewish cultural paradigms of the time (of which we know would of course have had an impact on the Lehite colony).
Okay, without further ado, Hugh's words:
"With the Arabs, to be white of countenance is to be blessed and to be black of countenance is to be cursed; there are parallel expressions in Hebrew and Egyptian. And what of Lehi's peoples? It is most significant that the curse against the Lamanites is the very same as that commonly held in the East to blight the sons of Ishmael, who appear to the light-skinned people of the towns as 'a dark and loathsome, and a filthy people' ... The Book of Mormon always mentions the curse of the dark skin in connection with and as part of a larger picture: 'After they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people,' etc. ...The statement that 'God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them' (2 Nephi 5:21) describes the result, not the method, which is described elsewhere."
Then Nibley ties this in with the story of another anti-Nephite people called the Amlicites, who were a splinter group from the Nephite nation and differentiated themselves from their former brethren by placing a mark of red on their foreheads:
"Here God places his mark on people as a curse, yet it is an artificial mark which they actually placed upon themselves. The mark was not a racial thing but was acquired by 'whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites' (Alma 3:10); Alma moreover defines a Nephite as anyone observing 'the tradition of their fathers' (Alma 3:11). Which makes the difference between Nephite and Lamanite a cultural, not a racial, one."
And then Nibley asks what I think is a very important question:
"Does this also apply to the dark skin? Note that the dark skin is never mentioned alone but always as attending a generally depraved way of life, which also is described as the direct result of the curse. When the Lamanites become 'white' again, it is by living among the Nephites as Nephites, i.e., adopting the Nephite way of life (3 Nephi 2:15-16). The cultural picture may not be the whole story of the dark skin of the Lamanites, but it is an important part of that story and is given great emphasis by the Book of Mormon itself."
He then closes his argument by once again asserting that the terms "black (or dark) and white" were "used as the Arabs use them" (Lehi in the Desert, pg. 73-74).
Another explanation could simply be that the Lamanites began intermarrying with other peoples outside the Lehi/Ishamel family group (such as, any of the indigenous inhabitants already living at or near the place where they arrived at the Promise Land). This could have resulted in racial diversity amongst the subsequent generations and, if the negative perception that the Jews had of the Samaritans because of their intermarrying with non-Israelite peoples can be taken as an indicator, it is very likely the Nephites would have frowned upon such a practice among their former brethren as well.
Whether cultural or racial, if it seems to us that the use of these terms--"black skin" and "white skin"--in this manner is a less-than-ideal way to describe the issues between differing cultures in the Book of Mormon, then I think that's okay to feel that way. It is important to remember that the prophet Mormon addresses this in the Introduction: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." In other words, don't knock the message just because the messenger doesn't present it in the best way.
Maybe this is all easy for me to say since I'm Caucasian; perhaps my whole argument seems disingenuous. If it does, I apologize, and I ask the reader to remember that much of this has been speculation mingled with doctrine (which is something I really try to avoid in public discussion). My speculation is informed by my own personal, cultural experiences, of which my opinion is also a result. So, please take it for what it's worth and nothing more.
However, in order to reinforce what I believe is the message inherent in all of this, I would like to add just a couple more notes in speculation and [perhaps flawed] exegesis:
I was recently referred to a website (yashanet.com) by a friend of mine which has an article entitled, "Skins of Flesh and Light". In there, the author points out a similarity in Hebrew between the words for "skin" and "light." According to the article, these two words are pronounced the same in Hebrew and have only one letter difference in their spellings (like the words "to," "too," and "two"). Apparently, there is a strong association in Judaism between skin and light. The author of the article illustrates this by pointing out that Rabbi Meir (of the Mishnah) had Genesis 3:21 in his copy of the Torah translated as "garments of light" rather than "garments of skin." When you poke around in the scriptures for other occurrences of this association between skin and light, you don't have to look far: the most famous candidate that pops up is Moses' face, "which shone" after he came down out of the mount where he spoke with God face-to-face.Furthermore, this idea of a duality between "civilized" and "barbaric" as captured in the symbolism of "dark" and "light" as it was used by Jews in the Old World can be seen in an instance where the apostle Paul describes the Ishmaelites (who were "cousins" to the Jews, being also descended from Abraham) using terminology very similar to how the Nephites described the Lamanites (Gal. 4:21-25). The differences between Jews and Ishamaelites were always more "cultural" than "racial." Hugh Nibley is correct to point out, though, that those who lived in cities were of a fairer complexion and tended to look down their noses at those who did not live in cities and who were of a "darker" complexion. One of the cultural differences between Nephites and Lamanites that is hinted at quite frequently throughout the Book of Mormon is that the Nephites were more "urban," while it appears the Lamanites were less so. This perhaps imbalanced view that the "city folk" had of "country folk"undoubtedly followed the Lehite
 |
| This mural from Bonampak, with the diversity of skin color shown on it, illustrates a great deal of ethnic diversity amongst ancient cultures of South America. |
What I feel is most important, like I've said throughout, is the message in all of this. What I got from the article, "Skins of Flesh and Light," was that when it says in 2 Nephi 5 that the Lamanites' curse brought upon them a "skin of blackness," it actually means they had lost their light--the light of Christ. I believe this is reinforced by the language that Nephi uses in those verses: he says that the Lamanites had been "cut off from the presence of the Lord," which is exactly how Adam and Eve were described after they were banished from the Garden of Eden: "cut off from the presence of God." And yet, to aid Adam and Eve in their fallen state, the Lord made for them "coats of skin" (or, "coats of light"?), which fact becomes even more intriguing when you read about the parallel account of Cain's fall in which it is said that he, too, received a "mark" as a result of his turning away from the truth (Moses 5:40).
"Garments", "skin", "dark", "light"--are they all connected?
Seen in this light, I feel it adds greater weight to Alma's poignant words:
"I say unto you, can ye look up to God at that day with a pure heart and clean hands? I say unto you, can you look up, having the image of God engraven upon your countenances? ...[F]or there can no man be saved except his garments are washed white;... And now I ask of you, my brethren, how will any of you feel, if ye shall stand before the bar of God, having your garments stained with blood and all manner of filthiness? (i.e. "blackness" or "dark") ... Behold, my brethren, do you suppose that such an one can have a place to sit down in the kingdom of God, with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob, and also all the holy prophets, whose garments are cleansed and are spotless, pure and white?"
Let it be noted that, due to their nomadic ("non-urban") lifestyle, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were all probably of a much darker countenance than most Nephites.
In the end, men seem to find any excuse to hate other men--with or without differences in skin color. I don't know whether to call it "silly" or "sad." It seems human nature to search for any means that can lend itself to inflated ideas of superiority. Isn't that the purpose of talk shows like "The Jerry Springer Show," or reality TV shows like "Big Brother," or tabloids, or any other number of voyeuristic windows to the lives of people who are set up as that object to which others can look and say, "It could be worse: I could be that person"? The media makes a lot of money off of shows that celebrate depravity and sensationalize the weaknesses of others so that the viewer at home can look at someone other than himself and pass judgment on them. Such is how we have used our knowledge gained from partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Maybe our modern society is not so enlightened as we would like to believe.
Whether the "skin of blackness" spoken of in the Book of Mormon is to be taken literally or figuratively, the point is this: many of the Nephites thought they were better than the Lamanites. As members of the Church, we must always see our own story in that of the Nephites--we, too, are in danger of falling into the trap of thinking we're better than others not of our faith; and even within Church membership, the various "cliques" and groups that can often arise within a ward are, I believe, grievous to the Lord. Christ spent his time amongst lepers and fishermen--people that I don't imagine smelled very pleasant, let alone appeared charismatic or even appealing: people that others were not so prone to hang out with. Surely our circles of friends can extend a little further than their current boundaries.
What is perhaps funny about this post, though, is that all of this was merely a discussion of why Jacob framed his sermon the way he did--which was: the Nephites were breaking some very strict laws on marriage that God had given: the Lamanites had not broken these laws; the Nephites thought they were more pious than the Lamanites because they kept the Law of Moses: Jacob pointed out that in many ways, the Lamanites had been keeping the more important laws. But I never actually got around to talking about the topic of Jacob's sermon (chastity)--just its framework.
Oh well. Maybe that's enough for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment