I'm currently in the middle of 2 Nephi in the Book of Mormon. In 2 Nephi 5:21, it says the following in regards to the Lamanites: "And [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 Nephites] the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." When I first read this, the first question that came to mind was does this mean that people who are not "white and exceedingly fair and delightsome" are not favored by God and shouldn't interbreed with those who are? That would be one literal interpretation. The other question that came to mind is whether this is justification for the period in time up until Official Declaration 2 that withheld the priesthood based on race or color. Based on those conversations that I've had with my wife and her sister HG, it sounds like this passage and others like it have given others pause too.
Regarding question #1, some have said this passage is racist and proof that the Book of Mormon (BOM) is a work of man. I haven't gotten this far in the BOM yet but apparently the Lamanites become favored later on over the Nephites. Some (like my wife's uncle) say that disproves the argument that man (Joseph Smith) introduced this passage for cultural / racist reasons since it would be seem odd that "black" people would later be favored over the "white / fair" people if the whole book is being written by a racist. HG actually said that she looked into these passages extensively in college and never came to a completely satisfactory answer other than to say that the collective record is inconclusive and a mystery that will be explained more fully to her after this life.
Regarding question #2, HG said that this passage and the priesthood being withheld based on race or color are unrelated. One interesting point she made (which like the last one she hasn't fully reconciled) is that God has had different "favored peoples" at different points in time. For example, for a long time in Jewish tradition, the Levites were the only group that could hold the priesthood. My personal opinion is that the priesthood was withheld from certain groups for more worldly, practical reasons. The first edition of the BOM was published in 1830 - 31 years before the outbreak of the Amercian Civil War. Almost immediately, Mormons were persecuted by other groups for their religious beliefs (and the practice of polygamy, abandoned since 1890). If they then also extended the priesthood to people of color, the church likely would have come under attack from other groups as well. The LDS church was almost wiped out as it was. Layer another battle front onto it and the church may not have survived. So I don't think it's entirely a coincidence that President Kimball received the revelation he did until well after the civil rights movement.
Now, just to be absolutely clear, I'm not saying that these cultural, worldly considerations make any of this right. We also now the world isn't perfect and that improper, non-ideal things happen in it. In the grand scheme of things, I think that's by design to make us collectively strive for something better. Also, in the grand scheme of things, I personally believe that God makes these transient inequities right in the afterlife. So, even if certain people aren't treated fairly on Earth or are otherwise victimized, I think that serves some larger purpose we don't fully understand and that everything becomes "fair" later on.
Anyway, additional thoughts or perspectives on any or all of this very welcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You said, "My personal opinion is that the priesthood was withheld from certain groups for more worldly, practical reasons."
The LDS Church is less than 200 years old; therefore, church history has been effectively preserved and, unlike other ancient religions, can be studied objectively because a lot of the original sources and manuscripts are avaialable.
Are you suggesting that certain doctrines of the church like polygamy and priesthood authority were changed to ensure the church would survive? If so, why would you put your faith in a "religion" that exercised such a philosophy? I think you will find many skeptics arguing that the church has changed its position on a few of its fundamental claims because of outside pressures. More recently, they have faced serious questions about the DNA linkages between the Lamanites and the Jews--in short, there should be one, but evidence now shows with 99% certainity that there isn't.
Maybe these are moot points for someone investigating the church. There are answers out there for all the doubters; I would encourage you to research both sides of the argument. In the end though, I guess you will have to determine how this plays into your testimony: does it strenghten or weakend your message. Good luck.
Post a Comment