Racism and the Book of Mormon: Let's Get Meta

If you've read any of the apologetics having to do with race in the Book of Mormon you've probably noticed a pattern, which is as follows:

1. A sea of words written by a white guy who, trust him, is the least racist person
2. Some silly goose-ism about the application to scripture of "modern pre-occupations in America," as one writer put it
3. References to verses that seem to contradict each other about whether or not black skin is a curse or a mark
4. A conclusion that since the Book of Mormon condemns colorism/racism anything that could be interpreted to the contrary is not that

Ta-da!

We're supposed to feel all good about the multitude of chapters that teach the reader to equate black skin with dirty, sinful, and loathsome, and white skin is of course clean, pure, and even delightsome! All that is horrible on its own, but taken in the context of a Church that somehow, for reasons still unknown, preached Blacks were cursed and not allowed to receive the priesthood is just gas-lighting at its finest. 

So let's try something else...

¡Ay, bendito!

Last month a friend of mine who has reclaimed her Aztec lineage and now goes by Cueponcaxochitl (pronounced Kweh-pōn-ka-SO-chill) shared with me a creation myth by my ancestors, the Taíno (pronounced Tah-EE-noh) native Caribbeans. Even though I grew up with drawings and sculptures of the god Yaya in my home, I had never heard this story before. I was enthralled as I watched a video retelling. Then a funny thing happened. I got the sense that something important was coming into my view. There was a resonance within my soul, as it were, when the narrator described a character named Deminan as having skin covered by sores, which set him apart. By the end of the tale we learn that his skin condition was bittersweet because it made him a medium between heaven and earth, called caracaracol. I was amazed by how this ancient description persists even today, as Puerto Ricans are known for calling those who suffer blessed, literally "bendito." 

From there my mind reflected on the account that started a mess,

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 (2_Nephi 5:21)

... followed the impression, "Sore curse is meant to be taken literally (as in skin covered by sores); white/black markings are metaphorical."

If God wanted a covenant group of people to stop mating with a cursed group of people, it would make sense to make the latter unattractive on a superficial level, particularly their faces. Pustulating sores would get the job done. And with parallels to the lepers who were pronounced pure and clean in the New Testament, those who repented of the Lamanite curse were described as having  "scales of darkness...fall from their eyes (2_Nephi 30:6)." I take that to be literal scales of diseased skin, which likely occluded their vision, nothing to do with skin color. Interestingly, for those whom the curse persisted it appears they were unable to repent in fullness because they lacked Gospel instructions for how to do that. Nevertheless at some point they were better than the chosen Nephites (see Jacob 2:35 and 3:7-8) —in part due to the latter's iniquity— and find God's favor. To my mind, this makes them a type of caracaracol, somewhere in between sanctified and impure. 

In its separate sphere is the mark of darkness which —hold your mesoamerican horses— is not the same as SKINS of blackness (I'll get to that later). A mark is something that symbolizes a larger concept relating to purpose. My husband marks the consecrated oil as separate from the cooking oil by placing it in a separate container, for example. I'm not ready to jump into the debate about how mesoamericans are related to Book of Mormon characters, but when I read about Aztecs painting themselves black (their skin, their hair, and/or teeth) and literally producing broken hearts from contrite spirits upon the altar (see also 2_Nephi2:7) I start to think there's a connection. Could it be that their priests claimed the color black because of its strength and distinction from everyone else? We certainly see that same habit (pun intended) in our time. And would such a mark indicate that theirs is a religion separate from what Nephi intended to hand down? Yes. 

Now let's talk about skins of blackness. This is where things get meta. You might've seen my post about how white male supremacy is a scourge upon earth, and that it's the fruit of an abominable church originating in Europe (see 1_Nephi 13:4 ). I have a testimony that Joseph Smith was the prophet who brought about the Book of Mormon, which teaches us these truths, and I also know that he was a white male, susceptible to stumbling as many white males do. It is my personal belief that Joseph Smith took the figurative language of (pure) white and darkness (away from God's presence) and applied these to a literal description of skin color, which is false. His mistranslation is apparent to anyone who reads the Book of Mormon and is not racist. Those who wish to standby the black skin commentary are not only prejudiced in their hearts they are, ironically, in opposition to Joseph Smith who later regretted the error enough to remove skin color in 1840. (Sadly, this correction did not persist in later editions following his death as the Church recruited European members when slavery was still going strong. I wonder why...)

Closing thoughts:

When I shared my previous post a woman I admire congratulated me for building a liberation theology, and that's when I realized this was going to be a process, not just a feel-good post for minorities here and there. This is something I need to continually shape within restored doctrine for the truths about my people to finally see the figurative light.