There Is No Curse, Part 5: Then What Is It?

We need to talk about the current apologetics attempting to downplay the Lamanite curse.

Nephi Sees Our Day

In preparation for my next topic, I was reading 1 Nephi 13:15, where Nephi sees a vision of the future for his own civilization and the European conquest of America. This passage stuck out to me:

And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.

This is in direct contrast to 1 Nephi 12:23:

And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.

You might notice that there is ample ambiguity in both passages, but in juxtaposing these two peoples, we see a contrast that I just can’t reconcile if the curse is only “symbolic” or “spiritual.”

In comparing Gentiles to Lamanites, the author asserts:

• Righteousness vs. Abomination
• Prosperity vs. Idleness
• Beautiful vs. Loathsome
• Whiteness vs. Darkness

You’ll note that the first three comparisons here are all physical. Why suddenly would the final comparison become a “metaphor” for cultural estrangement?

Here’s another example: when Father Lehi relates his vision of the tree of life, he describes the fruit of that tree to be “white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen.” Should we take that whiteness to be descriptive physically, or only metaphorically? Did Lehi see a differently-colored fruit and just call it “white” because of how divine it tasted?

Now you might say, “Those were both visionary accounts, they weren’t physical!” And right you are, so let’s look at 3 Nephi 2:14-15:

And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites[.]

That is to say, Lamanite skin became as white as the “Gentiles” when they rejoined the Nephites.

Black and White, But Not Really?

In an extended treatise on prophesying the events leading up to the supposed discovery of the Book of Mormon, the prophet Nephi makes the following declaration:

[For the Lord] doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he 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.

Once again, Nephi is making observations on people’s physical characteristics, and he specifically makes reference to a binary of color: “black and white.” According to apologists, all the other verses referencing skin color are metaphorical; and yet this passage is used by believers to defend the notion that the Lamanite curse was not physical, invoking a physical and literal interpretation of this phrase despite its distinct resemblance to every other mention of “whiteness.”

Conclusion: The Case for Amlici

A popular explanation these days among LDS apologists is that the Lamanite curse “may” have referred to tattoos. Apologists and other defenders of the Book of Mormon’s veracity cite the story of a group of dissidents, led by one Amlici, who mark their foreheads in red to distinguish themselves from the Lamanites, a symbol which the Book of Mormon claims is fulfillment of God’s prophecy to curse anyone who fights against the Lamanites (see Alma 3:15-16). Apologists assert that the curse cannot be viewed as physical skin color because this would then mean the skin color of the dissidents change, rather than the color of their children. They insist it could have been a reference to the markings or clothes the Lamanites (and now Amlicites) dressed themselves with.

The biggest problem I have with this argument is that it ignores how often the account distinguishes the mark made by the Amlicites and the mark placed upon the Lamanites as coming from God and being more than just a mark (3:4, 3:6, 3:14, 3:18), making the case that the curse involves a physical demarcation that could be seen. Not to mention, the apologetic fails to take into account that tattoos rarely cover the whole body, are not always dark, and are a voluntary cultural practice - there would have been plenty of Lamanites who likely did not have tattoos.

So if the curse could be seen, and it was set by God rather than man, and it is constantly referenced as a mark on one’s skin…

…then what else could it be?

Keep reading: Part 1    Part 2    Part 3    Part 4