"WALTERS: Is there still a tendency to feel that people are born with black skin because of some previous situation, or do we consider that black skin is no sign anymore of anything inferior in any sense of the word?
RICHARDS: Well, we don't want to get that as a doctrine. Think of it as you will... Now the Church's attitude today is to prefer to leave it until we know. The Lord has never indicated that black skin came because of being less faithful. Now, the Indian; we know why he was changed, don't we? The Book of Mormon tells us that; and he has a dark skin, but he has a promise there that through faithfulness, that they all again become a white and delightsome people. So we haven't anything like that on the colored thing."
I can also see a general category name of all Native Americans/Polynesians being "Lamanites." As in "natives to these continents, not of Causcasian/European parentage." But that doesn't really fit with the descriptions of the D&C and the prophets later. Richards specifically talked about "Indians" of the 1970s having dark skin because of the curse on Laman/Lemuel (which could later change colour through faithfulness). He's not the only one to do so.
Or maybe it's better to shuffle it all into myth and legend and just see the promise to the "Lamanites" as a prodigal son alegory. In the end, however far we have fallen (and Moroni 9 has the Lamanites fall a very long way) we are always able to be rescued* and get back towards our progress on the path to godliness.
RICHARDS: Well, we don't want to get that as a doctrine. Think of it as you will... Now the Church's attitude today is to prefer to leave it until we know. The Lord has never indicated that black skin came because of being less faithful. Now, the Indian; we know why he was changed, don't we? The Book of Mormon tells us that; and he has a dark skin, but he has a promise there that through faithfulness, that they all again become a white and delightsome people. So we haven't anything like that on the colored thing."
Setting aside the whole mess of blacks and the priesthood for a moment (and it really was a mess), Elder Richards says something that got my attention. These days we seem to be distancing ourselves from the idea that all Native Americans are descended from Lehi (via Laman and Lemuel).
Some apologists suggest that they are a few ancestors among millions of others. A person living today would trace back to millions of different ancestors in 600BC (2+4+8+16 etc. start at 1 on a calculator and keep pressing x2 for parents. Do it 100 times and you'll soon see what I mean. More ancestors than have ever lived). So if a living Native American can trace one of 1000s of family lines back to Laman or Lemuel (and Lehi), does that make him a Lamanite when every other line goes back to other races/ethnicities? Is their skin colour explained solely in the way described in 1978 by an apostle?
I remember an odd conversation with an American.
Me: "I'm English"
Him: "Me too, my great, great grandmother emigrated from England."
Me: "Uhh... my great, great grandfather was from Sweden but... Uuh... never mind."
I think it's pretty clear that even until very recently the Native Americans were considered Lamanites in a very literal view of race and ancestry. The Richards interview above shows that the Apostles considered the reason for an "Indian's" dark skin to be because of the curse on Laman and Lemuel.
Nowadays people seem to take the approach of distancing themselves from that literal perspective and instead creating a case for a diluted DNA, which means they're not really Lamanites at all, just like I'm not Swedish. You could say I have Swedish ancestry but I'm neither racially nor ethnically Swedish. That may be true of the native Americans today. If you could trace every line you might eventually find Lehi. But for the Native Americans to be called Lamanites, as they have been for 150 years in our church seems to be a pretty loose definition.
Me: "I'm English"
Him: "Me too, my great, great grandmother emigrated from England."
Me: "Uhh... my great, great grandfather was from Sweden but... Uuh... never mind."
I think it's pretty clear that even until very recently the Native Americans were considered Lamanites in a very literal view of race and ancestry. The Richards interview above shows that the Apostles considered the reason for an "Indian's" dark skin to be because of the curse on Laman and Lemuel.
Nowadays people seem to take the approach of distancing themselves from that literal perspective and instead creating a case for a diluted DNA, which means they're not really Lamanites at all, just like I'm not Swedish. You could say I have Swedish ancestry but I'm neither racially nor ethnically Swedish. That may be true of the native Americans today. If you could trace every line you might eventually find Lehi. But for the Native Americans to be called Lamanites, as they have been for 150 years in our church seems to be a pretty loose definition.
I can also see a general category name of all Native Americans/Polynesians being "Lamanites." As in "natives to these continents, not of Causcasian/European parentage." But that doesn't really fit with the descriptions of the D&C and the prophets later. Richards specifically talked about "Indians" of the 1970s having dark skin because of the curse on Laman/Lemuel (which could later change colour through faithfulness). He's not the only one to do so.
Or maybe it's better to shuffle it all into myth and legend and just see the promise to the "Lamanites" as a prodigal son alegory. In the end, however far we have fallen (and Moroni 9 has the Lamanites fall a very long way) we are always able to be rescued* and get back towards our progress on the path to godliness.
These days the whole Book of Mormon seems to work best in that category.
No comments:
Post a Comment