Is the "mark" a physical curse? Alma 3:6

Is the "mark" a physical curse? Alma 3:6

There's a lot of quoting from other sources today. I will keep the entire text of the other sources and just add my own commentary between. The context is that there's this wicked guy named Amlici who makes himself a king. The people who join him are called Amlicites. The Amlicites join the Lamanites and fight against the Nephites, but are defeated in battle when Alma slays Amlici in about 87 B.C. Mormon, the great author of the Book of Mormon, is abridging the history and chooses to include some anecdotal evidence about the physical appearance of a people who lived some 250+ years earlier, in an age long before photography. This fact makes me wonder if his own information might have been circumspect.

4 And the Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for they had marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites; nevertheless they had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites.

This seems to indicate that there is, indeed, a physical "mark" placed on the people. And actually, it really seems that the mark was placed on them by themselves. It almost sounds like the little red dot that people in India sometimes put on their foreheads.

5 Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth.

Here we learn that the Lamanites did not grow long beards, hair, and in general did not wear much clothing. Could this be the reason for why the skins of the Lamanites were dark? If you are not wearing much clothing, you are sure to get much more sun exposure.

6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

The scriptures here seem to differentiate (albeit in a really confusing way) between the mark and the curse. The mark was set upon their fathers, by their fathers. Are the scriptures saying that the act of marking themselves was a curse? Is the mark a symbol of the fathers' desire to rebel? I think so. At the same time, the scriptures seem to be saying that it was the fathers who were "cursed", while the children were merely "marked." Of course, I could be wrong.

7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

Okay, so this verse seems to be saying that the holy men, the "brethren" Nephi, Jacob, Joseph, and Sam, tried to "destroy" the Laman and Lemuel. This is a weird detail that I had not noticed before. I don't typically think of Nephi and his brothers as being fratricidal. But unless I am very much mistaken, that is what this verse seems to be saying - clarifying that the curse itself was not the mark, it was that by the mark, Nephi and his people could distinguish the Lamanites, making it much easier to destroy them. The curse was the threat of destruction.

8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

Here we see that it is *possible* that the previous verse did not refer to fratricidal tendencies by the Nephites against the Lamanites, but rather it clarifies the definition of destruction: losing belief in and knowledge of God. So basically, by seeking to remain faithful (and have faithful families who intermarried and themselves raised faithful families ad infinitum), the Nephites were also inadvertently causing/seeking the Lamanites' destruction. 

Huh. Weird.

We already know that the ordinances of the gospel have not always been available to everybody. For example, in the Old Testament, only the Levites were allowed to hold the priesthood. And it was only the Aaronic priesthood, not the higher order of the Melchizedek priesthood. When Jesus Christ himself was on the earth, his mission was to preach to the Jews, not the Gentiles. When a woman of Caanan comes and begs him to heal his daughter, he tells her that he was only sent, "unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Then she begs and pleads. And he says, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." Her response, "True, but the dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters' table," causes Jesus to have great compassion and heal her daughter.

There are many examples of this principle of temporary, mortal inequality in the scriptures. If you have a long-term perspective, which is the idea that everybody who has ever lived will someday get the chance to be taught and accept the ordinances done for them, mostly by proxy, in the temple, then the whole plan makes a lot more sense.

Back to the story.

9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.

At a first glance, this sounds a lot like, "whoever married and had children with these people would be darker skinned because they would inherit the genes for that." But if we read it more closely, and compare it with what we just learned from the previous verses which imply that the mark and the curse are not the same, we see that the curse itself was that the children would not be able to be part of the gospel while living.

10 Therefore, whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him.
11 And it came to pass that whosoever would not believe in the tradition of the Lamanites, but believed those records which were brought out of the land of Jerusalem, and also in the tradition of their fathers, which were correct, who believed in the commandments of God and kept them, were called the Nephites, or the people of Nephi, from that time forth—
12 And it is they who have kept the records which are true of their people, and also of the people of the Lamanites.

I read a quote from Brigham Young's general conference talk from 1871. I found it fascinating and a bit disturbing. In order to give you more context, I decided to keep quite a lot of it. But I will add my comments, to.

We are here as a human family. Bless your hearts, there is not one of us but what is a son or daughter of Adam and Eve, not any but what are just as much brothers and sisters as we should be if born of the same parents, right in the same family, with only ten children in the family. It is the same blood precisely. I do not care where we come from, we are all of this family, and the blood has not been changed. It is true that a curse came upon certain portions of the human family Alma 3:6 Moses 7:8those who turned away from the holy commandments of the Lord our God.

So far this is consistent with the scriptures. We are all children of God. The curse is not about some kind of biological difference, it's about turning away from God. 

What did they do? In ancient days old Israel was the chosen people in whom the Lord delighted, and whom he blessed and did so much for. Yet they transgressed every law that he gave them, changed every ordinance that he delivered to them, broke every covenant made with the fathers, Isa. 24:5 and turned away entirely from his holy commandments, and the Lord cursed them. Cain was cursed for this, with this black skin that there is so much said about. Moses 7:22 

Hmm. Well, here Brigham Young is unequivocally saying that the curse was having black skin. More about this later.

Do you think that we could make laws to change the color of the skin of Cain's descendants? If we can, we can change the leopard's spots; but we cannot do this, neither can we change their blood.

Probably we could do that with some kind of gene therapy nowadays.

There is a curse on these aborigines of our country who roam the plains, 2 Ne. 5:20-24 Alma 17:15 and are so wild that you cannot tame them.

This is not something that could ever be said out loud in 2019 without serious repercussions.

They are of the house of Israel; they once had the Gospel delivered to them, they had the

[p. 87a]

oracles of truth; Jesus came and administered to them after his resurrection, and they received and delighted in the Gospel until the fourth generation, 1 Ne. 12:11-12 2 Ne. 26:9 3 Ne. 27:30-32 when they turned away and became so wicked that God cursed them with this dark and benighted and loathsome condition; Morm. 5:15 and they want to sit on the ground in the dirt, and to live by hunting, and they cannot be civilized. And right upon this, I will say to our government if they could hear me, “You need never fight the Indians, but if you want to get rid of them try to civilize them.” How many were here when we came? At the Warm Springs, at this little grove where they would pitch their tents, we found perhaps three hundred Indians; but I do not suppose that there are three of that band left alive now. There was another band a little south, another north, another further east; but I do not suppose there is one in ten, perhaps not one in a hundred, now alive of those who were here when we came. Did we kill them? No, we fed them. They would say, “We want just as fine flour as you have.” To Walker, the chief, whom all California and New Mexico dreaded, I said, “It will just as sure kill as the world, if you live as we live.” Said he, “I want as good as Brigham, I want to eat as he does.” Said I, “Eat then, but it will kill you.” I told the same to Arapeen, Walker's brother; but they must eat and drink as the whites did, and I do not suppose that one in a hundred of those bands are alive. We brought their children into our families, and nursed and did everything for them it was possible to do for human beings, but die they would. Do not fight them, but treat them kindly. There will then be no stain on the Government, and it will get rid of them much quicker than by fighting them. They have got to be civilized, and

[p. 87b]

 there will be a remnant of them saved. I have said enough on this subject.

...but when you read the rest of what Brigham Young says, the man doesn't sound quite so terrible. It just really sounds like he lived in a different time and era than we live in today, and that he was actually trying his best to be loving and egalitarian to all of God's children. I am convinced that is true, regardless of the unpopularity of the wrapping paper of his delivery. We can't be presentists when we examine history. We cannot judge people by the social norms and understanding of our day - or rather, if we do, we will not be correct. That isn't an apology for his words. They are unfortunate here. I wish he hadn't said them.

But if he hadn't, then perhaps we wouldn't have gotten this fabulous essay on the subject written here. Quite a lot has been written. I can't write it better. I'll just add some of my commentary.

During the first two decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood. One of these men, Elijah Abel, also participated in temple ceremonies in Kirtland, Ohio, and was later baptized as proxy for deceased relatives in Nauvoo, Illinois. There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. In a private Church council three years after Joseph Smith’s death, Brigham Young praised Q. Walker Lewis, a black man who had been ordained to the priesthood, saying, “We have one of the best Elders, an African."4

This is further evidence that Brigham Young himself was not some horrible, evil racist. 

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

Here is is reemphasized that we do not have a real explanation for why the church policy was this way for such a long time. It just was. The policy never changed the doctrine, which was that all humans are beloved children of Heavenly parents who will someday all get the chance to receive and partake of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Other church policies, such as disallowing children of gay couples to be baptized, were similarly never explained, later reversed/changed, and most importantly, did not affect the underlying doctrine. The policies have to do with temporal jurisdiction. The doctrine has to do with a much broader, eternal perspective.  

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was restored amidst a highly contentious racial culture in which whites were afforded great privilege. In 1790, the U.S. Congress limited citizenship to “free white person[s].”5 Over the next half century, issues of race divided the country—while slave labor was legal in the more agrarian South, it was eventually banned in the more urbanized North. Even so, racial discrimination was widespread in the North as well as the South, and many states implemented laws banning interracial marriage.6 In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that blacks possessed “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”7 A generation after the Civil War (1861–65) led to the end of slavery in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “separate but equal” facilities for blacks and whites were constitutional, a decision that legalized a host of public color barriers until the Court reversed itself in 1954.8 Not until 1967 did the Court strike down laws forbidding interracial marriage.

 This kind of historical context is quite important. I wonder what kind of historical context will be included in 100 years when policies about LGBT people are explained neatly on a website with a highly cited historical essay. Maybe there already is one. But. Scope creep. As usual.

In 1850, the U.S. Congress created Utah Territory, and the U.S. president appointed Brigham Young to the position of territorial governor. Southerners who had converted to the Church and migrated to Utah with their slaves raised the question of slavery’s legal status in the territory. In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.9

 See. Brigham Young's policy decision was not about denying blessings to people, at least from his perspective.

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.10 According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.11Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.12 Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.

Danny's grandparents have always said that one of the most exciting, interesting historical events which they witnessed (and they were alive to remember World War II) was the ushering in of civil rights. It was extremely moving to them. 

Even after 1852, at least two black Mormons continued to hold the priesthood. When one of these men, Elijah Abel, petitioned to receive his temple endowment in 1879, his request was denied. Jane Manning James, a faithful black member who crossed the plains and lived in Salt Lake City until her death in 1908, similarly asked to enter the temple; she was allowed to perform baptisms for the dead for her ancestors but was not allowed to participate in other ordinances.13 The curse of Cain was often put forward as justification for the priesthood and temple restrictions. Around the turn of the century, another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings.14

I've heard that said by people sometimes, especially when I was younger. But when I considered the source, I always found it really hard to believe. Much more easy to disbelieve and be skeptical of the person saying it; what, did they somehow have some kind of special knowledge that I was not privy to about the premortal life? We know so little about it. I just shrugged and thought, "I'll figure that out later." Well, now I have. They were just flat out wrong.

By the late 1940s and 1950s, racial integration was becoming more common in American life. Church President David O. McKay emphasized that the restriction extended only to men of black African descent. The Church had always allowed Pacific Islanders to hold the priesthood, and President McKay clarified that black Fijians and Australian Aborigines could also be ordained to the priesthood and instituted missionary work among them. In South Africa, President McKay reversed a prior policy that required prospective priesthood holders to trace their lineage out of Africa.15

That is kind of weird, to require tracing lineage. Not to mention stupid, with what we now know about DNA. You can have African heritage and have white skin, blond hair, and blue eyes. At least it was reversed for South Africa. 

Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.16

He must have had some very severe criticism for not lifting the ban, even during his lifetime. I should ask my parents about it.

As the Church grew worldwide, its overarching mission to “go ye therefore, and teach all nations”17 seemed increasingly incompatible with the priesthood and temple restrictions. The Book of Mormon declared that the gospel message of salvation should go forth to “every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.”18 While there were no limits on whom the Lord invited to “partake of his goodness” through baptism,19 the priesthood and temple restrictions created significant barriers, a point made increasingly evident as the Church spread in international locations with diverse and mixed racial heritages.

Brazil in particular presented many challenges. Unlike the United States and South Africa where legal and de facto racism led to deeply segregated societies, Brazil prided itself on its open, integrated, and mixed racial heritage. In 1975, the Church announced that a temple would be built in São Paulo, Brazil. As the temple construction proceeded, Church authorities encountered faithful black and mixed-ancestry Mormons who had contributed financially and in other ways to the building of the São Paulo temple, a sanctuary they realized they would not be allowed to enter once it was completed. Their sacrifices, as well as the conversions of thousands of Nigerians and Ghanaians in the 1960s and early 1970s, moved Church leaders.20

Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings. In June 1978, after “spending many hours in the Upper Room of the [Salt Lake] Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance,” Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received a revelation. “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,” the First Presidency announced on June 8. The First Presidency stated that they were “aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us” that “all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood.”21 The revelation rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination. It also extended the blessings of the temple to all worthy Latter-day Saints, men and women. The First Presidency statement regarding the revelation was canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 2.

This “revelation on the priesthood,” as it is commonly known in the Church, was a landmark revelation and a historic event. Those who were present at the time described it in reverent terms. Gordon B. Hinckley, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, remembered it this way: “There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren. … Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing. … Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same.”22

Reaction worldwide was overwhelmingly positive among Church members of all races. Many Latter-day Saints wept for joy at the news. Some reported feeling a collective weight lifted from their shoulders. The Church began priesthood ordinations for men of African descent immediately, and black men and women entered temples throughout the world. Soon after the revelation, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle, spoke of new “light and knowledge” that had erased previously “limited understanding.”23

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.24

Since that day in 1978, the Church has looked to the future, as membership among Africans, African Americans and others of African descent has continued to grow rapidly. While Church records for individual members do not indicate an individual’s race or ethnicity, the number of Church members of African descent is now in the hundreds of thousands.

The Church proclaims that redemption through Jesus Christ is available to the entire human family on the conditions God has prescribed. It affirms that God is “no respecter of persons”25 and emphatically declares that anyone who is righteous—regardless of race—is favored of Him. The teachings of the Church in relation to God’s children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi: “[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”26

It's possible that I would have stronger feelings about these events if I had a. lived through it and b. if I had a different family heritage. As it is, here are the main takeaways from the scriptures and the historical facts related to racism in my church:

• People who live on earth have to live in society, and societies are fraught with flaws.
• It's easy and quite human to try to explain God's will with ways that make sense to us now, even though Isaiah explicitly explains that God's thoughts are not man's thoughts.
• When looking at historical documents and figures, we have to be sure that we understand as much as we can about the context of the world, society, and their own lives.
• Patiently and diligently searching for answers in sources that are likely to yield valid answers is a more effective, satisfying way to live than hastily jumping to conclusions based on emotions and third-hand sources. 
• When I read Brigham Young's so-called "racist" comments in context, they seem much more benign than reading them as a click-baity title on an anti website. I don't see any value in reading the latter.
• Ultimately, my testimony has to be based on faith in Jesus Christ, not faith in a church. See the first bullet point. The point is, my testimony is not based on my feelings or trust or faith in the prophet's ability to execute policy. It is that Jesus Christ stands at the head of this church. That he is working with flawed people to try to bring the gospel and its saving ordinances to everyone, everywhere, through all of time.
• I am incredibly lucky to be able to live in a time and place where I can participate in gathering the house of Israel through genealogy and temple work.  

Answer:

The mark is not the same as the curse.

The curse is temporary separation from God.

We do not know much about the mark, and neither did Mormon. 

Probably Mormon lived in a racist society and was himself struggling to use the right words. 

The curse that comes from being temporarily separated from God did affect people physically.

We simply don't talk about "curses" today. Even curses that are not related to race in any way. I don't know why that is.