On 10/11/07, Review Panel <jeff.needle@???> wrote:
> "The sore cursing was not the dark skin, but the loss of the Holy Ghost, of which the skin coloring > was but a mark" (Studies in the Scriptures, vol. 7, Deseret Book, 1987). This makes sense to me > theologically, and defused a potentially racist premise.
What this could mean is that if the Nephites had already had a darker
skin, the split-off Lamanites could have been marked with a lighter
skin. So it's not the skin tone that's the issue but the difference
the marking creates between the goods and the bads. But then the bads
bring bad associations/consequences to their skin tone....
Of course, there is some symbolic value to light vs. dark, but on the
other hand it would be a relief to think there's no intrinsic value
difference between darker and lighter skin. Anyway, I've always
thought a nice golden-coffee skin tone, such as my half-Hispanic (and
thus possibly part Lamanite) daughter's, is nicer than my pinkish
pale.
--
Check out some provocative, unconventional, yet ultimately
faith-affirming Mormon books at http://ZarahemlaBooks.com. Check out
my personal blog at http://ckbigelow.blogspot.com.
