why the lamanites' skin was dark

[Dan]

Remember the depiction of Enos in his lone chapter:

20 And I bear record that the people of Nephi did seek diligently to restore the Lamanites unto the true faith in God. But our labors were vain; their hatred was fixed, and they were led by their evil nature that they became wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people, full of idolatry and filthiness; feeding upon beasts of prey; dwelling in tents, and wandering about in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about their loins and their heads shaven; and their skill was in the bow, and in the cimeter, and the ax. And many of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat; and they were continually seeking to destroy us.

I have always wondered just how literally I should believe that statement.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I would like to see a reference for the idea that dark/light skin is some sort of common oriential cultural reference.

Scroll up:

Originally Posted by Hugh Nibley

The dark skin is mentioned as the mark of a general way of life; it is a Gypsy or Bedouin type of darkness, "black" and "white" being used in their Oriental sense (as in Egyptian), black and loathsome being contrasted to white and delightsome (2 Nephi 5:21-22).

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by All-American

Scroll up:

Nibley citing himself is not a reference. At least not in my book.

[fusnik11]

joseph smith made the distinction when he found zelph, the 'white' lamanite....

[All-American]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Nibley citing himself is not a reference. At least not in my book.

At the risk of appealing to a scholarly authority, a practice which nobody destested more than Nibley, the man is as qualified as practically any member of the church ever has been to speak on Ancient Near Eastern customs. He felt that the universality of the practice was well-established enough that there was no need to push the issue. The source is certainly not infallible, but given our comparitive expertise, I would consider it wise to have something to back up any claim to the contrary.

To shrug off an "authoritative" claim that has no evidence is reasonable; to replace it with an unauthoritative claim that has no evidence is not.

Originally Posted by fusnik11

joseph smith made the distinction when he found zelph, the 'white' lamanite....

Well, at least now we're using something completely incontroversial... You know, I never could figure out how Zelph fits into the whole picture. I'm never sure how much of his story came from the mouth of the Prophet in the first place, and how that figures into the rest of the story of the Nephites. If it mattered at all, it would probably bother me quite a bit.

[conejo]

the Nephite army searches for a Lamanite in their group so that he can infiltrate the Lamanite army and give them the wine? That would seem to imply that there was either an appearance difference or a language difference. Since there is never a language difference noted in the BOM between Nephites and Lamanites I would have to think appearance was the difference since the Lamanite army readily accepted him as a Lamanite.

[Dan]

Linguitstic differences would be my first guess. They may have needed someone who could say shibboleth properly, so to speak.