I don’t think it has anything to do with race either. The text doesn’t say they “changed race”. It said the skin had a curse/malady/mark “like flint”. That isn’t a race change. The best interpretation is a skin disease. There are all kinds of possibilities.

It seems there is a lot of disagreement on this issue. xitter.cf/capitalismmag/status/2…

I think Nephi was using the description “flint” in two different ways. One was to describe the spiritual hardness of their heart and the other was to describe the outward skin condition. To me it seems like it would be a skin malady (skin color change that was not uniform, like a skin disease that resembled irregular discoloration …like the stone flint). See why that might not be “enticing”… especially if they thought it was contagious?

I always thought of the dark skin as like a skin malady/disease. I think it very well could have been literal.

How about this explanation… Does this help explain the deterministic aspect of creation ex nihilo?

I have taken that into consideration. Number one has to do with God “weighting the scales” so to speak. But even if God creating every single aspect of who and what you are has no impact on the choices you would make… … you still have number 3, where God determines outcomes by deciding which person’s (out of infinite possibilities) will exist. It seems like you are willfully refusing to understand that.

With creation ex nihilo, God can create any kind of being logically possible. God can chose to bring into existence exactly the individual persons God wants to create (out of infinite possibilities). It is deterministic theology. God deciding not to create rapist/murderer won’t take the free will away from people who choose a better life.

See also

Correct. LDS believe they have the same nature and attributes, but they are not literally the same being/substance. That is how it makes sense for God the Father to “choose/anoint” the Son, “give” to the Son to grant authority to the Son, etc. That is how the Son can “inherit” from the Father. Because they aren’t literally the same being/substance. Again in one sense they are 3. In the Biblical sense (echad/hen), they are “one”. In the highlighted portion, Jesus even teaches how it should not be taken literally … “even as [or just as] I am one with the Father.”