Book of Mormon DNA Apologetics

[Confidential Informant]

But then we have prophets expressly crying against such stereotyping based on their skins, reminding their hearers that the Lamanite's skins would be whiter than theirs in the day of judgement. Again, I must be a simple-minded fool since this stuff seems to me to be speaking of skin color, as opposed to rhetoric.

It seems to me that I lack the imagination necessary to move from a literalistic, primary-meaning-of-words kind of reading to one in which the content of words are divorced from the context that my primary language would attach to them.

Lognormal,

If that is what you truly believe the text is saying then why not take up the challenge that Brant made to Brent to explain the events in Alma:

we have to find a situation where a pigmentation difference should make a difference in actions. The best example is in Alma 55:4-9. Captain Moroni wants to drink the Lamanite guards into accepting wine so that he can get them drunk. He searches his men until he finds one who was a descendant of Laman (v.4). With that one man, he sends several Nephites. They go to the Lamanite guards and the guards accept the statement that all of them are Lamanites (v. .

If there were a visible difference in the skin color of the people who came up to the Lamanite guards, it would have been noticed. If one knew a Lamanite by the color of his skin, there were several Nephites there and only one Lamanite. The actions of the situation tell us that there could not have been a color difference.

Brent has steadfastly refused to address this issue. Are you willing to do so?

C.I.

[New Kid OTB]

[Deleted. Didn't realize I was responding to a VERY old post.]

[Log]

But then we have prophets expressly crying against such stereotyping based on their skins, reminding their hearers that the Lamanite's skins would be whiter than theirs in the day of judgement.  Again, I must be a simple-minded fool since this stuff seems to me to be speaking of skin color, as opposed to rhetoric.

It seems to me that I lack the imagination necessary to move from a literalistic, primary-meaning-of-words kind of reading to one in which the content of words are divorced from the context that my primary language would attach to them.

Lognormal,

If that is what you truly believe the text is saying then why not take up the challenge that Brant made to Brent to explain the events in Alma:

we have to find a situation where a pigmentation difference should make a difference in actions. The best example is in Alma 55:4-9. Captain Moroni wants to drink the Lamanite guards into accepting wine so that he can get them drunk. He searches his men until he finds one who was a descendant of Laman (v.4). With that one man, he sends several Nephites. They go to the Lamanite guards and the guards accept the statement that all of them are Lamanites (v. .

If there were a visible difference in the skin color of the people who came up to the Lamanite guards, it would have been noticed. If one knew a Lamanite by the color of his skin, there were several Nephites there and only one Lamanite. The actions of the situation tell us that there could not have been a color difference.

Brent has steadfastly refused to address this issue. Are you willing to do so?

C.I.

Yes. Years of interbreeding had vitiated the once-sharp color distinction that existed earlier in Nephite history.

That would make sense of the text, introducing the fewest novel entities, no?

[Confidential Informant]

So you admit their skin was the same color but refuse to acknowledge that the black/white dichotomy is metaphorical?

If they were all the same color what good would it do maintain the distinctions?

C.I.

[Log]

So you admit their skin was the same color but refuse to acknowledge that the black/white dichotomy is metaphorical? 

If they were all the same color what good would it do maintain the distinctions?

C.I.

I don't believe that I precisely made that claim.

As I said, the once-sharp color distinctions were vitiated over time. There were Nephites who could NOT pass for Lamanites. There were Nephites who could. We don't read of similar infiltrations going the other way, either - possibly NO Lamanite could pass for a Nephite.

[Brant Gardner]

Lognormal:

But then we have prophets expressly crying against such stereotyping based on their skins, reminding their hearers that the Lamanite's skins would be whiter than theirs in the day of judgement.

It seems you have come to this part of the discussion very late. You should look back over the arguments for seeing skin as a metaphor as well as the color associated with it.

Look over the data for "faces gather blackness" which is a parallel from Joel and Nahum. Once the idea that the Lamanites "skins" were "black" it is simply repeated - and has the same meaning. There is nothing in the repetition that suggests that it has shifted from a metaphor to a description of pigmentation.

As for your suggestion that intermarriage would alter the Nephite/Lamanite distinction - that is certainly true. However, that would have happened very early and not just at the late date in Alma 55. On top of that, we have the dark/white difference used after that time in precisely the same way it is used earlier.

The logical conclusion - based on the text itself - is that the skin color is a metaphor and has nothing to do with physiology.

What has happened, unfortunately, is that we live in a different world that is so fixated on skin pigment and has associated such meaning to it, that we see the issue even when it isn't there.

[Log]

Lognormal:

But then we have prophets expressly crying against such stereotyping based on their skins, reminding their hearers that the Lamanite's skins would be whiter than theirs in the day of judgement.

It seems you have come to this part of the discussion very late. You should look back over the arguments for seeing skin as a metaphor as well as the color associated with it.

Look over the data for "faces gather blackness" which is a parallel from Joel and Nahum. Once the idea that the Lamanites "skins" were "black" it is simply repeated - and has the same meaning. There is nothing in the repetition that suggests that it has shifted from a metaphor to a description of pigmentation.

As for your suggestion that intermarriage would alter the Nephite/Lamanite distinction - that is certainly true. However, that would have happened very early and not just at the late date in Alma 55. On top of that, we have the dark/white difference used after that time in precisely the same way it is used earlier.

The logical conclusion - based on the text itself - is that the skin color is a metaphor and has nothing to do with physiology.

What has happened, unfortunately, is that we live in a different world that is so fixated on skin pigment and has associated such meaning to it, that we see the issue even when it isn't there.

Actually, I remember back when this issue cropped up.

I disagree with you, Bro. Gardner. Yours is not the most straightforward reading of the text. Skins, in the BoM context cited, indicate not so much metaphorical usage, but literal.

I fail to see the need for your reading anyway.

[Brant Gardner]

Lognormal:

I fail to see the need for your reading anyway.

There is no need for the reading. If I read the text according to some need I would be trying to make the text say something that I thought it ought to say. I have no personal need for that - and the text certainly doesn't.

I do think that he text needs to be taken seriously as an ancient document. Doing so requires that we understand it according to more ancient methods of understanding what something "means" rather than simply assuming that our modern worldview must inform everything we read.

If you are reading a premodern text and nothing contradicts your assumptions about "straightforward reading," then you either don't know much about the text's time period or it really is a modern text rather than an ancient one.

A fascinating example is the book Juliann cited above, Portraits of Paul. We assume we understand personality and motivation. None of our assumptions explain the way a person was conceptualized during Jesus' time.

[Log]

Two issues arise, and if they have been treated, then I apologize, and will shut up.

1. Is the text, in its mentioning of skins, consistent with literal skins?

If so, then

2. What need is there to read the text as though it was using skins in a metaphoric way?

You seem to treat the metaphoric usage as the default position, and I don't think it is at all clear that there is any requirement from the text that we must adopt it.

Do we see ancient semitic documents mentioning skins in precisely these (apparently literalistic) contexts yet also clearly using them metaphorically?

[juliann]

Do we see ancient semitic documents mentioning skins in precisely these (apparently literalistic) contexts yet also clearly using them metaphorically?

We put up Bible verses at least every other week.

I'm becoming very interested in the need to racialize texts that we see day in and day out on this message board. I thought we got over that?

[Brant Gardner]

Lognormal:

1. Is the text, in its mentioning of skins, consistent with literal skins?

If so, then

2. What need is there to read the text as though it was using skins in a metaphoric way?

That is the question, isn't it. I submit that it is insufficient to decide how to read the text before allowing the text to tell us how it should be read. Whether you begin with the assumption that it must be a literal skin or with the assumption that it must be metaphorical, you have imposed meaning on the text rather than derived meaning from the text.

I have too much respect for the text to assume that I understand it before I allow it to talk to me. If I am going to understand how the text uses those words and concepts, then I am required to examine the whole text to find the answer.

You seem to treat the metaphoric usage as the default position, and I don't think it is at all clear that there is any requirement from the text that we must adopt it.

I don't use any position as the default. My analysis is the result of asking the question and going through the text. I confess that if I had a "default" position it would be the literal one. I grew up with that. It was a common assumption. The text told me it was wrong. You are welcome to go through the text for yourself. You should look at all instances of black/white or dark/light and note how they are used. Note how easily the shift between extremes where the only change is with polity/religion. Finally, examine how the text acts in cases where a visible distinction ought to be present. Let me know what you come up with.

Do we see ancient semitic documents mentioning skins in precisely these (apparently literalistic) contexts yet also clearly using them metaphorically?

The problem with your question lies in the "apparently literalistic" idea. When we see something that we believe is apparently unrealistic, we know it is a metaphor. Modern Bible readers can be certain that "faces gather blackness" is a metaphor, but still see "skin of blackness" as literal - even though they are conceptually and structurally similar.

Why is one obviously a metaphor and the other obviously literal? It isn't in the words, it is in the perception we bring to them.

[juliann]

Yes. Years of interbreeding had vitiated the once-sharp color distinction that existed earlier in Nephite history.

That would make sense of the text, introducing the fewest novel entities, no?

And what skin pigment was Lehi blessed with? It wouldn't have been lily white. So two brownish skin tones intermarry and create...black skin?

You will have to explain to me how black can be anything but metaphorical. Everyone who is demanding that we keep racism in the BOM will not explain this. Why? Shouldn't it be the first thing you should explain?

[LaBarge]

dim, if you have looked at the information about "others" you can see that many scholars believe that the early Nephites became aware very soon after arrival that they were not the only ones on the continents. By 400 a.d. there had been much intermingling. By then, there were no pure Nephites around, by my calculations. I think Alma was talking about every one he knew of. Not just pure descendants of Nephi.

Yes, I know that some people believe that the Nephites were not the only ones there. That the text says nothing about others and specifically says that the land will be kept from the knowledge of others doesn't seem to matter.

Others? Not quite. The text is more specific than that. In 2 Ne 1:8 it says:

And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

Why didn't he use the word "people" instead of "nations?" Because untill 1492 the Americas were kept from the knowledge of other "Nations", not "People". Even after the Vikings discovered North America that knowledge was not retained.

[juliann]

Why didn't he use the word "people" instead of "nations?" Because untill 1492 the Americas were kept from the knowledge of other "Nations", not "People".  Even after the Vikings discovered North America that knowledge was not retained.

We also have the same issue with "nation" as we do with racial concepts.

We cite available translations as they are, even though such social categories as

[Who Knows]

Has this quote from President Kimball been brought up yet?

"The day of the Lamanites in nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as white as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl- sixteen- sitting between the darker father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents- on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated."

Thought this was applicable to the skin vs. metaphor discussion.

I know, I know, this was probably just his opinion - not the word of God speaking.

[juliann]

I know, I know, this was probably just his opinion - not the word of God speaking.

Oh, I forgot the third option, bring up old quotes and try to distract everyone with loud cries of "false prophet!".

No one is arguing that we used to racialize the text. Maybe you can explain...your cohorts sure aren't....why are you trying so hard to racialize texts? Haven't you come along with the rest of society? Why not?

[LaBarge]

Has this quote from President Kimball been brought up yet?

"The day of the Lamanites in nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as white as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl- sixteen- sitting between the darker father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents- on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated."

Thought this was applicable to the skin vs. metaphor discussion.

I know, I know, this was probably just his opinion - not the word of God speaking.

Please forgive me, but I actually think this is kind of funny.

[juliann]

Please forgive me, but I actually think this is kind of funny.

It's funny until you realize the goal...they want to maintain racism. They get downright testy when we tell them we don't want to racialize a text.

How are we supposed to interpret that? I am finding this no less disturbing than I find the old BY quotes saying very ugly things about blacks.

[Who Knows]

I know, I know, this was probably just his opinion - not the word of God speaking.

Oh, I forgot the third option, bring up old quotes and try to distract everyone with loud cries of "false prophet!".

No one is arguing that we used to racialize the text. Maybe you can explain...your cohorts sure aren't....why are you trying so hard to racialize texts? Haven't you come along with the rest of society? Why not?

I wasn't crying 'false prophet' so much as crying 'false Brant'.

I'm not trying to racialize the text, I'm merely pointing out what a former prophet of God thought about the subject. For some reason, Brant is smarter than the prophet. Brant is so defiantly sure that 'skin' is a metaphor, I'm merely pointing out that even a prophet had a different opinion than he does.

Haven't you come along with the rest of society?  Why not?

Are you suggesting that the BOM can change along with society? The BOM used to mean that, but today it means this?

Was President Kimball wrong in his statement? Or was he correct for his time period, and now that we are in a different time period, can we change it so that now we are correct?

The issue here isn't me crying 'false prophet'. The issue is 'is skin a metaphor, or is it literal'. I am supporting my opinion that it's literal. I supported this with a statement from a prophet of God. Is that so wrong?

BTW Juliann, nice job of 'distraction' yourself.

[Confidential Informant]

I wasn't crying 'false prophet' so much as crying 'false Brant'.

No, you are creating a false dichotomy: if we believe that Brant is correct then President Kimball was wrong and thus a false prophet. That is the exact direction your logic must take.

I'm not trying to racialize the text, I'm merely pointing out what a former prophet of God thought about the subject.  For some reason, Brant is smarter than the prophet.  Brant is so defiantly sure that 'skin' is a metaphor, I'm merely pointing out that even a prophet had a different opinion than he does.

And absolutlely no one has argued that the text has not been racialized for a century and half. The question is: is that the correct understanding of the text. There is no doubt that President Kimball thought so, what is less obvious is where he recevied his knowledge. Was it revealed to him? Or is he merely reading the text and making the same assumptions that had been made before him?

Are you suggesting that the BOM can change along with society?  The BOM used to mean that, but today it means this?

No. She's saying that the BofM NEVER meant that. That meaning was assigned to it by the 19th Century and 20th century readers. Brant is simply pointing out that this understanding is quite likely incorrect. In other words, society is changing to understand the book.

Was President Kimball wrong in his statement?

Likely yes. So what?

Or was he correct for his time period, and now that we are in a different time period, can we change it so that now we are correct? 

No, he was a product of his time period. And we aren't "changing" anything, we're simply allowing the book to, as Brant puts it, "speak for itself" instead of imposing our understandings upon it.

The issue here isn't me crying 'false prophet'.  The issue is 'is skin a metaphor, or is it literal'.  I am supporting my opinion that it's literal.  I supported this with a statement from a prophet of God.  Is that so wrong?

It depends on what you are trying to prove. Are you trying to prove that Mormons and their leaders have traditionally understood the verses literally? If so, then no, you aren't wrong. However, if you are trying to prove that the text itself supports or ever requires this understanding then yes, you are wrong because the text itself doesn't support that idea.

Moreover, why is it so important to you to keep the racial understanding? I can see why someone like Tom Murphy might object since it undermines a ton of the stuff he's out proselyting about, but what is your interest?

BTW Juliann, nice job of 'distraction' yourself.

How is it a distraction? You are arguing for a racialized book. Why? What is your motive? Is it merely a contra-Mormon desire to use the racial aspect as a convenient brickbat and you see a favorite club being taken away? And if you don't consider yourself a contra-Mormon, then what is your motive for desiring this racialized understanding...an understanding that would have been absoltely foreign to the people who wrote it (assuming, of course, its ancient origins).

C.I.

[USU78]

Was President Kimball wrong in his statement? Or was he correct for his time period, and now that we are in a different time period, can we change it so that now we are correct?

He was wrong to racialize the BoM statements re "black" and "white" skin.

But, stay with me here,

he was also the guy who was so aggressive in obtaining from G-d the revelation lifting the priesthood ban.

Isn't it great how that works?

[Who Knows]

C.I.

I'm not trying to 'prove' anything. Everyone just seems to be all over Brant's 'racially friendly' interpretation of the BOM, where prophets before him did not agree. What has changed in the past 100 years in the BOM that would cause one to understand something differently than someone before him did?

What information do you or Brant have that would lead you to believe differently than the prophet? Has the BOM changed? Do you or Brant just understand the BOM better than the prophet did? Have you read it more?

Or is your understanding a product of the times you live in?

Obviously, I don't think you can prove either/or. I was just pointing out the other side (the prophets side).

[Who Knows]

Edited out lame attempt at humor/sarcasm that wasn't received well.

[USU78]

Was President Kimball wrong in his statement?

[Who Knows]

You're right, that was a lame jab. I apologize for offending you.