Book of Mormon DNA Apologetics

[juliann]

What has changed in the past 100 years in the BOM that would cause one to understand something differently than someone before him did?

Let's see....what has changed in the last 100 years....hmmmm.... Are you Amish by any chance?

You don't appear to be paying any attention at all. You just continue to recycle the same old fear that the church might be working to rid itself of the last vestiges of racism.

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

Yes, and I thank God for that understanding. I hope that he grants us even more. One more time...if you are not Amish and not a fundamentalist...what is your motive in wanting to read racism into texts?

[Who Knows]

What has changed in the past 100 years in the BOM that would cause one to understand something differently than someone before him did?

Let's see....what has changed in the last 100 years....hmmmm.... Are you Amish by any chance?

You don't appear to be paying any attention at all. You just continue to recycle the same old fear that the church might be working to rid itself of the last vestiges of racism.

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

Yes, and I thank God for that understanding. I hope that he grants us even more. One more time...if you are not Amish and not a fundamentalist...what is your motive in wanting to read racism into texts?

Notice Juliann how I said 'what has changed in the past 100 years in the BOM'

I thought you were better than that.

Duh, of course things in general have changed. But I'm talking specifically about the BOM. What has changed in it that would lead one person to think one way, and a prophet to think another way?

[juliann]

Duh, of course things in general have changed. But I'm talking specifically about the BOM. What has changed in it that would lead one person to think one way, and a prophet to think another way?

How many times do you have to be told that our understanding and interpretation of the text has changed? Give us a number....5 times? 20? What is the magic number?

If you want to argue about what the definition of a prophet is...go start another thread.

[Log]

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?

What skin pigment was Lehi blessed with?

Let us note that whatever it was, it was lighter than the Lamanites, or else there could be no distinction between Lamanites and Nephites until you got down to religious debates. I'm sure that the enticings which the Lord was concerned with were of the type that sometimes took place before two similarly-pigmented people got around to discussing religious views.

How can black be anything but metaphorical? When it's used in a literal context. My presumption is that words should be interpreted literally unless a metaphorical reading would solve a logical, not evidentiary or public relations, problem.

If the text does not require a metaphorical reading, and Brant seemed to agree that it does not (did I misunderstand?), then why revile against those who don't read metaphorically? Whence the "racializing" rhetoric?

[Brant Gardner]

Lognormal:

Let us note that whatever it was, it was lighter than the Lamanites, or else there could be no distinction between Lamanites and Nephites until you got down to religious debates.

But you see, that is the very proposition in question. This statement has two assumptions:

1) Nephites were lighter than Lamanites,

2) The function of the curse was to make a visible distinction.

I can certainly see a difference between the general coloration between the native "red" and the Middle Eastern "olive," but if both had been out in the sun, which is actually "lighter"?

The curse would be visible if there were a difference in skin color - but the text never indicates any actions based on an obvious skin color, particularly when it should. That tells us that the text doesn't support the assumption.

How can black be anything but metaphorical? When it's used in a literal context. My presumption is that words should be interpreted literally unless a metaphorical reading would solve a logical, not evidentiary or public relations, problem.

I assume that you don't believe that Lamanites had black skins. Blackness is metaphorical even if you don't think "skin" is. Howe3ver, note that you have a presumption here (which you state quite clearly).

I wonder what support you have for assuming that everything is literal unless it solves public relations issues. That definition would pretty much remove metaphors from all literature. It certainly can't be defended based on the use of metaphors in the Bible.

So now we have a third assumption you have made that continues to be based on your conclusion rather than evidence.

Don't you think that evidence should show up somewhere?

[Log]

Lognormal:

Let us note that whatever it was, it was lighter than the Lamanites, or else there could be no distinction between Lamanites and Nephites until you got down to religious debates.

But you see, that is the very proposition in question. This statement has two assumptions:

1) Nephites were lighter than Lamanites,

2) The function of the curse was to make a visible distinction.

I can certainly see a difference between the general coloration between the native "red" and the Middle Eastern "olive," but if both had been out in the sun, which is actually "lighter"?

The curse would be visible if there were a difference in skin color - but the text never indicates any actions based on an obvious skin color, particularly when it should. That tells us that the text doesn't support the assumption.

Brant,

You are far too intelligent (and a much too careful reader) to render my position thusly.

I am guided by one assumption: the text is to be read literally unless a literal reading leads to a logical contradiction, in which case a metaphorical reading would be justified. Metaphorical readings are not justified by evidentiary problems, neither public relations problems.

The text, read literally, indicates the Lord set a curse upon the Lamanites, wherein their skin was darkened. The purpose of this curse, says the text, was so that the Nephites would not find the Lamanites enticing. The enticing the Lord appears concerned with is intermarrying. Intermarrying occurs at times before metaphorical skins of blackness are revealed by religious debates, so I find the metaphorical reading to be implausible on its face, as well as unjustified at this point in the conversation.

How can black be anything but metaphorical? When it's used in a literal context. My presumption is that words should be interpreted literally unless a metaphorical reading would solve a logical, not evidentiary or public relations, problem.

I assume that you don't believe that Lamanites had black skins. Blackness is metaphorical even if you don't think "skin" is. Howe3ver, note that you have a presumption here (which you state quite clearly).

I wonder what support you have for assuming that everything is literal unless it solves public relations issues. That definition would pretty much remove metaphors from all literature. It certainly can't be defended based on the use of metaphors in the Bible.

I think you have mistaken me. I bolded the pertinent part in my post to which you were responding. I think whatever "black" meant in precise reflective terms, the Lamanites were darker than the Nephites, and visibly so.

So now we have a third assumption you have made that continues to be based on your conclusion rather than evidence.

Don't you think that evidence should show up somewhere?

The incident where Moroni makes a search to find a Lamanite to infiltrate the Lamanite installation actually makes best sense if there was a visible distinction that could reliably be discerned between Nephites and Lamanites. Or is it possible, do you think, that Moroni needed a Lamanite so as to talk religion with the installation guards, and thus they could see his metaphorical "skin of blackness?" Why couldn't a Nephite falsely adopt a metaphorical "skin of blackness" and thus bypass the need for an actual Lamanite? Are you sure, in other words, that your view of the evidence is not colored by your need for a metaphorical reading?

[Confidential Informant]

I am guided by one assumption: the text is to be read literally unless a literal reading leads to a logical contradiction, in which case a metaphorical reading would be justified.

Then you already have your contradiction and you simply aren't noticing it. Native Americans aren't black. And however you want to describe their skin color "black" doesn't cover it. So why is "black" the adjective that is always used? Surely, ancient Hebrews distinguished colors. Is their any evidence that they simply weren't as precise in their descriptory language as we are?

If you read the text "literally" as you propose then Native Americans must be "black", not brown or red. That is logical contradiction and thus your rule for applying metaphore is met.

C.I.

[Log]

Let me be more precise.

If someone's visage darkens, we understand that metaphorically, because by inductive generalization, people's skins don't change color readily (we can go red in an instant, but not tan or black), so we have a logical problem.

If God darkens someone's skin, I understand that literally, because there is no logical problem with God darkening someone's skin literally.

EDIT - this post was not in response to CI, but was a clarification of my previous post, let the lawyers distort meanings how they will.

[Brant Gardner]

Lognormal:

The incident where Moroni makes a search to find a Lamanite to infiltrate the Lamanite installation actually makes best sense if there was a visible distinction that could reliably be discerned between Nephites and Lamanites.

You would do well to actually read the example. The single Lamanite is accompanied by Nephites. There should have been a visible difference - but the Lamanites were fooled. They didn't seem to see the "obvious" skin color difference you are suggesting.

I agree that the Lamanite was needed for something - but it certainly wasn't his skin color because Nephites could go with him and not be noticed.

[Michael Sanders]

Brant and all,

Is it possible that there was a physical marking that reflected a spiritual reality or condition? A marking that had nothing to do with changing the pigment of one's skin, but had to do with body painting? A marking that could be removed in a relatively short time if one's religious or political affiliation changed?

Fernando Rochaix argues in his Maya Masquerade: Bodily Inscription from Classic to Colonial among other things, that:

Some scholars propose that imperial Mayan ritual practice, preformed exclusively by elite personages, alone explain the abundant use of bodily inscriptions found in art artifacts. I instead suggest a model for the social construction of the human body in ancient Maya life, based on the form of inscriptions left on body and the communal process of reading these images by a larger demographic. For the ancient Maya tattoos, scarification, and body paint were community markers, references to religious belief extending beyond imperial elites to every level of Mayan society.

There are several references to this practice among the ancient Maya and it has even trickled down to modern tribes. For examples, go to Embera Body Painting, Embera Body Painting II.

Any thoughts?

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

"A related flaw is reporting only a part of what was first said. Lawyers insist on cross-examination to get the whole story, for a firsthand report of a half-truth is still a misrepresentation." - Richard L. Anderson

[Log]

Lognormal:

The incident where Moroni makes a search to find a Lamanite to infiltrate the Lamanite installation actually makes best sense if there was a visible distinction that could reliably be discerned between Nephites and Lamanites.

You would do well to actually read the example. The single Lamanite is accompanied by Nephites. There should have been a visible difference - but the Lamanites were fooled. They didn't seem to see the "obvious" skin color difference you are suggesting.

I agree that the Lamanite was needed for something - but it certainly wasn't his skin color because Nephites could go with him and not be noticed.

Brother Gardner,

I have read it several times.

8 And when it was evening Laman went to the guards who were over the Nephites, and behold, they saw him coming and they hailed him; but he saith unto them: Fear not; behold, I am a Lamanite. Behold, we have escaped from the Nephites, and they sleep; and behold we have taken of their wine and brought with us.

So some Nephites could pass for Lamanites in the dark if they didn't speak. Or, perhaps the presence of a visibly Lamanite companion would render the Nephites more acceptable to the guards, because the Lamanite could vouch for his dissident Nephite brethren - after all, the king of the Lamanites was likewise a Nephite dissident. This is consistent with my view that the differences in skin color were vitiated by this time, but not missing - that was why they needed an actual Lamanite. There was no attested religious discussion between the Lamanite and the Lamanite guards, so they couldn't tell he had a metaphorical skin of blackness, and the Nephites likewise didn't reveal their metaphorical light skin.

But you, Brother Gardner, will not be able to establish your view simply by impugning mine; you must show positive textual evidence from the BoM that the metaphorical reading should be preferred. What logical problem does your metaphorical reading solve?

[Confidential Informant]

What logical problem does your metaphorical reading solve?

It solves the problem that Native Americans aren't "black" and there is no precedent describing them as such. It solves the problem that there is no biology that causes skin colors to change as you seem to indicate.

This goes back to what's been argued all along, why is "scales of darkness" metaphorical? Because it's not biologically coherent. Why is "black" in the B of M metaphorical? Because 1) they weren't black and 2) there is no known precedent for rapid skin change.

C.I.

[Log]

CI - don't take this personally.

Your argument misses the point. Black in context is comparative. Even blacks aren't "black." Read for understanding, not to refute.

[Brant Gardner]

Lognormal:

But you, Brother Gardner, will not be able to establish your view simply by impugning mine; you must show positive textual evidence from the BoM that the metaphorical reading should be preferred.

Sigh. I agree. Arguments should be made on evidence. I think I have been saying that. You seem to have missed much of what I have presented. I agree that I haven't presented my full case - boards aren't the right place for it. It is currently 30 pages of analysis of the topic. I have simply summarized it here.

It doesn't appear that this conversation is going anywhere. I'll bow out.

[Log]

Mayhaps I have missed it somewhere. I'm persuadable. Where is it?

[Michael Sanders]

Brant & Brent,

Obviously there are certain passages relating to the "skin of blackness" phenomena that could easily be rendered in a metaphorical sense - at the same time, there are other passages in the Book of Mormon narrative that prove quite difficult to read in any metaphorical way and at the same time be coherent. Perhaps a metaphorical understanding emerged at some point, I do not know.

But if we give lattitude to the full range of texts in the narrative in our attempt to come to understanding, then we're probably on a much better footing, than if we isolate certain texts that seem to argue our case and diminish other texts that seem to undermine our viewpoints. I know that this is both of your stated desire and practice.

In Alma 1:100-120 [RLDS Versification] we read:

And also many of their fields of grain were destroyed, for they were trodden down by the hosts of men. And now as many of the Lamanites and the Amlicites who had been slain upon the bank of the river Sidon, were cast into the waters of Sidon; and behold, their bones are in the depths of the sea, and they are many. 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. 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, etc. 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 trangression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. 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 the Ishmaelitish women; 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. And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites, did bring the same curse upon his seed. Therefore whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites, was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him. And it came to pass that whosoever would not believe in the tradition of the Lamanites, but believe 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; And it is they who have kept the records which are true of their people, and also of the people of the Lamanites. Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads. Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed; and I will set a mark upon them, that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and for ever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me, that I may have mercy upon them. And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also. And again: I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed. And again I say, He that departeth from thee, shall no more be called thy seed; and I will bless thee, etc., and whomsoever shall be called thy seed, henceforth and for ever: and these were the promises of the Lord unto Nephi, and to his seed. Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God, when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; Nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them. Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the curse; And even so doth every man that is cursed, bring upon himself his own condemnation.

In this account we see a number of things. First of all, when the Amlicites began to mark themselves "after the manner of the Lamanites" what did this refer to? No account of the Lamanites marking themselves with red in the forehead. What does "after the manner of the Lamanaites" refer to besides the idea that they both placed marks upon themselves that separted/distinguished them from their brethren.

When they began to mark themselves, they unwittingly fulfilled the curse prophecy which was given to Nephi. The actions of the Amlicites/Lamanites fulfilled the curse, not anything supernatural.

Whoever defected from the Nephites and came under the "head" of Lamanite authority also had a mark placed upon them.

Later we learn, that the process appears to have been revearsed when Lamanites converted to the Nephites.

Now Brent, for the sake of argument, let's suppose a Mesoamerican setting for Book of Mormon events and we see that this was a common practice in that milieu for tribal identification.

For example:

[juliann]

Mayhaps I have missed it somewhere. I'm persuadable. Where is it?

Sheesh, lognormal....I really don't know how else it can be explained. You seem determined to ignore just about everything and go on with your "black is literal except when it metaphorically refers to Indians who aren't really black but oh well, let's be literal and racialize the text anyway."

[juliann]

Any thoughts?

I'm surprised that "black" is the paint choice in these instances. I would think they would chose something a little more visually appealing...interesting.

[Michael Sanders]

Brant,

You may want to check out Douglas Campbell, "White" or "Pure": Five Vignettes [Dialogue, Vol.29, No.4]: 119-135 especially under the section "Vignette 5. What About the Rest of the Book of Mormon?" which has some direct bearing on the subject at hand.

He notes that the word "white," "whiter," and "whiteness" is found twenty-eight times in the Book of Mormon. He divides those usages into six categories:

1. robes and garments

2. fruit

3. stones and hair

4. Mary and Jesus

5. gentiles

6. white Nephites

He argues that references to "robes and garments" using these descriptors are certainly metaphors for purity and cleanliness. The metaphorical description of the "blood of the lamb" washing one's garments clean is one such example, because any literal washing of one's clothes in blood does not make them white.

The second category is also depicted metaphorically. Campbell writes:

"White" fruits are metaphors for luminosity. Yellow peaches, red apples, green grapes, blue blueberries, orange oranges, black blackberries, and purple plums are desirable. A brilliant fruit that glows, dazzles, radiates, and shines is certainly an alluring symbol. But few people like pale, unripe, paper-colored, washed-out, leprous, ashen, or cadaverous-like fruit."

The same conclusion is reached for the third category "stones and hair", the fourth category "Mary and Jesus", and the fifth category "gentiles" - each metaphorically depicting something other than a literal rendering of the terms.

The sixth category centers on what we've been discussing here and appears to be in agreement with Brant's reading of the texts. Campbell declares:

White-skinned Nephites and black-skinned Lamanites are metaphors for cultures, not for skin color. The church teaches that the descendants of the Lamanites inhabited the Americas when Columbus arrived. But Lamanites are not black-skinned; they are not even red-skinned. As the "skin of blackness" is a metaphor, so too is the white skin of the Nephites. Perhaps 3 Nephi 2:15-16, in which the Lamanites have the curse taken from them, fulfills 2 Nephi 30:6. In these verses, the Lamanite has become "white and delightsome" not "pure and delightsome."  I do not believe the Lord changed their physical skin to white in the twinkling of an eye. These Lamanites lived with city-dwelling Nephites and became cultural Nephites. The significance of 3 Nephi 2:16 is that the historian of 3 Nephi, raised in a culture pre-occupied by racial differences, records that the Lamanites, who could be distinguished from the Nephites on physical grounds, were nevertheless numbered among the Nephites."

I agree with Louis C. Midgley in his review of Since Cumorah titled,

[Brant Gardner]

Michael:

Hello. Good to hear from you again, It has been a while. I hope you are well?

I have been through Campbell's article and had done much the same thing before I read it. Obviously, I agree with his assessment of the use of color terms.

The skin painting is fascinating. I don't see it as the full explanation for the curse because the curse comes so early and is laid generically on the Lamanites. Skin painting marked exceptional persons, not the normal ones.

In addition to paining captives (marked for the gods) the ruler appears to be painted on several Maya vases. Interestingly, the choice is black. I reviewed several pottery scenes of processions before an ahau on a raised dias, and the ahau (ruler) is normally black and everyone else is a more normal skin color. Among the Aztecs, the quetzalcoatl priests were painted black. Obviously, their color value for black was significantly different from ours.

[Michael Sanders]

Brant,

It has been awhile since we have last corresponded, I'm doing fine and hope all is well with you and yours.

I have noticed in my limited readings concerning the body painting phenomena that there appears to have been certain classes of people painted in particular ways and in varied colors. Typically, those in either political/religious authority represented as being painted black. In fact, (and maybe you can correct/verify this) that depictions of Quetzlcoatl being painted in black rather than white. I also have been told that this form of body-marking was relegated to certain social classes within Myan culture, and you certainly are more versed on that subject than I, but it seems to me if you have a range of individuals practicing the body painting from prisoners to warriors/religious leaders/kings that the folks in the middle of the strata might have practiced such things as well. Admittedly, the only real reference I have to such a position comes from the Rochaix article I quoted earlier when he states, "For the ancient Maya...body paint were community markers, references to religious belief extending beyond imperial elites to every level of Mayan society."

In the Alma passage I quoted do you read the phrase "after the manner of the Lamanites" in Mormon's expansion of the small plate account as significant and as referring to the idea that Amlicites marked themselves with red in the forehead, just as the Lamanites had marked themselves black? Do you agree with that plain-sense reading?

In your reading do you understand the abridger to be saying later, that, essentially since the Amlicites began marking themselves they unwittingly fulfilled the curse prophecy given to Nephi? Is the abridger attempting to convey this connection?

I see these marks clearly being self-inflicted acts that have nothing to do with any supernatural event - like the changing of skin pigment, melanic transformation, genetic alteration through intermarriage, or the like.

Now, having said that, it is undoubtedly sure that some early members in the church certainly read the text in these terms. It seems to me, as has been noted here and elsewhere, that most of the cognitive dissonance generated from these narratives have more to do with reader response to the text and inability to extract oneself from his own cultural baggage brought to the table of interpretation. If you have an agenda to undermine or cast the record in certain terms (i.e. a 19th century naturalistic origin) that may not be of consideration to you. It's really not much fun if critics can't ascribe some base, sordid, or just plain ignorant motive to those who have gone on before us.

Of course, critics just delight in trying to demonstrate some racially-motivated component that can be detected in the modern environment of the author or later leaders. Ironically, even though there was certainly racist attitudes among leaders in a former time, they can be equally applied to the so-called Christian Church of the same era.

As always, I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue. Unfortunately, my playtime (as Brent would say) is limited.

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

"By Study and By Faith"

[Brant Gardner]

Michael:

In the Alma passage I quoted do you read the phrase "after the manner of the Lamanites" in Mormon's expansion of the small plate account as significant and as referring to the idea that Amlicites marked themselves with red in the forehead, just as the Lamanites had marked themselves black? Do you agree with that plain-sense reading?

In think the Amilicites intentionally mimicked some form of Lamanite marking and did it for rapid identification. I suspect that it is in a war context more than a social one. However, the idea that they did it to follow the curse is a typical "just so" statement. That reads like a moral justification that was read into the situation.

So - I think you have two things going on. The first is that the Amlicites paint themselves like Lamanites did. I suspect that they copied a lot of cultural data from the Lamanites.

On top of the description of Amlicite copying, you have Nephite moralizing. This took the marking and read it as a representation of the mark and curse. This is a Nephite reading the moral into the action. The mark on the forehead becomes a visual demonstration of the acceptance of the curse - which wasn't specifically a forehead mark - no matter how you read it.

[Michael Sanders]

Brant,

Understood. So Mormon while writing his abridgment exercises a bit of prophetic midrash like other authors of scriptural texts? In other words, he writes of that contemporaneous event as fulfillment of an earlier scripture. He draws upon the curse prophecy located on the small plates and "likens" this to the Amlicite situation in his day - which he sees as fulfillment of the text.

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

[Brant Gardner]

Right. Mormon is writing a religious text, not a history. His history serves his theological purposes.

[juliann]

8 And when it was evening Laman went to the guards who were over the Nephites, and behold, they saw him coming and they hailed him; but he saith unto them: Fear not; behold, I am a Lamanite. Behold, we have escaped from the Nephites, and they sleep; and behold we have taken of their wine and brought with us.

So some Nephites could pass for Lamanites in the dark if they didn't speak.

Another example of taking the BOM "literally" except when it doesn't racialize the text. It says they saw them coming. Now remember....black has to be literal. So skin is black. So now you have a dog's breakfast of a reading wherein the guards had enough light to see people coming from a distance...but couldn't detect the difference between a lily white face and a coal black face when they close enough to speak to one another. How much more are you going to pile onto this to maintain your contorted racialized reading?