Book of Mormon DNA Apologetics

[Michael Sanders]

Brant,

You wrote:

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.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that body painting was original with the Nephite settlers. Perhaps this cultural phenomena was borrowed from "others" who were already present in the land and had adopted such customs. If so, the early appearance among the Nephites becomes moot. Just a thought.

Pull...Brant takes aim with his shotgun on my clay pigeon of an idea!

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

"Wickedness never was happiness!" - Alma

[juliann]

How does the dating match up with the body painting and the BOM timeline? I have never heard of this....it is very interesting simply because of the choice of black. Has any other culture chosen that color?

[Brant Gardner]

Juliann:

I don't know which colors other cultures have selected as important. In know that in Asia and in Mesoamerica white is considered to be associated with death - hence not all that good. Black might be associated with the inside of caves - and therefore part of mystical power (I'm guessing here).

As for the timing, the only way to date the black body paint is by dating the paintings on which they are found. These tend to be classic period - and therefore later than the Book of Mormon. However, most of the classic culture has firm roots in earlier times. The pyramids that we see as stone colored were often painted bright red - so we visualize their cities very differently than they would have seen them. I suspect that color played an important part of their cultural life for a long time. Still, that doesn't get us to the point where we could, with confidence, speak of a "skin of blackness" as body paint. While I think there were certainly those who painted themselves black, I suspect that it was only a small number of elite. Most people wouldn't have the time or resources.

[juliann]

Still, that doesn't get us to the point where we could, with confidence, speak of a "skin of blackness" as body paint.

I wouldn't think that in any case....I just find it a fascinating coincidence and something fun for speculation. It wouldn't be the first time that something meant to be demeaning was taken on as a matter of pride and identity.

[Bernard Gui]

How can Nephites and Lamanites be different races?

They had a common ancestor.

Before the Anti-Nephi-Lehites were moved under

Nephite protection, their conversion is described with

this phrase: "The curse of God did no more follow

them." There is no mention of a change of skin

color. Later when they are attacked by Lamanites,

there seems to have been no confusion whether or

not they were slaughtering Lamanites or Nephites.

They were still recognizable as Lamanites.

Bernard

[Michael Sanders]

Dale and Conolly,

Thanks. Here we go!!!

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

[mbh26]

So in other words: sometimes inspiration and "the Spirit" are key, and at other times, worthless and to be ignored (even opposed). How could over 150 years worth of the Lord's ordained servants have been so misguided? Perhaps they just weren't as 'in tune' with the promptings of the spirit as previously thought?

This raises such a good point. Are revelations absolute truths? I'm sure Bruce R. McKonckie thought he was inspired when he said, "Blacks will not hold the priesthood till the Millenium," and many other statements made by Church leaders, members, and people that have later been shown to be false.

If we accept Bro. McKonckies explanation of the discrecpancy that things change because God does not reveal everything to man at once, but line upon line, precept upon precept, than obviously these statements which are often even referred to by the general membership of the Church as revelations are not absolute truths, but in fact subject to "further revelation."

Now I ask the question, "What are some absolute truths that we can be sure will never change or later be shown to be false?"

[juliann]

If we accept Bro. McKonckies explanation of the discrecpancy that things change because God does not reveal everything to man at once, but line upon line, precept upon precept, than obviously these statements which are often even referred to by the general membership of the Church as revelations are not absolute truths, but in fact subject to "further revelation."

Well...what is your alternative? To declare that we have now, at this time and place, all been granted access to the perfect, unchanging mind of God? Is there any religion on earth who make a claim to that? If not...you do have to be prepared for some change. Why is that so horrifying to you? I'd worry about that....

Now I ask the question, "What are some absolute truths that we can be sure will never change or later be shown to be false?"

I see no reason to believe a priesthood ban was anything but a policy. Neither did David O. McKay, apparently. You tell me what you think should be "absolute truth" that will "never change" aside from our fuzzy ideas about the existence of God, the atonement of his Son and a plan of salvation.

[cdowis]

>This raises such a good point. Are **revelations** absolute truths? I'm sure Bruce R. McKonckie **thought he was inspired** when he said, "Blacks will not hold the priesthood till the Millenium," [emphasis mine]

I do not know you, but I see you are following the old, tired antimormon techniques:

1. "Mormon Doctrine" is canonized scripture

2. Reading minds -- "McConkie thought"

3. Every word that comes out of an GA's mouth is official LDS doctrine, revelation.

In reality, McConkie made no reference to any revelation in this regard, and was just expressing his opinion. This will make the antis very very angry to hear that an apostle can give a personal opinion that is not canonized, but that is the way it is.

[juliann]

In reality, McConkie made no reference to any revelation in this regard, and was just expressing his opinion. This will make the antis very very angry to hear that an apostle can give a personal opinion that is not canonized, but that is the way it is.

It's not like fundamentalist churches aren't all around us....I just don't get why they don't go join one instead of trying to make us be one. It would sure save them a lot of time and angst.

[Madrid]

In reality, McConkie made no reference to any revelation in this regard, and was just expressing his opinion. This will make the antis very very angry to hear that an apostle can give a personal opinion that is not canonized, but that is the way it is.

In the latest Conference Report, which apostle was only expressing his opinion?

Please list them so I can know which talks to ignore.

[juliann]

In the latest Conference Report, which apostle was only expressing his opinion?

Please list them so I can know which talks to ignore.

The sad thing is....you probably do need other people to tell you what to think.

Commentaries are not a substitute for the scriptures any more than a good cookbook is a substitute for food.  (When I refer to "commentaries," I refer to everything that interprets scripture, from the comprehensive book-length commentary to the brief interpretation embodied in a lesson or an article, such as this one.). . . As a result, commentaries, if not used with great care, may illuminate the author's chosen and correct meaning but close our eyes and restrict our horizons to other possible meanings.  Sometimes those other, less obvious meanings can be the ones most valuable and useful to us as we seek to understand our own dispensation and to obtain answers to our own questions. . .

If we depend only upon our own reasoning or the scholarship or commentaries of others, we will never obtain the understanding that can come only be revelation.  Persons in that circumstance will be left forever with what Alma calls "the lesser portion of the word" (Alma 12:11)  ("Scripture Reading & Revelation, Dallin H. Oaks, Ensign, Jan. 1995 p 9.)

[Beowulf]

In the latest Conference Report, which apostle was only expressing his opinion?

Please list them so I can know which talks to ignore.

This is a really SAD viewpoint...

Is there anything spoken at the last conference that was not edifying? No. Is there anything that was not doctrine? Probably Yes.

So?

I think what you REALLY need to do is read all the talks, ponder them, think about how to apply what was said to your own life. And they pray about it.

In other words, to use a horrible modern business-speak term: Be PROACTIVE, not passive, in how you receive the word of God's messengers here on Earth.

Beowulf

[grego]

brant gardner wrote:

"That is the reason that I would ask you to explain the event in Alma 55:4-9. How dark are you thinking it is so that a Lamanite wouldn't notice several "white" Nephites accompanying the one "dark" Lamanite? Are you thinking that the others lurked back and weren't seen? Assuming that they were there to carry the wine offering, how did they give it to the Lamanites so that neither their "white" faces or "white" hands were noticeable?"

then, Lognormal wrote:

"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."

juliann wrote this in response to that:

"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?"

grego writes:

where's "from a distance"? let's say, the guards are on top the city wall, and see someone coming over the hill in the moonlight, and these people want to be seen. he says, hey i'm a lamanite--the native language being the important thing. when he gets there, and they interact, they see he IS a lamanite.

what about the others with laman, then? has no one seen "7 years in tibet"? coal, mud, berries, etc.? the others are "painted" and wrapped--the wrapped part being from "escaping the nephites". or better yet, they were rebel nephites (like amlicites, amalickiahites, etc.). do you see anywhere that Laman says, "WE are lamanites"? neither do i. the main thing is, they have wine!

edit: also, "black", as mentioned elsewhere, can also mean "dark". seen those in the americas, haven't we?

[grego]

brant gardner wrote:

"It also happens, in the Book of Mormon, that when Lamanite moves into the Nephite religio-political sphere, that the become "white" or "fair.""

like the a-n-l? like those that joined them? no mention of that. while it's not necessary, not having it puts a stunt in your line of arguing.

also, i don't see anywhere that the nephites who leave and join the lamanites change to dark-skinned, either. they are cursed in a different way. this also detracts from your line of arguing.

brant gardner wrote:

"There is no known biology that allows for a pigmentation change based on a political/religious change. There is, however, a large body of literature on insider/outsider terms that demonstrates that the "us=good/them=bad" dichotomy is nearly universal."

not needed for the Lord.

[Bernard Gui]

brant gardner wrote:

"That is the reason that I would ask you to explain the event in Alma 55:4-9. How dark are you thinking it is so that a Lamanite wouldn't notice several "white" Nephites accompanying the one "dark" Lamanite? Are you thinking that the others lurked back and weren't seen? Assuming that they were there to carry the wine offering, how did they give it to the Lamanites so that neither their "white" faces or "white" hands were noticeable?"

then, Lognormal wrote:

"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."

juliann wrote this in response to that:

"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?"

grego writes:

where's "from a distance"? let's say, the guards are on top the city wall, and see someone coming over the hill in the moonlight, and these people want to be seen. he says, hey i'm a lamanite--the native language being the important thing. when he gets there, and they interact, they see he IS a lamanite.

what about the others with laman, then? has no one seen "7 years in tibet"? coal, mud, berries, etc.? the others are "painted" and wrapped--the wrapped part being from "escaping the nephites". or better yet, they were rebel nephites (like amlicites, amalickiahites, etc.). do you see anywhere that Laman says, "WE are lamanites"? neither do i. the main thing is, they have wine!

edit: also, "black", as mentioned elsewhere, can also mean "dark". seen those in the americas, haven't we?

The point is this: If Joseph Smith invented the BoM out of his

early 19th century American imagination, he most likely would

have called the Lamanite skin color red, copper, tawny, ruddy,

the words universally used by writers of his time, not black which

was reserved for people of African origin.

Bernard