Book of Mormon DNA Apologetics

[Dale]

Personally after watching Tom Murphy in the Bible vs. the Book of Mormon film I grow to dislike his overbearing & rigid views on things. I take big issue with him allowing himself to be used by the counter-cult movement to hurt Mormons. I saw him enjoying being used to hurt Mormons & that made me think not very highly of him. I do not want to attack his character, or person I do not know him. I do know what he does is not good and that he should be ashamed of himself.

I would like to see Signature Book's do book's dialoguing with believing LDS scholars for a change. I think to much time is spent on warring against FARMS instead of producing book's that allow people to weigh both sides. I personally would like to see Tom Murphy be debated instead of just saying stuff unchallenged. I see that persons who disagree with him should be challenged also.

[Baeth_Ku]

I have been saying for years that our peculiar little inside group of counter-Mormon apologists would cease to be relevant as scholars entered Mormon studies.

Then I suppose the converse is true, and we can look forward with no small pleasure to the irrelevance of Mormon apologists. I doubt an advanced degree from Claremont or Harvard will be enough to save apologetics, if what you say is true. I also doubt the field of "Mormon Studies" will be so concerned about protecting the LDS faith. But, do enjoy whistling as you pass the graveyard.

[Addictio]

Returning to one of the topics on this thread, what happens if we assume (as Ostler does) that the indigenous Amerindians would have a darker skin color than the immigrant Israelites?

If so, then the timing and size of the Amerindian influx among Nephi's and Laman's people is highly significant, even crucial for the analysis of certain textual issues such as the Lamanite curse and skin color. If a proportionally large influx happened before Nephi etched his "small plates" record at II Ne. 5, then Ostler's naturalistic, "intermarriage" explanation of the "curse" passage and of darker skin color being a visible, distinguishing feature of Laman's group is completely untenable. (Absent the inferred context described in the footnote ** below.)

So, what about the timing and size of the influx? In their "Before DNA" article, referenced and discussed above, Sorenson and Roper correctly conclude that the Amerindian influx among the people of Nephi would have occurred before Nephi etched the II Ne. 5 record, because of the events reported in that Chapter. They imply that the influx would have been proportionally large, given how few Israelite males are reported in the prior narrative, but don't actually take a position on the size of the influx. Even if we take the position that the influx would have been, at a minimum, equal to the number of Israelite immigrants and their offspring at the time II Ne. 5 was inscribed, Ostler's explanation of the text remains untenable. It becomes even less plausible as we move to more reasonable inferred ratios, such as Brant Gardner's in his "Social History of the Nephites During Nephi's Reign."

If the timing of the Amerindian influx occurred when Sorenson and Roper correctly conclude it did, then fellow historicity advocates like Daniel Peterson (quoted in the Leavitt article, cited above) should abandon the inconsistent ancient scenario they continue to articulate, in which only the early Lamanites mixed and intermarried with the indigenous inhabitants.

I'll offer a few more comments later on the "metaphorical" interpretation of darker skin color among the Lamanites.

** Footnote: One might attempt to salvage the idea that during Nephi's and Jacob's lifetimes Laman's group could actually have been darker-skinned than Nephi's group by hypothesizing that the Amerindian group or groups joining with Nephi's people just happened to be lighter skinned than those joining with Laman's.

[gtaggart]

Hi Julie,

Please, drop the silliness. Numerous scholars reflect the discipline of attaining a higher degree. They have my admiration and respect. However, a degree doesn't guarantee that the recipient is an exceptional thinker, researcher, or writer. Andrew Hedges may be utterly brilliant on a variety of historical themes; but on the BoAbr in general and on early-19thC Abrahamic traditions specifically, he is utterly incompetent. Consider the following example.

Andrew uses multiple biblical commentaries from Joseph Smith's biblical milieu, including those by Adam Clarke, Thomas Scott, and Matthew Henry (Hedges relies exclusively on post-BoAbr [i.e., post-1842] printings of these commentaries; my research relies on printings in my personal library: Clarke [New York: 1826], Scott [boston: 1818], and Henry [Philadelphia: 1828]). Hedges claims,

• With the exception of Whiston, all the commentators examined here note Abraham's father's idolatry, apparently using Joshua 24:2 as their source. Watson alone referred to "Arabian and Jewish legends" that speak of Abraham's "early idolatry, his conversion from it, and of his zeal in breaking the images in his father's house" but quickly dismissed these sources as unreliable.

[A. Hedges, "A Wanderer in a Strange Land: Abraham in America, 1800

[Addictio]

Hi Brent, gtaggart and others interested in Book of Abraham issues (or perhaps in Juliann's assessment of Brent's opinions in general ;-)):

How about continuing the emerging BoA discussion in a new thread?

[juliann]

Then I suppose the converse is true, and we can look forward with no small pleasure to the irrelevance of Mormon apologists. I doubt an advanced degree from Claremont or Harvard will be enough to save apologetics, if what you say is true. I also doubt the field of "Mormon Studies" will be so concerned about protecting the LDS faith. But, do enjoy whistling as you pass the graveyard.

In the real world, people with "advanced degrees from Claremont and Harvard" are not considered apologists. You might want to do a little checking after you remove that foot from your mouth. It is impeding your whistling.

http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1825.asp

The Council for the Study of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Mormon Studies is working closely with the School of Religion to enlarge opportunities for pursuing Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University.  The Council seeks to foster interest in the academic study of the traditions descended from Joseph Smith among both insiders and outsiders in a context where many religious traditions are studied alongside of and in relation to one another. 

In partnership with the Council, the School of Religion seeks to establish permanent and vibrant relationships with the LDS community in our region.  The Council advises the School on the needs of the community, consults with the School on the development of courses and programs, and works with the School to sponsor lectures and conferences.  Ultimately, the Council aims to endow a chair in Mormon Studies in the School of Religion. 

The Council for the Study of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is comprised of LDS leaders, including academics, lay leaders and interested community members, as well as faculty from the School of Religion.  Formed in 2002 with only five members, the council has grown to include fifteen members who meet quarterly.

And before you insert your foot again...CGU is doing the same thing with five other religions/movements.

[E Allusion]

In the real world,

[Dale]

I have the DNA verses the Book of Mormon film, and Tom Murphy's essay. I see religious & intellectual apologetics on this issue. The new Bible verses The Book of Mormon film has a lot of apologetics statements by Tom Murphy. I found some of his statements misleading because he sounded like he had converted over to Evangelicalism. But Tom Murphy hardly believes in Bible reliability being an advocate for Evolution not creationism. But I saw him say stuff that appealed apologetically to his Evangelical groupies.

[Baeth_Ku]

juliann:

In the real world,  people with "advanced degrees from Claremont and Harvard" are not considered apologists.  You might want to do a little checking after you remove that foot from your mouth.  It is impeding your whistling. 

A scholar is an apologist when he or she acts as such. Surely that's reasoning you can understand. And, to be precise, my statement was that advanced degrees would not be enough to save apologetics if what _you_ wrote is true.

I was calling attention to the problem with your apparently long-standing position on the imminent end of what you call "counter-Mormon" apologetics. It is sterling clear to me, and probably most others on both sides of the fence, that the existence of an academic field aimed at the study of Mormonism will not erase the demand for ideologically motivated criticisms of the same.

I hope you are not asking me to believe that people like you will suddenly vacate fora like these simply because a few Mormon Studies chairs pop up here and there. How will you refrain from responding to the Christians and Atheists who challenge the truth or plausibility of your cherished faith?

No, your eagerness to respond to me without really bothering to read what I wrote is ample proof that you will continue rushing to the rescue of your religion (no matter how poor a job you do).

Where's that foot? Your mouth dear. Your foot, in your mouth.

[juliann]

I was calling attention to the problem with your apparently long-standing position on the imminent end of what you call "counter-Mormon" apologetics. It is sterling clear to me, and probably most others on both sides of the fence, that the existence of an academic field aimed at the study of Mormonism will not erase the demand for ideologically motivated criticisms of the same.

First, you are obviously out of touch with the world of scholarship. Even the most liberal of scholars will address the community of believers without ever having to wear the name "apologist" for the rest of their career. Second, you are purposely avoiding the issue. It is because scholars are entering the field that the counter-Mormon apologists will no longer be taken seriously by anyone but themselves. There is a new game in town and it does not look kindly on mindless polemic no matter how fancy it is dressed. There are options now. Does that mean mindless polemic will cease to exist? Of course not. I said it will become irrevelant.

[Baeth_Ku]

First, you are obviously out of touch with the world of scholarship.

So say you. You don't have much to back up the assertion, do you? You have no idea what my relationship with the world of scholarship is. Instead you take my disagreement with you as evidence that I am ignorant on the subject. You seem to like appealing to your own preconceived notions of things where you lack hard information. Certainly not very scholarly of you.

Even the most liberal of scholars will address the community of believers without ever having to wear the name "apologist" for the rest of their career.

Oh, and when did I say anything about anyone having to wear a label for the rest of one's career? I thought I made myself clear when I referred to the future of apologetics as such and not of the people who work in them. A person is an apologist when he or she is acting as such. This is what I said. You can go back and re-read it. I am sure someone who has credentials and acquits themselves adequately in publications and conferences will be taken seriously as a scholar, but this really says very little about how that activity will increase the shelf-life of apologetics as a practice in the scenario _you_ imagined.

There is a new game in town and it does not look kindly on mindless polemic no matter how fancy it is dressed.  There are options now.  Does that mean mindless polemic will cease to exist?  Of course not.  I said it will become irrevelant.   

There is a new game in town. Yes, there is. From there on out I see much impassioned prophetic announcement in your words and little in the way of verifiable facts. I will try to make some sense out of it, nonetheless. I would respond that yes, scholars are not likely to turn to anti-Mormon polemic first when they want to understand certain issues of Mormonism. They will probably also not turn to Mormon apologetics first either. Because much of the dialogue on Mormonism is taking place within this debate, however, they may have a problem avoiding both sides for long. And, there are those cases in which polemics and apologetics are germane to the issues being studied.

Your characterization of amateur criticisms of Mormonism (where they are conducted by those who do not hold degrees) as mindless polemic is really your value judgment and little else. Any scholar who wants to be conversant on the issues of modern Mormonism should familiarize him or herself with all the available literature. Those who are totally closed off to the work of amateurs are foolish snobs. Many of the greatest strides in some disciplines were initiated by the discoveries of amateurs.

No, polemics and apologetics will both stay alive. Each camp fulfills certain needs, and will continue to do so. Mormon Studies is a nascent discipline. Its future is uncertain. It is a welcome and much-needed addition to the dialogue, but its emergence is hardly the death knell for intelligent amateur work. If said work brings forth valuable insights that scholars find a need to engage, they will be engaged. Books will be sold and read, and everyone will go on their merry way.

Your snobbery reminds me of the apearance of Bernal's "Black Athena" which met with the most ill-advised, hasty, and unintelligent reception by certain scholars who should have known better. These scholars made some inflammatory and irrelevant responses to Bernal which were not infrequently founded on the notion that Bernal didn't have the right credentials to engage in the debate on Greek cultural origins. Now, from my reading of the issues, Bernal's work does suffer from a number of problems, but he has raised important issues which have not been adequately dealt with by scholars of the Classics. A few Classicists, while noting the limitations of Bernal's work, have also pointed out the faults of his critics and the genuine contributions he has made.

I understand why you may not like Brent Metcalfe, Dan Vogel, et. al. Your advice to them to go seek out advanced degrees in a pertinent field is good, especially when there are so many snobs out there who respond better to the letters PhD than reason. Oh, and there are other good reasons too. But to sit back and taunt them as though being an amateur equalled imminent and total irrelevance is premature and silly. Amateurs have made excellent contributions to the Academy in the past, and in much older and more respected fields than "Mormon Studies." So what do you really have to toot your horn about? Nothing.

[Samurai Jack]

[Addictio]

Note to Confidential Informant:

I didn't mean to ignore (completely blow off?) your comments based on the verse from D&C 10.

The quick response is that I read the verse as no different from a number of similar passages in the BoM in which the term "Lamanite" appears to function as a socio-political or a "belief" designation. When the same nomenclature appears again after the period of peace in which there were no "-ites," for example, the post-advent "Lamanites" clearly arise out of the type of "dissension" referenced in Section 10.

The more lengthy response is that the term "Lamanite," as a social/culural or "belief" designator still has to be interpreted according to some inferred ancient social/biological context. If someone assumes or infers that there were no ancient indigenous inhabitants in the Lehite land of promise for the Lehites to mix with and assimilate (which is the ancient s/b context inferred at both Stages One and Two), then everyone in the land who is referenced by any of Jacob's initial, ultra-durable "tribal" and "clan" designations is necessarily an Israelite by descent. As are all the other dissenting groups, such as the Amilicites of Alma 2 and 3. So the point isn't that in the Stage One or Two inferred ancient context the term "Lamanite" never refers to or functions as a socio-political or "belief" designation, it plainly sometimes does. Or even assume instead it always does. In those two inferred ancient social/biological contexts, everyone is still necessarily an Israelite by descent.

A broader response to the issue you raise involves my assessment that a principal focus of the ancient/modern authorship analysis and debate today is whether the Book as a whole (not just what Nephi said or didn't say, and why) reflects a Stage One or a Stage Four ancient social/biological context. (Yes, unlike JS and the early missionaries to the Lamanites, contemporary historicity advocates and critics alike know the Book can't have been written by ancient Nephite authors living in a Stage One ancient context.) Second, if that assessment is sound, the remaining, er, minor task is to identify the features of the Book that (assertedly) are relevant to that analysis and debate, and to explain why together they reflect and are most consistent with either one ancient context or the other. The more comprehensive piece I've mentioned is my effort to identify those relevant textual features and to explain how they reflect and are more consistent with the Stage One ancient s/b context than with the ("AMT") version of the inferred ancient context being articulated at Stage Four.

Finally, given Brant Gardner's rather remarkable performance on this thread, perhaps I should add that if I'm actually mistaken about the nature of the position he or (for example) Sorenson and Roper have adopted regarding that ancient context, then a "straw man" rejoinder would be perfectly appropriate.

[juliann]

So say you. You don't have much to back up the assertion, do you?

I have at least one university backing it up (which you are working overtime to avoid acknowledging). What do you have beyond a lot of empty speeches?

I understand why you may not like Brent Metcalfe, Dan Vogel, et. al.

You don't understand anything. You see message board interactions. I like Brent very much...I don't like his board personality anymore than he likes mine. I don't know Dan beyond one meeting but I am sure he would be as likable as Brent in real life.

If you have anything to add beyond your endless lectures...have at it.

[Addictio]

As I mentioned in my next-to-last post on this thread, it is also worth considering whether the referenced problems with Nephi's account disappear or are alleviated if we adopt a non-literal, or "metaphorical" interpretation the darker skin color attributed to Laman's group in the "curse" passage at II Ne. 5.

By way of reminder, what are the alleged problems I'm referring to?

Nephi reportedly composed the fuller account of the early Nephites on his

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

In his characterization of the nature of the curse, Nephi affirms: (1) the existence of a darker skin color exhibited by Laman

[dbschroeder]

i agree w cjcampell's post.

db9

[Baeth_Ku]

I have at least one university backing it up (which you are working overtime to avoid acknowledging).  What do you have beyond a lot of empty speeches?

Let's see, you claim that I am avoiding acknowledging that there is one university out there that contends I have no understanding of the Academy. Well, I won't hold my breath while you attempt to produce the documentation to back up that bizarre claim.

I bet you think most speeches which don't tickle your ears are empty. Funny thing is, my reference to the Bernal affair is accurate and based on publications in academic sources. Pretty sure that it is a little more substantial than all the wind you devote to the phantom menace you call "counter-Mormonism" with its legions of evil minions setting out to destroy your limited view of Mormonism.

You don't understand anything.  You see message board interactions.  I like Brent very much...I don't like his board personality anymore than he likes mine.  I don't know Dan beyond one meeting but I am sure he would be as likable as Brent in real life.

Well, its good to know that he doesn't take all of your bile about him and others as "counter-Mormons" too personally. And by the way, I think it should have been pretty clear that I was referring to your dealings on the board. Why you should expect me to speak to your larger personal relationships is as strange as your suggestion that you know of a particular university that has something to say about my lack of a relationship with the Academy.

If you are rather suggesting that you have a relationship with some university, and that the authority you derive from that relationship has given you the miraculous power to reach beyond the bounds of evidence to assess my academic life, you need help. I saw a t-shirt the other day that said "I had superpowers, but my therapist took them away." Just a word of warning to you should you look into that kind of help.

I simply hope you are more effective in your publications than in your online mental meanderings.

[Addictio]

Thanks for the comments, Brant.

Adapting Twain's playful comment about Wagner's music ("It's better than it sounds."), I'd say your arguments are less interesting than they sound.

I'm going to focus on your response to my first assertion about the Lamanite "curse" passage II Ne. 5: 19-25, which was:

In his characterization of the nature of the curse, Nephi affirms: (1) the existence of a darker skin color exhibited by Laman

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

Apart from the specifics, I thought your approach was interesting:

1) Begin with an insult. That makes it appear that you are in the dominant position without even arguing a position. I notice that is a typical opening gambit in your posts.

2) Discuss my argument only by saying that other people don't agree with me. Deflecting the argument rather than engaging it is an interesting tactic.

Now, to some specifics:

, as you can see by reading my quote above, I'm claiming that Nephi is affirming the existence of a visible skin-color difference between his group and Laman's.

Yes. I am claimin you are wrong. So there you have it. We disagree, which is no surprise. The issue is what the data say and how it should be analyzed. Repeating your position does nothing to convince me.

Leave aside for now the related but distinct issue of how and why group skin-color changes, or doesn't, and changes back again, or doesn't.

Which, of course, I don't think happens in the text. Righteousness changes, but not pigmentation.

If you are claiming that (contrary to what I asserted above) there is "zero textual support" for the existence of a visible skin-color difference between the two groups, in the original curse passage (and, for example, in subsequent statements in Alma 3 and Jacob 3) you're taking a rather extreme interpretive position.

It isn't extreme. It is what has to be done with texts. How do we know how terms are used in the text? We have to examine the text for evidence. We know that there is precedence for using appearance and color as determinative of the "invisible" self. That comes from the world of the Bible. We know that all of the cases that speak of colored skin do so in the context of righteousness and unrighteousness.

How do you know whether or not it is literal?

Here are some clues.

1) It is the wrong color. Nobody was black. Black cannot mean a skin color because it isn't descriptive or explanatory of anyone's skin color.

2) The terms always appear in contexts where black and white are used in the standard binary opposition of bad and good.

3) In phrases where substitutions are made, but the rest of the phrases are parallel, the meanings are clearly metaphorical.

4) In places in the text where the actions of the participants ought to have been altered by visible pigmentation, they are not. The incidences indicate that there was no visible difference - hence there is zero evidence for a pigmentation change.

Against that data we have your assertion that it "must" mean skin color - because you (and others) have said so.

I will stick with the evidence over opinion.

Historicity advocates who are being more careful (less sweeping) conclude

Ah yes, the "better than you have decided" dismissal. I completely agree that there are others who have accepted a pigmentation difference. I have data that I don't believe they have considered. Check again in 10 years or so and see what might change. Data has a tendency to be convincing over opinion.

In the meantime, if you want to suggest that your argument is best used against someone else, you are free to do so. If you aren't interested in discussing the data, I can save myself some time.

What do you offer against my initial assertion that Nephi affirms the existence of a darker skin color among the Lamanites? Your own idiosyncratic interpretation whose appeal, allegedly, is that it does not impose a "modern" interpretation on the text.

Idiosyncratic does not mean incorrect. My argument is based on anthropology, ethnohistory, known cultural background of the Old World, examples from the Bible, and a careful examination of all phrases and contexts relevant in the Book of Mormon.

As I keep saying - data.

None of the historicity advocates I mentioned concludes that there was no real, visible difference in skin color being referenced in the text.

There is the dismissal again. I can't be right because others don't agree with me. Nice try. It doesn't deal with data. I can't be right if they are, but if I am right, the fact that they disagree with me is rather irrelevant.

How do you reach this sweeping, idiosyncratic conclusion?

It would have been nice had this been a serious question. Instead, you make up your own answer, as follows:

By mistakenly claiming that those who believe the text is referencing such a difference are in fact asserting that the text means the Lamanites had a "black skin."

An interesting misunderstanding. However, I would like to ask you a question. Why is "skin" literal and "black" figurative? Why is it a fact that it means a pigmentation change, but also a fact that it doesn't mean the pigmentation change it says?

Why are you treating this statement in two different ways? I understand that doing so fits your preconception and preference, but on what logic do you base that conclusion?

When you say "we take it literally" you are implying someone besides yourself is claiming that the Book of Mormon text asserts that the Lamanites had "black skin." Actually, no one else is.

Good. Now we are getting somewhere. You have just stated that this phrase cannot be taken literally. Since you have just said that your evidence cannot be taken at face value, you must now find a way to support reading some of it literally and some of it figuratively.

Please tell me how you decide which part is literal and which isn't. How can you know whether the word "skin" or "black" is the more important part of the sentence?

Problem is, no one who does take the referenced (by e.g., Nephi, Alma/Mormon and Jacob) difference in skin color literally, as marking a real, visible distinction, is (or needs to be) committed to the view that the text is asserting that Lamanites had black-colored skin.

And you don't see that as a problem? I think it is a major issue. You are admitting that this entire argument is built on something that no one who uses the argument can take completely literally.

If you know the data are compromised, how do you resolve it?

How can you base such a strong argument on evidence that you know cannot be trusted to be literal?

[The_Monk]

In support of Brant, the phrase "skin of blackness" is the wrong syntax for it to be literal. "Blackness" is an abstract noun, and where "blackness" appears in the OT, it simply means darkness, gloom. Were it literal, we'd expect "black skin." There's more to this, but I can't find my typed up version, and I don't have the references handy.

[Brant Gardner]

dillfest:

If ever you find the typed up version, would you please email it to me? I'd love to see it.

[JAHS]

Again, I'm really not arguing against the presence of others, whoever they might be. I just find it interesting that no one ever thought to look for others until science, and the aforementioned textual problems, demanded it.

There are a few comments from quite a long time ago, before the current scientific opinions, warning us to not assume that there were none others here besides the Nephites:

For example, back in 1929 Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency told Latter-day Saints:

"We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent." (Ivins, 1929, p. 15) Ivins, Anthony W., LDS Conference Report, April 1929, p. 15.

Two years earlier, LDS scholar Janne Sjodahl wrote that

[juliann]

From BH Roberts:

[Addictio]

Brant and dillfest:

I took the time to point out that Brant's repeated refrain about how my "analysis," (unlike his own) is a "modern reading" because all entertaining things, even empty bombast, must, or at least should, finally come to an end. Brant said in part:

If you begin by reading it (Brant means the supposed references to a difference in skin color) metaphorically, your entire analysis is incorrect and a modern reading backwards on ancient content.

As I've pointed out twice before, since it is the antecedent that is at issue, affirming the consequent, particularly in the form of this sort of vacuous bombast, isn't helpful. At the end of his prior post, Brant returned to the same rhetorical theme:

Actually, your analysis is only consistent with a modern context and backwards imposition on the text.

Over on the BoM Historicity thread, Brant indulges himself with the same rhetorical move. After complaining that those whose views regarding a hemispheric scope for the BoM "insist on reading the Book of Mormon in ways no ancient text would be read," he quotes and responds to Uncle Dale as follows:

Uncle Dale:

What sort of a God are we talking about here -- who would go so far as to remove the curse of blackness from the skins of the Lamanites?

Brant:

Another example of the same issue. No matter how much we explain that the text (1) does not support a change in pigmentation and (2) that this is a metaphorical description of righteous/non-righteousness, we get the complaint that God is wrong because God doesn't/shouldn't behave in the way the text has been misread.

The bold type and interior numbering are mine. I took the time to point out on this thread that one contemporary historicity advocate (Tvedntes) clearly rejects (1) and three others, along with T, also reject (2) not because that means Brant's reading is therefore (ipso facto) incorrect, but because -- unless Brant is simply referring to the mouse in his pocket, or adopting the royal "we" -- he would do well to drop the rhetorical pretense. On the metaphorical/literal skin color issue, it is not a choice between those who impose a "modern interpretation" on an ancient text, and those who, unlike himself, do not; nor should Brant's rhetorical bootstrapping with the "we explain" obscure the disagreement with his position (assertion no. 2) by other historicity advocates.

So when Brant says:

There is the dismissal again. I can't be right because others don't agree with me. Nice try. It doesn't deal with data. I can't be right if they are, but if I am right, the fact that they disagree with me is rather irrelevant.

he's partly correct. His interpretive position isn't wrong on the merits simply (solely) because he doesn't agree with other historicity advocates. As noted above, pointing out the conflict does help to identify and sort between the rhetorical bombast and the substantive merits in Brant's posts. It also explains why his position on the merits of this issue is less interesting to me than it would be if it weren't so idiosyncratic. (Hence my opening "insult" that his arguments are less interesting than they sound.)

Moving on, for anyone who cares to read what has been going on between Brant and me on this thread, I've tried without success to get him to focus on and address the (asserted by me) problematic relationship between his "wholly metaphorical" reading of the differential skin-color passages and the inferred ancient context in which he claims Nephi and Jacob lived and wrote. (I hesitate to use the "Stage Four" shorthand for that particular inferred ancient context, because Brant purports to find it confusing, after years of articulating and defending it here and on ZLMB. See above on this thread.) Most recently, I asked him two questions relevant to that problematic relationship, which his latest response again ignores.

So what of Brant's latest questions to me? I'm referring to these:

However, I would like to ask you a question. Why is "skin" literal and "black" figurative? Why is it a fact that it means a pigmentation change, but also a fact that it doesn't mean the pigmentation change it says?

Why are you treating this statement in two different ways? I understand that doing so fits your preconception and preference, but on what logic do you base that conclusion?

The "statement" (or the "phrase" as he refers to it earlier) Brant is referencing here is the initial report at II Ne. 5: 21 that the "people who were now called the Lamanites" (per verse 14) had a "skin of blackness" come upon them. For ease of reference, verses 21 through 23 read:

21. And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

22. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

23. And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

Can you really not even frame a question in a nontendentious (fair) way, Brant? The choice is not between "skin" literal and "black" figurative. The word "black" doesn't appear here. The phrase is a "skin of blackness." As I explained, the "of blackness" is interpreted by me (and the historicity advocates I mentioned) as equivalent to "skin of darkness" or, in accordance with Alma and Jacob, simply as "dark skin." It doesn't refer to the actual, literal color (crayola crayons again?) of the skin pigment (any more than Cowdery's "Red Man" did).

Should we add dillfest to the list of historicity advocates who understand this, even if you do not? (What, dillfest is apparently clueless about how this cuts? Well, Brant, you need someone to keep you company.) Dillfest observed, complete with the ironic opening four words:

In support of Brant, the phrase "skin of blackness" is the wrong syntax for it to be literal. "Blackness" is an abstract noun, and where "blackness" appears in the OT, it simply means darkness, gloom. Were it literal, we'd expect "black skin." There's more to this, but I can't find my typed up version, and I don't have the references handy.

(Dark emphasis added.) Couldn't have said it better myself. Let's see, as between "skin of darkness" and "skin of gloom," hmm, let's choose the former, shall we? See above. Yes, and if "skin of blackness" really were intended literally, as a description of the color of the Lamanites' skin, how is it we would expect the text to read? Yep, it's those absent two words: "black skin."

After a while, pathos begins to set in. Floundering, completely unmoored from the text, Brant still manages to ask:

Please tell me how you decide which part is literal and which isn't. How can you know whether the word "skin" or "black" is the more important part of the sentence?

Which sentence is that, again? The one you're imagining? The one that says "The Lamanites had black skin"? For starters, Brant, I suggest reading dillfest's post again, omitting the first four words.

What remains to be addressed, amid the rhetorical flotsam? Why, the very heart of Brant's post on the merits(!), which I've ignored. Here it is:

How do you know whether or not it is literal?

Here are some clues.

1) It is the wrong color. Nobody was black. Black cannot mean a skin color because it isn't descriptive or explanatory of anyone's skin color.

See above. Good grief. Straw man. Crayola crayons, again.

2) The terms always appear in contexts where black and white are used in the standard binary opposition of bad and good.

3) In phrases where substitutions are made, but the rest of the phrases are parallel, the meanings are clearly metaphorical.

4) In places in the text where the actions of the participants ought to have been altered by visible pigmentation, they are not. The incidences indicate that there was no visible difference - hence there is zero evidence for a pigmentation change.

Against that data we have your assertion that it "must" mean skin color - because you (and others) have said so.

I will stick with the evidence over opinion.

Paragraphs 2 through 4 are suggestive headings for an article Brant may someday write. Before any such FARMS-published article would see the light of day, however, Brant would have to do more than contend that those who disagree with him are mistakenly adopting "modern interpretations" of the text. In the meantime (pathos, again), I can only suggest that he brush up on the difference between assimilating raw "data" and adopting an interpretive position. The difference is fundamental. As is the difference between his three conclusory opinions and "evidence."