Book of Mormon DNA Apologetics

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

We end another fascinating exchange. It appears that we won't ever be able to converse.

In all of that, what response did you have to any part of the argument I made?

1) Other LDS don't believe that

2) I didn't accurately interpret your position.

Both of those are avoidance. They do not engage.

Since you have emphasized that you do not believe that a skin of blackness means "black" you agree that this is a metaphorical phrase.

Now we are back to the main issue. You are intent on reading a particular word inside a metaphoricasl phrase as literal, when you admit that the intent is metaphorical.

You managed to ignore that question as well.

You have also managed to ignore the suggestion that there are events in the text where skin coloration should have made a difference, and does not. Since you haven't even asked for the citation, I assume you prefer to continue your argument that your position is correct because other people have held it as well. That is an interesting substitute for analysis and might work if it were not for the pesky fact that data get in the way.

[juliann]

What remains to be addressed, amid the rhetorical flotsam?

Just about everything. At some point, counter-Mormons are going to have to wake up and smell the coffee....you can't just pick everybody else's position apart unless your goal is to star in fundie videos. You really are expected to add something to the dialogue.

[Addictio]

Brant said :

We end another fascinating exchange. It appears that we won't ever be able to converse.

Ah Brant, it sometimes seems we are doomed to disappoint each other. I've repeatedly explained the source of my own disappointment with your participation on this thread, from the beginning, and won't repeat it again.

In all of that, what response did you have to any part of the argument I made?

1) Other LDS don't believe that

2) I didn't accurately interpret your position.

Both of those are avoidance. They do not engage.

As I've said, your argument that all references to differential skin color are purely metaphorical, by itself, isn't very interesting to me. It is both outdated and pre-critical. Honestly, Brant, I can't tell if you really "don't get it" or are simply being willful.

When I speak in shorthand, by referring to (and in T's case, quoting from) the Tvedntes article, the Ostler article and the Bushman article, I expect you to pick up on what they're saying, and why. It's not my job to go back and spoon feed the obvious to you. Take Ostler's article. He's trying to make sense of verse 23, which he (reasonably) interprets as referring to a visible and biologically-transmitted difference in skin color. Remember how the text reads?

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.

In his "naturalistic," biological interpretation, Ostler is relying on verse 23. He thinks there was actually some visible difference in skin color which drives/explains the textual report. My letter addresses certain problems with that interpretation, given the inferred (Stage Four) social/biological context.

Your "wholly metaphorical" interpretation isn't even worth addressing until you step up (as Ostler did) and take a position on what the inferred social/biological context was. The only interesting question is how your argument fares in the ancient context in which lighter-skinned Israelites encounter and merge with darker-skinned Amerindians. What I was looking for from you was some (even dim) recognition or appreciation of the obvious: that the weight (and even the relevance) of arguments such as yours are affected by the ancient context that is being inferred or assumed. Though perhaps a bit more reluctantly that Exegete, given your performance on this thread I have to default to his above advice to you.

That's why stuff like this:

Since you have emphasized that you do not believe that a skin of blackness means "black" you agree that this is a metaphorical phrase.

Now we are back to the main issue. You are intent on reading a particular word inside a metaphorical phrase as literal, when you admit that the intent is metaphorical.

is a confused and uninteresting sideshow. You write as if you have no idea of what the "main issue" actually is, and then, worse, expect me to explain elementary rules of informal logic like "equivocation" to you?

Simply put: "skin" means epidermis, skin. Hold that thought. It has the same meaning in Nephi, Jacob and Alma. Tvedntes, Bushman and Ostler understand this. They also understand that "of blackness" refers to a real distinction in skin color, just as "dark skin" does.

Over on sidewinder's thread regarding BoM and Biblical interpretations, Mighty Curelom suggested that (assuming ancient authorship) the differential "curse" and resulting skin color references could be interpreted as a mythic, etiological explanation. You're a step back from there. You haven't even acknowledged that there would be any real, biological, empirical reality Nephi and Jacob and Alma would be trying to explain.

Until you take a position on what you think the ancient biological context actually was, your "wholly metaphorcal" interpretation of the skin-color differences referenced in the text doesn't even rise to the level of being interesting.

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

Simply put: "skin" means epidermis, skin.

Well there it is. How could I have missed that fact?

It is abundantly clear that you have no intention of discussing this issue on the basis of evidence. I have no desire to discuss it on the basis of rhetoric.

You haven't even acknowledged that there would be any real, biological, empirical reality Nephi and Jacob and Alma would be trying to explain

Not only have I not acknowledged it, I don't believe it played any role in the development of either the metaphors of the social interactions in the text. I base that conclusion on the examination of the usage of the passages, the easy way that the black/white dichotomy is reversed upon a shift in righteousness and the fact that the text never makes distinctions on skin color with the story would suggest that they ought to be there.

In other words, I base my interpretation on the evidence of the text.

As for a real difference in skin color, it would be surprising to me if the Lehites would care. I would expect that if they were at all familiar with the world that they had seen pigmentation shades from Africa black to olive. I doubt that they would have paid any particular attention to it since their Old World context would have desensitized them to pigmentation differences.

Are you suggesting that they would not have understood different skin colors and therefore had to invent a "just so" explanation for something they had never seen before?

[juliann]

Simply put: "skin" means epidermis, skin. Hold that thought. It has the same meaning in Nephi, Jacob and Alma. Tvedntes, Bushman and Ostler understand this. They also understand that "of blackness" refers to a real distinction in skin color, just as "dark skin" does.

When you convince the entire body of bible scholars that "skin" always means epidermis when used in an identical manner to the BOM...get back to us. And no one has ever denied that the native inhabitants skin could have very well been darker...just as biblical references to darker skinned people was referring to pigment.

This is so lame, Addictio.

[Jan]

2 Ne. 30: 6

And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.

Did literal scales really fall from their literal eyes?

Were the scales really dark[er?] in color that those of their counterparts?

[Serious]

2 Ne. 30: 6

And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.

Did literal scales really fall from their literal eyes?

Were the scales really dark[er?] in color that those of their counterparts?

The only eye witnesses were these who wrote the records.

[Pahoran]

2 Ne. 30: 6

And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.

Did literal scales really fall from their literal eyes?

Were the scales really dark[er?] in color that those of their counterparts?

The only eye witnesses were these who wrote the records.

Yes, but how could they see through the scales?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Addictio]

Jan provided this quote:

2 Ne. 30: 6

And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.

And then asked:

Did literal scales really fall from their literal eyes?

Were the scales really dark[er?] in color that those of their counterparts?

Hmm, do you think the term "scales" refers to some kind of afflicting physical condition? Or, given your second question, something whose color or density a person could inspect and compare, after it fell away? Would a hypothetical magnifying glass or microscope help?

I don't think so, don't know anyone who does, and can't imagine why anyone would.

Brant:

I'll respond to your comments later, as time permits.

[Jan]

Well said Addictio.

With that example, I guess it would be reasonable then to say that three elements were allegorical and not literal: the scales were not really "scales", the darkness was not a color or pigment, and the organs of the eyes were not physically changed by scales (that were dark in color or otherwise).

So, I guess, it's also possible that in the examples of skin and darkness/blackness that is being discussed, it's also possible that the physical organ of the skin did not literally change to a darkened or black color/pigment. It's entirely possible and reasonable that both skin and darkness/black are allegorical. [Even if one disagrees with that conclusion, certainly reasonable people would agree that it is a rational possibility?]

[why me]

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

[Addictio]

Note to whyme, JAHS and other readers of this thread regarding the Ivins and Sjodahl comments about the exiistence of ancient indigenous inhabitants in the Americas:

Thanks for sharing and commenting on the quotes from Ivins and Sjodahl. Those and numerous similar quotes, I should mention, are collected by Matthew Roper in his "Nephi's Neighbors" article in the 2003 FARMS Review. While I think Roper ignores certain hard questions, such as the place of the D&C revelations regarding the Lamanites in the development he's tracing, and (IMO) ignores or downplays the significance of the transition I mention below, it is a good and very useful article, which I commend to you.

Note that up to page 112, with one exception (the unpublished paper and author Roper doesn't identify by name, at footnote 18) he is simply chronicling the demise of what I've referred to above in the above-posted Sunstone letter as the Stage One inferred ancient context, in which the BoM immigrant peoples were understood as arriving in and living in an otherwise uninhabited hemisphere. The movement to the Stage Two inferred ancient context, in which the BoM peoples did or may have mixed with pre-existing indigenous inhabitants -- after the time period covered by the text, which is why such "others" are not understood as being mentioned in the text -- is reflected in numerous quotes from published works, from pages 100 to 112 of Roper's article. The quote from Widtsoe at page 106 is typical: "There may also have been others not recorded in the Book or not known to the ancient authors." See also, for example, along with others, the quote at the top of page 108 and the same-page quote from Ivins in 1950: "There may have been others whom the Nephites never discovered living then on this great land." See also the quote from the 1975 Ensign article, cited at page 110: The Lamanites would have mixed with these indigenous others "since the time when Moroni bid them farewell in A.D. 421." In short, up to and including Nibley (see quote at page p. 111 re the Book of Mormon presenting "no objections" to the existence of "others" who "may have occupied the hemisphere without its knowledge....") the ancient context being inferred by these writers in books and articles is exclusively Stage Two.

Next, in a compressed way, beginning at footnote 48 at page 112, Roper notes the 1985 emergence, in published form, of what I have called the Stage Three and Stage Four inferred ancient contexts, in which the Lehites are understood to have encountered and assimilated indigenous others during the time period of the BoM narrative. In the Stage Four inferred context, you may recall, this happens among the Nephites prior to the composition of II Ne. 5.

Roper's final paragraph in this section of his paper begins with this sentence:

The idea that people other than the Book of Mormon colonists also inhabited the pre-Columbian Americas is not a new or revisionist concept.

In assessing that assertion and the remainder of the summary paragraph, bear in mind that what he's referring to is the early origin of the Stage Two inferred ancient context adopted by various LDS writers. He's made a good case for that early origin. As I mentioned in the Sunstone letter, however, the Stage Three and Four inferred ancient contexts (in which the Lehites encounter and mix with indigenous others during the time of the BoM narrative) don't begin to appear in published form until about 1985, with Sorenson's book.

Why does this more precise analysis of the development Roper is tracing matter? First, we should try to be clear about the exact nature of the development as a matter of social or intellectual history. Second, and much more importantly, inferring/adopting the Stage Four ancient context (instead of the Stage Two context) has a broad and significant (in my view, a profound) impact upon the interpretive issues raised by the BoM text in the context of discussions and claims about its ancient or modern authorship.

Earlier in this thread I was, uhm, scolding Brant for quibbling about my brief summary in the letter of the first set of issues (re social/intellectual history; btw, readers can judge for themselves whether, in light of Roper's article, Brant was indeed merely quibbling) while failing to address the considerably more important second set of issues I was addressing in the critique of Ostler's article.

Since re-surfacing on the issue of his "wholly metaphorical" interpretion of skin-color differences in the text, Brant has er, continued to deeply aggrieve and (o sob, weep) profoundly disappoint me with his continuing failure to acknowledge or address his own position on the inferred ancient context. The baby step forward reflected in his last post I'll address in a future set of comments here, in which I'll also try to tie up some loose ends and conclude my participation on this thread.

Jan: Thanks very much for your focused, useful comments. I'll also try to respond to them in the near future.

[Addictio]

Hi Jan:

You said with respect to the passage in II Ne. referencing scales of darkness:

2 Ne. 30: 6

And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.

first, the following:

With that example, I guess it would be reasonable then to say that three elements were allegorical and not literal: the scales were not really "scales", the darkness was not a color or pigment, and the organs of the eyes were not physically changed by scales (that were dark in color or otherwise).

Yes, I agree, though I'd prefer to use the term "metaphorical" or "figurative" rather than "allegorical." Having reviewed this passage in context, though, I still don't see any basis for arguing or concluding that any of the three terms you mention are literal, rather than metaphorical. Nephi is prophesying to his contemporaneous "beloved brethren" about what will happen when the Nephite record is eventaullly delivered to "the remnant of our seed." (Verses 3-5.) Through the record, the future remnant will know "concerning us," and will be thus be "restored unto the knowledge of their fathers, and also to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, which was had among their fathers." Hence the "it" that is "a blessing unto them" referenced above in verse six is that lost knowledge. Mormon prays for the same thing, that the small plates will restore his future brethren to "the knowledge of God, yea, the redemption of Christ, that they may once again be a delightsome people." (Words of Mormon 1:8.) Restoring lost knowledge thus overcomes mental/spiritual darkness, a form not of physical blindness in the eye, but of the spiritual or mental blindness associated with being in the darkness of ignorance or disbelief. (Note as well all the similar references to forms of "blindness of mind" in the "small plates" account.) Given that content and context, all of which support a figurative reading of "scales," eyes" and "darkness," I don't think the passage provides or suggests any basis at all for a literal interpretation of those terms. So why is it analogous, what am I missing?

You go on to say:

So, I guess, it's also possible that in the examples of skin and darkness/blackness that is being discussed, it's also possible that the physical organ of the skin did not literally change to a darkened or black color/pigment. It's entirely possible and reasonable that both skin and darkness/black are allegorical. [Even if one disagrees with that conclusion, certainly reasonable people would agree that it is a rational possibility?]

For the reasons I've tried to explain, I don't see the merits and outcome of the literal/metaphorical interpretive choice presented by this "scales" passage as affecting or weighing for or against the outcome of the same literal/metaphorical choice regarding the skin color passages. I don't see any plausible "literal" interpretation of the key terms in the above passage; everything instead supports a metaphorical reading.

More generally, I don't think it makes sense to determine if given passages (or specific words in them) were intended or used by the author(s) as literal or metaphorical without considering and determining (sometimes even by consensus) what the inferred empirical reality of the author actually was. This can by itself sometimes determine the interpretive outcome, as I think it does in your example. Specifically, the consensus empirical reality/context for Nephi surely would not include situations in which physically blind groups of people would have false religious beliefs, or, upon having their sight restored through the receipt of information (!), change their religious beliefs or practices from incorrect to correct, from Nephite-proscribed to Nephite-accepted. In such an inferred empirical context, how could Nephi's language regarding scales and eyes in verse six ever plausibly be deemed or characterized as literal?

Finally, (all) that said, Jan, I would agree that it is certainly not irrational or even patently unreasonable for a person who accepts ancient BoM authorship to argue that, contra folks like Ostler, Tvedntes and Bushman, a wholly metaphorical interpretation of the skin color passages has as much or perhaps even more merit than a literal one. (Hence my suggestion to Brant that if he wrote an article, his views on the "wholly metaphorical" interpretation of differential skin color could be fully articulated and assessed.)

As I've said above in this thread, though, I believe that the skin-color passages, and many other features of the text, are ultimately best interpreted and explained in terms of the original ancient context believed/adopted by JS and his contemporaries (Stage One), rather than within the (Stage Four) ancient social/biological context now inferred and urged by (certain) ancient authorship advocates. Since the Stage One ancient context (Whiting's BoM "global colonization model") has concededly been falsified, however, even before the confirming DNA evidence was considered, interpretations which use that context to explain the existence or meaning of any features or passages of the text are likely inimical to the ancient authorship position. So while I don't expect or desire agreement with historicity advocates, I do believe we have a common interest in achieving clarity on what the fundamental population-related issues that bear on BoM historicity now are, and what can be said substantively (and perhaps intelligently) about them.

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

So why is it analogous, what am I missing?

That may sum up the conversation more easily than most statements. When an agenda drives analysis you can only see what fits the agenda. I can tell from Jan's comments that she finds the analogy as obvious as Addiction finds it obtuse.

So, for a short list of what Addictio is either missing or neglecting to clarify:

1. Is he talking about the history of ideas, or what the Book of Mormon says? Those are very different topics, but he seems to confuse them frequently.

2. If there is disagreement over meaning, how do we discern the textual meaning? On this topic I have suggested several steps that one might use. Addictio has only two that I have found; discuss what is said about the text (the problem in number one) or to simply assert that he must be correct because he can't see any other option. While the second is a very human tendency, it is unimpressive in academic circles.

[emaughan]

It's been awhile since I have visited the boards. I was shocked to see the DNA issue is still being kicked around, and I doubt any of the critics have yet answered my questions:

What mtDNA did Lehi's group carry over with them?

How do we know which markers to be looking for in their decendants?

Why are most male Jews living in Israel not really Jews according to Y chromosomal analysis and how does this apply to the debate?

Why do critics ignore the text of the BoM that supports the LGM? Why do they insist on sticking to the HGM when it is in NO WAY doctrine of the church?

How would using the LGM affect the whole argument?

Do genetic bottlenecks occure in populations that can cause the extintion of certain markers?

What were all the known haplogroups in the area of Isreal 2600 years ago?

Was this area of the world a crossroads for the ancient world or a genetic island of isolation?

It would be nice if the critics and the doubters would spend a little more time learning about both the science and the BoM.

[why me]

Note to whyme, JAHS and other readers of this thread regarding the Ivins and Sjodahl comments about the exiistence of ancient indigenous inhabitants in the Americas:

Thanks for sharing and commenting on the quotes from Ivins and Sjodahl. Those and numerous similar quotes, I should mention, are collected by Matthew Roper in his "Nephi's Neighbors" article in the 2003 FARMS Review. While I think Roper ignores certain hard questions, such as the place of the D&C revelations regarding the Lamanites in the development he's tracing, and (IMO) ignores or downplays the significance of the transition I mention below, it is a good and very useful article, which I commend to you.[/quote

Thank you for the post.

I have the impression that knowledge is forever evolving in forward directions. But this does not imply that knowledge is always heading in a progressive fashion. But I think that knowledge about the bofm peoples will be evolving in forward movements as scientists and scholars continue their investigations.

What was held to be immutable truths a decade ago will be challenged and replaced with new truths and understandings. This will also be true with the bofm.

The question is: will scholarship and science disprove the book itself? It would be interesting to have a rip van wrinkle experience and wake up two hundred (not one hundred) years from now. Will the church still be around? Will the bofm have been proven to be a falsehood? If the church is still around and the bofm has not be proven to be a falsehood two hundred years from now, then I think that all critics will need to take a rest and leave the book stand as is and allow individuals to decide what to make of it all.

All critiques will eventually become old as a top hat, if the church is still around in two hundred years.

I just edited this post to comply with what the moderator said about not pasting the entire quotation but only that which is relevant to the post.

[Addictio]

Jan and Brant:

On the significance of the ""scales" passage, I'll briefly respond to Brant's comments, though I'd be interested in Jan's response.

If you have an argument, Brant, that the terms Jan noted in the passage can plausibly be interpreted literally, as opposed to my own or some other metaphorical interpretation, I'm all ears. Alternatively, if we agree there is no plausible literal interpretation for "scales," "eyes" or "darkness" then what follows? Does this somehow support a conclusion or inference that (some or all) of the skin color passages likewise cannot plausibly be interpreted literally? Why so? If that's not the point, then what relevance does the passage have to the analysis or outcome of the metaphorical/literal interpretive issue presented by the skin color passages?

Brant:

Your ongoing effort to attribute to me your own professed confusion about the difference between (1) an ancient social and biological context in which an ancient author actually lived, and (2) whether and when modern interpreters of the text have (or haven't) assumed or inferred such an ancient context, is by now past the comical. Happily, your professed confusion doesn't affect the obvious logical constraints a particular ancient authorial context may impose upon an identifiable set of interpretive issues. The impact of Nephi's inferred empirical context, as noted in my last post, was outcome determinative on the relevant metaphorical vs. literal interpretive issue, for the same fundamental reason; once established by argument or by consensus, an author's empirical circumstances may constrain and even foreclose certain interpretive options. Yes, Brant, such context-based analysis is one way through which interpretive disputes may be argued and resolved. It's the one I've tried without success to get you to focus on and address, first generally, early in the thread, and now, in the context of your metaphorical skin color position. Ah well, time poorly spent.

Are there also content-based textual reasons and inferences supporting an interpretive position, or outcome? Hmm, how about for "resolving disputes about meaning?" Would it help somehow if I affirmed the obvious? In the case of the "scales" and "eyes" verse, I noted several of them, before turning to the "empirical context" analysis. You summarized/characterized the types of textual content you believe support your metaphorical reading of skin color. Back to dutifully confirming the obvious, that sort of analysis and argument is indeed accepted and commonplace when someone is addressing interpretive issues and disputes. Yes and if the merits of the interpretive position you summarized were sufficiently interesting to me to warrant the effort, I could have, as you said, asked you for supporting cites and detail and then "engaged the merits." Having petulantly declined to do so, I guess I'll just have to live with the (resulting) disgrace befitting a person who relies only on what others have said about a text, and always insists he is correct on the merits because, well, gosh darnit, that's just the way I see it!

Ah, but what a co-dependent, pouty pair we make, Brant; "Focus on my argument!" "No, my argument! "No..."" Take a moment, if you like, to savor the humor.

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

Yes, Brant, such context-based analysis is one way through which interpretive disputes may be argued and resolved. It's the one I've tried without success to get you to focus on and address.

Nice to see that we agree on a basic principle. Now, if you would please do some of that analysis. Most recently you have claimed that "skin" must be interpreted literally. I am waiting for the contextual analysis that demonstrates that.

While I agree that I haven't given the specific cases here, I have noted that there are several reasons why one cannot automatically assume a literal meaning and that when the text is checked, the definition must be metaphorical.

I notice that you haven't challenged me on any of the evidence. You haven't even asked for it. You haven't presented any evidence for your position, even though you have been asked for it.

You do admit that you can only see one solution, which doesn't tell us why your opinion is correct. What you find obvious in the scales verse that Jan indicated you find inobvious in "skin," but cannot tell us why.

What you have presented is your opinion backed by rhetoric, denigration and polite insult. I don't find that a very academic method of discourse.

Data would be nice.

If we return to your original post hypothesizing types of interpretations of the text, you were neither interested in getting the history of the ideas correct, nor of separating the history of the ideas from the intent of the text. I don't see that this has changed any.

If you would like me to see your point, I can say that I do. I certainly can't agree on points made with such a firm agenda that you find it impossible to even see why a directly applicable analogy had any relevance. That suggests a rather major disconnect from the issues and an intention to continue and agenda rather than discuss evidence and data.

[charity]

In 4 Nephi, we read in verse 10 And now, behold, it came to pass that the people of Nephi did wax strong, and did multiply exceedingly fast, and became an exceedingly fair and delightsome people.

Since this is referring to the Nephites, which were all the righteous people who had served the destruction at the time of the crucifixion, doesn't that mean that "fair and delightsome" does not refer to skin color, but to some other condition?

[why me]

In 4 Nephi, we read  in verse 10 And now, behold, it came to pass that the people of Nephi did wax strong, and did multiply exceedingly fast, and became an exceedingly fair and delightsome people.

Since this is referring to the Nephites, which were all the righteous people who had served the destruction at the time of the crucifixion, doesn't that mean that "fair and delightsome" does not refer to skin color, but to some other condition?

It seems so charity. I think that this is what makes the whole thing rather interesting. What exactly is 'fair'. With the usage that you gave it doesn't add up to be skin.

Even if we take the viewpoint of the posters who say that the bofm was written by Joseph Smith or sidney ridgon or for that matter anyone else who may be included in the list, there would be no reason to write such an event has happening to mean that the skin color was suddenly changed to fair and delightsome.

If I were a character in this story I would get awfully 'pissed' with having my skin constantly changing color. But of course, this is only a matter of my own personal opinion.

[Abulafia]

I came in late to this thread and found it extremely interesting in light of the discussions going on elsewhere on the forum.

I would say that there are a number of ways of looking at how the Book of Mormon was formulated/translated/put together. In laymen's terms....

1) Joseph Smith (and/or others) translated it from an ancient text in its entirety

2) Joseph Smith (and/or others) part translated it, but also used their knowledge, culture and other contemporary and ancient books (like the KJV of the bible) to expand the text.

3) Joseph Smith (and/or others) concocted it in its entirety using contemporary writings, culture, and religious influence, the KJV of the bible and a brilliant imagination.

I went from 1) to 3), but have never really deeply considered 2) which seems to also be a plausible option.

It would also explain some of the more difficult aspects of the texts without having to reject the book in its entirety as fraud.

Abulafia

[Addictio]

Brant:

This is a test, of sorts, to determine just how serious or fundamental the communication problem or disconnect between us actually is. I have some idea about what is going on, but am not entirely sure. I'll go slowly and try to be clear.

Two posts ago I began by asking you these questions, in hopes you could express the logical significance, the logical point, of the "scales" passage:

If you have an argument, Brant, that the terms Jan noted in the passage can plausibly be interpreted literally, as opposed to my own or some other metaphorical interpretation, I'm all ears. Alternatively, if we agree there is no plausible literal interpretation for "scales," "eyes" or "darkness" then what follows? Does this somehow support a conclusion or inference that (some or all) of the skin color passages likewise cannot plausibly be interpreted literally? Why so? If that's not the point, then what relevance does the passage have to the analysis or outcome of the metaphorical/literal interpretive issue presented by the skin color passages?

You ignored them. What I'm looking for is a statement of the reason or reasons why the "scales" passage Jan introduced into the discussion supports an argument you're making, or want to make, about the superiority of a metaphorical (as opposed to a literal) interpretion of the skin-color passages. Perhaps to make it simple you could narrow it down to an interpretation of the word "skin, but suit yourself. Something like, "One reason the term "skin" (or "dark skin" or "skin of blackness") in this verse(s) of the BoM should be interpreted metaphorically rather than literally is because [and then say something about the content, interpretation or something else you pick regarding 2 Ne 30:6.]

Why am I asking this? Because so far the only logical connection anyone else has expressed between Jan's agreement with my initial response that the descriptive terms in the "scales" verse should not be interpreted in physical, literal terms, and her proposed conclusion with respect to the skin color passages is the word "So." Here's her relevant statements, again:

Well said Addictio.

With that example, I guess it would be reasonable then to say that three elements were allegorical and not literal: the scales were not really "scales", the darkness was not a color or pigment, and the organs of the eyes were not physically changed by scales (that were dark in color or otherwise).

So, I guess, it's also possible that in the examples of skin and darkness/blackness that is being discussed, it's also possible that the physical organ of the skin did not literally change to a darkened or black color/pigment. It's entirely possible and reasonable that both skin and darkness/black are allegorical. [Even if one disagrees with that conclusion, certainly reasonable people would agree that it is a rational possibility?]

With respect to this issue, in your last post you said, repeating your earlier comment that I was ignoring the obvious significance of the"analogy":

I certainly can't agree on points made with such a firm agenda that you find it impossible to even see why a directly applicable analogy had any relevance. That suggests a rather major disconnect from the issues and an intention to continue an agenda rather than discuss evidence and data.

So, Brant, since you have stated that some "obvious" logical connection, or argument by analogy, or something significant and relevant regarding verse 30:6 and the BoM skin color passages is being claimed, please tell me what it is.

This is not some evasion or diversionary tactic. I just want to understansd what you're claiming with respect to the verse 6 passage.

By way of reminder, I haven't been ignoring the issue. Quite the opposite. Two posts ago I provided an argument that the three pertinent descriptive terms in that passage can reasonably be interpreted metaphorically, as opposed to literally. Here is that argument, with some further comments.

Nephi is prophesying to his contemporaneous "beloved brethren" about what will happen when the Nephite record is eventaullly delivered to "the remnant of our seed." (Verses 3-5.) Through the record, the future remnant will know "concerning us," and will be thus be "restored unto the knowledge of their fathers, and also to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, which was had among their fathers." Hence the "it" that is "a blessing unto them" referenced above in verse six is that lost knowledge.

Ok so far? I've summarized who is being referenced in the prophecy, and the future event being described: the providing of the Nephite record and other vital information to the future "remnant." That's the textual context which explains the nature of the future event again referenced in verse six, i.e., restoration of that lost knowledge. In support of that reading, I then noted the parallel at Words of Mormon 1:8. (As I expect you know, there are numerous other passages that reference the same future event.)

Restoring lost knowledge thus overcomes mental/spiritual darkness, a form not of physical blindness in the eye, but of the spiritual or mental blindness associated with being in the darkness of ignorance or disbelief. (Note as well all the similar references to forms of "blindness of mind" in the "small plates" account.) Given that content and context, all of which support a figurative reading of "scales," eyes" and "darkness," I don't think the passage provides or suggests any basis at all for a literal interpretation of those terms.

Summing, the preceding contentions are (1)that the event being described is the providing of knowledge that illuminates the minds of the recipients, causing them to perceive the religious truth, because their state of ignorance, the spiritual darkness they formerly were in, is dissipated. Do you have a problem with that constituting a "metaphorical" interpretation of the three terms? If so, can you say why?

Second (2) the reason this is a metaphorical and not a literal interpretaion is because the future event does not refer to an actual physical condition impairing the eyes of the recipients. The term "darkness" has no physical referent; it functions poetically, to characterize the nature of their mental/spiritual ignorance, or deprivation.

Again, if you believe instead that there is a plausible, alternative "literal" interpretation of "eyes," "scales" and "darkness," in verse six, please explain it.

I then provided a type of "context-based" argument (which I won't bother to quote here) based on the consensus empirical reality/context for Nephi, which, I argued, would render a literal interpretation of the descriptive terms wholly implausible. In my last post, I summarized it again. In your last response, you replied as quoted above. Also, at the beginning of your reply, you asked me to provide such a context-based argument.

In your last post you further stated:

You do admit that you can only see one solution, which doesn't tell us why your opinion is correct. What you find obvious in the scales verse that Jan indicated you find inobvious in "skin," but cannot tell us why.

See the two arguments referenced above. If you mean to respond merely by characterizing them as announced opinions, devoid of support or reasoning, well, that's one conclusory option available, I suppose. Note what's happened here, btw, (hence my above request). Jan provides a one-word logical connection "So," regarding the verse you (apparently) also claim is relevant, without any other articulation of the reasoning or logical basis for the claim. And my duty apparently is to persuade you to change some reasoned position regarding the logical significance of the verse that you haven't yet expressed, apart from calling it an "obvious analogy."

With respect to that last sentence of yours, Brant, I've actually explained the difference between "scales of darkness" and "skin of darkness" in more than one way, and not merely by sorting between those two precision categories (obvious and inobvious?) you invoke. But it doesn't penetrate. Perhaps in response to my questions above you'll explain how and why the word "scales" has a plausible physical referent. But then "eyes" would have to have one too, wouldn't it? And then "scales of darkness," yet. Another non-poetic, descriptive term describing (naturally) a physical property of all those impaired, malfunctioning eyes. Should we contrast those with an example from Jacob?

In preaching to the assembled Nephite brethren, as you know, Jacob tells them that "the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins," are actually more righteous than they are because they don't practice polygamy. He also commands them to "revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness..." Jacob 3: 5, 9.

What would the inferred empirical context for these events recorded in Jacob's record be, if "darkness" and "skins" are interpreted literally? So what does "literal" mean? Simply having a corresponding set of physical referents. Would there be identifiable, observable truth conditions that would attach to Jacob's statements? Sure, the existence of differential skin color (visible) verbal and behavioral acts of animosity and disdain (visible, audible, classifiable). Any problem describing what observable conditions, states of affairs, would in principle confirm or falsify his assertions? None?

Note that Jacob would be aware of the empirical referents, as well as the observable events that constitute the truth conditons.

Now, let's do the same analysis for the terms "scales of darkness" and "eyes" referenced in 2 Ne. 30:6. What would the inferred empirical context for the future, prophesied event recorded by Nephi be, if both these terms are interpreted literally? So what does "literally" mean? Simply having a corresponding set physical referents. What are they, can we describe them? How about "a group of future recipients of the Nephite record with eyes that are physically impaired"? Observable truth conditions that would attach to the future event? How about the existence of a large number of modern-era Amerindians who receive a copy of the Nephite record and also have poor eyesight? (Truth conditions, falsification and confirmation too, huh?) Let's see, so does receipt of the Book itself cause the vision impairment; no, it's a preexisting condition? So all Amerindians suffer from this conditiion, or only those who receive the Book? All of them? Ok, so how long before the scales actually do drop away, and their vision significantly improves?

Compare Jacob's above-noted relationship with the emirical content of his record with Nephi's situation. Would Nephi also be aware of the above-noted empirical referents, or the circumstances and events that constitute the truth conditons? In composing a passage referencing the future coming forth of the BoM, one of many in the text, why would Nephi be aware of, reflecting upon or otherwise connected to a future event involving vision-impaired Amerindians whose sight will be restored by receiving the Nephite record?

Next, returning again to Jacob, what are the reasons that he would have written what he did in the above-quoted verses, if he had intended "darkness" and "skins" to be interpreted/understood literally. In other words, why would he have decided to record a sermon in which he uttered the words recorded in the text?

Now doing the same for Nephi, what if he similarly had intended "scales of darkness" and "eyes" to be interpreted/understood literally. What would be his reasons for recording a prophecy/prediction about a widespread impaired eyesight condition among the future remnant that would be improved or cured by the coming forth and dissemination of the Nephite record?

The Jacob question, seems to me, is quite straightforward and easy to provide a plausible answer, an explanation for the existing words of the text. What about for Nephi? Any ideas about why he would have written verse 6, intending that the three descriptive terms be interpreted and understood literally? Or, as I've previously noted, would there be any cultural information or personal experience that would lead Nephi to associate groups of blind or vision-impaired people with religious conversions?

So, does this mean that the skin color passages in Jacob should (therefore) be interpreted literally? No, I think the present point is that it is utterly nonsensical to assert that the descriptive terms in Nephi's prophecy were intended to be or can plausibly be interpreted as "literal" instead of "metaphorical." Oddly, Brant, you haven't even asserted anything that uhm, detectable. You've made no argument either asserting or denying the plausibility of a literal interpretation of the descriptive terms. Instead, in response to my contentions, inter alia, that the passage cannot be interpreted literally, you have marvelled that I cannot perceive the clear and evident "analogy" between Nephi's prophecy and the skin-color passages. Hence the questions I put to you above.

Like I said at the outset, Brant, this is a kind of test. If you are willing to respond to the questions I asked above, I'd appreciate it. Perhaps I could then figure out whether I have misunderstood or perhaps failed to grasp some articulated argument of yours on the "scales" passage.

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

Wonderful. There is plenty there to get us back to the fundamental issue. I won't be able to respond until later today.

[Dale]

Here's a link to an article by Simon G. Southerton entitled Answers To Apologetic Claims about DNA and the Book of Mormon.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/Losing2.htm

What do others think of the article?

[charity]

I read through the Southerton link. I don't know enough about the current state of DNA research to address each one of his points. However, he shoots himself in the foot for any generalizations with one very important fact. 7,600 samples. Several million estimated population by 600 BCE and an immigrant group of 30? He dismisses genetic bottlenecks. What about extinction of substantial groups due to disease or warfare?

He is altogether too sure of conclusions based on such skimpy data.