Book of Mormon DNA Apologetics

[why me]

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

The problem with your number 3 is that it would make Joseph Smith and his partners the biggest fraudsters in the history of the universe. Joseph Smith would need iron cajoles to commit such a fraud.

Of course, who knows you could be right but it would take a lot of hutzpuh to pull it off with a straight face.

If somone really thinks about it, here we have the early saints praying to god about the truthfulness of the bofm and receiving testimony as to its truthfullness when all along joseph smith knows that it is fraud and what the people feel is false. Would Joseph Smith choose to mock God? For what purpose? To be tarred and feathered? To be imprisoned? To loose his twins?

I would find all these things to be god's curse if I were mocking god. And I would certainly give up the charade but not joseph smith...he continues to 'mock' god. I think that Joseph Smith saw these things happening to him as trials.

And then he would need to explain the bofm scripture to people who may not understand what was said in certain verses of the bofm, as people on these threads do now. How would he pull it off if he actually wrote the bofm? Something would seep through the crowds who were following him. He would know the book by heart like any novelist who writes a book. How would he keep a straight face?

He would need iron cajoles for sure to pull it all off.

[Hacedor Costoso]

Interesting to me is this:

A critic can't use statements by past GAs, church authorities, scholars, etc. to make his/her point because they are not canonical.

However, any statement by any past authority, scholar, GA, etc. that bolsters the "others" theory may be used by an apologist.

Hmmmm....

Hacedor

[Daniel Peterson]

Interesting to me is this:

A critic can't use statements by past GAs, church authorities, scholars, etc. to make his/her point because they are not canonical.

However, any statement by any past authority, scholar, GA, etc.  that bolsters the "others" theory may be used by an apologist.

Hmmmm....

Hacedor

That's not very difficult to figure out.

Advocates of limited geographical models for the Book of Mormon are eager to show that there is room in the Church for various opinions on the geography and demographics of the Book of Mormon.

Maintaining (correctly, in my opinion) that there is not and never has been an official Church position on Book of Mormon geography and demographics helps to establish that point.

Demonstrating, quite truthfully, that various positions on Book of Mormon geography and demographics have been held, even at the highest levels of Church leadership, also helps to establish that point. In fact, it essentially clinches it.

Hence, when one understands what the actual point at issue is, there is absolutely no inconsistency between the two lines of argument.

Statements from past or present General Authorities suggesting the presence of "others" in the land are not used to establish that point authoritatively, but to demonstrate that so believing is, contrary to the claims of certain critics, an entirely legitimate option for a faithful Latter-day Saint.

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

I believe this is enough that we can get down to the issues.

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.

Interestingly, your response to my request that you support your opinion was a request that I support my position. I had begun to suspect that your opinion was supported only by the fact that you can't see it any other way. This response appears to confirm that. You really don't see it.

Therefore, as you said, I will go slowly.

We start with "scales of blackness." You don't have any problem with seeing this as metaphorical. Why? There is no biology corresponding to scales hence there is nothing to cloud the interpretation. Scales cannot be literal, ergo it is metaphorical. Since the scales are metaphorical, blackness must be metaphorical.

So far, we agree. The issue is why "scales" must be metaphorical and why "skin" must be literal when put in the same functional place in the sentence.

We have agreed that the term "blackness" is not literal. Even in your literal interpretation, you must assume that "blackness" equals "red." While that is certainly metaphorical, is it justifiable?

I looked at every passage in the Book of Mormon and Bible containing the word "blackness." There were times when it seemed literal when it was a description of night. However, we have in Isaiah 50:3: "I clothe the heavens with blackness, and I make sackcloth their covering." Even though we might assume "blackness" was literal, we know that the sackcloth cannot be. In the presence of the metaphor of the sackcloth, it would seem more logical that blackness was metaphorical. There are plenty of places where blackness is a metaphor for sin or separation from God.

There is none in any scripture that confirms that "blackness" really means "red." As you said, context is everything. So far there is no context except the word "skin" itself that would allow us to read "blackness" as "red."

Since, as Jan pointed out, "scales" is not inherently literal, any other noun in that structural position cannot be literal by virtue of grammar. Therefore, we have to know whether "skin" is literal or metaphorical.

That is a problem, because this reference is unique to the Book of Mormon. We can't simply look to context. We can, however, do a few other things.

One of the reasons that "scales" had to be metaphorical is because we know that it is not biological. The natural world informs our interpretation. What happens if we apply that to "skin?" Well, we have a problem. The Book of Mormon keeps telling us that "skin" can change from blackness/darkness to white/light. That is biologically impossible, especially since it simply follows people who change polity allegiances.

Therefore, by analyogy to the reason that you so quickly determined that "scales" were metaphorical, you should have concluded that "skin" had to be likewise metaphorical - because it cannot be natural and cannot be literal.

Of course, there is the possibility that this is a modern etiology and therefore it is wrong because the whole text is wrong, and not just the biology. That appears to be your argument. However, you haven't supported that, you have only assumed it.

What then, can we do to find out if your assumption is supportable? It is certainly part of the modern world, but that doesn't tell us whether or not it is in the text in the way you suggest.

Since you are not supporting your assertion, I will take you through the various steps necessary to determine whether "skin" must be literal in spite of the fact that the a-biological use of the term ought to make it metaphorical.

1) Did the ancient world "see" the way we do? We really don't have this information for Mesoamerica, but we do for the Ancient Near East. Since this phrase shows up early and inh the vocabulary of one who came from there, it is a reasonable background. How do we see "skin" there? We don't. However, we have direct analogues. In Joel 2:6 we have "faces" that gather "blackness." Here we have the very structural use that we have in the Book of Mormon. We have a body part that can be taken literally associated with the same color quality. In the case of Joel we know that it is a metaphor. Why? because obviously the biology is wrong - therefore we are to see it metaphorically. So far, the Bible is consisten with the Book of Mormon usage and inconsistent with your reading. Unless, of course, your agenda-driven conclusion is correct. So - we move to another aspect.

2) How does the text deal with this skin of blackness/darkness? It does certainly tell Nephites that they shouldn't mix with those of darker skins, or revile them because of their darker skins. The problem is that this is not an action that can tell us if they were reacting to pigmentation or any other factor. For instance, if the sentence were "revile them not for their eyes have scales of blackness" we are right back to metaphor. The problem with the examples you used was that they work only if you assume the thing you are trying to prove. That is the definition of circular reasoning.

Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey wrote Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality, in which they note that inner qualities would be discernible from the physical appearance. Therefore, Aristotle considered hair an index of virtue or vice, "soft hair shows timidity and stiff hari courage." (p. 139).

If one's courage showed in one's hair, one's blackness of heart might show visibly as well. In the Book of Mormon is shows on the skin. A similar use of dark/light is found in Matthew:

22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" (Matthew 6:22 - 23)

Every instance of darkness/ blackness can be fit into this model of the interior quality being visible on the outside. There is no ancient presumption that "skin" must be literal as there is in the modern reading.

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

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

So - what does our examination of evidence tell us? By every textual indicator, the "skin of blackness" cannot be literal. Even your logic tells us that it cannot be literal because it violates biology.

The only thing requiring it to be literal is your agenda - not the text.

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.

You are welcome.

[Brant Gardner]

After the last post I discovered a very clear reference where skin is metaphorical and not literal:

The early Christian or late Jewish Odes of Solomon abound in the symbolism of baptism and tie the garment to the baptismal ritual: "I stripped off sin and cast it from me, and the Lord renewed me in his raiment" (Ode 11. 9-10). "I put off darkness and clothed myself with light" (Ode 21. 2). "I have put on incorruption through His Name, I have put off corruption by his grace" (Ode 15. 6). "And I was clothed with the covering of thy spirit, and thou didst remove from me my raiment of skin" (Ode 2S. .

(The Necessity of a Sinless Messiah by Ronald A. Heiner Fn, BYU Studies, vol. 22 (1982), Number 1 - Fall 1982 .)

The "raiment of skin" is obviously metaphorical. As noted, one cannot assume that "skin" is literal simply because there is a modern prejudice attached to it.

[Abulafia]

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

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

In my opinion, that's your most persuasive piece of evidence so far, but it does seem to contradict the other references already discussed. You have stated what you believe it DOESNT mean, so then, what DOES it mean??

Abulafia

[Brant Gardner]

There was clearly a need for a person who was not Nephite. The reson was - to speak. He had to convince the guards by speaking to them. We either have a case of language difference or of discernible accent when speaking a different language.

There are quite a few gringos who can speak Spanish. Most of them can be picked out very quickly as non-native speakers. There was a wonderful Spanish version of QuickDraw McGraw (the old cartoon - please somebody remember this one <grin>) where native Spanish speakers were doing all of the parts - except for QuickDraw. He was a fluent Gringo. Absolutely fluent. Absolutely noticeable as a gringo. It was really funny.

[why me]

Brant,

I don't want to be brown nosing you or anything but I think that your posts are great. I assume that you are an academic working at the Y. Perhaps I am wrong but if not, your students are fortunate to have such a guy as yourself leading the class in fruitful discussion about scripture related topics.

Glad that you are at fair. We 'inactives' (speaking for myself) need a guy like you to give us the understanding that we need to see through the fog of day.

[Brant Gardner]

Why me:

I sometimes wish I were. However, I work for a private software company for a living. My degree was a MA in Anthropology that is now around 30 years old and not particularly well-used - certainly not for providing an income.

I get to substitute teach in Gospel Doctrine every once in a while, but that is about all the teaching I get to do these days.

[mormon fool]

A few months ago I was skeptical about the metaphorical skin interpretation, but two things have swayed me. First was the Nephites passing themselves off as Lamanites and second was the clearly metaphorical use of "skin" in Job 30:30:

"My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat."

[exegete]

Hi Brant,

Frankly, my friend, "black" is no more metaphorical or literal for a Native American's skin pigmentation than "red." (Do you honestly believe that Amerindians literally have red skin?!)

Here is the quandary, Brant: if (1) historical text HT states that proposition P is the case yet (2) narrative scenarios in HT imply that P is not the case, then the historical reliability of (2) is highly suspect. In other words, you've not identified a resolution to the problem of skin pigmentation; you've merely identified another problem.

I'm among those who believe that the BoMor does in fact refer to skin pigmentation (as did virtually all early-19thC Mormon and non-Mormon readers of the BoMor). So, if the skin of "blackness"/" darkness" is wholly metaphorical, then what is it a metaphor of? And how would you rewrite the germane pericopae to reflect this metaphor? (Please give examples.)

I look forward to your thoughtful response.

My best,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Confidential Informant]

Frankly, my friend, "black" is no more metaphorical or literal for a Native American's skin pigmentation than "red." (Do you honestly believe that Amerindians literally have red skin?!)

How many Indians do you know? I grew up between 4 Indian reservations. In fact, their skin is quite "red" (actually, more of a darkish brown w/ reddish hues. It's actually quite attractive). It can, in fact, be said to be literally "red" (of course that varies somewhat depending on tribal affiliations, etc).

I'm among those who believe that the BoMor does in fact refer to skin pigmentation (as did virtually all early-19thC Mormon and non-Mormon readers of the BoMor).

Ah, back to the fundamentalistic view. Once again, who gives a flying whackadoo what they thought in the 19th century? We are only interested in what the text says, not what some folks have believed about it. What the folks in the 1800's thought is completely irrelevant.

C.I.

[exegete]

Hi CI,

I'm speechless. Your comments on "Indians" having "quite red" skin can stand on their own (de)merits.

As for what you dismissively dub a "fundamentalistic view," early-19thC readers had a benefit that neither you nor I, nor any modern reader, has or can ever have: they were living participants in Joseph Smith's ideational and linguistic milieu. Ignoring their perspectives would be reckless and irresponsible.

My best,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[juliann]

Ignoring their perspectives would be reckless and irresponsible.

As is ignoring the biblical perspective which the BOM claims to have sprung from.

[Confidential Informant]

I'm speechless. Your comments on "Indians" having "quite red" skin can stand on their own (de)merits.

Ah, I see. Covertly paint me as racist then stand above the fray. Interesting tactic. In fact, your ignorance of what you were writing was revealed so you've simply made a snarky comment in reply.

I'm not big on political correctness and have no fear of discussing something as innocuous as the hues and tones of skin color. There is nothing inherently racist about such observations. And this is not a Seinfeld episode where we all ask, "Are we allowed to talk about this?" when the coversation turns sticky (which this one is not).

We are adults. At least some of us.

As for what you dismissively dub a fundamentalistic view," early-19thC readers had a benefit that neither you nor I, nor any modern reader, has or can ever have: they were living participants in Joseph Smith's ideational and linguistic milieu. Ignoring their perspectives would be reckless and irresponsible.

Sure, if you are interested in knowing how they thought and felt about the text. However, when it comes to the text itself it is quite useless. It tells us what they thought of it, and that's it. That has some value, but ultimately for the work such as Brant is engaged in, it is not very helpful. (Except, of course, a brickbat for folks like you who seem to get totally out of sort when we Mormons won't stay in the fundamentalistic pigeon hole you've inserted us into.)

C.I.

[Bill Hamblin]

Brent,

I assume you are aware that color perception and color terminology are socially and individually determined, and cannot be objectively defined? Perhaps not.

To a White American Colin Powell may seem Black. But to most Black Africans, he seems distinctively white. Which is he?

You insist:

"they were living participants in Joseph Smith's ideational and linguistic milieu. Ignoring their perspectives would be reckless and irresponsible."

So, not wanting to be reckless and irresponsible, did early nineteenth century Americans perceive Native Americans as Red, or Black? Or, to put it more bluntly, do you have any examples AT ALL where Americans perceived Native Americans as Black?

If not, and if JS wrote the BOM, and the Lamanite mark was intended to refer to literal skin pigmentation, why would JS have use the term Black/ness instead of Red?

[exegete]

Hi CI,

As I said, your comments on "Indians" having "quite red" skin (and your ongoing defense of that position) can stand on their own (de)merits. (For what it's worth, I know several Native Americans who would be profoundly offended at the suggestion that their skin is red.)

If you're interested in more of my thoughts on the role of early-19thC readers in BoMor interpretation, see here.

Hi Bill,

If I provided an early-19thC source that described the skin pigmentation of Native Americans in terms of "blackness" or " darkness," what would that mean to you? Would it establish that the BoMor usage is in fact a reference to skin color? Would it increase the likelihood for you that Joseph Smith authored the BoMor?

My best,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Bill Hamblin]

If I provided an early-19thC source that described the skin pigmentation of Native Americans in terms of "blackness" or " darkness," what would that mean to you? Would it establish that the BoMor usage is in fact a reference to skin color? Would it increase the likelihood for you that Joseph Smith authored the BoMor?

Once again, as usual, you refused to answer my questions. You answer mine, and I'll answer yours.

[Brant Gardner]

Brent:

Frankly, my friend, "black" is no more metaphorical or literal for a Native American's skin pigmentation than "red." (Do you honestly believe that Amerindians literally have red skin?!)

No, I don't. It was a more common designation for their skin color. If the intent of the text was to create an etiology for 19th century understandings of the Native American, why not use red man?

We get blackness one time. We get darkness. We get them in the standard contrasts between black/white, dark/light. I don't believe that blackness is metaphorical because it isn't red. You seem to have missed the post where I explained the issue in more detail. You are welcome to read that.

Here is the quandary, Brant: if (1) historical text HT states that proposition P is the case yet

Forget the attempt at abstract logic. There is an actual text here with real data we can discuss. The problem with the literal interpretation is that it only works if you assume that "skin" is literal when you are trying to prove that it is literal. Again - I refer you to the longer post above.

Your response would have been more helpful if it indicated that you had actually read the argument.

I'm among those who believe that the BoMor does in fact refer to skin pigmentation

I knew that, and could have predicted it had I not known.

(as did virtually all early-19thC Mormon and non-Mormon readers of the BoMor).

Which is another interesting issue. Is there a reason why you think that opinions about the text necessarily indicate the text's intent? If so, I would love to see support for that theory.

As just a simple example, many interpreter's of Robert Frost's "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" thought that it dealt with death. Frost was intereviewed and said, no - it was about watching woods fill up with snow.

According to you, the interpreters were correct and Frost was wrong. Defend your position, please.

So, if the skin of "blackness"/" darkness" is wholly metaphorical, then what is it a metaphor of?

You are seriously asking that question? Have you never read the Bible? How often is blackness and darkness used metaphorically in the Bible? Do a computer search and check it out. You can answer your own question with very little effort.

And how would you rewrite the germane pericopae to reflect this metaphor? (Please give examples.)

This question appears to follow from your insistence that "skin" must be literal. With that context you assume that a description of skin has to be literal as well. That colors your interpretation. Of course, as you indicated, others have done so.

What you haven't done is deal with the reasons that you can't do that. Refer to the longer discussion above. That will give us a better starting point.

[Brant Gardner]

Brent:

If I provided an early-19thC source that described the skin pigmentation of Native Americans in terms of "blackness" or " darkness," what would that mean to you? Would it establish that the BoMor usage is in fact a reference to skin color? Would it increase the likelihood for you that Joseph Smith authored the BoMor?

Please post them with enough context that we can discern whether the use of blackness and darkness was literal or metaphorical. Given the pejorative connotations of blackness and darkness, I suspect that they are metaphorical, given that use in the Bible which should have been the source informing the usage.

[Lachoneus]

I'm among those who believe that the BoMor does in fact refer to skin pigmentation

Please explain how your belief fits in with the events described in Alma 55:4-15.

[why me]

Why me:

I sometimes wish I were. However, I work for a private software company for a living. My degree was a MA in Anthropology that is now around 30 years old and not particularly well-used - certainly not for providing an income.

I get to substitute teach in Gospel Doctrine every once in a while, but that is about all the teaching I get to do these days.

Well... you seem to have a lot of knowledge about your subject matter.

I am enjoying the posts of others also. I find the perspectives that I am getting very educational and enlightening.

I think that it is so important to carry on the debate with the naysayers. Listening to both sides of the agrument has shown that the bofm is an interesting book...a book that is not so easily explained away. And if this is what it means to be an apologist...well...so be it. The lds church needs well-rounded defenders. Take care!

[Bill Hamblin]

Metcalfe:

If I provided an early-19thC source that described the skin pigmentation of Native Americans in terms of "blackness" or " darkness," what would that mean to you? Would it establish that the BoMor usage is in fact a reference to skin color? Would it increase the likelihood for you that Joseph Smith authored the BoMor?

Brent, when early nineteenth century American texts talk about Red-men, Red-skin, Black-men or Black-skin, to what ethnic groups are they generally referring?

If I showed you ancient Near Eastern texts where blackness is used metaphorically, would it establish that the BOM usage is in fact a metaphor? Would it increase the likelihood for you that there were ancient authors for the BOM?

[juliann]

(For what it's worth, I know several Native Americans who would be profoundly offended at the suggestion that their skin is red.)

I don't see what that has to do with 19th century usage. You know a lot about that and I have seen this question asked before...with no response. How common was it to see "red" used as a description in the 19th century? I have been surprised before by what I don't know about that time period when you have supplied information...but I do have to admit your refusal to address this particular question indicates that it was common to refer to Indians as "red" and uncommon to refer to them as "black". That is, of course, very problematic considering your emphasis on measuring the BOM soley by 19th century standards.

[Addictio]

Hey, CI:

I was already doing something uhm, unusual with words and then my keyboard that's been misbehaving made made it even crazier, had to post before I proofed. I changed the reference to Jan since I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet who could have known what I was referring to. I had read the word "blackness" so many times that I was, of well.

When Jan posted the passage from 2Ne referenced below I had been telling Brant I didn't want to talk about skin color with him, but wanted to talk about something else. Then Jan posts one little scripture and I got sucked into the skin color wars again. I've been thinking a lot about what metaphor is, the complex way words work.

The talk focused on a couple of words, taken from a lovely context, and the debate suddenly seemed an odd thing. Anyway, maybe it'll be a bit clearer when I post my response to Brant, my last on the skin stuff.

I'll leave the Joel free- association stuff up as way of thanking the author for reminding me about the richness of the word. Notice what happens at the end of the chapter. What all that concentrated imagery was leading up to.

Anyway, read the Joel chapter, and then think of, say, a commercial contract or finance document, and what different approaches to language, different forms of mental life they display. Like I said, I'll leave this up.

When you have a minute open up Joel Chapter 2. Let your eye run down the page just glimpsing random words. I'm using the KJV. We wouldn't want to say that it's dripping, it's more like smouldering, with metaphor. Anyway, if you want to watch something artful, and powerful, watch what builds up to verse six, the one Brant quoted, and then on to what it all was ponting to.

So we might "summarize," expressively invoke, the verses of Joel 2, 1-6 this way:

The