Book of Mormon DNA Apologetics

[Confidential Informant]

I've been away.

Please take out your scriptures.

Maybe something good might come out my latest turn with Brant over metaphor.

When Jan, curse her heart of stoneness, lured me back into suabbling with Brant, while ignoring beautiful things.

She cited a passage at 2 Ne. 29, bearing on the metaphor issues. So read it a lot.

But I'll come back to that. 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 dripping, it's smouldering with metaphor. (I think in his later life Joel must have gone wrong, and for his transgressions had to be reborn on a somewhat lower plane, as Quentin Tanentino, maybe.) Anyway, if you want to watch something artful, and powerful, watch what builds up to verse six, the one Brant quoted,

The the trumpet call, then through the all those foreboding darknesses and glooms as the morning didn't break (nix, children, run inside) it "spread upon the mountains" and then they come, running; fire on both sides of them "noise of chariots on the tops of mountians, " and then a leap, with the sound of devouring flame. And the people, the ones really watching them come: "Before their face the people shall be much pained, all faces shall gather blackness."

Had to have been written before anybody had tv.

I won't ruin the second one for you, but read 2 Ne. 29:3-6. I like the way at just the right moment "their scales of darkness" don't fall, but they will begin to.

Anyway, good stuff.

Is it just me or is this post borderline incoherent to anyone else?

C.I.

[charity]

Definitely borderline.

[Confidential Informant]

Reading what I just wrote it occurs to me that it came off as harsh. I wasn't suggesting that addictio is illliterate and I wasn't trying to slap him around. I was trying to say that he must have been typing quickly or something because I missed the point of his post.

That is all. Sorry for any confusion on my part.

C.I.

[exegete]

Hi Brant,

If we can momentarily ignore all the noise on this thread, let's cut to the chase. I wrote:

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.)

To which you replied:

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.

...

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.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with biblical metaphors and such (no need to be condescending); and it matters little whether you also deem the BoMor term "skin" metaphorical. I've read "the longer discussion"

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi Brent,

Are you planning on answering my questions?

[exegete]

Hi Bill,

You wrote:

Are you planning on answering my questions?

What's the point? Even when I do answer your questions, you claim I don't (see here). (If only I had the time for such nonsense.)

Ciao,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Bill Hamblin]

Brent

What's the point? Even when I do answer your questions, you claim I don't (see here). (If only I had the time for such nonsense.)

I posted this last statement before I saw your alleged response to my question. The unanswered questions are now there. I look forward to your straightforward and direct responses.

[exegete]

Hi Bill,

See here.

Cheers,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Brant Gardner]

Brent:

Cutting to the chase is really quite simple. Every time you see "skin," substitute "face." Now you have a perfectly normal biblical expression.

I assume, without trying to be condescending, that you really do understand the metaphorical meaning of "blackness."

I really am sorry that you couldn't find a way to see the text differently, but I have come to understand that this is the real problem with reading those passages. You really can't see "skin"as anything different. Addictio couldn't either. I guess it shows how strongly one's own culture can determine meaning.

In Addictio's case, he rapidly understood that "scales" couldn't be literal, but simply can't see that "skin" might be. It appears that you have the same issue.

I am expecting that you will try the word "face" in those verses and suggest that it is nonsense and violates the meaning of the passage - which it would it had to be interpreted in only the way you are reading it. However, it really does produce quite acceptable meaning according to ancient canons.

What you should see is what Addictio saw with "scales." Darkness/blackness and white/light are contrasting metaphorical descriptions of spiritual quality. They function that way in biblical literature so often that it should be easily understood.

The only thing that makes these passages appear different is that we fixate on "skin" and read it from a modern perspective. That is the reason you have to look at the whole text for meaning.

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

[Abulafia]

Brant, are you then suggesting that since the 'skin' change was metaphorical, that the difference then was one of language, clothing, or belief system. The obvious difference I would imagine, would have been belief system, which would make sense..

Excuse me if you have already stated this. There is a LOT of information on this thread.

Abulafia

[Brant Gardner]

Abulafia:

The descriptions of something changing have to do with the combination of religion and political affiliation. In the ancient world it is very difficult to separate those two elements and it would be artificial to do so in the Book of Mormon.

As people move out of the Nephite "insider" status, they become Lamanites, by definition. Also by definition/association, they become "dark." As in the Bible, when one turns from God or the right path, they become full of darkness or their hearts are black - or some other metaphor that contrasts their spiritual state before God with believers. Believers are "in the light" or are "filled with light." In the Book of Mormon they are "white" or "fair." The structural function of those terms is to contrast to the darkness or blackness and they operate inside the semantic opposition between white/black:good/bad.

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

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

[charity]

The "us vs them" is such a strong psycholgoical phenomenon that there appears to be no way to change it. The only way to handle it is to change the definition of who "us" is.

A small, temporary example can be seen in what happened right after the 9-11 tragedy. Before that "us" was democrats and republicans with all the bad feeling we saw. For a little while, sadly only a little while, "us" was Americans.

We see this so clearly in The Book of Mormon. In the years after the Savior's apperance, evidently the definition was that all-- no matter what former tribal, lineage, skin color--were Nephites. Then "4 Nephi 26 And they began to be divided into classes." And it was a quick descent into wickedness.

[exegete]

Hi Brant,

Again, if we can ignore the usual online clutter, perhaps I can illustrate why I find your BoMor readings problematic. Here is a rewrite of the various key texts based on your metaphorical approach.

[2 Nephi 5:21

[Brant Gardner]

exegete:

You evidently want your cake and eat it too, my friend. On the one hand, you maintain that ancient peoples believed spiritual decadence was externally, visibly apparent on unbelievers; yet on the other, you contend that every instance in the BoMor where we should expect the two major factions of Lehite society to recognize each other based on outward appearance, they don't. Which is it Brant?

Why both, of course. Metaphors are metaphors. Pigment is pigment. I am suggesting that the people in the Book of Mormon behaved exactly like other people such as those found in the Bible - who used similar metaphors but were quite able to function in the real world.

Are you suggesting that the ancient world didn't use physical features as an indication of inner qualities? Around 35 years ago I remember articles that talked about discerning potential criminal tendencies from the set of the eyes and the shape of the earlobes. That was a pseudo-scientific remnant of the same ancient idea.

So are you suggesting with the "cake and eat it too" idea that:

1) The ancient world couldn't tell the difference between a literary metaphor and the real world, or

2) The ancient world didn't use references to the physical to describe inner qualities.

How did the biblical world understand "faces gather blackness?" Are you suggesting that they must have seen people with black faces? They really couldn't tell the difference between metaphor and reality?

the fact remains that several LDS scholars who have a grasp of various ancient lifeways interpret the germane BoMor pericopae in terms of skin pigmentation (e.g., John Tvedtnes, John Clark, and Royal Skousen). This isn't a believer vs. non-believer issue as you would have FAIR readers believe.

For someone who famously chastizes me for not understanding a position, you seem to read this one with remarkable obscurity. I am well aware of how others have read the text. I have not made this a believer/non-believer issue. It is a textual issue. Unlike either you or Addictio, I haven't brought in the interpretation others have given to support my position - or to create strawmen that I can argue with.

This is a difference of opinion about reading the text and I disagree with their readings. What I am doing is setting forth the evidence from the text itself. Shouldn't we discuss the text fo the Book of Mormon rather than what people have said about it? Those are two very different discussions.

I notice that you fixate on the question of metaphors and ignore the actions in the text. Is there a reason that you are not discussing the event in Alma 55?

To review:

1) We recognize texts as metaphors when they contradict expected reality - hence even Addictio knew that the "scales of their eyes" was a metaphor because there is no biological condition that applies. Under that same logic, either you should understand skin as a metaphor. If you are contending that it really is possible to alter essential skin color overnight, please let me know. I am assuming that you do not hold a position that contradicts known biology.

2) The metaphorical use of blackness is well attested in biblical literature. This is particularly true when you take the pairings of black/white and dark/light into account. The function of the word "blackness" is such that it is almost easier to read it metaphorically than literally in the Bible. The Book of Mormon use falls into the standard use of the polar opposites to indicate qualities.

3) When you leave literature behind and examine action, there is no indication of a pigmentation change in places where there should be. This reinforces (and should define) the nature of the biological condition as opposed to the metaphorical condition. The best example is the one in Alma 55 - that you have not discussed.

[juliann]

You evidently want your cake and eat it too, my friend. On the one hand, you maintain that ancient peoples believed spiritual decadence was externally, visibly apparent on unbelievers; yet on the other, you contend that every instance in the BoMor where we should expect the two major factions of Lehite society to recognize each other based on outward appearance, they don't. Which is it Brant?

Again, Brent...you must squeeze the topic into binary choices. Black and white thinking, pun intended. I actually can't remember the last time I saw a scholar take a very complex issue, set up two limited alternatives and petulantly demand, "which is it!"

This isn't a believer vs. non-believer issue as you would have FAIR readers believe.

That is a product of your world of black and white alternatives. All I have seen is a very patient attempt to explain the world of scholarship and reading of ancient text to you. I think the vast majority of "FAIR readers" see that. Especially those "believing" ones.

[exegete]

Hi Julie,

I know that you're eager to portray me as your pet "fundamentalistic" hobgoblin; but if you can restrain yourself with all your "grad school" prowess, you may realize that my dichotomous question emerged from Brant's own arguments and not from my personal predilections.

Hi Brant,

Time permitting, this weekend I'll articulate (and document) more precisely why I consider your bifurcation of literal and metaphor problematic.

In the interim, let me clarify that my citation of John Tvedtnes, John Clark, and Royal Skousen

[Confidential Informant]

In the interim, let me clarify that my citation of John Tvedtnes, John Clark, and Royal Skousen

[exegete]

Hi CI,

I too have spoken with John Tvedtnes and John Clark

[Moksha]

So like if I switched from being a Republican to a Democrat, one might record about me, in the symbolic sense, that I became white and delightsome and if I reversed the process, you might record of me (in the symbolic sense, of course) that I was cursed with a black skin, meaning face? And if that doesn't necessarily make sense, then I am a victim of presentism, and have a failure to understand the nuances of the ancient Reformed Egyptian language?

Okay, you guys are the experts.

[juliann]

I know that you're eager to portray me as your pet "fundamentalistic" hobgoblin; but if you can restrain yourself with all your "grad school" prowess, you may realize that my dichotomous question emerged from Brant's own arguments and not from my personal predilections.

Brent, it is nothing personal. It is just the times we are in. It is not a question of prowess...it is a very practical matter of "if you can't beat them, join them". You can scoff at education, you can mock my demand for it....but when almost everyone else is saying the same thing where does it leave you beyond the same either/or conclusions you seem to come to no matter whom you address?

http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2758#more-2758

What does this mean for the future study of Mormonism? Bushman

[exegete]

Hi Julie,

Please don't take my teasing as "scoff[ing]" or "mock[ing]" education (on which I've already responded to you ad nauseam); I'm simply pointing out that you often derail threads with your hobbyhorse(s) du jour. In any event, you may want to let Brant and me flesh out our ideas before you jump in.

Cheers,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[juliann]

Brent, with all due respect, you are never going to flesh out ideas until you wander into the OT/ANE literature. That is what Brant is doing. That is what he has always done. These discussions always bog down at that point and that is where we are at right now. That is what derails these threads.

I am at a complete loss as to why you would even want to continue to avoid the obvious:

Brant:  Darkness/blackness and white/light are contrasting metaphorical descriptions of spiritual quality. They function that way in biblical literature so often that it should be easily understood.

The only thing that makes these passages appear different is that we fixate on "skin" and read it from a modern perspective. That is the reason you have to look at the whole text for meaning.

At the very least, you should be willing to acknowledge that JS was capable of aping biblical literature in this instance as well as the many other instances you require of him.

Also, I believe we are still waiting for an answer to how often Indians were described as "black" in JS's environment? Your obvious refusal to even acknowledge the words in the question are probably answer enough. This leads us to the above alternative...JS copied from the Bible again. No matter which way you come at it...you are going to have to acknowlege the same terminology and usage in the Bible. Yet all we get is this evasive either-or stuff.

[Brant Gardner]

Brent:

In the interim, let me clarify that my citation of John Tvedtnes, John Clark, and Royal Skousen

[Confidential Informant]

I'm not particularly interested in anecdotal reports of their views; but if you have some published source that suggests something other than what I've related, please share it.

You miss my point. I was not claiming that they have pubished or claimed other than what you say they have. I'm saying that I'm not convinced that they are as dogmatically married to the position as you seem to be and I know for a fact that they wouldn't begrudge Brant his position and would acknowledge that it is just as viable as their own.

I am, however, curious as to your own blind adherence to the position you espouse. Why are you so dedicated to it? Does grant that Brant's views might be valid do violence to your own beliefs somehow? Certainly, it does violence to your Mr. Murphy's views and, if accepted, would preclude him from giving his little ditties on racism in the Book of Mormon (but then he's too busy yapping at the end of his Evangelical master's leash to be bothered with such nuances of thought).

In short (which I apparently never am), I wasn questioning their view, just questioning the rigidity of it.

C.I.

[Addictio]

Summarizing issues in a recent post to Brent/Exegete, Brant stated in part:

To review:

1) We recognize texts as metaphors when they contradict expected reality - hence even Addictio knew that the "scales of their eyes" was a metaphor because there is no biological condition that applies. Under that same logic, either you should understand skin as a metaphor. If you are contending that it really is possible to alter essential skin color overnight, please let me know. I am assuming that you do not hold a position that contradicts known biology.

Brant's first sentence is wrong on two counts. First, for the reasons I'll explain shortly in a post regarding the Joel 2:6 and Second Nephi 30:6 passages, what makes them "metaphorical" in character is not that (in some non-trivial sense) they "contradict expected reality." More to the point, it is not the gratuitous, irrelevant conflict or disconnect with "biology" that Brant invokes which either indicates or determines their status. Second, no matter how many times Brant elects to mischaracterize my reasons for claiming that the pertinent language in Second Nephi 30:6 was obviously intended to be, and can only be interpreted as, metaphorical in character, those reasons plainly have nothing to do with his supposed disconnect between the word "scales" and some "biological condition."