Book of Mormon DNA Apologetics

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

Welcome back. Your clarification will be appreciated. I am just as interested in your explanation of when a metaphor is a metaphor and when a word cannot be metaphorical as I am in Brent's. I'll continue to wait.

[Addictio]

As suggested in my last post, Brant's response to me on the skin color issue (at page 11 of this thread) and in particular his arguments based upon Joel 2:6 and Second Nephi 30:6 are sufficiently misleading about my position and (IMO) are filled with such confusion about the metaphorical and figurative use of language that they deserve a detailed response.

Before I address those arguments (next two posts), by way of background, my position regarding the "skin of blackness" passage in Second Nephi has been that the significance and interpretation of this one instance of Lamanite skin and "blackness," must, at a minimum, be considered in light of the other similar and (arguably) synonymous textual references to "the darkness of their skins" or to their "dark skin." Further, any serious account of skin color in the BoM must also address the passages in which the text arguably associates skin color differences with biology, with intermarriage and "mixing seed" with the Lamanites. Instead, in his above-referenced analysis, Brant devotes a single sentence to those passages that are, for someone like Ostler, the principal basis for interpreting Second Nephi 5 as a report of a visible skin color difference. Again, it's not that Ostler and the other historicity advocates I have earlier mentioned, such as Tvedntes and Bushman, are right and Brant is wrong on the merits of this issue. Instead, the point of mentioning their disagreement is two-fold, one substantive and one that has only to do with curbing Brant's rather tiresome, tendentious rhetoric.

First, the passages that lead them (and others) to conclude the text refers to a visible, biological skin color difference must be addressed, and the reason those verses are included in the text at all needs to be explained, not simply dismissed on the grounds that changes in skin color of the type the text allegedly reflects are (as Brant put it in his page 11 response) "biologically imposssible." The latter contention is not even worth a response on its merits until Brant steps up and takes a position on the inferred biological context he is adopting for the Nephites at Second Nephi 5. As Brant knows, for instance, Ostler's analysis of Second Nephi 5 at least "steps up" and takes such a position regarding that inferred social/biological context. Ostler's analysis thus purports to explain the existence and meaning of the (arguably) "biological," "seed mixing" verses in Second Nephi 5 and Alma 3 in a completely naturalistic manner. Hence its defects, if any, will be (and in my view are) interpretive and inferential in character, but not because a skin-color difference resulting from intermarriage between darker-skinned Amerindians and lighter-skinned Israelites would itself have to be "miraculous" or "biologically impossible."

Second, Brant's earlier tiresome (and tireless) rhetorical move was that those who disagree with his "wholly metaphorical" position are simply adopting naive, "modern assumptions" about how to read an ancient text. Now his equally tendentious, purely rhetorical move is reflected in this statement to Exegete:

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.

Presumably Brant knows (but appears to have momentarily forgotten) that, in disagreeing with him, Exegete isn't likely to be (and needn't be) arguing in favor of BoM historicity or ancient authorship. Historicity advocates who do disagree with Brant, on the other hand, also aren't stuck in the position Brant is "assuming" for them. Note, for example, Ostler's position. Similarly, in his "Nephi's Neighbors" article (at 121-22), Mathew Roper doesn't interpret the Second Nephi 5 passage as referencing an "overnight change" in anyone's skin color, or as a change that would have to "contradict known biology." Instead, he interprets II Ne. 5:23 (and by implication, 5:21) as a "prophecy" that "anticipates future mixing and intermarriage with the Lamanites" by indigenous inhabitants. Accordingly, his interpretive problem, like Ostler's, is the one I mentioned in my critique of Ostler, posted above, not the problems Brant rhetorically attributes to anyone who disagrees with his own "metaphorical" interpretation of all the passages that mention Lamanite skin.

Brant's above characterization of the interpretive options available to historicity advocates is merely unfocused and tendentious rhetoric for another reason. The only two passages that specifically refer to Lamanite "skin" changing its visible appearance are at Second Nephi 5:21 and Third Nephi 2:15, neither of which have to be or are interpreted by historicity advocates as "overnight changes" that are "biologically impossible." More importantly, there is also no reason that such advocates must interpret other passages that don't mention anyone's skin as nevertheless "reporting" visible skin color differences that change with every reported change in religious belief or social/political alignment, and therefore as passages that "contradict known biology." The latter problem is one of textual consistency and coherence, not "biological impossibility." Prior to offering some prescriptive "resolution" or "solution" for that distinct textual problem, everyone who writes descriptively about the text from an ancient authorship perspective (including Sorenson and Mauss), acknowledges it exists. Indeed, it existed in exactly the same form even when the inferred ancient social/biological context (the one initially assumed or inferred, at Stage One) required that any literal, visible change in Lamanite skin color had to be "biologically impossible," and thus divinely caused, "miraculous" in nature.

Finally, there is this comic (or perhaps merely ironic) aspect of Brant's current tendentious characterization of interpretive options available to advocates of ancient authorship. Indigenous Amerindians have by now appeared as inferred actors in the text (see Roper's article for the timing of that interpretive development). Prior to that development, which is understood by some (e.g., Ostler and Roper) to justify a "naturalistic" explanation of visble skin color differences, the idea that such differences would be "biologically impossible" (absent divine intervention) presented neither a "real" (i.e., an actual) nor a perceived problem for BoM historicity. So why should it now? Since 1830, absolutely nothing has changed to make a divinely-caused alteration in Lamanite skin color at the time of Second Nephi 5 (or III Ne. 2:15) either more or less plausible, or likely. Nothing, that is, apart from the "evolved" theological expectations and inclinations of many contemporary LDS readers. That further explains why the rhetorical "bugaboo" of "biological impossibility" Brant invokes is merely that; it has nothing to do with any increase or decrease in the likelihood that the BoM is, or isn't, an anciently-authored text.

[Brant Gardner]

Wow. What an introduction. All of that and nothing new.

I'll keep mine short. You have promised an analysis. I will wait for the data and deal with that rather than the rhetoric.

[Michael Sanders]

I still favor my understanding, argued here, concerning the "skin of blackness" issue over the "biological" or "metaphorical" approaches offered thus far.

Any thoughts?

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

"Where, or just how, or by whom this error first found place in those teachings I do not know, but if it be, as is claimed herein, an error, it matters not what its age, or who its author, or where its birthplace, there is no justification for its continuance. A church should be willing to correct its mistakes immediately upon the discovery of them, regardless of the consequent humiliation, otherwise its request of the world to do so is inconsistent and hypocritical." - Apostle Joseph Luff

[juliann]

I thought it was those Mormon apologists who spend their day avoiding answering the hard questions. Still waiting for Brent to stop playing hide and seek and produce the many sources contemporary to JS that refer to Indian skin as "black"....

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?

[Bernard Gui]

I thought it was those Mormon apologists who spend their day avoiding answering the hard questions.  Still waiting for Brent to stop playing hide and seek and produce the many sources contemporary to JS that refer to Indian skin as "black"....

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?

Here's a typical description from the time of JS:

"As to their persons, they were taller on an average than I had ever seen in any nation. Their bones were large, limbs straight, and shoulders broad; their eyes rather small and sunk deep in the head. Their foreheads were prominent and the face below tapering in such a manner that the chin was formed nearly to a point. [041]As to their complexion, it was bordering on an olive, though of a lighter shade. Their eyes were generally of a dark brown or black. Their hair of the same color, though I have sometimes seen persons whose hair was of a reddish hue."

Any guesses as to the author?

How about this one:

" 'May God bless your soul,' says one of our mariners, 'what would you have us do who have had the woeful luck not to get mates to cheer our poor souls and warm our bodies? Methinks I could pick out a healthy, plum lass from the copper colored tribe, (( and )) that by washing and scrubbing her fore and aft and upon the larboard and starboard sides, she would become a wholesome bedfellow. And I think, may it please Your Honor, I could gradually pump my notions into her head and make her a good shipmate for the cupboard and as good-hearted a Christian as any of your white damsels. And upon my soul, I warrant you, if we have children, by feeding them with good fare and keeping them clean, they will be as plump and as fair and nearly as white as Your Honor's children.'"

Bernard

[Addictio]

As noted in my last post, Brant's response to me on the skin color issue (at page 11 of this thread) and in particular his arguments based upon Joel 2:6 and Second Nephi 30:6 are sufficiently misleading about my position on the "metaphorical" status of the latter text, and (IMO) are filled with such confusion about the metaphorical and figurative use of language that they deserve a detailed response.

I'll focus on Brant's analysis and argument regarding those two passages, starting with the Joel passage. Brant argues in his above response that certain language in those verses provides additional, independent support for his position that the BoM references to differential skin color should be interpreted metaphorically, as references to a distinction in "righteousness" or religious beliefs. Neither textual passage, read in context, supports his position, and his claims that they do are based upon a fundamentally confused analysis that, inter alia, must import an irrelevant, indeed a wholly imaginary, conflict with "biology" into the discussion in order to create the appearance of a logical connection between the two texts.

Brant's Reliance Upon Joel 2:6.

In support of his assertion that the phrase "skin of blackness" in 2 Ne. 5:21 should be interpreted metaphorically, Brant relies in part on a single "comparable" phrase from Joel 2:6, "all faces gather blackness." In his response to me above, he said this, which I'll divide into two parts:

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 in 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.

As I suggested in my above post on the figurative language of Joel, the passage Brant is referencing, indeed the entire chapter and Book itself, is poetic and symbolic. It is so chock-full of metaphor precisely because of its symbolic, allegorical character. Given the fundamental differences between the two textual passages, perhaps the kindest thing to say about Brant's latter assertion that Joel 2:6 is a "direct analogue" with the BoM on this issue, is that it is completely fanciful. Brant goes on to say:

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 consistent 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.

In his comparison of two assertedly similar phrases, Brant reasons that, just as in the phrase "skin of blackness" in Second Nephi 5:21, in Joel 2:6 we have "a body part that can be taken literally associated with the same color quality." He then asserts that the reason the Joel 6:2 language can be recognized as "metaphorical" in character is because, like his interpretation of the "skin of blackness" phrase from Second Nephi 5, it is counterfactual, and obviously conflicts with "biology." Brant then concludes that "So far the Bible" (though he has identified but one "direct analogue" of usage within it) is therefore "consistent with the Book of Mormon usage and inconsistent with your reading." Interpreting the latter conclusory language, Brant apparently means that (1) his "metaphorical" interpretation of the BoM text at Second Nephi 5:21 is "consistent with" the metaphorical interpretation of the passage from Joel. Next, (2) the Joel example also is "inconsistent" with a "literal" interpretation in which the 5:21 language is referring to an empirically real, visible skin color distinction between two groups of people. (The latter is "my reading" of the referenced BoM language.)

Brant's analysis thus starts by (and ends up) ignoring the two most fundamental issues presented by his comparison: the nature of the specific text (not "the Bible," obviously, but a specific book within it) he is comparing to the BoM, and more importantly, the actual linguistic context that shapes and determines the status of the language upon which he relies. To remind the reader of the immediate linguistic context in which verse six appears, and functions, here is the NRSV translation of Joel 2:1-6:

1 Blow the trumpet in Zion;

    sound the alarm on my holy mountain!

    Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble,

    for the day of the LORD is coming, it is near

[juliann]

Addictio, that is just more empty talk. You criticize Brant for using but one verse from the Bible? That makes one more than you are using! How are you going to explain away the other verses?

[juliann]

Any guesses as to the author?

No. I take it that you have found no references to black Native Americans?

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

As I suggested in my above post on the figurative language of Joel, the passage Brant is referencing, indeed the entire chapter and Book itself, is poetic and symbolic. It is so chock-full of metaphor precisely because of its symbolic, allegorical character.

Are you suggesting that metaphors cannot stand alone? Do we never speak a single one, requiring our listener to understand that single metaphor? Do we always list so many of them that it is easy?

So far, you have agreed that blackness/paleness are metaphorical. Good. We will see why you think that those terms change their nature when joined with the word "skin" instead of "faces."

All you cite does not answer that.

Given the fundamental differences between the two textual passages, (between Joel and the Book of Mormon)

Hold on. Assertion. This is the point in question. You have not demonstrated a fundamental difference at all - unless it is that metaphors only exist in bunches - which I sincerely doubt will hold as an argument.

Brant's analysis thus starts by (and ends up) ignoring the two most fundamental issues presented by his comparison: the nature of the specific text

Here it is again. The assertion that metaphors only exist in groups. What "fundamental" difference? You are assuming the very thing that we are discussing.

Since unlike the BoM, the Book of Joel is wholly symbolic and allegorical,

Once again with the same assertion.

Accordingly, if we want to consider why the "all faces gather blackness" or "all faces grow pale" phrase appears as and where it does, or to construe its meaning, we consider its poetic, expressive function given the context in which it appears.

Of course. The issue is whether or not the text in the Book of Mormon serves that precise function. I'll help you with the idea. Here is what Nibley has to say on the topic.

This amazing coincidentia oppositorum is the clash of black and white. With the Arabs, to be white of countenance is to be blessed and to be black of countenance is to be cursed; there are parallel expressions in Hebrew and Egyptian. (Nibley, Lehi in the Desert/ the World of the Jaredites/ There Were Jaredites, 71.

This goes beyond simple metaphor. These phrases are known stock phrases with known meaning. There is a metaphorical use of blackness and whiteness and it is associated with "face." What you must do (and haven't come close) is demonstrate that "skin" must be literal where "face" does not when we have these stock phrases that change the noun involved.

So far, your only argument is the "faces gather blackness/paleness" is a metaphor because it is obvious.

The point, however, isn't that the KJV translators, who chose "gather blackness" were mistaken and translators who choose "grow pale" to render the Hebrew were more "correct," or "faithful" in their translation.

I don't read Hebrew either, but my sources indicate that the word is "blackness" with an idiomatic meaning of "gloom." That fits the text.

See also Nahum 2:10.

(Brant's heavy reliance on the color-related meaning of the specific English word "blackness" used in II Ne 5:21, as distinguished from the related words "darkness" or "dark" used in all other BoM "skin" passages, also may or may not be justified by some analysis of Hebrew vocabulary and usage. Compare the use of "blackness" in verse two of the NRSV, totally absent from the KJV.)

You really don't understand. I am surprised. I really don't care what the color is. Metaphors of color signal quality. The issue of color is simply to note that when we see "blackness" there is no reason to read it literally since its typical context in scriptural language if figurative. So far - you have confirmed exactly what I have been saying.

I am surprised that you have written so much to this point and don't see that you are giving exactly the same argument I am about "blackness." It is metaphorical.

Your job is to defend a shift in meaning when in the presence of the word "skin."

We are waiting.

Unlike the enduring distinction referenced in the BoM (whether interpreted as a difference in skin color or in "righteousness") the change in verse two also depicts not a distinguishing feature, but a condition that afflicts everyone, "all faces" uniformly.

Error of fact. This is not an "enduring distinction. It changes with a shift in polity/religion. It is essentially ephemeral in the text.

As I'll explain in the discussion of the "scales of darkness" passage,

I'll wait for your analysis. So far, you continue to miss the point. What I suggested was that you were readily able to read "scales of darkness" as a metaphor.

I am still wondering why "scales" are inherently metaphorical and "skin" cannot be.

All of this text and you still miss that fundamental question.

unlike the passage in Second Nephi 5:21, the language of verse six has no conceivable "literal" interpretation.

Ring the bell! He agrees with me. After all of this discussion about how I must be wrong, Addicto demonstrates that my point was correct. He deems it a metaphor because it can't be literal!

Addictio, that is exactly what I said. No wonder we have such a hard time communicating. You disagree with me even when you agree with me.

Everyone who is reading this mark this passage. Addictio defines a metaphor as something he doesn't think can possibly be literal.

No analysis of context - just his understanding of what cannot be literal.

I'll interrupt Addictio's analysis for the next logical issue. Since the Book of Mormon indicates that one is able to change their skin from dark to white by becoming Nephite - how is that literally possible?

If it is, please explain.

If it isn't, doesn't that create the same conditions that told you that "scales of darkness" cannot possibly be literal?

it ignores these fundamental differences between the two texts themselves, and between the textual passages being compared.

Another assertion of the very fact under discussion. To repeat, Addictio, this is the very issue we are trying to demonstrate.

There are no "real" people being described or empirical events being reported in the Book of Joel. The persons, groups and events are figurative, and allegorical.

And here it is again. The assertion that everything is metaphorical if there are lots of metaphors. I would love to see you explain to a Hebrew of that time period that prophecy did not relate to real persons, groups, or events.

Since the Hebrew author wasn't trying to describe events or people in the empirical world,

The issue is whether or not the Book of Mormon is attempting to describe real events or simply metaphorical ones.

That is, again, the issue. You aren't demonstrating it. You continue to say that metaphors are metaphorical. I agree.

As with the prophetic passage in Second Nephi 30, discussed below, only a lunatic or jokester would contend that verse six could have been intended as, or could be interpreted as, a set of empirical assertions that are (even in principle) "falsifiable" or "confirmable."

Does this say what it seems to say? Did Addictio just equate 2 Nephi 30:6 with Joel 2:6 as something that is obviously metaphorical?

For those wondering:

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 white and a delightsome people.

(2 Nephi 30:6, cited with the pre-1830 "white" instead of the 1981 "pure")

Addiction now tells us that "white and delightsome" must be metaphorical because it cannot be literal.

This will be interesting, since that is the polar opposite that is used in the text to contrast with blackness/darkness.

So why would Brant (or anyone else) think that the compositional task and word choices of the author of Joel have some logical relationship to those of Nephi?

Wow. After explaining my position so well, Addictio can't see it. Amazing.

What is the logical relationship? Blackness is used metaphorically more often than literally. It shows up in metaphorical pairings contrasting black/white, dark/light.

It is clearly metaphorical when used with the word "scales," which is itself a metaphor.

The Book of Mormon uses the exact similar meanings of black/white, dark/light - shows them is the precise parallels that indicate their metaphorical relationship.

The single difference is that it uses those obvious metaphors in connection to "skin."

What makes "blackness" a pigment when associated with "skin" but a description of unrighteousness when associated with "scales."

Addictio says it is the "fundamental" difference between Joel and the Book of Mormon. However, he concludes that 2 Nephi 30:6 is wholly metaphorical - so much so that even a jokester or lunatic would know it. So it isn't a fundamental difference with the Book of Mormon - only with the one text that Addictio insists must be read literally even when all other instances appear to be metaphorical.

That will be an interesting case to prove, Addictio. In some post, would you please do it?

The way Brant avoids the problem of the fundamental difference in the nature of the two texts. . .

Reasserting the assumption that is the point to be proved. I don't see a fundamental difference.

we know the prophetic "scales of darkness" passage at II Ne. 30:6 is metaphorical mainly because, given its character, the idea that it can be interpreted "literally" is completely nonsensical.

Yes. Exactly what I said. It contradicts biology. You didn't like that phrase, but no matter. It is nonsensical - just like rapid changes in essential pigmentation are nonsensical.

We agree again. Next point.

In sum, a conflict with "biology" is not what distinguishes or identifies the language in verse six (or any other language in the Book of Joel) as metaphorical.

No - it is simply nonsensical. Please, Addictio, would you explain the basis for "nonsensical" if not biology? Frankly, however, I don't care.

Your definition of it being nonsensical is sufficiently broad. I think that "skin of blackness" is nonsensical.

Please show me where I am wrong. You may use your own definition of "nonsensical."

Does Brant have a plausible scenario for how the passage in Joel could have been intended by its author as a literal statement about empirical facts?

I thought it was metaphorical. Did you think I thought it literal? Wow. I think "skin of blackness" is literal because it is obviously metaphorical:

1) it is nonsensical - in your terms. Essential pigmentation doesn't change.

2) if it is related to intermarriage, the Nephites did the same and would end up with the same skin color - hence no biological reason for the black/white difference

3) known metaphorical usage of faces of blackness (Hebrew Bible and parallels in Egyptian, according to Nibley) tell us that this is at least potentially metaphorical/idiomatic.

4) Comparisons in the text show that the black/white, dark/light contexts are essential to the text and clearly used metaphorically rather than literally

5) No text demonstrates actions that visibly discern black/white skin tone differences.

Of all of these arguments, you spend forever on number 1 - and end up agreeing with me.

We are back to you recurring assertion that there is a fundamental difference in the Book of Mormon. That continues to be an unsupported assertion. I have laid out several reasons why I believe it incorrect.

So far, your analysis agrees with me - and not your assertion.

Just how dissimilar and unrelated are the two passages that Brant claimed were "direct analogues"? The depth and fundamental character of those differences, in my judgment, are reflected in the desperate, incoherent nature of the analysis Brant offered to connect them.

Finally! We have the first attempt to demonstrate the fundamental difference, and the difference is - - my explanation!

Sorry. Doesn't follow. If you are going to assert a fundamental difference you need something stronger than not agreeing with me (especially since, to this point, we seem to agree completely).

Demonstrate the fundamental difference. You cannot assume it since it is the issue in question. I have several points demonstrating why it isn't a fundamental difference.

You have concentrated on one of them - and agreed with me. Not a good start.

Keep going, though. Please, however, I would appreciate it if you would actually demonstrate the assumption rather than assert it over and over again.

Recall that even according to Brant's "metaphorical" reading, the author of Second Nephi 5 was still referencing certain events and conditions in the real (empirical) world.

Yes. There is a difference in righteousness. That was real.

A cultural/religious separation between the groups occurred and he characterized it by using the "skin of blackness" language to mark a real disinction between the "unrighteousness," or false religious beliefs and/or hostile conduct of the Lamanites that distiguished them from the people of Nephi.

We agree again. The "skin of blackness" marked a distinction of righteousness/unrighteousness. Exactly what I have been saying.

This is it? Your final analysis of the fundamental difference is that the Book of Mormon referred to a current situation and Joel refers to prophecy? You are suggesting that metaphors are never used in the real world? No, that cannot be it, because you indicate that "skin of blackness" refers to unrighteousness.

Wait - that means that "skin of blackness" is used metaphorically to indicate unrighteousness.

That is my position exactly. Thank you.

[noel00]

Simon Southerton informed his response to Dr Parr's review is up on the Signature site http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/Losing3.htm

[juliann]

Simon Southerton informed his response to Dr Parr's review is up on the Signature site http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/Losing3.htm

Oh, this is pathetic....did he just become a scientist in the last two years or something?

In my case, for thirty years my religious orientation was accompanied by a distorted understanding of the true history of America

[Daniel Peterson]

The most important news is that Simon Southerton has graciously conceded the principal point of the various FARMS reviews to date (not only by Dr. Parr but by Dr. Whiting, Dr. Meldrum, Dr. Stephens, Dr. Sorenson, Dr. Butler, and Dr. McClellan, as well as by Brian Stubbs, John Tvedtnes, and Matthew Roper) on the subject of Amerindian DNA and the Book of Mormon:

"In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today."

[juliann]

Eh... was Southerton even awake when he wrote this?

Any list or assemblage of a dozen, or even a hundred, unsubstantiated claims may make for relaxing bathroom reading, but it is foreign to the scientific approach.

Southerton evidently spent 30 foreign years in that bathroom.... Is there any proof he has emerged?

  In my case, for thirty years my religious orientation was accompanied by a distorted understanding of the true history of America

[noel00]

JulieAnn

"Oh, this is pathetic....did he just become a scientist in the last two years or something?"

"Southerton evidently spent 30 foreign years in that bathroom.... Is there any proof he has emerged?"

Should you not make some more substantive rebuttal rather than just being nasty?

[exegete]

Hi Brant,

I appreciate your patience. Virtually all of my spare time (what little I have) is currently dedicated to my forthcoming BoAbr anthology. In any event, perhaps we can once again ignore the online white noise and refocus.

As you acknowledge, this issue isn't about who can or can't read ancient texts adequately since other LDS scholars capable of interpreting ancient Middle-Eastern and Mesoamerican texts differ from your ""metaphorical" reading of the Lehite narrative.

What I'm trying to grasp is in what way you see the "skin" of "blackness"/"darkness" as an external, visible indicator of spiritual dearth. What was it about the God-cursed "skin" of "blackness"/"darkness" that repulsed the Nephites (2 Ne. 5:21

[exegete]

Hi Julie,

You and Daniel leave me wondering if DNApologists are capable of discerning rudimentary errors in scientific data

[Daniel Peterson]

You and Daniel leave me wondering if DNApologists are capable of discerning rudimentary errors in scientific data

[exegete]

Hi Daniel,

Make no mistake, I think that you're a reasonably intelligent fellow; but on this issue, I think you and I agree.

Cheers,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Daniel Peterson]

If Dr. Woodward is on your side rather than mine, O mighty one, I'll instantly concede my total incomprehension of even the spelling of DNA, and I will justly be ranked with the other FARMS genetics-illiterates (e.g., Dr. John Butler, Dr. John Sorenson, Dr. Ryan Parr, Dr. Michael Whiting, Dr. Trent Stephens, Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum, and Dr. David McClellan), who can never hope to enjoy your (typically) total mastery of the subject.

Incidentally, besides Dr. Butler's embarrassing CV at

http://www.cstl.nist.gov/biotech/strbase/butler.htm

there is also this well deserved public flogging of the incompetent fool at

http://www.ourpublicservice.org/staff_name...m?doc_id=228726

[Bill Hamblin]

Exegete

Scott Woodward expressed to me an extreme skepticism that laypeople could ever grasp the complexities of these issues.

DCP

I don't want to speak for Juliann, but no, I'm completely incapable.

My Dear Professor Peterson,

Do you think it might be possible that, when Professor Woodward was expressing his skepticism to Exegete that "laypeople" could grasp the complexities of the DNA issues, that he might have been gently hinting that, in his mind, Exegete belonged in the category of "laypeople".

I am also puzzled: are there any issues where the so-called "apologists" actually disagree about the scientific DNA data? My impression was, the disagreement is actually about geography, history and theology of the BOM. I have the distinct impression that Southerton has essentially conceded that "it would be very hard to detect [Lehite] genes today." But, perhaps the historical complexities are also beyond my capacity to grasp.

Incapacitatedly yours

Professor Hamblin

[Daniel Peterson]

Do you think it might be possible that, when Professor Woodward was expressing his skepticism to Exegete that "laypeople" could grasp the complexities of the DNA issues, that he might have been gently hinting that, in his mind, Exegete belonged in the category of "laypeople".

Certainly not, Professor Hamblin. Exegete is not, and can never be considered, one of the "laypeople." Wash your mouth out immediately.

By "laypeople," Dr. Woodward certainly intended me, and very likely also intended Drs. Meldrum, Stephens, Parr, Whiting, Sorenson, Butler, and McClellan. In fact, since he continues to believe in the Book of Mormon, he may even have included himself. But Exegete? Never!

I am also puzzled: are there any issues where the so-called "apologists" actually disagree about the scientific DNA data?  My impression was, the disagreement is actually about geography, history and theology of the BOM.  I have the distinct impression that Southerton has essentially conceded that "it would be very hard to detect [Lehite] genes today."  But, perhaps the historical complexities are also beyond my capacity to grasp.

Your view appears to me to be correct. But, alas, historical issues are just as far beyond my meager capacities as are scientific issues.

[juliann]

When DNApologists first began to address these issues, Scott Woodward expressed to me an extreme skepticism that laypeople could ever grasp the complexities of these issues.

Wow...two times I have agreed with your side of the DNApologetics today! I am as incompetent as any other layperson <snort>

Precisely because they lack advanced academic training, amateurs probably do not realize how crude their work looks to scholars.

John-Charles Duffy, Sunstone (May 2004), p. 36.

And frankly, covering your comments with a only accentuates my point.

I'll blink to that!

[juliann]

As you acknowledge, this issue isn't about who can or can't read ancient texts adequately since other LDS scholars capable of interpreting ancient Middle-Eastern and Mesoamerican texts differ from your ""metaphorical" reading of the Lehite narrative.

That is why we have asked you, the ultimate in laypersonhood, to provide us with just a couple of the many, many instances where NAs were referred to as "black" in JS's time. We ask. And ask. And ask and ask and ask.

[Bill Hamblin]

My Dear Professor Peterson,

I humbly beg your pardon for daring to comment in matters clearly beyond my capacity.

But I have another question you might be able to help me understand.

Why is it that Exegete insists that an ancient BOM must be understood literally when describing Native Americans as "black," when it seems rather obvious that a 19th century BOM must be understood metaphorically when it calls "Red" Indians "Black." What Anglo-American in the early nineteenth century would have described the skin of the Native Americans as literally "black" in comparison with the skin of African American slaves?

Help thou mine incapacity

Professor Hamblin