Blackness in the Book of Mormon

[Hamba Tuhan]

Might you be doing the same thing by applying a 21st century rather than a 19th century reading? It seems that 19th century constructions of race would be more enlightening in your analysis.

That depends entirely on whether the Book of Mormon is an ancient text or a nineteenth-century text.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Btw, the choices have been made clear - you either accept the BoM as entire truth and history, or you reject it altogether. Don't even think of a "middle road", because that would be compromise.

Ray, what wacky universe do you live in where things that are true and/or historical are never expressed in metaphorical language???

You, in fact, used a metaphor when you wrote 'middle road.' Does that mean that I can dismiss you as untruthful, possibly even non-existent?

[John Larsen]

That depends entirely on whether the Book of Mormon is an ancient text or a nineteenth-century text.

Even if it is ancient, it was translated by those with a 19th century understanding. Or, in other words, it was translated into 19th century language and thought. Therefore 20th or 21th century understandings of such things as race would be irrelevant. So, if you want to arrive at what the meaning of the text is, you have to filter it though the mind of the translator, Joseph Smith. So even if you could establish that the modern reading on race you are proposing was held in the 19th century, it doesn't matter since it is Joseph Smith's concept of race that would show up in the book.

What this means is that Joseph would have used metaphor familiar to himself and his readership. So is it likely that an unschooled country boy like Joseph would use skin as an extended metaphor?

This is all colored by whether you ascribe to a lose or tight translation. Which is it for you?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Even if it is ancient, it was translated by those with a 19th century understanding. Or, in other words, it was translated into 19th century language and thought. Therefore 20th or 21th century understandings of such things as race would be irrelevant. So, if you want to arrive at what the meaning of the text is, you have to filter it though the mind of the translator, Joseph Smith. So even if you could establish that the modern reading on race you are proposing was held in the 19th century, it doesn't matter since it is Joseph Smith's concept of race that would show up in the book.

What this means is that Joseph would have used metaphor familiar to himself and his readership. So is it likely that an unschooled country boy like Joseph would use skin as an extended metaphor?

This is all colored by whether you ascribe to a lose or tight translation. Which is it for you?

John, I think you've simultaneously undercut your own argument and answered your own question by the time you wrote your third paragraph.

Moreover, by way of clarifcation, what we're dealing with here is not 21st-century conceptions of race but 21st-century attempts at trying to comprehend ancient ideas about race without imposing our own contemporary views. It's a much-needed correction in all historical endeavours.

[Olavarria]

If you're right, Her Amun, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face. Allow me to illustrate:By changing the meaning of skin of blackness to be spiritual or metaphorical, you cut the legs right out from under many prophets and apostles that taught just the opposite.

Nicely put.....

What you say would be true only if:

1)I assume that the prophets and apostles are infallible god-men who are immune from being "men of their times".

2)Deny the promise of "further light and knowledge" the Father promises to send us.

[Olavarria]

Do you know of any ancient Semitic texts that indicate that God will cause a metaphor to come upon certain people, and by seeing that metaphor other groups of people will know not to intermarry with them?

No, because I really dont think that is what was going on. If we assume that the the Lamanites were participating in meso-culture to the extant that they became wicked and out of the covenant(human sacrifice,body mutiliation) then that would be the thing that showed they were "black".

[LifeOnaPlate]

Seems like you like making inane and ad hominem comments not pertinent to the discussion.

I wasn't trying to attack you or discredit your point, but to encourage a more productive tone. I'm sorry if that was offensive.

Btw, the choices have been made clear - you either accept the BoM as entire truth and history, or you reject it altogether. Don't even think of a "middle road", because that would be compromise.

Agree to disagree. The Book itself doesn't claim perfection. To the contrary, it explicitly says it contains error.

Might you be doing the same thing by applying a 21st century rather than a 19th century reading? It seems that 19th century constructions of race would be more enlightening in your analysis.

I address that a little in the blog post I linked to.

You're right. And in the Qur'anic verses, the word 'face' is used, it being a particular subset of a person's skin. In this case, is the point literal black and white faces? If not, then we have metonomy, which is possibly also what we have with the Book of Mormon's use of skin. Apprehending cross-cultural metaphors (especially ones like metonomy and synecdoche) is tough; just ask a non-native English speaker what s/he thought upon first encountering someone who offered, 'Can I give you a hand?'

Or my Mongolian companion on my mission. I told him I was going to go jump in the shower and he became very confused, asked for clarification, and told me to be careful not to slip.

[Uncertain]

Interpreting the BOM to mean a metaphorical skin of blackness instead of a literal skin change has always seemed like a stretch to me. As has already been mentioned it is difficult to see how a metaphor would prevent intermarriage. And those statements in which God is described as causing the skin of blackness are difficult to reconcile with metaphor. Did God then cause the Lamanites to have wicked hearts? All this has already been brought up by Cinepro and others. In addition to to the above points the BOM text itself seems to indicate a easily discernible difference between true descendants of Laman and Nephites.

Consider:

Alma 55:3-13

3 Behold, I know the place where the Lamanites do guard my people whom they have taken prisoners; and as Ammoron would not grant unto me mine epistle, behold, I will give unto him according to my words; yea, I will seek death among them until they shall sue for peace.

4 And now it came to pass that when Moroni had said these words, he caused that a search should be made among his men, that perhaps he might find a man who was a descendant of Laman among them.

5 And it came to pass that they found one, whose name was Laman; and he was one of the servants of the king who was murdered by Amalickiah.

6 Now Moroni caused that Laman and a small number of his men should go forth unto the guards who were over the Nephites.

7 Now the Nephites were guarded in the city of Gid; therefore Moroni appointed Laman and caused that a small number of men should go with him.

8 And when it was evening Laman went to the guards who were over the Nephites, and behold, they saw him coming and they hailed him; but he saith unto them: Fear not; behold, I am a Lamanite. Behold, we have escaped from the Nephites, and they sleep; and behold we have taken of their wine and brought with us.

9 Now when the Lamanites heard these words they received him with joy; and they said unto him: Give us of your wine, that we may drink; we are glad that ye have thus taken wine with you for we are weary.

10 But Laman said unto them: Let us keep of our wine till we go against the Nephites to battle. But this saying only made them more desirous to drink of the wine;

11 For, said they: We are weary, therefore let us take of the wine, and by and by we shall receive wine for our rations, which will strengthen us to go against the Nephites.

12 And Laman said unto them: You may do according to your desires.

13 And it came to pass that they did take of the wine freely; and it was pleasant to their taste, therefore they took of it more freely; and it was strong, having been prepared in its strength.

(bold added by me)

If the Nephites were physically indistinguishable from the Lamanites why did Moroni require a true descendant of Laman? Would not any of his men be physically indistinguishable from their Lamanite enemies and he could have used one of them to attempt his subterfuge? In addition when the Lamanite guards hailed Laman. He reassured them by saying "Fear not; behold I am a Lamanite". So apparently there was something immediately obvious about him such that the guards merely had to look at him to know he was a Lamanite. All of this is compatible with a literal skin color difference but is not compatible with true descendants of Laman being physically indistinguishable from Nephites. If there was physically no difference the Lamanite guards would have to be criminally stupid to trust implicitly the word of a stranger that he was on their side. Such that they would let their guard down enough to drink free wine provided by this stranger and his young physically fit buddies and incapacitate themselves.

Now if there was a literal skin difference the presence of Moroni's men with Laman has to be explained. Presumably they would be white and it would be immediately obvious they were Nephites and not Lamanites. Now remember at this particular point in time there had been many defections from the Nephites to the Lamanites to name a few the Amlicites and Zoramites had groups that defected and fought against the Nephites. Therefore a group of mixed nationality consisting of white skinned Nephites with dark skinned Lamanites would be perfectly acceptable to the Lamanite guards. And would fit very well with Laman's story that they were a bunch of escaped prisoners.

Frankly I think the shift in interpretation to metaphor is driven in large part in an attempt to make the BOM text compatible with certain popular apologetic positions. For example a very popular interpretation of the BOM is that the Lehites soon after arriving mingled and intermarried with a large existing native population. If this was the case very shortly everyone would have been the same color the color of the existing native population. Think for a second what would happen after a few generations if a small group of white colonists were dropped in central Africa round about 600 B.C. Within a few generations of intermarriage everyone would be dark skinned. After a thousand years or so of intermarriage it is very unlikely there would be a discernible difference in skin color between the descendants of the white colonists and the surrounding population. A literal skin color difference does not fit very well with the idea the Lehites extensively mingled and intermarried with an existing native population therefore the attempt to reinterpret the BOM to refer to a metaphorical instead of literal darkness.

I would add I am completely comfortable with the idea that sometimes people use a metaphor of darkness to refer to sin. However does this mean that every time dark skin is referenced in ancient writing it must be a metaphor? So one hundred percent of the time when we see an ancient writer refer to dark skin we can be assured he means a metaphorical meaning? Presumably at least some of the time ancient writers meant a literal dark skin when they wrote dark skin. Therefore the fact that sometimes ancient writers used darkness as a metaphor is not in and of itself sufficient to establish the BOM references to a dark skin are in every instance metaphorical. Especially given the points in the text that seem to indicate a physical difference for literal descendants of Laman/Lemual.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't think physical qualities alone could be the needed distinction in that group, Uncertain. It may very well have been, but it takes me about 30 seconds to know whether someone has really been a "life-long member of the Church" or not just by talking to them. (Speaking of American Mormons)

[Mortal Man]

5 Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth.

6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

I assume, according to your reasoning, that verse five is "metaphorical"?

A literal reading of verse 5 gives the reason for their darkness. If you ran around naked in the sun every day your skin would turn dark too.

[Uncertain]

I don't think physical qualities alone could be the needed distinction in that group, Uncertain. It may very well have been, but it takes me about 30 seconds to know whether someone has really been a "life-long member of the Church" or not just by talking to them. (Speaking of American Mormons)

Hi LifeOnaPlate,

Certainly you are correct. Laman does not say "Fear not behold my dark skin I am a Lamanite". All this passage requires is that those who are true descendants of Laman are distinct in some way such that it is immediately obvious. However there a couple of qualities about this distinction we can infer from this passage.

1. Laman only has to say one sentence "Fear not behold I am a Lamanite" and the Lamanite guards apparently believe him. So whatever is distinct about Laman it is possible to see this difference very easily and does not require a great deal of dialogue. I don't know about you but based on one sentence it would be very difficult for me to tell whether someone is a life-long member of the Church (depending on the sentence of course).

2. What is distinct about Laman apparently is very difficult to fake. Otherwise Moroni would not have needed a true descendant of Laman. He could have used one of his men and given him a hair cut (or whatever the difference is). And again we go back to the criminal stupidity of the Lamanite guards if it was easy to fake being a true descendant of Laman. They would be criminally stupid to take a strangers word for it and incapacitate themselves.

So what we get from this passage is there is some difference between true descendants of Laman and Nephites such that it is immediately obvious who is a true descendant of Laman. And it is apparently difficult to fake this difference. When you couple this with some of the problems as already outlined with interpreting all the BOM statements with reference to skin color as metaphorical. It starts looking like a real stretch to argue the BOM does not reference a literal skin color change at least some of the time.

Frankly even if the BOM does reference a literal skin difference I do not believe it is racist. So I see no compelling argument from the text to interpret all references to a skin color difference as metaphor. And the BOM itself even if read as a literal skin color change is not racist. So why make the stretch and contort the text such that all references to skin color must not be read literally but as a metaphor? To make the text fit a popular apologetic position is not a good reason.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Thinking]

Trying to claim that references to a dark skin in the BoM are not literal is a perfect example of retroactive apologetics. It has been well understood for years that the dark skin references in the BoM are literal. Now some apologists are searching for quotes which may add a metaphorical spin to the concept of dark skin and claiming that we have misunderstood all along.

[Olavarria]

Trying to claim that references to a dark skin in the BoM are not literal is a perfect example of retroactive apologetics. It has been well understood for years that the dark skin references in the BoM are literal. Now some apologists are searching for quotes which may add a metaphorical spin to the concept of dark skin and claiming that we have misunderstood all along.

Exactly!!!!

If the BoM really is the translation of a religious text written by desert dwelling Semites and their descendants then we should ask ourselves what other religious texts written by desert dwelling Semites mean when they use the same terms.

[Sargon]

Interpreting the BOM to mean a metaphorical skin of blackness instead of a literal skin change has always seemed like a stretch to me. As has already been mentioned it is difficult to see how a metaphor would prevent intermarriage. And those statements in which God is described as causing the skin of blackness are difficult to reconcile with metaphor. Did God then cause the Lamanites to have wicked hearts? All this has already been brought up by Cinepro and others. In addition to to the above points the BOM text itself seems to indicate a easily discernible difference between true descendants of Laman and Nephites.

Consider:

Alma 55:3-13

3 Behold, I know the place where the Lamanites do guard my people whom they have taken prisoners; and as Ammoron would not grant unto me mine epistle, behold, I will give unto him according to my words; yea, I will seek death among them until they shall sue for peace.

4 And now it came to pass that when Moroni had said these words, he caused that a search should be made among his men, that perhaps he might find a man who was a descendant of Laman among them.

5 And it came to pass that they found one, whose name was Laman; and he was one of the servants of the king who was murdered by Amalickiah.

6 Now Moroni caused that Laman and a small number of his men should go forth unto the guards who were over the Nephites.

7 Now the Nephites were guarded in the city of Gid; therefore Moroni appointed Laman and caused that a small number of men should go with him.

8 And when it was evening Laman went to the guards who were over the Nephites, and behold, they saw him coming and they hailed him; but he saith unto them: Fear not; behold, I am a Lamanite. Behold, we have escaped from the Nephites, and they sleep; and behold we have taken of their wine and brought with us.

9 Now when the Lamanites heard these words they received him with joy; and they said unto him: Give us of your wine, that we may drink; we are glad that ye have thus taken wine with you for we are weary.

10 But Laman said unto them: Let us keep of our wine till we go against the Nephites to battle. But this saying only made them more desirous to drink of the wine;

11 For, said they: We are weary, therefore let us take of the wine, and by and by we shall receive wine for our rations, which will strengthen us to go against the Nephites.

12 And Laman said unto them: You may do according to your desires.

13 And it came to pass that they did take of the wine freely; and it was pleasant to their taste, therefore they took of it more freely; and it was strong, having been prepared in its strength.

(bold added by me)

If the Nephites were physically indistinguishable from the Lamanites why did Moroni require a true descendant of Laman? Would not any of his men be physically indistinguishable from their Lamanite enemies and he could have used one of them to attempt his subterfuge? In addition when the Lamanite guards hailed Laman. He reassured them by saying "Fear not; behold I am a Lamanite". So apparently there was something immediately obvious about him such that the guards merely had to look at him to know he was a Lamanite. All of this is compatible with a literal skin color difference but is not compatible with true descendants of Laman being physically indistinguishable from Nephites. If there was physically no difference the Lamanite guards would have to be criminally stupid to trust implicitly the word of a stranger that he was on their side. Such that they would let their guard down enough to drink free wine provided by this stranger and his young physically fit buddies and incapacitate themselves.

Now if there was a literal skin difference the presence of Moroni's men with Laman has to be explained. Presumably they would be white and it would be immediately obvious they were Nephites and not Lamanites. Now remember at this particular point in time there had been many defections from the Nephites to the Lamanites to name a few the Amlicites and Zoramites had groups that defected and fought against the Nephites. Therefore a group of mixed nationality consisting of white skinned Nephites with dark skinned Lamanites would be perfectly acceptable to the Lamanite guards. And would fit very well with Laman's story that they were a bunch of escaped prisoners.

All the Best,

Uncertain

I completely disagree. The man was chosen because he spoke the language of the Lamanites, not because he looked like a Lamanite. Notice that nephite soldiers accompanied him. If, as in your scenario, the Lamanites were a mixed bunch, consisting of various skin colors, then why the search for a dark colored Nephite in the first place? Why not just send white nephites who pretend to be lamanites?

Furthermore, a "search" was made for the Lamanite descendent among the Nephites. If the Nephite army was all white, one black man among the army would be known by name by everyone. He would stick out like a sore thumb. Notice also that the particular individual they chose was the only one to speak to the Lamanites in this scene. He is the only one to speak because he is the only person in the Nephite party who spoke the language of the Lamanites.

So, this particular scene depicts the exact opposite of what you contend. It illustrates that Nephites and Lamanites were largely indistinguishable except by language and customs. The man was sought out among the Nephite ranks because they needed a native Lamanite speaker.

Sargon

[LifeOnaPlate]

Trying to claim that references to a dark skin in the BoM are not literal is a perfect example of retroactive apologetics. It has been well understood for years that the dark skin references in the BoM are literal. Now some apologists are searching for quotes which may add a metaphorical spin to the concept of dark skin and claiming that we have misunderstood all along.

For the record, I don't believe my blog post has done that, nor Brant Gardner, nor did folks like Hugh Nibley, from what I recall. I disagree with this dichotomy of literal/figurative.

[Uncertain]

Hi Sargon,

I appreciate your input.

I completely disagree. The man was chosen because he spoke the language of the Lamanites, not because he looked like a Lamanite. Notice that nephite soldiers accompanied him.

(bold added by me)

Where does it say this in the text? Isn't it your position that the text itself has primacy and we should strive to reduce assumptions brought to the text not found in the text itself? I see no place in the text where it states Laman was chosen because he was the only one who spoke the Lamanite language. For that matter there are many examples of Nephites having no problems communicating with the Lamanites both in writing and in word. Do you have any examples of anywhere in the BOM where it states the Lamanites spoke a different language than the Nephites? And frankly this suggestion does not make a whole lot of sense. Suppose you were a guard in WWII in a war zone and you stopped a stranger who said no worries I am on your side look I speak English and I have this wine me and my buddies brought but my buddies only speak German. Would it be wise to simply take his word for it because he happens to speak English and drink yourself to insensibility? Do no Germans speak English?

All we can infer from the text is that the descendant of Laman was distinct in some fashion such that he was immediately believed when he claimed to be a Lamanite and on the Lamanite guards side.

If, as in your scenario, the Lamanites were a mixed bunch, consisting of various skin colors, then why the search for a dark colored Nephite in the first place? Why not just send white nephites who pretend to be lamanites?

Well because a collection of white Nephites only would not be very believable. Yes some of the Nephites did defect to the Lamanites that does not mean all white skinned bands of young men are on the Lamanites side. Having some bona fide Lamanites in the group adds much needed credibility that the white skinned members of the group are Nephite defectors.

Furthermore, a "search" was made for the Lamanite descendent among the Nephites. If the Nephite army was all white, one black man among the army would be known by name by everyone. He would stick out like a sore thumb.

Where does the text state he was the only black man in the army?

Notice also that the particular individual they chose was the only one to speak to the Lamanites in this scene. He is the only one to speak because he is the only person in the Nephite party who spoke the language of the Lamanites.

Where does the text state he was the only one who spoke to the Lamanite guards? He was the first one it does not necessarily follow he was the only one. For that matter think about this for a minute. Laman is the only one who speaks the Lamanite language. So the Lamanite guards don't get at all suspicious of the other members of the party that speak only Nephite but who claim to be escaped Lamanite prisoners? Are the other party members simply mute not responding to questions asked of them by the Lamanite guards? And the guards wouldn't find a collection of mute fit young men that are all strangers bearing wine at all suspicious?

So, this particular scene depicts the exact opposite of what you contend. It illustrates that Nephites and Lamanites were largely indistinguishable except by language and customs. The man was sought out among the Nephite ranks because they needed a native Lamanite speaker.

I am not seeing it. All this passage demonstrates is that there is some difference in true descendants of Laman. Such that in a very short time their claim to being a Lamanite will be believed. To the point that guards in a war zone will trustingly incapacitate themselves. It says nothing about language difference or culture difference. In fact it argues against the idea that Lamanites are indistinguishable from Nephites.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Sargon]

Hi Uncertain. You will have to allow me to respond later when I am at home and have some resources (and hopefully time) before me. I'm at work this afternoon and am unable to really dig into this.

[Uncertain]

Exactly!!!!

If the BoM really is the translation of a religious text written by desert dwelling Semites and their descendants then we should ask ourselves what other religious texts written by desert dwelling Semites mean when they use the same terms.

Hi Her Amun,

Well I don't know about Thinking. But I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that sometimes a desert dwelling Semite would use darkness or a dark skin as a metaphor for righteousness. Does this therefore mean that 100% of the time a reference to dark skin is metaphorical? What would happen if my hypothetical desert dweller really did meet dark skinned people? Would he write "Today I met dark skinned camel herders but they really did have dark skin I am not being metaphorical here they were not sinners they really had dark skin". Presumably sometimes a desert dweller really means it when he says a person has dark skin. Therefore we cannot assume simply because sometimes darkness is used as a metaphor it must always be so used in any and all ancient Semitic texts.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

Hi Uncertain. You will have to allow me to respond later when I am at home and have some resources (and hopefully time) before me. I'm at work this afternoon and am unable to really dig into this.

Hi Sargon,

No worries, I am willing to be convinced if the evidence so indicates. It is just at this point in time I find the literal interpretation to be more compelling at least for most of the references to dark skin in the BOM. I also see a motivation to interpret the references metaphorically that may be influencing how the text is interpreted.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[AndyOne]

As noted on the other thread, why would God CURSE the Lamanites with unrighteousness? With "hearts" of darkness?

[Ray Agostini]

I assume, according to your reasoning, that verse five is "metaphorical"?

A literal reading of verse 5 gives the reason for their darkness. If you ran around naked in the sun every day your skin would turn dark too.

I presume that was tongue-in-cheek. That's not the reason the BoM gives. And if it was the reason the North American setting for the BoM goes out the window. On the other hand, the Nephites should have turned dark too if this naturalistic explanation is offered. They would not have been covered from head to toe, and you don't have to "run around naked" to get a dark skin in a tropical climate, because enough skin would be exposed to the sun, such as head, arms, legs (with light clothing). When "Lamanites" move to cold climates their skin doesn't turn white, but by this reasoning ("running around naked in the sun") it should. So the "curse" was a dark skin not brought on by climate.

[Sargon]

I presume that was tongue-in-cheek. That's not the reason the BoM gives. And if it was the reason the North American setting for the BoM goes out the window. On the other hand, the Nephites should have turned dark too if this naturalistic explanation is offered. They would not have been covered from head to toe, and you don't have to "run around naked" to get a dark skin in a tropical climate, because enough skin would be exposed to the sun, such as head, arms, legs (with light clothing). When "Lamanites" move to cold climates their skin doesn't turn white, but by this reasoning ("running around naked in the sun") it should. So the "curse" was a dark skin not brought on by climate.

Ray, can you clarify something for me? I'm unfamiliar with you, so I'm not sure if you are a Mormon or not. Do you generally believe the Book of Mormon is of ancient origin, or that it is something else?

[Ray Agostini]

Ray, can you clarify something for me? I'm unfamiliar with you, so I'm not sure if you are a Mormon or not. Do you generally believe the Book of Mormon is of ancient origin, or that it is something else?

I'm an ex-Mormon. I don't believe the BoM is of ancient origin - at all. So I feel okay defining it as "inspired but not history", and even that would need qualifications because I consider some of its teachings uninspired, like the aforementioned "curse", sort of like how Joseph Smith could call the Bible "the word of God" but exempt the Song of Solomon, and many other concepts within the Bible (hence the JST).

[LifeOnaPlate]

sort of like how Joseph Smith could call the Bible "the word of God" but exempt the Song of Solomon, and many other concepts within the Bible (hence the JST).

Except that JS said he received information on these things through revelation whereas I presume you don't?

[cinepro]

If the Book of Mormon claims of "dark skin" are truly metaphorical, then I would have to say it is possibly the worst metaphor I have ever heard of. In fact, I can't think of a worse possible metaphor.

Just look at this thread (and others like it). Look at the depth of thinking and arguments that are needed to try and explain it, and even with that level of thinking, it is hardly convincing; the literal reading still just pops off the page, and makes perfect sense.

All the examples of metaphorical "darkness" cited from the Bible and other texts in this thread make perfect sense as metaphors, and most readers would pick up on that right away. They are almost poetic.

But the Book of Mormon descriptions of the Lamanite curse are explanatory, and part of the narrative. And there are a bazillion ways to say that someone is "wicked" (both metaphorical and literal). But somehow, the Book of Mormon writers and (translator) picked the one way that would lead readers (including Prophets and Apostles) to totally miss the metaphorical meaning and preach a literal understanding for 170+ years! What unfortunate luck that such a metaphor was used in a book that was believed to tell the how a colony of white settlers ended up as a race of dark-skinned Indians.

If we have any multilingual board participants, I would be curious to know if foreign translations of the Book of Mormon use the literal wording or figurative wording when translating these verses:

2 Nephi 5:21

Jacob 3:5

Alma 3:6

Just to be clear, I will be overjoyed on the day the Church publicly teaches that these verses are metaphorical, and even goes so far as to clarify the text in the Book of Mormon to prevent future generations from misunderstanding them. But I presume it will take stronger arguments than those presented in this thread (and more official venues than an internet forum) to get there.