Blackness in the Book of Mormon

[Tchild2]

Which reading is still dependent upon your understanding that a different skin color might not be enticing. That is a relatively modern opinion. Anciently, there wasn't so much distinction about skin color, but there was about many other things, which they considered to be visible, but which we would not (again I recommend the Personality of Paul)

Interesting observation. Does the church endorse your unpublished, unsolicited opinion(s)?

If it took a generation, then it was ineffective to make the distinction you are suggesting. If you really want to press the "God could do it" idea, then he could also make things white with blood (which, being a miracle, would be even more spectacular--maybe like burning a sacrifice after drenching it in water).

And yet it would make sense in the ancient world. That again is the difference. The difficulty isn't really in the text, it is that our assumptions are so ingrained that we can't see anything other than what we originally assume.

More interesting observations. Does the church "officially", in any medium they dispense church doctrine, support this position?

The solution, as you suggested, was to determine when the literal reading doesn't fit reality. You don't clean garments with blood and you don't make anyone black or white based on their sinfulness or righteousness (remember, there are few white people--pinkish, but rarely albino; Native Americans are not black in any sense of the color). Since "black" is applied to Native Americans in Joseph Smith's time, surely they saw them as the people reference, but that particular black (even while explaining a pigmentation change) was still metaphorical, because it cannot have been descriptive. Even the literal reading is metaphorical (ironic, isn't it).

More Brantisms. Where can we find official church teachings that support your unique opinions Brant?

Belligerence doesn't contribute to a conversation. If you can't have a civil discussion leave the thread.

[cinepro]

Yes. That is still the problem. You don't see it as metaphorical, therefore you can't understand it as a metaphor. As I have said before, the answer is to learn more about the nature of prejudice in the ancient world. Remember the evidence Hamba Tuhan was presenting? There is a much different set of assumptions happening that don't fit our conceptions. You assume that we could see a pigmentation color and therefore they would be unenticing. The ancients would assume that they could see sinfulness and therefore the people (as a stereotype) become unenticing. Stereotypes defined the way the groups were seen, and it didn't require skin color.

Brant, please rewrite the following verse and remove the metaphors; make it literal. Show me how the verse should read, without metaphors. At the very least, I will be able to see what you think it is a metaphor for, and how that explains the "text" better than the literal reading.

2 Nephi 5:21

...wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

For example, if someone thought the following verse from the Bible was literally describing Job's skin turning a darker pigmented color:

Job 30: 30

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

I would rewrite it this way to remove the confusion:

30 My skin is [burnt] upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.

I changed the word, it removed any confusion about what I think the verse means, and I think the two verses still mean the same thing in comparison. Any by substituting the ambiguous word "black", I show that the verse can logically exist being understood metaphorically.

And I would also suggest the second half of the verse becomes incongruous with a literal "skin color" reading:

30 My skin is [a dark pigmentation] upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.

The second half of the verse becomes a non-sequiter.

So, to help me understand exactly what your theory is, please "remove" the metaphor from that verse and make it literally say what you think it says.

I'll even do the literal version, so we can see if that fits:

2 Nephi 5:21

...wherefore, as they [had white skin/dermis that they really liked and made them look beautiful], that they might not [make my people want to get married and have children with them] the Lord God did cause [a much darker skin/dermis] to come upon them.

Racial overtones aside, the verse still makes sense in the context of the story (and compared to the wording of the original)

Now, you try it with the way you see it.

[Brant Gardner]

Interesting observation. Does the church endorse your unpublished, unsolicited opinion(s)?

The church isn't currently in the business of endorsing any particular scholarship on the Book of Mormon, at least officially--not even that of the Maxwell Institute.

However, while certainly unsolicited, you are incorrect that they are unpublished. They have been published and available for over a year now. I'm guessing, however, that you aren't asking for an order form .

[Brant Gardner]

Brant, please rewrite the following verse and remove the metaphors; make it literal.

You may have to show me how. In the following sentence, "that is more fun than a barrel of monkeys" remove the metaphor and make it literal.

In what sense is righteousness literal? In what sense are stereotypes that categorize an entire people by a few phrases literally true? Nevertheless, you have both in the ancient world.

However, let's take:

2 Nephi 5:21

...wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Making more sense of this to modern sensibilities, we have:

". . .wherefore, as they were once righteous and Israelite and therefore possibly attractive as marriage partners, the Lord cursed them as being separate and non-approachable as marriage partners."

In what way might they become unattractive as marriage partners? Being seen as non-Israelite would do, particularly if they were close by. That was the prohibition we find in Israel against the close-foreigner.

Why would a "skin of blackness" be metaphorical refer to something that isn't seen? Explain the biblical concept of clean and unclean and then we can come back to the problem of literalness.

The fact that it is difficult for a modern mind to see anything but a literal reading does not require anything of an ancient writer - and it quite likely to have been a very foreign reading to them.

The whole idea of shaking the dust off one's feet comes from the metaphor of soil as representative of a nation. Why does shaking dust off the feet condemn literally? It is a literal action, but the meaning is anything but literal--it is metaphorical.

[CV75]

One of the biggest mistakes people make when reading the Book of Mormon is forgetting that it is the translation of an ancient record, written by Semites and their descendants.

When I read these passage, I see the curse as specific to the people upon whom it was placed, and that the Lord explained its beneficial purpose for the Nephites in preserving their God-given commandments and covenants. It was done this way because that was the method best suited for the people in that place at that time. The resulting preservation of the Nephite religion was a blessing to the Lamanites, for in time many Lamanites converted--so the curse really turned out to be a blessing to them. When the Nephites rejected the gospel and were thereby destroyed (thus fulfilling their own blessing / curse--2 Nephi 20:1 / Omni 1:6), the curse on their Lamanite kin became meaningless as far as a method for preserving the pure faith. They had to wait for the covenant to be restored in the latter days, when the descendants of those who had been cursed (including the descendants of any Nephites that had been absorbed into the Lamanite demographic) could be blessed.

[Jason]

You may have to show me how. In the following sentence, "that is more fun than a barrel of monkeys" remove the metaphor and make it literal.

Darmok, and Jalad...at Tanagra!

[Sargon]

Hi Jason,

Hi Uncertain. I know you didn't address this to me, but I'd like to play.

Certainly differences in speech is one possibility. However I find it to be the less likely interpretation for a couple of reasons.

1. It is completely ad hoc at no point in the text does it state Laman spoke a different language than the Nephites. In fact as I already mentioned I am aware of no place in the BOM where it states the Lamanites spoke a different language than the Nephites.

To my knowledge, the BoM text doesn't anywhere explicitly state that the Lamanites and Nephites spoke different languages. But, in my estimation it seems more than likely that they at least had developed different accents and possibly even distinct vocabularies for many things. Remember, these two separate nations had been split apart for 600 years at this point. Even an untrained student knows that Americans in 1774 spoke differently than Americans do today. And that was only 215 years ago. Imagine 600!

Of course, they would have had much opportunity for communication through trade, war, and even marriage. Nonetheless, history again seems to tell us that even strongly different accents would have been likely. Consider the strong difference in accent between Britons and Americans, or even Yankees and southerners.

Now, since you are concerned with what the "text" actually says, I think we may find that it actually supports my view:

Alma 55

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.

Emphasis mine. If we want to actually stick quite strenuously to what the text says (as you seem to want to do) then we see that upon hearing Laman utter just a couple of sentences they were convinced. Something about what he said convinced them. It certainly wasn't simply the message, because any Nephite could have said that. No, it required a descendent of the Lamanites to say it. In this case, we don't have just a descendent of the Lamanites but we have a first generation immigrant. Laman had defected from the Lamanite army after growing up as a Lamanite. See:

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.

So, the Lamanite guards apparently were convinced merely by the way that this fellow spoke to them. He obviously was able to do something that the Nephite soldiers weren't. Captain Moroni sought out a descendent of Laman because he needed his accent.

Another factor that would have been considered was that Laman also knew the customs and culture of the Lamanites better than anyone. This mission required the ability to pass oneself as off as genuine. Laman would be better at it than any Nephite. We know that Lamanites and Nephites had different sets of customs in certain regards:

Alma 47

22 But behold, as the king came out to meet him Amalickiah caused that his servants should go forth to meet the king. And they went and abowed themselves before the king, as if to reverence him because of his greatness.

23 And it came to pass that the king put forth his hand to raise them, as was the custom with the Lamanites, as a token of peace, which custom they had taken from the Nephites.

The Lamanites had learned this particular custom from the Nephites, but the mere fact that this is pointed out to us means something. To me, it means that Mormon thought there was a reason why it should be pointed out. This is a high-context book (as are all ancient books), and the writer assumes that the reader knows about the culture already. Well, in this rare moment Mormon attempts to explain some sort of cultural distinction between the two nations. It is implied that the Lamanites had many customs that were different than the Nephites, but that they had learned this one from the Nephites.

Again, this is all more reason why this scene ought to be, in my view, interpreted as an event required the language and cultural skills of Laman. This has nothing to do with skin color.

2. Moroni apparently required a "true" descendant of Laman. If indeed all that was needed is someone who spoke Lamanite fluently and was familiar with Lamanite customs. A true descendant of Laman would not seem to be required. For example I know many Americans of foreign born ancestry that are the second or third generation born in America. And they are very fluent in English and quite familiar with American customs. The requirement to get a "true" descendant of Laman implies a genetic component.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that you know individuals who are second or third generation Americans who are fluent in English and American customs? That doesn't seem to be very remarkable. Perhaps you can explain this one again.

3. Remember Laman was accompanied by some of Moroni's men and that they were all supposed to be escaped Lamanite prisoners. Which means the Nephites with Laman had to be able to pass as Lamanites. Which means if it was just a Language or culture issue they already fit the bill. Which means Moroni already had native Nephites in his army that spoke Lamanite fluently and had enough knowledge of culture issues that they could pass as Lamanites. So why in the world did he need a "true" descendant of Laman as part of his subterfuge? He already had men that could pass as Lamanites. We know this because they did pass as Lamanites they successfully fooled the guards into thinking they were escaped Lamanites held prisoner by the Nephites.

But again, the "text" doesn't suggest any of that. All we have is a short discussion between Laman and the Lamanite guards. We don't have any dialogue between anyone else. The Nephite soldiers don't say anything. They don't need to. These Lamanite guards don't seem to have needed too much persuasion in order to get their hands on the alcohol. The behavior of many modern day soldiers should tell us something about that!

What is more, if the Lamanite nation is a dark nation then it wouldn't make sense to send a bunch of white Nephites pretending to be Lamanites. If, as you have contended, the Lamanites were a mixed lot being composed of both white and black people (which premise I'm not yet convinced of, if I understand you correctly), then a black man wouldn't have been needed. They could have just sent a few white Nephites. Furthermore, since Laman could be found among the Nephites, it stands to reason that more black individuals could have been found among the Nephites. The Nephites apparently were also a mixed bunch.

But, you might argue that the presence of at least one black man among them would have somewhat helped them seem more diverse. If that was the only purpose of Laman's presence, then it doesn't make as much sense that Mormon has Laman doing the talking. If Laman was only there for his skin color, then it surely would have been one of the Nephite soldiers who would have done the talking.

All of this is easily explained by viewing Laman as having a darker skin than the Nephites and by virtue of this fact easily passing as a Lamanite. And Moroni's men accompanying Laman were Nephite defectors. It does not require any assumptions that are not fully supported by a straightforward reading of the text itself.

It seems you may have stepped on your own feet here! You propose that the Nephites accompanying Laman would have been deceitfully claiming to be Nephite defectors, but then you urge us to not make assumptions not fully supported by the text. Well, it seems you have done just that. Your assertion doesn't seem to be fully supported, or even partially, by the text.

This is how I read the text at this moment in time. It may be that my mind is changed if something is pointed out to me that I don't see. At the least, we ought to agree that a degree of ambiguity exists which renders judgment on this matter more than a little difficult. I see the weight of evidence tipping towards a metaphorical interpretation.

[cinepro]

You may have to show me how. In the following sentence, "that is more fun than a barrel of monkeys" remove the metaphor and make it literal.

If someone were unfamiliar with that expression, I would change it to say:

"That is lots of fun"

Making more sense of this to modern sensibilities, we have:

". . .wherefore, as they were once righteous and Israelite and therefore possibly attractive as marriage partners, the Lord cursed them as being separate and non-approachable as marriage partners."

Thanks, that helps me understand your perspective a little better. Unfortunately, your reading leaves me asking more questions than it answers. My first inclination would be that the Lord put the impetus on the Nephites to not intermarry, which would be the same as saying that "the Lord commanded the Nephites not to marry the Lamanites".

But as I see it, if that were the case, then this is quite possibly the worse-written verse of scripture ever:

2 Nephi 5:21

...wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

"Skin of blackness" is given as an identifier to enable the ban on intermarriage. Intermarriage is the sin, and if everyone looked the same, there would be intentional and unintentional mingling. So the "skin of blackness" is the mechanism through which the Lord allows the people to stay separate. Now, there won't be any accidental blending. Your version doesn't explain how the people were to identify those they couldn't mingle with.

[Thinking]

Darmok, and Jalad...at Tanagra!

I don't know if there are enough Trekies on this board to understand.

[Sargon]

If someone were unfamiliar with that expression, I would change it to say:

"That is lots of fun"

Thanks, that helps me understand your perspective a little better. Unfortunately, your reading leaves me asking more questions than it answers. My first inclination would be that the Lord put the impetus on the Nephites to not intermarry, which would be the same as saying that "the Lord commanded the Nephites not to marry the Lamanites".

But as I see it, if that were the case, then this is quite possibly the worse-written verse of scripture ever:

"Skin of blackness" is given as an identifier to enable the ban on intermarriage. Intermarriage is the sin, and if everyone looked the same, there would be intentional and unintentional mingling. So the "skin of blackness" is the mechanism through which the Lord allows the people to stay separate. Now, there won't be any accidental blending. Your version doesn't explain how the people were to identify those they couldn't mingle with.

You two have already been through this before.

Brant said:

The problem with the concept of "plain reading" is that it is so subjective to the preconceptions we bring to that "plain reading." For example, one of the clearest indications of the pigmentation change is supposed to be:

2 Nephi 5:21: And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

In this verse, we have "plainly" indications of pigmentation "white" and "plain" indications of metaphorical langauge "become like unto a flint." Interestingly, it is because they had become "flint" that they had a "skin of blackness" come upon them.

If we are in the midst of a sentence where there is clearly a use of metaphorical language to describe a person's reaction to spiritual promptings, why are we so certain that all of the results of the metaphors are absolutely physical.

The reason is becomes a problem is that we don't recognize that "skin of blackness" is metaphorical because is "sounds" so much like what we expect "plain language" to be. Nevertheless, look at the set of information in the verse.

Hearts like flint

X was white,

were "fair and delightsome"

now "skin of blackness"

In other parts of the text, the oppositional pair becomes "white and delightsome" and "filthiness." When we see "filthiness" instead of "blackness," we don't read it literally, because we aren't primed to believe that someone is inherently covered with dirt. What we do, however, is hijack only parts of the verses when those parts strike us as literal, then we completely ignore the textual structures to make parts of them literal and parts metaphorical -- and don't even see the contradictions because we never look at the whole picture.

That is the reason that you have to through the whole text. You can't tell when your assumptions have hijacked your readings unless you spend time in the text. Take a look at how the text uses the phrases, what their opposites are. Take a look as people who are "white" who become "whiter." Wonder why the terms are "black" and "white" when there would be no people in the New World who were either (what we call "white" is maybe closer to pink -- when we do get "white" it is an albino and we don't think that as normal). When white is contrasted to filthy, are we to consider that both are literal? If not, then why is while literal only when contrasted to "skin of blackness"? Why is "skin of blackness" literal instead of "black skin." Is a "heart of blackness" literal or metaphorical?

"Plain reading" simply means that we read into the text our own preconditioning based on our modern cultural background. As I noted above, I had read the text in the same literalist way because that was the preconditioning I had. I read it that way through the first draft of the commentary. I simply hadn't thought about it. I only changed my mind after I worked through all of the data in the text. In particular, the notable structural parallels where what appear to be literal descriptions are paired with opposites that are equally clearly metaphorical. The problem is, that makes a useless contrasting parallel. They must either both be literal or both metaphorical.

[Sargon]

Your version doesn't explain how the people were to identify those they couldn't mingle with.

I'll take a stab at it.

The "skin of blackness" is a descriptor for whatever it was that set the Lamanites apart in the eyes of the Nephites. As Brant demonstrates in his book, the ancients didn't consider race in the same ways that we do.

Physiognomics, then, is the study of human character on the basis of how people look and act....A succinct definition of "physiognomics" can be found in Pseudo-Aristotle's Physiognomics, a work dating to before the first century B.C. This treatise offers a set of steriotypes of human character based on: "the natural and acquired character traits that affect the signs studied by physiognomists...a person's movements, postures, colors, facial expressions, hair, type of skin, voice, flesh-tone, parts of the body and overall physique."

(Pseudo-Aristotle, Physiognomics 806a, our translation)...

The task, then, is pragmatically to observe the dispositions (dianoiai), that invariably correlate with specific forms. This gives salience to the old sayings, "Birds of a feather flock together" and "A man is known by the clothes he wears" or "the company he keeps."

Malina and Neyrey, Portraits of Paul, 100

After quoting the above, Brant explains:

Such an idea runs counter to modern constructions of human beings as individuals, but if reflects accurately, I believe, the different social view of Nephi's world. Malina and Neyrey continue: "When considering a person, the ancients thought that there was really nothing inside that did not register on the outside." In this conception of humanity, the skin or face would be the logical location for spiritual characteristics to register. Even metaphorically, the skin and face were legitimate locations for the "display" of these characteristics.

My understanding is that the Nephites believed they could perceive the spiritual status of the Lamanites by an overall observation of the way they looked, taking into account all of the things quoted above, and not exclusively skin color. It was a perception that is strange to us today, but which would have been perfectly normal to the ancients. The description of the Lamanites as having dark skin was part of the Nephite tradition, used as a way to describe the "outsiders". They viewed the world through an outsider/insider dichotomy, with no gray areas. They used the same stock phrases over and over again in their descriptions of the Lamanites (loathsom, dark, filthy, idle, naked, blood-thirsty). In one instance the Lamanites are even described as being naked, and then in the same breath their clothing and armor are described.

In another instance, it is speculated that the Lamanites (who are supposed to be "black") are actually "whiter" than the Nephites. The comparison is not between white Nephites and black Lamanites, but between white Nephites and whiter Lamanites. Even though the Nephites are wicked, they do not become "black". It is part of the cultural definition, not a racial definition. The Lamanites' skins are said to be "whiter" than the Nephites at the throne of God's judgment. This is most clearly a metaphorical use.

[juliann]

I'll ask again. What does "white" mean in relation to skin? Why is white only used as a negative (leprosy) in the Bible?

What I find truly puzzling about these exchanges is the refusal to admit that the reading influences the text, especially when we have such glaring examples of centuries of just that in the Bible. This is standard stuff in any academic treatment and the more this topic comes up the more backward it feels. I cannot imagine why anyone would want to place themselves in the position of demanding a racial reading of a text when it is not necessary. I don't think defenses of the BOM are required any more than defenses of the Bible in this matter....I think those who want to read race into a text,, other than to relate the history of doing just that, need to explain why they demand it continue. And I suspect it has to do with the need to keep a 19th c. construction of race in the BOM to maintain JS as the originator (which doesn't work on several other levels). But that still only works if the community that the text belongs to cooperates. Otherwise, it is the other guy who ends up looking racist not the community.

This is so standard it shouldn't have to mentioned....but for those who want to remain in the past....

The Bible encodes Western cultureâ??s central myth of collective identity. Its narratives describe forging peoples, and it offers multiple visions of what might be meant by â??a peopleâ? . . . a group with a common deity and cultic practices, a population who hold a territory in common, a nation with a bureaucracy, a kinship group, an exiled community united by a common literature. That is, most of the pages of the Hebrew Bible are not filled with ethical precepts or Sunday-school lessons in piety, but with stories detailing the processes of forming collective identities.

Regina M. Schwartz, The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monothesism(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 6.

Substitute BOM for Bible and that sums it up. So I want to know....what is worth so much in this debate that make it worth standing up for racist readings?

[cinepro]

This is so standard it shouldn't have to mentioned....but for those who want to remain in the past....

Substitute BOM for Bible and that sums it up. So I want to know....what is worth so much in this debate that make it worth standing up for racist readings?

Well, if the Book of Mormon does describe a scenario where God gives some people darker skin, then that's just what it is. It's not "standing up for racist readings" to accept that that's what it says.

I also don't think it's fair to pin this on the critics, as if they have some irrational desire to force a "racist" meaning on the text. To suggest that is to dodge the two issues that scholars are going to have to better deal with if they want the "non-racist" reading to gain any traction among the Church in general:

1. The Book of Mormon clearly claims that the "curse" (whatever its nature) was given by God to a group of people, and that it had a practical purpose.

I understand that some apologists feel their non-literal reading of these verses deals with these issues adequately, but I'm suggesting that they don't. I point this out not to be stubborn or contentious, but just to give them a heads up on why they might find that their alternate explanation doesn't ever gain traction among Church leaders and members. And judging from the reaction I've gotten from the few "traditional members" that I've shared this theory with (think jaw-on-the-floor astonishment that anyone would suggest it wasn't literal), it is a long road ahead.

2. The literal "dark dermis" reading of the Lamanite curse is the only accepted explanation that has been taught by the Prophets and Apostles over the last 179+ years. While it may not be emphasized as much anymore, the traditional teachings are still on the books, and no alternate theories have ever been acknowledged in a Church publication. If you are trying to sell the traditional members on an alternate reading of scriptures that contradicts what the Church has been teaching, that is another sign of a looming uphill battle.

So, instead of looking at critics as delusional and biased, you should instead look at them as a focus-group or litmus test for your alternate theories. When you finally get to the point that the critics can say "OK, that is a perfectly acceptable and logical explanation", then you know you might be on to something.

If the Church and apologists were united in saying that the Book of Mormon doesn't claim that God gave the Lamanites darker dermises, then it would be not only absurd but irrelevant what the critics think. I will join with you in hoping for that day to come.

[AndyOne]

"I also don't think it's fair to pin this on the critics, as if they have some irrational desire to force a "racist" meaning on the text. ..."

Geez - absolutely the right point. Fact is, that it's not limited to critics. When President Kimball (never mind the apostle vs. prophet at the time nonsense) gets up in conference and observes that certain Amerindians are getting lighter, it becomes a little more difficult to blame the critics. Too bad this poor old soul wasn't as enlightened as certain of our apologist friends here - or maybe he was cursed with the ability to read plain English.

[juliann]

I understand that some apologists feel their non-literal reading of these verses deals with these issues adequately, but I'm suggesting that they don't. I point this out not to be stubborn or contentious, but just to give them a heads up on why they might find that their alternate explanation doesn't ever gain traction among Church leaders and members. And judging from the reaction I've gotten from the few "traditional members" that I've shared this theory with (think jaw-on-the-floor astonishment that anyone would suggest it wasn't literal), it is a long road ahead.

Apologists? Interesting way to quickly wipe all scholarship off the table. Can you give me a quote from the Ensign that confirms the Curse of Cain within the past decade instead of an anecdote?

So, instead of looking at critics as delusional and biased, you should instead look at them as a focus-group or litmus test for your alternate theories.

Those alternate theories are mainstream. Delusional is a word to derail, I never used it. I am asking why you are demanding a racist reading when it isn't necessary. So far your only response is that everybody else is doing it.

When you finally get to the point that the critics can say "OK, that is a perfectly acceptable and logical explanation", then you know you might be on to something.

There have been not only logical but standard academic explanations offered...with documentation. I think the racialist readings you are proposing would be met with scorn if you tried doing that with the Bible. So the problem isn't that explanations have been offered, explanations used in every other setting, the question is why you refuse to apply those explanations to the BOM. That is the problem.

"I also don't think it's fair to pin this on the critics, as if they have some irrational desire to force a "racist" meaning on the text. ..."Geez - absolutely the right point. Fact is, that it's not limited to critics. When President Kimball (never mind the apostle vs. prophet at the time nonsense) gets up in conference and observes that certain Amerindians are getting lighter, it becomes a little more difficult to blame the critics. Too bad this poor old soul wasn't as enlightened as certain of our apologist friends here - or maybe he was cursed with the ability to read plain English.

This is changing the topic again. We all know this, it is history and a relevant part of any historical discussion. But what about the present? What have modern prophets said? Why do you have to keep going back that far to maintain racist readings and why do you want to?

I'm adding this link of Marvin Perkins answering questions: http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/...rkins-part-one/

[Helmuth]

What have modern prophets said? Why do you have to keep going back that far to maintain racist readings and why do you want to?

Seriously? Spencer W. Kimball is not modern? The window of modernity is getting pretty narrow there, if that's the case. You sure it can still let in enough light?

I am asking why you are demanding a racist reading when it isn't necessary.

In what sense is it "racist" to think the Lord make the Lamanites' skin turn dark? Seems like just a way to differentiate them to me, for intermarriage and other reasons, as cinepro said. In parts of the BoM the Lamanites are lauded as being more righteous than the Nephites.

You don't make things clean by washing them in blood, and skin color doesn't change overnight (other than through tanning booths or modern spray cans).

I figured the change in color was miraculous. If the Lord can cause three men to live for hundreds (and now thousands) of years, prisons to tumble, angels to appears, etc., surely He can cause skin color to change if it suits His purposes.

[juliann]

Seriously? Spencer W. Kimball is not modern? The window of modernity is getting pretty narrow there, if that's the case. You sure it can still let in enough light?

We are a church of living prophets. That is not arguable.

Please give me a statement supporting a racist reading of any scripture from our last two living prophets since Pres. Monson has been in a relatively short time. This is the second or third request and all I see is a a lot of unrelated dodging.

[juliann]

In what sense is it "racist" to think the Lord make the Lamanites' skin turn dark?

Do you have any intention of having a serious discussion?

[Olavarria]

Can someone please define "racist"?

[Jason]

Can someone please define "racist"?

A person who judges someone's abilities or worth based on their race instead of their actual capabilities, or the act of doing so.

[cinepro]

Apologists? Interesting way to quickly wipe all scholarship off the table. Can you give me a quote from the Ensign that confirms the Curse of Cain within the past decade instead of an anecdote?

No, I didn't think we were talking about the Curse of Cain. I would agree that both the "Lamanite Curse" and "Curse of Cain" have been getting less mentioned in the last decade (although "Mormon Doctrine" is still in print and for sale at Deseret Book )

Just to be clear, here is a summary of my thoughts on the subject:

- I believe that "black skin" can be used metaphorically or literally in the scriptures. I fully accept that it is used metaphorically in places. But I believe each individual use should be evaluated apart from the others, and I am especially wary of drawing conclusions based only on resemblance to the Bible (a book with drastically different authors and translation histories).

- I believe the two biggest problems facing a purely metaphorical reading of the Book of Mormon is that it clearly claims that God caused something to happen that was meant to prevent intermarriage. I think that is terribly problematic to a metaphorical reading. I suppose it's possible the report is just plain erroneous...?

- If it is a metaphor, it is a really, really bad one in that it has tricked latter-day Prophets for decades and decades.

- I haven't "proposed" any racist readings. I'm just the messenger. The idea that the Book of Mormon describes literal skin darkening among the Lamanites was taught far before I came along, and by far greater authorities on the scriptures than I.

- If the "metaphorical" reading is indeed the correct one (and I hope somehow it is), then the Church should clarify the language in the Book of Mormon so there can be no mistake. It should also begin to promote the metaphorical understanding through official curriculum and publications, and act (through its ownership of Deseret Book) to diminish the spread of the old "literal" interpretation in doctrine-related books to Church members (such as "Mormon Doctrine").

[LifeOnaPlate]

So far I haven't seen a good response to Gardner's approach.

[cinepro]

So far I haven't seen a good response to Gardner's approach.

Ultimately, the response is to see whether you feel Brant's suggested understanding adequately explains the claims made in the Book of Mormon, especially the following verses:

2 Nephi 5

[21] And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Alma 3

[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.

If someone feels that Brant's suggested view of these verses doesn't fit, then there isn't a "response" to be had.

If only Nephi hadn't actually claimed that the Lord God did cause the skin of blackness to come upon them...

[LifeOnaPlate]

Again, haven't seen a good response. (Especially to the blog post I linked to). Missed you at Claremont, you coward!

[Helmuth]

Do you have any intention of having a serious discussion?

Well, yes. I am completely serious when I say I see nothing "racist" in the Lord changing people's skin color. The Lord confounded people's language at Babel. Would it be "languagist" to take that literally?

I think you may be using a completely different definition of "racist" than the one Jason gave above: judging someone's abilities or worth based on their race instead of their actual capabilities.

We are a church of living prophets. That is not arguable.

I think it may be arguable. Living prophets only? Do we throw out the dead ones, then? I think we are a Church of living and dead prophets. Else, we should burn all our scriptures, if the words of the dead are unwelcome in our Church.

Please give me a statement supporting a racist reading of any scripture from our last two living prophets since Pres. Monson has been in a relatively short time. This is the second or third request and all I see is a a lot of unrelated dodging.

I don't think such a statement exists, not in the words of any of the latter-day prophets. But again, perhaps you mean something entirely different by "racist". What do you mean?

If I say "There's a lot of black people in L.A.", is that racist? If I say "Africans are black and Europeans are white", is that racist? If I say "Nephites were white and Lamanites were black, after the Lord made them black", is that racist? What is racist about it? Is it just the part about the Lord's intervention? Because other than that, it seems to just be stating a historical fact (if you believe the BoM and interpret it that way).