The Hill Cumorah

[Brant Gardner]

Since lineage is the sole qualifying factor in Moroni's search, the literal "skin of blackness" is most likely why - it requires the fewest assumptions.

Except that it begs the question. The initial assumption of pigmentation requires the reading you give, which in turn, requires further assumptions about the dissemination of language, the number of people involved, and the reasons. Since the Lamanite king is a Nephite turncoat, then we should expect that a white Lamanite would be the best messenger, wouldn't we?

The only reason that this explanation requires fewer assumptions is that you are not examining them.

The only occasions where we see "skin of x" becoming an issue is when it changes, and it always changes upon righteousness or unrighteousness (righteousness being presumed when one becomes a Nephite, at least from the Nephite point of view).

Can you think of any event in the Book of Mormon where it is clear that there is a visual difference between Nephites and Lamanites? Zeniff is able to pass as a spy in the city of Nephi after it has become Lamanite. How did that happen? How was he able to hide as the sole white man in the sea of skins of blackness? I have a friend who was a missionary (very white) in Africa. He sent a picture home of a large body of people with the caption "can you find the missionaries?" It wasn't hard to find them in the crowd. How did Zeniff fare differently? Perhaps he only spied from a long distance, but even that seems quite unlikely. What could he learn on the far outside of the city?

The text does not say that the men sent with Laman were, in fact, Nephites, and neither does it specify their number, as an aside.

I am corrected, but the essential point is not invalidated:

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.

(Alma 55:4–6‎)‎

There is only one descendant of Laman. If he has a black skin (not known in the New World, of course), then by the same logic the Nephites who went with him did not. If there was a good excuse for a bunch of white guys instead of the black guy, they there was no need for the black guy. The logic of the situation suggests that it wasn't not a visual difference that was importance. This would be even more the case if, as you suggest, the meeting had anything to do with the dissenter Nephite who was king.

Now, I suspose you might suggest that the rapid blackness/darkenss>conversion that we see later happened all of the time, and there for the dissenter Nephite was black. However, that would mean that the dissenter Lamanite would have been white (by conversion) and we have the same problem all over again.

The assumption of pigment change can only be held by calling Native American pigmentation by an inappropriate color designation, calling Nephite (Middle Eastern descent) another inappropriate color, and assuming that these incorrect colors, which were obviously wrong, were still somehow literal. Then, they were something that could rapidly change by simply changing political affiliation, though that also always implied a religious change in the ancient world.

So, we have a literal reading that cannot be literal. We have an impossible biology. We have no event that allows for a color distinction, and at least two that preclude it. I can't see that the literalist reading has much to recommend it.

[Log]

Except that it begs the question. The initial assumption of pigmentation requires the reading you give, which in turn, requires further assumptions about the dissemination of language, the number of people involved, and the reasons. Since the Lamanite king is a Nephite turncoat, then we should expect that a white Lamanite would be the best messenger, wouldn't we?

Not in a nation that is predominantly visibly ethnically other than Nephite.

Let's examine the evidence behind my claim that the languages were most likely disseminated.

We have the priests of Noah actively disseminating the language and writing of the Nephites among the Lamanites (Mosiah 24:4-6).

We have the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi dwelling among the Nephites (Alma 27:22). I concede explicit mention is not made of their language, but via the priests of Noah mentioned above, it is highly probable that they, too, spoke the Nephite dialect; given that their dwelling among the Nephites came about due to the missionary efforts of the sons of Mosiah, this seems uncontroversial to me.

Add to this that Zeniff, his people, and their descendants spoke the Lamanite dialect, and I believe I have as solid a case as can be asked for.

The only reason that this explanation requires fewer assumptions is that you are not examining them.

Condescension.

The only occasions where we see "skin of x" becoming an issue is when it changes, and it always changes upon righteousness or unrighteousness (righteousness being presumed when one becomes a Nephite, at least from the Nephite point of view).

I only see one instance in the Book of Mormon of "skins of blackness" being brought upon a people, and only one instance in the Book of Mormon where skins become "white." Can you cite any other instances in the Book of Mormon of these transformations, which you say were "always" taking place?

Can you think of any event in the Book of Mormon where it is clear that there is a visual difference between Nephites and Lamanites? Zeniff is able to pass as a spy in the city of Nephi after it has become Lamanite. How did that happen? How was he able to hide as the sole white man in the sea of skins of blackness? I have a friend who was a missionary (very white) in Africa. He sent a picture home of a large body of people with the caption "can you find the missionaries?" It wasn't hard to find them in the crowd. How did Zeniff fare differently? Perhaps he only spied from a long distance, but even that seems quite unlikely. What could he learn on the far outside of the city?

That's all I need, and I am gratified that you concede it. And, I request for the second time, "Please drop the 'how white is white / how black is black' trope."

As an interesting speculation, Zeniff (and his party) may well have been of Mulekite descent and had some Jaredite heritage; Jaredite influence could explain in part the so-called "corrupted" language the Mulekites spoke, and would explain potential ethnic similarities between Zeniff and the Lamanites in the land of Nephi, making things easier for him as a spy. However, none of this is mentioned, and it is not necessary for my case. It is quite interesting that Zeniff and his people did, in fact, speak the Lamanite language - which could be indirect evidence for this speculation.

I am corrected, but the essential point is not invalidated:

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.

(Alma 55:4–6‎)‎

There is only one descendant of Laman.

They found one descendant of Laman. It does not mean that they found exactly one, or that the other men sent were not of other Lamanite lineages (say, Lemuelite or Ishmaelite, to name a couple of possibilities). Interestingly, or not, but if Laman was a literal descendant of Laman, he would be of noble birth, and there are other interesting speculations along these lines, but I shall drop it as it is not to be found in the record.

If he has a black skin (not known in the New World, of course)

... that trope, again...

[T]hen by the same logic the Nephites who went with him did not. If there was a good excuse for a bunch of white guys instead of the black guy, they there was no need for the black guy

My view is not so simplistic as you condescend to represent continually. It suffices for my position to claim that there was an identifiable and visibly significant difference in pigmentation between Nephites generally and Lamanites generally, to say nothing of other possible ethnic differences as well. I think I covered it adequately in the post you are responding to.

The logic of the situation suggests that it wasn't not a visual difference that was importance. This would be even more the case if, as you suggest, the meeting had anything to do with the dissenter Nephite who was king.

I'm not suggesting the meeting had anything to do with the dissenter Nephite who was king; in context, I mentioned Amalikiah with respect to the language issue. And, I'm sorry, the logic of the situation suggests precisely that it was a visual difference - I must emphasize again, LINEAGE was the SOLE qualifying factor in Moroni's search.

Now, I suspose you might suggest that the rapid blackness/darkenss>conversion that we see later happened all of the time, and there for the dissenter Nephite was black. However, that would mean that the dissenter Lamanite would have been white (by conversion) and we have the same problem all over again.

I ask you again to illustrate this claim, which I can nowhere find in the text of the Book of Mormon.

The assumption of pigment change can only be held by calling Native American pigmentation by an inappropriate color designation, calling Nephite (Middle Eastern descent) another inappropriate color, and assuming that these incorrect colors, which were obviously wrong, were still somehow literal. Then, they were something that could rapidly change by simply changing political affiliation, though that also always implied a religious change in the ancient world.

I believe you are imputing a simplistic view to me that I do not hold and which cannot be derived from what I have written; moreover, it is that imputed view you are arguing against.

So, we have a literal reading that cannot be literal. We have an impossible biology. We have no event that allows for a color distinction, and at least two that preclude it. I can't see that the literalist reading has much to recommend it.

Even if my position was the simplistic caricature you are railing against, then I would still disagree. But I ask again: whence cometh your interpretation? Which of your emotional needs does it fulfill?

Edited April 2, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

How was he able to hide as the sole white man in the sea of skins of blackness? I have a friend who was a missionary (very white) in Africa. He sent a picture home of a large body of people with the caption "can you find the missionaries?" It wasn't hard to find them in the crowd. How did Zeniff fare differently? Perhaps he only spied from a long distance, but even that seems quite unlikely. What could he learn on the far outside of the city?

This conversation always brings to mind this skit from SNL:

[Scott Lloyd]

This conversation always brings to mind this skit from SNL: http://www.hulu.com/...e-white-like-me

That's a classic. I'd forgotten about it until now.

I loved Eddie Murphy's line, "What a silly negro!"

[Brant Gardner]

I can see this isn't progressing. I haven't seen any positive exegesis on your part. I requested that you demonstrate why the reading must be correct, and your response is to find non-literal ways of reading the texts I describe, while suggesting that there must be a literal pigmentation difference--that is never apparent. I don't think we are going anywhere.

Not in a nation that is predominantly visibly ethnically other than Nephite.

This is a fascinating assumption. First, you assume that Nephite is an ethicity, which Jacob 1:14 clearly indicates is a collective that describes a polity, not an ethnicity. So, the people of Zarahemla were not Nephites until Mosiah shows up. What ethnicity were they?

As a different type of excercise, how do you get ethnically pure Nephites without incest in the first and second generations?

Add to this that Zeniff, his people, and their descendants spoke the Lamanite dialect, and I believe I have as solid a case as can be asked for.

Really? How in the world do you deduce that one? Zeniff and his people came from Zarahemla and spoke whatever they would have spoken in Zarahemla, which they would have defined as Nephite given the self-identification with that collective label.

I only see one instance in the Book of Mormon of "skins of blackness" being brought upon a people, and only one instance in the Book of Mormon where skins become "white." Can you cite any other instances in the Book of Mormon of these transformations, which you say were "always" taking place?

I'll retract the implied always.

How can you explain Jacob's distressed plea:

8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 3:8‎)‎

Jacob makes no indication that Lamanites will repent or get any better, yet they will have whiter skins than Nephites. Of course, this occurs in the realm of judgement--but then that is precisely the context I am suggesting for the metaphor. The black/white skins deal with righteousness, not pigmentation.

The black/white application to the body is used in the Bible for things other than pigmentation, so why must it be literal here?

7 Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire:

8 Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick.

(Lamentations 4:7–8‎)‎

Here we have "whiter than milk" Nazrites with "ruddy" bodies (more than rubies), and black faces. Read literally, these people really appeared strange. Clearly color is applied for reasons other than description of ethnicity. Why in the Bible but not the Book of Mormon?

Jaredite influence could explain in part the so-called "corrupted" language the Mulekites spoke, and would explain potential ethnic similarities between Zeniff and the Lamanites in the land of Nephi, making things easier for him as a spy.

Lamanites are ethnically the same as Jaredites? Where does that come from? When was there a pigmentation change for the Jaredites?

(say, Lemuelite or Ishmaelite, to name a couple of possibilities).

Interesting. When did Ishmaelites get a skin of blackness? The text is fascinatingly ambiguous. Nephi says i happens to his brethren. (see 2 Ne. 5:19-20). There is no mention of who they were, though the descriptions fit Laman and Lemuel. Ishmael wasn't his brother and wasn't clearly involved in some of the events Nephi uses to describe the split.

It is also a mark (it isn't the curse - it was a distinction somehow related to them becoming undesirable to Nephi's people) -- but was a condition that very specifically could change upon righteousness:

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.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

(2 Nephi 5:21–22‎)‎

So, according to the text, they had a skin of blackness so they would be "loathsome", but if they repented they would no longer be loathsome. If the skin of blackness was the cause, then it should be removed. That works exactly in the metaphor. It doesn't work as pigmentation.

My view is not so simplistic as you condescend to represent continually.

So I am learning. What I am not learning is why you insist upon it. What need do you have to see it literally that requires you to come up with some pretty interesting speculations to get around anything that might contradict your position?

It suffices for my position to claim that there was an identifiable and visibly significant difference in pigmentation between Nephites generally and Lamanites generally, to say nothing of other possible ethnic differences as well.

What created the other ethnic differences between Lamanites and Nephites? What might they have been and where in the world would they have come from? How do two brothers married to two sisters create ethnically different lineages in the first generation, or even the second?

But I ask again: whence cometh your interpretation? Which of your emotional needs does it fulfill?

I will answer it again. It comes from examining the text. It wasn't what I expected to find. It fills only the emotional need to base my understanding of the Book of Mormon on the Book of Mormon.

If your response gives us anything new to discuss I will certainly respond. If we are just rehashing the same information, I am content to agree that we strongly disagree.

[Log]

I can see this isn't progressing. I haven't seen any positive exegesis on your part. I requested that you demonstrate why the reading must be correct, and your response is to find non-literal ways of reading the texts I describe, while suggesting that there must be a literal pigmentation difference--that is never apparent. I don't think we are going anywhere.

Brant, I can see that you are condescending again. The literal reading seems to require no exegesis. The metaphoric reading seems to require extensive exegesis (which, in this case, I view as eisegesis). You'll have to forgive me, but to me the interpretive situation appears precisely inverted from your description - it is you who is finding non-literal ways of reading the text, and for no stated reason sufficient to require one to so do.

We probably aren't going anywhere.

So, the people of Zarahemla were not Nephites until Mosiah shows up. What ethnicity were they?

Unknown. I believed I had communicated my view in my previous post, but if not, then here it is: it may be presumed the Mulekites were some type of Middle Eastern (whatever that was at that point in history), potentially mixed with whatever the Jaredites were.

That's presuming the Mulekites were telling the truth about their ancestry (Orson Scott Card thinks they might have been lying in order to gain a claim to the kingship in competition with the descendants of Nephi; this is definitely not my view).

As a different type of excercise, how do you get ethnically pure Nephites without incest in the first and second generations?

This question has no relevance.

Really? How in the world do you deduce that one? Zeniff and his people came from Zarahemla and spoke whatever they would have spoken in Zarahemla, which they would have defined as Nephite given the self-identification with that collective label.

A. Zeniff was able to speak to the rulers of the Lamanites.

B. Amulon and his cohorts introduced the Nephite language to the Lamanites.

C. Therefore, whatever else he could speak, Zeniff was able to speak the Lamanite language.

Of course Zeniff spoke the language of the Nephites as well. He noted this himself explicitly (Mosiah 9:1). And that, of itself, is suggestive.

I'll retract the implied always.

How can you explain Jacob's distressed plea:

8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 3:8‎)‎

Jacob makes no indication that Lamanites will repent or get any better, yet they will have whiter skins than Nephites. Of course, this occurs in the realm of judgement--but then that is precisely the context I am suggesting for the metaphor. The black/white skins deal with righteousness, not pigmentation.

Thanks. Since you conceded my point at the outset, I see no need to give further explanation. I will note, however, that you have to explain why Jacob mentions skins at all if the skins of the Lamanites are not, in fact, darker than the Nephites. There are other phrases more commonly deployed to communicate what you are attributing to Jacob, such as "garments stained" "garments washed white"; in fact, the useage here of "skin" is unique in this context if your reading of Jacob is correct. The natural way to read this makes the most sense and requires the fewest assumptions: the skins of the Lamanites are darker in this life than that of the Nephites, which dark skins the Nephites revile, in contradistinction to how the respective groups shall appear at judgement unless the Nephites repent.

Incidentally, because the skins of the Lamanites were literally darker than that of the Nephites, the Nephites were apparently in the habit of reviling them for it. It sounds like the purpose for which the Lord said he gave the Lamanites "skin of blackness" - "that they may not be enticing to my people" - was accomplished. The Nephites certainly were no longer attracted to them.

One wonders how a metaphoric "skin of blackness" would have accomplished that. No matter.

The black/white application to the body is used in the Bible for things other than pigmentation, so why must it be literal here?

As your case has abundantly shown, there is never any necessity to any reading ever. Nevertheless, we are limiting our considerations to the text of the Book of Mormon alone.

Lamanites are ethnically the same as Jaredites? Where does that come from?

Yes, I made that claim... somewhere. I think. Didn't I?

When was there a pigmentation change for the Jaredites?

There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that the Jaredites were ethnically similar to the Nephites at any point. Given the likelihood of Asiatic or other incursions into the promised land during the time of the Jaredite national history, there is reason to suppose that what Jaredites are left are ethnically dissimilar to the Nephites when the latter gets to the scene.

Interesting. When did Ishmaelites get a skin of blackness? The text is fascinatingly ambiguous. Nephi says i happens to his brethren. (see 2 Ne. 5:19-20). There is no mention of who they were, though the descriptions fit Laman and Lemuel. Ishmael wasn't his brother and wasn't clearly involved in some of the events Nephi uses to describe the split.

Verse 23 seems good enough for my purposes, and should convince the unbiased outsider, given that the Ishmaelites are, throughout the book, lumped in with the descendants of Laman and Lemuel - the seed seems quite mixed.

It is also a mark (it isn't the curse - it was a distinction somehow related to them becoming undesirable to Nephi's people) -- but was a condition that very specifically could change upon righteousness:

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.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

(2 Nephi 5:21–22‎)‎

So, according to the text, they had a skin of blackness so they would be "loathsome", but if they repented they would no longer be loathsome. If the skin of blackness was the cause, then it should be removed. That works exactly in the metaphor. It doesn't work as pigmentation.

The text doesn't say anything about the relationship between the "skin of blackness" and "loathsome"ness (even though I concede that the Nephites did, in fact, revile the Lamanites for, among other things, their darker skins). In fact, the text is ambiguous on which group of people will be doing the repenting - the people of Nephi or the Lamanites - for the Lamanites to not be "loathsome" to the Nephites. From the way you phrased this objection, it appears you knew before you started that this was an invalid tact to take; why then make the attempt?

So I am learning. What I am not learning is why you insist upon it. What need do you have to see it literally that requires you to come up with some pretty interesting speculations to get around anything that might contradict your position?

Not a single one of these speculations on my part is required to be true for a literal reading of "skin of blackness" to accord with the authorial intent of the Book of Mormon.

What created the other ethnic differences between Lamanites and Nephites?

It depends on which point in history we're speaking of. In the lifetime of Nephi₁, God instituted the change in features, whatever they were, as explicitly claimed. If you mean later, I presume there were Jaredites still in the land, as I mentioned, contributing their language and genes to the mix.

I will answer it again. It comes from examining the text. It wasn't what I expected to find. It fills only the emotional need to base my understanding of the Book of Mormon on the Book of Mormon.

Let me be more explicit with the question: If you believe God can impose a literal "skin of darkness" upon Laman, Lemuel, and whomever mixed their seed with theirs, and their descendants, then why do you insist he did not, when he says he did? The text does not require, nor does it reward, this denial. Is it because you wish to subvert the charge of "racism" in the Book of Mormon?

Edited April 2, 2012 by Log

[cinepro]

(I know there was a topic heading on this before, but I can't find it, and I'd really like to know the Church's answer.)

Was The Hill Cumorah in Up State New York (where Joseph found the plates)?

Is that where the Nephites and Lamanites fought their great battles?

Is there any evidence (and should there be, after all this time)?

Obviously, people's perceptions of the following quote will be different based on their feelings towards Apostles, their words in General Conference, and such:

In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah.” (Morm. 6:6.) On July twenty-fifth of this year, as I stood on the crest of that hill admiring with awe the breathtaking panorama which stretched out before me on every hand, my mind reverted to the events which occurred in that vicinity some twenty-five centuries ago—events which brought to an end the great Jaredite nation.

You who are acquainted with the Book of Mormon will recall that during the final campaign of the fratricidal war between the armies led by Shiz and those led by Coriantumr “nearly two millions” of Coriantumr’s people had been slain by the sword; “two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children.” (Ether 15:2.)

As the conflict intensified, all the people who had not been slain—men “with their wives and their children” (Ether 15:15)—gathered about that hill Cumorah (see Ether 15:11).

...

As I contemplated this tragic scene from the crest of Cumorah and viewed the beautiful land of the Restoration as it appears today, I cried in my soul, “How could it have happened?”

---------------------------------------------------

This second civilization to which I refer, the Nephites, flourished in America between 600 B.C. and A.D. 400. Their civilization came to an end for the same reason, at the same place, and in the same manner as did the Jaredites’.

America's Destiny

I don't include this to imply that the "Church" has an "answer", but only as a data point to be included in the discussion concerning what has been taught regarding Book of Mormon geography over the pulpit in General Conference, and can still be found on the Church website to this day.

Edited April 2, 2012 by cinepro

[Robert F. Smith]

Obviously, people's perceptions of the following quote will be different based on their feelings towards Apostles, their words in General Conference, and such:

I don't include this to imply that the "Church" has an "answer", but only as a data point to be included in the discussion concerning what has been taught regarding Book of Mormon geography over the pulpit in General Conference, and can still be found on the Church website to this day.

You missed the point, cinepro.

President Marion Romney (counselor in the First Presidency) was reflecting on the unfortunate end of two great civilizations at the same place for the same reasons, not giving a geography lesson. Competing views and assumptions on Book of Mormon geography are on the Church website to this day (including the views of John Sorenson in the Ensign), and have only an incidental effect on the scholarly debate.

[Hashbaz]

As an undergraduate at UCLA I took an anthro class where we read an ethnography of Bedouin women entitled "Veiled Sentiments" by Lila Abu-Lughod, and the following passage always struck me as perhaps relevant to the Nephite/Lamanite situtation (I should mention that I like Nibley's argument that Lehi was a Bedouin):

“Black is a color with numerous connotations, most of which are negative. Black is often opposed to white, the color of religion and purity. In Bedouin expressions describing human character, for instance, well-meaning, sincere, and nonmalicious people are “white-hearted,” and those who act in bad faith or with malicious intent are “black-hearted.” Social respectability translates into a white face, as when people assert they have nothing to be ashamed of or to hide. However, someone who has been shamed or whose reputation has been besmirched is said to have had his or her face blackened.” (Lila Abu-Lughod 2000:137-138)

Though clearly metaphorical, Bedouins speak of the blackening of the face (sawad el wijeh) in a very literal sense. I can't help but wonder if Nephite authors did the same.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As an undergraduate at UCLA I took an anthro class where we read an ethnography of Bedouin women entitled "Veiled Sentiments" by Lila Abu-Lughod, and the following passage always struck me as perhaps relevant to the Nephite/Lamanite situtation (I should mention that I like Nibley's argument that Lehi was a Bedouin):

“Black is a color with numerous connotations, most of which are negative. Black is often opposed to white, the color of religion and purity. In Bedouin expressions describing human character, for instance, well-meaning, sincere, and nonmalicious people are “white-hearted,” and those who act in bad faith or with malicious intent are “black-hearted.” Social respectability translates into a white face, as when people assert they have nothing to be ashamed of or to hide. However, someone who has been shamed or whose reputation has been besmirched is said to have had his or her face blackened.” (Lila Abu-Lughod 2000:137-138)

Though clearly metaphorical, Bedouins speak of the blackening of the face (sawad el wijeh) in a very literal sense. I can't help but wonder if Nephite authors did the same.

That is quite insightful thanks for sharing.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

As I've written on this board before, the "skin of blackness" referenced in the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price is a purely idiomatic expression. As Nibley remarked in one of his lectures, pointing out a possible Arabic context within which to read the words, "the human race is divided into al-sūdānu and al-bayḍānu. The sūdānu are the black ones, and the bayḍānu are the white ones. [...] It's a cultural thing [between] members of the same race. So we get this idea of the contrast between the good guys and the bad guys, called black and white."

This symbolism is not unique to the Book of Mormon or the Pearl of Great Price. In fact, although folks like John Dehlin find this "nuanced" reading of the text (which merely situates it in its correct cultural and idiomatic context) to be apologetic nonsense which disregards the plain meaning of the text, this just proves that he (and LDS who support the line of argument in which God literally transforms skin color) have not examined the Bible itself carefully enough. This is unfortunate, since the Bible is a very useful control on the cultural presuppositions inherent to the Book of Mormon.

When read in proper context, however, the idea that the "skin of blackness" referenced in 2 Nephi 5:21 is literal skin color is proved to be simply incorrect. See, for instance, the many Biblical parallels:

"For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her. Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire: their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick." -- Lamentations 4:6

(Note here that although critics have long contended that the Book of Mormon manuscript changes from "white" to "pure" is some sort of anachronistic PR [or PC] cover-up, it is clearly an ancient association which has become obscured through modern racial concerns.)

"Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness." -- Joel 2:6

"Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine." -- Lamentations 5:10

"For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me." -- Jeremiah 8:21

"Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are black unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up." -- Jeremiah 14:2

"When I looked for good, then evil came unto me: and when I waited for light, there came darkness. [...] I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls. My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat." -- Job 30:26

"She is empty, and void, and waste: and the heart melteth, and the knees smite together, and much pain is in all loins, and the faces of them all gather blackness." -- Nahum 2:10

So now, when we read sections such as 2 Nephi 5:21 in the correct context, we see that "whiteness" is a symbolic term for "exceedingly fair and delightsome", whereas "blackness" is a symbolic term for "had hardened their hearts against [God], that they had become like unto a flint."

This has nothing whatsoever to do with literal skin color.

No one's skin turns black or white because of a curse or blessing. My mesoamerican ancestors aren't black anyway -- we're brown. To twist scriptures around to justify a belief in a racist God who would deliberately create iniquities like this between His children is wrong. In point of fact:

"None of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." -- 2 Nephi 26:33

God will not deny anyone, whether they are black or white -- whether they are sinners or saints. All "lineages" and "tribes" and "races" are part of the same human family. Every skin tone from the creamiest white to the most chocolate black are beautiful, and none are a marker of a curse or a punishment.

[Log]

When read in proper context, however, the idea that the "skin of blackness" referenced in 2 Nephi 5:21 is literal skin color is proved to be simply incorrect. See, for instance, the many Biblical parallels...

The assertion that the Biblical passages are, in fact, parallels to 2 Ne 5:21, is an example of the informal fallacy of petitio principii.

Let's just start there, shall we?

Edited April 4, 2012 by Log

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Clearly people need to watch more TV.

[Rivers]

It makes sense to me that the skin of blackness referred to in the Book of Mormon could be symbolic for a state of righteousness. The only issue I have with this interpretation is the fact that text states that it was the Lord that made them black. How could God change someone's state of righteousness?

[Log]

If I may be perfectly blunt:

There is no problem that arises within the text of the Book of Mormon reading 2 Ne 5:21 literally. There are problems - holes, mysteries, things unaccounted for - that arise with a non-literal reading.

Why, then, would someone reach for a non-literal reading, when it creates problems within the text?

As Kevin Christensen once said, paraphrasing from memory, it all comes down to which problems are more important to have solved.

As there is no problem within the text which is solved by this reading, and there are problems in the text created by this reading, there must therefore be a problem outside of the text that is more important to be solved by those who insist on the non-literal reading.

I can only think of one such problem (which has offshoots and consequences and so forth): critics claim that the Book of Mormon contains, or justifies, racist teachings.

That's not how I read the book. But I can see where individuals who wish to defend the Church would have a motivation to find a non-literal rendition of 2 Ne 5:21 and 3 Ne 2:15.

Again, it all comes down to which problems are more important to have solved. For me, I want to understand the Book of Mormon as it was in the minds of its authors.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Log

[cinepro]

It makes sense to me that the skin of blackness referred to in the Book of Mormon could be symbolic for a state of righteousness. The only issue I have with this interpretation is the fact that text states that it was the Lord that made them black. How could God change someone's state of righteousness?

The other serious problem with the alternate reading is that the "dark skin" was used to actually distinguish between people. It was the equivalent of the different color shirts in Star Trek; you could tell something about a person based on the color of their skin.

Alma 3

4 And the Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for they had marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites; nevertheless they had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites.

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.

7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

I admire the fortitude (and compassion) of those who argue for an alternate understanding of the dark skin in the Book of Mormon. But I don't admire their reading skills.

[Rivers]

The other serious problem with the alternate reading is that the "dark skin" was used to actually distinguish between people. It was the equivalent of the different color shirts in Star Trek; you could tell something about a person based on the color of their skin.

I admire the fortitude (and compassion) of those who argue for an alternate understanding of the dark skin in the Book of Mormon. But I don't admire their reading skills.

Perhaps the countenance of the of the Nephites shined a lot brighter than that of the Lamanites?

[Uncertain]

I think it important to point out that although the Bible clearly at times speaks of a dark skin in a metaphorical fashion it also at times uses dark skin as a literal description of skin color. For example

Song of Solomon1:5-6 (NLT)

⁵ I am dark but beautiful,

O women of Jerusalem—

dark as the tents of Kedar,

dark as the curtains of Solomon’s tents.

⁶ Don’t stare at me because I am dark—

the sun has darkened my skin.

My brothers were angry with me;

they forced me to care for their vineyards,

so I couldn’t care for myself—my own vineyard.

In this case "dark" clearly is referring to a literal change in skin color due to the sun and not a metaphorical description of sin or sadness. The fact darkness is sometimes used metaphorically in the Bible therefore it must be used metaphorically in the BOM is a flawed argument. Dark/darkness is used as both a metaphor and a literal description in the Bible I don't see why it can't be used in such a fashion in the BOM. For example at times skin of darkness is clearly used metaphorically as in Jacob 3. To view every mention of a skin of darkness in Jacob 3 as a metaphor in my option is not the best reading of that chapter and in fact does significant damage to Jacobs argument. Simply because at times having a dark skin is used as a metaphor it does not follow skin of darkness must always be used as a metaphor as the Bible clearly shows.

My own opinion is there is a strong incentive to view the change in skin color as a metaphor because a literal skin color does not fit very well with certain popular apologetic positions. For example a popular position is the Nephites/Lamanites immediately joined and interbred with a large existing native population. If this were true than very shortly every person would be the same color whatever color the large native population was. Think of depositing a few white guys in sub Sahara Africa around 600 b.c. A literal skin color difference does not fit very well with the idea the Nephites/Lamanites interbred extensively with a large native population. Hence there is strong motivation to read the text as not describing a literal change in skin color. Such a reading also responds to the charge the BOM is “racist”. So there are several possible strong motivating factors to read the skin color change as not literal.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited April 4, 2012 by Uncertain

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The Lord causes a "skin of blackness" to come upon someone by judging them to be workers of inequity. It's a pronouncement of their righteousness, based on whether or not they were acting fairly. This isn't some modern apologetic concern with racism, this is precisely an attempt to understand the Book of Mormon as it was in the minds of its authors.

I have given extensive quotes from Jeremiah's time that show that "skins of blackness" were used metaphorically within that culture. Since the Nephites were themselves descended from a family which was well-educated in the language (and therefore idioms) available in Jeremiah's culture, we have to examine the text from that paradigm -- a paradigm which was separated from the racial concerns of antebellum America by over two thousand years.

So from this far more appropriate paradigm, let's look at the "serious problem" supposedly expressed in cinepro's quote:

And the Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for they had marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites; nevertheless they had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites.

It explicitly states that the mark of the Amlicites was a red mark in the forehead.

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.

The "mark" set upon the Lamanites is a "curse" upon them codifying "transgression" and "rebellion," explicitly stated to be the opposite of people who were "just and holy." A curse is something spoken, a marker of judgment against someone -- in this case, they have been judged to be transgressing. In Nephite culture, imported from the ancient near east, the idiom used to express this concept would be to say that they have been judged to be an accursed society because they are treating others unfairly and have therefore become "black" -- ie, opposed to the Sons of the Light, they are the Sons of Darkness. (Seriously, see the LOST clip.)

And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women. And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

I'm absolutely baffled that this could be seen as support for a literal change of skin color, but I suppose that's to be expected from someone whose reading skills are as terribly poor as mine. It is explicitly stated, right there, that the mark which distinguishes between the tribes is the incorrect traditions. God says "don't mix with these people I've set apart as the Sons of Darkness, because then you'll join them in their inequities." The incorrect traditions are said to be that they are not treating others fairly. God sets a mark upon them -- a judgment that they are an accursed people because they have treated others unfairly, thereby inheriting the cultural designation naming them as the Sons of Darkness who fight against the Sons of Light (see the Dead Sea Scrolls). I really should have included that passage in my earlier posts, since it's an explicit vindication of the view that the blackness is idiomatic.

Edited April 4, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Log]

Skin of blackness = red mark in forehead.

No.

[cinepro]

I'm absolutely baffled that this could be seen as support for a literal change of skin color

Since it's so easy to read these verses two different ways, I have a challenge for you. Change the bolded words to make them unambiguously clear. If you can do that and still have the verses make sense, I'll admit you have a good strong argument:

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.

7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

I'll even accept my own challenge and show you how I read it:

6 And the epidermal skins of the Lamanites were a darker shade of color, according to the visually discernible change 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.

7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a visually discernable change, making their skins a darker color, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

8 And this was done that their seed might be visually distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might be able to look at them and recognize them as being different, and not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

Can you reword the bolded parts and clarify what you think Alma meant when he wrote it and Joseph Smith translated it?

[David T]

I'm not convinced that Nephi, writing in the later years of his life, along with very few surviving members who probably remembered much firsthand experience about the Early Days when Laman and Lemuel would have actually been among them, was crafting a propagandistic fiction, and creating a strong 'us versus them' story, with many of the aboriginal inhabitants being mixed in with the 'them'. Thus, those with differing tonalities were to be avoided. "Why do they look differently", a Nephite child would ask. "Well, a long time ago, your great Uncle Laban and Lemuel...".

Just as an Israelite would have asked, "Why do we hate the Canaanites?" "Well, one day, great great great great grandpa Noah got drunk, and..."

"Why do we hate the Amelikites?" "Well, one day, great great great great uncle Lot got drunk, and..."

Eventually, the Nephites clearly expanded, let this particular 'just so story' lapsed a bit, was redefined, and they expanded, joined with the Zarahemla crew, and clearly allowed intermarriage with the aborigines, etc.

In fact, Mormon tells us that this particular record was lost in the archives! This explanation may not have been propagated during his day, and the generations before!

It's possible to read it literally with dark skin meaning dark skin, without actually conceding that historically God actually changed the Skin. We're reading King Nephi's highly isolationist, archetypal, and protective Constitution of a new nation.

By the time the events of the Book of Mormon ends, it's clear that neither skin color nor lineage had anything to do with those contemporaries being considered 'Lamanites' or 'Nephites'.

When it comes to 'likening' today, the metaphorical version is very helpful, and instructive. When viewing it as an historical document, however, I note there may still be problems in conceding the whole book as being uniform in that degree. I do propose that skin color as presented in the Books of Nephi are written to be understood as literal for the sake of the early generations of Nephites, although not representing actual objective historical fact. Later, their understanding and usage may have changed and developed to me more metaphorical as practice actually changed with the Nephite community/Church.

I think the "Purely Metaphor" and "Purely Literal" dichotomy need not be true, and a more nuanced viewing of the text as historical documents, with historical genres, and development over time can create a more useful and more nuanced reading.

Edited April 4, 2012 by David T

[Uncertain]

The Lord causes a "skin of blackness" to come upon someone by judging them to be workers of inequity. It's a pronouncement of their righteousness, based on whether or not they were acting fairly. This isn't some modern apologetic concern with racism, this is precisely an attempt to understand the Book of Mormon as it was in the minds of its authors.

I have given extensive quotes from Jeremiah's time that show that "skins of blackness" were used metaphorically within that culture. Since the Nephites were themselves descended from a family which was well-educated in the language (and therefore idioms) available in Jeremiah's culture, we have to examine the text from that paradigm -- a paradigm which was separated from the racial concerns of antebellum America by over two thousand years.

So from this far more appropriate paradigm, let's look at the "serious problem" supposedly expressed in cinepro's quote:

I am not convinced this is a more appropriate paradigm. As I have shown referring to a skin of darkness is used both metaphorically and quite literally by Biblical authors. Therefore arguing sometimes the Bible uses a skin of darkness as a metaphor therefore this is how the BOM should be understood is not a solid argument.

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.

7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

I'm absolutely baffled that this could be seen as support for a literal change of skin color, but I suppose that's to be expected from someone whose reading skills are as terribly poor as mine. It is explicitly stated, right there, that the mark which distinguishes between the tribes is the incorrect traditions. God says "don't mix with these people I've set apart as the Sons of Darkness, because then you'll join them in their inequities." The incorrect traditions are said to be that they are not treating others fairly. God sets a mark upon them -- a judgment that they are an accursed people because they have treated others unfairly, thereby inheriting the cultural designation naming them as the Sons of Darkness who fight against the Sons of Light (see the Dead Sea Scrolls). I really should have included that passage in my earlier posts, since it's an explicit vindication of the view that the blackness is idiomatic.

(bold added by me)

I must say I find your reading to be very strained. Versus eight clearly states the mark was set upon them by God to distinguish the Lamanites from the Nephites. What is the mark? According to versus six the mark is a skin of darkness. This mark was done to prevent the Nephites from picking up bad habits like incorrect traditions. Incorrect traditions are clearly not the mark itself they are what the mark is supposed to prevent. How much clearer can this be: “that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.” The mark is clearly not incorrect traditions the mark is that which is trying to prevent the Nephites from picking up those traditions. As my quoted text makes abundantly clear.

In addition under your interpretation that the mark which distinguished between tribes is incorrect traditions. God apparently is responsible for this attribute of the Lamanites. Remember God is the person responsible for the mark according to versus 7. Does it really make sense for God to curse the Lamanites so they have incorrect traditions. God is good right?

Best,

Uncertain

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I don't accept the premise of your challenge, cinepro. Here's why, even if it dooms me to being thought to have a weak argument: my dad is from Ecuador, and as a child we'd speak in a mix of spanish and english. What I noticed was that there was never a word-for-word correspondence between languages that preserved the proper sense. If that's true of english and spanish, which are relatively closely related, how much larger is the gap between reformed egyptian and the faux-Jacobean language Brother Joseph was using in his translation? You can't snip out individual words and still have the overall flow make sense, even if it's convenient for your argument; language doesn't work that way. Every part is interconnected with the whole. (Neither do I buy Skousen's "tight" and "loose" control model of the process -- Orson Scott Card has an excellent piece on why: Joseph Smith: Reader or Translator? -- starts a little ways down the page.)

Joseph did an excellent job. His words are clear enough, and I'm not going to speculate on alternative translations when I don't have the original text in front of me, and wouldn't be able to read it even if I did.

With that, I officially give up on this thread for today, as I have classes that need attending.

[Log]

Well, instead of words, you can substitute whole phrases, or even pages of phrases, in the indicated places. As you can see, Cinepro's rendition preserved the overall flow and made sense; why cannot you do the same?

Edited April 4, 2012 by Log