The Hill Cumorah

[cinepro]

Oops. Missed the context. Delete that.

But I have to post something, so here you go:

Edited April 4, 2012 by cinepro

[Log]

Uncertain was responding to Smith, I believe. Hence the quoted material in his post.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Log

[cinepro]

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]

Wow. Me and my compassion-less soul and overly-literal mind wouldn't have generated quite that response, Cinepro.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Log

[Uncertain]

I'm saying that the "mark" is a darker epidermis. I'm not sure where you're getting your reading from...? I never even come close to equating the mark with "incorrect traditions". Please re-read my clarified verses. After you've read my version, please make your own version, replacing the bolded words with unambiguous words.

Just to be clear again, that is not my interpretation. My interpretation is that Alma is saying that God gave them darker skin (probably by permanently increasing the melanin content).

Apparently there is some misunderstanding I was responding to Jeremy-Orbe. It is he that is stating the "mark" was incorrect traditions. At least when I read my post #73 the quoted sections say "JeremyOrbe-Smith, on 04 April 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:".

Best,

Uncertain

[David T]

Because I'm considering further developing it, I'd be interested in thoughts on my proposed reading, above.

[Log]

If you're interested in my thoughts, I'd say that any reading needs to not cause problems within the text. This: "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," causes problems within the text.

Any non-literal rendition of the two verses at issue causes problems.

Another example of a problematic reading of the Book of Mormon is Orson Scott Card's notion of Zarahemla making up his ancestry to compete with the Nephite claim to the throne. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out why that reading causes problems.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Log

[David T]

If you're interested in my thoughts, I'd say that any reading needs to not cause problems within the text. This: "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," causes problems within the text.

Any non-literal rendition of the two verses at issue causes problems.

I'd appreciate your assistance in clarifying. Perhaps I may need to clarify, too. I want to some up my proposal as simply as possible:

1. Separation occurs between the 'Nephites' (Jacob, Nephi, Sam, Joseph, Zoram, their wives and children), and the 'Lamanites' (Laman, Lemuel, sons of Ishmael).

2. King Nephi, years later, when most of those living were either not yet born, or young children during the initial separation of the Nephites/Lamanites (not reliable eyewitnesses), writes his 'small plates' record, as a spiritual constitution for the people. present Isolationist ideas are presented for the spiritual safety of his family. Included in this is a new 'divine curse' explanation for the policy against intermingling with the darker skinned inhabitants of the continent, who are connected with the Lamanites, syncretists who had begun interbreeding and living among them.

3. Nephi and the First Generation die. There are no eyewitnesses who would have been alive to have 'seen' Laman and Lemuel 'change color'.

4. The Nephites join with the Mulekites, Establish the Zarahemla colony.Beginning of religious and traditional syncretism. Small plates of Nephi superceded, and not in general use. Interbreeding with the natives becomes acceptable.

5. Understandings and traditions surrounding the Lamanite and Nephite devision are in flux. Element such as the 'red mark' are understood to be a valid interpretation of the physical marker, because skin color is not longer a reliable indicator.

6. Eventually, (4 Nephi) 'Nephites' and 'Lamanites' are understood as being chosen classes, not based on lineage or color at all.

7. Mormon finds the small plates of Nephi record, which had been lost and forgotten for centuries.

Edited April 4, 2012 by David T

[Log]

Let me know when you're done editing.

[David T]

Done for the moment. I know there are assumptions I am making where the burden of proof would certainly be on me. I am willing to revise and abandon as necessary. But as for the general storyline presented, what do you see as most problematic or inconsistent contextual textual issues?

Edited April 4, 2012 by David T

[Log]

In broad strokes it is similar to my own thinking. I'm analyzing 2 Ne 5:21 very closely right now. Yeah, provisionally, I buy it, with some reservations about what you are calling the "new 'divine curse' explanation".

Edited April 4, 2012 by Log

[cinepro]

Done for the moment. I know there are assumptions I am making where the burden of proof would certainly be on me. I am willing to revise and abandon as necessary. But as for the general storyline presented, what do you see as most problematic or inconsistent contextual textual issues?

Alma 3 is dated to 87 B.C., or 500 years after the Lehite landfall.

Alma really seems to be outlining two different "marks". One is the self-applied "red mark" to the forehead for those that are converting to Lamanitism. The second is the "dark skin (i.e. an epidermis that is visibly darker in shade due to an abundance of melanin or some other reason).

If both the Nephites and Lamanites (and the Amlicites and everyone else) all had the same skin tone after 500 years of intermingling with the natives, none of the verses that refer to the second "mark" (dark skin) make a lick of sense.

This subject comes up every few years, and the explanations don't improve much. A few years ago, I was talking with a relative of mine who is a lifelong student of the Book of Mormon (now in his 60s). He's a lawyer, and so he has a fairly strong grasp of the English language. We were talking about different apologetic arguments, and I casually mentioned that some apologists theorize that the Lamanite's skin in the Book of Mormon didn't actually get darker from a curse from God, but was a result of genetic mingling with the natives, and the "dark skin" was symbolic or metaphorical.

I'll never forget the look of shock on his face. His jaw literally dropped. At that point I realized how far this theory has to go, and how unlikely it is that it will ever be accepted outside of internet message boards and apologetic circles.

Ultimately, the "text" says what it says, and in order for any "alternate" theories to gain traction, they have to fit what the text says. And even with massive appeals to cultural bias, author error, translation incongruities, and modern cultural bias, these alternate theories just don't fit at all.

Edited April 4, 2012 by cinepro

[Log]

If both the Nephites and Lamanites (and the Amlicites and everyone else) all had the same skin tone after 500 years of intermingling with the natives, none of the verses that refer to the second "mark" (dark skin) make a lick of sense.

That's not quite what he's saying, in my estimation. He only said that ethnic differences were no longer sufficient to be 100% assured of one's tribal / cultural allegiances, and self-imposed tribal markings were held to be sufficient to fulfill certain prophecies. Or, at least, that's how I'd take it.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Log

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Jeremy became very blue when he read the conversation. He thought the arguments cinepro made didn't make a lick of sense. Already on his last nerve from the annoying classes he was taking, he got so pissed off that he thought his hair would catch fire in rage, and cussed a blue streak in response. Later, seething as hot as molten lava on the busride home, he noticed a girl who was cute as a button, so he tried not to sweat bullets in front of her. When he got back to his neck of the woods, he got caught up on the arguments he'd missed -- back to square one! These bad apples online were leaving such a bad taste in his mouth; he tried not to be too hard on them, though, because they obviously had bats in their belfries. The jury was still out on whether this kangaroo court would ever vote in favor of Jeremy's interpretation. He kept mum about it to his meatspace friends -- they always kept their eyes peeled for when he was getting too sucked in to the online nonsense. "Just keep your head above water," they told him when he admitted that the utter depressing grind was making him want to kick the bucket. He took the kid gloves off, at any rate. He wanted to pick their brains to understand where they were coming from. Not that he had much hope, though he dreamed of seeing a pig fly one day.

A thousand years passed, and an overseas tech dude unearthed this conversation from an ancient Google cache he had resurrected. Then he translated it into Japanese so his friends could learn about history.

"What a fascinating culture this Prophet has unearthed!" his readers think. "These people imagined that their skins turned blue when they read! They showed their approval of an argument by licking each other! They lacked detailed anatomical knowledge, and thought their nerves were depleted when they became angry! They peed on themselves when they were having conversations, and when they swore they deluded themselves into thinking their words "streak" and change color, which makes sense since they turn blue themselves! Girls were buttons, sweat was a weapon, the woodlands had necks, people kept bats as pets, kangaroos held court, Jeremy apparently kept his mom somewhere safe to protect her from the friends from the meatspace, obviously a mythical alternate universe where everyone was made out of cold cuts, which is probably where these primitives believed that the flying pigs came from."

Everyone patted themselves on their backs for being so knowledgeable about the past. (Not literally, of course, but you know what I mean.)

Then more documents were found in the cache. These ones showed the idiomatic context for the story. One of Jeremy's grandkids argued against the traditional interpretation, saying that Jeremy didn't really turn blue, and pigs didn't really fly.

"Nonsense!" shouted cinepro's grandkids. "We're just reading the obvious meaning! The text says what it says, and anyone arguing anything different is just a biased apologist! Oh, I'm sure you mean well, you poor dears, but you'll just have to accept that we know best. Our relative is a lawyer, after all, and his jaw dropped open that anyone could be so naive as to believe in your version of the story."

Edited April 5, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Let's get some things straight, folks. I am not arguing this from some "apologetic" perspective. I have never read the Book of Mormon the way you guys do, and that goes for long before I was ever on Mormon message boards. In fact, that goes for before I was a Mormon. Since apparently someone is deemed an "apologist" if he disagrees with y'all, I emphasize that I was a skeptical atheist at the time, with no stake whatsoever in the church. Not that I have much hope that this trump card means anything to you. (By the way, I am not literally holding cards of any sort. I realize that might be confusing.)

There is a single lone reference in the Book of Mormon to "darkness" referring to skin (Jacob 3:9). This cannot be a mere mesoamerican tan, since there is also a single reference to a "skin of blackness" (2 Nephi 5:21) which it is referring to.

Oddly enough, we native americans DO NOT HAVE BLACK SKIN.

Nothing wrong with black skin. I find it rather beautiful, myself. It's just that none of my relatives in Ecuador are possessed of such a feature.

On the other hand (not a literal hand, if you were wondering), there are 79 references in the Book of Mormon to "darkness" referring to something else. By my quick count, 26 or so are environmental things -- the "mists of darkness," "thick darkness upon all the face of the land," a "cloud of darkness," "the darkness of the night," etc.

The overwhelming majority of them, however, are metaphorical.

Most of them are along the lines of 3 Nephi 13:23, which says that "if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If, therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" Or 2 Nephi 15:20, "Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Or "the Messiah should be made manifest unto them in the latter days, in the spirit of power, unto the bringing of them out of darkness unto light - yea, out of hidden darkness and out of captivity unto freedom." (2 Nephi 3:5) As 2 Nephi 25:2 says, "I, Nephi, have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews; for their works were works of darkness, and their doings were doings of abominations." Specifically, "the mists of darkness are the temptations of the devil, which blindeth the eyes, and hardeneth the hearts of the children of men, and leadeth them away into broad roads." (1 Nephi 12:17)

People walk in the darkness, worketh in the darkness, peer into the Gazelan to dispel the darkness, form secret combinations in the darkness, sit in darkness, etc.

The vast, vast majority of "darkness" references in the text are to "secret works of darkness."

Unless these secret combinations are going around throwing blankets on people, this is a metaphor!

There are 17 in the Pearl of Great Price, such as when Moses 5:55 says "the works of darkness began to prevail among all the sons of men," and Moses 7:57 which says that "as many of the spirits as were in prison came forth, and stood on the right hand of God; and the remainder were reserved in chains of darkness."

So obviously men were physically making darkness with their black magic! They formed physical chains of darkness to imprison people!

Oh, hold on a sec, that's not "self-evident" from the text? We have to apply what we know about culture and idiom to understand what the heck they're talking about?

You don't say.

There's no such thing as a self-evident text. The signifier and the signified are not as clear-cut as one might assume. (They are also not physically-existing objects which can be sliced in any way, if you were wondering.)

"O ye wicked and ye perverse generation; ye hardened and ye stiffnecked people, how long will ye suppose that the Lord will suffer you? Yea, how long will ye suffer yourselves to be led by foolish and blind guides? Yea, how long will ye choose darkness rather than light?" (Helaman 13:29)

Frankly, I think the perpetual insistence on a reading of the Book of Mormon which includes a racist God who "punishes" people by physically altering their levels of melanin says much more about the person arguing for such a horrible thing than what the Book of Mormon actually says.

Especially considering the extremely pertinent cultural context of the War of the Sons of Light with the Sons of Darkness:

"These scrolls contain an apocalyptic prophecy of a war between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. The war is first described as an attack by the Sons of Light, consisting of the sons of Levi, the sons of Judah, and the sons of Benjamin, and the exiled of the desert, against Edom, Moab, the sons of Ammon, the Amalekites, Philistia, and the Kittim of Asshur (referred to as the army of Belial), and [those who assist them from among the wicked] who "violate the covenant." In the end, all of Darkness is to be destroyed and Light will live in peace for all eternity. The war is then described again as a conflict between the congregation of God and the congregation of men. The rest of the document is a detailed description of the events of the war and the ways in which it should be conducted."

"And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people." (2 Nephi 30:6)

Edited April 5, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Log]

Well, whenever you take Cinepro's challenge, I'll be waiting to read it.

Until then, keep up the creative writing!

[Log]

Actually, DavidT, I have severe reservations about #2, and #3 is unnecessary. And now I'm wondering if Cinepro's take on your #5 is closer to what you meant. #6 may well be what happened, with people choosing to identify with an ancient line of choice, willy-nilly, but I'm thinking the resurgence of old tribal divisions and affiliations would more likely take place along ancestral tribal lines.

Maybe we should start a new thread on it.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"Well, whenever you take Cinepro's challenge, I'll be waiting to read it."

Right, because "rewriting something in order to make it agree with your interpretation" has long been the best way to prove your intellectual honesty.

[David T]

Maybe we should start a new thread on it.

I would be fine with that. A Theory or viewpoint is no good if it can't take exploration and criticism I look forward to it. May help destroy this view, but hopefully, would rather help refine it.

Edited April 5, 2012 by David T

[cinepro]

Right, because "rewriting something in order to make it agree with your interpretation" has long been the best way to prove your intellectual honesty.

It's not a matter of being "honest" or "dishonest". We simply have a set of verses that you claim can be read a certain way and still have them make sense. I don't think that's the case. In order to prove me wrong, all you have to do is remove the ambiguous words and make them say explicitly what you think the original author should have written.

So here they are again:

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.

If you don't think "skins" is referring to their actual skin, and that "dark" isn't referring to the actual color shading of their skin, replace those words with other words or phrases that are more clear about what, exactly, Alma was referring to.

Interestingly, you can substitute any physical characteristic for "skins" and "dark" and the verses still make perfect sense:

6 And the eyes of the Lamanites were blue, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers,

6 And the fingernails of the Lamanites were long, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers,

6 And the toes of the Lamanites were stubby, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers,

6 And the voices of the Lamanites were shrill, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers,

But once it's made into something less literal that can't be seen, it stops making sense.

Edited April 5, 2012 by cinepro

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Sigh.

6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, which, by interpretation, is unrighteousness, according to the mark metaphorically signifying the judgement of God 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.

So by inserting our own reading into the text by literally rewriting it, we've proved ... what, exactly? This is completely meaningless.

Edited April 5, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

It "stops making sense" to who?

It doesn't have to be visual to serve as a distinguishing feature. "Hermione was angry that Snape lied to Harry and Ron. That's why she loved Harry and Ron -- they were different. They distinguished themselves by their truthfulness. It marked them as good men in her eyes."

Edited April 5, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Brant Gardner]

If you don't think "skins" is referring to their actual skin, and that "dark" isn't referring to the actual color shading of their skin, replace those words with other words or phrases that are more clear about what, exactly, Alma was referring to.

The problem with the challenge is that it presumes some level of literalness in the nature of the challenge. For example, I posit that "that puts mustard up my nose" is literal. Someone else suggests that it is metaphorical (or, in this case, idiomatic). Replace words so that it makes sense. You really can't because it is the phrase itself. Rewriting it to remove the metaphor/idiom requires an entire change, not the replacement of words. Your challenge creates a false impression because it encodes the underlying assumption of literal reading.

[Brant Gardner]

In the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, preserved in most editions until the most recent, we had:

6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.

(2 Nephi 30:6‎)‎

The text makes a contrast between what happens to Lamanites (see verses 4-5) when they learn of the gospel. The darkness (here scales rather than skin, apparently modern Lamanites have scales) fall away and they become "white and delightsome." This black/white change (or darkness/white, both pairs are used in the text) indicates the changing condition of not-believers to believers. This, and similar verses were the origin of the idea that was passed around for years that when Lamanites joined the church their darkly pigmented skin would change and they would become a lighter-skinned people. That idea is based on the literal reading.

The problem is that Joseph Smith read this metaphorically. He made that clear in 1841 when he changed the text to:

6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.

(2 Nephi 30:6‎)‎

Unfortunately, the nature of the printing process became based on the editions printed in England rather than the last one from Nauvoo, and therefore the church lost this particular change from 1841 to 1981.

If Joseph Smith understood this darkness/white contrast as metaphorical, why should we insist that it is a literal reading?

[zerinus]

In the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, preserved in most editions until the most recent, we had:

6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.

(2 Nephi 30:6‎)‎

The text makes a contrast between what happens to Lamanites (see verses 4-5) when they learn of the gospel. The darkness (here scales rather than skin, apparently modern Lamanites have scales) fall away and they become "white and delightsome." This black/white change (or darkness/white, both pairs are used in the text) indicates the changing condition of not-believers to believers. This, and similar verses were the origin of the idea that was passed around for years that when Lamanites joined the church their darkly pigmented skin would change and they would become a lighter-skinned people. That idea is based on the literal reading.

The problem is that Joseph Smith read this metaphorically. He made that clear in 1841 when he changed the text to:

6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.

(2 Nephi 30:6‎)‎

Unfortunately, the nature of the printing process became based on the editions printed in England rather than the last one from Nauvoo, and therefore the church lost this particular change from 1841 to 1981.

If Joseph Smith understood this darkness/white contrast as metaphorical, why should we insist that it is a literal reading?

I think that we had a discussion about this subject in another thread several months ago, but I have forgotten what thread it was. If you have a write-up of all your reasonings for believing that "skin of darkness" in the Book of Mormon was not meant to be taken literally, please post or summarise it here, and we can discuss it.