The Hill Cumorah

[Kevin Christensen]

Don't forget that skins can literally be garments, and that fithy garments, and stained garments and garments made clean by the atonement are used for exactly the same rhetorical purposes by Alma and Jacob as the expressions skin of blackness and white and pure. I would not be surprised to find that skin of blackness and filthy garments were translated from the same characters on the plates.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[David T]

I started a new thread with my thoughts on this here.

[Log]

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?

Brant,

That Joseph Smith - correctly - understood a specific darkness / white contrast as metaphorical, and changed the text to replace the metaphor with the meaning behind the metaphor, actually seems to me to undercut your claim that all reference to black / white or dark / light and so forth should be read metaphorically, and that's independent of the context in which the words appear. Here's why: Joseph showed he was willing and able to clarify the text on these matters. He left the other references as-is. The presumption therefore is that the unchanged text is either A. clearly metaphorical, or B. literal.

In any event, you have not once, neither in your article, nor in this thread, given a reason - any problems within the text your reading solves - sufficient for your non-literal reading of the few references which unambiguously do refer to skin color.

I will also note that your response to Cinepro's challenge is insufficient - if you think the text should read differently, re-do the whole thing. Cinepro suggested replacing words. Why stop there? Replace phrases, generate your own account of what you think Nephi / Mormon / Moroni was trying to say. It is unclear why, if the words are metaphorical, one cannot likewise replace them with the content behind the metaphor.

I have to do some re-evaluation myself because despite the fact that I disagree with DavidT's interpretation, he's correct on one issue that requires a deeper analysis.

Don't forget that skins can literally be garments, and that fithy garments, and stained garments and garments made clean by the atonement are used for exactly the same rhetorical purposes by Alma and Jacob as the expressions skin of blackness and white and pure. I would not be surprised to find that skin of blackness and filthy garments were translated from the same characters on the plates.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin,

Thanks for weighing in. Unfortunately, we don't have the plates to examine, and throughout the text, when skins are intended to be garments - say, a skin girdle or what-have-you - it has spelled that out.

In the context of Jacob, the literal reading makes sense (difference in skin tones in this life in contradistinction to the skin tones in the next); I honestly don't think the Lamanites were running around with dirty clothes in this life, vs. the Nephites' clean clothes, even though I have seen schoolyard children revile others for their filthy garments.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Log

[David T]

I have to do some re-evaluation myself because despite the fact that I disagree with DavidT's interpretation, he's correct on one issue that requires a deeper analysis.

I'd like to say that I already disagree with my proposal as originally presented in this thread, and I have further thought through and clarified, and created a different thread to discuss that key element of it (linked above). See? I'm willing to change - I'd love for you to weigh in there on the specific observations there presented.

Edited April 5, 2012 by David T

[Anijen]

Metaphorical.

I have my own arguments but they mirror Brant Gardner and Kevin Christensen that I need not add them.

[Tepui]

Wow! How did the location of the Hill Cumorah turn into skin color? Apparently, Book of Mormon geography depends on the skin color of a narrow neck. Turn up your collar.

What about a "worse" description than that of Nephi's? How about Mormon's?

Mormon 5:15 And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people,

beyond the

description

of that which ever hath been amongst us

, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.

But, I believe that time is past. But related is, a MIGHTY NATION:

1 Nephi 22:7 And it meaneth that the time cometh that after all the house of Israel have been scattered and confounded, that the Lord God will raise up a

mighty

nation

among the Gentiles, yea, even upon the face of

this land

; and by them shall our seed be scattered.

I know, I know. We can't be difficult. Nation is plural. Peru, Venezuela and Mexico, even Gran Colombia qualify as the Mighty Nation. Even Central America, which won its Independence from Mexico, not from the mother gentiles across the sea. I learned this from reading John Lloyd Stephen's book, who was sent to Central America by Pres. Martin Van Buren (the same who ignored Joseph Smith) as a US Ambassador to investigate who the heck was winning the Civil Wars in Central America. Yes, because of this Civil War, Joseph Smith learned Book of Mormon geography was in Central America, and a Mighty Nation it is. Look at it wonderous Maya ruins! A perfect place given up by the Nephites and reserved for the Gentiles - Mormon 5:19 - as a tourist spot for Gentiles on Princess Cruises. You should go sometime and inherit your blessings.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Tepui