Why Brant'S Modified Position Is Still Wrong

[Log]

One of the most controversial verses in the Book of Mormon is 2 Nephi 5:21, which states:

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.

It is true that the Nephite nation ended toward the close of the fifth century A.D., but probably many of the white Nephites were saved from death by joining the Lamanites. These then would not be followers of Christ and would be unfaithful ones. The last great war was not fought entirely on the lines of race, but probably the determining factor was that one group allied itself with the Lamanite traditions, and the other group followed the Nephite traditions, including a belief in Jesus Christ. Thus there probably were dark and white people in each army.[1]

The modern cultural assumption that a skin of blackness must equal black skin is probably informed by racial issues in the United States. The 1981 change in verse 2 Nephi 30:6 from “white and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome” is therefore similarly interpreted in the context of political correctness, and an accommodation to issues of race in the United States. Of course, the fact that the change was made in 1981 obscures the fact that it was a change that Joseph Smith made for the 1840 Nauvoo edition of the Book of Mormon.[2] While issues of race were certainly important in 1840, it is much less likely that the change was due to pressure to be politically correct in 1840 than it would have been had the change been unique to 1981.

Let us consider the implications of this textual change: Joseph Smith was demonstrating that he was ready, willing, and able to change the text of the Book of Mormon to eliminate easily misunderstood metaphors by replacing the metaphors with the content behind them. Joseph resolutely declined to alter 2 Nephi 5:21. The implication is that the text of 2 Nephi 5:21, which is most easily understood literally, is, indeed, to be understood literally.

I have elsewhere argued that this skin of blackness was a metaphor for a spiritual state rather than a change in pigmentation.[3] While there are arguments to be made for or against that proposition, the decision as to whether a “skin of blackness” is a description of a physical or spiritual change should be decided upon something stronger than personal preference for one reading or the other. The text is the final arbiter of such questions. What might the text tell us to help us decide?

Let us see how interpreting the “skin of blackness” as “spiritual darkness” fits with the text. In the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 5:21 would have read as follows, without punctuation: “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.”

If “skin of blackness” is to be understood metaphorically as “a state of spiritual darkness,” then this “state of spiritual darkness” must necessarily result in the Lamanites not being enticing – attractive, beautiful, comely – to the Nephites. That “states of spiritual darkness” do not produce this effect can be demonstrated as easily as turning on one’s television for any length of time.

The “skin of blackness” must have the effect of rendering the Lamanites as no longer “white and exceedingly fair and delightsome,” which is summed up as “enticing” in 2 Nephi 5:21. This can be done by physically changing the appearance of Laman, Lemuel, and the seed of all those who mixed with them. This cannot be done metaphorically. That white in this context is to be interpreted literally, as opposed to metaphorically, is indicated by the fact that Joseph Smith left it as it stands, while changing all metaphoric references of “whiteness” to “pure.”

Moreover, this “skin of blackness” is hereditary – it follows the seed of Laman and Lemuel and the seed of those who mixed with them via intermarriage. “A state of spiritual darkness” does not operate in such a fashion – but ethnic characteristics are well known to do just that.

What would be ideal is to find a place in the text where some Nephite said something like “Oh, I see by your black skin that you are a Lamanite.” That doesn’t happen. What we do get are some situations in which a difference in pigmentation should make a difference in an event. We do have a couple of those, but what we find is that what should make a difference, doesn’t.

Fascinatingly, we do see just that. Throughout their missionary efforts, the sons of Mosiah are identified on sight as Nephites, such as in Alma 19:18 and Alma 20:10 – NB: Ammon was not identified by his speech in either case. The distinguishing characteristics were visible.

One that I have noted before is found in Alma 55:4–8:

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

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

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

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

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

Moroni’s plan requires a Lamanite. He finds one. What could a Lamanite do that a non-Lamanite could not? For most readers, conditioned by years of assumptions, the expectation is that he is darker skinned, while Nephites were “white.” However, this reason is unlikely, given the actual working-out of the plan (v. :

First, Laman is not alone. Moroni has selected other men to go with him. Moroni had searched for a Lamanite and found one. His companions were, therefore, not Lamanites. However, they approach with the one “true” Lamanite. If skin color identified the one Lamanite, then his companions would obviously be recognized on sight as Nephites. Furthermore, the Lamanite armies are being led by a Nephite dissenter, and many of those in the city of Nephi who had ejected the people of Ammon were also Nephite dissenters. According to the record, Laman does all of the talking, and the guards immediately accept his announcement that he is a Lamanite. Thus, there is a language difference between the two groups. Clearly, this difference is not great, because Nephite dissenters easily assimilate into the Lamanite ranks. However, there must be some differences, either in dialect or accent, so that the target Lamanites identified Laman’s voice as soon as they heard it as truly “Lamanite.” As long as his companions remained silent, this ruse would be sufficient. That reading fits the evidence, and the evidence does not allow for a pigmentation difference that is sufficient that it would be noticed.

Strangely, this is the place where I feel Brant has done the most violence to the text. Moroni searched for a descendant of Laman and found at least one. His companions may or may not have been Lamanites; the text is silent on that point. The interesting thing is that Moroni is not looking for someone based on linguistic concerns, but hereditary concerns – specifically, he’s looking for a lineal descendant of Laman. At this time in the history of the Nephites and Lamanites, both peoples were bilingual. Therefore, if there was no physically distinguishing characteristic between Nephites and Lamanites, there would have been no need to seek one who was lineally descended from Laman – speech, unlike ethnic characteristics, is not inherited. Any Nephite who spoke the language well enough would have done just as well, if linguistic skill was the issue for Moroni – after all, the king of the Lamanites at this time, one Amalikiah, was himself a Nephite. Therefore, the most reasonable inference for why Moroni makes a big deal out of finding a lineal descendant of Laman is because they were distinguishable by their ethnic characteristics.

A second event occurs in an earlier war. This particular experience is important because it specifically references the curse, mark, and dark skin of the 2 Nephi quotation that is the foundation of all of the racist assumptions. The following is Alma 3:6–16, with comments as we read:

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.

This verse gives us the three important elements and some relationship among the three. The “skins of the Lamanites were dark.” (This corresponds to the “skin of blackness” from 2 Nephi 5:21.) Of course, we have the substitution of dark for black, suggesting that the specific color is not required. Next, this skin of darkness/blackness was set upon them “according to the mark” and it is the markwhich is the curse.

Again, we have here a plain reference to literal skin color, left untouched by Joseph Smith, who, as has been seen previously, was quite ready, willing, and able to change any metaphorical readings that were potentially problematic on the topic of color. Is “the mark” equivalent to “the curse,” making dark skin itself a curse? Very probably not – else why refer to the mark, and not solely the curse? Why doesn’t the verse simply read “And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the curse which was set upon their fathers, which was set upon them because of their transgressions…”? The most reasonable answer is because the mark and the curse are not coextensive, but even then, one might deploy a short reference to the curse by referring to the dark skin as the curse. Mormon later does just that.

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.

Here again, we see that the “skin of blackness” was to function to distinguish the Lamanites from the Nephites. Again, we ask, how does “a state of spiritual darkness” bring about that function? And, again, we answer, “It does not.”

9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.

Part of the definition of becoming Lamanite was that they inherited the curse. Of course, because the definition of Lamanite was one who was an enemy to a Nephite, that seems pretty clear. The possible issue here is genetic, in that it comes from “mingling” with Lamanites. However, the opposite change to “white and delightsome” appears to happen upon conversion, so that puts this interpretation in doubt. We see in 3 Nephi 2:13–16:

13 And it came to pass that before this thirteenth year had passed away the Nephites were threatened with utter destruction because of this war, which had become exceedingly sore.

14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;

15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year.

Before the thirteenth year passes away (v. 13) there are Lamanites who unite with the Nephites and become Nephites (v. 14). As part of their conversion “their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites” (v. 15). Then we have the reiteration that all of this takes place before the end of the thirteenth year (v. 16). The speed of this change precludes any naturally occurring process that changes pigmentation. Nevertheless, simply by becoming Nephites the curse is gone and their skins are no long black but are now white.

It is to be noted that this is the sole instance in the Book of Mormon of “skins becoming white.” It is also instructive that this, too, was left untouched by Joseph Smith when he changed the color metaphors to reflect their content. It is also interesting that if the curse were coextensive with skin color that Mormon would choose, in the face of limited space and difficulty in writing upon plates, to redundantly describe the lifting of the curse as well as the lightening of the skin. After all, if curse = dark skin, then there is no need to refer to the lightening of the skin when referring to the lifting of the curse.

It is also to be noted that Brant is here conflating 3 Nephi 2:13-16 with Alma and the rest of the verses which refer to the curse for rhetorical purposes: he wants the Book of Mormon to appear to describe the Lamanites as flipping skin colors back and forth from dark to white upon what he would style a “literal” reading of the book – when, in fact, a literal reading of the book describes no such thing.

Knowing that this change is virtually immediate becomes important as we read the rest of the story from Alma 3:

10 Therefore, whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him.

Verse 10 reiterates that conversion from Nephite to Lamanite sets the mark, just as simple conversion from Lamanite to Nephite removes it.

And thus we see to what end Brant was deploying his rhetorical sleight of hand.

13 Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads.

14 Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.

15 And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also.

16 And again: I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed.

These verses are consistent. They speak of the same mingling and the same curse.

Which proves, of course, that the dark skin was not that which was spoken of as the curse upon the Lamanites. The curse, be it known, is becoming cut off from the presence of God, and, in the specific case of Laman and Lemuel, was accompanied by the imposition of an inheritable “skin of blackness.” Also note that in verse 14 and 15, this is a clear reference to the inheritable mark set upon the Lamanites, while in 16, no such relationship is inferrable.

Interestingly, however, the Amlicite mark was red on the forehead, which the Nephites linked to the scriptural mark. Thus the Amlicites are marked, but it is not only a voluntary marking, but one that required red on the forehead. If the Amlicites were to be marked, why wasn’t it with the skin of blackness? Of course, if we read “skin of blackness” as a metaphor, then they do change their hearts (we idiomatically speak of a black heart which is not intended literally).

Because verse 16 does not require any such mark of dark skin to be placed upon the Amlicites.

More importantly, if they really did have an immediate pigmentation change, the mark was unnecessary. Why was the mark necessary from the Amlicite perspective? The Amlicite battle plan required that they flee from the Nephites towards a Lamanite army. That Lamanite army needed to know that the fully armed warriors running full speed at them were friends. They had to know the difference between the Amlicite friends who were springing a trap and the Nephites who were falling into it. If there were a pigmentation difference, it would have been obvious. It wasn’t visually obvious, so a red mark was required to mark the ones that the Lamanites should allow to pass.

All of which is consistent with the literal reading. Again, Brant wants to conflate marks. The text does not reward that conflation.

Nevertheless, Mormon sees this marking in the context of the curse. If Mormon were familiar with the changeable skin pigmentation, he had no reason to case the Amlicite actions in the connection with that curse and mark.

As it turns out, there is no reason even upon a literal reading of “skin of blackness” for Mormon to be familiar with changeable skin pigmentation except in those two instances given – 2 Nephi 5:21, and 3 Nephi 2:13-16. The inherited mark of dark skin was not equivalent to the Amlicites’ voluntarily self-imposed mark. Brant does Book of Mormon readers no favors by attempting to conflate them for rhetorical purposes.

This even further clarifies that there was no available obvious difference that would allow someone to see that someone was Lamanite or Nephite. The “skin of darkness” is only textually consistent if read as a metaphor. It cannot be supported as a pigmentation change.

I hope I have demonstrated to the reader’s satisfaction that Brant’s reading is neither necessitated by the text, nor does the text reward the reader when one adopts it. It is one thing when a metaphorical reading actually solves puzzles. Brant’s reading creates them where they don’t exist currently.

It has been my feeling since first reading Brant’s paper way back in the day that Brant is doing obvious violence to the text for what are transparently apologetic purposes. He believes he is doing the Church a favor by effacing the text of the Book of Mormon to defend us against the charge of racism in the Book of Mormon; yet apologetic purposes do not sanctify the practice of altering the holy word of God to conform to the reigning philosophies of the age. I believe FAIRblog errs in giving him public space for this.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Log

[Cobalt-70]

Let us consider the implications of this textual change: Joseph Smith was demonstrating that he was ready, willing, and able to change the text of the Book of Mormon to eliminate easily misunderstood metaphors by replacing the metaphors with the content behind them. Joseph resolutely declined to alter 2 Nephi 5:21. The implication is that the text of 2 Nephi 5:21, which is most easily understood literally, is, indeed, to be understood literally.

What do you mean that he "resolutely declined to alter 2 Nephi 5:21." Do we have him on the record saying that he was happy to change 2 Nephi 30:6, but not this passage? What if he only remembered the one racially offensive section, and forgot about the other? He was pretty busy in 1840, after all. Or maybe he wanted to change the offensive passage in 2 Nephi 5, but couldn't figure out how to do so in a way that seemed like a minimal change?

Edited May 21, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Log]

Well, Joseph died before he would make the change. I'd say that was pretty resolute.

As it stands, given Brant's reading, it would not have made much difference, space-wise, to say "heart of blackness" rather than "skin of blackness," if that was what was metaphorically meant.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Log

[ksfisher]

Am I reading this right, that Gardner is being accused of "altering the holy word of God" in the last paragraph of the OP? That seems like a pretty strong accusation. Gardner and Log may have different understandings of the text, but I don't think anyone has performed any alterations.

Neither reading makes any changes to the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the proclaims is it's reason to exist.

[Log]

Am I reading this right, that Gardner is being accused of "altering the holy word of God" in the last paragraph of the OP? That seems like a pretty strong accusation. Gardner and Log may have different understandings of the text, but I don't think anyone has performed any alterations.

Look at the scripture which says "whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meat." The scripture has been transfigured, even though the text stays the same. Abstaining from meat is quite literally the opposite of eating meat, yet the verse is still traditionally read as "whoever forbids the eating of meat."

Changing the reading of a scripture from literal to metaphorical is likewise altering the scripture, even leaving the text as it is.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Log

[Brant Gardner]

It's good to have the chance to discuss evidence. Part 1 because I quoted too much for the system to accept a single post.

Let us consider the implications of this textual change: Joseph Smith was demonstrating that he was ready, willing, and able to change the text of the Book of Mormon to eliminate easily misunderstood metaphors by replacing the metaphors with the content behind them. Joseph resolutely declined to alter 2 Nephi 5:21. The implication is that the text of 2 Nephi 5:21, which is most easily understood literally, is, indeed, to be understood literally.

That is a fascinating assertion. I doubt that the implication is solid at all. This change was made in the third revision, meaning it occurred to Joseph after missing it in the first and second revisions (the first being prior to the publication of the 1830 edition). I cannot tell you why he changed in in 1840. Frankly, it makes better textual sense to have been left alone. We might guess at why he changed it, but asserting that any change that he didn't make was equally intentional seems far beyond the evidence.

Let us see how interpreting the “skin of blackness” as “spiritual darkness” fits with the text.

Precisely.

If “skin of blackness” is to be understood metaphorically as “a state of spiritual darkness,” then this “state of spiritual darkness” must necessarily result in the Lamanites not being enticing – attractive, beautiful, comely – to the Nephites. That “states of spiritual darkness” do not produce this effect can be demonstrated as easily as turning on one’s television for any length of time.

Here we have a few more interesting assertions. The first is that a change in pigmentation wouldn't have been attractive. I submit that this is a modern assumption based on historical racial prejudices and was simply not part of the ancient world. The very argument requires a concept for which there is virtually no ancient evidence.

However, there is ancient evidence, in abundance, of assumed racial continuation of traits. That is where the whole idea of stereotyping comes from. See Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality

for a good review.

The “skin of blackness” must have the effect of rendering the Lamanites as no longer “white and exceedingly fair and delightsome,” which is summed up as “enticing” in 2 Nephi 5:21. This can be done by physically changing the appearance of Laman, Lemuel, and the seed of all those who mixed with them. This cannot be done metaphorically.

This argument works only upon the assumption of a pigmentation change and the assumption that it would be distateful, neither of which is demonstrated by the assertion, and neither has any evidence in the text. Simply declaring Canaanites to be undesirable marriage partners was sufficient. One didn't require any physical change (and none occurred). The simple declaration that the Lamanites were undesirable marriage partners was absolutely sufficient. A pigmentation change was superfluous to the prohibition.

As for mixing, since racial prejudices rather logical follow inheritance, no matter what aspect of a persons nationality/ethnicity one decides is undesireable pertains to those who "mix with." However, there is another important difference in the Book of Mormon. Lamanite is a generic for enemy. Any kind of mixing with the enemy makes one an enemy. On the other hand, changing sides in the Book of Mormon removes any problem and they are immediately "white" and available as marriage partners. There is no need to wait for some miraculous change of pigmentation.

That white in this context is to be interpreted literally, as opposed to metaphorically, is indicated by the fact that Joseph Smith left it as it stands, while changing all metaphoric references of “whiteness” to “pure.”

That places again too much emphasis on a single change. The text is rather consistent in its dark/white contrast (not always black). Since no one in the New World was either black or white, those terms (even if they were to be understood as pigmentation) are not literal. Middle Eastern stock is not white, nor anyone in the Americas (prior to contact) black. Even for those who attempt to read skin of blackness as literal skin, the "blackness" has to be less than literal. That is a bit of a logical contradiction.

Moreover, this “skin of blackness” is hereditary – it follows the seed of Laman and Lemuel and the seed of those who mixed with them via intermarriage. “A state of spiritual darkness” does not operate in such a fashion – but ethnic characteristics are well known to do just that.

Modern thinking, not ancient.

Fascinatingly, we do see just that. Throughout their missionary efforts, the sons of Mosiah are identified on sight as Nephites, such as in Alma 19:18 and Alma 20:10 – NB: Ammon was not identified by his speech in either case. The distinguishing characteristics were visible.

Not a diagnostic case. I originally thought that it might have been, but as the absence of pigmentation (they were arrested, after all). They were taken as the escaped priests. Neither of us gets to us this one, it simply doesn't show anything useful.

[Brant Gardner]

Part 2

Strangely, this is the place where I feel Brant has done the most violence to the text. Moroni searched for a descendant of Laman and found at least one.

Alma 55:5 says one. Nothing in the text even suggests more, and instead rather suggests that it was only one. Verses 6 and 7 make it clear that Moroni added some of his men. I would read that as men that Moroni knew. Had he known that the were Lamanites, he need not have looked for the one. The intent of this "at least" is to suggest that there were more, but that clearly reads into the text what is not there while ignoring what actually is there.

His companions may or may not have been Lamanites; the text is silent on that point.

This continues the use of possible ambiguity to bolster an opinion not supported in the text. In order for this reading to make any difference, we have to assume that each and every one of these companions was Lamanite, which makes the story of finding one rather odd.

The interesting thing is that Moroni is not looking for someone based on linguistic concerns, but hereditary concerns – specifically, he’s looking for a lineal descendant of Laman.

It is most accurate to state that Moroni doesn't say why he needed a Lamanite. He clearly needs a Lamanite and not a Nephite. Why he does is the question.

At this time in the history of the Nephites and Lamanites, both peoples were bilingual.

I wouldn't disagree, but the language itself is hardly the issue. I served a mission in Spain, and it was quite simple to tell most missionaries from native speakers. That was for missionaries. The native speakers were even more discerning.

Therefore, if there was no physically distinguishing characteristic between Nephites and Lamanites, there would have been no need to seek one who was lineally descended from Laman – speech, unlike ethnic characteristics, is not inherited.

The problem with this reading is that it only works if all of the assumed meanings are applied. Beginning without such assumptions does not lead to the conclusion. Plus, in order to now require a physical characteristic, we must posit more than one Lamanite (finding a way to make a not-quote-ambiguous text very ambiguous) and somehow suggest that speech habits are not learned (contradicting just about everything that linguists understand about dialects).

Any Nephite who spoke the language well enough would have done just as well, if linguistic skill was the issue for Moroni – after all, the king of the Lamanites at this time, one Amalikiah, was himself a Nephite.

I submit that this statement betrays no understanding of actual population linguistics. It is an arguable point, but one that must argue against known social linguistic history, not with it.

Therefore, the most reasonable inference for why Moroni makes a big deal out of finding a lineal descendant of Laman is because they were distinguishable by their ethnic characteristics.

Notice that nothing in the actual text supports this conclusion. It is supportable only if it is posited that there must be a physical difference. It uses this text as circular reasoning.

The fact is, that the text itself does not clearly hinge on a physical appearance, and it should have, had there been one. The presence of other non-Lamanites (the simplest reading of the text) clinches it. Out of several, only one was Lamanite. The visual appearance should have, but did not, destroy the mission.

Again, we have here a plain reference to literal skin color,

Since "plain" is precisely the issue here, an appeal to "plain reading" is necessarily circular.

Is “the mark” equivalent to “the curse,” making dark skin itself a curse? Very probably not – else why refer to the mark, and not solely the curse?

Here we agree. The mark, whatever it might have been, was not the curse. This seems pretty clear in the discussion of the Amlicites. The curse is the undesirability as marriage partners. The Amlicites create a mark that Mormon sees as a fulfillment of the verse. Of course, the red mark isn't a black skin, so we have Mormon telling us that they did something other change pigmentation to fulfill that requirement.

Here again, we see that the “skin of blackness” was to function to distinguish the Lamanites from the Nephites. Again, we ask, how does “a state of spiritual darkness” bring about that function? And, again, we answer, “It does not.”

I recommend a better reading of Old Testament history.

It is to be noted that this is the sole instance in the Book of Mormon of “skins becoming white.” It is also instructive that this, too, was left untouched by Joseph Smith when he changed the color metaphors to reflect their content. It is also interesting that if the curse were coextensive with skin color that Mormon would choose, in the face of limited space and difficulty in writing upon plates, to redundantly describe the lifting of the curse as well as the lightening of the skin. After all, if curse = dark skin, then there is no need to refer to the lightening of the skin when referring to the lifting of the curse.

Except that the reverse metaphor for "skin of darkness" is "skin become white." When the Nephite apostles are praying, they become "white" (3 Ne. 19:30). "White" in that verse must be metaphorical. In the context of a particularly sacred setting, white Nephites "were white, even as Jesus." It is difficult to see how that is physical and not metaphorical. If becoming white is therefore a metaphor for a spiritual state, the set of black/white or darkness/white is just as easily seen as metaphorical. The problem is that we have a modern fixation on the "skin" as necessarily literal. I suggest reading biblical metaphors which also use the surface of the body as a mirror of an internal state (typically "face" in the OT). Again, see Portraits of Paul.

[Brant Gardner]

and part 3!!

It is also to be noted that Brant is here conflating 3 Nephi 2:13-16 with Alma and the rest of the verses which refer to the curse for rhetorical purposes: he wants the Book of Mormon to appear to describe the Lamanites as flipping skin colors back and forth from dark to white upon what he would style a “literal” reading of the book – when, in fact, a literal reading of the book describes no such thing.

The literal reading specifically indicates that in the end of the thriteenth year Lamanites united with Nephites, and by the end of the thirteenth year "their skin became white like unto the Nephites." What kind of literal reading can be given save a metaphorical change or a pigmentation change? If you choose pigmentation, we need to explain how it occurs in that short of time, and without any "mixing."

As it turns out, there is no reason even upon a literal reading of “skin of blackness” for Mormon to be familiar with changeable skin pigmentation except in those two instances given – 2 Nephi 5:21, and 3 Nephi 2:13-16. The inherited mark of dark skin was not equivalent to the Amlicites’ voluntarily self-imposed mark. Brant does Book of Mormon readers no favors by attempting to conflate them for rhetorical purposes.

So Mormon make sure that the Amlicites mark themselves, specifically references scripture, but is unaware that it should be pigmentation and that anyone who is Lamanite has a dark skin? I think, given the circumstances, I'll read the text as Mormon appears to, which is that there was no pigmentation change, and that therefore another applied mark had to be used to meet the scriptural requirement.

I hope I have demonstrated to the reader’s satisfaction that Brant’s reading is neither necessitated by the text, nor does the text reward the reader when one adopts it. It is one thing when a metaphorical reading actually solves puzzles. Brant’s reading creates them where they don’t exist currently.

The issue of creative reading is, of course, to be determined by others who read. I reiterate, however, that your reading is absolutely based upon the prior assumption of the meaning of the text, whereas I am looking at the text to determine meaning. I would submit that the text should be the arbiter and not our ability to read into the text our assumptions.

It has been my feeling since first reading Brant’s paper way back in the day that Brant is doing obvious violence to the text for what are transparently apologetic purposes.

Except here you have me wrong. I originally thought that Sorenson's environmental explanation was probably the best. I thought that there was a real skin color difference, but that something in the local environment -- or some mixing with natives -- effected the pigmentation. I didn't change my mind until I went to the text and tried to get the text to show me what was happening. There is no supportable pigmentation change. There is never a single instance in the text where any visible difference is either noted, or where it makes a difference in the story as it should have if it existed.

I had no apologetic purpose in mind at all, and was actually surprised at what I found (and not for the first time).

He believes he is doing the Church a favor by effacing the text of the Book of Mormon to defend us against the charge of racism in the Book of Mormon

I may assure you on the best of authorities that you have the motivation incorrect.

[volgadon]

Strangely, this is the place where I feel Brant has done the most violence to the text. Moroni searched for a descendant of Laman and found at least one. His companions may or may not have been Lamanites; the text is silent on that point. The interesting thing is that Moroni is not looking for someone based on linguistic concerns, but hereditary concerns – specifically, he’s looking for a lineal descendant of Laman. At this time in the history of the Nephites and Lamanites, both peoples were bilingual. Therefore, if there was no physically distinguishing characteristic between Nephites and Lamanites, there would have been no need to seek one who was lineally descended from Laman – speech, unlike ethnic characteristics, is not inherited. Any Nephite who spoke the language well enough would have done just as well, if linguistic skill was the issue for Moroni – after all, the king of the Lamanites at this time, one Amalikiah, was himself a Nephite. Therefore, the most reasonable inference for why Moroni makes a big deal out of finding a lineal descendant of Laman is because they were distinguishable by their ethnic characteristics.

Log has gone on an ignore button spree, but I might as well remark on why his argument here doesn't hold up terribly well. First of all, if you want to send someone on a clandestine mission to a different people, the first preference would be for a native speaker. The risk of failure is high enough even with a native speaker. With a non-native speaker, the risk more than doubles.

For example, the Israeli spy Eli Cohen was born in Alexandria and grew up speaking Arabic. He was sent as a spy to Syria, so had to learn the Syrian dialect in order to pass for a Syrian. In his rare trips back to Israel his mother, grew suspicious of the cover story, as he dropped some Syrianisms.

Operation Greif was the famous attempt by Skorzeny to throw the American army into confusion and disarray during the Battle of the Bulge. He dressed his troops in American uniforms and used captured jeeps. Some gave themselves away by asking for petrol instead of gas. The GIs became almost paranoid (who can blame them) and resorted to asking each othe trivia questions. Even generals such as Omar Bradley were under suspicion.

Taking another example from Israeli history, in the 30s and 40s there was a secret unit composed of Arabic speaking Jews. There was one incident where an agent was in a coffee house with some Bedouin gang members. His Arabic was impeccable, but due to some minor slip-up they grew suspicious and started talking about something which happened in the town he was from. He didn't know details, so they asked about another story, more famous than the last, a story everyone from that town and the region knew. As he was ignorant of that story too, the Bedouins were certain he was a spy. The agent escaped before he was killed, but his cover was blown.

A few years ago an acquaintance asked me for help. Some huy had her number and was asking her out. He presented himself as an Italian tourist and she wanted me to check. I don't speak italian, but one of my highschool teachers was from an old Jewish family of Rome so she taught me some tricks. I spoke to the guy on the phone, he sounded fluent, but when I asked how to say perfect he answered perfecto. That is Spanish. The Italian is perfetto. The guy finally admitted to being an Arab who lived in Italy for a year or so.

My Russian is fluent and confident, my vocabulary is large and I can joke at ease, but I have an obvious accent. It isn't an American accent, so I can pass for a son of immigrants (I look Slavic) or for someone who emigrated as a child, but never for more than that.

[Mark Beesley]

I hope I have demonstrated to the reader’s satisfaction that Brant’s reading is neither necessitated by the text, nor does the text reward the reader when one adopts it. It is one thing when a metaphorical reading actually solves puzzles. Brant’s reading creates them where they don’t exist currently.

You haven't. Sorry.

It has been my feeling since first reading Brant’s paper way back in the day that Brant is doing obvious violence to the text for what are transparently apologetic purposes. He believes he is doing the Church a favor by effacing the text of the Book of Mormon to defend us against the charge of racism in the Book of Mormon; yet apologetic purposes do not sanctify the practice of altering the holy word of God to conform to the reigning philosophies of the age. I believe FAIRblog errs in giving him public space for this.

You would do well to keep your feelings to yourself and refrain from imputing motives to people.

[Nemesis]

Log you wanted an example, well this thread demonstrates exactly what I am talking about. You consistently try to tell other people what their motives are and questioning their faithfulness. Don't do either again.

Nemesis