Races

[Nathair/|\]

[Cobalt-70]

No one really knows what Joseph Smith saw in the stone and in the Interpreters, save God and Joseph Smith.

And the whole world. Apparently he told Joseph Kinght that "he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkened his Eyes when he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters."

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Excellent stuff, Volga and Hamba! Nathair, you totally stole mine.

...

Cobalt-70, I recommend Brant Gardner's The Gift and the Power for the definitive examination of the translation process. Orson Scott Card also has a useful essay on Joseph Smith: Reader or Translator?

[MormonMason]

If they intermarried, then the idea of "lineage" goes out the window, since everyone is a descendant from Ham, Shem, and Japheth.

But genetically, this is impossible anyway, given that the present genetic diversity of the human species could not, mathematically, have come from only eight people (actually, just five, because the three sons' genes all came from Noah and his wife). Not only that, but if the Flood story were true, there would exist only one human Y chromosome (that of Noah).

You are quite mistaken. Genealogies were kept a certain way, tracing from father to son and so on. In the very beginning, the sons of Jacob married varied nations of people. Some of them married Canaanites. Over time, others intermarried with non-Israelite females. That was the way that the intermarriages worked. The idea that one traces "Jewishness" by virtue of having a Jewish mother did not occur until after the Exile. That policy came as a result of all the rapes that came during the Babylonian captivity and the capture of Judah and Jerusalem. You also are not accounting for the wives of the sons of Noah. We do not know from what lineages these came. At least one of the lines has traditionally been believed to have been a daughter of the line of Cain.

You also are forgetting about mutations that occur on the y chromosome. It can happen in even one generation. We can see this in the descendents of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, by the way.

And, you are thinking simplistically again. How extensive was the flood of Noah? Never mind the common interpretation for which there is little to no evidence. Jewish tradition preserves the idea that there were others who survived the flood.

One tradition is that a person of the lineage of Cain held onto the ark so that he could keep from drowning. Another was that a giant did this and survived the flood, continuing his lineage of giants after the flood. Now, I do not at the moment recall the texts I read it in but I do recall a few years ago reading old, Jewish texts that contained that idea.

Were that true, it would account for much that the current Bible cannot account for in the history of the world. Many ancient cultures have a flood story. Some have interpreted that to mean that they preserved traditions of the one flood event of Noah and handed down corrupt versions of that story down to their descendents. What of the other possibility? That of the possibility that there were others who actually did survive a flood in various parts of the world, escaping by various means.

[MormonMason]

And the whole world. Apparently he told Joseph Kinght that "he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkened his Eyes when he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters."

You are forgetting that this was the translation, not the original language characters. Either way, "white" is literally correct whereas "pure" better fits the context and usage in this lone passage. It is the same with Daniel 11:35 and 12:10. It is the same in various Egyptian texts, too. Again, see the lexicons if you doubt this.

[ERayR]

You are forgetting that this was the translation, not the original language characters. Either way, "white" is literally correct whereas "pure" better fits the context and usage in this lone passage. It is the same with Daniel 11:35 and 12:10. It is the same in various Egyptian texts, too. Again, see the lexicons if you doubt this.

And yet those with limited vocabularies will continue to push forth with this canard.

[MormonMason]

And yet those with limited vocabularies will continue to push forth with this canard.

Yes, they will. Something gave the idea to Joseph Smith that "pure" was better in that passage, whether he got it from a lexicon, a conversation with Seixas (his Hebrew teacher), the Original Manuscript, or via prayer and revelation. The fact remains, both white and pure are correct in this passage. It would be a great thing for a new edition of the Book of Mormon to have a new footnote point this out to readers. As I have mentioned several times, "white" is denotatively correct whereas "pure" is connotatively correct from both the standpoint of Hebrew and Egyptian. If the Book of Mormon were written in the language of the Egyptians with the learning of the Jews, like the book itself claims, then this sort of thing should be expected.

Those who want to try to claim that this pasage was revised by Joseph Smith on racial grounds completely miss the point and have to ignore the fact that this is the only passage so altered. If Joseph simply were changing his mind, why did he not modify all the passages referring to skin? This is the elephant in the room that they all seemingly ignore.

[Cobalt-70]

Those who want to try to claim that this pasage was revised by Joseph Smith on racial grounds completely miss the point and have to ignore the fact that this is the only passage so altered. If Joseph simply were changing his mind, why did he not modify all the passages referring to skin? This is the elephant in the room that they all seemingly ignore.

No, I already provided a simple explanation for this. By 1840 Smith still surely believed that Native Americans obtained their skin color by the curse of Laman and Lemuel. What possibly changed, however, was his view that if you became a Mormon, a couple generations later your descendants would turn into Caucasians.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[ERayR]

No, I already provided a simple explanation for this. By 1840 Smith still surely believed that Native Americans obtained their skin color by the curse of Laman and Lemuel. What possibly changed, however, was his view that if you became a Mormon, a couple generations later your descendants would turn into Caucasians.

And you base this marvelous revelation on what evidence?

[Cobalt-70]

And you base this marvelous revelation on what evidence?

On the fact that the only racist part of the Book of Mormon he changed in the 1940 edition was the part about Native Americans turning white. Why else would Smith have made such a carefully-crafted substantive change in the language of the "most correct book," unless he had second thoughts about the doctrine? Why then? Who knows. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that Joseph Smith had his first known encounter with a real, live Native American in May 1840--an Oneida man who traveled to Nauvoo and was baptized with his family, but apparently they did not become more "white and delightsome." (Yes, I'm being facetious.) I give Smith a boat-load of credit for recognizing when he was wrong, and trying to amend the record accordingly.

[ERayR]

On the fact that the only racist part of the Book of Mormon he changed in the 1940 edition was the part about Native Americans turning white. Why else would Smith have made such a carefully-crafted substantive change in the language of the "most correct book," unless he had second thoughts about the doctrine? Why then? Who knows. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that Joseph Smith had his first known encounter with a real, live Native American in May 1840--an Oneida man who traveled to Nauvoo and was baptized with his family, but apparently they did not become more "white and delightsome." (Yes, I'm being facetious.) I give Smith a boat-load of credit for recognizing when he was wrong, and trying to amend the record accordingly.

You are the one with the advanced degree in clairvoyance so you needent be asking all those questions about Joseph Smith's motives.

[Tacenda]

You are the one with the advanced degree in clairvoyance so you needent be asking all those questions about Joseph Smith's motives.

By observing Cobalt's answers on this board, he probably has advanced degrees in way more than just a clairvoyance degree!

[ERayR]

By observing Cobalt's answers on this board, he probably has advanced degrees in way more than just a clairvoyance degree!

Despite what I posted I am not convinced he has the ability to tell us what Joseph Smith was thinking when he made those changes.

[volgadon]

By observing Cobalt's answers on this board, he probably has advanced degrees in way more than just a clairvoyance degree!

Really? He is rarely particularly accurate with the terms and observations he makes. We all err, but I've seen a substantial degree of errors in most of his posts.

[MormonMason]

No, I already provided a simple explanation for this. By 1840 Smith still surely believed that Native Americans obtained their skin color by the curse of Laman and Lemuel. What possibly changed, however, was his view that if you became a Mormon, a couple generations later your descendants would turn into Caucasians.

Then why did he not change all the other passages? Why just this one? Your hypothesis does not account for that glaring discrepancy.

[Cobalt-70]

Then why did he not change all the other passages? Why just this one? Your hypothesis does not account for that glaring discrepancy.

Like which ones? He changed the only passage I am aware of that explicitly says that Native Americans will turn into white people after they convert to Mormonism. 3 Ne. 2:16 and 4 Ne. 1:10 refer to people becoming exceedingly "fair" after they become righteous. But the word "fair" does not so necessarily imply Caucasian race that the passage needed to be changed. The word "fair" also means beautiful. In fact, the word meant "beautiful" long before it meant "light skinned." So Smith could get away with leaving these passages as-is.

[MormonMason]

Like which ones? He changed the only passage I am aware of that explicitly says that Native Americans will turn into white people after they convert to Mormonism. 3 Ne. 2:16 and 4 Ne. 1:10 refer to people becoming exceedingly "fair" after they become righteous. But the word "fair" does not so necessarily imply Caucasian race that the passage needed to be changed. The word "fair" also means beautiful. In fact, the word meant "beautiful" long before it meant "light skinned." So Smith could get away with leaving these passages as-is.

How about the following, for starters.

• 1 Nephi 11:13
  13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.
  
• 1 Nephi 13:15
  15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.
  
• 2 Nephi 5:21
  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.
  
• 3 Nephi 2:15
  15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;
  

You quoted from the verse following the last verse I just cited. In my mind, there is no question that these referred to skin color. Again, why were passages like these not changed if, as you assert, Joseph Smith changed his mind about this? The latter passage cited by me above is within the context of the Lamanites joining the church and uniting with the Nephites. Yet, Joseph Smith left all these and more intact without change. So, again, your hypothesis does not account for that glaring discrepancy.

Edited September 30, 2012 by MormonMason

[Nathair/|\]

Notice how the guy on top looks a lot darker than the guy on bottom? If I'm reading Nibley correctly, that's what he believed these passages mean and I think he's probably right. He wrote that the darkness was the kind caused by certain rough lifestyles, not a genetic matter.

(Hint, both pictures are of actor Danny Trejo.)

[Tacenda]

Notice how the guy on top looks a lot darker than the guy on bottom? If I'm reading Nibley correctly, that's what he believed these passages mean and I think he's probably right. He wrote that the darkness was the kind caused by certain rough lifestyles, not a genetic matter.

(Hint, both pictures are of actor Danny Trejo.)

That wasn't my first impression. My first impression was that the guy on the top may be of indian desent. So you judge people to be dark (bad) for looking different or scary because of long hair? That's not right IMO, or maybe I'm not reading you right. Edited September 30, 2012 by Tacenda

[Nathair/|\]

That wasn't my first impression. My first impression was that the guy on the top may be of indian desent. So you judge people to be dark (bad) for looking different or scary because of long hair? That's not right IMO, or maybe I'm not reading you right.

First, my hair is almost as long as Mr. Trejo's in the first picture.

Second, you are totally misreading me. Ignore the hair length. In the first picture, Mr. Trejo is made up to look like a bandito, a rough, hard living kind of guy. That's what I'm talking about.

Third, did you miss where I said both pictures were of the same actor?

[Tacenda]

First, my hair is almost as long as Mr. Trejo's in the first picture.

Second, you are totally misreading me. Ignore the hair length. In the first picture, Mr. Trejo is made up to look like a bandito, a rough, hard living kind of guy. That's what I'm talking about.

Third, did you miss where I said both pictures were of the same actor?

No, it was easy for me to see it's the same guy, they have the same features. Sorry I misunderstood you.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Tacenda

[MormonMason]

... If I'm reading Nibley correctly, that's what he believed these passages mean and I think he's probably right. He wrote that the darkness was the kind caused by certain rough lifestyles, not a genetic matter.

...

Be careful. Nibley may be right and he may be wrong. Even Nibley himself has gone on record to state that 4/5 of everything he has written is wrong. It is up to us to find out which is the 4/5.

Consider also that we now know that there are about a half-dozen genes responsible for causing skin color. These can be switched off or on. Depending upon which genes are switched on or off, we can get a variation of colors ranging from truly white (albino) to near black. In some cases, people have developed skin disorders that cause them to lose their pigmentation. Think Michael Jackson. How hard would it be for God to switch off or on a few genes as he wills? Even here, this would be a simplistic way of looking at the matter. I am positive that more than one thing was involved in the equation.

Edited September 30, 2012 by MormonMason

[Nathair/|\]

Be careful. Nibley may be right and he may be wrong. Even Nibley himself has gone on record to state that 4/5 of everything he has written is wrong. It is up to us to find out which is the 4/5.

Consider also that we now know that there are about a half-dozen genes responsible for causing skin color. These can be switched off or on. Depending upon which genes are switched on or off, we can get a variation of colors ranging from truly white (albino) to near black. In some cases, people have developed skin disorders that cause them to lose their pigmentation. Think Michael Jackson. How hard would it be for God to switch off or on a few genes as he wills? Even here, this would be a simplistic way of looking at the matter. I am positive that more than one thing was involved in the equation.

I understand (there's a similar quote from him in my sig line), but I think this is part of the 1/5. At least, the idea "tastes" good to me. Of course, I could also be misunderstanding him horribly.

[MormonMason]

I understand (there's a similar quote from him in my sig line), but I think this is part of the 1/5. At least, the idea "tastes" good to me. Of course, I could also be misunderstanding him horribly.

Yes, this quote:

I refuse to be held responsible for anything I wrote more than three years ago. --Hugh Nibley

...actually is the final statement in the paragraph where he said that.

[Nathair/|\]

Yes, this quote:

...actually is the final statement in the paragraph where he said that.

Here's the full paragraph:

I refuse to be held responsible for anything I wrote more than three years ago. For heaven's sake, I hope we are moving forward here. After all, the implication that one mistake and it is all over with—how flattering to think in forty years I have not made one slip and I am still in business! I would say about four fifths of everything I put down has changed, of course. That is the whole idea; This is an ongoing process, and I have some interesting examples of that.