Table Rules: a Response to Americanist Approaches

[Kevin Christensen]

On Friday Interpreter published Table Rules: A Response to Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon, from Oxford University Press.   

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/table-rules-a-response-to-americanist-approaches-to-the-book-of-mormon/

Besides a chance to quote Kuhn a lot (what can I say, he's relevant), I also got to promote Ethan Sproat's important 2015 JBMS essay Skins as Garments, and I even quote Toni Morrison on what "political correctness" is really about, and mention Postcolonialism.   This is, I think, my 40th LDS publication, ninth at Interpreter, following 13 at Maxwell Institute, 12 at Meridian, and several more in various places. It's odd to see such a long list accumulating over the years, when from my beginnings and training, I shouldn't expect any.  But, "When thou are converted, strengthen thy brethren."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited May 25, 2020 by Kevin Christensen

[InCognitus]

Good timing, and I'm glad you had an audio option, because I just listened to it on my late evening walk.  Very well done, and I enjoyed the irony.   I'm currently scouring the footnotes to lookup some of the sources.  Thank you so much for your perspective on this.

Edit:  I forgot to mention that I was highly sympathetic to your example in the section: "On the Problem with Seeing What We Expect and Obviousness", where you said:   "I’ve personally experienced a similar sort of blindness when, for example, my wife asks me to get some food item in the kitchen, and my expectation of one kind of package blinds me to the presence of what I seek in a different form. "   I have had a discussion with my wife on this problem more times than I can remember.   But in my case I think my wife would describe it as male pattern blindness.

Edited May 25, 2020 by InCognitus

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Good timing, and I'm glad you had an audio option, because I just listened to it on my late evening walk.  Very well done, and I enjoyed the irony.   I'm currently scouring the footnotes to lookup some of the sources.  Thank you so much for your perspective on this.

Edit:  I forgot to mention that I was highly sympathetic to your example in the section: "On the Problem with Seeing What We Expect and Obviousness", where you said:   "I’ve personally experienced a similar sort of blindness when, for example, my wife asks me to get some food item in the kitchen, and my expectation of one kind of package blinds me to the presence of what I seek in a different form. "   I have had a discussion with my wife on this problem more times than I can remember.   But in my case I think my wife would describe it as male pattern blindness.

That's clever! My wife refers to it as giving things a "man look"!

Edited May 25, 2020 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

One Friday Interpreter published Table Rules: A Response to Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon, from Oxford University Press.   

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/table-rules-a-response-to-americanist-approaches-to-the-book-of-mormon/

Besides a chance to quote Kuhn a lot (what can I say, he's relevant), I also got to promote Ethan Sproat's important 2015 JBMS essay Skins as Garments, and I even quote Toni Morrison on what "political correctness" is really about, and mention Postcolonialism.   This is, I think, my 40th LDS publication, ninth at Interpreter, following 13 at Maxwell Institute, 12 at Meridian, and several more in various places. It's odd to see such a long list accumulating over the years, when from my beginnings and training, I shouldn't expect any.  But, "When thou are converted, strengthen thy brethren."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Being busy with something else, I gave it a few minutes in print then switched to audio so I could listen while gardening, and the first thing that I thought was: you need to get a pop filter for your microphone.

Edited May 25, 2020 by Stargazer

[stemelbow]

Quote

On the other hand, the notion of letting outsiders “colonize” our thinking carries with it the risk of letting others completely define who and what we are and how we see ourselves.

I appreciate the effort yout put into this.  I think in the end, I"m just disagreeing with your whole approach.  Ideas are ideas no matter where they come from.  You seem intent on putting people in certain labeled categories and leaving their ideas in those categories.  But if everyone comes to the same table, we need not separate and label and to the degree that needs to be done, it is already inherently understood and known by everyone anyway.  That is everyone at the table knows when someone speaks and shares, that person is sharing from a non-believing secularist perspective, or a non-believing (in the Book of Mormon) Evangelical perspective.  

You seem intent on wanting to priorities a certain perspective for the sake of the "majority users of the text".  I think in time we learn we all lose when we prioritize the wants and needs of the majority over everyone else.  

[Bob Crockett]

Good job, although I would hardly call your effort "succinct" as Robert Smith put it.  Reviewing commentary about the Book of Mormon must be particularly difficult.  The BoM's text is particularly long and dense. 

I, for one, don't think too much of attacks against the BoM for racial profiling.  It is what it is.  

[Kevin Christensen]

On 5/26/2020 at 10:07 AM, stemelbow said:

I appreciate the effort yout put into this.  I think in the end, I"m just disagreeing with your whole approach.  Ideas are ideas no matter where they come from.  You seem intent on putting people in certain labeled categories and leaving their ideas in those categories.  But if everyone comes to the same table, we need not separate and label and to the degree that needs to be done, it is already inherently understood and known by everyone anyway.  That is everyone at the table knows when someone speaks and shares, that person is sharing from a non-believing secularist perspective, or a non-believing (in the Book of Mormon) Evangelical perspective.  

You seem intent on wanting to priorities a certain perspective for the sake of the "majority users of the text".  I think in time we learn we all lose when we prioritize the wants and needs of the majority over everyone else.  

Since I lack omniscience, disagreement is not a problem.  As to "Ideas are ideas no matter where they come from," where did Othello get the idea that Desdemona was unfaithful, and also the idea that strangling her would be an appropriate and just response?    Are those ideas good ideas, or bad ideas, or do all ideas and voices have equal value?  Is there a way to tell the difference that does not amount to simple tribalism?  (I think there is a very good way to tell the difference, not involving coercive proof, but what Alma 32 calls, "cause to believe.")  Some very good and faithful and insightful LDS scholars (such as Givens, Hardy, and Flake) were invited to the table, but the rules of that table (Americanist Approaches) required that the Book of Mormon be contextualized and read in a 19th century context.  There's nothing wrong with that, as I said, but it has implications, which I also said.   Flake's essay on how the Book of Mormon urges fathers to take a lead in teaching families and puts forth values like, that men should be "humble, summissive, and gentle; easy to be entreated; full of patience and long suffering; being temperate in all things, being dilligent in keeping the commandments of God at all times" (Alma 8:23) and that this sort of thing stands out in the 19th century.  The seventeen essays and an introduction demonstrate a range of interests and observations.  The implications of Table Rules appear more strikingly in the essays by authors who assume that "skin means skin" and that the Book of Mormon is just a gathering and recasting of common 19th century racist notions.  The neglect of Ethan Sproat's reading, that skins can be garments, has significant implications which happen reflect the same kind of issues that different ideas about whether Desdemona is faithful or not raise in Shakespeare's play.  And the specific language I borrowed from Margaret Barker was not "majority users" but "major users": which is a distinctly different notion.  In respect to the larger culture, the LDS are a minority.   The majority of people don't bother with the Book of Mormon.  And the majority of LDS don't delve into academic issues.  If we prioritize the valuations of those who don't bother or care, what happens to our little community?  But what makes us LDS is that to us the Book of Mormon is a major concern.  Not just as an intellectual curiousity, and something of academic interest therefore of professional value in an age of "publish or perish".    In 2012, Daniel Peterson got an email telling him that his services and attitude and agenda was no longer welcome at a table he helped build, and that the particular table he contributed to would now be repurposed to a large extent to serve a different audience.  Was that a good idea, or a bad idea, or just an idea, all ideas being equal in a universe where ideas are ideas?  Okay, so Peterson and others built another table.  Our conversations continue, and we have many different tables to choose from.  And it's helpful to understand why that change and creation of tables occurs and how it happens, and how to navigate among the different tables and voices and ideas.

My final section was intended to illuminate contraries that ought to provide a generative and creative tension.  "By proving contrarities, truth is made manifest."   We ought to be open to outside voices, as Joseph Smith openly taught.  Accept truth from whatever source, not just approved thoughts.  Criticism, discernment, preceeds repentence, and we have to recognize where we have gone wrong in order to repent.  So we participate, and listen to a wide range of voices, originating from a variety of tables.  The only way to have expanded minds (Alma 32)  is to be open to new thoughts and to perform new experiments and to make ongoing assessments of the results of those experiments.  But  as LDS we also ought to be able to speak for ourselves, and to ourselves, and not just take our identity and our intellectual agenda from those, who, however well meaning, friendly, and learned, may not be able to imagine that what we have, such as in the Book of Mormon, that might be quite different than what they assume.  Our Desdemona just might be innocent, and perhaps it might make a difference if someone is willing to stand up, step up, and offer a defense, even if doing so might cause some embarassment for those who make what they believe are honest accusations.  While Othello might make an honest mistake, an Iago might not be as honest and objective and disinterested as we assume.  But my defense does not have to be just an attack on Othello's or Iago's character, and in fact, is far more effective if it is not.  Sproat's essay has implications for what a person sees in the Book of Mormon, and how we see the LDS and the possibilities for our culture and whether we have something of real value that transends 1830, or is just something of possible academic curiosity as an artifact of American social history.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited May 28, 2020 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[Kevin Christensen]

On 5/25/2020 at 5:59 AM, Stargazer said:

Being busy with something else, I gave it a few minutes in print then switched to audio so I could listen while gardening, and the first thing that I thought was: you need to get a pop filter for your microphone.

 I only record every couple of years, and not in studio, but at home.  But next time round, I will give it some thought.

Thanks,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA 

[champatsch]

One possible interpretation is that when there is, grammatically speaking, human possession of skin(s), the text refers to human skin. What tends to throw us off is that plural skins sounds to our modern ears like animal skins. However, in the early modern era the plural was commonly used to refer to human skin, while we only use the singular today. So Sproat needs to be careful not to go too far in what he calls animal skins.

That said, determining what is figurative and what is literal, in relation to human skin, is another matter. These three are literal: mh1713, aa2029, aa4418. But the text refers to human skin figuratively in Jacob 3:8. So are these figurative: jb0305, jb0309, aa0306, 3n0215? And what about 2 Nephi 5:21? I suspect that many read those passages figuratively and that many read those literally.

14 instances of skin(s):

animal skin (5)
skins of beasts (1)
a skin girded (3)
garments of skins (1)

human skin (8)
their (naked) skin(s) (6)
his skin (Abinadi) (1)
skins of the Lamanites (1)

grammatically indeterminate (1)
skin of blackness (1)

Edited May 26, 2020 by champatsch

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

 I only record every couple of years, and not in studio, but at home.  But next time round, I will give it some thought.

Thanks,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA 

I have a YouTube channel that I narrate at home using one of those pop filters that looks like a ping-pong paddle. They're quite inexpensive, actually. My microphone helps a bit, too. It's a Blue Yeti, not too expensive, but slightly better than a smart phone's mic. Although, a pop filter will even help a smartphone mic sound better!. If you want to hear the results I get in my "home studio" (i.e. my desktop) have a listen to this video: Edburton and its Castle.  

 

[Calm]

Decided just to be an observer, please ignore the comment that was here.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Calm

[Nevo]

22 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The neglect of Ethan Sproat's reading...

The essays in Americanist Approaches were written before June 2014. Ethan Sproat's article was published in 2015. So it is not surprising that "none of the authors address his case or evidence" in their essays.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Nevo

[champatsch]

15 hours ago, Nevo said:

The essays in Americanist Approaches were written before June 2014. Ethan Sproat's article was published in 2015. So it is not surprising that "none of the authors address his case or evidence" in their essays.

We might say that the first drafts were written by the end of June 2014. I was able to read two of the draft essays a few years before publication. I know that one of the submitted essays was extensively reworked between 2015 and its publication, Hardy's. I don't know how much the other one I read was reworked, although a comparison of the draft with the final could be made.

The book contains citations dated 2018 and even 2019.

Essays cite two of my papers, dated (late) 2014 and (early) 2016.

 

Hardy tells us in footnote 50 that "swift to do iniquity" is an original Book of Mormon formulation. In terms of the exact wording, perhaps. Yet not the semantics. "Swift to do ill" occurs in 1537, "swift to do mischief" in 1545", "swift to do evil" in 1574. These are roughly synonymous. "To do iniquity" is attested no later than 1561.

[Nevo]

6 hours ago, champatsch said:

We might say that the first drafts were written by the end of June 2014. I was able to read two of the draft essays a few years before publication. I know that one of the submitted essays was extensively reworked between 2015 and its publication, Hardy's. I don't know how much the other one I read was reworked, although a comparison of the draft with the final could be made.

The book contains citations dated 2018 and even 2019.

Essays cite two of my papers, dated (late) 2014 and (early) 2016.

That's a fair comment. At least some of the authors continued to revise their papers and update sources after 2014.

Here's the breakdown of citations by publication date:

2019 - 0 in the essays (1 in the editors' introduction)
2018 - 3 in Grant Hardy's essay (3 in the introduction)
2017 - 0 in the essays (1 in the introduction)
2016 - 3 in Kimberly Berkey and Joseph M. Spencer's essay (7 in the introduction)
2015 - 2 in Jillian Sayre's essay, 2 in Samuel M. Brown's essay, 1 in Grant Shreve's essay, 1 in Peter Coviello's essay, and 1 in Stanley J. Thayne's essay (1 in the introduction)

So it is true that the essays by Berkey and Spencer (both LDS) and Coviello (not LDS), which specifically discuss the issue of race in the Book of Mormon, could have at least mentioned Sproat in an endnote. Spencer was an editor of the JBMS issue that Sproat's article appeared in, and Berkey had an article in the same issue, so they were certainly aware of it.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/24/2020 at 8:16 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

On Friday Interpreter published Table Rules: A Response to Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon, from Oxford University Press.   

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/table-rules-a-response-to-americanist-approaches-to-the-book-of-mormon/

Besides a chance to quote Kuhn a lot (what can I say, he's relevant), I also got to promote Ethan Sproat's important 2015 JBMS essay Skins as Garments, and I even quote Toni Morrison on what "political correctness" is really about, and mention Postcolonialism.   This is, I think, my 40th LDS publication, ninth at Interpreter, following 13 at Maxwell Institute, 12 at Meridian, and several more in various places. It's odd to see such a long list accumulating over the years, when from my beginnings and training, I shouldn't expect any.  But, "When thou are converted, strengthen thy brethren."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Congrats once again!

One of my all time favorite Gnostic texts is the Hymn of the Robe of Glory which I have spent quite a bit of time studying because it - to me - IS the gospel we know and love in poetic and metaphorical terms.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/fff/fff58.htm

In it the protagonist leaves his parents In the East, (Heaven) and his robe of glory to search for a pearl guarded by a dragon, and goes down to Egypt, symbolizing the world, taking on other garments (the body) and is drawn into that "secular world,", forgetting his original mission, after eating the food from the fallen world. His parents, and other god-like beings write him a letter, (scripture) which was "traced in his heart" and then "becomes all speech" (the Word).  He is then able to strip off his filthy garments, and ultimately returns finally to his celestial home triumphant where he again takes on his "Robe" of Glory,  which becomes a "mirror of myself" (temple reference and celestial body)

In my opinion every member of the church should know this poem- I personally regard it as a sacred text in my personal "canon"

 

Edited May 30, 2020 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

Hey Kevin,

Thanks for the response.  It was a good one.  I don't have any particular comment or concern with what you said there.  But, I find a great deal of your argument in your essay problematic by sheer common sense:

Quote

Notably in Alma 3:5‒6, the reference to “skin girded about their loins” contradicts the objection that [Page 77]“skin means skin,” that is the word skin always and obviously refers to human epidermis. Skins can also be garments.¹⁹

So your take, and Sproat's, is that God decided to curse the Lamanites with dark colored underpants?  

Quote

And he had caused the ^acursing 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 ^bdelightsome, that they might not be ^centicing unto my people the Lord God did cause a ^dskin of ^eblackness to come upon them.

So God in his infinite wisdom figured, "I need to curse them.  I want them to be not enticing to my chosen favored people.  Aha!  I'll make them wear black underpants.  My chosen won't find that enticing at all.  What a grand sore cursing I just devised to put upon them."

Um...I have no clue why he thinks Alma 3 should be used to revise 2 Nephi.  I mean...it'd be great if the racism was simply taken out.  But...pretending its not there just feels silly.  

I'm guessing I'm missing something, but I simply don't see what that is.  

[Kevin Christensen]

57 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Hey Kevin,

Thanks for the response.  It was a good one.  I don't have any particular comment or concern with what you said there.  But, I find a great deal of your argument in your essay problematic by sheer common sense:

So your take, and Sproat's, is that God decided to curse the Lamanites with dark colored underpants?  

So God in his infinite wisdom figured, "I need to curse them.  I want them to be not enticing to my chosen favored people.  Aha!  I'll make them wear black underpants.  My chosen won't find that enticing at all.  What a grand sore cursing I just devised to put upon them."

Um...I have no clue why he thinks Alma 3 should be used to revise 2 Nephi.  I mean...it'd be great if the racism was simply taken out.  But...pretending its not there just feels silly.  

I'm guessing I'm missing something, but I simply don't see what that is.  

In Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye discusses some of the Jewish traditions his people kept, such as keeping their heads covered, and wearing prayer shawls, and concludes, "Because of our traditions, each of us knows who he is and who God expects him to be."

Jacob wore Priestly garments to show who was, and who God expected him to be, and noted that if he did not live up to those obligations, his garments would be stained with his own sins and the sins of those he failed to warn.  If he personally did not live up to his committments, that too would be a stain on his garments, not physically, but metaphorically.  I quoted many Book of Mormon garment passages to show that they all have the same purpose and context as those that refer to a skin of blackness.  The garments chosen reflect lifestyle choices in those Book of Mormon cultures and therefore depict a persons state before God.  One of the first signs of trouble in Nephite culture is the wearing of ostentatiously costly apparel, and that leads to class divisions and all sorts of other problems.  Sometimes people mark themselves, specifically to declare political allegiances.  The curse is separation from God.  Repentence (not lip service) and covenant with acceptance of obligations mark an acceptence of submission and obligation to Christ. 

Quote

Behold, doth he cry unto any, saying: Depart from me? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; but he saith: Come unto me all ye bends of the earth, buy milk and honey, without money and without price. (2 Nephi 26:25

Quote

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he ^ainviteth them ^ball to ^ccome unto him and partake of his goodness; and he ^ddenieth none that come unto him, black and white, ^ebond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the ^fheathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. 2 Nephi 26:33

The garments worn, whether made of skin or something else, were outward expressions of personal lifestyle choices.  Covenants with God, and the accountability they bring, are symbolized by garments worn, or not, lived up to, or not.  There are differences in accountability.  In the Book of Mormon, God takes into account what people have been taught, the traditions that condition their upbringing, and plainly states that for those that much given, much is expected. 

From Kuhn:

"One perceptive historian, viewing a classic case of a science's reorientation by paradigm change recently described it as 'picking up the other end of the stick,' a process that involves handling the same bundle of data as before, but placing them in a new system of relations with one another by giving them a different framework.'  Others who have noted this aspect of scientific advance have emphasized its similarity to a change in visual gestalt: the marks on a paper that were first seen as a bird are now seen as an antelope."  (Kuhn, 85).

Of course, Kuhn also notes that the change cannot be forced from the outside, but is a kind of conversion experience.  It is helpful, therefore, to consider the cultural uses we have in the Bible, for example Lamanation 4:7-8,

Quote

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

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

And consider the "skin of blackness" Ancient Near Eastern idioms that Nibley and Sorenson have cited, which are always attached to lifestyle in general, rather than race.

What is happening in your reply, is not "sheer common sense" but rather, the natural effects of the metaphor through which you choose to view and value a range of information that Sproat and I and Nibley and Sorenson and Gardner, and others have provided:  "God decided to curse the Lamanites with dark colored underpants." 

Quote

There is always danger of a metaphor once adopted becoming the master instead of the servant.  

(E. A. Payne, “The Modern Expansion of the Church: Some Reflections on Dr. Latourette’s Conclusions,” Journal of Theological Studies 47 (1946):151, quoted in Hugh Nibley, Mormonism and Early Christianity Collected Works of Hugh Nibley (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1987), 4:194n2.)

Is that actually what happens in the Book of Mormon?  Is that the best lens through which to view the information we have? Is it testable, accurate, comprehensive and coherent, fruitful, aesthetically pleasing, and does it offer a future promise sufficient to merit personal committment in moving forward through life?  I'm inviting you to pick up the other end of the stick, to reframe your perceptions, to see things in a different light.

http://blacksinthescriptures.com/skin-color-and-curses/

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited June 1, 2020 by Kevin Christensen

[stemelbow]

43 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

In Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye discusses some of the Jewish traditions his people kept, such as keeping their heads covered, and wearing prayer shawls, and concludes, "Because of our traditions, each of us knows who he is and who God expects him to be."

Jacob wore Priestly garments to show who was, and who God expected him to be, and noted that if he did not live up to those obligations, his garments would be stained with his own sins and the sins of those he failed to warn.  If he personally did not live up to his committments, that too would be a stain on his garments, not physically, but metaphorically.  I quoted many Book of Mormon garment passages to show that they all have the same purpose and context as those that refer to a skin of blackness.  The garments chosen reflect lifestyle choices in those Book of Mormon cultures and therefore depict a persons state before God.  One of the first signs of trouble in Nephite culture is the wearing of ostentatiously costly apparel, and that leads to class divisions and all sorts of other problems.  Sometimes people mark themselves, specifically to declare political allegiances.  The curse is separation from God.  Repentence (not lip service) and covenant with acceptance of obligations mark an acceptence of submission and obligation to Christ. 

The garments worn, whether made of skin or something else, were outward expressions of personal lifestyle choices.  Covenants with God, and the accountability they bring, are symbolized by garments worn, or not, lived up to, or not.  There are differences in accountability.  In the Book of Mormon, God takes into account what people have been taught, the traditions that condition their upbringing, and plainly states that for those that much given, much is expected. 

From Kuhn:

"One perceptive historian, viewing a classic case of a science's reorientation by paradigm change recently described it as 'picking up the other end of the stick,' a process that involves handling the same bundle of data as before, but placing them in a new system of relations with one another by giving them a different framework.'  Others who have noted this aspect of scientific advance have emphasized its similarity to a change in visual gestalt: the marks on a paper that were first seen as a bird are now seen as an antelope."  (Kuhn, 85).

Of course, Kuhn also notes that the change cannot be forced from the outside, but is a kind of conversion experience.  It is helpful, therefore, to consider the cultural uses we have in the Bible, for example Lamanation 4:7-8,

And consider the "skin of blackness" Ancient Near Eastern idioms that Nibley and Sorenson have cited, which are always attached to lifestyle in general, rather than race.

What is happening in your reply, is not "sheer common sense" but rather, the natural effects of the metaphor through which you choose to view and value a range of information that Sproat and I and Nibley and Sorenson and Gardner, and others have provided:  "God decided to curse the Lamanites with dark colored underpants." 

Is that actually what happens in the Book of Mormon?  Is that the best lens through which to view the information we have? Is it testable, accurate, comprehensive and coherent, fruitful, aesthetically pleasing, and does it offer a future promise sufficient to merit personal committment in moving forward through life?  I'm inviting you to pick up the other end of the stick, to reframe your perceptions, to see things in a different light.

http://blacksinthescriptures.com/skin-color-and-curses/

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I recall sitting back to read from the BoM from a good-hearted black lady on my mission.  We read 2 Ne 4 and had a great interaction about it.  THen we left leaving her to encounter 2 Ne 5 on her own.  Later at night I pondered over the verse in chapter 5 hoping to the high heavens that either she wouldn't read it, or if she did, she'd somehow recognize it as metaphor.  It wasn't really skin that was cursed, it had to be something else.  my prayers went unheard and I learned as much when we met again.  She was appalled by the racism inherent therein.  There was no escaping it really.  I don't think metaphor saves it.  It's clear "as they were white, and exceedingly fair and ^bdelightsome, that they might not be ^centicing unto my people the Lord God did cause a ^dskin of ^eblackness to come upon them".  This was no skins of clothing.  Such wouldn't matter in terms of what is enticing to others.  Besides anyone at any time could put on a different piece of clothing.  

um...

Quote

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 ^amix and believe in incorrect ^btraditions which would prove their destruction

What was done?  They had to wear black underpants?  It doesn't make sense at all.  It's not distinguishing.  They simply could have switched underoos from batman to superman and they were no longer distinguished.  Indeed in hundreds of years time between Alma, and Nephi anyone could have easily pulled off the ruse of wearing superman britches.  Either God was inept or He actually did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.  

So let's think a minute.  If God made their under-britches black, why couldn't they just go get more skins?  If God magically turned their garments black each time they put on a new pair of under-britches, well, then that just sounds silly.  If God say commanded them that they had to wear black under-garments, then why would anyone assume the Lamanites were going to heed such direction?  Did God magically turn them black or did God offer a proclamation to go out to all the land or something?  

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I recall sitting back to read from the BoM from a good-hearted black lady on my mission.  We read 2 Ne 4 and had a great interaction about it.  THen we left leaving her to encounter 2 Ne 5 on her own.  Later at night I pondered over the verse in chapter 5 hoping to the high heavens that either she wouldn't read it, or if she did, she'd somehow recognize it as metaphor.  It wasn't really skin that was cursed, it had to be something else.  my prayers went unheard and I learned as much when we met again.  She was appalled by the racism inherent therein.  There was no escaping it really.  I don't think metaphor saves it.  It's clear "as they were white, and exceedingly fair and ^bdelightsome, that they might not be ^centicing unto my people the Lord God did cause a ^dskin of ^eblackness to come upon them".  This was no skins of clothing.  Such wouldn't matter in terms of what is enticing to others.  Besides anyone at any time could put on a different piece of clothing.  

um...

What was done?  They had to wear black underpants?  It doesn't make sense at all.  It's not distinguishing.  They simply could have switched underoos from batman to superman and they were no longer distinguished.  Indeed in hundreds of years time between Alma, and Nephi anyone could have easily pulled off the ruse of wearing superman britches.  Either God was inept or He actually did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.  

So let's think a minute.  If God made their under-britches black, why couldn't they just go get more skins?  If God magically turned their garments black each time they put on a new pair of under-britches, well, then that just sounds silly.  If God say commanded them that they had to wear black under-garments, then why would anyone assume the Lamanites were going to heed such direction?  Did God magically turn them black or did God offer a proclamation to go out to all the land or something?  

Did you even look at the website to which Kevin sent you?

It is written by black members who understand the passage as we all should.

If black converts can see it that way, what right have you to tell them they are wrong?

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Did you even look at the website to which Kevin sent you?

It is written by black members who understand the passage as we all should.

If black converts can see it that way, what right have you to tell them they are wrong?

huh?  You mean to say the meaning of the text can't be understood unless you are black?  

The additional problem with this is, of course, for some reason Alma feels the need to explain the cursing hundreds of years later.  It's odd that people want to read into 2 Ne. an explanation that came hundreds of years later.  

[mfbukowski]

56 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

huh?  You mean to say the meaning of the text can't be understood unless you are black?  

The additional problem with this is, of course, for some reason Alma feels the need to explain the cursing hundreds of years later.  It's odd that people want to read into 2 Ne. an explanation that came hundreds of years later.  

So now this is about continuing revelation?

And what about only blacks can understand the scriptures?

Where are you getting this stuff?

References please

[Kevin Christensen]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I recall sitting back to read from the BoM from a good-hearted black lady on my mission.  We read 2 Ne 4 and had a great interaction about it.  THen we left leaving her to encounter 2 Ne 5 on her own.  Later at night I pondered over the verse in chapter 5 hoping to the high heavens that either she wouldn't read it, or if she did, she'd somehow recognize it as metaphor.  It wasn't really skin that was cursed, it had to be something else.  my prayers went unheard and I learned as much when we met again.  She was appalled by the racism inherent therein.  There was no escaping it really.  I don't think metaphor saves it.  It's clear "as they were white, and exceedingly fair and ^bdelightsome, that they might not be ^centicing unto my people the Lord God did cause a ^dskin of ^eblackness to come upon them".  This was no skins of clothing.  Such wouldn't matter in terms of what is enticing to others.  Besides anyone at any time could put on a different piece of clothing.  

um...

What was done?  They had to wear black underpants?  It doesn't make sense at all.  It's not distinguishing.  They simply could have switched underoos from batman to superman and they were no longer distinguished.  Indeed in hundreds of years time between Alma, and Nephi anyone could have easily pulled off the ruse of wearing superman britches.  Either God was inept or He actually did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.  

So let's think a minute.  If God made their under-britches black, why couldn't they just go get more skins?  If God magically turned their garments black each time they put on a new pair of under-britches, well, then that just sounds silly.  If God say commanded them that they had to wear black under-garments, then why would anyone assume the Lamanites were going to heed such direction?  Did God magically turn them black or did God offer a proclamation to go out to all the land or something?  

It's not so much the clothing as a cultural idiom that emerged from notions about symbolic clothing.  Think about "He's a chip of the old block."  There are no chips, and no blocks.  How about "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree."  There are no apples, and no trees.  How about "He behaves like his father."  Why not just say that in the first place?  Because in the first place, I used an idiom that I unconciously assume is so well understood as to require no explanation.  But there is the problem in 2 Nephi 25:1-5, that "no one understands the things of the Jews like unto them unless they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews".  Notice that the problem only emerges when cultural mixing occurs, and that mixing raises the problem of misunderstandings, which means that the statement would not arise in the first place unless the people of Nephi was a mixed group that included people who did not share Nephi's cultural background.

Rather than fixate on 2 Nephi 5:21 in isolation, consider how many times that the phrase "skin of blackness" occurs in the Book of Mormon.  

Once.  

Is it an isolated idiom, whose meaning may not be obvious to someone who does not share Nephi's Hebraic and Egyptian education?  Nibley's Book of Mormon lectures include discussions of an exactly equivalent Egyptian idiom.  It always refers to a set of cultural behaviors, rather than just physical appearance. For the actual cultural idiom, see Semester 1, on 2 Nephi 5

Quote

One was “exceedingly fair and delightsome,” and the other was a skin of blackness. As I said, shå˙ør is a skin of blackness, which means dark. A good source for that would be
Morris Jastrow’s Aramaic Dictionary. For the word black, it gives dark, unpleasant—everything sort of uncomplimentary.

And do the sorts of things that a "miraculously applied darker skin tone" curse implies occur throughout the Book of Mormon to support that reading?  Can you cite stories in which a distinctive visual difference in peoples had a direct effect on any story in the Book of Mormon?  Is the language about white or dark garments associated with covenants completely different or in practice, basically the same?  For the complicated tribal interactions and transitions and mixing back and forth throughout, dig out your Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah, chapter 7, and read the section titled "The Race Question."   Also, just read Fourth Nephi, going from 16-18, where everyone is well behaved, no manner of "ites" "but they were on, the children of Christ, heirs to the kingdom of God."  Then when divisions start, it starts with "pride and costly apparel... and they began to be divided into classes" 24-25, breaking covenants, rival churches, and wilful rebellions against the Gospel of Christ.  By verse 45, both the people of Nephi (a political designation) and the Lamanites (which another political designation) "had become exceedingly wicked one like unto another." (45) .  Mormon 7:10 lays out the possibilities for those who remain "if it so be that ye believe in Christ, and are baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, following the example of our Savior."  Notice that there is nothing here about skin of blackness.  Why not if that is the definitive, obvious, and necessary meaning  which we must acknowledge?  Mormon,  I notice, did not share Nephi's ancient near eastern background, and so, he does not use the idiom in his own writing and editing.  Rather he writes like this, using his own cultural idiom about garments being made white, with a clear meaning of forgiveness and holiness.

Quote

And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in ^aunholy temples, but in the ^bhearts of the ^crighteous doth he dwell; yea, and he has also said that the righteous shall sit down in his kingdom, to go no more out; but their garments should be made white through the ^dblood of the Lamb. (Alma 34:36)

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited June 1, 2020 by Kevin Christensen

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So now this is about continuing revelation?

And what about only blacks can understand the scriptures?

Where are you getting this stuff?

References please

I don't get any of your questions or how they apply.  This is about the passage in the BoM that talks about there coming upon the people a skin of blackness, put there by God in order to keep these cursed people from being enticing to his people.  I don't see how Alma saves it, so I commented.  

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

It's not so much the clothing as a cultural idiom that emerged from notion about symbolic clothing.  Think about "He's a chip of the old block."  There are no chips, and no blocks.  How about "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree."  There are no apples, and no trees.  How about "He behaves like his father."  Why not just say that in the first place?  Because in the first place, I used an idiom that I unconciously assume is so well understood as to require no explanation.  But there is the problem in 2 Nephi 25:1-5, that "no one understands the things of the Jews like unto them unless they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews".  Notice that the problem only emerges when cultural mixing occurs, and that mixing raises the problem of misunderstandings, which means that the statement would not arise in the first place unless the people of Nephi was a mixed group that included people who did not share Nephi's cultural background.

Rather than fixate on 2 Nephi 5:21 in isolation, consider how many times that the phrase "skin of blackness" occurs in the Book of Mormon.  

Once.  

Is it an isolated idiom, whose meaning may not be obvious to someone who does not share Nephi's Hebraic and Egyptian education?  Nibley's Book of Mormon lectures include discussions of an exactly equivalent Egyptian idiom.  It always refers to a set of cultural behaviors, rather than just physical appearance. For the actual cultural idiom, see Semester 1, on 2 Nephi 5

And do the sorts of things that a "miraculously applied darker skin tone" curse implies occur throughout the Book of Mormon to support that reading?  Can you cite stories in which a distinctive visual difference in peoples had a direct effect on any story in the Book of Mormon?  Is the language about white or dark garments associated with covenants completely different or in practice, basically the same?  For the complicated tribal interactions and transitions and mixing back and forth throughout, dig out your Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah, chapter 7, and read the section titled "The Race Question."   Also, just read Fourth Nephi, going from 16-18, where everyone is well behaved, no manner of "ites" "but they were on, the children of Christ, heirs to the kingdom of God."  Then when divisions start, it starts with "pride and costly apparel... and they began to be divided into classes" 24-25, breaking covenants, rival churches, and wilful rebellions against the Gospel of Christ.  By verse 45, both the people of Nephi (a political designation) and the Lamanites (which another political designation) "had become exceedingly wicked one like unto another." (45) .  Mormon 7:10 lays out the possibilities for those who remain "if it so be that ye believe in Christ, and are baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, following the example of our Savior."  Notice that there is nothing here about skin of blackness.  Why not if that is the definitive, obvious, and necessary meaning to which we must acknowledge?  Mormon,  I notice, did not share Nephi's ancient near eastern background, and so, he does not use the idiom in his own writing and editing.  Rather he writes like this, using his own cultural idiom about garments being made white, with a clear meaning of forgiveness and holiness.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thanks Kevin.  I don't think I"m going to go back and read Nibley et al to re acquaint myself beyond your piece and what we've said here.  With that, I wish you well.  

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't get any of your questions or how they apply.  This is about the passage in the BoM that talks about there coming upon the people a skin of blackness, put there by God in order to keep these cursed people from being enticing to his people.  I don't see how Alma saves it, so I commented.  

Something they wore that showed or signified that those people had rejected God, which fact would not be enticing to people who want to do God's will.

And the text doesn't say that skin/clothing was "put there by God".  The text says God caused that skin of blackness to come upon them. Which I interpret as God inspired them to put some kind of clothing on. Which wasn't much, but at least it was something.

The clothing we wear generally says something about us, and we who have made covenants with God wear clothing to show that we have.