Skin Color Doesn’t Mean Skin Color

[jkwilliams]

Stumbled across this apologetic, which is a doozy. 

The gist of it is that when the Book of Mormon speaks of the Lamanites being given a skin of blackness, it means that the skins they wore as clothing were black, whereas the Nephites wore “white and delightsome” skins. In short, these were fashion choices similar to gang colors. 

As Dan McClellan put it, this is “not a good theory.” 

Edited February 20 by jkwilliams

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Stumbled across this apologetic, which is a doozy. 

The gist of it is that when the Book of Mormon speaks of the Lamanites being given a skin of blackness, it means that the skins they wore as clothing were black, whereas the Nephites wore “white and delightsome” skins. In short, these were fashion choices similar to gang colors. 

As Dan McClellan put it, this is “not a good theory.” 

Does Dan explain why it's not a good theory?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Does Dan explain why it's not a good theory?

No, but if I were to guess, it doesn’t work with a lot of the other references in the BofM. For example, apostate Nephites “marked themselves with red in their foreheads” to signify they had joined the Lamanites. Why would they do this if they just had to change clothes?

[webbles]

I've seen various takes on the "skins of darkness" like this over the years.  Not sure when they started.  But it has been interesting to read their supporting verses.

[jkwilliams]

14 minutes ago, webbles said:

I've seen various takes on the "skins of darkness" like this over the years.  Not sure when they started.  But it has been interesting to read their supporting verses.

I don’t know. This is new to me, like the sudden flurry of people who think Joseph Smith’s plural marriages were never consummated. So strange. 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No, but if I were to guess, it doesn’t work with a lot of the other references in the BofM. For example, apostate Nephites “marked themselves with red in their foreheads” to signify they had joined the Lamanites. Why would they do this if they just had to change clothes?

Well (without embracing that specific theory over the many others that exist that don't require racism to read that part of 2nd Nephi), one obvious reason could be because the culture that might have marked themselves with specific clothing was hundreds of years in the past at this point in the story and had mixed with other cultures during that long time.  

I'm thinking of how a gentleman used to dress to signify his station in life compared to how someone in a similar station today would dress.  Or how the military used to dress hundreds of years ago compared to how they dress today.  Or how tattoos used to be used hundreds of years ago compared to how they are used today in our culture.  The way that it used to be only prostitutes who wore makeup in early American culture but a couple hundred years later we had an apostle teaching sisters at church that it wouldn't hurt them to wear a little lipstick if they wanted to get married. Etc. 

Cultures and how people represent themselves or delineate their belonging to different parts of society evolve.

[OGHoosier]

A thorough presentation of this school of thought can be found here: "Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon: A Textual Exegesis" by Ethan Sproat, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 24 (2015): 138-165.

It's not a bad case imo.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Well (without embracing that specific theory over the many others that exist that don't require racism to read that part of 2nd Nephi), one obvious reason could be because the culture that might have marked themselves with specific clothing was hundreds of years in the past at this point in the story and had mixed with other cultures during that long time.  

I'm thinking of how a gentleman used to dress to signify his station in life compared to how someone in a similar station today would dress.  Or how the military used to dress hundreds of years ago compared to how they dress today.  Or how tattoos used to be used hundreds of years ago compared to how they are used today in our culture.  The way that it used to be only prostitutes who wore makeup in early American culture but a couple hundred years later we had an apostle teaching sisters at church that it wouldn't hurt them to wear a little lipstick if they wanted to get married. Etc. 

Cultures and how people represent themselves or delineate their belonging to different parts of society evolve.

That might work, except two verses later, we’re told the Lamanites they had joined had been cursed with dark skin.

And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

⁷ And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

⁸ And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

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.

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.

[Tacenda]

Was the artist that illustrated the BoM for children totally mistaken? I had that book in the 80's, no longer do and read it to my children while young. Here's one of the artist's renditions of the BoM stories book. Did they get it wrong? Also, Pres. Kimball?

"The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

"At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen —sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated."

-Spencer W. Kimball, October 1960 GC

Edited February 20 by Tacenda

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm late to the party but was the person/persons that put out the illustrated BoM for children totally mistaken? I had that book, no longer do. I read it to my children while young. Or their dad most likely more than me. Here's one of the artist's renditions of the BoM stories book. Did they get it wrong? 

I think they are arguing that the prophets, seers, and revelators who taught it was skin color/race for generations were mistaken. 

[webbles]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Was the artist that illustrated the BoM for children totally mistaken? I had that book in the 80's, no longer do and read it to my children while young. Here's one of the artist's renditions of the BoM stories book. Did they get it wrong?

I would say all artwork of the Book of Mormon is wrong.  The Book of Mormon had no illustrations included with it.

[LoudmouthMormon]

The only good thing Woody Allen added to the universe, was to include a scene where a guy wakes up in the future and is not feeling well, so they give him a cigar and tell him to "inhale deeply, make sure you get the healing smoke deep, deep down into your lungs".   The point being, of course, that stuff we figure is bad/wrong/backwards/evil, is a scant handful of centuries and a cultural pendulum-swing away from being considered the exact opposite. 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with God using melanin to help pre-human-rights civilizations tell each other apart.   Or, there's nothing wrong with folks in those pre-human-rights civilizations noticing that different cultures intermingling in various ways leaving them with easily identifiable differences, and writing records where those differences are identified as put there by God to signify this or that.   

There are some things wrong with folks in supposedly advanced enlightened modern civilizations, flicking self-righteous boogies from ivory towers of modern cultural understandings, totally clueless about only about 12% of the earth's current population actually thinks similarly, and also totally clueless about the problems inherent in judging people from history through a modern cultural lens. (And also wrong with folks believing in their ignorance, that they have to jump through such weird hoops to solve a problem that doesn't exist.)

Edited February 20 by LoudmouthMormon

[jkwilliams]

56 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

A thorough presentation of this school of thought can be found here: "Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon: A Textual Exegesis" by Ethan Sproat, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 24 (2015): 138-165.

It's not a bad case imo.

I’d just make the case that it’s a typical 19th-century American “lost civilization” myth, which is on more solid ground, IMO. 

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

The only good thing Woody Allen added to the universe, was to include a scene where a guy wakes up in the future and is not feeling well, so they give him a cigar and tell him to "inhale deeply, make sure you get the healing smoke deep, deep down into your lungs".   The point being, of course, that stuff we figure is bad/wrong/backwards/evil, is a scant handful of centuries and a cultural pendulum-swing away from being considered the exact opposite. 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with God using melanin to help pre-human-rights civilizations tell each other apart.   Or, there's nothing wrong with folks in those pre-human-rights civilizations noticing that different cultures intermingling in various ways leaving them with easily identifiable differences, and writing records where those differences are identified as put there by God to signify this or that.   

There are some things wrong with folks in supposedly advanced enlightened modern civilizations, flicking self-righteous boogies from ivory towers of modern cultural understandings, totally clueless about only about 12% of the earth's current population actually thinks similarly, and also totally clueless about the problems inherent in judging people from history through a modern cultural lens.

Personally, I think this apologetic arises out of modern discomfort with 19th-century notions of race and culture. 

Edited February 20 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

This made me laugh. 

 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Stumbled across this apologetic, which is a doozy. 

The gist of it is that when the Book of Mormon speaks of the Lamanites being given a skin of blackness, it means that the skins they wore as clothing were black, whereas the Nephites wore “white and delightsome” skins. In short, these were fashion choices similar to gang colors. 

As Dan McClellan put it, this is “not a good theory.” 

A new in vogue apologetic apparently.  More gaslighting really.

[Kevin Christensen]

17 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

That might work, except two verses later, we’re told the Lamanites they had joined had been cursed with dark skin.

And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

⁷ And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

⁸ And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

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.

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.

Notice that J.K. Williams has left out some important words from Alma 3:5, leading into Alma 3:6. 

Quote

Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which
was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth.
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. 

In his important essay, "Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon," Ethan Sproat had noticed this about various commenters on Alma 3:5-6 on the Lamanite curse.

Quote

“Commentaries handle the two sentences in one of three ways: (1) by treating both of them independently, as if two very different things were at issue; (2) by commenting on only the second of the two sentences, remaining silent about the first; or (3) by failing to comment on either sentence.”

J. K. has thus far adopted the second approach, "remaining silent about the first."  It is not a particularly imposing approach to make to Sproat's scholarship. Knee-jerk mockery is easy.  Scholarship is hard. 

Sproat wrote:

Quote

According to a reading I will defend in the course of this article, this passage suggests the possibility that “the skins of the Lamanites” are to be understood as articles of clothing, the notable girdle of skin that these particular Lamanites wear to cover their nakedness. Significantly, these are the only two references to skins in Alma 3, which contains the Book of Mormon’s most thorough explanation of the Lamanite curse and the curse’s relationship to skins. Thus situated, Alma 3:5–6 might serve as an interpretive Rosetta stone. If both instances of skins in Alma 3:5–6 refer to clothing, then the other five references to various-colored or cursed skins in the Book of Mormon could also refer to clothing and not — as traditionally assumed — to human flesh pigmentation.

T. J. Uronia recently looked at the Book of Mormon in relation to Assyrian writing of the time.  The abstract of his recent BYU Studies essay has this:  

Quote

>The phrase “skin of blackness” is only used once in the Book of Mormon as part of Nephi’s unabridged account of his life and prophecies. This makes the phrase, as Gerrit Steenblik has pointed out, “unusual” and suggests it might be unique to the ancient Near East culture that Nephi was familiar with. Support for this suggestion comes from the fact that in a prominent treaty dating to around Nephi’s time we also find something similar to Nephi’s phrase “skin of blackness.” In the Succession Treaty of King Esarhaddon, “skin black as pitch” seems to be used as a motif for death in relation to being cursed. Understood in this way, the phrase “skin of blackness” brings to mind the promise found in Deuteronomy of “life and death, blessing and cursing” (Deut. 30:19) and the need to hearken to the Lord and his appointed representative. This understanding is consistent with Lehi’s plea to choose life and not death (2 Ne. 2:27–29) and avoid being cursed by trusting in Nephi’s leadership (2 Ne. 1:21).

T. J. Uriona, “Life and Death, Blessing and Cursing” New Context for “Skin of Blackness” in the Book of Mormon”, BYU Studies Quarterly, 63/3 (2023).  https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/life-and-death-blessing-and-cursing/

Hugh Nibley has also addressed the context for "skin of blackness" a phrase unique to a single verse and a single author in the Book of Mormon, Nephi the only Book of Mormon author raised in the Ancient Near East, in 2 Nephi 5:1.

  

Quote

Now this cursing. There’s a great deal said about this race business in the Book of Mormon. It’s very clear what it is—it’s a cultural thing. It tells us here in verse 21, “Wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome.” That doesn’t mean they had complexions of milk, that they were pale white and ghostly. That’s not healthy anyway. Nor does it mean that the others were coal black. Black is much too strong a word to use here, if you are using it literally. But, as I’ve said before, it applies just as much in shāḥōr and lābān as it does in Hebrew and Aramaic, and also in Arabic. Anything that’s abyaḍ is good, delightful, pleasant; and everything that’s aswad isn’t. In the paintings, whether it’s Greek vase paintings or wall paintings in Egypt, the people who live in the bayt al-shaîr, “the houses of hair, out in the desert are always painted with dark complexions. The people who live in the bayt al-hajar, “the houses of stone,” are always depicted with light complexions. The women never went out; they would paint their faces with white lead, as a matter of fact. It’s a cultural thing. Of course, if you live that way, you become dark. Also, the camps of natives, Asiatics or anything like that, become garbage dumps. 

They live by hunting and plunder. They are not cultivating the soil and are not bound to work too much. So they become slovenly and dark in their manner. …
One was “exceedingly fair and delightsome,” and the other was a skin of blackness. As I said, shāḥōr 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. We don’t need to linger on that. Here it is [in verse 23]; it says it’s a cultural affair. If you mixed your seed with them, you got the same cursing. If you intermarry with them, you are sharing their culture, and you become just like them. In other words, it is not a racial thing because you can get it yourself. “And because of their cursing which was upon them, they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.”  
 

Hugh Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon, Lecture 18, https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/lecture-18-2-nephi-3%E2%80%938-lehi%E2%80%99s-family-blessings-and-conflict .

It is also important to notice that the same Book of Mormon authors who talk about the curse frequently and throughout the entire book use language associating white/pure/clean garments as metaphors of blessings and repentance, and stained/filthy/bloody garments as symbolic of disobedience and covenant curses in ways that directly parallel the use, context, audience and rhetorical intent of verses so often associated with racial readings.   For example, the same Nephi who wrote both “skin of blackness” and “all are alike unto God” also wrote:

“…And these twelve ministers whom thou beholdest shall judge thy seed. And, behold, they are righteous forever; for because of their faith in the Lamb of God their garments are made white in his blood.”
And the angel said unto me, “Look!” And I looked, and beheld three generations pass away in righteousness; and their garments were white even like unto the Lamb of God. And the angel said unto me, “These are made white in the blood of the Lamb, because of their faith in him.” (Nephi 12:10-11)

See also 

Quote

1 Nephi 21:18: “Lift up thine eyes round about and behold; all these gather themselves together, and they shall come to thee. And as I live, saith the Lord, thou shalt surely clothe them all, as with an ornament, and bind them on even as a bride.”
2 Nephi 7:3: “I clothe the heavens with blackness, and I make sackcloth their covering” (quoting Isaiah 50:3 in a section discussing how people forsake God by violating covenants).
2 Nephi 9:14: “being clothed with purity, yea, even with the robe of righteousness” (Jacob speaking as a consecrated High Priest on the Day of Atonement)
Jacob 1:19: “by laboring with our might their blood might not come upon our garments; otherwise their blood would come upon our garments, and we would not be found spotless at the last day.”
Jacob 3:5: “the cursing which hath come upon their skins”
Jacob 3:8‒9: “their skins will be whiter than yours … revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins”
Mosiah 2:28: “I have caused that ye should assemble yourselves together that I might rid my garments of your blood” (King Benjamin speaking at the temple as High Priest with a Day of Atonement context).
Alma 5:21‒24: Garments stained with blood and all manner of filthiness contrasted with prophets whose garments are cleansed and are spotless, pure, and white
Alma 7:25: “having your garments spotless … in the kingdom of heaven”
Alma 13:11‒12: “garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb … garments made white, being pure and spotless before God”
Alma 34:36: “in his kingdom … their garments should be made white through the blood of the Lamb”
Helaman 9:31‒34: A prophetic story in which the symbolic use and the literal use combine, as the blood on garments testify to a murder committed
[Page 79]3 Nephi 11:8: “And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe.”
3 Nephi 19:25: “And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold, they were as white as the countenance, and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof.”
3 Nephi 19:29‒30: Jesus prays “that they may be purified in me … as thou, Father, art in me; … and behold they did pray steadfastly, without ceasing, unto him; and he did smile upon them again; and behold they were white, even as Jesus” (compare with Moroni 7: the sons of God, … we shall be like him … purified even as he is pure”).
3 Nephi 27:19: “no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom … save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood.”
4 Nephi 24: pride and costly apparel again appear among the people.
Mormon 9:34: Garments and the priestly obligation to testify to “rid our garments of the blood of our brethren”
Ether 12:37: “thy garments shall be made clean, … sitting down in the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father.”
Ether 12:38: “my garments are not spotted with your blood”
Moroni 10:31: “put on thy beautiful garments, O daughter of Zion”

So notion that skins can be garments and garments can represent both blessing and curses relative to covenants is present throughout the Book of Mormon.  I do not find shallow mockery and incredulity shows evidence of having weighed and considered that.

With respect to the plain meaning of the text, and what is "obvious," the whole point of the parable of the Sower is that the same words, planted in different soils, nurtured in different ways, can radically changed the harvest. Of that parable, Jesus says "Know ye not this parable? How then will ye know all parables?"  Knowing that soil and nurture of words can change their meaning is a crucial teaching of Jesus.

For example, regarding the plain meaning of "other sheep" Jesus explained in 3 Nephi that he had disciples who supposed they understood, and did not ask, and therefore, were not taught.   If we think we know what we are looking at, we may not see what is actually there.

What sort of pre-existing suppositions existed in Joseph Smith's 19th century context?  From Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon:

Quote

In this way, The Book of Mormon adapts itself to a series of drearily familiar racist tropes of the American nineteenth century: about Indians as remnants of the lost tribes of Israel, or, more saliently, about nonwhiteness as a God-ordained and indelible accursedness. The Book of Mormon, we might say, swallows these conventional racist premises whole, and metabolizes them into an intractably racist cosmology, haphazardly wrought round with a settler-colonial white supremacism that will be unfamiliar to few students of antebellum America. 

I find it easy to recognize that early readers of the Book of Mormon, and many present readers, saw only what they expect to see, rather than what is really there. 

But seeing what you expect to see, rather than what is there, leads to problems. Reading the text as “a series of drearily familiar racist tropes” does not quite fit. Indeed, Jeremy Talmage reports that: 
"The racial worldview of the Book of Mormon is a historical anomaly in that it envisioned Native Americans as either black or white when nearly everyone else identified Indians as red. As it turns out, this radically departed from the personal views of Joseph Smith and his nineteenth-century culture. The description of Native Americans as red, which one should expect to find in the Book of Mormon, simply is not there."

Jeremy Talmadge, “Black, White, and Red All Over: Skin Color in the Book of Mormon”, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1633&context=jbms

Quote

Bacon, the philosopher of science, was, quite consistently, an enemy of the Copernican hypothesis. Don’t theorize, he said, but open your eyes and observe without prejudice, and you cannot doubt that the Sun moves and that the earth is at rest.

Karl R. Popper, The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality (New York: Routledge, 1994), 84–85, https://books.google.com/books?
 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA 

Edited February 21 by Kevin Christensen

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Does Dan explain why it's not a good theory?

How about because that is not what the clear reading of the text says and no LDS leaders have ever interpreted it this way.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Notice the J.K. Williams has left out some important words from Alma 3:5, leading into Alma 3:6. 

In his important essay, "Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon," Ethan Sproat had noticed this about various commenters on Alma 3:5-6 on the Lamanite curse.

J. K. has thus far adopted the second approach, "remaining silent about the first."  It is not a particularly imposing approach to make to Sproat's scholarship. Knee-jerk mockery is easy.  Scholarship is hard. 

Sproat wrote:

T. J. Uronia recently looked at the Book of Mormon in relation to Assyrian writing of the time.  The abstract of his recent BYU Studies essay has this:  

T. J. Uriona, “Life and Death, Blessing and Cursing” New Context for “Skin of Blackness” in the Book of Mormon”, BYU Studies Quarterly, 63/3 (2023).  https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/life-and-death-blessing-and-cursing/

Hugh Nibley has also addressed the context for "skin of blackness" a phrase unique to a single verse and a single author in the Book of Mormon, Nephim the only Book of Mormon author raised in the Ancient Near East, in 2 Nephi 5:1.

  

Hugh Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon, Lecture 18, https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/lecture-18-2-nephi-3%E2%80%938-lehi%E2%80%99s-family-blessings-and-conflict .

It is also important to notice that the same Book of Mormon authors who talk about the curse frequently and throughout the entire book use language associating white/pure/clean garments as metaphors of blessings and repentance, and stained/filthy/bloody garments as symbolic of disobedience and covenant curses in ways that directly parallel the use, context, audience and rhetorical intent of verses so often associated with racial readings.   For example, the same Nephi who wrote both “skin of blackness” and “all are alike unto God” also wrote:

“…And these twelve ministers whom thou beholdest shall judge thy seed. And, behold, they are righteous forever; for because of their faith in the Lamb of God their garments are made white in his blood.”
And the angel said unto me, “Look!” And I looked, and beheld three generations pass away in righteousness; and their garments were white even like unto the Lamb of God. And the angel said unto me, “These are made white in the blood of the Lamb, because of their faith in him.” (Nephi 12:10-11)

See also 

So notion that skins can be garments and garments can represent both blessing and curses relative to covenants is present throughout the Book of Mormon.  I do not find shallow mockery and incredulity shows evidence of having weighed and considered that.

With respect to the plain meaning of the text, and what is "obvious," the whole point of the parable of the Sower is that the same words, planted in different soils, nurtured in different ways, can radically changed the harvest. Of that parable, Jesus says "Know ye not this parable? How then will ye know all parables?"  Knowing that soil and nurture of words can change their meaning is a crucial teaching of Jesus.

For example, regarding the plain meaning of "other sheep" Jesus explained in 3 Nephi that he had disciples who supposed they understood, and did not ask, and therefore, were not taught.   If we think we know what we are looking at, we may not see what is actually there.

What sort of pre-existing suppositions existed in Joseph Smith's 19th century context?  From Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon:

I find it easy to recognize that early readers of the Book of Mormon, and many present readers, saw only what they expect to see, rather than what is really there. 

But seeing what you expect to see, rather than what is there, leads to problems. Reading the text as “a series of drearily familiar racist tropes” does not quite fit. Indeed, Jeremy Talmage reports that: 
"The racial worldview of the Book of Mormon is a historical anomaly in that it envisioned Native Americans as either black or white when nearly everyone else identified Indians as red. As it turns out, this radically departed from the personal views of Joseph Smith and his nineteenth-century culture. The description of Native Americans as red, which one should expect to find in the Book of Mormon, simply is not there."

Jeremy Talmadge, “Black, White, and Red All Over: Skin Color in the Book of Mormon”, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1633&context=jbms

Karl R. Popper, The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality (New York: Routledge, 1994), 84–85, https://books.google.com/books?
 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA 

Yeah, leaving those words out was totally deliberate. 🙄

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Notice the J.K. Williams has left out some important words from Alma 3:5, leading into Alma 3:6. 

In his important essay, "Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon," Ethan Sproat had noticed this about various commenters on Alma 3:5-6 on the Lamanite curse.

J. K. has thus far adopted the second approach, "remaining silent about the first."  It is not a particularly imposing approach to make to Sproat's scholarship. Knee-jerk mockery is easy.  Scholarship is hard. 

Sproat wrote:

T. J. Uronia recently looked at the Book of Mormon in relation to Assyrian writing of the time.  The abstract of his recent BYU Studies essay has this:  

T. J. Uriona, “Life and Death, Blessing and Cursing” New Context for “Skin of Blackness” in the Book of Mormon”, BYU Studies Quarterly, 63/3 (2023).  https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/life-and-death-blessing-and-cursing/

Hugh Nibley has also addressed the context for "skin of blackness" a phrase unique to a single verse and a single author in the Book of Mormon, Nephim the only Book of Mormon author raised in the Ancient Near East, in 2 Nephi 5:1.

  

Hugh Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon, Lecture 18, https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/lecture-18-2-nephi-3%E2%80%938-lehi%E2%80%99s-family-blessings-and-conflict .

It is also important to notice that the same Book of Mormon authors who talk about the curse frequently and throughout the entire book use language associating white/pure/clean garments as metaphors of blessings and repentance, and stained/filthy/bloody garments as symbolic of disobedience and covenant curses in ways that directly parallel the use, context, audience and rhetorical intent of verses so often associated with racial readings.   For example, the same Nephi who wrote both “skin of blackness” and “all are alike unto God” also wrote:

“…And these twelve ministers whom thou beholdest shall judge thy seed. And, behold, they are righteous forever; for because of their faith in the Lamb of God their garments are made white in his blood.”
And the angel said unto me, “Look!” And I looked, and beheld three generations pass away in righteousness; and their garments were white even like unto the Lamb of God. And the angel said unto me, “These are made white in the blood of the Lamb, because of their faith in him.” (Nephi 12:10-11)

See also 

So notion that skins can be garments and garments can represent both blessing and curses relative to covenants is present throughout the Book of Mormon.  I do not find shallow mockery and incredulity shows evidence of having weighed and considered that.

With respect to the plain meaning of the text, and what is "obvious," the whole point of the parable of the Sower is that the same words, planted in different soils, nurtured in different ways, can radically changed the harvest. Of that parable, Jesus says "Know ye not this parable? How then will ye know all parables?"  Knowing that soil and nurture of words can change their meaning is a crucial teaching of Jesus.

For example, regarding the plain meaning of "other sheep" Jesus explained in 3 Nephi that he had disciples who supposed they understood, and did not ask, and therefore, were not taught.   If we think we know what we are looking at, we may not see what is actually there.

What sort of pre-existing suppositions existed in Joseph Smith's 19th century context?  From Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon:

I find it easy to recognize that early readers of the Book of Mormon, and many present readers, saw only what they expect to see, rather than what is really there. 

But seeing what you expect to see, rather than what is there, leads to problems. Reading the text as “a series of drearily familiar racist tropes” does not quite fit. Indeed, Jeremy Talmage reports that: 
"The racial worldview of the Book of Mormon is a historical anomaly in that it envisioned Native Americans as either black or white when nearly everyone else identified Indians as red. As it turns out, this radically departed from the personal views of Joseph Smith and his nineteenth-century culture. The description of Native Americans as red, which one should expect to find in the Book of Mormon, simply is not there."

Jeremy Talmadge, “Black, White, and Red All Over: Skin Color in the Book of Mormon”, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1633&context=jbms

Karl R. Popper, The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality (New York: Routledge, 1994), 84–85, https://books.google.com/books?
 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA 

Let's cut to the chase.  There is a lot of language about the mark being skin of darkness. Language that it the dark skin was places so the Lamanites would become loathsome to the Nephites.  Is it your position that the BoM language was NOT referring to skin being darkened.

[jkwilliams]

"The racial worldview of the Book of Mormon is a historical anomaly in that it envisioned Native Americans as either black or white when nearly everyone else identified Indians as red. As it turns out, this radically departed from the personal views of Joseph Smith and his nineteenth-century culture. The description of Native Americans as red, which one should expect to find in the Book of Mormon, simply is not there."

The description of a dark-skinned race that killed off a superior white race is a common American myth from that time period. I’m puzzled as to why Talmadge thinks this common trope is anomalous. 

[SteveO]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Stumbled across this apologetic, which is a doozy. 

The gist of it is that when the Book of Mormon speaks of the Lamanites being given a skin of blackness, it means that the skins they wore as clothing were black, whereas the Nephites wore “white and delightsome” skins. In short, these were fashion choices similar to gang colors. 

As Dan McClellan put it, this is “not a good theory.” 

It’s not a minute long apologetic either.  For those who don’t have Tic Tock brain rot:

Edit to add:  very much worth a watch ~15 minutes 

Edited February 20 by SteveO

[webbles]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

"The racial worldview of the Book of Mormon is a historical anomaly in that it envisioned Native Americans as either black or white when nearly everyone else identified Indians as red. As it turns out, this radically departed from the personal views of Joseph Smith and his nineteenth-century culture. The description of Native Americans as red, which one should expect to find in the Book of Mormon, simply is not there."

The description of a dark-skinned race that killed off a superior white race is a common American myth from that time period. I’m puzzled as to why Talmadge thinks this common trope is anomalous. 

Talmage is talking about the "red" skin.  It is odd that the Book of Mormon never says red skin.

[ttribe]

At what point do amateur apologists realize that all of the ways they are "smarter" than virtually every single member of the First Presidency and Q12 for the past 150 years in terms of re-explaining doctrinal problems is no different than us apostates who were critical of those same members of the First Presidency and Q12, only we were branded "apostates" and the new "apologists" are just adding their own "further light and knowledge"? If this weak apologetic had any basis in any teaching of any past leaders acting within their duty to interpret and teach scripture, wouldn't the Church, itself, be promoting it, rather than an amateur on social media?

Edited February 20 by ttribe

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, webbles said:

Talmage is talking about the "red" skin.  It is odd that the Book of Mormon never says red skin.

That doesn’t strike me as particularly nontrivial. 🤷‍♂️