Popular Post Doctor Steuss Posted February 20, 2024 Popular Post Posted February 20, 2024 2 hours ago, jkwilliams said: 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. So, how exactly does a curse of wearing a dark clothing work? The moment someone who is cursed puts on their clothes, there’s a mighty instant smiting of divine Rit? That seems like the only way this would work, otherwise we’re left with a community who defied God to the extent that He marked them with a curse, but this community who was so defiant of God to be cursed just happens to obey God in this sole thing of wearing the clothes He told them they had to wear. “Hey look, I’m not going to follow anything that deity says… except for wearing these clothes, and listening to Morrissey.” 8
ttribe Posted February 20, 2024 Posted February 20, 2024 Stu wins the thread. The moderators can close it up. 2
Kevin Christensen Posted February 20, 2024 Posted February 20, 2024 (edited) On 2/20/2024 at 4:42 PM, Teancum said: 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. Let us rather read carefully, in context and in depth, with some self-reflection on the cultural assumptions of the purported authors of the Book of Mormon, and the cultural assumptions of the 19th century readers of the Book of Mormon and of ourselves. That is what Jesus refers to as checking one's own eye for beams before rushing to judgment. "Then shalt thou see clearly." Not, "Don't waste time on being self-critical. There are offensive beliefs out there amongst the LDS just starving for want of immediate and satisfying indignation!" Skins can be garments. In Alma 3:5, Lamanites explicitly wear skins as garments. Does Alma 3:6 take its context from that, or not? Throughout the Book of Mormon the same prophets who talk about the Lamanites and covenant blessings and curses associate clean and filthy garments with blessings and curses respectfully, speaking to the same audiences with the same rhetorical intent. Indeed, there are many more passages with that theme than those five others that Sproat examines that have been taken as referring to skin color. The same Alma chapter 3 that talks about God marking the Lamanites also says that the Amlicites marking themselves to separate themselves from the Nephites is the same as if God had marked them. Quote they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads. 14 Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi, “Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them Let's consider the evidence. Why, exactly, is so unthinkable in the notion of the Book of Mormon curse being manifest through personal lifestyle choices, including garments as marking them? In Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye talks about his hat and prayer shawl, and other things and says, "Because of our traditions, each of us knows who he is, and who God expects him to be." In many societies, the choice of garments says a great deal. There are no stories in the Book of Mormon where the outcome of any story depends on someone's skin color. It was not seen as a sudden miracle by the Lamanites, and one would think they might notice and comment if that was the case. And there are constant comings and goings back and forth, people changing political allegiance and "becoming" Lamanite, or Nephite, or for a time, no manner of "ites". And when the divisions come, it is "costly apparel" as one of the defining disgnostic symbols what leads to division and apostasy. So personally, I do not believe that the Lamanite curse in the Book of Mormon has anything to do with skin color. I have given my reasons, some of them at least, pointing to specific verses and specific scholars and their arguments and evidence. I do not believe the LDS are bound to defend race based reading. I believe that the misreading was conditioned more by the surrounding culture than the demands of the text. I notice that the formal statement of "mine authority, and the authority of my servants" in D&C 1 does not formally declares that LDS traditions and authorities on the topic are unquestionable. Rather, Quote 25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; 26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; 27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; 28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited February 22, 2024 by Kevin Christensen 2
Teancum Posted February 20, 2024 Posted February 20, 2024 1 minute ago, Kevin Christensen said: Let us rather read carefully, in context and in depth, with some self-reflection on the cultural assumptions of the purported authors of the Book of Mormon, and the cultural assumptions of the 19th century readers of the Book of Mormon and of ourselves. That is what Jesus refers to as checking one's own eye for beams before rushing to judgment. "Then shalt thou see clearly." Not, "Don't waste time on being self-critical. There are offensive beliefs out there amongst the LDS just starving for want of immediate and satisfying indignation!" Skins can be garments. In Alma 3:5, Lamanites explicitly wear skins as garments. Does Alma 3:6 take it's context from that, or not? Throughout the Book of Mormon the same prophets who talk about the Lamanites and covenant blessings and curses associate clean and filthy garments with blessings and curses respectfully, speaking to the same audiences with the same rhetorical intent. Indeed, there are many more passages with that theme than those five others that Sproat examines that have been taken as referring to skin color. The same Alma chapter 3 that talks about God marking the Lamanites also says that the Amlicites marking themselves to separate themselves from the Nephites is the same as if God had marked them. Let's consider the evidence. Why, exactly, is so unthinkable in the notion of the Book of Mormon curse being manifest through personal lifestyle choices, including garments as marking them? In Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye talks about his hat and prayer shawl, and other things and says, "Because of our traditions, each of us knows who he is, and who God expects him to be." In many societies, the choice of garments says a great deal. There are no stories in the Book of Mormon where the outcome of any story depends on someone's skin color. It was not seen as a sudden miracle by the Lamanites, and one would think they might notice and comment if that was the case. And there are constant comings and goings back and forth, people changing political allegiance and "becoming" Lamanite, or Nephite, or for a time, no manner of "ites". And when the divisions come, it is "costly apparel" as one of the defining disgnostic symbols what leads to division and apostasy. So personally, I do not believe that the Lamanite curse in the Book of Mormon has anything to do with skin color. I have given my reasons, some of them at least, pointing to specific verses and specific scholars and their arguments and evidence. I do not believe the LDS are bound to defend race based reading. I believe that the misreading was conditioned more by the surrounding culture than the demands of the text. I notice that the formal statement of "mine authority, and the authority of my servants" in D&C 1 does not formally declares that LDS traditions and authorities on the topic are unquestionable. Rather, FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Well you disagree with the text and with almost all LDS leadership since the book has been written. If you are right your prophets yet have another thing wrong. Not a good result really. 3
Kevin Christensen Posted February 20, 2024 Posted February 20, 2024 17 minutes ago, ttribe said: 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? Like I keep quoting: Quote 6 Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants, ... 24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. 25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; 26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; 27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; 28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time. Nothing in the formal statement of "the authority of my servants" means that they will never make mistakes or that other people will not make that known. But I also notice that none of the many scholars who have been developing this case for the last sixty years or so (starting with Nibley's publications in the church magazine, Since Cumorah, which began this line of thought) have used their criticism as grounds to set themselves up as rival formal church offices or priesthood authority, or to argue that the formal leaders and the restoration as such has no divine authority. Indeed, we defend that authority. That makes a difference. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 3
Doctor Steuss Posted February 20, 2024 Posted February 20, 2024 9 minutes ago, ttribe said: Stu wins the thread. The moderators can close it up. Reformed Egyptian is a language, can't you read? Reformed Egyptian is a language, can't you read? So ask me, ask me, ask me Ask me, ask me, ask me Because if it's not love, then it's the BoM, the BoM The BoM, the BoM, the BoM, the BoM, the BoM That will bring us together. "Ask" by The Smiths, Charles Anthon Radio Edit. 1
Popular Post Kevin Christensen Posted February 20, 2024 Popular Post Posted February 20, 2024 6 minutes ago, Teancum said: Well you disagree with the text and with almost all LDS leadership since the book has been written. If you are right your prophets yet have another thing wrong. Not a good result really. So far, no one has addressed the Book of Mormon text and context. We are disagreeing with a culturally conditioned reading of the Book of Mormon. Not disagreeing with the Book of Mormon. Abraham 1:2 refers to him seeking to be "a greater follower of righteousness and to possess greater knowledge..." That is depicted as a good thing, a good example. Rather than to be "a strict and unbending follower of orthodoxy and traditional opinion which is unquestionable." FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 5
ttribe Posted February 20, 2024 Posted February 20, 2024 10 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: Like I keep quoting: Nothing in the formal statement of "the authority of my servants" means that they will never make mistakes or that other people will not make that known. But I also notice that none of the many scholars who have been developing this case for the last sixty years or so (starting with Nibley's publications in the church magazine, Since Cumorah, which began this line of thought) have used their criticism as grounds to set themselves up as rival formal church offices or priesthood authority, or to argue that the formal leaders and the restoration as such has no divine authority. Indeed, we defend that authority. That makes a difference. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA It's funny that these "mistakes" seem to persist for 100+ years and are "corrected" by researchers, thus bypassing the stated line of authority. YMMV, of course. BTW, when you lead with character assassination, as you did in your response to John's post, your credibility begins to approach zero at a rapid pace. 3
jkwilliams Posted February 20, 2024 Author Posted February 20, 2024 5 minutes ago, ttribe said: It's funny that these "mistakes" seem to persist for 100+ years and are "corrected" by researchers, thus bypassing the stated line of authority. YMMV, of course. BTW, when you lead with character assassination, as you did in your response to John's post, your credibility begins to approach zero at a rapid pace. I try not to take that stuff personally. Obviously I’ve built up enough animus among some people. Hard to blame them. 1
ttribe Posted February 20, 2024 Posted February 20, 2024 Just now, jkwilliams said: I try not to take that stuff personally. Obviously I’ve built up enough animus among some people. Hard to blame them. Please, you bear very little of the blame for this ongoing B.S. 1
jkwilliams Posted February 20, 2024 Author Posted February 20, 2024 2 minutes ago, ttribe said: Please, you bear very little of the blame for this ongoing B.S. But I’m not blameless. 2
Teancum Posted February 20, 2024 Posted February 20, 2024 29 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: Like I keep quoting: Nothing in the formal statement of "the authority of my servants" means that they will never make mistakes or that other people will not make that known. But I also notice that none of the many scholars who have been developing this case for the last sixty years or so (starting with Nibley's publications in the church magazine, Since Cumorah, which began this line of thought) have used their criticism as grounds to set themselves up as rival formal church offices or priesthood authority, or to argue that the formal leaders and the restoration as such has no divine authority. Indeed, we defend that authority. That makes a difference. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Kevin I am sure you mean well but this is a fine example of how apologetics broke my shelf. I could not do the dance like this around so many problematic issues that arise within the world of Mormonism in order to make it work and feel good about myself anymore. That is just me. But words mean something. The BoM was presented by the founding Prophet of Mormonism as a translation and as the most correct book of any book. IT seems to me that he and his successors, the prophets, seers and revelators, are more creditiable than you and other apologists that want to run away from the ugly language of the book when to comes to the curse and skin of darkness. If it works for you great. But I couldn't do it anymore and your posts here further reinforce that decision. 2
Popular Post BlueDreams Posted February 20, 2024 Popular Post Posted February 20, 2024 2 hours ago, jkwilliams said: 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. It's been a branch of thought that's been gaining steam for at least the last decade. I think I first ran into the idea maybe 15-ish years ago. So if this isn't a thought that you think about more regularly, it wouldn't surprise me if you missed it. Though there were a lot of organic parallel thoughts popping up before and around the time of the gospel topics essay, particularly in certain circles. I don't necessarily subscribe to one physical symbol being THE thing that made the mark. I think it's more likely a series of culturally/religiously significant markers or behaviors that would have made the dissidents undesirable to the nephite people. Obviously a traditional reading that focuses on skin color will seem more initially intuitive. But IMHO that's only because the BoM was borne into a culture where the most distinctive marker of social order was race. We still live in part in said culture (though it's reduced in potency). It's the one that if you grew up particularly in the US, would be most available as a reason, the one that got little to no push back for generations as it fit within their context. The actual book is super inconsistent if read around literal change in skin tone. Not only logically, but within the internal definition and use of the mark/curse. I have clients tonight. But I can probably explain that more later this evening. Overall I would say there's a few lines of thoughts that I've seen when people tackle this subject in general: - Finding a more semi-palatable view of a historical/traditional interpretation. This usually includes trying to differentiate the mark from the curse, assuming a form of faster intermarrying among the lamanites, or just stubbornly holding on to the early interpretations as THE only way one could legitimately see it* - going with with official "we don't know" what it is, that laid out in the gospel topics. This'll follow the line of thought laid out in the gospel topic which also notes that no one's skin color is a sign of a curse. (Can't remember exact wording and don't have time to look it up) - last is assuming it's a symbolic reference or other real object that wasn't skin. Clothes is a common assumption, but there's other versions. This probably fits me best. *Note: this is not just from more traditional leaning LDS, but also people who view the BoM as some form of fiction written by JS in some way (whether inspired or not). The other two usually are held by people who utilize the book as a historical and/or inspired work. With luv BD 5
bluebell Posted February 20, 2024 Posted February 20, 2024 2 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Personally, I think this apologetic arises out of modern discomfort with 19th-century notions of race and culture. No doubt that is what spurred an interest in looking at the subject in new ways (because the old ways are now seen as wrong), but it also sounds like it's arising from new understandings of middle eastern (is that how that area is accurately referred to as?) concepts of skin color and prejudice/racism and seeing how they mesh up with the old interpretations of those verses. 4
OGHoosier Posted February 20, 2024 Posted February 20, 2024 (edited) 6 minutes ago, bluebell said: middle eastern Ancient Near East is the term of art I think. At least that's what my BYU class covering the period used, not sure if the term has changed in the past few years. FWIW I think @BlueDreams is right, especially about the Book's text being inconsistent with a straightforward racialism. But I have an assignment to write and must stop procrastinating using this board. Good night all. Edited February 20, 2024 by OGHoosier 3
bluebell Posted February 20, 2024 Posted February 20, 2024 54 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said: So, how exactly does a curse of wearing a dark clothing work? The moment someone who is cursed puts on their clothes, there’s a mighty instant smiting of divine Rit? That seems like the only way this would work, otherwise we’re left with a community who defied God to the extent that He marked them with a curse, but this community who was so defiant of God to be cursed just happens to obey God in this sole thing of wearing the clothes He told them they had to wear. “Hey look, I’m not going to follow anything that deity says… except for wearing these clothes, and listening to Morrissey.” As I've heard it explained in regards to this particular option, it was more that the lamanites marked themselves. Dr. Jan Martin talks a little about it on the Follow Him podcast: Quote "There are also scholars who argue that the skin of blackness is self-inflicted. That this is something that the Lamanites added to their own bodies. There's an argument that this might be a reference to clothing, that the 2 Nephi 3-5 skin is animal skin, not human skin, and that the Lamanites are dressing in a particular way to suggest that they're not part of the Nephite culture, and that they do things differently than the Nephites, which is an interesting argument. There's also scholars who've been arguing that this is skin paint, that they're painting themselves. Again, to indicate that they're from a different group, and that they're separate from the Nephites. And then one of the things that I argue with the covenant perspective, is that this is possibly tattooing, and that the Lamanites want to identify themselves as separate from Jehovah. And they create an identity through a tattoo that the minute you see them, you know that they're not part of the covenant, and that they've done that on purpose to separate themselves from their Nephite brothers and sisters. I'd offer those out there for anyone who's curious of other ways to read this text, that are very well written and I'd invite people to do more study. We can have very good explanations that may not have anything to do with a literal change of skin pigmentation. Obviously these explanations are for people who believe the BOM is what it purports to be and are not meant to convince anyone of divine origin. 2
smac97 Posted February 20, 2024 Posted February 20, 2024 3 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Skin Color Doesn’t Mean Skin Color Interestingly, the phrase "skin color" is entirely absent from the text of the Book of Mormon. I think it is error to impute modern notions of race and racism retroactively on people who lived thousands of years ago. That's not to say that some attitudes back then answer to what we today call "racism." See, e.g., here: Quote Is the Book of Mormon racist? Yes, in some ways. The Book of Mormon is an ancient account of competing ethnic clans over the course of about 1,000 years.[1] Sometimes those clans' records include racist rhetoric.[2] There are also more explicit verses in the Book of Mormon that say that God cursed Lamanites with "a skin of blackness."[3] [1]↩︎ The introduction to the Book of Mormon includes how the book is compiled of records from ancient prophets and peoples, all of whom were destroyed except for the Lamanites. The introduction states how the book documents the Jaredites, Nephites, and the Lamanites. BOM introduction identifies Lamenite relationship with indigenous Americans. [2]↩︎ For example, Mormon described how the Lamanites will be scattered because of their unrighteousness and stated that they would "become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us." Elsewhere, Mormon said that some Nephites "mixed with the Lamanites" and became "wicked, and wild, and ferocious, yea, even becoming Lamanites." Nephi wrote that the cursing of the Lamanites led them to become "an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety." Alma observed that 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." Enos described the Lamanites as having an "evil nature" and as a "wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people, full of idolatry and filthiness." Mormon comments on how Lamanites will be scattered. Mormon comments on how Nephites become Lamanites. Nephi explains Lamanite cursing. Alma wrote that God put a curse on the Lamanites. Enos describes the Lamanites as a "wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people." [3]↩︎ For example, Nephi stated that God cursed Lamanites with "a skin of blackness" because they had hardened their hearts to God. Alma also observed that the "skins of the Lamanites were dark" as a result of their rebellion. Elsewhere, the curse is lifted from the Lamanites and their skin is described as becoming "white like unto the Nephites." Jacob preached to the Nephites to "revile no more against" the Lamanites "because of the darkness of their skins." Scholars have debated whether this means a literal "skin of blackness" or something more metaphorical, citing parallels from antiquity. Nephi explains Lamanite cursing. Gay Robins gives an overview of color symbolism in ancient Egypt and the colorization of foreigners. Nephi makes a record after "the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians." Nephi wrote that when the curse was taken off of the Lamanites, they become "white like unto the Nephites." Jacob tells Nephites to not revile against the Lamanties because of "the darkness of their skins." Gerrit M. Steenblik argues that "blackness" in the Book of Mormon should be understood as Mayan paint. Jeremy Talmage argues that the description of Native Americans as "black" contrasts with the 19th-century description of natives as "red." Adam Oliver Stokes argues that "skins of blackness" refers to spiritual darkness. Ethan Sproat argues that "skins" in the Book of Mormon should be understood as garments. Brant A. Gardner argues that black skin in the Book of Mormon is metaphorical for out-groups. John A. Tvedtnes argues that black-and-white imagery in the Book of Mormon is symbolic. David M. Belnap argues that the Book of Mormon's message is opposed to racism and other forms of discrimination. And here (same link) : Quote Are prophets in the Book of Mormon racist? Yes, in that some of them expressed ethnocentric[4] beliefs against different tribes using racist language.[5] However, some of those same prophets also taught against racial prejudice.[6] [4]↩︎ "Ethnocentrism" is defined as a term anthropologists use to "describe the opinion that one’s own way of life is natural or correct. . . . [it] means that one may see his/her own culture as the correct way of living." Social Sciences Library provides definition of "ethnocentrism." [5]↩︎ Nephi described the Lamanites, who "had a skin of blackness" "come upon them" as having become "an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey." Enos described the Lamanites as: A wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people; full of idolatry, and filthiness; feading upon beasts of prey, dwelling in tents, and wandering about in the wilderness, with a short skin girded about their loins, and their heads shaven; and their skill was in the bow, and the cimeter, and the axe.— And many of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat In the Record of Zeniff, the Lamanites are described as being "a lazy and an idolatrous people" who a result, "were desirous to bring us into bondage, that they might glut themselves with the labors of our hands." Enos describes the Lamanites as a "wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people." Nephi explains Lamanite cursing. The Lamanites are described as being a "lazy and an idolatrous people." [6]↩︎ For example, the prophet Nephi explained that Lord said that "all are alike unto God" and He invites everyone "black and white, bond and free, male and female" to come to Him. The prophet Jacob stated that God commanded the Nephites "that ye revile no more against them, because of the darkness of their skins." Nephi comments on how Lord invites "black and white" to partake of the gospel. Jacob tells Nephites to not revile against the Lamanties because of "the darkness of their skins." And here (same link) : Quote Does the Book of Mormon teach that God cursed the Lamanites by changing the color of their skin? Nephi taught that God "did cause a skin of blackness to come upon [the Lamanites]" to prevent intermarriage with the Nephites.[9] Both Jacob and Alma connected the dark skin with the curse.[10] Scholars have offered various theories for a non-literal interpretation of these passages.[11] [9]↩︎ In 2 Nephi, Nephi expressed that God cursed the Lamanites with "a skin of blackness" and warned the Nephites to not marry them, For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, therefore the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. . .And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed: for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. Nephi explains Lamanite cursing. [10]↩︎ In Jacob 3:5, Jacob taught: Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you. and in Alma 3:6, Alma taught: 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. . . Alma wrote that God put a curse on the Lamanites. Jacob tells Nephites to not revile against the Lamanties because of "the darkness of their skins." [11]↩︎ Ancient studies scholars such as Hugh Nibley, John Tvedtnes and others have argued that "a skin of blackness" is not a reference to skin pigmentation. Explanations for the phrase have ranged from ancient metaphor to skin garments to Mayan skin paint. John A. Tvedtnes argues that black-and-white imagery in the Book of Mormon is symbolic. Ethan Sproat argues that "skins" in the Book of Mormon should be understood as garments. Gerrit M. Steenblik argues that "blackness" in the Book of Mormon should be understood as Mayan paint. Hugh W. Nibley compares the Book of Mormon's use of darkness to an ancient Egyptian autobiography. Brant A. Gardner argues that black skin in the Book of Mormon is metaphorical for out-groups. Adam Oliver Stokes argues that "skins of blackness" refers to spiritual darkness. So is it possible that "a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations" (1 Nephi 12:23) or "skin of blackness" (2 Nephi 5:21) or "the darkness of their skins" (Jacob 3:9) or "their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes" (2 Nephi 30:6) or "skin which was girded about their loins" and "skins of the Lamanites were dark" (Alma 3:5-6) or "their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites" (3 Nephi 2:15) or "a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites" (Mormon 5:15) is or are referencing something more than, or different from, or not precisely synonymous with, the amount of melanin in skin? 3 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.” I would prefer a substantive critique, rather than a glib and sarcastic and out-of-hand dismissal. Thanks, -Smac 2
Popular Post bluebell Posted February 20, 2024 Popular Post Posted February 20, 2024 1 hour ago, Teancum said: How about because that is not what the clear reading of the text says and no LDS leaders have ever interpreted it this way. Well, just because people used to interpret this stuff literally (and based on the culture they were most familiar with, as BD points out), doesn't mean that can't legitimately evolve to a different understanding. A clear reading of the creation account in Genesis says a whole lot that Christians used to take literally but that that few do today. Besides, the most "clear" reading is often determined by our biases and preconceived notions. Would our 19th century understanding of those verses have been the "clear" and obvious interpretation for Middle eastern people in 600 BC? Probably not. Racism/differentiating by skin color wasn't a thing back then, so that interpretation might not have been a clear one for that culture. A metaphorical interpretation or one that includes cultural understanding of race and skin color in the near east (still not sure I'm referring to that area correctly) are valid options when interpreting the BOM if they are valid options for interpreting the Bible (and clearly, many bible scholars and readers find them to be valid options). (And I just want to point out that members are not the only ones that have a stake in fighting for specific interpretations. There are ex-members who want the racist interpretations to stand because those interpretations have played some part in transitioning out of the faith for them and fit with their personal narrative in regards to Latter-day Saints and the church). 5
bluebell Posted February 20, 2024 Posted February 20, 2024 3 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. I think Kevin handled this bit of criticism well so I won't repeat what he said.
ttribe Posted February 20, 2024 Posted February 20, 2024 13 minutes ago, smac97 said: I would prefer a substantive critique, rather than a glib and sarcastic and out-of-hand dismissal. Thanks, -Smac Neither John, nor anyone else in this thread, for that matter, owe you any kind of response to what you "prefer." 1
smac97 Posted February 20, 2024 Posted February 20, 2024 9 minutes ago, ttribe said: Quote I would prefer a substantive critique, rather than a glib and sarcastic and out-of-hand dismissal. Neither John, nor anyone else in this thread, for that matter, owe you any kind of response to what you "prefer." I never claimed to be "owed" anything. But this is a discussion board. Discussions ought to be substantive. Thanks, -Smac
SteveO Posted February 20, 2024 Posted February 20, 2024 13 minutes ago, ttribe said: Neither John, nor anyone else in this thread, for that matter, owe you any kind of response to what you "prefer." It’s a discussion board buddy, not the great and spacious building 1
The Nehor Posted February 20, 2024 Posted February 20, 2024 I think Alma Chapter 3 rebuts this idea. When it talks about the Amlicites marking themselves there is an implied contrast to the skins of darkness that God caused to happen. If it were a fashion choice I would think Mormon would mention that the Amlicites were doing the same thing and there wouldn’t be the contrasting bit about the Amlicites putting the mark on themselves. In this chapter we also learn that the Lamanite warriors only wore loincloths and some armor. Does loincloth coloration really make you loathsome and would it be an enduring mark? And also I don’t know of any culture that would be this monochromatic about dying their clothing only either white or black for centuries. 2
ttribe Posted February 21, 2024 Posted February 21, 2024 6 minutes ago, SteveO said: It’s a discussion board buddy, not the great and spacious building I have no idea what you mean by that, but go ahead re-read Smac's post and tell me, with any measure of intellectual honesty, that his statement (as he presented it) isn't an expression of his personal preference for how John should have handled the posting of this nonsense apologetic. 2
california boy Posted February 21, 2024 Posted February 21, 2024 4 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.” So exactly how do you get an entire nation of people to all agree to wear the cool black leather jackets? And if you are a rebellious Lamanite, do you put on a white shirt and tie to become the hoodlum of the family? I can see grieving Lamanite parents worried sick about their teenage son who only wants to wear white and hope he grows out of the rebellious phase before too long. 1
Recommended Posts