Calm Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 35 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: am going to assume you didn't think it through Or you misunderstood because I didn’t get that idea from her at all. 1
Calm Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 26 minutes ago, Analytics said: If the plates physically existed, they wouldn’t have disappeared into thin air. Real, physical things just don’t do that. https://www.livescience.com/60436-most-valuable-treasures-still-missing-lost.html
smac97 Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 28 minutes ago, Analytics said: If the plates physically existed, they wouldn’t have disappeared into thin air. Real, physical things just don’t do that. CFR that the plates "disappeared into thin air."
Analytics Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: CFR that the plates "disappeared into thin air." If you think they are real, physical objects, the burden of proof is on you to tell me where. Real objects exist in space and time. My point is simply that it's ridiculous to claim "The physicality of the Plates needs to be accounted for" when there is no physicality of the plates. 3
smac97 Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 5 minutes ago, Analytics said: If you think they are real, physical objects, the burden of proof is on you to tell me where. Real objects exist in space and time. Right. We don't have the knife Brutus used to assassinate Caesar, ergo Caesar was not assassinated. 5 minutes ago, Analytics said: My point is simply that it's ridiculous to claim "The physicality of the Plates needs to be accounted for" when there is no physicality of the plates. Witnesses said they were real.
Stormin' Mormon Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 1 hour ago, Analytics said: If the plates physically existed, they wouldn’t have disappeared into thin air. Real, physical things just don’t do that. Nor do angels go around delivering golden plates to under-educated farm boys, yet here we are. This is classic question begging (in its original logical fallacy meaning). You are assuming a worldview that precludes the existence of angels, and then using that worldview as evidence that angels don't exist. 2
Analytics Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 11 minutes ago, smac97 said: Right. We don't have the knife Brutus used to assassinate Caesar, ergo Caesar was not assassinated. Brutus's ordinary knife was lost over the eons in the way that ordinary objects are. Surely you aren't implying the plates are ordinary objects that disappeared due to carelessness in the same way. 11 minutes ago, smac97 said: Witnesses said they were real. Alleged witnesses say all sorts of things. The claim that this vanishingly unlikely manuscript isn't with us because it was allegedly "taken away by an angel" is much stronger evidence of its non-existence than whatever the hand-picked \witnesses claim. I'm not sure why you're arguing with me about this. In your paradigm, if God wanted people to have reasonable evidence that the plates are real, he wouldn't have performed such an astonishing miracle of making the plates vanish. Clearly, God didn't want there to be reasonable evidence of there existence. In my paradigm, I'm stating the obvious. In your paradigm, I'm believing what God wants rational people to believe. 3
Analytics Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 3 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said: Nor do angels go around delivering golden plates to under-educated farm boys, yet here we are. This is classic question begging (in its original logical fallacy meaning). You are assuming a worldview that precludes the existence of angels, and then using that worldview as evidence that angels don't exist. I'm merely saying the physicality of the plates doesn’t need to be accounted for because there is vanishingly little evidence that authentic plates ever existed with physicality. That isn’t an assumption. It is the nature of the evidence. 1
Stormin' Mormon Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Analytics said: I'm merely saying the physicality of the plates doesn’t need to be accounted for because there is vanishingly little evidence that authentic plates ever existed with physicality. That isn’t an assumption. It is the nature of the evidence. I find that there are a number of contemporary, first-hand accounts that Joseph had something physical in his possession. Maybe they were plates, maybe they weren't. But there was something heavy in the sack he swung at the ruffians the night he brought the plates homes. There was something heavy in the lockbox in his family home. There was something heavy under the cloth on Emma's dining room table. It's the physicality of that something that needs to be accounted for. You can deny that they were plates, sure, I get it. The evidence that the physical something in his possession actually was a metallic mesoamerican codex is pretty spotty. But the evidence of something heavy and physical in his possession? That needs to be dealt with. Edited February 23, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon 1
Meadowchik Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 12 hours ago, Calm said: Or you misunderstood because I didn’t get that idea from her at all. She's said similar before--I don't think that creating an attitude of Shane around being a victim is healthy or responsible.
Analytics Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 11 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said: I find that there are a number of contemporary, first-hand accounts that Joseph had something physical in his possession. Maybe they were plates, maybe they weren't. But there was something heavy in the sack he swung at the ruffians the night he brought the plates homes. There was something heavy in the lockbox in his family home. There was something heavy under the cloth on Emma's dining room table. It's the physicality of that something that needs to be accounted for. You can deny that they were plates, sure, I get it. The evidence that the physical something in his possession actually was a metallic mesoamerican codex is pretty spotty. But the evidence of something heavy and physical in his possession? That needs to be dealt with. The way that he kept hidden whatever tangible physical object he had in his possession and only displayed it in rare, controlled settings reminds me of the way a magician controls his props and makes performances. 2
GoCeltics Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 14 hours ago, Calm said: Some of the skins that marked the enemies of the Nephites were dyed with blood, which darkens over time. How do you interpret the meaning behind “the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them?”
GoCeltics Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 16 hours ago, BlueDreams said: How sexy do you find someone in a kkk garb? Or a nazi outfit? Or *fill in the blank of symbolic wear that infers violent tendencies and conflicting beliefs that could risk your group, order, or personhood*? Due to their (kkk and nazi) atrocities, our perception of it is unappealing. Emphasizing the timeline within 2 Nephi 5, the mark's presence predates the actions attributed to the Lamanites. Garments do not compel individuals to engage in such behavior. Why do you believe that 2 Nephi 5:21-23 refers to clothing?
BlueDreams Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 Just now, GoCeltics said: Due to their (kkk and nazi) atrocities, our perception of it is unappealing. Emphasizing the timeline within 2 Nephi 5, the mark's presence predates the actions attributed to the Lamanites. Garments do not compel individuals to engage in such behavior. Why do you believe that 2 Nephi 5:21-23 refers to clothing? Lamanites started with laman and Lemuel. They were actively violent and had plotted to kill their brother more than one time by the time the reached the promised land. The conflict between them and Nephi was so prominent that their dying father basically pleaded for them to stop it. I would absolutely consider that violent. They would continue to have a relationship with plenty of animosity to come. We also don't know what they were already doing that was setting them apart. But they already had behaviors that indicated they were doing things deemed inappropriate to the traditions of Nephi and Lehi that they would consider offensive towards God's covenants. Garment are often symbolic markers of behaviors. If someone decides to where white supremacist paraphernalia, it's a pretty good indication they're a white supremacist. If someone dons certain religious clothing, it's a safe bet they likely ID with certain religious groups Clothes don't make behavior, but behaviors and beliefs will often inform our clothing choices. You can read some of my previous posts to figure out what I believe 2 Nephi refers to. particularly this one: For the record I don't think it just refers to clothing. I think it refers to any behaviors, actions, and emblems they adopted over the years that the nephites would see as a rejection of the true covenant. With luv, BD 1
Stormin' Mormon Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 1 hour ago, Analytics said: The way that he kept hidden whatever tangible physical object he had in his possession and only displayed it in rare, controlled settings reminds me of the way a magician controls his props and makes performances. So there WAS something physical, a prop of some sort? Whether they were authentic golden plates or props in a mummer's farce, that physicality needs to be accounted for.
smac97 Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 16 hours ago, Danzo said: were you referring to piercing genitals with a stingray spine? Slavery? Human sacrifice? Or Child Marriage (My Mother in law was married at fourteen)? Even the traditional culture isn't all good. You might accuse me and my wife of cultural genocide for not raising our children in the ñuù davi culture she grew up in, however we decided that while we could retain some of the culture, much of it was better left behind. FWIW, I think there are parts of "Mormon" culture that ought to be abandoned. "Maladaptive perfectionism," for example. Intra-familial shunning seems to be a thing sometimes. That ought to go. Thanks, -Smac 1
Calm Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 (edited) 1 hour ago, GoCeltics said: How do you interpret the meaning behind “the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them?” First, I am with Bluedreams and believe that the references are to different aspects, some spiritual, some literal, etc, all part of a symbolic language. She said it so well, I don’t see the need to repeat. https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75765-skin-color-doesn’t-mean-skin-color/?do=findComment&comment=1210176681 https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75765-skin-color-doesn’t-mean-skin-color/?do=findComment&comment=1210176685 Second, I think the verse can be interpreted in several ways, including the Lord having told Nephi the Lamanites would be cursed so Nephi upon viewing whatever he is referring to as “skin of blackness” assumes that is the curse. Whether or not his assumption is right is not apparent here, imo. Which leads me to these…. The reference to the skin of blackness is in the part of the verses where Nephi is not quoting the Lord. He paraphrases the Lord saying he would be a ruler over them…. Quote And behold, the words of the Lord had been fulfilled unto my brethren, which he spake concerning them, that I should be their ruler and their teacher. Wherefore, I had been their ruler and their teacher, according to the commandments of the Lord, until the time they sought to take away my life. He quotes the Lord about the curse and being cut off Quote Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence. He quotes the Lord on them being made loathsome and the curse following their children even when their mate was not cursed…. Quote And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. 23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. He quotes the Lord saying they will be a scourge… Quote And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction. The skin of blackness though is part of Nephi observing how the Lord’s words were fulfilled… Quote And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. As is this part… Quote 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. The apparent cursing referred to is mentioned back in 1 Nephi 2 and no skin of blackness is mentioned then… Quote And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, for thou hast sought me diligently, with lowliness of heart. 20 And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper, and shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands. 21 And inasmuch as thy brethren shall rebel against thee, they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. 22 And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren. 23 For behold, in that day that they shall rebel against me, I will curse them even with a sore curse, and they shall have no power over thy seed except they shall rebel against me also. 24 And if it so be that they rebel against me, they shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in the ways of remembrance. Next… There are no details given with the “skin of blackness” besides it being something that Nephi sees as loathsome and therefore is a fulfillment of the curse in his eyes, so while I see why those of us from a culture that had assumed black human skin was a curse make the jump to assuming its skin color, I don’t believe we have enough info to actually justify going there….or anywhere else if all we use is these verses, though I believe the rest of the text provides direction. In all verses the repugnance is more focused on behaviour overtime rather than appearance, imo, and the descriptions aren’t even always accurate…from Brant Gardner… Quote The Book of Mormon is indeed prejudiced against the Lamanites. However, that prejudice always arises along the insider/outsider boundary, not the white/dark boundary. Descriptions of Lamanites repeat the same stock phrases over time: 1. (ca. 587 BC, written ca. 540–550 BC) 1 Nephi 12:23: And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations. 2. (ca. 575 BC, written ca. 540–550 BC) 2 Nephi 5:24: “And because of their cursing . . . they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.” 3. (ca. 350–360 BC) Enos 1:20: “The Lamanites . . . were led by their evil nature that they became wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people, full of idolatry and filthiness; feeding upon beasts of prey; dwelling in tents, and wandering about in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about their loins and their heads shaven; and their skill was in the bow, and in the cimeter, and the ax. And many of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat; and they were continually seeking to destroy us. 4. (ca. 120 BC) Mosiah 10:12: They were a wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people, believing in the tradition of their fathers. . . . 5. (ca. 82 BC) Alma 17:13–14: And it came to pass when they had arrived in the borders of the land of the Lamanites, that they separated themselves and departed one from another, trusting in the Lord that they should meet again at the close of their harvest; for they supposed that great was the work which they had undertaken. And assuredly it was great, for they had undertaken to preach the word of God to a wild and a hardened and a ferocious people; a people who delighted in murdering the Nephites, and robbing and plundering them; and their hearts were set upon riches, or upon gold and silver, and precious stones; yet they sought to obtain these things by murdering and plundering, that they might not labor for them with their own hands. 6. (ca. 49 BC) Helaman 3:16: And they have been handed down from one generation to another by the Nephites, even until they have fallen into transgression and have been murdered, plundered, and hunted, and driven forth, and slain, and scattered upon the face of the earth, and mixed with the Lamanites until they are no more called the Nephites, becoming wicked, and wild, and ferocious, yea, even becoming Lamanites. 7. (ca. AD 372) Mormon 5:15: And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become 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, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry. Each quotation describes “how the Lamanites are.” While there is at least a possibility that the description was true when Nephi began this traditional stereotyping of the Lamanites, it was untrue by the time of Enos if not earlier. It is conclusively untrue in Alma where the story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies discusses the many cities of the Lamanites (Alma 23:9–15). Furthermore, these descriptions of the Lamanites as the opposite of the Nephites vanish as soon as the Lamanites cross the outsider/insider boundary. Once they are Nephites, they are fully and wholly Nephites, incorporating all of the “good” qualities of Nephites. Separation occurs with the label “Lamanite,” not because of skin color. Note how Jacob uses the “filthy” label that accompanies “dark” in 1 Nephi 12:23 Mormon 5:15: “But, wo, wo, unto you that are not pure in heart, that are filthy this day before God; for except ye repent the land is cursed for your sakes; and the Lamanites, which are not filthy like unto you, nevertheless they are cursed with a sore cursing, shall scourge you even unto destruction” (Jacob 3:3). In normal reference, the Lamanites are “dark” and “filthy.” However, that “filthiness” is obviously a moral quality. At the point Jacob addresses his people, he applies this outsider label to them directly to highlight their adoption of outsider practices. (See commentary accompanying Jacob 3:3.) I also find this observation of how Joseph (whether as the original creator or the translator/transmitter of the text) might have viewed the reference as relevant Quote Yet it is not entirely certain that Joseph Smith himself or even most others of his immediate family and contemporaries would have understood these passages in quite the same literal sense that modern readers have. As one consideration, the Book of Mormon does not use the term race at all. In an 1842 letter (known in Mormon history as the Wentworth letter), the one recorded case in which Smith used the term in reference to the Book of Mormon, he was distinguishing not between Lamanites and Nephites but between them and the Jaredites, all of which parties he obviously considered to be peoples of the same Semitic origin. Furthermore, Smith, before his death, had begun replacing the seeming skin-color references with terms that clearly referred instead to spiritual quality. Finally, a comprehensive review of the Book of Mormon text as a whole shows that it uses white almost always as a figurative synonym for pure, clean, luminous, and similar concepts, not in reference to such “racial” traits as skin color.25 (emphasis his) https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/what-does-the-book-of-mormon-mean-by-skin-of-blackness So my interpretation is we are not given enough info in the specific verse to know what skin of blackness means, but given the rest of the Book of Mormon it is likely more metaphorical than literal imo. Edited February 23, 2024 by Calm 3
smac97 Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 1 hour ago, GoCeltics said: How do you interpret the meaning behind “the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them?” Brant Gardner has compiled some interesting assessments: Quote What can we say about how the “skin of blackness” was perceived by those who wrote our Book of Mormon? Armand Mauss, a professor emeritus of sociology and religion at Washington State University, discusses the assumption of those who are critical of the Book of Mormon: Although Joseph Smith presented the Book of Mormon to the world as his translation of an ancient document, it is generally regarded by non-Mormons as a nineteeth-century product, whether or not it was divinely inspired. Accordingly, passages like those excerpted above [concerning dark skin] are taken as simply reflections of nineteenth-century American racist understandings about the origins of various peoples of color. Such conventional wisdom seems justified both by the mysterious provenance of the Book of Mormon itself and by the meanings that Mormons themselves have traditionally attributed to such passages. Yet it is not entirely certain that Joseph Smith himself or even most others of his immediate family and contemporaries would have understood these passages in quite the same literal sense that modern readers have. As one consideration, the Book of Mormon does not use the term race at all. In an 1842 letter (known in Mormon history as the Wentworth letter), the one recorded case in which Smith used the term in reference to the Book of Mormon, he was distinguishing not between Lamanites and Nephites but between them and the Jaredites, all of which parties he obviously considered to be peoples of the same Semitic origin. Furthermore, Smith, before his death, had begun replacing the seeming skin-color references with terms that clearly referred instead to spiritual quality. Finally, a comprehensive review of the Book of Mormon text as a whole shows that it uses white almost always as a figurative synonym for pure, clean, luminous, and similar concepts, not in reference to such “racial” traits as skin color.25 (emphasis his) The “skin of blackness” was certainly intended to be a pejorative term, but it was not a physical description. Modern readers may be uncomfortable with Nephite racial prejudices, but they existed. They were not, however, based on skin color as has been part of the more modern U.S. culture. Nephite prejudices were developed on distinctions more common to the ancient world and used reasons other than pigmentation. And here: Quote Rodney Turner, “The Lamanite Mark,” in Second Nephi: The Doctrinal Structure, edited by Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1989), 138. While Turner reads the statement of pigmentation change literally, he does not read the word “blackness” literally: “The expression ‘skin of blackness’ does not necessarily, or even probably, mean a black skin, only a darker skin. The pre-flood people of Canaan (Cain’s posterity) had a ‘blackness’ come upon them after the Lord cursed their land ‘with much heat’ (Moses 7:8). After Enoch’s city was translated from the earth Enoch beheld that ‘the seed of Cain were black’ and were separate from all other peoples (Moses 7:22). I believe that ‘blackness’ and ‘black’ are not synonyms and that the Lamanite mark was only a relatively darker pigmentation, not a literally black skin. By the same token, a ‘white’ skin is only relatively so (Jacob 3:8).” Ibid., footnote 2. And here: Quote Book of Mormon Language about Skin Color: The curse is expressed in two antithetically parallel phrases: “as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them” (2 Ne. 5:21). The phrases describe a previous condition and its succeeding condition, pivoting upon causation. Yahweh changed the Lamanites from what they had been to what they had become. The before/after relationship is “fair and delightsome”/”skin of blackness.” Both conditions are structural opposites. “Fair and delightsome” contains no reference to either “skin” or “white.” It would be a mistake, however, to assume that their absence means they are not part of the oppositional pairing since they do appear in other contexts. For example, 3 Nephi 2:14–15 reads: “And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites.” This reversal of the curse (not repeated here but “skin of blackness”) implies its opposite (articulated here): “skin became white.” The Lamanites have crossed the insider/outsider boundary, becoming those who were “united with the Nephites” and “numbered among” them. Because they have become Nephites, they therefore “became white like unto the Nephites.” This shift in skin of blackness to skin became white on the basis of a change from outsider to insider explains why the first appearance of the idea of the curse on the Lamanites has a different inception than this mention in 2 Nephi 5:21. In 1 Nephi 12:23, Nephi prophesies: “And I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people.” This is a reference to the Lamanites who survive the wars that destroy the Nephites (1 Ne. 12:19–20). In prophecy, Nephi places the darkness of the Lamanites over 1,000 years later than we find it in 2 Nephi 5:21. Why the discrepancy in time? There is no discrepancy. The condition of darkness comes with dwindling in unbelief. When that occurs, darkness falls—on their hearts and metaphorically on their skins. It is not a physical change and therefore does not have a specific point of inception. It is as accurate when described in 2 Nephi as it is prophetically at the end of Nephite culture. And here: Quote Racism in the Book of Mormon: The Book of Mormon is, in fact, racist, although not at all in the usual sense of the term.13 It represents a particular culture with a distinctive worldview. Even though it was written for a future audience, it was written in a time and manner that reflected the social constructions of the authors, not those of modern readers. This referential gulf between intent and interpretation explains our tendency to read “skin of blackness” with modern racial overtones. The ancient world was actually quite prejudiced but did not necessarily base such prejudices upon skin color. Their prejudices ran deeper and broader, as Malina and Neyrey explain: “In their assessment of their fellow human beings, elite ancients utilized a set of fixed categories, each with a limited range of descriptive, distinct features. . . . It is important to note that these categories were regularly presented. Invariably, the usual way of thinking was in terms of A/not-A, either/or, for/against, true/false, in/out, heaven/earth—with no middle term. This so-called principle of excluded middle was the prevailing logic.”14 And here: Quote Reading the Text or Reading into the Text: When 2 Nephi 5:21 says, “The Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them,” the phrase has been interpreted quite literally as a change in skin pigmentation.2 Indeed, it is much easier to compile a list of writers who take the phrase literally than of those who suggest an alternate reading. ... A contrasting reading is that the changed skin color does not involve a physical change in the pigmentation. John L. Sorenson suggested: What about the “dark skin” of the Lamanites and the “fair skin” of the Nephites? In the first place, the terms are relative. How dark is dark? How white is fair? An early Spaniard, Tomas Medel, noted around AD 1560 that the Indians in the Pacific coastal areas of Guatemala, where I place the earliest Lamanites, were darker than those in the cooler, higher areas, where the first Nephites lived. The highlanders, Medel said, “appeared but little different from the Spaniards.” That observation is underlined by a historical incident that took place at the other end of Mesoamerica during Cortez’s conquest of the Aztecs. Faced by a rebellion at his base on the Gulf of Mexico, the commander sent spies from Central Mexico to assess the situation. Among a party of his Indian allies he sent along two Spaniards of relatively dark complexion, clothed like the natives. They succeeded in being in the camp of the rebel Spaniards for a lengthy period, then returned to report the state of affairs, their own Spanish identity never being detected by their countrymen. Padre Thomas Gage called the Indian people of central Chiapas “fair of complexion” and the natives of Nicaragua “indifferent white.” On the other hand, the color of other Indians approached what could be called “a skin of blackness” (2 Ne. 5:21; this metaphor was used only once in the text—all other references are only to “darkness”). The skin shades of surviving peoples in Book of Mormon lands include a substantial range, from dark brown to virtual white. These colors cover nearly the same range as were found anciently around the Mediterranean coast and in the Near East. It is likely that the objective distinction in skin hue between Nephites and Lamanites was less marked than the subjective difference. The scripture is clear that the Nephites were prejudiced against the Lamanites (Jacob 3:5, Mosiah 9:1–2, Alma 26:23–25). That must have influenced how they perceived their enemies. The Nephite description of the Lamanites falls into a pattern known in the Near East. The Sumerian city dwellers in Mesopotamia of the third millennium BC viewed the Amorites, Abraham’s desert-dwelling relatives, as “dark” savages who lived in tents, ate their food raw, left the dead unburied, and cultivated no crops. Urban Syrians still call the Bedouin nomads “the wild beasts.” The Nephite picture of their relatives, in Jarom 1:6 and Enos 1:20, sounds so similar to the Near Eastern epithets that this language probably should be considered a literary formula rather than an objective description, labeling applied to any feared, despised, “backward” people. But all this does not exclude a cultural and biological difference between the two groups. The question is how great the difference was; we may doubt that it was as dramatic as the Nephite recordkeepers made out.6 Where Rodney Turner clearly believes that the change is not metaphorical, Sorenson just as clearly declares it to be precisely metaphorical. Nibley stands on the metaphorical side of the issue, though he still suggests that exposure to the sun could create the “blackness.”7 With this much disagreement on a single phrase in the text, how can we know how it should be read? There are some keys that we should use, and the very first is to remember the dangers of reading ourselves into a text in ways that the text did not intend.8 As Bruce Malina (professor of theology at Creighton University) and Richard Rohrbaugh (professor of religious studies at Lewis and Clark College) point out: Readers and writers always participate in a social system that provides the clues for filing in between the lines. Meanings are embedded in a social system that is shared and understood by all participants in any communication process. Although meanings not rooted in a shared social system can sometimes be communicated, such communication inevitably requires extended explanation because a writer cannot depend on the reader to conjure up the proper sets of related images or concepts needed to complete the text.9 The problem of social context is exacerbated when a reader from one culture reads a text written in and for a different culture, and when the text includes none of the necessary explanations: Each time a text is read by a new reader, the fields of reference tend to shift and multiply because of the reader’s cultural location. Among some literary theorists this latter phenomenon is called “recontextualization.” This term refers to the multiple ways different readers may “complete” a text as a result of reading it over against their different social contexts. . . . Our thesis is that this particular recontextualization, this modernization of the text, is profoundly social in character, and that readers socialized in the industrial world are unlikely to complete the text—in ways the ancient authors could have imagined.10 Thanks, -Smac
MustardSeed Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 IMO it was all about skin color, not clothes. It’s my opinion that Lamanites skin was darker ( beautiful in my opinion) due to biology, location, science, adaptation and other innocent reasons. it’s my opinion that the writer of the script took personal license to interpret the darkness as a punishment. I believe that men have always had the need to elevate themselves over others and find reasons to justify their attitudes. I believe the Sunday school conversations that perpetuated this belief in the past was a reflection of cultural and societal racism at large. Society is not allowed this attitude to be discussed in public for a couple of decades. Thank goodness. We deny such accusation or interpretation. But I absolutely recall plenty of discussions if not over the pulpit about the laminates being wicked, and it affecting their skin color. I’ll admit, I even believed it when I was a kid. My bad. I grew out of it. I would hesitate to guess that there are still some stragglers, old timers, who do believe the myth. People actually believe worse. The above is entirely imo only. 2
Tacenda Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: IMO it was all about skin color, not clothes. It’s my opinion that Lamanites skin was darker ( beautiful in my opinion) due to biology, location, science, adaptation and other innocent reasons. it’s my opinion that the writer of the script took personal license to interpret the darkness as a punishment. I believe that men have always had the need to elevate themselves over others and find reasons to justify their attitudes. I believe the Sunday school conversations that perpetuated this belief in the past was a reflection of cultural and societal racism at large. Society is not allowed this attitude to be discussed in public for a couple of decades. Thank goodness. We deny such accusation or interpretation. But I absolutely recall plenty of discussions if not over the pulpit about the laminates being wicked, and it affecting their skin color. I’ll admit, I even believed it when I was a kid. My bad. I grew out of it. I would hesitate to guess that there are still some stragglers, old timers, who do believe the myth. People actually believe worse. The above is entirely imo only. I believe you're right. I believe societies have proven that they do terrible things. It's written all over in history. I'm so happy things finally straighten out eventually. So many myths taken down, it's like intelligence is evolving and hopefully spirit comes through a less muddled existence.
MustardSeed Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 15 hours ago, Meadowchik said: It sounds like you're saying that even if the church is abusive towards you, it doesn't matter as much (as it might matter to others) because you don't allow it..and that you're implying that it is the individual's job to prevent abuse of themselves. That therefore they must be accountable at least in part if "they let themselves" be abused. I am going to assume you didn't think it through, because whether in a collective or more intimate setting, this sounds very unhealthy. Sure, makes sense. there’s no way I would know if you were abused- I don’t know what did or didn’t happen to you (or I haven’t been reading closely enough)- And I do care. A lot. For those adults among us who chose to stay in the religion, I like to promote personal responsibility, resilience, nuanced thinking, and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ providing a conduit for personal revelation, regarding what is actually truth. I have found that black-and-white, thinking, and following without personal responsibility and engagement can lead to disillusionment very quickly and that faith can be lost on a dime. I also think that sometimes humans push us too far too hard and faith must be placed aside to be able to live according to one’s own conscience. The topic of victimhood is interesting to me, but a separate topic. Im sure my views on it can at times sound blaming. 1
BlueDreams Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 (edited) 44 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: IMO it was all about skin color, not clothes. It’s my opinion that Lamanites skin was darker ( beautiful in my opinion) due to biology, location, science, adaptation and other innocent reasons. it’s my opinion that the writer of the script took personal license to interpret the darkness as a punishment. I believe that men have always had the need to elevate themselves over others and find reasons to justify their attitudes. I believe the Sunday school conversations that perpetuated this belief in the past was a reflection of cultural and societal racism at large. Society is not allowed this attitude to be discussed in public for a couple of decades. Thank goodness. We deny such accusation or interpretation. But I absolutely recall plenty of discussions if not over the pulpit about the laminates being wicked, and it affecting their skin color. I’ll admit, I even believed it when I was a kid. My bad. I grew out of it. I would hesitate to guess that there are still some stragglers, old timers, who do believe the myth. People actually believe worse. The above is entirely imo only. I think it was a very very common (almost universal) opinion in the earlier days of the church. I'm not sure of the BoM peoples. Part of that is just pragmatic. There's not a major tone difference between native populations and and middle eastern people. So what would have mostly stuck out was maybe hair color and texture diversity and/or facial features... not skin. I think the closest I could imagine actual skin tone is ironically what rodheadlee was joking about: tanning. If the lamanites were wearing very little they would have tanned more and that has been an indicator of class distinctions in past cultures. Of course wearing very little would have easily been seen as going against socio-religious values too for them. Some of the dress description would have likely looked like their siblings had chosen to run around in their underwear. With luv, BD Edited February 23, 2024 by BlueDreams 2
MustardSeed Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 15 minutes ago, BlueDreams said: I think it was a very very common (almost universal) opinion in the earlier days of the church. I'm not sure of the BoM peoples. Part of that is just pragmatic. There's not a major tone difference between native populations and and middle eastern people. So what would have mostly stuck out was maybe hair color and texture diversity and/or facial features... not skin. I think the closest I could imagine actual skin tone is ironically what rodheadlee was joking about: tanning. If the lamanites were wearing very little they would have tanned more and that has been an indicator of class distinctions in past cultures. Of course wearing very little would have easily been seen as going against socio-religious values too for them. Some of the dress description would have likely looked like their siblings had chosen to run around in their underwear. With luv, BD Makes sense. I’m not nearly educated enough on the topic of distribution of skin color historically to hang. 1
BlueDreams Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 7 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: Makes sense. I’m not nearly educated enough on the topic of distribution of skin color historically to hang. For a hot minute I thought I'd major in genetics with a desire to go into human genetics because I was deeply interested in it. Studying Chemistry helped me decide there's better ways to study humans with luv, BD 1
Teancum Posted February 23, 2024 Posted February 23, 2024 17 hours ago, smac97 said: How do you figure? Witnesses claimed there were plates. Joseph said there were plates. The existence of the Plates - for which there is evidence - does not need to be addressed. And substantiating the claim some anonymous guy who authored the text and handed it off to Joseph also does not need to be addressed. The intervals when you display intellectual curiosity and intellect indifference are . . . interesting. And the indifference continues. No doubt. But it sure is convenient that you can toss it out there, then retreat from actually having to substantiate it. Ever. It's your theory. Feel free to start a thread where you lay out your reasoning, evidence, etc. for the putative 19th-century author of the Book of Mormon. Thanks, -Smac I have spent countless hours drilling into all these issues to come to the conclusions I have. I don't owe you anything more than I wish to spend time on. LIke I said, I have a job. Don't you? I have to imagine your lengthy verbose info dump posts have to take you a fair amount of time. Must take away from your billable hours. And yea at times I do substantiate more than I have on this thread. But again, I owe you no lengthy expose unless I choose to do so. Maybe I will take some time to respond more in depth later today. Right now I have some client work to do.
Recommended Posts