Lehi's DNA

[_Morley]

If white skin is to be taken literally rather than figuratively, I still don't see how this makes any sense. Later when there was some merging going on between Nephites and Lamanites (Like 3 Nephi era), skin colors, if literal, changed. Darker became lighter. Of course I don't see how we can determine what degree of skin color change was necessary. And previous to that there was some amounts of intermixing between those known as Lamanites and those known as Nephites. Later when they broke apart again, its hard, if not impossible to determine who was what, genetically.

Emphasis added.

If you're going to take skin color figuratively, why not do the same with Lehi's Semitic origins--then your problem would be solved.

Alternatively, you could take the whole Book of Mormon as figurative or as an allegory--which, I theorize, is the Mormonism of fifty to a hundred years from now.

[_stemelbow]

Really, Stem? You're now going to try to claim that that the skin color curse was figurative? There's no textual (or doctrinal) justification for that at all.

I don't think its that far of a stretch to take it figurative, in one place. But that is not what I'm doing here. I said, "If we are to take it literal"...meaning I am assuming a literal skin color change and difference.

The Nephites could NOT have remained white if they had intermixed with any significant number of Natives. I assume you've seen what someone who is half white, half native American looks like, right? If there was intermixing, it didn't happen until later, when God started putting putting the stars back on the star-bellied Sneetches who'd had them removed previously.

Well, I hate to sound too difficult here, but how do we know the Natives in Lehi's time and had the same complexion as modern Native americans? Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn't, I don't know. do you?

I agree that the population growth early in the Book of Mormon is unrealistic, but that's not evidence of intermarriage, which is not mentioned (and would have been a no-no for Jews, anyway). It's evidence of a sloppy narrative.

If we are to take the text seriously, then we have to make assumptions which the text doesn't say in order to make sense of it.

[_stemelbow]

If you're going to take skin color figuratively, why not do the same with Lehi's Semitic origins--then your problem would be solved.

Alternatively, you could take the whole Book of Mormon as figurative or as an allegory--which, I theorize, is the Mormonism of fifty to a hundred years from now.

Interesting theory. I'm just trying to work with the text and determine possibilities. Now, I don't think its all that far of a stretch to take the skin color change/difference as figurative, but in this case I'm not arguing it is. I've assumed if it is a literal rather than figurative sense of skin color difference, then...

[_stemelbow]

This one kills me. When we look at Jacob, early in Nephite history, we learn that it was the Nephites, not Lamanites, that were out having multiple wives, concubines, etc. - the Lamanites were monogamous. So, if these other women were locals (can't imagine they were daughters, nieces, etc.), then the Nephites would have been the ones experiencing the change in skin color.

Yeah gradually, perhaps. but it seems to me you are taking it from the time of Jacob. It was in Nephi that skin color change was said to occur. If literal, then it had nothing to do with mixing, right? I mean how could have Laman's skin color changed? How could Laman's children's skin color changed?

Over many years I can see the relative, if literal skin color difference, changed as well. That is what was dark at one time could have been that which was light a couple of hundred years from that time.

I don't know, thinking it through, the more I think it is all just a figurative thing--this skin color change, but I won't argue that for the sake of the topic.

[_Buffalo]

Really, Stem? You're now going to try to claim that that the skin color curse was figurative? There's no textual (or doctrinal) justification for that at all.

I don't think its that far of a stretch to take it figurative, in one place. But that is not what I'm doing here. I said, "If we are to take it literal"...meaning I am assuming a literal skin color change and difference.

Fair enough. It's a huge stretch to take it figuratively, though. If you can take that figuratively, everything else is up for grabs.

The Nephites could NOT have remained white if they had intermixed with any significant number of Natives. I assume you've seen what someone who is half white, half native American looks like, right? If there was intermixing, it didn't happen until later, when God started putting putting the stars back on the star-bellied Sneetches who'd had them removed previously.

Well, I hate to sound too difficult here, but how do we know the Natives in Lehi's time and had the same complexion as modern Native americans? Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn't, I don't know. do you?

This is your response? That Native Americans in 600 BC, whose ancestors came over from Siberia (and who aren't mentioned or alluded to in the Book of Mormon) were white? Remember what I said about evidence and scaling of evidence?

In any case, here is how the Aztecs depicted themselves:

http://www.aztec-indians.com/images/azt ... y-life.jpg

And the Mayas:

http://lau.vsb.bc.ca/studentp/karlrick/ ... %20art.jpg

I agree that the population growth early in the Book of Mormon is unrealistic, but that's not evidence of intermarriage, which is not mentioned (and would have been a no-no for Jews, anyway). It's evidence of a sloppy narrative.

If we are to take the text seriously, then we have to make assumptions which the text doesn't say in order to make sense of it.

The question is does the text merit that sort of privileging?

[_stemelbow]

This is your response? That Native Americans in 600 BC, whose ancestors came over from Siberia (and who aren't mentioned or alluded to in the Book of Mormon) were white? Remember what I said about evidence and scaling of evidence?

No...that's not my response. I had questioned your assumption that Native Americans of today have the same type of complexion of natives in 600 BC. I mean they could have, and it wouldn't really affect my point. Im just curious if we can know.

[_Buffalo]

This is your response? That Native Americans in 600 BC, whose ancestors came over from Siberia (and who aren't mentioned or alluded to in the Book of Mormon) were white? Remember what I said about evidence and scaling of evidence?

No...that's not my response. I had questioned your assumption that Native Americans of today have the same type of complexion of natives in 600 BC. I mean they could have, and it wouldn't really affect my point. I'm just curious if we can know.

See the linked images I provided of ancient native art depicting themselves.

[_stemelbow]

See the linked images I provided of ancient native art depicting themselves.

The Aztec were far later so they are kinda out of the focus here.

The Maya link? Is it a pic from Preclassic Maya? Also, one of the figures is quite light compared to the others? Are you saying they depicted themselves as both white, light brown and darker brown? I'm not sure this pic actually helps.

[_Buffalo]

See the linked images I provided of ancient native art depicting themselves.

The Aztec were far later so they are kinda out of the focus here.

The Maya link? Is it a pic from Preclassic Maya? Also, one of the figures is quite light compared to the others? Are you saying they depicted themselves as both white, light brown and darker brown? I'm not sure this pic actually helps.

There are no white characters in that picture.

http://lau.vsb.bc.ca/studentp/karlrick/ ... %20art.jpg

I don't know the date, but are you saying that they would have evolved white skin or dark skin in a very short period of time? Don't you see what you're doing here? You're constructing a Joseph Smith as Prophet of the gaps - using very tiny gaps indeed. You have to now invent white Native Americans (non-Hebrew) out of whole cloth to explain a new problem you hadn't thought of before. And it happens over and over again - you have no evidence for these conjectures, but they provide a tiny gap wherein faith may be sheltered from the storm.

Google "maya art" and see how many white Mayas you see depicted.

[_stemelbow]

There are no white characters in that picture.

http://lau.vsb.bc.ca/studentp/karlrick/ ... %20art.jpg

What do you mean? What's the white, or see through, character on the right?

I don't know the date, but are you saying that they would have evolved white skin or dark skin in a very short period of time? Don't you see what you're doing here? You're constructing a Joseph Smith as Prophet of the gaps - using very tiny gaps indeed. You have to now invent white Native Americans (non-Hebrew) out of whole cloth to explain a new problem you hadn't thought of before. And it happens over and over again - you have no evidence for these conjectures, but they provide a tiny gap wherein faith may be sheltered from the storm.

Google "maya art" and see how many white Mayas you see depicted.

hundreds of years is not a short period of time. My son, who is biracial, black and white mix, is quite a lot darker than myself. It doesn't take long to arrive at a darker skin in that sense.