Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?

[_consiglieri]

But it's not "just that one" reference, so why do you continue to theorize how a square peg could fit in a round hole, if it were only round, when it's not round?

I continue to theorize because I think the evidence is not all one way.

If we have one instance where the whiteness of skin is an apparent metaphor, does that not open the door to subsequent usages also being metaphoric?

The first thing I have to note is that the Book of Mormon is not racist to the degree that it states that all are acceptable unto God, whether white or black, male or female.

In other places, the Book of Mormon says that the Lamanites are more righteous than the Nephites.

From that point, I have to consider what it says about skin color. While there are some places where the usage looks symbolic, there are other places where an actual color shift seems indicated.

In a book filled with remarkable and unlikely miracles, it is noteworthy that the Book of Mormon nowhere to my knowledge says that a dark skinned Lamanite immediately turns white upon conversion.

Instead, it seems be a process that takes generations to complete. Why is that, I wonder, unless it is something meant to be taken (at least in these usages) as genetic in some sense.

In other words, in the passages that talk about a color shift over generations, it doesn't seem to be associated with the righteousness of the individual, but perhaps with something else.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

Actually if I'm not mistaken the printers manuscript actually contains 'white and delightsome' as does the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith did change white to 'pure' in one edition — the 1840 edition — but after his death it was changed back later by the LDS Church leadership. I don't know exactly when that was...or how long it was until the 1981 changes.

See manuscript here: http://www.mormonwiki.org/File:Pmss_whi ... people.JPG

Anyone else know when it was changed back to "white?"

My bad. You are right that the 1830 Book of Mormon had "white and delightsome." This was changed to "pure and delightsome" in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon, presumably by Joseph Smith.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... %22pure%22

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, badseed.

Did I mention I was in the play The Bad Seed at my high school back in 1977? I ended up marrying the girl who played the lead (the mother, not the daughter). I played her dad, the one who died suddenly (and tragically, I might add) off stage of a heart attack.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Themis]

If we have one instance where the whiteness of skin is an apparent metaphor, does that not open the door to subsequent usages also being metaphoric?

That depends on the text. In this case not really. Just because we can use it metaphorically does not mean every thing else should be seen this way as well.

The first thing I have to note is that the Book of Mormon is not racist to the degree that it states that all are acceptable unto God, whether white or black, male or female.

The Book of Mormon is not very consistent.

From that point, I have to consider what it says about skin color. While there are some places where the usage looks symbolic, there are other places where an actual color shift seems indicated.

It is to specific about it, and the only reason to read it metaphorically is apologetic need.

Lets face it, the Book of Mormon fits a 19th century world, not an ancient one. If we look at the whole picture of anachronisms, Book of Abraham, etc the truth claims of the church become silly and wrong.

[_thews]

But it's not "just that one" reference, so why do you continue to theorize how a square peg could fit in a round hole, if it were only round, when it's not round?

I continue to theorize because I think the evidence is not all one way.

That's because you're blinded by ignorance. In referencing all the quotes I've showed you that directly reference skin color, your KoolAid spins what you want to be true while ignoring all the contrary evidence that proves your argument false... your motive impedes rational logic while selectively choosing one snippet of distortion you throw out to distort... it's your intent to deceive.

If we have one instance where the whiteness of skin is an apparent metaphor, does that not open the door to subsequent usages also being metaphoric?

No. Skin color is a direct reference in other evidence... you're being intellectually dishonest and it's intentional.

The first thing I have to note is that the Book of Mormon is not racist to the degree that it states that all are acceptable unto God, whether white or black, male or female.

Does lying for the Lord make you feel better? Does distorting fact intentionally make you feel better knowing that you've deceived those who wish you feed them lies to appease their itching ears? You're nothing more than an outright liar.

http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm

2 Nephi 5: 21

'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.'

In other places, the Book of Mormon says that the Lamanites are more righteous than the Nephites.

Your BS knows no boundaries... you're a liar from the word go.

From that point, I have to consider what it says about skin color. While there are some places where the usage looks symbolic, there are other places where an actual color shift seems indicated.

What part of calling BS don't you understand? Rationalize this:

'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.'

In a book filled with remarkable and unlikely miracles, it is noteworthy that the Book of Mormon nowhere to my knowledge says that a dark skinned Lamanite immediately turns white upon conversion.

Liar... you are a teacher to itching ears... fake, poser, liar.

Instead, it seems be a process that takes generations to complete. Why is that, I wonder, unless it is something meant to be taken (at least in these usages) as genetic in some sense.

When does the BS stop? When can you acknowledge the historical record? are you proud of the fact you deceive people? Seriously... are you proud of this deception?

In other words, in the passages that talk about a color shift over generations, it doesn't seem to be associated with the righteousness of the individual, but perhaps with something else.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You are an outright fraud and a liar. Know this consiglieri... when you stand before your maker you will have to acknowledge what you knew to be true. You are lying... intentionally distorting truth. Are you proud of this? Are the people you persuaded to believe you based on lies better off? Do you know what a false witness is? Sleep well... you have probably deceived many based on your false witness... liar.

[_Mary]

Thews, the Book of Mormon like the Bible gives contradictory information. That's what you get when men attempt to interpret and outline the will of God. Your portrayal of Consiglieri is unwarranted, unfair and shameful.

[_Themis]

Thews, the Book of Mormon like the Bible gives contradictory information. That's what you get when men attempt to interpret and outline the will of God. Your portrayal of Consiglieri is unwarranted, unfair and shameful.

I agree that thews goes way over board. Consig is one of my favorite posters. He is fair and well thought out. I would say that we need to remember that words light light dark, black, white, and even skin color can be used in many ways, and have different meanings. This is why context is important, and why the text in 2 Nephi loses meaning when we try to create a different meaning to skin of blackness to make them less enticing.

[_consiglieri]

Thews has gotten me to thinking about another aspect where the Book of Mormon gives conflicting views, and this is related to the Jews. Yes, the Jew view.

Nephi is very hard on the Jews , saying their works were "works of darkness." (2 Nephi 25:2) (Whoops! There's that word, "darkness," again. Hello darkness, my old friend.)

Taken by itself, this sounds anti-semitic.

Other comments by Nephi about the Jews soften the edges. He stands up for the Jews against Gentiles who will proclaim the Bible is the only word of God and forget from whom it came: "And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?" (2 Nephi 29:4)

In another place, Nephi gives the Jews kudos for their superior understanding of the scriptures: "And I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them." (2 Nephi 25:5)

We can understand why Nephi would have a beef with the Jews at Jerusalem in his day who tried to kill his dad and were the cause (to his mind) of Jerusalem being destroyed and his family having to take to their heels and leave their home.

But Nephi's reverence for the Jews nevertheless comes out in other places, indicating he is conflicted on the issue.

This is what I mean by trying to understand the Book of Mormon as a whole rather than trying to use certain proof-texts to advance a particular position.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Themis]

This is what I mean by trying to understand the Book of Mormon as a whole rather than trying to use certain proof-texts to advance a particular position.

When we do, the Book of Mormon does not stand up. It all still fits a 19th century production, especially if we look at anachronisms and such.

[_Mary]

This is what I mean by trying to understand the Book of Mormon as a whole rather than trying to use certain proof-texts to advance a particular position.

When we do, the Book of Mormon does not stand up. It all still fits a 19th century production, especially if we look at anachronisms and such.

The best apologetic argument I have seen for this, is the idea that Joseph whilst translating was still putting his own interpretation on things according to his own worldview, the scribes may have added to that - Oliver Cowdery etc.

It would mean a slight step back from the view that the Book of Mormon is the 'most perfect' of any book. It is deeply flawed in many ways I think, as is the Bible.

Not saying that is my view, as I think it is a 19th century creation, and not historical, but even with that it still has value for what it is, an insight into the 19th Century mind.

[_Drifting]

The best apologetic argument I have seen for this, is the idea that Joseph whilst translating was still putting his own interpretation on things according to his own worldview, the scribes may have added to that - Oliver Cowdery etc.

It would mean a slight step back from the view that the Book of Mormon is the 'most perfect' of any book. It is deeply flawed in many ways I think, as is the Bible.

Not saying that is my view, as I think it is a 19th century creation, and not historical, but even with that it still has value for what it is, an insight into the 19th Century mind.

Sadly the scribes at the time described a tight method of translation where each single word was given in the rock and it wouldn't disappear until correctly wrote down. No room in that for Joseph's contribution.