That particular comment collides in an instructive way with the specific passage that triggered Sproat's essay: Alma 3:5-6 is comprised of two sentences, in each of which the word skin(s) appears. Commentaries handle the two sentences in one of three ways: (1) by treating both of them independently, as if two very different things were at issue; (2) by commenting on only the second of the two sentences, remaining silent about the first; or (3) by failing to comment on either sentence.3 All three of these approaches miss the fact that, when read in context, the use of skins in the second sentence appears to form part of a historical explanation of the use of skin in the first sentence. Here is the text: "Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth. 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." (Alma 3:5-6)4 "According to a reading I will defend in the course of this article, this passage suggests the possibility that 'the skins of the Lamanites' are to be understood as articles of clothing, the notable girdle of skin that these particular Lamanites wear to cover their nakedness. Significantly, these are the only two references to skins in Alma 3, which contains the Book of Mormon's most thorough explanation of the Lamanite curse and the curse's relationship to skins. Thus situated, Alma 3:5-6 might serve as an interpretive Rosetta stone. If both instances of skins in Alma 3:5-6 refer to clothing, then the other five references to various-colored or cursed skins in the Book of Mormon could also refer to clothing and not-as traditionally assumed-to human flesh pigmentation." Notice the knee-jerk argument I quoted earlier, that 'skin means skin' and the appeal to 'obviousness', the charge of 'wresting the scriptures' and no evidence that the one who made the objection had read or considered the scriptural evidence cited in Sproat's essay. Notably in Alma 3:5-6, that the 'skin girded about their loins' contradicts the objection that 'skin means skin', that is the word 'skin' always refers to human epidermis. Skins can also be garments. Indeed, Sproat's essay could have been strengthened by considering other passages on garments in the Book of Mormon that are direct equivalents to various skin passages. 2 Nephi 8:14 'clothed with purity, even with the robe of righteousness' Jacob speaking as a consecrated High Priest on the Day of Atonement Jacob 1:19 'laboring' their blood might come upon our garments and we would not be found spotless Jacob 3:5, 'cursing which has come upon their skins' Jacob3:8-9 their skins shall be whiter than yours Try Mosiah 3:28, rid my garments of your blood (temple and high priest on day of atonement context) Alma 5:21-24, garments stained with blood and all manner of filthiness contrasted with prophets whose garments are cleansed, and are spotless, pure and white Alma 7:25, garments spotless in the kingdom of heaven Alma 13:11-12, garments washed white through the blood of the Lamb? garments made white, being pure and spotless?
I will be interested to see whether Brooks discusses this essay on the long cultural history of interpretations of Noah's Curse, by Stirling Adams. As I recall, he did a post here on the same topic. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3686&context=byusq Or this by Ethan Sproat on 'Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon' https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1572&context=jbms Regarding Susan's comments on expectations for LDS leaders, Thomas Kuhn points out that in science 'anomally emerges against a background of expectation.' And recovery literature makes the point that 'expectations are premeditated resentments.' Over the years, whenever I run across something I did not expect, I've adopted the fruitful practice of asking 'What should I expect?' That is, I check my own eye for beams, and not surprisingly, since I lack omniscience and infallible judgement as a starting point, I usually find a beam or two, incorrect expectations, and that the process of removing them enables me to see more clearly. Just as Jesus defines what we ought to call his doctrine in a very narrow and specific way, warning of consequences for doing otherwise, (see 3 Nephi 11:31-40) so I find that D&C 1 sets my expectations of LDS leaders in a profoundly blunt and realistic way: 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 binstructed; 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. If that is a correct and realistic expectation, that I am not disappointed but not shaken when I see LDS prophets behaving with same blend of humanity and occasional inspiration that I see in the Bible, rather than as divine sock puppets, whose agency and personality has been surgically removed to prevent them embarressing me and making me ashamed to be associated with them by their behaving as as Acts 14:15 states, that, 'We are men of like passions with you' and 1 John 8 that 'If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.' Lorenzon Snow famously commented that he personally saw Joseph Smith do things of which he did not approve, but rather than disillusion him, that gave him hope, because he knew his own weakness.
I look forward to reading the essays again in print form. Though personally, I am more interested in understanding the Book of Mormon from the point of view of the original authors, than to experience what the first readers did. Jesus took pains to point out that the same seeds (words) can produce a vastly different harvest, depending on soil, nurture, and time. I get a lot more from the text after another 46 years of preparation and exploration than I did from my first solo read through. All I have learned to see comes with an accompanying clamor that there is more to see yet. So I pay attention both to close readers (such as Hardy, Spencer, Goff, Austin, and so on) and to careful contextualizers (Nibley, Peterson, Welch, Tvedtnes, Gardner, Poulson, and so on). It was a comment in a Feb 2016 discussion of one of Micheal’s essay’s here that prodded me to read Ethan Sproat’s “Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon” in JBMS in 2015. Rather than consider the content, one thread reader dismissed even the idea that there was anything to learn: “I’ve seen arguments by those who try to explain that “skin” in the Book of Mormon really means a “spiritual skin,” something metaphorical. But that is what we might call wresting the scriptures. It’s an attempt to take the inherent racist attitudes that are plain in the book and twist them to something more politically correct. It’s very obvious that “skin” in the Book of Mormon means “skin.” Just as “north” means “north,” not some other direction.”