For anyone interested in the issue of race and the Book of Mormon, you need to consider what Marvin Perkins wrote on Feb. 7 about the new changes in the LDS footnotes to the Book of Mormon on race-related issues. You can read his message to friends at BlackLDS.org, “Changes To LDS Scripture Headings & Footnotes.” It’s also available at Times and Seasons: “Notable Race-Related Changes to Footnotes and Chapter Headings in the Standard Works” in a post by Marc Bohn.
Who’s Marvin Perkins? You can see him in a short CNN video of an interview. He’s a faithful black Mormon who helped found the Genesis Group and is part of the BlackLDS.org team, both LDS-related efforts to help African-American Latter-day Saints (and the rest of us). He’s also a music producer and DVD producer. He’s studied issues related to race and Mormonism in great depth and his insights are ones I think we should seriuosly consider.
Brother Perkins challenges some of the common assumptions we have made for years about some matters. I need to check out the work that is behind his conclusions regarding the more figurative nature of Book of Mormon language apparently dealing with racial distinctions between the Lamanites and Nephites. One subtlety he mentions, for example, is in Alma 55:1-15, where a group of Nephite soldiers, led by a Lamanite, Laman, are able to pass themselves off as Lamanites. Maybe there was an accent that required a real Lamanite spokeman, but the other men from the Nephites who go with Laman are not recognized as enemies by the Lamanites they are tricking. This is consistent with Brother Perkins’ arguments. I missed that in previous readings. Interesting.
There are some good perspectives in the debate over at the Times and Seasons post.
*****
One subtlety he mentions, for example, is in Alma 55:1-15, where a group of Nephite soldiers, led by a Lamanite, Laman, are able to pass themselves off as Lamanites
******
Jeff, I'd like to think there were no physical distinctions as much as anyone, so I just reread Alma 55:1-15 with great hope. However, I didn't see the clear evidence you assert. Rather, in Alma 55:8 we learn that this subterfuge was attempted "when it was evening". It seems reasonable to infer that the darkness aided in the concealment. Again, there may be other reasons for using cover of darkness rather than just to conceal different skin tone (differences in clothing, equipment, body art / piercings / tattoos, etc), but I think this passage provides limited support at best for the claimed hypothesis. Unfortunately.
I didn't get the point either, it was written that Laman went to talk to the Lamanites in the evening, and they received him, not the whole group. And he gave them wine, and they were all drunk…
This is…impressive, in a sense.
From the BlackLDS.org article: "We also understand that the skin being spoken of in reference to “black” or “white” is referring to the state of the spirit and not a literal or physical skin color change."
You can change the headings all you want to reflect your own interpretation, but there are some grand leaps of faith to not take verses such as these to mean something metaphorical:
"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."
"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites"
and "I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God" (2 Nephi 5:21, 3 Nephi 2:14-15, and Jacob 3:8 respectively).
Also, the article throws this into the mix: "by the time we get to 2 Nephi 26:33, we understand that Joseph Smith could have easily translated the word “black” as “wicked” meaning the spiritually dark, as well as the word “white” as “righteous”, referring to the state of the spiritually pure and clean. Well I say he could have easily translated it as such and he actually did. See Alma 11:44. You’d think you’re reading the exact same passage, but this time you see the wicked and the righteous, in place of black and white."
Notice the confirmation bias? Check out the two verses. It's obvious that 1) whoever wrote Alma 11:44 and 2 Nephi 26:33 weren't trying to say the exact same thing as the other–they were both going along the dichotomy of one thing and its opposite. 2) why does wicked and righteous (from Alma) pertain to black and white (respectively, and from Nephi)? For one, it's obvious the two verses aren't meant to interpret each other. But even if that's not obvious to you, then why can't wicked and righteous pertain to Jew and Gentile instead of black and white?
This is the shoddiest eisegesis I've seen since I was an evvie. There is nothing in that article that supports what they're trying to say, and there's nothing in the book of mormon that suggests the word "skin" is metaphorical. I've seen some approaches that try to wrap their heads around the blatant racism of these passages, but that article was by far the worst attempt at doing so.
"but there are some grand leaps of faith to not take verses such as these to mean something metaphorical: "
meant to leave out the "not" in this phrase.
Perkins is just offering the conclusions from his interpretative work–not the full reasoning–so it's premature to judge it as the shoddiest you've ever seen. Let's wait until we better understand where he is coming from.
Any interpretative work will be subject to gaps and other views – that's the nature of dealing with a text. Let's see where the meat is behind his approach.
It would be nice if the skin-related content was all figurative, but we must not be shocked if Nephites also struggled with the same racial and cultural biases. In fact, we know they did, as Zeniff and others show us.
I have no problem believing the Nephites used racial terms to disdain those who opposed them, especially if they intermingled with an indigenous group as the population figures in the Book of Mormon almost insist they must have. Makes sense that they were racist, just as almost all people were back then and many people still are.
However, I also have studied the usage of color in reference to people in ancient times, and it is not a stretch at all to believe that references to countenances, skin and images using color were figurative and not literal.
Either explanation works for me – especially since I do NOT believe the Lamanites suddenly turned significantly darker because of unrighteousness. I think the descriptions show the natural biases of the authors and the people of that time – and, again, the probable mixing of the Lamanites with another group of people.
I think you (Jeff) hit the nail on the head with your comment. We assume that because we live in a relatively non-racist society (there are still a lot of problems but we've come a long way) that other people from different times must think like we do about race. Many of us think that people who hold different views about race are automatically racist and if people are racist, they are either ignorant or just bad people.
In our culture today we make the assumption that racism is bad. Is it? What does it mean to be racist? Are there some forms of racism that are not bad? Are there times when it is good to be racist? These are not meant to be snarky questions. I'm also not arguing for racism, I'm simply pointing out that our biases and assumptions should be recognized and open to critique. Our biases make us view the world through a particular lens. We interpret the past through the present. Sometimes that's good but sometimes it is not. Our culture values egalitarianism almost to a fault. This can make it difficult to understand such key doctrines as what it means to be part of the house of Israel and thus "chosen." Chosen-ness in the gospel is not a pandering to racial vanities (I'm paraphrasing what I've read before), it is a call to service. It is the difference between being part of a covenant people and not being part of a covenant. Race matters in the Book of Mormon only as far as covenants matter (and thus righteousness).
Or, maybe race really wasn't even an issue in the Book of Mormon times (or in part of them, the Book of Mormon covers a lot of time – 1,000 years if we exclude the Jaredites). There wasn't a lot of space on the gold plates and it took a lot of effort to write on them. There wasn't space for in-depth expositions on matters of race so the labeling of white = good and black (dark) = bad that occurs sometimes in the Book of Mormon (although there are plenty of times when the roles are reversed) might just be that – labeling in order to get the point across quickly. It could be viewed as a stereotype. So, is it bad to stereotype? It depends. Stereotyping is a way to lump information together for quick processing. Sometimes it is bad but other times it is good or at least neutral. {continued in the next comment}.
{continued from other comment}. While I believe the black/white distinction is partially metaphorical, it is not completely. There is no clear evidence to say definitively either way. Not everything that looks like racism actually is racism. Biases are just as much in the eye of the beholder as they are in the beholded. We can't just look at something that people said or wrote and say, "That person was/is racist." Now, if a person repeatedly said or wrote or did things that were racist, then we'd have good evidence but a few lines from the Book of Mormon or writings or talks of church leaders can be considered only spotty evidence at best. Again, we also interpret through our own world-view, which might just not be the best or only valid way of thinking about the world.
God loves all of us; He is no respecter of persons. Those are things we read in the scriptures. We also read though, that He favors the righteous and loves those who honor and serve Him.
Was skin color an important distinction between the wicked and the righteous in the past? Yes, it certainly seems that way. Should it have been an issue? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know very much about the past, at least relative to all that has happened. What was written down and preserved is quite small compared to what wasn't written down, even about important events or people in history. That's one reason I'm really hesitant to look at church policies or scriptural passages and say, "Now, that's racist!" Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Even assuming a lot of this stuff was/is racist doesn't mean it was intentional (then again, some of it could be intentional). Is race important now? No, at least not as far as blessings of the gospel are concerned. That's all we really know now so that's what we have to work with and live with.
There's a problem with the argument that the BOM's "racial" references should be understood as metaphorical, namely, that their metaphorical status does not erase their racism. The basic value structure carries over from the literal to the metaphorical. (Were this not so, the metaphors would not even make sense.)
When I say, "My love is a rose," I use "a rose" as a metaphor for "my love." I use that word ("rose") rather than some other because I and my culture believe it has the positive connotations I want to associate with my love.
In the BOM, we can think of "white" as a metaphor for "pure," and "black" as a metaphor or "wicked," and thereby get around the idea that the Lamanites were literally a dark-skinned race, but we're still left with the fact that even the metaphorical association of black skin with wickedness is racist.
Far better, it seems to me, to simply admit that these ancient writers were racist. What's wrong with that? I would presume that lots of the ancient writers of the Bible were also racist (they were certainly, many of them, xenophobic!). It just came with the territory back then.
Jared….never mind.
So what's the position here? That the Nephites just wrote that down to reflect their racist views?
God didn't curse the Lamanites with black skin, the Nephites just said He did?
Regarding the Laman story in Alma 55: In an army of a few thousand men, if they were all white with a lone dark Lamanite in a battle against dark Lamanites, it seems like everyone would have known about it. Instead, ALma 55:4 tells us that Moroni "caused that a search should be made among his men, that perhaps he might find a man who was a descendant of Laman among them." What, they didn't all know this from 100 yards away in all their daylight activities?
If racial differences are referred to in the Book of Mormon, I don't have any trouble with them being due to Laman's group mingling more directly with local inhabitants or forming alliances with them more readily–that would also help explain the rapid population increase in Lamanite forces (while it's probably also necessary for Nephite population growth as well). Evidence from ancient figurines tells us there was a lot of variety in racial types in the ancient Americas, and that could have led to difference in the groups called "Nephites" and "Lamanites" without any divine tinkering of DNA being required.
I obviously don't know the answer. How much is figurative language, how much is a verbal expression of bias, and how much describes genuine racial differences? Prejudice even among writers of scripture is not beyond the pale.
"without any divine tinkering of DNA being required."
Are you saying the black skin may have come about through a natural process? Or that this may have been how the racial tensions were developed?
I'm going to go with that first one and point out: how many natural processes did they attribute to God in this book?
Openminded, the word "black" appears in the Book of Mormon exactly TWICE: 1) in reference to hair color; 2) in reference to God's grace extending to all ("black and white"). It is NEVER used in the Book of Mormon to denote skin color.
That's important, because it gets mis-stated all the time. The Book of Mormon uses the word "dark" 16 times – and ONLY three of them refer to skin tone. "Darkness" is used 80 times, and only ONE of them refers to skin tone.
Now look at three specific examples of how "darkness" is used in relation to the Lamanites (emphasis mine):
2 Nephi 30:6 – "And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their **scales of darkness** shall begin to fall from their EYES; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people."
fascinating wording
Alma 26:3 – "for our brethren, the Lamanites, were **IN darkness,** yea, even in the darkest abyss, but behold, how many of them are brought to behold the marvelous light of God!"
Alma 26:15 – "Yea, they were **encircled about with everlasting darkness** and destruction; but behold, he has brought them into his everlasting light,"
Without exception, "dark" and "darkness" refer to a condition, not evidence of a fundamental pigment alteration. In actual context, "dark" seems to mean perhaps nothing more than "more tan" – although it might be an actual change wrought by inter-marriage with a darker skinned people.
Mostly, however, "dark" and "darkness" appear to refer to the **perceived** condition of their souls.
The word dark is fairly irrelevant, consider how God is attributed to putting a "skin of blackness" on the Lamanites, in which a form of the word "black" is use to denote skin color (unless I'm mistaken and blackness is just reference to tanner skin). Either way, if the statement is taken literally, it's a racist remark.
If God didn't actually do this, then we have an instance of the author attributing something to God that didn't happen.
And so, claims made by this author that God did something are unreliable (if not consciously deceitful).
Pressed enter too early.
I'm sure you knew that last comment was me though.
Papa D (and everyone) — any discussion of the racial ideology of the LDS scriptures has to include not just the Book of Mormon but the other scriptures as well. On my reading, the "Egyptus" passages in the Pearl of Great Price seem exactly like Joseph Smith trying to give a scriptural foundation to the racist myth of Africans as bearing the "mark of Cain" preserved through the "curse of Ham." Not ancient stuff, but classic early 19th-century stuff. It doesn't come from God, it comes from Joseph. (Which is not criticize him overly, as he was like everyone else a man of his time.)
Openminded, again, God is NOT attributed to have put a "skin of blackness" on the Lamanites. That simply isn't in the Book of Mormon. That's a PofGP phrase, and it has nothing to do with the Lamanites.
Anonymous, I understand that a full discussion has to include the PofGP. It's important, however, not to cloud the issue with incorrect accusations about the Book of Mormon. That happens all the time, and it simply has to be addressed – so that the discussion can be accurate.
Fwiw, pretty much ALL ancient records include racist statements by our modern standards. I'm a history teacher by inclination, formal training and initial profession. I'm not aware of any ancient record that deals in some way directly with issues of differing races that is not racist to some degree.
That also is important to recognize and admit, since the existence of racist statements is used by many as "proof" that the PofGP is a modern writing – just as you did. I'm not about to claim it's irrelevant, since it's not, but that is a stretch that no serious historian of ancient records would make. If the PofGP DIDN'T have racist statements, THAT would be a red flag – seriously. I would expect it to have racist statements, given what it was claimed to be.
Again, that's not "proof" that it is, in fact, an ancient record (or an accurately transmitted account, whichever someone prefers). It's just not "proof" that it isn't – not even close.
More to the point of this post, Brother Perkins is 100% correct that "black" and "dark" are used in MANY ancient records, even when tied to skin, to mean something other than literal skin color – just as "hard" and "soft" (or "stiff-necked", for example)don't refer always to literal skin or heart consistency.
Papa D,
are you joking?
"And [the Lord] 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. — 2 Nephi 5:21"
Or are you wanting to make a point out of the difference between "cause" and "put"?
There's not much of a point to be made there; God is attributed for causing a "skin of blackness" to some upon the Lamanites. God made it happen. Are you saying He didn't, meaning you're saying the author erroneously attributed this happening to God?
I don't think Papa D is joking. He's merely arguing from an LDS-faith-based perspective. If one doesn't share that perspective, then there's precious little evidence that the Mormon scriptures are ancient and tons of evidence that they're not. But if you're faithful LDS, the ancientness of that scripture is a starting point, and all the evidence is interpreted accordingly.
I'm not a historian, just an English teacher, but personally (as I noted above), I think parts of the Pearl of Great Price are obviously restatements of the Hamite myth. The Book of Mormon seems just as obviously to be a part of a larger, early 19th century American discourse about Native American origins. It seems at that time everyone and their uncle were concocting fantasies about Native Americans rather like those of Joseph Smith. And not just Ethan Smith, either–read William Cullen Bryant's poem, "The Prairies," in which Bryant imagines a "good" ancient Indian civilization wiped out by a "bad," uncivilized group. This stuff was everywhere back then.
I understand the faith-based perspective, but Papa D tends to be one of the more reason-oriented posters.
And dear lord, Alma shouts 19th-century farm boy mediocracy to me, as do most of the Mormon scriptures.
But that's more of my own opinion. What's stated in the BoM itself is a lot less subjective when taken at face value.
Openminded, I just re-read my comment, and I mis-typed egregiously. I usually proofread and edit carefully before submitting my comments, but I didn't do that with the one in question. Every time I make that mistake, it bites me in the backside.
Seriously, my bad – I say as I smack myself in the forhead and shake my head in consternation.
What I meant to type is that there is nothing in the record that makes the "skin of blackness" reference mean it has to be literally a "black skin" – as opposed to a "darker skin" (skin of "blackness"), given the way "blackness" and "darkness" are used interchangably in ancient records.
I typed "skin of blackness" when I meant to type "black skin" – to draw a distinction between those two phrases. So, it shuld have read:
"God is NOT attributed to have put a 'black skin' on the Lamanites."
Seriously messed up there, and I sincerely do apologize. Thanks for pointing that out.
That really is my main point – that "blackness" and "black" can and do mean radically differently things in many ancient records. My secondary point is that I have no "problem" with ancient people being racist – even those accepted as prophets. Again, I said that I don't see it as "proof" of either conclusion – that it makes sense BOTH as an ancient reference for those who want to take it that way AND as a modern reference from Joseph's time – or even for a combination of both of those times, as I've heard some people argue.
What I was trying to say is that I think this is a case where people see what they believe, rather than believing what they see. I think decent "proof" of that is that I get attacked by BOTH sides for saying I don't accept that argument as proof of either side. It just fits BOTH arguments too well, imo, to be clear "proof" of either.
If "skin of blackness" is a only a figurative reference to spiritual darkness, then one might wonder why it would say that God caused that to come upon them. But we also read in the Bible about God hardening Pharaoh's heart, etc. Still uncertain. Perhaps it refers to a Nephite perception influenced by culture and lifestyle of the Lamanites rather than a genetic alteration, or to visible changes brought about by lifestyle, dress, cosmetics, etc. This was the purpose, it seems: to make the Nephites less interested in joining with the apostates. Not sure, really. Can we be?
I've ordered the DVDs Brother Perkins refers to at Blacksinthescriptures.com. Interested to learn more about his perspectives.
Maybe we should use Occam's Razor here and go with the possibility that these passages mean exactly what it looks like they mean, even if that doesn't comport all that well with current notions of political correctness.
It seems to me that what too often happens is that, when confronted with a bit of troubling scripture, instead of explaining it we try to explain it away so that it no longer conflicts with our cultural prejudices.
The best reading of the Book of Mormon remains the one that held sway from the Church's beginnings right on up to the widespread acceptance of new racial sensitivities in the 60s: today's Native Americans are the descendants of an apostate race of exiled Israelites, and, yes, their dark skin was put on them by God as a curse for their apostasy.
Obviously, if read as a literal history of ancient America, the BOM's racism makes a lot of people uncomfortable. But that racism *is* right there in the book. It is what it is. The Church needs to own up to that fact. It needs to find the courage either to accept the implications of reading the BOM as a history, or start thinking seriously about reading the book as an inspired effort by Joseph Smith to mythically Christianize America by inscribing it into the sacred story of Christendom.
Maybe this takes more courage than the leadership is able to muster right now. Or maybe it's just not a pressing issue for them. I can't speak for others, but I do know that it was a pressing issue for me (it caused me to reject the Church) and I don't think I'm alone.
Attempts to split the difference aren't going to work, because they will always be less compelling than the plain language of the text. They will remain in the same category of the gay activists' attempt to explain away Leviticus.
Anonymous,
The defintion of Occam's Razor doesn't say in this case what you are saying it does. Let me explain.
The defintion from dictionary.com is (my emphasis added):
"A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied **needlessly**."
"Needlessly" is the operative word, and that gets butchered by many people who cite Occam's Razor. It is an absolutely critical component of the definition, but it is left out in most cases I hear when Occam's Razor is cited.
Occam's Razor gets mis-applied all the time by people who think it means that whatever seems like the obvious answer to them probably is the right answer. That's not a useful definition at all, since it would mean that the best answer depends totally on the understanding of the individual – that someone who is totally ignorant of something can apply Occam's Razor to reinforce their ignorant assumptions. ("That seems like the simplest answer to me; therefore, it must be correct.") This makes the opinion of soemone who has never studied a topic every bit as valid and "probable" as the opinion of the world's most knowledgable person about that topic.
Occam's Razor cuts best when it's applied in the context of the time and discipline being addressed.
For example, if someone sees the BofM as a product of Joseph's time, they might view all other possible explanations as "needless" – and they would assume Occam's Razor says there is no difference between "skin of blackness" and "black skin". I get that. However, if someone sees the Book of Mormon as an ancient record, Occam's Razor actually says there absolutely IS a difference between "skin of blackness" and "black skin" – since "blackness" doesn't mean "black" in MANY ancient records. That absolutely ISN'T a "needless complication" – since it actually is core knowledge for those who have studied ancient records extensively. It's just assumed as a given, meaning Occam's Razor grants it as a given and doesn't discount it when used to analyze the most likely explanation.
Finally, I am a parser by nature, and I try hard to judge people based on what they actually say – as opposed to what I think their words mean. I fail at that sometimes, but I try really hard to do that – largely since I want my own words to be taken seriously and judged for what they actually say, not what someone else assumes they say. In that light, it really is important to me to analyze what actually is said in ancient or modern records – and the Book of Mormon doesn't say "black skin". Rather, it says, "skin of blackness".
There's a HUGE difference between those two phrases when parsed for how they are used in ancient records, so I try to grant that difference in how I interpret them – as a direct result of Occam's Razor, ironically.
I think that interpreting the BOM in the way Perkins is trying to do DOES require him to multiply "entities." But you're right to point out that the importance of figuring out what's "needless," which in turn depends on questions of faith.
If the question is basically that of the historicity of the BOM, which question obviously needs to be settled before we get much farther in our interpretive efforts, then the "needless" entity that needs to be created in order to follow along with Perkins et al is basically the Holy Spirit (needless to me, but not to the more orthodox believer).
If one person's explanation of the BOM is that it's a book like any other book, and another person's explanation concludes that the BOM is a holy scripture, which one needs to invoke the Holy Spirit?
Occam's Razor is a scientific and philosophical construct. I have no problem applying it to aspects of religious claims that fall squarely within those arenas (evolution vs. a young earth theory, for example, or an overall textual analysis), but, again, it needs to be used in light of ALL evidence available.
In the case of the Book of Mormon, for example, Occam's Razor can't be applied dispassionately to analyze the KJV language without also being applied to the chiasmus. It also can't be applied to claims made by adherents OR critics that actually aren't supported by the text itself, like the hemispheric postulation of BofM geography, which just isn't in the text – outside, perhaps, of the Book of Ether. (and, frankly, I include Joseph Smith, himself, in that category, since I think he didn't understand the text all that well in many cases – since I don't think he cared about it as a "proof text" fundamentally)
Occam's Razor says, in this case, to examine the book itself in its entirety and then, based on the best scholarship available and excluding the subjective assumptions (which, generally, are the "needless" aspects), see what is the simplest explanation. The central rub isn't strictly the Holy Ghost / Spirit, imo – since Occam's Razor simply can't factor ANY aspect that would be considered "miraculous" – or angelic – or divine intervention – or "spiritual" (like the Holy Ghost) – or even nothing more than highly irregular and truly unique.
That's why Occam's Razor doesn't deal directly with making final claims of accuracy. It only addresses the METHOD of striving to reach those final claims. That's why my own last statement isn't totally accurate. Occam's Razor really doesn't posit that the simplest answer usually is the correct answer; in its truest meaning, Occam's Razor simply says that those trying to find an answer shouldn't make that attempt more difficult than it has to be – that they not include "neddless" steps in the evaluation process or introduce "needless" things to be evaluated.
Finally, to that point, in most cases there is an absolute need for a justification for a change, alteration, refutation, etc. to be more complex than an accepted claim – since it must address the current claim and ALSO postulate a new one. It should be apparent, also, that most new claims are going to be seen as more complicated than the accepted claims – since the accepted claims often are the product of previous "comprehensive knowledge".
New research yields new understanding, which often makes it harder / more complex to explain. Occam's Razor doesn't refute the new discoveries because they are more complex in and of themselves; it actually validates them by allowing new research results and new knowledge to be considered as legitimate and NOT "needless".
Sorry for that lengthy "introduction" (*grin*), but, in the case of the way "blackness" and "black" and "darkness" and "skin" and other such words have been used in ancient records, I really do believe that the former interpretations accepted as "obvious" by Mormons and critics aren't obvious in light of new research and knowledge – and I have no problem whatsoever believing that former members (and even prophets and apostles) were blinded by their automatic assumptions and based their interpretations on incorrect and incomplete understandings and biasess.
I'm not saying Brother Perkins' conclusions are correct. I'm not saying Occam's Razor makes his view the most likely. I just am saying I think Occam's Razor actually opens up different possibilities than the previous assumptions, since "the prophets and apostles just had to have been right" is a "needless" entity – since I don't believe in infallible prophets.
I appreciate any scholarship that attempts to shed new light on a topic like this, and I think, based on what I've read, at the very least, Brother Perkins makes some very valid points about the previous general assumptions.
FWIW, I've never understood why anyone finds BOM chiasmus to be evidence of ancient composition. Pretty much everyone who was literate in Smith's day was steeped in the language and rhythms of the KJV, and thus might naturally, even unconsciously, produce a chiasmus now and then. And anyway, I've found that to produce a chiasmus is just not that hard. It's so easy that a chiasmus can be produced on the fly, as I've just done.
I've
produce
chiasmus
not that hard
—–
easy
chiasmus
produced
I've
😉