The Upside Down of Wikipedia

Sex.

A very interesting topic.

I am interested in the science of sex - but the *history* of sex is truly an endless well of fascination to me.

How did birth control work in Ancient Egypt? What was the typical frequency of intercourse between married people in Victorian England? What is the statistical likelihood that my Czech Catholic ancestors were virgins when they married? Is it true that female orgasm is a 20th century discovery (#pffffffft)? What were medieval sexual norms? What did x civilization believe about how the science of conception worked? Most especially: *how do we know this?*

How do you learn about this?

Do you go to the library and find books? Well, most local libraries have a pretty limited selection. This is the kind of book that I would never order on interlibrary loan because of the human interaction with the librarian that would have to take place. I talk. How could I ever talk with anyone besides my spouse about "The History of Scientific Discoveries about Human Sexuality"? I would  not be capable of even meeting the librarian's eye. So that's out.

Do you go online to find books? One option I've tried: use Amazon as a search engine. But the next question is important: how do I know if my search is giving me satisfactory results? The way I decide which items to purchase from Amazon is usually by reading reviews - between the lines. I usually only read the 3-4 star reviews because I don't trust either the flattering praise or disgruntled insults. And how many times have I bought an item - especially books! - in spite of negative reviews?

So, sex. An interesting topic very interwined with emotions and spirituality. I have discovered that as curious about the sex lives of other people as I may be, I can't tolerate learning about the specific sexuality - specific sexual thoughts, sexual feelings, sexual acts, obviously sexual images (!!) - of other specific people. It is damaging to my spirit to do so. I avoid such media. Even conversations with groups of my peers that turn to subjects like, "what kind of birth control do you use?" make me personally bite my lip until it bleeds, or else I just walk away. I can't ever un-know or un-remember the details. I can't un-imagine what they tell me. I see my friends' husbands in church the next day and have to try very hard to fill my thoughts with other thoughts and mental images than what their wives described.

Maybe my imagination is too vivid.

Anyway, what I really want to know about sex is *not* specific to individual people. Since Amazon reviews are created by humans who very often share too much about their own personal feelings and experiences, they are not a tolerable source of information (for me) about deciding which books are a good source about sex. #learnedthisthehardway

Typically, the most satisfying print sources I've found for the history of sex I stumbled upon completely by accident as part of a broader research quest about the history of x. I'll never forget the book I read about what the inside of a Victorian English home looked like. The chapter about bedrooms was super interesting because it had all kinds of concrete evidence for why human sexuality at that time in that place probably involved/looked like/was like x. I didn't check the book out with the intent to learn about that. It was the most interesting thing of all, second only to reading about the reality of air pollution in their world and the etymology of "spring cleaning" (and that only because it was less speculation and more believable.)

I once checked out a book that was a collection of mostly extremely dry, snooty, self-congratulatory, pedantic, incomprehensible scholarly essays about the history of the Czech lands. One of them was totally different from all the others. It was an analysis of a legal court case from Bohemia of the 1400's, complete with a translation of the transcription of the original document. The case itself was about a child rape by a nobleman. It was horribly sad to read about. He got in big trouble. It also taught me more about views on sexuality in that time and that place than any other thing I have ever read before or since.

Too bad 95% of books about Czech history are not written in English.

[This is why I am learning Czech, by the way. It's the only solution to that problem.]

In summary: books as a source for learning what I want to know about sex are difficult (though not utterly impossible) to find and they're limited to the library and online booksellers, with the most success coming from accidentally stumbling on snippets while reading about something more generally related.

It's a bad idea to turn to Google for topics about sex. Here's why:
- I don't trust that the search results will be based on relevance more than popularity
- porn is popular
- porn is a plague to be avoided at all costs, including limiting myself from learning what I'm curious about
- I don't want to be targeted with ads about sex

Why not search for sex on Wikipedia?

I have done so in the past, for example about birth control in Ancient Egypt or Victorian views on Female Sexuality.

I recognized that it was a bad source for this topic for these reasons:
- the articles I read were poorly written, as they often are. Writing clear, grammatically correct sentences that make sense and are on the reader's level - not too much over it, not too much under it - this is a learned skill. When an article is piecemeal, written by volunteers over time who only contributed small sections and did not craft the overall piece, they almost inevitably end up like this. This is the reality of what Wikipedia looks like today for most articles.
- the articles I read were not believable. The sources they chose were old. The information itself had me ask, "how do you know that?"
- and mostly: I immediately perceived a glaring male bias. I could not imagine that a woman would write about this topic in the callous, ignorant way that it was written. You'll have to just take my word for it, I guess, because I don't remember exactly what page it was or what was said (and it's probably not the same today - this must have been 6+ years ago). I remember I was in Katy. I remember what room I was in when I was reading about this on my phone. I vividly remember thinking, "this is a load of crap!" and deciding that I was never again going to search for answers to my questions about sex on Wikipedia.

Anyway, what I want to learn is original research, and Wikipedia is a poor source for that. It's a place for people to cite other people's research. There's danger in citing your own - you are biased. Wikipedia strives for neutrality.

I've used Wikipedia since...forever. I obviously know the tone that it strives for (and often misses). I know that it is not meant as a source for deep exploration of topics - it's more like the diving board into the pool of deeper research. It's a starting point, a source of sources. Everything should be taken with a bucket of salt. I have actually looked at the references to books and articles cited on Wikipedia and sought them out directly. Some now adorn bookshelves in my house somewhere.

What shocked me was not to learn that this is how Wikipedia works; I've always known this. It was, however, shocking to really see it and experience it first-hand.

My experience:

Decide to edit x topic because I know about it.
I don't actually remember how I know what I know. Therefore: failure to cite my sources correctly. It just seemed obvious.
My edits removed because they lacked citations or looked "spammy."
Intense, overwhelming anger. Livid.
Find sources to "prove" what I already know.
Re-add my edits.
Recognize I am probably not adding sources correctly and so they will be thrown out.
Anger. My own knowledge is meaningless here unless it was published in a peer-reviewed journal of medicine.
Anger. I never will be published there.
Anger. How many people who are published there have breastfed five infants? How many have experienced tandem breastfeeding? How many have been pregnant while breastfeeding? Hypothesis: a statistically insignificant number.
Anger. Worries that this is not a safe space for me as a woman.
Strange nightmares. You probably laugh that the white Wikipedia screenwith lots of blue links could possibly be the stuff of nightmares. But for the past several nights I have woken up sweating, my voice calling out for help, the image of editing something abstract in my mind, the feeling of intense terror overwhelming my emotions. It persists after the dream itself fades.

Yeah, it's the vivid imagination problem again.

I have not and probably will not muster up the courage to check what happened to those edits I made, at least not for a very, very long time.

Becoming a Wikipedia editor is like walking through an alternative universe. Every Wikipedia page has a meta-discussion going on. I had only ever looked at it one single time in my life previously, in 2015, to make a very tiny comment about my own theory on something. It was an original theory from my original research, so it didn't really belong on the front end. But I thought it was worthy enough to belong on the back end. It was difficult for me to discover how to make that tiny comment. I didn't continue to pursue exploring that world.

That is the entire world of Wikipedia editing.

It's like this: every Wikipedia page is a doorway. You can open the doorway in the normal way and walk through it to a world of knowledge and information. It's vibrant, lush, colorful, wonderful! It might need a little bit of gardening, to weed the superfluous commas and ytpos, but it's really not a scary place.

OR...

You can flip the doorway and then open it backwards and enter a dystopian world of people (mostly men) fighting about what is and isn't worthy of belonging on the other side. If this were Stranger Things, it would be the Upside Down. This place is mostly black and white and so many shades of gray - and tracks made by people so confident and cocky and sure that they know everything about x on the other side, and that their view is the only one that matters or is valid. The landscape is nasty courier font and you're always tripping over HTML tags. If you deign to mention that one reason you know x is from your own 10k+ hours of life experience with x, you're discredited as trying to contribute "original research." It feels like the only people who win this game are the ones who read the most *volume.*

But as was previously examined, reading isn't always the way to learn about the world. It's certainly no substitute to learning about the actual experience of the act of sex itself!

It wasn't new knowledge for me. It was a very poignantly new feeling, though. It was like going from mild hesitation and distrust in everything I read on Wikipedia to major apprehension and disbelief in everything written everywhere about anything at any time by anyone. Faith in knowledge of humanity, crumbling and blowing away in the wind.

Of course that'd be nightmarish to someone who literally idealizes the printed word and longs more than almost anything else to contribute to the great libraries of the world's knowledge.

But that's just feelings for you. Dramatic. Overstated. Full of senseless worries. The actual mission of Wikipedia is wonderful. The flaws in execution are compelling reasons for me to contribute *more*, not run away from it entirely (though I have noticed that my Wikipedia usage since this experience has significantly decreased. I have purposefully temporarily avoided clicking on search results that would take me there - and it's been about 15x in the last three days).

I only wish that I had been smart enough to have my first real experience with Wikipedia editing be for me to walk through an obscure door on Czech Wikipedia into a teeny tiny world, gather some baskets of information there, walk back down the hall, open a wholly new door in English Wikipedia, and there plant the seeds from my basket. I should have realized that a topic like breastfeeding would have a particularly nasty Upside Down.

It's a weird world when I can learn more about breastfeeding by sitting in a quiet place with a baby on my lap than by perusing the towering libraries of all the world's information.

But I think the problem is not that the information about breastfeeding (or sex) doesn't exist in those libraries. The problem is being able to find it.

How much of an understanding of the premortal existence did Lehi have? 2 Nephi 2:16

How much of an understanding of the premortal existence did Lehi have? 2 Nephi 2:16

Lehi is talking to his children before he dies. He is preaching about the purpose of life and the plan of salvation. He wants his children to understand that agency was a necessary aspect of the plan.

Lehi testifies that God created all things in the heaven and the earth. He testifies that opposition had to exist, good and evil had to exist. He testifies that mankind had to be given the option to choose between good and evil. This is called agency and it is a foundational doctrine of the restored Church on the earth today.

In this verse, Lehi says: "Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other."

It occurred to me as I read this verse that Lehi knew an awful lot about the plan of salvation. Where did he gain this knowledge?

This verse reminded me of the temple endowment ceremony - well, at least, the previous version of the endowment ceremony. I heard that around the first of January the ceremony was changed slightly. It will be so interesting to go to the temple and learn how, but it is difficult to arrange with sick children, snowstorms, and unreliable vehicles.

Lehi could have gained his knowledge from the brass plates which Nephi took from Laban. We already know that there are Old Testament prophets like Zenos and Zenock whose original prophecies have been lost to time; why not other writings by other ancient prophets that were also lost, but which also testified of the premortal existence and the council in heaven?

One of the most interesting books of scripture that we have is the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price. This is a translation of a book that used to be part of the Old Testament writings of Moses. It reads extremely plainly about the plan of salvation, for example in Moses 4. The entire book of Moses reminds me of the temple endowment ceremony as well. If you are interested in learning about Latter-day Saint temple rituals, I'm sure you could just go to YouTube or some place like Wikipedia or something to find the entire text and perhaps the old (outdated) video, but please do not do that. It is highly offensive and disrespectful and would cause me great distress and feelings of sadness. Instead, just read the book of Moses. It's not long and it's very interesting, especially when compared to the first part of Genesis.

Answer:
I don't know, but if I study more, I might find out.

I can carefully study what Lehi understood and compare it to the writings of the Old Testament and the writings of the Pearl of Great Price, so that perhaps I can determine whether or not the Brass Plates also contained the lost book of Moses or other lost scripture that we don't have in the Old Testament that have information about the premortal existence.

By the way, some churches have books of scripture which are not in our canon, for example the book of the Maccabees which is apparently "a historical document of the highest importance." Certainly this and other apocryphal writings are good deal more useful to read than like, the Song of Solomon #OldTestamentporn.

I'm personally totally okay with the idea that scriptures, like any other physical, human-made writing, is copied, disseminated, misinterpreted, concealed, contaminated by any other number of human-created imperfections - and sometimes even lost or destroyed. I also believe that ancient scripture can be discovered, revealed, retranslated, and restored.

I understand that this is not a belief that I share with all Christians, and that is also okay.

I personally don't worship the Bible itself. I worship the God of the Bible. As I am amazed to continually discover through highlighting the words in both the Old and New Testaments (this week I was reading some really, um, pleasant chapters in Deuteronomy as well as Matthew 1 and Luke 1), that is Jesus Christ, his Father, and the Holy Ghost. I really love them.

What is the "skin of blackness" that came upon the Lamanites? 2 Nephi 5:21

What is the "skin of blackness" that came upon the Lamanites? 2 Nephi 5:21

Nephi's brothers stop listening to and obeying the commandments. The promise is that if they did so, they would be "cut off from the presence of the Lord" (see 2 Nephi 5:20, as one of several dozen places that this type of thing is mentioned about Laman and Lemuel specifically, I guess. I could look that up sometime. But not now).

What happens next is that the Lord caused "the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity...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."

Holy Offensive Racism Batman!

Here's how Ahmad Corbitt explains this phrase:

Church members and others should beware, as I warned the couple who came to talk with me, of a tactic some use to try to discredit the Book of Mormon. They cherry-pick isolated Book of Mormon references that, out of context, sound negative, even offensive, to us today. One example is the ancient description of Laman’s people as having “a skin of blackness” so “that they might not be enticing” to the Nephites. Admittedly, these expressions collide with current sensibilities and speech. But they should not distract readers from the grand, eternal perspectives and purposes I’m convinced the Lord intended for the Book of Mormon. Rather, they should serve as reminders of these perspectives and purposes. Readers of this scriptural record should keep in mind that these words reflect the cultural perceptions and customs of ancient people in response to an unusual color change in their family.

Perhaps the Lamanites, who usually avoided the Nephites except to do battle against them, saw the color difference between the two peoples in completely opposite terms. Who knows? What’s important is that the early Nephite writers’ reactions to the darkness of the Lamanites’ skin is of no significance to us in our day. Obviously, Church leaders do not hold up the Book of Mormon as an authority on the science of racial origins or as a standard for human attractiveness. I believe that like Paul’s statements about women who wore braided hair or spoke in church, the significance of Nephite descriptions of the Lamanites’ skin is merely historical, not doctrinal.

While these descriptions of the Lamanites’ skin color change are not doctrinally significant in my view, they do add important context. They highlight cultural challenges that existed for Book of Mormon peoples, foreshadowing challenges that humanity faces today. It is impressive that such references can ultimately enable the book to communicate such a timely, urgent, and global message of unity and harmony across race and ethnicity. Thus, the Lord’s overarching message of peace eclipses the cultural ethnocentricities of the book’s ancient writers and modern-day readers. For me, it is inspiring to read the Book of Mormon and to be reminded, by the references to skin color, that a loving Heavenly Father is using the book to guide the human family to greater unity and peace.

 TLDR: Nephites were probably racists.

Corbitt then goes further to say that the inclusion of this phrase is actually evidence that Joseph Smith was called of God.

What does the Book of Mormon’s message of universal, multiracial unity in Christ say about Joseph Smith and his mission? Again, I believe the Lord foreknew advances that would transform the modern world into a global community. Consequently, He knew that we would have unprecedented opportunities for multiracial and multiethnic interrelations throughout the world.

In a display of divine irony, the Lord brought forth this racially unifying book in a land that was racially divided at the time, plagued with the slavery of Africans and the diaspora and maltreatment of Native Americans. Yet He also brought it forth in a land endowed with religious freedom and constitutional self-government. In His providence, He has, over time, raised up and inspired His children who enjoy these freedoms to facilitate ways for others to receive them, both within the United States and throughout the world, in order that His unifying gospel might be enjoyed by all.

It is miraculous that a book published in 19th-century America could include a record of a “fair”-skinned nation and a nation with a “skin of blackness” reaching pure equality and unity. That it could rise in ever-increasing relevance to become, in my view, the most racially unifying book of scripture in the world compels both mind and soul to recognize the hand of God in its emergence “out of obscurity, and out of darkness.”

These attributes of the Book of Mormon strengthen my conviction that Joseph Smith, a young man who lacked formal education, translated this volume of scripture by the power of God. Miraculously, he did so in approximately 55 to 65 working days. All of this background speaks resoundingly to the reasoned and reasonable witness of millions throughout the world that Joseph Smith Jr. was a true prophet of God. Ultimately, the Book of Mormon’s unifying power confirms the words of Moroni that the book had been prepared to testify “that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.”

TLDR: The Book of Mormon teaches that salvation is available to all races when we repent. This idea was not popular during the 1830's in the United States, therefore: Joseph Smith got this idea from God.

Here are some of my ideas for what the "skin of blackness" could be:

• Genetic: the children of Laman and Lemuel (etc.) started mixing with the indigenous people of America who had darker skins. (I guess this is the consensus, mainstream view of most people I know)
• Clothing: perhaps there was some kind of marked clothing style that these people donned. Remember, the Nephites continued to live the Mosaic law for the next 500+ years until the coming of Jesus Christ - wasn't it against the commandments to like, touch certain animals like wild pigs and stuff?
• Biological: On that same note, perhaps something in the habits (so, biological but not through genetic inheritance) of the Lamanites could change the color of their skin. Something in their diet? Perhaps they were much more tan from working outside more, from uncovering their skin to the sun more? 
• Symbolic: Maybe this "skin of blackness" is not literal at all; maybe it is just a phrase meaning that the people became really ugly and undesirable for the Nephites to marry and associate with. 
• Lost in translation : Maybe something else.

Answer:
I'm not sure. I would have to research this more, but right now, I feel satisfied with accepting that the Nephites themselves probably did have racist aspects of their culture, so if they wrote some racist phrases, I could find it within myself to excuse Nephi "because of the weakness which is in [him]" as he specifically asked us to do.

I also feel satisfied knowing that there are extremely intelligent people like the scholar Hugh Nibley (this guy is my hero) who believed that this "skin" did not literally refer to race at all, but something else.

It would be nice to find out the answer to this question someday, for sure.

It would also be nice to ask Paul what the heck he was thinking when he wrote about women not being allowed to talk (or rule) in church in 1 Corinthians 14:34. Like, that little verse has been a thorn in women's side for centuries...but that's a tooootally different tangent.

"And the Lord is near, and he justifieth me." Who is being justified here? Jesus Christ or Isaiah? 2 Nephi 7:8

"And the Lord is near, and he justifieth me." Who is being justified here? Jesus Christ or Isaiah? 2 Nephi 7:8

This is a nice little prayer thing that goes like this:

7 ¶ For the Lord God will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
8 He is near that justifieth me; who will contend with me? let us stand together: who is mine adversary? let him come near to me.
9 Behold, the Lord God will help me; who is he that shall condemn me? lo, they all shall wax old as a garment; the moth shall eat them up.

Is Jesus Christ speaking?

Yes. The chapter heading of Isaiah 50 mentions that here, Isaiah is speaking "as the Messiah."

If we interpret these verses to be Jesus Christ speaking, then the LORD GOD here, the one who "will help" is God, the Father.

If we apply these verses to ourselves as Nephi would do (see 1 Nephi 11:2), and also Latter-day prophets and apostles have done - albeit not very recently (see Daniel H. Wells "Increase of the Stakes" 1877, George Q Cannon "Gathering - Its Spirit, Etc." 1872,  Orson Pratt "The Kingdom of God" 1855) then the LORD GOD becomes the Godhead - God the Father as the designer of the plan, Jesus Christ as the executor of the plan, and the Holy Ghost as the witness of the plan.

These are extraordinarily confident and uplifting words testifying of the power and strength of God over our myriad enemies. I really love these words.  

Why did Nephi ask Jacob to write the words of Isaiah in 2 Nephi 6?

Why did Nephi ask Jacob to write the words of Isaiah in 2 Nephi 6?

Jacob was probably born between 591-589 BC (see 1 Nephi 18:7) and the writings of Isaiah in 2 Nephi 6 are from about 559-545 BC. Jacob would have been somewhere between the ages of 30-46.

Which would make Nephi a very old person.

The first mention of Nephi's age is in 1 Nephi 2:16. He describes himself as "exceedingly young." I don't know exactly what that means, but I guess he was probably a minor. Let's say he was 15.

If he were 15 at this point, then he would have been between 56 and 70 years old.

Nephi himself says why he likes the words of Isaiah in 2 Nephi 11:2. He says that his soul delights in his words because they can apply to his people, he wants to share them with his children, and that Isaiah testified of Jesus Christ.

Answer:
Nephi also specifically asks Jacob to write the words of Isaiah because the word of God is established by the words of three witnesses in 2 Nephi 11:3. I am certain that Nephi is quoting the Old Testament somewhere, but I'm not exactly sure where. I will have to find that out.

Nephi is saying that his words, Jacob's words, and Isaiah's words all together testify and "prove unto [my children] that my words are true."

Who were Nephi's sisters? 2 Nephi 5:6

Who were Nephi's sisters? 2 Nephi 5:6

Answer:

Well, now that I've thought about this a little, I wonder if perhaps Nephi might be referring to his sisters-in-law in this verse?

We know there were at least two (because of the plural). They are only mentioned this one time after the family arrived in the Americas as being righteous followers of Nephi when the family separated into two groups upon arrival in the promised land.

New question:

Is the ancient Jewish concept of "sister" inclusive of "sisters-in-law"?

Guess: Maybe?

Languages very frequently differ in words for specific extended family relationships. Arabic, which is also a Semitic language, has eight ways to say "cousin" (son of my paternal aunt, daughter of my maternal uncle...etc.) I'm pretty sure Chinese has different words for "eldest son" and "youngest son" even.

To be researched more.

Which other sons of Lehi was this chapter addressed to? 2 Nephi 2:30

Which other sons of Lehi was this chapter addressed to? 2 Nephi 2:30

Nephi writes the words of his dying father to his brothers. Addressed are the following:

Jacob, firstborn son in the wilderness
2 Nephi 2:1-13

All the sons (and perhaps sons in law?)
2 Nephi 2:14-30

Joseph, last-born (not last-born son, but last-born of all)
2 Nephi 3:1-25 (note that Lehi explicitly mentions his own father in verse 22)

The sons and daughters of Laman
2 Nephi 4:3-7 (note that neither Laman nor Lemuel had the decency to listen to the words of their dying father)

The sons and daughters of Lemuel
2 Nephi 4:8-9

The whole household of Ishmael
2 Nephi 4:10

Sam
2 Nephi 4:11

Note that Nephi's blessing is curiously omitted. He definitely would have received one, too. Maybe it was too personal to share? Maybe it, too, is in the sealed portion? (that is, by the way, my throw-my-hands-in-the-air-because-there-is-no-way-to-find-this-knowledge-right-now-that-I-know-of answer)

I've read theories about that in some obscure F.A.R.Ms publication when was in high school; I don't remember exactly where; you have no idea how many bookshelves of Latter-day Saint theology books existed in my house while I was growing up - my dad is a little bit obsessed. From what I remember of the theory, it mentioned that Nephi's choice to kill Laban would have been a really bitter pill for his father Lehi to swallow because of their Jewish culture. The Mosaic Law in Deuteronomy specifically forbids people from shedding innocent, defenseless blood (see Deuteronomy 19:10 and Deuteronomy 19:11-13, for example, but I guess this is not the only reference to avoiding shedding innocent blood). Basically, Nephi went against his father's deeply held moral values when he impersonated the church brethren, used Laban's sword to kill Laban, disguised himself as Laban, took the sword, had Zoram give him the plates, and fled with Zoram out of Jerusalem forever.

By the way, this suggests to me that Lehi's daughters (he had at least two) married sons of Ishmael. Lehi would have addressed his daughter's husbands, and presumably Nephi would have written about them. But he didn't, unless they fall under "the whole household of Ishmael."