Mormons

Page 18 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SketchMaster

Diamond Member
Feb 23, 2005
3,100
149
116
You will not be kicked out of the church for not paying tithing, I do not know where you got that but it's false.

There is no "Secret hand shake".

If you want to go on a mission but lack the funds, the church will help pick up the slack.

One of the reasons why there was polygamy in the church was back when they were making the trek out west, a lot of husbands died so the church allowed the widows to marry men that already had a family so she and her kids would be looked after. Not to get a crap load of booty.

I am Mormon, and I'm not homophobic. In fact, I am friends with many gay people. I even shared my room with friend who was gay when he flew out for my sisters wedding. Hate the sin; Not the sinner.

We do not sacrifice animals in our back yard, or at all for that matter.

The church does not horde the money it gets from tithing. A lot of it goes into helping people in 3rd world country's and natural disasters such as katrina.

You will not go to hell for drinking coffee.

When a Temple is about 90% complete they throw open the doors and let anyone who wants to come in and look. The most they will make you do is put on foot covers to keep the rugs clean. This is cool even for a Mormon as you get to see rooms that very few people get to see.

And we do not have horns.




Thats it from me. I've seen too many anti-religion threads to know that no matter what you say no one will believe you.
 

pinion9

Banned
May 5, 2005
1,201
0
0
Look, I understand there are bad apples and good apples. You have Christians who think bombing abortion clinics is alright. You have catholics who won't use birth control but get abortions. You have protestants who molest children and gay Lutherans.

However, Mormons are elitist and proselytize. They have added to the Bible, misconstrewed evidence, and Joe Smith has had people killed in the name of his faith/hoax to keep things covered up. The Kinerhook plate hoax, above all else, should cast some doubt into your mind about whether or not this was a prophet or conman. Telling me God lives close to planet Kolob and that you will be a god of your own planet are the rantings of a shcizophrenic sociopath.

The "us against them" mentality of the religion, the obvious pilfering of other religious traditions and rituals, the special powergiving garments, the secret handhsake bullsh|t, all of it screams cult.

I have led no one down any path. I firmly believe that all Mormons will go to hell for taking the teachings of God and distorting them in such a way. Joseph Smith is in the ranks of Hitler, and is in hell with him as I type this.
 

pinion9

Banned
May 5, 2005
1,201
0
0
Originally posted by: SketchMaster
One of the reasons why there was polygamy in the church was back when they were making the trek out west, a lot of husbands died so the church allowed the widows to marry men that already had a family so she and her kids would be looked after. Not to get a crap load of booty.

So you are saying that the Mormon religion has teachings that are conditional? If something is wrong, it is always wrong. You don't say "well there were extenuating circumstances, so I'll allow it." It can't be both ways. Either polygamy is wrong or it isn't.

 

Bartino

Senior member
Jun 27, 2005
449
0
0
Originally posted by: pinion9
Originally posted by: SketchMaster
One of the reasons why there was polygamy in the church was back when they were making the trek out west, a lot of husbands died so the church allowed the widows to marry men that already had a family so she and her kids would be looked after. Not to get a crap load of booty.

So you are saying that the Mormon religion has teachings that are conditional? If something is wrong, it is always wrong. You don't say "well there were extenuating circumstances, so I'll allow it." It can't be both ways. Either polygamy is wrong or it isn't.

so what about in the bible when polygamy was allowed? there were times when it was and other times when it wasn't. yes things do depend on what God is commanding at the time. at one point God was commanding animal sacrifices, now He doesn't. do you want any more examples?

 

pinion9

Banned
May 5, 2005
1,201
0
0
Please disregard all that SketchMaster has to say. His sig line explains it all.

I can tell you that drinking caffeine, watching rated R movies, etc. will not send you to hell. Those are just Mormon guidelines to better life, and I don't disagree with them. Caffeine is a drug and we are better off without it.

There is a secret society much like the freemasons. Tell them all about your secret names that you receive when getting married. Engineereyore confirmed that is partly true (details may be off?) My sis-in-law got married in the temple and confirmed this...
 

Alienwho

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2001
6,766
0
76
Originally posted by: pinion9
Please disregard all that SketchMaster has to say. His sig line explains it all.

I can tell you that drinking caffeine, watching rated R movies, etc. will not send you to hell. Those are just Mormon guidelines to better life, and I don't disagree with them. Caffeine is a drug and we are better off without it.

There is a secret society much like the freemasons. Tell them all about your secret names that you receive when getting married. Engineereyore confirmed that is partly true (details may be off?) My sis-in-law got married in the temple and confirmed this...
And yet it's such a big secret that you complain about how much the members are out there proselyting.

And what's your problem with the freemasons anyway? You seem to despise them and they're not even a religion, just as you say, a secret society. Do you have a friends half-brothers sister in law's son who is a freemason and murders people on the weekends?
 

pinion9

Banned
May 5, 2005
1,201
0
0
Originally posted by: Bartino
so what about in the bible when polygamy was allowed? there were times when it was and other times when it wasn't. yes things do depend on what God is commanding at the time. at one point God was commanding animal sacrifices, now He doesn't. do you want any more examples?

God came to earth and died for our sins so we wouldn't have to sacrifice animals anymore.

You are saying God told Joe Smith "Since so many of your guys are getting killed, go ahead and let the men marry a bunch of the women folks." Is that true?

Please explain the Kinderhook Plates. Please, someone rationalize this for me.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
When I was seven-years-old, two Mormon neighbor kids ruined Christmas for me by telling me Santa didn't exist.

Fvcking Mormons! That's all I have to say about them.
 

pinion9

Banned
May 5, 2005
1,201
0
0
Originally posted by: Alienwho
And what's your problem with the freemasons anyway? You seem to despise them and they're not even a religion, just as you say, a secret society. Do you have a friends half-brothers sister in law's son who is a freemason and murders people on the weekends?

I have no problems with the Freemasons. It is the fact that almost all the rituals of the Mormon's are based upon Freemason rituals. Coincidence? Sounds like Joe Smith needed inspiration for his ritual part of the story.
 

Coolone

Senior member
Aug 18, 2001
983
0
0
Originally posted by: pinion9
Originally posted by: Bartino
so what about in the bible when polygamy was allowed? there were times when it was and other times when it wasn't. yes things do depend on what God is commanding at the time. at one point God was commanding animal sacrifices, now He doesn't. do you want any more examples?

God came to earth and died for our sins so we wouldn't have to sacrifice animals anymore.

You are saying God told Joe Smith "Since so many of your guys are getting killed, go ahead and let the men marry a bunch of the women folks." Is that true?

Please explain the Kinderhook Plates. Please, someone rationalize this for me.

Kinderhook Plates
 

Mayfriday0529

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2003
7,187
0
71
When I was younger my mom got into that church do to her friends. They got some weird rules...
Like to watching TV on weekends?
No drinking Caffenated drinks like soda...
not for me
 

Bartino

Senior member
Jun 27, 2005
449
0
0
Originally posted by: pinion9
Originally posted by: Bartino
so what about in the bible when polygamy was allowed? there were times when it was and other times when it wasn't. yes things do depend on what God is commanding at the time. at one point God was commanding animal sacrifices, now He doesn't. do you want any more examples?

God came to earth and died for our sins so we wouldn't have to sacrifice animals anymore.

You are saying God told Joe Smith "Since so many of your guys are getting killed, go ahead and let the men marry a bunch of the women folks." Is that true?

Please explain the Kinderhook Plates. Please, someone rationalize this for me.

i am saying that God commanded it so it happened. i am not going to try and specualte as to all of the exact reasons it happened, but it did. as for the kinderhook plates. it isnt really worth it to me to toss quotes and other things back and forth, so you can research that. i have my evidence and you have yours, but i really dont think that we would be able to convince each other of our points of view. one side is that it was a complete hoax and that Joseph Smith got pwned by it, and the other side says that there is no conclusive evidence that Joseph Smith even tried to translate them, so that is your decision

 

SketchMaster

Diamond Member
Feb 23, 2005
3,100
149
116
Oh, and to get back on topic.

Blanco, if you want to join just to take a trip aroud the world I don't think it would work out all that well. For one thing you do not get to pick where you go, you could end up in texas for all you know. And like I said, it's not 100% free, you have to pay for some of it.

I would say if you want to take a trip save up as much money as you can and do what this guy did.


 

Bartino

Senior member
Jun 27, 2005
449
0
0
Originally posted by: Jnetty99
When I was younger my mom got into that church do to her friends. They got some weird rules...
Like to watching TV on weekends?
No drinking Caffenated drinks like soda... not for me


what?! neither of those are true so i dont know where that's coming from. i do both on a reg basis.
 

z42

Senior member
Apr 22, 2006
465
0
0
Originally posted by: Alienwho
This may be true in your church, but one of my friends was excommunicated for marrying a non Mormon. Maybe this counts as Fornication/Adultery in her church elders eyes somehow?
That is 100% not the whole truth. They were doing something on the side that they failed to mention, which was the real reason for the excommunication.

I'm glad you know them better than I do. You must be right. You must be close to being a god since you know exactly who I'm talking about.
 

pinion9

Banned
May 5, 2005
1,201
0
0
Originally posted by: Bartino
Originally posted by: pinion9
Originally posted by: Bartino
so what about in the bible when polygamy was allowed? there were times when it was and other times when it wasn't. yes things do depend on what God is commanding at the time. at one point God was commanding animal sacrifices, now He doesn't. do you want any more examples?

God came to earth and died for our sins so we wouldn't have to sacrifice animals anymore.

You are saying God told Joe Smith "Since so many of your guys are getting killed, go ahead and let the men marry a bunch of the women folks." Is that true?

Please explain the Kinderhook Plates. Please, someone rationalize this for me.

i am saying that God commanded it so it happened. i am not going to try and specualte as to all of the exact reasons it happened, but it did. as for the kinderhook plates. it isnt really worth it to me to toss quotes and other things back and forth, so you can research that. i have my evidence and you have yours, but i really dont think that we would be able to convince each other of our points of view. one side is that it was a complete hoax and that Joseph Smith got pwned by it, and the other side says that there is no conclusive evidence that Joseph Smith even tried to translate them, so that is your decision

Always a shadow of a doubt...you know the truth.

This thread is dead.

And so is your god.

 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
Originally posted by: Jnetty99
When I was younger my mom got into that church do to her friends. They got some weird rules...
Like to watching TV on weekends?
No drinking Caffenated drinks like soda...
not for me

those rules are not there.
well, the second one almost is...but is a matter of personal choice, id say.
it says aomething about "hot beverages" which a lot of people see as meaning "anything caffinated." id guess because, at the time, those would probably have been the only hot beverages: coffee and tea. some people, however, take it literally and just only stay away from the hot. im sure there are some mormons that ignore that part all-together (as in any religion). im not sure if the church has made any formal changes or announcements concerning that D&C as they did with the plural marriage thing.
and, as brought up, i think the church has a...somewhat troubling relationship with black people in this country. but our culture is rife with now-embarrasing racial faux pas.

course, im not mormon. i couldnt care less either way.
 

Coolone

Senior member
Aug 18, 2001
983
0
0
pinion9

Im so sorry you seem to hate us so much. You must feel very proud of yourself.

Have a cookie

 

DestinyKnight

Senior member
Jul 1, 2003
269
0
0
Please, Bartino or engineereeyore, explain to me the Kinderhook Plates.

Wasn't Joseph Smith fooled by the fraudulent Kinderhook Plates? Doesn't that prove he didn't translate by the power of God?

I'm surprised this old argument continues to be used. An excellent and thorough article on the Kinderhook plates is "Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax" by Dr. Stanley B. Kimball in the Ensign, August 1981, pp. 66-74, now available online. 2004 Update: Another very helpful resource is a page on the Kinderhook plates by Wade Englund, which nicely summarizes the issues.

The bottom line is that there is no proof that Joseph Smith fell for the apparent fraud of the Kinderhook plates. He apparently showed no interest in them after his initial exposure - if he even personally saw them at all.

Critics point to an entry apparently made by Joseph Smith in the official History of the Church dated May 1843, which states that Joseph translated part of the Kinderhook plates and found them to be written by a descendant of Ham and of the Pharaoh of Egypt. However, this statement is actually from the journal of William Clayton. Clayton's journal entry was added to the serialized "History of Joseph Smith" printed in the Deseret News in Utah in 1856, long after the death of Joseph, though it was changed to be in the first person from Joseph's perspective: "I have translated..." instead of "President J. has translated...." It is well known, according to Kimball, "that the serialized 'History of Joseph Smith' consists largely of items from other persons' personal journals and other sources, collected during Joseph Smith's lifetime and continued after the Saints were in Utah, then edited and pieced together to form a history of the Prophet's life 'in his own words.'" Kimball notes that this poor practice was common in that century for biographers.

The source of the ideas expressed by Clayton is unknown, but seems consistent with the high level of speculation among many members of the Church about the significance of the Kinderhook find. Some said those plates dealt with Book of Mormon peoples, others said Egyptians. Many spoke of a translation that they hoped would be undertaken. The significant thing is that there is no evidence that Joseph showed any serious interest in them. No translation was undertaken. No attempt was made to purchase the plates (as did occur with the authentic Egyptian scrolls and mummies that were brought to Joseph, part of the story of the Book of Abraham). They left Nauvoo without fanfare and apparently without objection - a strange reaction if Joseph had felt they were a sacred treasure of some kind. Perhaps Joseph or others may have noted some superficial similarity between the characters on the fake Kinderhook plates and those they had seen on the plates of gold or on Egyptian papyri. But no apology is needed for Joseph Smith.

The details of the Kinderhook plates story are interesting and puzzling. They appear to have been made by several conspirators in a possible attempt to gain money by selling them as ancient artifacts. It is commonly assumed that they were made to expose the alleged frauds of Joseph Smith and that Joseph did fall for them. For example, a popular but outlandishly deceitful anti-Mormon book, The God Makers, claims that a group "carefully manufactured" the plates and placed them in a mound to be discovered, that Joseph fell for the hoax, and that three men involved confessed that it was a hoax 3 months after Joseph was killed. The God Makers provides no documentation for these unfounded claims. Indeed, the earliest known reference (correct me if there is an earlier one) to the Kinderhook plates as a fraud is in a private letter from W.P. Harris dated April 25, 1855, a letter which was not discovered and made known until 1912. In that letter, Harris claimed that he was one of 9 men who orchestrated the hoax to expose Joseph Smith. Another man who claimed to be in on the hoax, W. Fugate, wrote an affidavit in 1879 claiming it was a fraud. Both of these sources are puzzling. If Joseph fell for Fugate's trap in 1843, why did he wait 36 years to announce it? Why did he wait until after the deaths of the other 8 men he claimed to work with on the Kinderhook hoax? Likewise, if Harris's 1855 letter is authentic, why did he wait 12 years to write down that he had exposed Joseph Smith? If nine men had achieved their goal and successfully proven in 1843 that Joseph Smith could fall for a clumsy hoax, you can bet that nearly all of them would have been making it known far and wide right away - not years after Joseph had died. It would have been in publications, letters, newspapers, all over the place. But nothing is in the record until many years later. It really doesn't make any sense.

Gilbert Scharffs in The Truth About "The God Makers" (Publishers Press, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1986, pp. 146-148 - now available online at FAIRLDS.org) offers as one possibility that Joseph did say and mean what is found in the History of the Church (though he seems unaware of the finding that Clayton's journal was apparently the source for the text attributed to Joseph). The plates "disappeared" after their "discovery" and attempted selling (one of the finders, R.S. Wiley, tried to sell them to the National Institute in 1843 - perhaps a profit motive rather than an "expose Joseph Smith" motive needs to be considered). Much later, 1920, a single plate purported to be one of the Kinderhook plates was obtained by the Chicago Historical Society. This brass plate does appear to be a hoax - but Scharffs wonders if it is really one of the Kinderhook plates. Fugate said they were copper, not brass. It is also different in size from the description of the originals. To Scharffs, it remains unclear what the Kinderhook plates really were and whether they were a fraud. Personally, though, I think it's reasonable to conclude that they were fraudulent.

Certainly there are no known original documents from Joseph Smith mentioning the Kinderhook plates, which ought to have been of great importance to him if he really thought new ancient records had been discovered.

The Kinderhook plates are really a non-issue. If Joseph Smith were a fraud, he gave us 500 pages of detailed information in the Book of Mormon which ought to make it ludicrously easy to expose him. No need to rely on spurious, unverifiable sources presenting weak material like the Kinderhook plates. Neither you nor I could write 10 pages of "scripture" based in a totally foreign setting about which we knew nothing and achieve anything but offer proof to everyone that we were laughable frauds. The power and magnificence of the word of God in the Book of Mormon is ample proof that something deeper is going on here that a young farm boy perpetuating a hopeless fraud. My opinion, of course - but try it on yourself and see how it fits. It's an amazing and wonderful book.

Rebuttals from the Critics?

In response to my comments above, one critic pointed out that B.H. Roberts assumed that Joseph Smith wrote the journal entry that was contributed by William Clayton, and asked if this invalidates my discussion. Absolutely not - almost everyone who has read published entries for Joseph's journal has assumed he wrote them. It was later work that showed the sloppy practices involved in the serialized publication of Joseph's journal long after his death. Now we know that William Clayton wrote that 1843 entry on the Kinderhook plates. B.H. Roberts did not know that.

The same critic noted that B.H. Roberts quotes Joseph's journal on the Kinderhook plates as coming from the Millennial Star, vol. XXI (see New Witnesses for God, Vol.3, p.62) and asks why I didn't show the Millennial Star as the source for Joseph's entries, apparently believing that the Millennial Star was a contemporary publication from Joseph's days in Nauvoo, and that I was obfuscating by saying that Clayton's entry for Joseph's journal was only published long after Joseph's death.

The Millennial Star did begin as a contemporary periodical from the Nauvoo era, with volume one occurring in 1840, while Joseph was alive. But it continued for many years. Volume 86, for example, is dated 1926, and the periodical continued several more years until 1937. Volume 21, the source cited by B.H. Roberts, is from around 1860 (I don't have the exact date). It is hardly a primary source, but obviously was used as a means of publishing at least parts of Joseph's journal - including many parts worked in or added by well-meaning writers like William Clayton, whose practices with historical documents were not up to twenty-first century standards. The fact that B.H. Roberts cited the periodical in which Joseph's journal was published, long after his death, doesn't change a thing. The argument made by the critic is immaterial.

In 2004, the LDS apologist Barry Bickmore received and answered a couple of related questions regarding the Kinderhook plates. He was asked why Brigham Young would support the History of the Church if it had errors, and asked why Clayton would believe inaccurate rumors about the Kinderhook plates since he was a close ally of Joseph Smith. He is Barry's brief response, used with permission, quoting from e-mail of March 2004:

Hmm. Those are good questions.

Here are some more good questions.

1) Why Did Parley Pratt, who was also a close associate of Joseph Smith, record a completely different story about what the KP [Kinderhook Plates] contained?

2) If Clayton's version was correct, and based on firsthand knowledge of a definite translation of the plates, why was no translation ever published?

3) If Clayton's version was correct, do we have to also believe that the plates were found next to the skeleton of a nine foot man?

4) If Joseph Smith really thought the KP were what Clayton reported, why didn't he purchase them, instead of letting them leave town soon after viewing them? After all, he spent a lot of money to buy the papyri associated with the Book of Abraham.

5) If Joseph Smith really fell for a hoax designed to expose him, why did Wilbur Fugate wait until Joseph Smith and all his co-conspirators were long dead to expose the prophet?

My best guess is that Joseph Smith may have offered some preliminary guesses about what the plates might contain, based on similarity with the Book of Mormon plates, or whatever. Maybe he speculated BOTH that they were written by a descendent of Ham (as Clayton reported) AND by a Jaredite (as Pratt reported). Clayton and others assumed these speculations were revelations, or maybe heard about them second hand through the grapevine (hence the 9-foot skeleton). But then he never followed through because the hoax was revealed to him. Therefore, he sent the conspirators on their way, and never said anything else about it. They knew JS had not fallen for the hoax, so they never brought it up again, until 36 or so years later, it came to Wilbur Fugate's attention that there were second-hand reports that the Prophet had "translated" something from the plates. Therefore, he finally revealed the hoax.
 

pinion9

Banned
May 5, 2005
1,201
0
0
Originally posted by: Coolone
pinion9

Im so sorry you seem to hate us so much. You must feel very proud of yourself.

Have a cookie


Don't hate you. Just think it is a poor exucse for a religion and lifestyle.
 

DestinyKnight

Senior member
Jul 1, 2003
269
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Racism in book of mormon



Book of Mormon

1 Nephi 11:13 (Mary) "she was exceedingly fair and white."

1 Nephi 12:23 (prophecy of the Lamanites) " became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations."

1 Nephi 13:15 (Gentiles) "they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people [Nephites] before they were slain."

2 Nephi 5:21 "a sore cursing . . . 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 30:6 (prophecy to the Lamanites if they repented) "scales of darkness shall begin to fall. . . . they shall be a white and delightsome people" ("white and delightsome" was changed to "pure and delightsome" in 1981).

Jacob 3:5 (Lamanites cursed) "whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins. . . ."

Jacob 3:8-9 "their skins will be whiter than yours... revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins. . . ."

Alma 3:6 "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."

Alma 3:9 "whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed."

Alma 3:14 (Lamanites cursed) "set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed. . . ."

Alma 23:18 "[Lamanites] did open a correspondence with them [Nephites] and the curse of God did no more follow them."

3 Nephi 2:14-16 "Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites and . . . became exceedingly fair. . . . "

3 Nephi 19:25, 30 (Disciples) "they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness. . . . nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof? and behold they were white, even as Jesus."

Mormon 5:15 (prophecy about the Lamanites) "for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us. . . ."

Doesn't the Book of Mormon say that dark skinned people are evil and that they turn white when they repent? Why doesn't that happen today?

This common allegation is based on a misunderstanding of the whole issue of race in the Book of Mormon. First, here is a short answer to a related question, answered by Paul McNabb, from FAIRLDS.org's page, "Letter From a Youth Pastor: Four LDS Responses to Frequently Asked Questions":

"Did I misread the BoM that God made people dark skinned because they were evil and sinned against Him?"

Yes, you misread it, or at least misinterpreted it, but some LDS do as well. Most Book of Mormon scholars believe that the phrase about darkness was metaphorical and have shown examples of this usage in ancient near-East writings, including the Bible. In any case, the references are not used to apply to blacks or other ethnic groups, nor is it meant to imply that skin color is a measure of righteousness or acceptability before God.

For further details on this issue, I'll quote from Hugh Nibley's discussion in Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol.7, Ch.8, pp. 215-218:

But if we are to take the Book of Mormon to task for its ethnological teachings, it might be well at first to learn what those teachings are. They turn out on investigation to be surprisingly complicated. There is no mention in the Book of Mormon of red skins versus white; indeed, there is no mention of red skin at all. What we find is a more or less steady process over long periods of time of mixing and separating of many closely related but not identical ethnic groups. The Book of Mormon is careful to specify that the terms Lamanite and Nephite are used in a loose and general sense to designate not racial but political (e.g., Mormon 1:9), military (Alma 43:4), religious (4 Nephi 1:38), and cultural (Alma 53:10, 15; 3:10-11) divisions and groupings of people. The Lamanite and Nephite division was tribal rather than racial, each of the main groups representing an amalgamation of tribes that retained their identity (Alma 43:13; 4 Nephi 1:36-37). Our text frequently goes out of its way to specify that such and such a group is only called Nephite or Lamanite (2 Nephi 5:14; Jacob 1:2; Mosiah 25:12; Alma 3:10; 30:59; Helaman 3:16; 3 Nephi 3:24; 10:18; 4 Nephi 1:36-38, 43; Mormon 1:9). For the situation was often very mobile, with large numbers of Nephites going over to the Lamanites (Words of Mormon 1:16; 4 Nephi 1:20; Mormon 6:15; Alma 47:35-36), or Lamanites to the Nephites (Alma 27:27; Mosiah 25:12; Alma 55:4), or members of the mixed Mulekite people, such as their Zoramite offshoot, going over either to the Lamanites (Alma 43:4) or to the Nephites (Alma 35:9--not really to the Nephites, but to the Ammonites who were Lamanites who had earlier become Nephites!); or at times the Lamanites and Nephites would freely intermingle (Helaman 6:7-8), while at other times the Nephite society would be heavily infiltrated by Lamanites and by robbers of dubious background (Mormon 2:8). Such robbers were fond of kidnapping Nephite women and children (Helaman 11:33).

The dark skin is mentioned as the mark of a general way of life; it is a Gypsy or Bedouin type of darkness, "black" and "white" being used in their Oriental sense (as in Egyptian), black and loathsome being contrasted to white and delightsome (2 Nephi 5:21-22). We are told that when "their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes" they shall become ... "a pure and delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:6 [the word "pure" was once printed as "white" but was corrected by Joseph Smith in the 1840 Book of Mormon to be "pure," though later printings missed the correction until 1981]), and at the same time the Jews "shall also become a delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:7). Darkness and filthiness go together as part of a way of life (Jacob 3:5,9); we never hear of the Lamanites becoming whiter, no matter how righteous they were, except when they adopted the Nephite way of life (3 Nephi 2:14-15), while the Lamanites could, by becoming more savage in their ways than their brother Lamanites, actually become darker, "a dark, filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been . . . among the Lamanites" (Mormon 5:15). The dark skin is but one of the marks that God places upon the Lamanites, and these marks go together; people who joined the Lamanites were marked like them (Alma 3:10); they were naked and their skins were dark (Alma 3:5-6); when "they set the mark upon themselves; . . . the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God," when he said, "I will set a mark on them. . . . I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren. . . . I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee [Nephi] and thy seed" (Alma 3:13-18). "Even so," says Alma, "doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation" (Alma 3:19). By their own deliberate act they both marked their foreheads and turned their bodies dark. Though ever alert to miraculous manifestations, the authors of the Book of Mormon never refer to the transformation of Lamanites into "white and delightsome" Nephites or Nephites into "dark and loathsome" Lamanites as in any way miraculous or marvelous. When they became savage "because of their cursing" (2 Nephi 5:24), their skins became dark and they also became "loathsome" to the Nephites (2 Nephi 5:21-22). But there is nothing loathsome about dark skin, which most people consider very attractive: the darkness, like the loathsomeness, was part of the general picture (Jacob 3:9); Mormon prays "that they may once again be a delightsome people" (Words of Mormon 1:8; Mormon 5:17), but then the Jews are also to become "a delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:7)--are they black?

At the time of the Lord's visit, there were "neither . . . Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites," (4 Nephi 1:17; see also 3 Nephi 2:14) so that when the old titles of Lamanite and Nephite were later revived by parties deliberately seeking to stir up old hatreds, they designated religious affiliation rather than race (4 Nephi 1:38-39). From this it would seem that at that time it was impossible to distinguish a person of Nephite blood from one of Lamanite blood by appearance. Moreover, there were no pure-blooded Lamanites or Nephites after the early period, for Nephi, Jacob, Joseph, and Sam were all promised that their seed would survive mingled with that of their elder brethren (2 Nephi 3:2, 23; 9:53; 10:10, 19-20; 29:13; 3 Nephi 26:8; Mormon 7:1). Since the Nephites were always aware of that mingling, which they could nearly always perceive in the steady flow of Nephite dissenters to one side and Lamanite converts to the other, it is understandable why they do not think of the terms Nephite and Lamanite as indicating race. The Mulekites, who outnumbered the Nephites better than two to one (Mosiah 25:2-4), were a mixed Near Eastern rabble who had brought no written records with them and had never observed the Law of Moses and did not speak Nephite (Omni 1:18); yet after Mosiah became their king, they "were numbered with the Nephites, and this because the kingdom had been conferred upon none but those who were descendants of Nephi" (Mosiah 25:13). From time to time large numbers of people disappear beyond the Book of Mormon frontiers to vanish in the wilderness or on the sea, taking their traditions and even written records with them (Helaman 3:3-13). What shall we call these people--Nephites or Lamanites?

A related question comes from The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (C.A.R.M.), which provides a popular list of allegedly "Difficult Questions for Mormons to Answer." They ask:

"If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision)."

A brief answer by John Tvedtnes is available at http://shields-research.org/Critics/CARM-JAT.htm as part of the LDS SHIELDS site. For convenience, I quote his answer below:

"White" need not refer to skin color, as is clear from the following passages from the biblical book of Daniel: "And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed (Daniel 11:35). "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand (Daniel 12:10). In both of these passages, the meaning of the word "white" is most obviously pure; to "make white" is to purify. When Joseph Smith first translated the Book of Mormon, he gave the literal rendering of "white" for the passage in 2 Nephi 30:6. For the 1840 edition, it was changed to "pure," which better reflected the meaning of the word used by Nephi. Subsequent editions, however, relied on the 1837 Book of Mormon, which still read "white." This oversight was not rectified until the 1981 edition.

Finally, I should note that if we condemn the Book of Mormon for alleged racism due to possibly figurative passages suggesting that white is better than dark, then we must also condemn the Bible for similar failings. Daniel 12:10, quoted above, speaks of the righteous being "made white," and Lamentations 4:6-8 equates whiteness with goodness (prior to a moral fall) and a black appearance with sin:

6. For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her.
7. Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire:
8. Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick.

This passage is undoubtedly figurative, but those looking for fault may choose to be offended. Similarly, Jeremiah apparently uses the word "black" to refer to an emotional state, not necessarily skin color (as some presume), when he says "For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me" (Jeremiah 8:21). These figurative usages for white and black need to be considered in interpreting Book of Mormon passages as well.

D.C. Pyle notes that the Amorite people, according to Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, I:84, were "depicted ... with fair skins, light (also black) hair, and blue eyes" on Egyptian monuments. Yet, the Sumerians said they were "dark" savages (William F. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity, p. 166, as cited by D.C. Pyle). This reminds us to be careful about interpreting references to lightness and darkness of peoples in ancient texts.

On the other hand, it is possible or even likely that the Laman and Lemuel's group intermarried with darker-skinned natives in the Americas and through simple genetics became a people that could be characterized as darker-skinned than the Nephites for some period of time (both groups may have eventually experienced a lot of blending of genes due to intermarriage). Intermarriage with pagans was strictly contrary to Old Testament law and would be viewed as bringing a curse upon the Lamanites. The extent and nature of such a curse would be open to debate (spiritual only or genetic), but appears to have played a significant role in the attitudes of the Nephites toward the Lamanites.
 

Alienwho

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2001
6,766
0
76
Originally posted by: pinion9
Originally posted by: Coolone
pinion9

Im so sorry you seem to hate us so much. You must feel very proud of yourself.

Have a cookie


Don't hate you. Just think it is a poor exucse for a religion and lifestyle.
And I think the same of your tactless hatemongering.
 

Alienwho

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2001
6,766
0
76
Originally posted by: z42
Originally posted by: Alienwho
This may be true in your church, but one of my friends was excommunicated for marrying a non Mormon. Maybe this counts as Fornication/Adultery in her church elders eyes somehow?
That is 100% not the whole truth. They were doing something on the side that they failed to mention, which was the real reason for the excommunication.

I'm glad you know them better than I do. You must be right. You must be close to being a god since you know exactly who I'm talking about.
Appearantly you don't know them well enough, because if they said "so and so was excommunicated simply for marrying outside of the church" they are lying. Sorry. No one would ever be excommunicated for simply marrying outside of the church. If you believe the church has a stance contrary to that, please show me an official document. Tell your friends they don't have to lie to make friends.
 

engineereeyore

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2005
2,070
0
0
Originally posted by: pinion9
Please, Bartino or engineereeyore, explain to me the Kinderhook Plates.

It was a hoax. How could Joe Smith claim it was divine revelation when in fact it was proven, without a doubt, to be a hoax. Give me one reason why we should believe the other revelations weren't hoaxes as well.

Since I am not very knowledgable on this subject, I'll do a google search. Oh, look at that. Hit number 3. Would it have killed you??

Article 1
Article 2
Article 3

Now, I've answered your questions. Answer mine.

As for believe Joseph Smith, believe whatever you want. Only affects your salvation, not mine, nor anyone else. Cause you know what's great? If we're right, every person that you help lead down the path of darkness will be on your blood, and vice versa if we're wrong. I'm willing to accept that. Are you?

By the way, do you raise the same stink about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and every other man in the Bible that was ever involve in polygomy? Until you do, shut up.

Let me help you with one of them too. Here's what you said.

So you are saying that the Mormon religion has teachings that are conditional? If something is wrong, it is always wrong. You don't say "well there were extenuating circumstances, so I'll allow it." It can't be both ways. Either polygamy is wrong or it isn't.

So are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob going to hell, cause either it's wrong or it's right, correct? So either they we're following God's commandments, or they were sinners? Which is it?
 

engineereeyore

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2005
2,070
0
0
Originally posted by: z42

I'm glad you know them better than I do. You must be right. You must be close to being a god since you know exactly who I'm talking about.

I can call you either a liar, or a misinformed individual, because my parents are not both members, and my mother was not excommunicated. I have friends who have married to non-members, one couple who just got sealed in a temple after her husband joined the church, and are still active member and are in full-fellowship with the church. And the one in particular had no interest in the church when they were married.

I have no doubt your friend may have been excommunicated, but it wasn't for what you think it is. Somebody is lying, either you or your friend.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |