It is currently Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:39 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 197 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:06 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:38 pm
Posts: 3481
Buffalo wrote:
ldsfaqs wrote:
"Color" in the Book of Mormon was ALWAYS primarily "metaphorical".... The same way color references in the Bible were always primarily metaphorical.

People who actually read the scriptures have always known this.

Of course, it is also true that there DID seem to be some skin color differences between the two major groups, which would make sense if one was more modern and more Hebrew and the other more primitive. However, we also know from the Book of Mormon that even Lamanites were called WHITE.... Clearly, color in the Book of Mormon was primarily a metaphor in reference to spirituality and purity.


I guess the church leaderships doesn't read the scriptures.

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideN ... 94610aRCRD


Image
The people who followed Nephi obeyed God. They worked hard and were blessed. Nephi taught his people to build with wood and metal. They built a beautiful temple

Image

Laman and Lemuel’s followers called themselves Lamanites. They became a dark-skinned people. God cursed them because of their wickedness.

Image

The Lamanites became lazy and would not work.


LOL. I love those storyboards. I posted them on a sports forum a while back and got a bunch of WTF? replies. Non-mormons are speechless when they see something like that taught in the 21st century.

_________________
"The truth is not uplifting; it destroys." - Boyd K. Packer

"Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:10 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:10 pm
Posts: 1579
Location: Outside The Cult
ldsfaqs wrote:
"Color" in the Book of Mormon was ALWAYS primarily "metaphorical".... The same way color references in the Bible were always primarily metaphorical.

People who actually read the scriptures have always known this.

Of course, it is also true that there DID seem to be some skin color differences between the two major groups, which would make sense if one was more modern and more Hebrew and the other more primitive. However, we also know from the Book of Mormon that even Lamanites were called WHITE.... Clearly, color in the Book of Mormon was primarily a metaphor in reference to spirituality and purity.


LOL, that's not what I was taught when I was a member.

Always known this? Ah yes, the old blame the members routine.

Face the f*****g facts, faqs, the Cult of Mormonism has always been racist and has scrambled for years to hide or rewrite doctrine in order to hide facts. And then, cultists like you put the blame on members when they regurgitate doctrine that hasn't been cleaned up by people like you.

I guarantee you if I were to go back to my old ward - in my old neighborhood full of mostly retieries - and go to priesthood and ask them point blank what WHITE and BLACK meant in the Book of Mormon, what it means in the POS, what it means in the Book of Abraham, and what the curse of Cain is - they will give me exactly opposite of the kind of b***s*** you're trying to push now.

Your crap only works on younger chapel Mormons. And it works because leaders and Mormons like you have carefully omitted the truth - warped it to meet your current views (to be politically "correct') and to blame any problems on so-called Anti-Mormon "lies".

And this is exactly why I am NOT a Mormon anymore. Because I have integrity and pure honesty. I KNEW why Blacks could not hold the priesthood - they were NOT VALIANT in the PE. They are the linage of Cain. They were fence sitters. Every single time a group of people fell away from the prophets God cursed them with the skin of blackness. This is PURE Mormon Doctrine that people like you and your leaders are trying to dismiss, cover up, or just straight up blatantly lie about.

Of course, the cult of Mormonism will never apologize, never admit they were wrong.

Mormons like you Faqs and Peterson - make me sick.

_________________
Read: MormonCurtain. Resign: MormonResignation. Recover: ExMormonForums.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:28 am 
2nd Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:28 am
Posts: 412
When the Lamanites repented and became good again, it doesn't say that their skin color stayed the same but the curse was taken away, it says the curse was taken away AND their skin became white. So obviously if the skin color changes back and forth based on whether or not they are cursed, the curse, is in effect, the dark skin.

3 Nephi 2:15
"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:40 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:48 am
Posts: 18397
Quote:
Poor Mitt Romney. The relatively recent manual BC quoted demonstrates the LDS church still clings to its racist past, and it will be an albatross around Romney's neck.


How is it racist?

_________________
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
A lesson on 'Faggotry' for Kevin Graham; a legitimately descriptive and even positive term used by homosexuals themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:41 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:48 am
Posts: 18397
Quote:
What kind of help are you looking for?

Quote:
The church is under the spotlight at the moment because of its appalling history of belief that God is bothered about skin color. Splitting hairs (not the curse but sign of curse) does absolutely nothing to get the church out of the mess it is in.


The curse happened to light skinned people and it wasn't because of their skin color. So how is this racist?

_________________
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
A lesson on 'Faggotry' for Kevin Graham; a legitimately descriptive and even positive term used by homosexuals themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:42 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:48 am
Posts: 18397
Quote:
That's just personal opinion. It's not official church doctrine.


No, it's published by the Church which is the standard for doctrine.

_________________
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
A lesson on 'Faggotry' for Kevin Graham; a legitimately descriptive and even positive term used by homosexuals themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:43 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:48 am
Posts: 18397
Quote:
According to AoF2, we believe people will be judged on their own sins, not for the sins of their lineage or their family.

Quote:
God does not punish innocents.


That is correct. Laman and Lemuel's children will not be punished for their father's sins, etc.

_________________
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
A lesson on 'Faggotry' for Kevin Graham; a legitimately descriptive and even positive term used by homosexuals themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:44 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:10 pm
Posts: 1579
Location: Outside The Cult
LDS truthseeker wrote:
When the Lamanites repented and became good again, it doesn't say that their skin color stayed the same but the curse was taken away, it says the curse was taken away AND their skin became white. So obviously if the skin color changes back and forth based on whether or not they are cursed, the curse, is in effect, the dark skin.

3 Nephi 2:15
"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."


Even Spencer W. Kimball said that the Navajo placement program was causing the children to become whiter than those still on the reservations. He didn't say "pure and delightsome", he said WHITER.

http://mormoncurtain.com/topic_lamanite ... ogram.html

Jacob 3:8 8 O my brethren, 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.

Alma 3:6 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 against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

Mormon Cult Doctrine: If you disobey your skill will be turned black. If you obey, your skin will become white.

No matter what people like Faqs or Peterson etc try to say, they just can't hide the fact that Mormonism has a racist past and current racist doctrine in the Book Of Mormon.

_________________
Read: MormonCurtain. Resign: MormonResignation. Recover: ExMormonForums.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:49 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:08 pm
Posts: 2310
Location: We Have Always Been At War with Eastasia
bcspace wrote:
. . . it's published by the Church which is the standard for doctrine.


That's just your personal opinion, its not official church doctrine.

_________________
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:20 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:10 pm
Posts: 1579
Location: Outside The Cult
Making my lunch today at work I respectfully asked a co-worker who is very active what he knew about the curse of Cain. He spelled it out exactly the PE, the POS - the works, exactly the same way I was taught as a member. I asked him if he had seen the statement made by the LDS newsroom where the doctrine is denied. He hadn't but said he'd look.

Looks like he is going to need to be re-educated, forget the prior doctrines and begin stating "We don't know."

I'll leave that up to him.

_________________
Read: MormonCurtain. Resign: MormonResignation. Recover: ExMormonForums.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:59 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:48 am
Posts: 18397
Quote:
. . . it's published by the Church which is the standard for doctrine.

Quote:
That's just your personal opinion, its not official church doctrine.


Incorrect:

Quote:
With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine


Quote:
I asked him if he had seen the statement made by the LDS newsroom where the doctrine is denied.


I've seen the Newsroom statements. Nothing was specific was denied. I'll bet you can't quote anything in particular that was denied.

_________________
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
A lesson on 'Faggotry' for Kevin Graham; a legitimately descriptive and even positive term used by homosexuals themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:08 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:37 pm
Posts: 2695
Angels dancing on the head of a pin.

Cursed with a black skin.

Cursed and then given a black skin.

Black skin is a curse.

The cursed just happen to have black skins.

The above concepts are rather meaningless in terms of distinction.

The reality here is that the Lord didn't want the two communities intermarrying and gave one a dark skin. That doesn't necessarily mean the dark skin means that one was cursed. But it is easy to read the text that way. We see similar commandments against intermarrying in Ezra, where the Jews committed to give up their foreign wives as a precondition to returning to fellowship with the Lord.

_________________
Yahoo Bot


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:20 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:08 pm
Posts: 2310
Location: We Have Always Been At War with Eastasia
bcspace posted:

"With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications."

That's just the personal opinion of the anonymous author of the press release. It's not official church doctrine.

_________________
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:33 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 9726
Location: Kershaw, SC
bc has clearly and succinctly (as possible, I think) yet again elucidated the fundamental doctrine, clearly articulated from within the Book of Mormon, regarding the "curse" and its symbolism as originally imposed by the Lord (according to LDS doctrine) on certain peoples.

None of this is in any way different from the long, extended arguments I've made here and at the MDD board on the same subject. None of this is in any sense all that difficult to process intellectually if one is willing to approach the subject with an open mind and if one is equally willing to set aside, if only for a moment, their contemporary politically correct notions of the overwhelming centrality of race to any discussion of human differences, morphological or otherwise, and the ideological saturation of our culture with the catch-all circumvention of serious discussion of human differences known as racism, or "the race card."

As I've argued until blue in the literal face, dark skin was:

1. Not the curse itself.

2. Not the cause or reason for the curse.

3. A symbol or marker of the curse signifying cultural separation among the original peoples involved.

4. A symbol or marker having no relation to innate, underlying characteristics or attributes, but only to specific restrictions imposed by the Lord due to an original cultural disaffiliation from the gospel and gospel principles.

In the case of the Lamanites, this could be remedied at any time (and was, on occasion) by repentance, or by the use of free agency to remove the curse as it was passed on intergenerationally through enculturation in Lamanite society. In the case of black people, the curse was prolonged according to some timetable known only to the Lord, and for which I have no explanation and feel no need to extend one beyond what the Church has already said. When the "long promised day" arrived, it was removed.

The modern all consuming, all encompassing vortex of race - and this was my point in the "racialism" thread I started at the MDD that got me banned there - always ends by consuming its own children. It makes civil, rational discussion of issues involving differences among ethnic groups, either in a religious or political context, impossible, and poisons wells to such an extent that no good faith is present even at the outset of any debate in which disparities between ethnic groups is part of the discourse.

This makes it virtually impossible for bc, myself, Le Sellers, or anyone else here or at MDD to adduce the argument that the ban itself was not "racist" but based upon a curse grounded in a specific lineage to which dark skin - not race - was correlated and may have, in its original form, been, as with the Lamanites, a symbolic reference signifying cultural distance, not racial inferiority. It becomes impossible because the modern, post-sixties assumptive prejudice against any discussion of differences among ethnic groups not being racially motivated poisons any possible intelligent or productive debate.

The "race card" is precisely a moral trump, used to shut down careful, critical discussion and introduce the quick and easy politically correct moral excoriation. It usually works is magic, and, unfortunately, is not likely to run its course any time soon.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:36 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 9726
Location: Kershaw, SC
lulu wrote:
bcspace posted:

"With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications."

That's just the personal opinion of the anonymous author of the press release. It's not official church doctrine.


If you really find it this difficult to be intellectually serious, why bother at all?

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:41 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:08 pm
Posts: 2310
Location: We Have Always Been At War with Eastasia
Droopy wrote:
lulu wrote:
bcspace posted:

"With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications."

That's just the personal opinion of the anonymous author of the press release. It's not official church doctrine.


If you really find it this difficult to be intellectually serious, why bother at all?



Wherein do you find a lack of intellectual seriousness?

_________________
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:42 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:48 am
Posts: 18397
Quote:
That's just the personal opinion of the anonymous author of the press release. It's not official church doctrine.


It's the Church's official website. Doesn't matter who wrote it (you don't even know who formulated it, you're just guessing), the Church approves it. The Church even writes the word "Official" above it. It's been around since 2007 (similar statements have been around even longer). If it were incorrect, the Church would've modified or deleted it by now. You won't be able to communicate with most active Mormons unless you accept it because they have for many decades now.

_________________
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
A lesson on 'Faggotry' for Kevin Graham; a legitimately descriptive and even positive term used by homosexuals themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:54 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:00 pm
Posts: 9126
Droopy
I actually find no fault with your argument about the ban in its origination and application to the first generation it applied to.

But what can you say about it after it has been thousands of years from those originally cursed? Those born into the black African race were denied the priesthood period. And it was simply because of their blood line and in modern time not through any choice of their own. This seems to me to move it into the realm of race. It would be the same if say it were Danish people who were initially cursed but generations down the line are still denied the priesthood based on the acts of their long dead ancestors. That would seem a race issue as well.

So why is the ban not a race issue in modern times?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:12 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:33 pm
Posts: 12064
Location: Kli-flos-is-es
bcspace wrote:
Quote:
That's just the personal opinion of the anonymous author of the press release. It's not official church doctrine.


It's the Church's official website. Doesn't matter who wrote it (you don't even know who formulated it, you're just guessing), the Church approves it. The Church even writes the word "Official" above it. It's been around since 2007 (similar statements have been around even longer). If it were incorrect, the Church would've modified or deleted it by now. You won't be able to communicate with most active Mormons unless you accept it because they have for many decades now.


The church's official websites simultaneously teach that faithful Mormons will get their own world and we don't teach that faithful Mormons will get their own world.

"Official" doesn't seem to be very reliable.

_________________
Parley P. Pratt wrote:
We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:
There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:17 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 8048
bcspace wrote:
Quote:
That's just personal opinion. It's not official church doctrine.


No, it's published by the Church which is the standard for doctrine.


LOL How again is saying X(doctrine) can be found in Y(church publications) means everything in Y is X. LOLOLOLOL

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:20 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:38 pm
Posts: 3481
Buffalo wrote:

The church's official websites simultaneously teach that faithful Mormons will get their own world and we don't teach that faithful Mormons will get their own world.

"Official" doesn't seem to be very reliable.


Yep. lds.org needs to talk to LDS Newsroom so they can get their stories straight.

_________________
"The truth is not uplifting; it destroys." - Boyd K. Packer

"Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 197 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Arrakis, badseed, Ceeboo, Doctor CamNC4Me, fetchface, Google [Bot], huckelberry, Majestic-12 [Bot], Quasimodo, robuchan and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group