Buffalo wrote:I never saw the movie. But the ACTUAL Book of Mormon says their skin was made dark.
don't forget LDS.org!
"Laman and Lemuel’s followers called themselves Lamanites. They became a dark-skinned people. God cursed them because of their wickedness."
Those damn "anti-mormon's" running that site....
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents "I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs
I'm Dan, and I'm a Mormon. I believe the official Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 of the divinely inspired Book of Abraham. I believe the little black guy therein is only a slave. I know Joseph Smith told the truth and that modern Egyptology along with all the evidence in the land of Egypt is wrong.
ldsfaqs wrote: It's not a "source"..... It's an example of a point.
Sad you people choose to mock the source rather than getting the actual point.
Did they look "darker" or not??? Since they did, clearly it's a good example of exactly what the Book of Mormon speaks of, and clearly shows your anti-mormon perversions of the book is nothing but that, perversion and LIES.
I never saw the movie. But the ACTUAL Book of Mormon says their skin was made dark.
That's right, their countenance's became dark..... Watch the video and get a clue. It's symbolism.
Let me make it even more clear. When you read scripture and it says their "garments" became white, dark, etc. do you REALLY think they are talking about CLOTHING????
Yet, you morons would want us to believe that "skins" in the Book of Mormon is actually referring to skin color, and not skins as in garments and skins or garments as in actually "countenances".
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
I'm Kerry! I'm a Mormon who believes in the revelations of Facsimile No. 3 of my Mormon scriptures. True that!
I sure love looking at those white and delightsome ladies in Facsimile No. 3 even though the prophet said they are boys and professor Nibley said they were just dressing up in lady clothes for an Egyptian drag show. I have a testimony of Hugh Nibley, my Lord and Savior.
Let me make it even more clear. When you read scripture and it says their "garments" became white, dark, etc. do you REALLY think they are talking about CLOTHING????
Yet, you morons would want us to believe that "skins" in the Book of Mormon is actually referring to skin color, and not skins as in garments and skins or garments as in actually "countenances".
LOL. Skin = countenance. Horse = tapir. Context is key. It's part of reading comprehension. Don't call people morons for interpreting the text as it is written. If the verse says "they were naked, save it were a skin which was girded about their loins," then skin is referring to an animal skin used for clothing. When the verse says, "And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites." Then it means their skin. Unless you think it means their loincloth changed colors, lol. If their countenance changed, it would have said countenance, since that word did exist.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
Looks like I can rest my case....again. Race wasn't a consideration for the ban. Not even the speculations posit that.
I said a while back that bcspace is the kind of guy who will tell you black is white and white is black if he thinks it will defend the church. What is delusional is he might think people actually buy into what he says. LOL
The revelations of the Book of Abraham as given to the world in Facsimile No. 3 are an embarrassment to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Everyone knows they aren't true. Everyone knows Joseph Smith had a boner when he came up with that crap. And what does pretended prophet Tommy-boy Monson have to say about the black slave? Not a damn thing. He's a coward of a man. He's fat and well fed, all bills paid! Go Tommy boy! Prophesy Tommy! Prophesy!
Looks like I can rest my case....again. Race wasn't a consideration for the ban. Not even the speculations posit that.
I said a while back that bcspace is the kind of guy who will tell you black is white and white is black if he thinks it will defend the church. What is delusional is he might think people actually buy into what he says. LOL
Well, when you can think of a doctrinal statement that says the ban came about because someone had black skin, let me know. I'll bet you can't find one among the speculative statements.
Themis wrote:I said a while back that bcspace is the kind of guy who will tell you black is white and white is black if he thinks it will defend the church. What is delusional is he might think people actually buy into what he says. LOL
I finally put bcspace on my ignore list because I got sick of his deception. There comes a point when one cannot put up with it any longer. It became apparent to me that he was altogether dealing in deception and it got a bit old.
I wouldn't believe a word he says. Not a single word. I chalk bcspace up as simply another one of holy-Joe's Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 -- totally out in left field.
bcspace wrote: Well, when you can think of a doctrinal statement that says the ban came about because someone had black skin, let me know. I'll bet you can't find one among the speculative statements.
Troll. We both know the ban was based on race. The leaders of the church get most things wrong, and they thought black people were descendants of Cain and were not to be given the priesthood, or are you not aware of OD2. Are you really this stupid to think anyone believes what you are saying. Keep tolling away.
