Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?

[_Themis]

Here's a little logic lesson for you, O Dense One:

The revelation with accompanying canonized letter would not need to specifically state that worthy males could now be ordained regardless of "race or color" if such ordinations previously had not been banned because of "race or color." Duh!

I think he is being purposely deceitful. He knows the issue is not how it originated, only that it did exist, and started during BY's day. He also knows the church was banning males of African race/decent from the priesthood. Why he is doing it other then to be a troll I don't know. Can he be dense enough to think anyone is buying it?

[_thews]

What a load of crap. What part of "white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome" do you fail to understand? This is how the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith... exactly. Just because the LDS church has attempted to change the supposed word of God doesn't make it go away. Ignorance is bliss, and it's sad that most LDS are ignorant of this fact.

http://mormoncurtain.com/topic_whiteanddelightsome.html

What part of LYING about others do you not understand???

Pot... meet kettle. You continue to assert critics are liars for not drinking your KoolAid, but fail to back up what the supposed "lie" is. In this case, you are clearly lying and doing what Mormon apologists have to do, which is to ignore the blatantly obvious and claim it doesn't/didn't exist because it's been changed.

1. The "white" word was a "printing error" of the previous edition, as well as other editions.
Joseph Smith himself corrected this error in the edition AFTER the first edition, but then it crept in and out of editions over the years.

This was not a "printing error" as you attempt to deceive. According to Mormon lore, God wouldn't allow the translation of the supposed golden plates to continue unless the translation was correct. Did the Mormon God screw up again, just like he screwed up by not allowing men of color to hold the priesthood until 1978?

The original translation WAS always meant to say "pure".

Why, because you say so? Was the priesthood ban a "printing error" as well?

2. For your argument to hold any weight the Church should have gotten rid of ALL "white" statements, yet somehow they LEFT several other instances of "white" in the Book of Mormon.

For your argument to hold any weight, you must present an argument that makes sense. in the above, your supposed point revolves around the fact that they should have gotten rid of ALL (note the scary CAPS) white statement, yet somehow left other instances in, while continuing to claim a single printing error was to blame. You are clearly blinded by the cognitive dissonance required to believe your own nonsensical logic.

Boy.... They sure are stupid trying to "cover-up" the "white" references when they LEFT ALL OTHERS and only changed ONE!!!

You are your own worst enemy ldsfaqs. You just negated your initial argument that "white" was a printing error. It wasn't a printing error when there are multiple instances.

You should learn to stop bearing false witness!

It must be opposite day. Do you and BCspace ever tire of the ignorance required to take you seriously? When are you going to acknowledge the truth? You are the quintessential Mormon apologist liar. It's sad you actually seem to believe your own insane logic. Ignore the truth if you need to in order to continue to believe in Joseph Smith's truth claims, but the facts clearly dictate that Mormonism was in fact racist, which is why BCspace ignores the question regarding white and delightsome.

I'll leave you with this from Brigham Young using facts... you know, actual data to back up my point. If you believe Brigham Young, who supposedly spoke with the Mormon God, was not in error, please explain it to us?

http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm

Brigham Young

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, un-comely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race - that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, [p.291] and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion. - (Journal of Discourses 7:290-291, October 9, 1859)

"You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation ...When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:336).

[_thews]

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.

Didn't answer the question. Please quote the part of OD 2 that says the ban came about because of race.

Where O where can that reference be?
lol

You can run and hide behind what you consider "official" doctrine, but are calling Brigham Young, who you believe spoke to the Mormon God, a liar?

http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, un- comely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race - that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, [p.291] and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion. - (Journal of Discourses 7:290-291, October 9, 1859)

[_Shulem]

All those who are opposed to President Brigham Young may so manifest it with the show of hands! Out with the President of the Church! He's a racist pig! Oink, oink, Brigham Young!!



Paul O

[_Shulem]

CURSE OF CAIN!



THOUGHTS from the second President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

1. black

2. deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind

3. Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes modern Egyptology and continues to print the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 of the Book of Abraham regardless of the truth. The LDS church continues to slander the ancient Egyptian religion and defy modern scholarship which has proven its revelations to be utterly false. Mormons are liars.

Paul O

[_lulu]

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

(you don't even know who formulated it . . .)

Right bcspace, that's what "anonymous" means.

[_bcspace]

That's just the personal opinion of the anonymous author of the press release. It's not official church doctrine.
(you don't even know who formulated it . . .)

Right bcspace, that's what "anonymous" means.

Indeed. So? The Church is not an anonymous publisher.

[_lulu]

That's just the personal opinion of the anonymous author of the press release. It's not official church doctrine.
(you don't even know who formulated it . . .)

Right bcspace, that's what "anonymous" means.

Indeed. So? The Church is not an anonymous publisher.

So, you and I are in agreement on something, the author of the press release is anonymous.

[_beastie]

The reason this all makes me LOL is that Defenders of the Faith come up with these rationalizations which are sometimes effective with other believers who desperately WANT to continue believing, so they conclude that they've "won", and the rationalizations are powerful and effective. Hence, someone like bc prances around in some sort of bizarre victory dance.

What they can't seem to recognize is that the ONLY reason these rationalizations work even sometimes is because of the powerful emotional incentive some people have to continue believing. Just about any rationalization will work with someone like that.

But the brutal reality for someone like Mitt Romney is that these rationalizations are extremely ineffective to the rest of society - all those people who don't already believe and have no powerful emotional incentive to believe. They look pathetic and even offensive.

Here's how the rationalization works:

In the Book of Mormon, the dark skin was only a metaphor, or dark skin re the priesthood ban wasn't the curse but just the "sign" of the curse. And yet even these rationalizations still mean that Mormon teaching is still that dark skin is connected to unrighteousness and God's judgment.

There is just no way around it. And it will eventually bite Mitt Romney in the buttocks. Sure, some of his base voters won't mind racism, in fact, some will like it. But the independents and moderates aren't going to look so kindly on it. Mitt certainly isn't to blame for his church's racist past, but he is to blame if he doesn't condemn it. Which we all know he won't.

With the priesthood ban, the dark skin wasn't THE curse. The dark skin was just the SIGN of the curse. The Book of Mormon dark skin was "metaphor."

It takes either a ignorant dope or someone deeply enmeshed within their own little world of apologia to not recognize that these two rationalizations are just as racist and offensive as what the defenders of the faith are running from in the first place.

Whether or not the dark skin is metaphor, whether or not the dark skin was the curse or a "sign" of the curse Mormon teaching is still that dark skin is connected to unrighteousness and God's judgment.

There is just no way around it. And it will eventually bite Mitt Romney in the buttocks. Sure, his base voters won't mind racism, in fact, some will like it. But the independents and moderates aren't going to look so kindly on it. Mitt certainly isn't to blame for his church's racist past, but he is to blame if he doesn't condemn it. Which we all know he won't.

[_bcspace]

In post #5 of this thread, I quoted and referenced official LDS doctrine on the Lamanite curse which came from the new Book of Mormon Institute manual. I was curious to see if there were any differences between this manual and the last one, so I pulled out my old version of the same manual, the brown one with Moroni on the cover, and took a look. There was nothing on the range of 2 Nephi 3 to 2 Nephi 8.

Could this be an example of new doctrine? Perhaps. But it seems to me that one could probably glean the same as what's summarized in the new manual from other published works. It IS interesting that among all this hullabaloo about the Church downplaying the issue, here comes a new manual with a detailed explanation.

Oh and by the way, of course I accept the published doctrine on this issue.