DiscussMormonism.com

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I'm not employing a logical fallacy. You're the one creating a Straw Man right now that I didn't make.

My only assertion is that your god or your theology explicitly and canonically states skin color is used as a punishment and a curse. Do you deny this even though it clearly states it in your scriptures?

Basically you're ignoring reality instead of just admitting the obvious, stating that it's wrong, and that the Church rejects past racist teachings and the racist doctrines contained in its canon.

- Doc

3. What was the mark or sign set upon the Lamanites?

It is also explained in verse 21 that so “they might not be enticing unto my people [the Nephites] the Lord did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them [the Lamanites].” It would appear that this was done to limit the spreading of more wickedness. Later Alma suggested this same motive when he explained that “the skins of the Lamanites were dark … that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions” (Alma 3:6, 8). Throughout scripture we find warnings of the Lord not to marry unbelievers (see Deuteronomy 7:2–3; 2 Corinthians 6:14); the result of doing so was often that the righteous were turned away from the Lord (see Deuteronomy 7:4; 1 Kings 11:4; D&C 74:5).

Some people have mistakenly thought that the dark skin placed upon the Lamanites was the curse. President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) explained that the dark skin was not the curse:

“The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse [not the curse itself]. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord. …

“The dark skin of those who have come into the Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse. … These converts are delightsome and have the Spirit of the Lord” (Answers to Gospel Questions, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., 5 vols. [1957–66], 3:122–23).

4. What was the result of the curse?
Finally in verse 24 we learn that the result of the curse—being cut off from the presence of the Lord—is that they “become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety.”

One great blessing is that the curse is only valid as long as people are wicked. If they repent, the “curse of God [will] no more follow them” (Alma 23:18). There are many examples of righteous Lamanites who repented and enjoyed the Spirit of the Lord; one of them even became a prophet (see Helaman 13:5). https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-morm ... 8?lang=eng

5 Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth.

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.

7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.

10 Therefore, whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him. ALMA 3

zerinus wrote:Basically, you are determined to find fault with the Book of Mormon, against all available evidence. You think that is clever. It ain't.

Xenophon wrote:

zerinus wrote:Evidently you are incorrect. The scripture states that all grain is useful for that purpose, not just barley. I have heard of people making beer out of barley, but not out of wheat, buckwheat, maize, oats, rice, millet, tapioca, etc.

You can literally make beer out of any grain as long as it breaks down into a sugar that you can ferment:

Wheat

Buckwheat, actually pretty common in home brewing

Maize

Rice (incidentally rice is the most looked down upon because American style lagers typically use it to add alcohol cheaply but are devoid of flavor)

...you are determined to find fault with the Book of Mormon

SteelHead wrote:You haven't addresses the issue. . . .

SteelHead wrote:Let's see if Zerinus can be intellectually honest.

We will utilize the simple yes/no question format often necessary to get an intellectualy mendicant apologist to answer the question posed to them.

1. Does the canonized Word of Wisdom explicitly state that it is a revelation given as a greeting and not as a commandment?
Yes or No

2. Is the Word of Wisdom now taught as a commandment?
Yes or No

3. Is there a canonical reference where the Word of Wisdom is made a commandment?
Yes or No

zerinus wrote:The current understanding of the Word of Wisdom is the same as the canonized one. We think that when God gives us a bit of “good advance,” that is as good as a commandment. When he says, “It is not a good idea to eat or drink that stuff—it won’t do you any serious harm if you do, but I am advising you against it,” that is as good as a commandment. Anybody who ignores or disregards God’s “good advice” is not a committed follower of Jesus Christ, and therefore is unworthy of his priesthood and temple. That the way it works.

zerinus wrote:I am aware that you can. You can make beer out of cow dung if you wanted to. But traditionally it has been made of barley, not oats, or rice, or maize, millet.

zerinus wrote:I have heard of people making beer out of barley, but not out of wheat, buckwheat, maize, oats, rice, millet, tapioca, etc.

zerinus wrote:

SteelHead wrote:Let's see if Zerinus can be intellectually honest.

We will utilize the simple yes/no question format often necessary to get an intellectualy mendicant apologist to answer the question posed to them.

1. Does the canonized Word of Wisdom explicitly state that it is a revelation given as a greeting and not as a commandment?
Yes or No

2. Is the Word of Wisdom now taught as a commandment?
Yes or No

3. Is there a canonical reference where the Word of Wisdom is made a commandment?
Yes or No

Already answered here:

zerinus wrote:The current understanding of the Word of Wisdom is the same as the canonized one. We think that when God gives us a bit of “good advance,” that is as good as a commandment. When he says, “It is not a good idea to eat or drink that stuff—it won’t do you any serious harm if you do, but I am advising you against it,” that is as good as a commandment. Anybody who ignores or disregards God’s “good advice” is not a committed follower of Jesus Christ, and therefore is unworthy of his priesthood and temple. That the way it works.

Wasting time.