Lamanite only a political designation?

[_William Schryver]

Shades:

Either way, there isn't any Nephite or Lamanite DNA to be found anywhere. So the political designations made by Moroni don't have any impact on the Lamanite/DNA question, since according to the Book of Mormon they're all descendants of Lehi, be they Amulonites, Amlicites, Josephites, Jacobites, Nephites, Lamanites, King-Men, Gadianton Robbers, or what-have-you. (emphasis added)

You mean, according to your biased interpretation of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon never says that all these people are descendants of Lehi, and in many instances, seems to implicitly suggest otherwise.

Of course, you know that. We've been over this ground many times. And there's no point in going there again.

As Mormons, much of your belief system was based on false assumptions. And ironically, as ex-Mormons, you feel compelled to continue to defend those false assumptions.

Strange . . .

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Since when is the curse of a dark skin a political designation?

Nowhere. Read up on the Amlicites, Amalekites, Amulonites, and Zoramites. They became Lamanites yet there is no mention of them changing skin tone. There's no mention of any change in the Ammonite's skin tone either yet they switched from being Lamanites to Nephites.

So they were all white? Doesn't that just compound your problem? It's hard enough finding evidence of dark skinned Lamanites in ancient america, how much harder is it to find light skinned Nephites?

[_The Nehor]

Since when is the curse of a dark skin a political designation?

Nowhere. Read up on the Amlicites, Amalekites, Amulonites, and Zoramites. They became Lamanites yet there is no mention of them changing skin tone. There's no mention of any change in the Ammonite's skin tone either yet they switched from being Lamanites to Nephites.

So they were all white? Doesn't that just compound your problem? It's hard enough finding evidence of dark skinned Lamanites in ancient america, how much harder is it to find light skinned Nephites?

I have no idea what color their skin was. Mormon and Moroni didn't seem obsessed with it and didn't mention it much, especially towards the end. If I remember correctly, there is also no mention of skin color after the 4th Nephi utopia when all the people were unified. So it's quite possible everyone was light-skinned or everyone was dark-skinned, or there was a mixture, or that they were all purple with green spots. When the Lamanites reappeared, it makes no mention of them being descended from the original Lamanites or that there was any racial division at all.

[_Dr. Shades]

Shades . . . You mean, according to your biased interpretation of the Book of Mormon.

Well, my biased interpretation coincides 100% with the Lord's mouthpieces' biased interpretation, so I'm in good company.

The Book of Mormon never says that all these people are descendants of Lehi, and in many instances, seems to implicitly suggest otherwise.

Okay, so maybe Lehi was wrong when he told his descendants that knowledge of "this land" was to be withheld from all other nations, or else other nations would overrun the land so that there would be no place for an inheritance.

Even so, Nephi saw, in vision, "the seed of [his] brethren" going forth "in great multitudes upon the land." Great multitudes tend to spawn even greater multitudes, so there should be at least some Lehite DNA in the Native American population. No such luck, however.

As Mormons, much of your belief system was based on false assumptions. And ironically, as ex-Mormons, you feel compelled to continue to defend those false assumptions.

Well, my false assumptions coincide 100% with the false assumptions of the Lord's mouthpieces, so I'm in good company.

Strange . . .

Indeed.

[_guy sajer]

Shades . . . You mean, according to your biased interpretation of the Book of Mormon.

Well, my biased interpretation coincides 100% with the Lord's mouthpieces' biased interpretation, so I'm in good company.

The Book of Mormon never says that all these people are descendants of Lehi, and in many instances, seems to implicitly suggest otherwise.

Okay, so maybe Lehi was wrong when he told his descendants that knowledge of "this land" was to be withheld from all other nations, or else other nations would overrun the land so that there would be no place for an inheritance.

Even so, Nephi saw, in vision, "the seed of [his] brethren" going forth "in great multitudes upon the land." Great multitudes tend to spawn even greater multitudes, so there should be at least some Lehite DNA in the Native American population. No such luck, however.

As Mormons, much of your belief system was based on false assumptions. And ironically, as ex-Mormons, you feel compelled to continue to defend those false assumptions.

Well, my false assumptions coincide 100% with the false assumptions of the Lord's mouthpieces, so I'm in good company.

Strange . . .

Indeed.

Revisionism at its best, or worst, take your pick.

It is quite a spectacle to see apologists take critics to task for taking the Lord's annointed at their words.

I wonder what special source of insight Will claims that makes his views on this issue more authoritative than the Lord's annointed?

[_karl61]

Since when is the curse of a dark skin a political designation?

Nowhere. Read up on the Amlicites, Amalekites, Amulonites, and Zoramites. They became Lamanites yet there is no mention of them changing skin tone. There's no mention of any change in the Ammonite's skin tone either yet they switched from being Lamanites to Nephites.

Nehor - what determines your skin tone?

[_The Nehor]

Since when is the curse of a dark skin a political designation?

Nowhere. Read up on the Amlicites, Amalekites, Amulonites, and Zoramites. They became Lamanites yet there is no mention of them changing skin tone. There's no mention of any change in the Ammonite's skin tone either yet they switched from being Lamanites to Nephites.

Nehor - what determines your skin tone?

Melanin in the skin last I checked.

[_William Schryver]

Shades:

William Schryver wrote:
Shades . . . You mean, according to your biased interpretation of the Book of Mormon.

Well, my biased interpretation coincides 100% with the Lord's mouthpieces' biased interpretation, so I'm in good company.

At least you've abandoned the argument that the Book of Mormon itself claims that everyone it mentions is a descendant of Lehi. That, of course, is the point I'm trying to make.

As for your false assumptions regarding what is meant by "the Lord's mouthpiece," that is precisely what I was talking about when I stated, above:

As Mormons, much of your belief system was based on false assumptions. And ironically, as ex-Mormons, you feel compelled to continue to defend those false assumptions.

Whether or not anyone ever authoritatively pronounced on the topic at hand is irrelevant to you. From your fundamentalist viewpoint, everything a prophet or apostle ever said is absolute truth. Of course, it's no wonder you fell away if that's what you believed. They were guaranteed to eventually disappoint you.

[_karl61]

Since when is the curse of a dark skin a political designation?

Nowhere. Read up on the Amlicites, Amalekites, Amulonites, and Zoramites. They became Lamanites yet there is no mention of them changing skin tone. There's no mention of any change in the Ammonite's skin tone either yet they switched from being Lamanites to Nephites.

Nehor - what determines your skin tone?

Melanin in the skin last I checked.

and does that increase or decrease in a single generation on your beliefs or increase or decrease over generations with where you live....or stay the same based on where you live.

[_guy sajer]

Whether or not anyone ever authoritatively pronounced on the topic at hand is irrelevant to you. From your fundamentalist viewpoint, everything a prophet or apostle ever said is absolute truth. Of course, it's no wonder you fell away if that's what you believed. They were guaranteed to eventually disappoint you.

Taking seriously a claim made repeatedly by numerous of the Lord's annointed over a period of over 150 years hardly qualifies as taking everything a prophet or apostle says as "absoute truth."

Again, revisionist BS.