"How To Define Mormon Doctrine"

[_zerinus]

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

The straw man is being created by you.

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?

In the case of Laman and Lemuel, or in the case of Cain, it may have been; but not necessarily of their descendants. Nor does it mean that having a dark skin in general is a sign of divine disfavor. I gave you examples from the Book of Mormon. Here is another:

Alma 27:

30 And thus they [the Lamanites who had been converted} were a zealous and beloved people, a highly favored people of the Lord.

There is no racism observed in the Book of Mormon, nor discrimination on the basis of skin color. In the Book of Mormon the righteous are favored, and the unrighteous are disfavored. That is the only criteria for divine favor or disfavor. There is no discrimination seen in the Book of Mormon by race or skin color. When the Lamanites were righteous, and converted to the Lord, they had exactly the same blessings and privileges as the Nephites who were equally righteous. They had prophets just like the Nephites. There were times when the Lamanites were more righteous than the Nephites, and they had prophets who went and preached repentance to the Nephites. There is absolutely no racial discrimination observed in the Book of Mormon whatsoever. They were in fact the same race! The difference in skin color did not alter the fact that they were all of the same race, and they knew it.

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

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

[Guest]

Even the Church Student manuals show that Zero is wrong, wrong, wrong....

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

They are mistaken though the dark skin WAS the curse, so says the Book of Mormon:

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

Zero is simply lying. Lying through his teeth. This explicitly says that the CURSE WAS THE DARK SKIN, and that it was transferred to the posterity of Laman and Lemuel and all who were LAMANITES that did not repent and follow the Nephites.

Zero is full of crap. Apologist mumbo-jumbo that denies what is clearly written in the Book of Mormon. This is what I mean folks, if it doesn't suit them, they will deny that the sun is shining at noon when they are looking up at it.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

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

It's not really a matter of finding fault with it. You're telling people what is plain and obvious, cataloged right here for your eyeballs to read and your brain to assess, that something that says 'they were cursed with black skin' literally doesn't mean "they were cursed with black skin".

'God cursed someone with black skin.'

There's just no way around that. It means what it means. Literally.

- Doc

[_zerinus]

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)

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.

[_grindael]

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

The Book of Mormon does that ALL BY ITSELF. It is full of Smith's racist BS, which he continued in the Book of Abraham.

[_zerinus]

You haven't addresses the issue. . . .

I have addressed everything. Wasting time.

[_SteelHead]

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]

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:

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.

[_Xenophon]

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.

Define "traditionally".

Corn was used by pre-Incans for beer since roughly 600 AD (honestly it could have fit into the Book of Mormon if they had mentioned maize). Rice has been used in fermentation for at least as long.

And let us not forget that you basically just contradicted yourself. In your own words:

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

Face it, Z. You made a silly assertion trying to score points against SteelHead and it failed miserably.

[_SteelHead]

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:

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.

The current understanding is not the same as the canonical one. It is now a commandment. When did this occur?

Early Mormon's drank coffee, tea, whiskey, beer, etc as it wasn't taught as a commandment. Joseph Smith sent for wine while in Carthage jail. You are claiming doctrine is in the cannon. We are showing this claim is wrong. Can you show anywhere where a canonical adherence to the word of wisdom as a commandment be found?