Racist Book of Mormon Stories - Refuting the Mopologists

[_Drifting]

Why is this still in the Book of Mormon?

2 Nephi 5:21
"And the Lord had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

*lifted from LDS.org online scriptures 16th January 2012*

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Crazy Droopy, arguing for a global flood again!

[_Buffalo]

Why is this still in the Book of Mormon?

2 Nephi 5:21
"And the Lord had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

*lifted from LDS.org online scriptures 16th January 2012*

I'd love for a Droopy or an LDSfaqs to get in front of the media and explain why this stuff isn't racist at all! :D

[_Droopy]

2 Nephi 5:21
"And the Lord had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

I'd love for a Droopy or an LDSfaqs to get in front of the media and explain why this stuff isn't racist at all!

As the vast majority of the mainstream media is controlled by self righteous, emotion driven, deeply uneducated and intellectually shallow liberals like Sir Bluffalot, going before their media to discuss such things would only be falling into a carefully laid trap, which is why many intelligent people simply avoid the mainstream media as the insulated intellectual backwater that it is.

[_Buffalo]

As the vast majority of the mainstream media is controlled by self righteous, emotion driven, deeply uneducated and intellectually shallow liberals like Sir Bluffalot, going before their media to discuss such things would only be falling into a carefully laid trap, which is why many intelligent people simply avoid the mainstream media as the insulated intellectual backwater that it is.

It's them, not you. I understand. :)

[_Chap]

2 Nephi 5:21
"And the Lord had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

I'd love for a Droopy or an LDSfaqs to get in front of the media and explain why this stuff isn't racist at all!

As the vast majority of the mainstream media is controlled by self righteous, emotion driven, deeply uneducated and intellectually shallow liberals like Sir Bluffalot, going before their media to discuss such things would only be falling into a carefully laid trap, which is why many intelligent people simply avoid the mainstream media as the insulated intellectual backwater that it is.

Which, being interpreted (for behold! I have downloaded the Urim and Thummim app), signifieth:

"Because the video of me trying to make sense of this racist nonsense by spouting random selections from the thesaurus would instantly go viral as the week's most mockable Youtube item."

[_DarkHelmet]

Will you please show me from the scriptures where the priesthood ban is clearly defined doctrinally?

It isn't, which is why GBH said we don't know the origin of it.

Kinda strange that church leaders would deny ordinances and blessings to an entire group of people for multiple generations without understanding why.

[_Sethbag]

Secondly, I don't think you have the slightest idea what you're talking about, nor the intellectual honesty to present the evidence correctly. Dark skinned peoples, such as some Tongan's and Samoans, with skin darker than numbers of blacks, were and always have been admitted into the Priesthood. All your doing here is beating your breast and tearing up foliage. Its all a bluff and you and I both know it.

It was about lineage. Its always been about lineage, and that has always been the teaching of the Church on the matter, irrespective of theoretical/speculative explanations of the details of the ban. Amerindians were never denied the Priesthood. Indians (some of which are fairly dark skinned) were never denied the Priesthood. Thais, Malaysians, Malayans, Indonesians, etc. no one was ever denied the Priesthood, no matter what the skin color, unless the question of lineage came up.

Droopy, I repeat the question, because you refused to answer it. Look at this picture. It is of a black dude from South Africa. Could he have held the priesthood prior to the 1978 unbanning?



This is a yes or no question, Droopy. Could he have held the priesthood prior to the 1978 change of mind by God?

If not, why not?

[_Sethbag]

Black skin is correlated with the restriction. Nowhere does this text assert that black skin is the defining characteristic of the restriction. The defining characteristic is the primordial conduct of their "fathers."

And this just illustrates how you try to reinterpret history on this issue. Please show us where the church tried to establish just who a person's "fathers" were, when deciding if they could have the priesthood. The only question that is apparent is "is this guy from Africa, or descended from Africans? And is his skin black?" White South Africans could, of course, hold the priesthood.

Again I point out the photo of that South African Bushman, no relation to Richard, who would have been denied the priesthood, despite coming from a lineage that was more genetically distinct from northern African lineages than white Europeans are. His "fathers" would have had nothing to do with whatever it was the fathers of the Africans sold into slavery from the Ivory Coast and those areas were supposed to have done.

And if you try to tie to say this guy is tied in through the Ham or Egyptus bottleneck from a few thousand years ago, then science condemns you, because it's been shown this guy's lineage is distinct going back tens of thousands of years.

Droopy, you get all blustery and try to condemn the lot of us critics for intellectual dishonesty and a refusal to deal with the facts, but it's really the exact opposite. Your beloved General Authorities were racists, there's no sound doctrinal basis for the ban that isn't obliterated by the scientific discoveries of the last century, and your Prophets, Seers, and Revelators had it all wrong socially, scientifically, and most important, humanly.

Both the ancient Canaanites and ancient Egyptians partook of that DNA. Blacks also "partook," but apparently in a consistent manner over human history.

Please enlighten us on how the Khoisan "partook" of the priesthood ban, given their lineage's history distinct from other black lineages in Africa, going back tens of thousands of years.

Someone once told me, "It isn't racist if Heavenly Father did it." That you can't find clear doctrinal support for the ban doesn't mean I have lost the spirit.

What are you doing here, in a red hot anti-Mormon environment, and always on the anti-church side of any argument, if you haven't "lost the Spirit?"

Shining a little cleansing light on the darkness of falsehood and intellectual dishonesty that is the church's history, methodology, and epistemology.

[_Chap]

And I suppose Philip told this guy that although he could be baptized, he could never have the priesthood ...



Acts 8:26-40

26And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.

27And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

28Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

29Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

33In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

34And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

35Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

39And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.