So what makes the average critical site "respectable" when it comes to issues of archaeology?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yea, that is a totally respectable archaeology site.
NOT.
Pretty much proving my point.
Even 2 Nephi 5:21 ???
And he 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.
We've had this discussion several times before, during which I noted that at the time the BoM was translated "white" and "black" were synonyms for "pure" and "impure" respectively and so the words likely don't mean what you want people to think they mean.
At this point, you may as well be shouting "Inconceivable!" at the end of every post.
(points to anyone who gets the reference)
We've had this discussion several times before, during which I noted that at the time the BoM was translated "white" and "black" were synonyms for "pure" and "impure" respectively and so the words likely don't mean what you want people to think they mean.
At this point, you may as well be shouting "Inconceivable!" at the end of every post.
(points to anyone who gets the reference)
We've had this discussion several times before, during which I noted that at the time the BoM was translated "white" and "black" were synonyms for "pure" and "impure" respectively and so the words likely don't mean what you want people to think they mean.
At this point, you may as well be shouting "Inconceivable!" at the end of every post.
(points to anyone who gets the reference)
David Whitmer said:I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.
This is not how translation is done...
You are sadly mistaken. On December 6, 2013, the Mormon church officially renounced the doctrine that dark skin was a punishment from God.
No, the Church disavowed "the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else." SourceYou are sadly mistaken. On December 6, 2013, the Mormon church officially renounced the doctrine that dark skin was a punishment from God.
Get it straight.
No doubt there is research and fact-finding. Why the word "doctrine" slips in where it was "theories" is beyond me. Seems that the wrong thing got quoted...oops?You mean a critic of the church actually doing independent research and proper fact-checking?
So Isaiah wrote in King James English? As well as all the Nephite recorders? Please. We are not that stupid. And if you read the NT, the places where OT writings were cited, most of them were altered to show how what was happening with Christ was a direct fulfillment of them. So point not well taken.
I understand what the purpose of the BoM is (having been RLDS for 40 years of my life), and I have no problem with the concept that it is a record of a remnant of God's chosen people. It is how it was brought about, the claims and failings of Joseph Smith, as well as the purported claims from him about what God said to him that I don't believe. I have no doubt that the first vision did not happen, nor do I believe that God changes his mind the way he would have had to have done in order for those claims of JS to be true.
So, I'm scratching my head here.What does this have to do with why I need someone to stand between me and Christ when God rent the veil in the Temple in Jerusalem when Christ died, signifying we don't need someone to stand in for us anymore?
You are sadly mistaken. On December 6, 2013, the Mormon church officially renounced the doctrine that dark skin was a punishment from God.
"There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less...There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides with either Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there...The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits."
Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1954,1:61,65,66
"...Behold, they had hardened their hearts against him...wherefore, as they were white, and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticingunto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their sins."
2 Nephi 5:21-22
"And the skins of the Lamanites were dark...which was a curse upon them because of their transgression against their brethren...therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them. And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preservehis people..."
Alma 3:6,8
I wonder if early Mormons, who were converts from Christian sects, during the 1800s, brought in their former Christian perspectives about blacks, & dark skins. The reason being is how Christianity is just as "guilty" of racial interpretations of some doctrines.
There was even a Jewish belief that got passed down to early Christians about spirit-angels sinning in the pre-existence, (John 9:1-2). Thus, it was believed by many early to later Christians that the type of body, or conditions that someone was born into, reflected the type of life they lived during their pre-existence. Some attributed black skins to fallen angels, mixing up & literalizing color symbolism, white being a symbolical type of purity, but it wasn't actual skin color, it was symbolic. Whitesunday, for example reminded later Christians of their white baptismal robes worn. Black Sabbath was the reversal of white sunday, black being associated with demons, the devil & Satan, who is called the Lord of Darkness, The Black One. He is also depicted in early to later Christian art with black or dark skins. This got passed down to later centuries even to this day.
This thread starts out with different ones attempting to vilify the Book of Mormon with alleged "problems," then others claiming there is no arch. evidence, or some other alleged issues. One claim being that Laban was an "uncle." We don't get that in the Book of Mormon passages you mentioned, which is why some of us have question if you read the book of Mormon or not. Claims to geneological lines is broad & could include a lot of people, but there's no mention in the text that Laban was an uncle, which was why that issue was questioned.
As to poligamy, the Book of Mormon allows it, if God commands it to raise up a righteous seed, (Jacob 2:30), even though He knows of the problems that were created, when some took it to an extreme, like King Solomon & David did. So that's the setting for the passage often taken out of context. How that in the case with the Book of Mormon, in Jacob's time, there were men who remembered how David & Solomon had many wives, & they wanted to do the same thing out of lust. Jacob pointed out how poligamy for the wrong reasons was an abomination in the sight of God, not poligamy itself. (Jacob 2:6-35). So there's no allege contradiction as I've seen critics claim, when they put together certain passages & ignore Jacob 2:30. But poligamy problems in LDS history are like the poligamy problems in Biblical times, so its a human problem, one of weakinesses & imperfections that Christ's atonement is suppose to have covered. I had one critic tell me that God "winked" on such things for Old Testament times, but she then used a double standard against the LDS by allowing it for OT times, but not for LDS history. I think we've covered this issue, & perhaps could move on to any others now.
Neither.Did the Book of Mormon come from a peep stone or the mind of Joseph Smith?
But the Bible is completely non-racist. True Christianity comes from the Bible not the prejudices of men.
Do you think that the misunderstandings of some and the sins of others excuses Mormonism?
Did the Book of Mormon come from a peep stone or the mind of Joseph Smith?
Where it say it support polygamy in jacob 2:30, you are just getting a fallacy out of thin air, Poligamy was an abomination in the old testament and was an abomination in the time of Josep smith and Bringam young.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?