Mormonism vs Catholicism

[Horton]

As I said, Horton is incorrect in her assumptions here. This is understandable, as she (to my knowledge) has not actually read the Book of Mormon and is pulling the verse out of context without understanding. Let’s clarify the pronouns out to clear up the things–

6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon [the fathers] because of [the fathers’] transgression and [the fathers’] rebellion against [the father’s] brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

Nothing to do with the generation at that time or present day being cursed or anything like that. It simply a history recap of a few families in 600 BC.

You would like it to be incorrect but it’s not. Any way you say it it tells that people of darker skin tones were considered cursed. Now I know that part of theology has been walked back quite a bit, mostly because it’s not PC to assign a label to people based on skin color.

Which is quite ironic considering Jesus Christ was born a Jew in Bethlehem and would have had dark skin.

You’re right I’ve never read the BoM. Being a life long Christian I was able to see it wasn’t scripture as claimed by the LDS. I found that quote on an earlier post.

 

[jane_doe]

You’re right I’ve never read the BoM. Being a life long Christian I was able to see it wasn’t scripture as claimed by the LDS. I found that quote on an earlier post.

Nice judgement from a person whose never read the book.

How would you respond to a person who said “As a Christian I was able to see that Catholicism isn’t of God. No, I’ve never attended Mass, read the CCC, or anything like that. My information comes from Baptists posting things on Baptists forums.”

I would say such a person is a fool and should get themselves to Mass and the CCC before being able to say anything.

 

[zaffiroborant]

As I said, Horton is incorrect in her assumptions here. This is understandable, as she (to my knowledge) has not actually read the Book of Mormon and is pulling the verse out of context without understanding. Let’s clarify the pronouns out to clear up the things–

6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon [the fathers] because of [the fathers’] transgression and [the fathers’] rebellion against [the father’s] brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

Nothing to do with the generation at that time or present day being cursed or anything like that. It simply a history recap of a few families in 600 BC.

It says the generation of Lamanites at that time were dark skinned due to a curse put on their fathers (so much for the claim the BoM is against being punished for the sins of the fathers), Lamanites are the ancestors of the American Indians according to the BoM.

 

[jane_doe]

It says the generation of Lamanites at that time were dark skinned due to a curse put on their fathers (so much for the claim the BoM is against being punished for the sins of the fathers), Lamanites are the ancestors of the American Indians according to the BoM.

Where is the curse put upon them described here? I see a curse upon their fathers, but nothing upon them.

 

[Horton]

Nice judgement from a person whose never read the book.

How would you respond to a person who said “As a Christian I was able to see that Catholicism isn’t of God. No, I’ve never attended Mass, read the CCC, or anything like that. My information comes from Baptists posting things on Baptists forums.”

I would say such a person is a fool and should get themselves to Mass and the CCC before being able to say anything.

Much like the way you’ve been judging Catholics for as long as you’ve been here. I do not need to read the BoM to know it’s false. I’ve read several books that gave me far more information than I needed to know LDS is a false church and is certainly not of God.

Do you deny that quote is from the BoM? It’s much easier to attack other posters rather than debate the issue. As far as who is the fool here…what exactly do you mean I should get myself to the CCC? The CCC is the Catechism of the Catholice Church, it’s not a place one gets themselves to, it’s a book.

 

[jane_doe]

Much like the way you’ve been judging Catholics for as long as you’ve been here.

Incorrect. I’ve attended Catholics events dozens of times, read the CCC, and studied from other first hand sources.

I do not need to read the BoM to know it’s false. I’ve read several books that gave me far more information than I needed to know LDS is a false church and is certainly not of God.

Second-hand sources are by definition inferior and biased. (This is true for any faith/view point).

Do you deny that quote is from the BoM?

No. I have shown the correct interpretation of the verse.

As far as who is the fool here…what exactly do you mean I should get myself to the CCC? The CCC is the Catechism of the Catholice Church, it’s not a place one gets themselves to, it’s a book.

I didn’t say anything about you. I spoke of a hypothetical person who judged Catholics without reading their books or attending their events, and asked what your opinion would be of such an individual.

 

[kimg901]

I havent been on here for some time now. I have been contemplating a lot of things, especially religion. I have become stronger in my faith but also think that aren’t we all trying to come to know God & Jesus in our own way? Regardless of what faith we are? There are too many bad things going on in this world for us to worry about who is right and who is wrong. God will judge us ALL when we die and He is merciful.

 

[Tarquin]

Nothing to do with the generation at that time or present day being cursed or anything like that. It simply a history recap of a few families in 600 BC.

Lehi prophesied that others would be kept from the land as long as his descendants remained righteous:

There shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. . . . And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves (2 Nephi 1:6-9).

These passages leave no room for other people to have been in the land other than those mentioned in the record. Lehi’s family eventually divided into two groups, the righteous Nephites, who were “white” (2 Nephi 5:21), and the wicked Lamanites, who were cursed with a “skin of blackness” (Alma 3:6).

The other group was led by Mulek, a son of Biblical King Zedekiah (Helaman 6:10). They later joined with the Nephites.

After 550 years in the new world the people multiplied and filled the whole land:

And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east (Helaman 3:8).

The Book of Mormon prophesies that the day would come when the record of the Nephites and Lamanites would be given into the hands of the Gentiles, who will then perform missionary work among Lehi’s descendants:

And now, I [Nephi] would prophesy somewhat more concerning the Jews and the Gentiles. For after the book of which I have spoken shall come forth, and be written unto the Gentiles, . . . there shall be many which shall believe the words which are written; and they shall carry them forth unto the remnant of our seed.

And then shall the remnant of our seed know concerning us, how that we came out from Jerusalem, and that they are descendants of the Jews (2 Nephi 30:3-4).

In one of Joseph Smith’s earliest revelations in 1828, God instructed him that

this testimony shall come to the knowledge of the Lamanites, . . . for this very purpose are these plates preserved, which contain these records . . . that the Lamanites might come to the knowledge of their fathers, and that they might know the promises of the Lord . . . (Doctrine and Covenants 3:18-20).

Joseph Smith and early Mormons believed they had a mandate from God to take the Book of Mormon to all Lehi’s descendants, the American Indians.

Which is why one of the first missionary journeys of Mormons was to one of the tribal groups of my “dark and loathsome” ancestors.

Independence, Missouri, was revealed to be Zion (D&C 57:1-3) and thus “on the borders by the Lamanites” was obviously the western side of Missouri.

And so on. The prophets of the Mormon Church have taught that the Lamanites are the peoples of North, Central, and South America, as well as “the isles of the sea.” Whoever says otherwise is ignorant of Mormon Church history and doctrinal history.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Where is the curse put upon them described here? I see a curse upon their fathers, but nothing upon them.

Really?? It’s the dark skin they have because a the curse put on their fathers.

 

[Tarquin]

Where is the curse put upon them described here? I see a curse upon their fathers, but nothing upon them.

Oh for heaven’s sake! What kind of game are you trying to play here! have you never read the Book of Mormon? Or once, ten years ago?

And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed. - Alma 3:9

“Seed” does not mean corn seed, linseed, birdseed, or tomato seed. It means the offspring, the children, the descendants. “Seed” is a metonym for descendants, not “themselves”!
a. Offspring; progeny.
b. Family stock; ancestry.
c. Sperm; semen (the productive force of “seed”/offspring)

 

[jane_doe]

Which is why one of the first missionary journeys of Mormons was to one of the tribal groups of my “dark and loathsome” ancestors.

Independence, Missouri, was revealed to be Zion (D&C 57:1-3) and thus “on the borders by the Lamanites” was obviously the western side of Missouri.

And so on. The prophets of the Mormon Church have taught that the Lamanites are the peoples of North, Central, and South America, as well as “the isles of the sea.” Whoever says otherwise is ignorant of Mormon Church history and doctrinal history.

I notice that you keep moving targets here and not responding to what I post.

 

[jane_doe]

Really?? It’s the dark skin they have because a the curse put on their fathers.

No, their skin is dark because of genetic heritage. Not because they themselves were cursed, rather the curse was the fathers. Says it right in the verse.

 

[zaffiroborant]

No, their skin is dark because of genetic heritage. Not because they themselves were cursed, rather the curse was the fathers. Says it right in the verse.

The mark (indication, evidence) of the curse is dark skin. The words plainly say they inherited the mark of the curse, why are they marked? The only sensible reading of the verse is that they were cursed and thus were marked with the curse’s disable sign.

 

[Horton]

Incorrect. I’ve attended Catholics events dozens of times, read the CCC, and studied from other first hand sources.

Second-hand sources are by definition inferior and biased. (This is true for any faith/view point).

No. I have shown the correct interpretation of the verse.

I didn’t say anything about you. I spoke of a hypothetical person who judged Catholics without reading their books or attending their events, and asked what your opinion would be of such an individual.

Jane - why in the world do you insist on always being right on these issues? I stated I read enough from various sources to tell me the BoM & the LDS is false. You have no idea what I have read or if it is a primary or inferior biased source. I could only read a few verses of the BoM as I realized it was nonsense. Attending Catholic events does not make one an expert in Catholic theology. Reading the CCC with a LDS lens does not make one a Catholic expert.

I went to collage in Utah, lived among the LDS there, after completing my degree I worked in a city with a large LDS population. I was born and raised as a Christian and converted to Catholicism as an adult. As an adult with a good education, critical thinking skills, and the ability to use logic & reasoning in my decision making I reject the LDS claim because it is a false one.

Now I know you will have to have the last word on this but I’m done debating you on this thread.

 

[Horton]

Oh for heaven’s sake! What kind of game are you trying to play here! have you never read the Book of Mormon? Or once, ten years ago?

And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed. - Alma 3:9

“Seed” does not mean corn seed, linseed, birdseed, or tomato seed. It means the offspring, the children, the descendants. “Seed” is a metonym for descendants, not “themselves”!
a. Offspring; progeny.
b. Family stock; ancestry.
c. Sperm; semen (the productive force of “seed”/offspring)

 

[jane_doe]

The mark (indication, evidence) of the curse is dark skin. The words plainly say they inherited the mark of the curse, why are they marked? The only sensible reading of the verse is that they were cursed and thus were marked with the curse’s disable sign.

It doesn’t not talk about them being cursed. All the talking of the cursing is of the father’s who rebelled.

 

[jane_doe]

Jane - why in the world do you insist on always being right on these issues? I stated I read enough from various sources to tell me the BoM & the LDS is false. You have no idea what I have read or if it is a primary or inferior biased source.

Horton, a secondary source is by definition being put through the lens of someone else (aka is biased) and is a not the actual thing itself (aka is an inferior). This has nothing to do with you personally, or me guessing what you’ve read. This is a simple by definition statement of secondary sources: they are biased and inferior.

Attending Catholic events does not make one an expert in Catholic theology. Reading the CCC with a LDS lens does not make one a Catholic expert.

Did I claim to be a Catholic expert? No.

 

[zaffiroborant]

It doesn’t not talk about them being cursed. All the talking of the cursing is of the father’s who rebelled.

Well you can believe that’s what it says but no one I’ve shown it to has seen it that way. When my kids read it they found t rad just as I did and found it repellent.

 

[jane_doe]

Well you can believe that’s what it says but no one I’ve shown it to has seen it that way. When my kids read it they found t rad just as I did and found it repellent.

Did they grow up in the modern US where ANY possible reference of skin color is considered repellent?
Do they have any context for this verse?

 

[Horton]

Horton, a secondary source is by definition being put through the lens of someone else (aka is biased) and is a not the actual thing itself (aka is an inferior). This has nothing to do with you personally, or me guessing what you’ve read. This is a simple by definition statement of secondary sources: they are biased and inferior.

Did I claim to be a Catholic expert? No.

Give it up Jane…You have zero credibility with me since you seem to not even know your own theology. You don’t answer the questions put to you, you just attack and misdirect in effort to not have to explain why for a over 100 years LDS believed those with dark skin were cursed. You’ve been shown your own “scripture” and yet all you can say is that is an incorrect interpretation. Prove it. Find a credible source, not in the inferior ones I find from the official LDS web site and teaching manual, to prove this in not what the LDS have taught longer than they haven’t taught it.