This is a personal attack and incorrect.
Please provide an post number example of this to back your claim.
Please provide an post number of me personally attacking someone to back your claim.
It IS your interpretation which is incorrect. I have shown how repeatedly, and have my comments ignored.
I did. Repeatedly.
The curse is the punishment incurred group of people turning away from God (consequence pretty obvious). This also happens in the Bible.
Just left over legacy, like Jack’s kids being Australian.
This is kind of like asking: why not teleport Jack’s kids out of Australia? Do you see how it’s an odd question?
Are you referring to this passage? lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/30.5-6?lang=eng#5-6
Incorrect.
No just a straight up reading of that verse, later reading the whole chapter no one changed their minds, just found it repeating the same repellent idea, dark skin is a curse.
The context in the entire book and theology, especially the part where the father’s were cursed. I guessing they did not read and study that.
So, generations later a curse of dark skin is removed but it isn’t the current generation’s curse that is removed it is a previous curse that is removed. But it isn’t really a curse, but a leftover sign of a curse, that gets removed when the people who aren’t cursed are no longer cursed,
I don’t believe it is. But I do not take offense at those who do believe so, for believing so. That creates “crimethink”. Let a person believe whatsoever he will. But let thinking and speaking be free. Then, if a person’s beliefs are incorrect, he can be persuaded to change them - and if my and your beliefs are incorrect, we can be persuaded to change them. But a belief is not a person or a character. It is an external thing, like skin color. We should not judge a person immoral based on their skin color, nor should we judge a person immoral based on their thinking. Their skin may be very dirty or sun-burned, their thinking may be very murky or over-wrought. But those are externals.
I know leaders now (and members) do not believe this to be the case but I personally am struggling to reconcile the two. The Book of Mormon was even changed from light and delightsome to pure and delightsome to try and recover from the once racist leaders.
They may not have been scripture, they man not have been “infallibly declared” (but then, nothing is in Mormonism!), they may have been said “by fallible individuals in their time” (but then, what isn’t, in Mormonism!), but that makes no difference, since they were in fact presented as Gospel Truth! Again, I have to note how young you must be, Jane_Doe, and ask you to show a little more respect for the knowledge and experience of your elders. In fact, one needn’t even be an elder, in order to research and discover that these things were taught as absolute fact from the pulpits of the Mormon Church and in the books written by Mormon Prophets. They were not hedged with “in my opinion” or “although in opposition to Scripture”! They were presented as revelation and as true a Scripture as is found in the pages of the Book of Mormon and the Bible. This is demonstrated in one particular case, with Brigham Young declaring that he had not let any of his sermons be published except were as good a Scripture as they Saints could expect. Please, Jane_Doe, stop this false pleading - “They were never scripture. They were never infallibly declared.” - That is not the point. The point is that, regardless of that, this was in fact the teaching of the Church as part of the Restored Gospel. If you don’t want to believe those who have lived through that era, then ask one of your Mormon friends who is 60, 70, 80 years old if they remember, or do some research on the internet, or in the older publications of the church. We know what we have experienced, and what we have heard, and you do not.
Bells and xylophones! If you really were conversant with the Book of Mormon, you would understand without all this unproductive contention you are blasting at Horton and others, that “dark and loathsome” was part of the curse. Nobody moved anything, your dishonest accusations notwithstanding. Just because you get lost in your own contorted arguments, and can’t connect dots, doesn’t mean everybody else is as doctrinally confused as you are.
The curse did pass through blood lineage to their descendants, despite the contradictory Mormon teaching that sin and therefore curses for sin do not pass to the sinner’s descendants. There are many, many such contradictions in the Book of Mormon and in other Mormon doctrines. Many. Did I say “many”? I meant to say: “many.”
extended to their descendants!] ( 2 Nephi 5:21 ) - Prophet-Apostle Mark E. Petersen - Are Mormon prophets true prophets or false prophets? Are Mormon apostles true apostles or false apostles? Do Mormon prophets and apostles teach true doctrine or false doctrine? Was Petersen a fallen Prophet-Apostle for teaching false doctrine? Is Heber J. Grant a fallen Prophet for having allowed his fellow Prophet-Apostle to teach false doctrine without correcting him?
I am confident that understanding could be different across the board.
“A few families”? Irrelevant, since that was all the people there were. It is not a “recap,” at least that is not how the Mormon Church presents it. The official presentation calls it “Another Testament of Jesus Christ,” and claims
That is much more than a simplistic “recap”. It is (allegedly) a testimony of God’s work, according to the Mormon Church, and the things he has done for - and to! - the people it describes. Please don’t belittle your central, distinctive Scripture by calling it “a recap of a few families in 600 BC,” forgetting the Jaredites, Mulekites, many vital excerpts from Isaiah, centuries leading to the advent of Christ, and the centuries following his advent.
I suspect your failure to persuade others to agree with you is being misinterpreted as not being listened to. I see several people, particularly RebeccaJ and Horton, but also others, who are paying close attention to what you say. They try to digest it. They see a problem and point it out, which you seem to interpret as “not understanding.” For myself, when I see so much evidence for one issue, such as the Lamanite curse being passed on from generation to generation, and hear you reject it, then I interpret that as “not understanding.” I think everyone is being listened to. Listening comes with disagreement as well as sometimes with agreement.
The part about the fathers was in Alma 3:6, like I said you can believe what ever you want but most people read it just as I did.
I disagree adamantly, every immoral deed begins in the mind as a thought, and human history is replete with immoral thinking turned lose on hapless people.
Again with no proof and no answers. I don’t believe the LDS to be true so if you feel as though I’m not showing the LDS may correct. You believe anything you choose to. I choose to not believe the LDS.
When anyone is taught a falsehood as a divine truth, from the moment of their birth, there are more than the two options of belief or not.
I believe one of the more difficult issues for the LDS to deal with is in the ever changing teachings there will be those who, because they never heard the previous teaching, are