Mormons; why don't you have crosses in your churches?

[Answersplease]

Answers and questions,
There is no such thing as a “curse” of a “skin of blackness”, and that is not what the Book of Mormon says.

Alma 3:6
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…

2 Nephi chapter 5 verses 21 - 25

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.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety…

25 And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction.

3 Nephi chapter 2 verses 14 - 16

14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;

15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair…

The differentiation between the Nephites and the Lamanites had to do with which group was spiritually dead because they didn’t follow the guidance of the Holy Ghost beginning in 588 BC, but all that changed in about 90 BC when many Lamanites began joining the true church of Christ and received the Holy Ghost in their lives. After that, either group could have been more righteous and devoted to God than the other group at certain points in time, depending on their righteousness.

God fulfills the prophecies of the prophets because they taught what He inspired them to teach and to prophesy. That is why prophets taught that in our day the house of Israel would be gathered from the four corners of the earth, and the Lamanite descendants are a part of that gathering. It’s happening in Mexico. It’s happening in Brazil. The gathering of Ephraim’s descendants is happening all over the world, just as prophesied in the Old Testament. The blacks all over the world are part of the gathering, just as prophesied by Abraham through God’s word to him.

God has a plan for the salvation of His children on earth. His promises are being fulfilled. He does not vary from keeping those promises and fulfilling His plan. It is being fulfilled, whether one sees it or not. (Many don’t.)

That does’nt answer my question:

So your Mormon god can’t (not won’t but can’t) give a new revelation to your Mormon president about those people who are according the Book of Mormon cursed with a “skin of blackness”?

It is no such thing. God has the right to give one commandment at one time, and a different commandment at another time. And He is not obliged to always give us an explanation why. On one occasion He says, “thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13); and on another occasion He says, “Ye shall utterly destroy” (Judges 21:11). He has the right to give one commandment at one time, and a different one at another time.

 

[ParkerD]

Alma 3:6
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…

2 Nephi chapter 5 verses 21 - 25

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.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety…

25 And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction.

3 Nephi chapter 2 verses 14 - 16

14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;

15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair…

That does’nt answer my question:

Answers,
I’ll try to explain further. God does not do things just because He can do them, of course. To phrase a statement as to whether God can do such and such a thing, is obviously nonsense when one considers what omnipotence means. We can know what God will not do, because He has revealed His word including His prophecies about the latter days. That’s why I replied the way I did. He fulfills His promises, period.

As to the Lamanites, the “curse” was not their skin color, though Alma 3:6 is poorly worded and is the only place that wording comes across without the distinction but it is explained if you read the entire chapter 3. The curse was what they had brought upon themselves by rebelling against the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and later by following the traditions of their fathers (Laman and Lemuel) which led to not receiving the influence of the Holy Ghost in their lives. The inter-marriages later among the Nephites and the Lamanites had the predictable result as to skin color, but the “curse” was already gone as noted in Alma 23:18, “They began to be a very industrious people;…and the curse of God did no more follow them.” This was in about 85 BC. The verses in 3 Nephi you quoted were describing 13 AD–which is 98 years later.

 

[zerinus]

So your Mormon god can’t (not won’t but can’t) give a new revelation to your Mormon president about those people who are according the Book of Mormon cursed with a “skin of blackness”?

That is a dumb question. Take my word for it.

 

[Answersplease]

Answers,
I’ll try to explain further. God does not do things just because He can do them, of course. To phrase a statement as to whether God can do such and such a thing, is obviously nonsense when one considers what omnipotence means. We can know what God will not do, because He has revealed His word including His prophecies about the latter days. That’s why I replied the way I did. He fulfills His promises, period.

So are you saying there CAN be a new revelation, but there WON’T be a new revelation?
You should back that up with verses, and those verses about all people being blessed don’t say how they will be blessed and does’nt mean they would be blessed permanently.
Where the Black or non-white Mormon members not blessed at all before it was supposedly revealed that they could join your Mormon priesthood?

As to the Lamanites, the “curse” was not their skin color, though Alma 3:6 is poorly worded and is the only place that wording comes across without the distinction but it is explained if you read the entire chapter 3.

You should go through your exegesis of chapter 3, instead of leaving the implication. It would lend a lot more weight to your credibility.
The verse I quoted is clear, no need for exegetical gymnastics, it is plain to read.
Your turn to quote verses, use your exegesis if you must.

I would also like to know what you think “the mark of Cain was”, how could Cain be protected if it was not noticeable somehow?

The curse was what they had brought upon themselves by rebelling against the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and later by following the traditions of their fathers (Laman and Lemuel) which led to not receiving the influence of the Holy Ghost in their lives. The inter-marriages later among the Nephites and the Lamanites had the predictable result as to skin color, but the “curse” was already gone as noted in Alma 23:18, “They began to be a very industrious people;…and the curse of God did no more follow them.” This was in about 85 BC. The verses in 3 Nephi you quoted were describing 13 AD–which is 98 years later.

That quote does’nt necessarily support your exegesis that the curse was not skin color.

 

[NewSeeker]

ParkerD, skin=skin. Period. There is no other way to spin these verses. I mean no offense, but it’s laughable to try to do so. The text of the “most correct of any book on earth” clearly states that the Lamanite curse was one of skin color. That was the universal view of every LDS prophet from Joseph Smith to Ezra Taft Benson, without a degree of variance. The plain fact that the text uses the English word ‘skin’, and the fact that the prophets (including the book’s “translator”) all universally agreed that the text meant skin color, indicates that in the BoM skin=skin; the word does not serve as a metaphor representing a spiritual state. I understand the appeal of trying to explain away the distastefulness of the verses in question, but the attempt collapses under the weight of normal English usage and the teachings of the LDS prophets.

NewSeeker

 

[Answersplease]

That is a dumb question. Take my word for it.

You show your Mormon “kindness”, how nice.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, skin=skin. Period. There is no other way to spin these verses. I mean no offense, but it’s laughable to try to do so. The text of the “most correct of any book on earth” clearly states that the Lamanite curse was one of skin color. That was the universal view of every LDS prophet from Joseph Smith to Ezra Taft Benson, without a degree of variance. The plain fact that the text uses the English word ‘skin’, and the fact that the prophets (including the book’s “translator”) all universally agreed that the text meant skin color, indicates that in the BoM skin=skin; the word does not serve as a metaphor representing a spiritual state. I understand the appeal of trying to explain away the distastefulness of the verses in question, but the attempt collapses under the weight of normal English usage and the teachings of the LDS prophets.

NewSeeker

NewSeeker,
There is one verse, Alma 3:6, that infers that the “curse” was skin color. It is poorly worded. Many other verses throughout the Book of Mormon distinguish that the “curse” was due to forgetting God and not having the guidance of the Holy Ghost, starting with when it is first talked about in 1 Nephi.

People can and do take one verse of scripture and build their whole lives and their whole decision making around one verse, but I think that is unwise and I choose not to do that.

Again, there is no “distastefulness” if all the verses Answers listed are read in context. If you take Alma 3:6 by itself, then yes that verse by itself is distasteful, but I see no reason to build my life around that verse. Have a nice day.

Answers,
The “mark of Cain” was a different matter entirely, and applied to Cain and his family, period, as far as I’m concerned. That was in about 3950 BC. Here we are in 2009 AD. I choose to live in the present and the future, not the past.

 

[NewSeeker]

Again, there is no “distastefulness” if all the verses Answers listed are read in context. If you take Alma 3:6 by itself, then yes that verse by itself is distasteful, but I see no reason to build my life around that verse. Have a nice day.

When I was LDS, I wasn’t quite so able to ignore the prophets, or think they were all wrong, and remain a member; which explains in part why I’m no longer LDS. You have a great day too!

NewSeeker

 

[dianaiad]

No - I only object to specious claims that the Catholic Church caused the Dark Ages and that, if not for the Church, there would have been no Dark Ages. Sure there was ignorance and superstition. But there was also light, light preserved and protected by Catholic laymen, monks, priests, religious, and many Popes. It’s to be expected that light and dark, saint and sinner, would reside side by side within the Church - since virtually all of Europe was Catholic.

Would you care to show me where I claimed that the church caused the dark ages?
It seems obvious that it didn’t do much to put light in there for people other than their own clergy, but I distinctly remember, in my first post about it, that if it weren’t for the church (and the Muslims) which protected the early writings of the ancient world, we wouldn’t have them today.

you might try responding to what is actually in front of you, not what you assume is.

 

[dianaiad]

Even odder is Descartes and Bacon lived after the -]Dark Ages/-] Middle Ages.

Yes, Stephen, that’s rather the POINT, sir.

the claim here was that the Catholic clergy invented the scientific method–during the dark ages…er, early medieval period.

Descartes was Catholic, but definitely not a priest. Bacon was neither Catholic nor priest–and the advances they made were part and parcel of what ENDED the ‘dark ages.’

 

[dianaiad]

So your Mormon god can’t (not won’t but can’t) give a new revelation to your Mormon president about those people who are according the Book of Mormon cursed with a “skin of blackness”?

I suppose He could, but why should He? We have always been told that eventually it would be their turn, and that they would be fully blessed with the priesthood. We knew it was coming, we just didn’t know when.

Well, it came. There is absolutely no reason to assume that it would be removed again; no hint of it, nothing.

Though I have no idea why I’m bothering to answer you.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes, Stephen, that’s rather the POINT, sir.

the claim here was that the Catholic clergy invented the scientific method–during the dark ages…er, early medieval period.

Descartes was Catholic, but definitely not a priest. Bacon was neither Catholic nor priest–and the advances they made were part and parcel of what ENDED the ‘dark ages.’

Oh, OK. So you are saying the scientific method was invented after the middle ages by Descrates and Bacon. And what does Ibn al-Haytham have to do with the scientific method if it was invented after the middle ages by Descrates and Bacon?

 

[Stephen168]

Descartes was Catholic, but definitely not a priest. Bacon was neither Catholic nor priest–and the advances they made were part and parcel of what ENDED the ‘dark ages.’

How did Descrates and Bacon end the middles ages when they lived after the middles ages?

 

[Answersplease]

So your Mormon god can’t (not won’t but can’t) give a new revelation to your Mormon president about those people who are according the Book of Mormon cursed with a “skin of blackness”?

I suppose He could, but why should He? We have always been told that eventually it would be their turn, and that they would be fully blessed with the priesthood. We knew it was coming, we just didn’t know when.

Well, it came. There is absolutely no reason to assume that it would be removed again; no hint of it, nothing.

Though I have no idea why I’m bothering to answer you.

If your religion is true, the you should fear no question.

The Truth fears nothing, for the Truth is The Word made flesh.

Is mormonism about silence and blind obedience?

Let me ask my questions and see if I get any answers.

Having said that, I thank you for your answer, you at least admit it is a possibility.

ParkerD won’t even go over his exegesis of Alma chapter 3 like I asked,
to support his claim about reading the verse in the proper context.

I would like to see the proper context.

And ParkerD won’t explain why the possibility does’nt exist of a new revelation from your mormon god about the curse.

 

[ParkerD]

If your religion is true, the you should fear no question.

The Truth fears nothing, for the Truth is The Word made flesh.

Is mormonism about silence and blind obedience?

Let me ask my questions and see if I get any answers.

Having said that, I thank you for your answer, you at least admit it is a possibility.

ParkerD won’t even go over his exegesis of Alma chapter 3 like I asked,
to support his claim about reading the verse in the proper context.

I would like to see the proper context.

And ParkerD won’t explain why the possibility does’nt exist of a new revelation from your mormon god about the curse.

Answers,
May I remind you that Christ didn’t answer every question that was put to Him? Are you saying that he was fearful of answering those particular questions? I have no fear of your questions–not one. I just don’t happen to think I need to answer them, especially given your tone of “voice”.

Alma 3 is focusing on the events surrounding a group of people called the Amlicites, who had been Nephites but rebelled and followed a king named Amlici and went to war against the Nephites. Alma 3:16 explains that God had promised “I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed.” Alma 3:18 says,
“Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them.”

Alma 3:19 follows by saying “they brought upon themselves the curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation.”

The “curse” was “open rebellion against God.” The mark of the curse for the Amlicites was that they placed a red dye on their foreheads. They marked themselves, they did not have dark skin, yet the “curse” had fallen upon them as verse 18 says. The “curse” was not dark skin. The curse was the effects of “listening” to a “bad spirit” instead of to the light of Christ and the Holy Ghost, as noted in verse 26. They marked themselves, and they had brought upon themselves the curse but remained light-skinned.

As to whether God will ever do something contrary to the scriptures, the answer is NO. He will never again cover the earth with a flood as happened in the days of Noah. He will not take the priesthood from any righteous people. Many Jews will eventually get the true priesthood that was lost when their ancestors didn’t accept Christ and the apostles. They fulfill the prophecy that the “first shall be last.” Last means last.

God is not whimsical. He fulfills His promises and the prophecies of all the holy prophets. He has a purpose in all that He fulfills on this earth as its history unfolds, and right now we are headed toward days of much fulfillment of prophecy as the earth is prepared for the Millenium. You can count on it.

 

[NewSeeker]

Yes, Stephen, that’s rather the POINT, sir.

the claim here was that the Catholic clergy invented the scientific method–during the dark ages…er, early medieval period.

Descartes was Catholic, but definitely not a priest. Bacon was neither Catholic nor priest–and the advances they made were part and parcel of what ENDED the ‘dark ages.’

Descartes and R. Bacon stood on the shoulders of priests, a bishop, and a pope in their work.

 

[Answersplease]

Answers,
May I remind you that Christ didn’t answer every question that was put to Him? Are you saying that he was fearful of answering those particular questions?

Jesus The Christ ANSWERED ALL questions in The New Testament, even when He answered a question with a question of His own, his adversaries could INFER the ANSWER by the question Jesus The Christ asked.

I have no fear of your questions–not one.

If you have no fear of questions then you are one of the better mormon leaders,
let the debate continue.

The Mormons – PBS Documentary by AN AMERICAN EXPERIENCE and FRONTLINE

pbs.org/mormons/etc/script2.html

DALLIN H. OAKS, LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: It’s wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true.

The Mormon Church and Dissent
pbs.org/mormons/themes/dissent.html
(D. Michael Quinn is a Mormon historian who was excommunicated in 1993.)

“…I was on the faculty of Brigham Young University, and what threw me into the jeopardy of losing my membership in the church were my publications in LDS history.”

Thought control.

Silence the tongue, silence the mind.

Keep them busy with other “safe” things, divert their attention so they don’t ask certain questions.

Interview Margaret Toscano
pbs.org/mormons/interviews/toscano.html
(The “She” mentioned in the first two following paragraphs quoted is another woman who Margaret Toscano is talking about.)

She’s concerned about the fact that we can’t talk about Heavenly Mother in Mormon meetings. She has other concerns. And she told me a story about how she recently went to her bishop to tell him some of her concerns. …he told her that she was being influenced by Satan and that if she were only not a working mother – that her real problem here is that she’s a working mother and that, because she’s a working mother, she’s now opened herself to the influence of Satan.

mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord

Robert Millet, in a presentation about how to handle the tough anti-Mormon questions missionaries may face while on their missions or afterward, says, “We really aren’t obligated to answer everyone’s questions.” He goes on to say, “We never provide meat when milk will do”, and, “We seek to answer any serious question by finding the most direct route to the Sacred Grove.”

I just don’t happen to think I need to answer them, especially given your tone of “voice”.

So a questioning tone of voice is unacceptable.

There are mormons here who try to press their point in the strongest way possible.

But when a Christian tries to press a point that is difficult for a mormon to deal with,
then the Christian’s tone is unacceptable.

How convenient.

 

[Answersplease]

Alma 3 is focusing on the events surrounding a group of people called the Amlicites, who had been Nephites but rebelled and followed a king named Amlici and went to war against the Nephites.

The Amlicites are NOT the only FOCUS of Alma 3, why would the focus have to “return” to the Amlicites if they were the only focus.

There was a COMPARISON between the Amlicites and the Lamanites therefore the description of the Lamanites STANDS ALONE and whatever the Amlicites did to mark themselves has nothing to do with how your mormon god MARKED the Lamanites.

Alma 3:6
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…

Alma 3:13
Now we will return again to the Amlicites…

---

Alma 3:16 explains that God had promised “I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed.” Alma 3:18 says,
“Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them.”

Alma 3:19 follows by saying “they brought upon themselves the curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation.”

“Open rebellion” and self-inflicted marks DOES NOT preclude ANOTHER MARK set by your mormon god himself: “the curse should fall upon them”, “they brought upon themselves the curse”.

If the “curse” is “open rebellion” against your mormon god or a self-inflicted mark,
then why do the verses say the “mark” was “set” (placed) by your mormon god himself?

Alma 3:7
…and the Lord God SET a MARK upon them…

---

The “curse” was “open rebellion against God.” The mark of the curse for the Amlicites was that they placed a red dye on their foreheads.

If the “curse” is “open rebellion”, then how do you DISTINGUISH between a good newborn baby and an “openly rebellious” newborn baby?

Alma 3:8
And this was done that their seed might be DISTINGUISHED from the seed of their brethren…

If the “curse” is “open rebellion” against your mormon god, then are you saying if a “white and delightsome” person has a baby with an “openly rebellious” Lamanite, then the newborn baby is automatically in “open rebellion” against your mormon god as the next verse says?

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

---

They marked themselves, they did not have dark skin, yet the “curse” had fallen upon them as verse 18 says. The “curse” was not dark skin. The curse was the effects of “listening” to a “bad spirit” instead of to the light of Christ and the Holy Ghost, as noted in verse 26. They marked themselves, and they had brought upon themselves the curse but remained light-skinned.

Alma 3:18 Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them.

There is NOTHING in Alma 3:18 that says they “remained light-skinned”, there is NOTHING in the WHOLE CHAPTER that says they “remained light-skinned”.

They can be “openly rebellious” and mark themselves,
AND still be given ANOTHER MARK by your mormon god.

Alma 3:7
…and the Lord God SET a MARK upon them…

---

As to whether God will ever do something contrary to the scriptures, the answer is NO. He will never again cover the earth with a flood as happened in the days of Noah.

The True God specifically said he would not doom the earth.

Genesis 8:21
When the LORD smelled the sweet odor, he said to himself: "Never again will I doom the earth because of man, since the desires of man’s heart are evil from the start; nor will I ever again strike down all living beings, as I have done.

The True God also has a right to change his mind, like when He spared the city of Nineveh.

Jonah 3:10
When God saw by their actions how they turned from their evil way, he repented of the evil that he had threatened to do to them; he did not carry it out.

---

He will not take the priesthood from any righteous people.

The posibillity is there, if not, then show the verse that says your mormon god will never take the priesthood away or make any other revelation concerning the people with the “mark” according to the Book of Mormon.

ParkerD, skin=skin. Period. There is no other way to spin these verses. I mean no offense, but it’s laughable to try to do so. The text of the “most correct of any book on earth” clearly states that the Lamanite curse was one of skin color. That was the universal view of every LDS prophet from Joseph Smith to Ezra Taft Benson, without a degree of variance. The plain fact that the text uses the English word ‘skin’, and the fact that the prophets (including the book’s “translator”) all universally agreed that the text meant skin color, indicates that in the BoM skin=skin; the word does not serve as a metaphor representing a spiritual state. I understand the appeal of trying to explain away the distastefulness of the verses in question, but the attempt collapses under the weight of normal English usage and the teachings of the LDS prophets.

NewSeeker

 

[ParkerD]

Answers,
Luke 23:9 tells about Herod asking Christ questions.

“Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.”

“And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him.”

In your particular case here, I am going to follow Christ’s example in that particular instance. There are people who have their own agenda and seek wherewith to accuse, for whom the best answer is to “write on the ground” (John 8:6) or to “answer him nothing.”

 

[dianaiad]

Descartes and R. Bacon stood on the shoulders of priests, a bishop, and a pope in their work.

I see. I love a good sense of humor…