What does the Book Of Mormon bring . . . .

  • Thread starter Thread starter mark_a
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonathanKinsman said:
This is an outright lie. Your own church hierarchy issued ‘prophecies’ in the early 1970s that black americans were to be welcomed into your church.
The ‘mark of Cain’ was whitewashed (irony of ironies) to be a mark on one’s soul.
You Mormons are always acting like your magic, talking chameleon of Joseph Smith days: changing stories, changing ‘scripture,’ changing views to get the ignorant and the gullible.
Click to expand...
This is not a lie. Blacks did belong to the Church prior to 1978. I know this for sure. I am not a Catholic and was a Mormon missionary in a Latin American country 1974-1976 which had a huge population of black people. We always had to teach a special lesson to each potential convert asking them if they had any black ancestory. We also had to explain the doctrine that blacks could not hold the priesthood. We had one person who was blue-eyed and blond-haired, but had a black great grandmother. This person was denied the priesthood because of ancestory, but was a member of the church. There have been black Mormons since the earliest days of the Mormon Church, but they couldn’t have the priesthood until 1978. There were a few black Mormons who held the priesthood during the time of Joseph Smith, but once Brigham Young became President of the Church they were not allowed to have the priesthood.
 
JonathanKinsman said:
This is an outright lie. Your own church hierarchy issued ‘prophecies’ in the early 1970s that black americans were to be welcomed into your church.
The ‘mark of Cain’ was whitewashed (irony of ironies) to be a mark on one’s soul.
You Mormons are always acting like your magic, talking chameleon of Joseph Smith days: changing stories, changing ‘scripture,’ changing views to get the ignorant and the gullible.
Click to expand...
By the way Mormons still believe that blacks carry the mark of Cain. This has never been changed as far as I know.
 
Read it yourself. hti.umich.edu/m/mormon/

My favorite passage is here:

Mormon 4


  1. ]18] And from this time forth did the Nephites gain no power over the Lamanites, but began to be swept off by them even as a* dew** before the sun.

    My least favorite passages are most of the rest of the book.

    You can search for skin-color references. There are still plenty of them. dark, evil, filthy, etc, will be good words to look for.
 
Jerusha said:
Read it yourself. hti.umich.edu/m/mormon/

My favorite passage is here:

Mormon 4


  1. ]18] And from this time forth did the Nephites gain no power over the Lamanites, but began to be swept off by them even as a* dew** before the sun.

    My least favorite passages are most of the rest of the book.

    You can search for skin-color references. There are still plenty of them. dark, evil, filthy, etc, will be good words to look for.
Click to expand...

  1. But the skin color references in the Book of Mormon had to do with Native Americans, not Black Africans. Native Americans were always allowed into the LDS Church and were always allowed the priesthood. Only blacks of African descent were denied the priesthood even though they were always allowed into the church. The Book of Mormon says nothing about Black Africans at all.
 
christianley said:
But the skin color references in the Book of Mormon had to do with Native Americans, not Black Africans. Native Americans were always allowed into the LDS Church and were always allowed the priesthood. Only blacks of African descent were denied the priesthood even though they were always allowed into the church. The Book of Mormon says nothing about Black Africans at all.
Click to expand...
Moses 7:8,22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among scriptures.lds.org/

THE SECOND BOOK OF NEPHI
CHAPTER 5
21 And he had caused the acursing 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 bdelightsome, that they might not be centicing unto my people the Lord God did cause a dskin of eblackness to come upon them.
 
Karin said:
Moses 7:8,22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among scriptures.lds.org/

THE SECOND BOOK OF NEPHI
CHAPTER 5
21 And he had caused the acursing 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 bdelightsome, that they might not be centicing unto my people the Lord God did cause a dskin of eblackness to come upon them.
Click to expand...
The Book of Moses passage has to do with Black Africans. The Book of Mormon passage refers to the Native Americans, not Black Africans. Interestingly, the Book of Moses does not ban giving the priesthood to Black Africans. That justification is found in the Book of Abraham. Prior to the “translation” of the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith actually ordained at least one African American to the priesthood. I believe the priesthood ban originated with Brigham Young rather than Joseph Smith though Brigham’s followers did try to say Joseph originated the ban. The RLDS ordained black people to the priesthood.

The argument here is whether or not the Book of Mormon approves discrimination against dark skinned people. It does not and all dark skinned groups (Polynesians for example) were given the priesthood except for African Blacks.
 
Chris_LaRock said:
The 1830 one calls Jesus ‘Eternal Father’ and ‘Everlasting God’, while the modern one calls Him ‘son of the eternal father’, and ‘sone of the everlasting god’. This is obviously a shift from the traditional trinity doctrine, to the modern Mormon teaching that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are 3 gods.
Click to expand...
It isn’t a change of doctrine as much as a clarification. Other passages in the Book of Mormon still clearly indicate that Jesus is the “Everlasting God” (Title page for one). Mosiah 16 retains the same language: “Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, **who is the very Eternal Father. **” (Mosiah 16:15, see also Alma 11:38-39, ) While you may think this is a shift away from traditional trinitarian constructs, that isn’t at all the case. One would have to be oblivious of the text to read Mosiah 15 and conclude that it’s teaching trinitarian philosophy.

In short, your citation doesn’t demonstrate a “doctrinal change” since the text you provide still exists in several other places without change.

Want to try again – (since you claimed “a lot of doctrinal changes made since then! :eek:”)?

Alma
 
JonathanKinsman said:
Alma (from the BoM no doubt?):
Click to expand...
No doubt.
The most obvious contradiction in current Mormon teaching and the early editions of the BoM is the Mormon …
Click to expand...
Jonathan, look at my question. I asked for “changes in doctrine” as a result of edits made after the first edition of the Book of Mormon – not alleged contradictions. It’s a different subject.

Alma
 
But the skin color references in the Book of Mormon had to do with Native Americans, not Black Africans. Native Americans were always allowed into the LDS Church and were always allowed the priesthood. Only blacks of African descent were denied the priesthood even though they were always allowed into the church. The Book of Mormon says nothing about Black Africans at all.Yesterday 12:28 pm
Click to expand...
Absolutely. But, in order to convert to Mormonism, Native Americans have to accept that they are what LDS people tell them they are. Those who know their cultural heritage have a different story to tell. And have no tolerance for the patronizing and superior attitude of LDS people, many of whom who sincerely believe that ancestors of American Indians committed genocide on a population of good white people, and must atone for the sins of their ancestors.

Too many people read the book half-way through, or less, and give up. If one reads I Nephi, then skips to Alma, skips III Nephi 8-30, and reads the rest of the book, the BS and plagirism of Joe Smith and friends falls away. There is some good stuff in there, although most of it is told from a “Nephite” viewpoint.

As for the Book of Mormon being free from errors-- I think there are about 20 good pages. That is by actual count. SUBSTANTIALLY less than the Bible. 😃

Blasphemy on many levels.
 
Jerusha said:
But, in order to convert to Mormonism, Native Americans have to accept that they are what LDS people tell them they are.
Click to expand...
What a load of hokum! I can just imagine the interview process for South American converts of aboriginal descent: “We can’t baptize you unless you subscribe to the following dictum…” Anybody here privy to such a policy either in theory or practice by the LDS? Of course not.
… attitude of LDS people, many of whom who sincerely believe that ancestors of American Indians committed genocide on a population of good white people, and must atone for the sins of their ancestors.
Click to expand...
I’d like to offer a challenge. Can you come up with one (from among your “many”) believing Mormon who thinks anybody must (or even could) atone for the sins of his ancestor? That is one of the most ridiculous assertions I’ve ever encountered in anti-Mormon propaganda.

Alma
 
Jerusha said:
Absolutely. But, in order to convert to Mormonism, Native Americans have to accept that they are what LDS people tell them they are. Those who know their cultural heritage have a different story to tell. And have no tolerance for the patronizing and superior attitude of LDS people, many of whom who sincerely believe that ancestors of American Indians committed genocide on a population of good white people, and must atone for the sins of their ancestors.

Too many people read the book half-way through, or less, and give up. If one reads I Nephi, then skips to Alma, skips III Nephi 8-30, and reads the rest of the book, the BS and plagirism of Joe Smith and friends falls away. There is some good stuff in there, although most of it is told from a “Nephite” viewpoint.

As for the Book of Mormon being free from errors-- I think there are about 20 good pages. That is by actual count. SUBSTANTIALLY less than the Bible. 😃

Blasphemy on many levels.
Click to expand...
To be fair, if you read the Book of Mormon completely you will find many occasions in which the Lamanites were considered more righteous than the Nephites. Their righteousness was not dependent upon the color of their skin.

In 2 Nephi 26:33 it says:

“For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”

You can read racism into the Book of Mormon and on some level I agree it is there because it is a book written by people in the 19th century with their own prejudices. The Book of Mormon was written to try to explain why those dark-skinned people were in the New World and it fails completely at its task. Modern research has shown the brown skins are there because the people migrated from Asia, not because they were cursed of God.

Some Mormon apologists now claim the curse came upon the Lamanites naturally because they married the local population rather than only marrying good white Hebrews like they were supposed to. Supposedly, the intermingling of white Hebrews with Native Americans caused the darkness to come upon them. It’s a real reach and it isn’t what the Book of Mormon teaches.
 
Thank you, Christianley, for your balanced reply. As you know, I focus more on the story than on the melange of theologies presented in that book.
 
Alma147 said:
1 Nephi chapter 1:9-11 "And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day. And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament. And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth;

So what about all the other doctrines I mentioned? Are they distinctive to Mormonism or are they standard Christian orthodoxy?

Alma
Click to expand...
The Book of Mormon may have its peculiarities. But it is missing doctrines such as celestial marriage, polygamy as a divine principle, God having once been a man, men becoming gods, God having plural wives, God having a tangible flesh and bone body, the “Adam-God” doctrine which teaches that Adam IS God the Father and the “only god with whom we have anything to do”, and others.
 
christianley said:
That would probably disqualify the Bible.
Click to expand...
I was speaking only of doctrine. I’ve read several examples, posted by some of the more knowledgeable exmormons on this site, where Mormon doctrine changes in the “standard works”, depending on where you’re reading.
I also think it’s interesting how different from the Bible the BOM is. Since becoming Catholic I’ve read a good portion of the old Testament, and am currently reading the New testament. As a young Mormon I read a small portion of the BOM. Even then, the tone of the BOM disturbed me. I always ended up going back to the Bible. Always. I enjoyed reading the Bible (I read a collection of the Bible stories at a young age and searched out those same stories in the Bible as I got older), but I felt disturbed every time I tried to read the BOM - I just ended up reading the same portions over and over again.
 
Anima_Christi said:
The Book of Mormon may have its peculiarities. But it is missing doctrines such as celestial marriage, polygamy as a divine principle, God having once been a man, men becoming gods, God having plural wives, God having a tangible flesh and bone body, the “Adam-God” doctrine which teaches that Adam IS God the Father and the “only god with whom we have anything to do”, and others.
Click to expand...
That would only be problematic if the Book of Mormon claimed to include every truth. It doesn’t. In fact, it states that other books would follow the Book of Mormon containing additional concepts. (see 1 Nephi 13:39-40.)scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/13/40

Alma
 
Alma147 said:
It isn’t a change of doctrine as much as a clarification. Other passages in the Book of Mormon still clearly indicate that Jesus is the “Everlasting God” (Title page for one). Mosiah 16 retains the same language: “Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, **who is the very Eternal Father. **” (Mosiah 16:15, see also Alma 11:38-39, ) While you may think this is a shift away from traditional trinitarian constructs, that isn’t at all the case. One would have to be oblivious of the text to read Mosiah 15 and conclude that it’s teaching trinitarian philosophy.

In short, your citation doesn’t demonstrate a “doctrinal change” since the text you provide still exists in several other places without change.

Want to try again – (since you claimed “a lot of doctrinal changes made since then! :eek:”)?

Alma
Click to expand...
Actually, it does. Your church went from teaching that Jesus is God, to teaching that he is only another god.

Why would the BOM need clarification, if it is the most correct book ever written? Joseph Smith said that God himself proofread it and gave His approval of the accuracy of the translation. Was God mistaken?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top