Mormons Change References To Blacks, ...

Mormons Change References To Blacks, Polygamy

There are 291 comments on the nhpr.org story from Mar 17, 2013, titled Mormons Change References To Blacks, Polygamy. In it, nhpr.org reports that:

The Four Standard Works, which contains the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, are the holy scriptures of the Mormon Church.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at nhpr.org.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Level 1

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#182 May 13, 2013
No,

we know of ONE instance until the 15th century in Christianity. PRIOR TO THAT it was all Islamic from the 7th century onwards.

And in your history lesson you skipped a paragraph

The Mormons took all of that history of it, and added to their religon to this day, as if it actually was what Moses "said" happened.

BUT, Moses never wrote it, nor was it implied in that period.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You have some real deep seated racial issues dude.
Anciently speaking, there is no way of knowing how this story was viewed by those reading it a couple thousand years ago.
What we do know is for the last 1000 years at least, to Christian monks/ministers etc it wasn't approached as just a metaphor. It was approached as an actual incident back in time somewhere.
It was used for centuries by black/brown coloured Christian Spaniards to support their slavery of Africans.
American Christians carried over the story as real from the English and Spanish.
American Christians continued to believe the story as real long after slavery was abolished by law.
American Christian ministers taught the story of the mark of Cain being black skin till they were accused of being racists.
American Christian ministers didn't stop the teaching because they saw it as a metaphor, they stopped because they didn't want to be called racists.
Now that we have a new generation of Christian ministers that believe so as not to promote any type of racism/difference of the colours, they now have turned how the Bible was once believed into a totally different view.
They now teach we're all equal in God's eyes. No one is different from any perspective. To not regard the Bible where it specifies differences. To actually ignore those spots and don't even debate them.
Yet racists like you break the rules of modern Christianity to prove your racists beliefs while you use there rules to call foul at others. Some more of your racist hypocrisy happening there.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Level 1

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#183 May 13, 2013
His answer is who knows...

That's called lying.

You don't know why someone would take seriously a contradictory statement.

The curse was "a metaphor" then it's considered "literal" in your same tired ass argument.

And your answer

Who knows.

You LOST this debate.

You want to discuss primates, open another thread. But within the context of just the religion, you can't say "metaphor" and "literal" for the same thing.

"Mark" is not "entire body changed to black skin of another race". It's not the "same thing".

You've been defeated.

Now I'm just going to keep stomping you.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Who knows? You claim Adam and Eve were black Africans and came from primates and you say that's fact and science affirms your belief.
But the Bible claims Adam was made from the dust and Eve from a rib of Adam. It say's nothing about primates.
How in the world does anyone even process this BOLD FACED CONTRADICTION of your's????

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Level 1

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#184 May 13, 2013
"A national equalization"

Yea... ok

"Confine them" doesn't work in "national equalization"

He was talking about placing black people in some kind of reservations
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual you left out information...
“Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization.” History of the Church, Volume 5, pages 218-219

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Level 1

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#185 May 13, 2013
Nope

I refuted you with your crap about the Egyptians being cursed from Cain, because you cannot overlook the obvious mixture there.

You see the queen's black face in that link. See I don't have a problem with some egyptians being light skinned. Because they didn't practice stupid skin tone segregation. "only contained"... that's your way of trying to hocus pocus the readers.

When you saw that queen, your heart sank, and thus this weak reply:
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Your a fricking pathetic black racist. You think, eat and sleep racism.
And you're really showing your true blue racism by thinking as a racist does like you that ancient Egypt only contained people with dark black skin, flat wide noses, tight curly black hair and thick lips.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Level 1

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#186 May 13, 2013
So then you're back to the previous point. Since the lightskinned ones are related to the darkerskinned ones...

1. Joseph married an Egyptian
2. The sons of Men of Levi and women of Tribes of Joseph (Manessah and Ephraim) were not banned from the priesthood.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You want to ice me?? lolol...can you be any more childish? lol.
I never said that brown and light skinned Egyptians were NOT DESCENDENTS OF BLACK EGYPTIANS. Shed yourself of your racism when you respond, it helps, just saying.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#187 May 13, 2013
osirica wrote:
No where in that post does it imply that a mark was passed down to his descendents.
When you need to "prove" a point, one thing you need to stop doing is posting 20 verses, when your proof is only on one verse.
So what VERSE, or word or phrase are you referring to in those verses below?
<quoted text>
The proof is in two verses.
You a staunch racist refuse to see Lamech a descendant of Cain CLAIMED HIMSELF, that the curse protecting Cain was to protect himself.

On Cain...
15 ...vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold...
..........
Six generations later...
..........
On Lamech a descendant of Cain...
24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#188 May 13, 2013
osirica wrote:
No where in that post does it imply that a mark was passed down to his descendents.
To repeat my previous post yes it was. Whatever this mark/sign was that's been debated and guessed at for just the last 2000 years, it was passed down to his descendants. The fact that in the story Lamech claims the same protection is afforded him that was afforded Cain is proof this mark/sign was passed down to Cain's descendants.

15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
Five generations later lamech was born. An obvious fight took place between lamech and another younger man. The younger man wounded Lamech and Lamech killed the younger man. Lamech had this to say in connection to his great, great, great, great, great grandfather Cain.
23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#189 May 13, 2013
osirica wrote:
No the irony here is that you are declaring that God DID something that the BIBLE proves he did NOT do.
Your entire post had absolutely nothing to do with my response to your post. And what you stated previously you have twisted now to mean something else so lets try this again.

You wrote...
osirica wrote:
GOD will not do that which he does not want to do.

I disagreed without giving examples. I'll now give examples.

God is not a God that loves hate and anger and mayhem and murder etc. God is a God of love but he is a disciplinary God.
We can pretty much feel guaranteed that God didn't want to do what he did do in the following examples.
God didn't want to curse and punish Adam and Eve but he did it.
God didn't want to curse Cain but he did it.
God didn't want to flood the earth and kill off everyone I am sure though he did just that.
God didn't want to let his people face slavery by the Egyptians but he allowed it to happen.
God wanted Moses to enter the promised land but for discipline measures he didn't allow Moses into it.
God didn't want to have his son beaten and crucified but he allowed it.
So your statement "GOD will not do that which he does not want to do." is factually untrue.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#190 May 13, 2013
osirica wrote:
One thing I won't do is defend racist positions...
You defend your racist position concerning God all the time.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#191 May 13, 2013
osirica wrote:
Nope.
Curse #1 was to make it so Adam would "HAVE" to till the land to get food.
Curse #2 was to make it so Cain would "NOT BE ABLE TO" till the land to get food.
The similarity is the tilling of the land is the center of the curse.
The difference... one is passed down to descendents, the other is not.(or if it is, it has no relationship to black people).
<quoted text>
I made no relationship to black people....some more of your racism bubbling to the surface. I can show you people of every colour that struggle in farming all over this earth.
Adam HAD to till the land in order to have food. So that had nothing to do with the curse. Tilling the soil was a fact of life for him now. The curse was when Adam tilled the earth God would make it hard for Adam WHEN he tilled it.
The curse came in the following...
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree,... cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

Of Cain God didn't say he wouldn't be able to farm. That is your claim. God stated it wouldn't yield unto him it's STRENGTH. Meaning crops he'd plant would come up weakly or partially grown.

12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength;
Seems to me the curses were very similar in nature, that tilling the soil for Adam and Cain would be a tough thing to do. But since you view things through the thinking of a racist, you wouldn't see the similarities.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#192 May 13, 2013
osirica wrote:
So now you are putting yourself in a further box...
Now, among the humans, those cursed would have a harder time than the non cursed to till the land and grow crops right?
So your still defending the notion that blacks (and Egyptians) would be the cursed.
I never specified black Africans or Egyptians. I did speak of scholars claiming a connection to Africa not being a great place to grow crops which they linked back to Cain's curse. I was referencing THEIR train of thought, not mine.
And much of Africa is known for it's many parts unusable for crops. But in the same breath I can find much of Asia and Russia and Australia that is unusable for crops. So what now?

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#193 May 13, 2013
osirica wrote:
No,
we know of ONE instance until the 15th century in Christianity. PRIOR TO THAT it was all Islamic from the 7th century onwards.
And in your history lesson you skipped a paragraph
The Mormons took all of that history of it, and added to their religon to this day, as if it actually was what Moses "said" happened.
BUT, Moses never wrote it, nor was it implied in that period.
<quoted text>
You don't know what Moses said so quit acting like you know what he wrote to claim what he didn't write unless your using your Smith Jr prophet powers to debunk Smith?
And there are other references to Cain's mark being black skin and their both Christian sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_o...

17...Goldenberg 2003, p. 180.

18...The History of Abel and Cain, 10, in Lipscomb, The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature, pp. 145, 250 (text) and 160, 271 (translation)

Early church exegesis
In Syriac Christianity, early exegesis of the "curse" and the "mark", associated the curse of Cain with black skin.[18] Some argue that this may have originated from rabbinic texts, which interpreted a passage in the Book of Genesis ("And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell" (Gen. 4:5), suggesting that Cain underwent a permanent change in skin color.
In an Eastern Christian (Armenian) Adam-book (5th or 6th century) it is written:“And the Lord was wroth with Cain... He beat Cain’s face with hail, which blackened like coal, and thus he remained with a black face".[19]

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#194 May 13, 2013
osirica wrote:
His answer is who knows...
That's called lying.
You don't know why someone would take seriously a contradictory statement.
The curse was "a metaphor" then it's considered "literal" in your same tired ass argument.
And your answer
Who knows.
You LOST this debate.
You want to discuss primates, open another thread. But within the context of just the religion, you can't say "metaphor" and "literal" for the same thing.
"Mark" is not "entire body changed to black skin of another race". It's not the "same thing".
You've been defeated.
Now I'm just going to keep stomping you.
<quoted text>
You asked me..."How the world does anyone even Process this BOLD FACED CONTRADICTION!!!!" I said I don't know. I don't know because a contradiction is in the eye of the reader/listener. And not all agree as to what a constitutes a contradiction and what doesn't.
I then gave you an example of a true contradiction and your racist side rejected it as is normal for a racist to do.
Adam was made from the earth, not a primate. In the Bible there is no telling what Adam's colour was.
You twist and contradict the story by restating it to fit your racist belief. You contradict the story by injecting the word primate for earth. That's a contradiction concerning what the story said and what you want it to mean.
You defeated your own response and you severely stomped on it yourself. Nice job.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#195 May 13, 2013
osirica wrote:
"A national equalization"
Yea... ok
"Confine them" doesn't work in "national equalization"
He was talking about placing black people in some kind of reservations
<quoted text>
Man are you ignorant, that's the result of you being such a deep seated racist. Doesn't have to be that way, seriously.
Some history for you. From the birth of America to the early 1900s, a black man caught having relations with a white woman could get him beaten and or hung and she beaten or beaten and ran out of town or sometimes killed.
Smith was aware of how whites felt about black males having relationships with white females. And yeah the hypocrisy thrived because white guys used black females for sex and relationships but, it wasn't something they bragged about because they could lose face and disrespect from others.
Smith was also aware of segregation practices/beliefs that flourished at that time for any reason be it religious or tradition belief. Whites and black slaves strongly believed in keeping sex to one's own colour. This thinking would continue into the mid 19th century among whites and blacks and natives and Asians, etc.

Point being Smith saying he would confine them by law to their own species was because laws existed which confined whites to their own species. He wasn't speaking of confining them to a reservation. Smith said once if you see a negro going down a street in his own horse and carriage you have seen a man rise above his situation. He would never have said that if he thought blacks should be on a reservation out of sight, out of mind as the saying goes.
Your racism really kills your power of understanding a lot of times.

“Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization.” History of the Church, Volume 5, pages 218-219

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#196 May 13, 2013
osirica wrote:
Nope
I refuted you with your crap about the Egyptians being cursed from Cain, because you cannot overlook the obvious mixture there.
You see the queen's black face in that link. See I don't have a problem with some egyptians being light skinned. Because they didn't practice stupid skin tone segregation. "only contained"... that's your way of trying to hocus pocus the readers.
When you saw that queen, your heart sank, and thus this weak reply:
<quoted text>
You refuted nothing as usual. I never said the Egyptians were cursed from Cain. that's some more of your fantasy racist thoughts that didn't take place between us.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#197 May 13, 2013
osirica wrote:
So then you're back to the previous point. Since the lightskinned ones are related to the darkerskinned ones...
1. Joseph married an Egyptian
2. The sons of Men of Levi and women of Tribes of Joseph (Manessah and Ephraim) were not banned from the priesthood.
<quoted text>
Besides your racist rants that Egypt was first settled by black Africans, do you even know what people(s) settled the area we call Egypt and where archaeology states their from?

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Level 1

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#198 May 16, 2013
Verse #1 does not speak of a mark. Not proof.
Verse #2 does not speak of a mark. Not proof.

A "curse" does not protect someone.

The mark was a separate event than the curse.

You cannot "protect" yourself by "not" being able to till the land to grow crops.

Man you're a buffoon
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The proof is in two verses.
You a staunch racist refuse to see Lamech a descendant of Cain CLAIMED HIMSELF, that the curse protecting Cain was to protect himself.
On Cain...
15 ...vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold...
..........
Six generations later...
..........
On Lamech a descendant of Cain...
24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Level 1

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#199 May 16, 2013
And again, nothing there spoke of a mark on Lamech. It's not even "effective" since someone DID try to kill him...

KNOWING that if he were marked, he'd suffer seven times at least right?

So, silly man, he obviously wasn't marked.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
To repeat my previous post yes it was. Whatever this mark/sign was that's been debated and guessed at for just the last 2000 years, it was passed down to his descendants. The fact that in the story Lamech claims the same protection is afforded him that was afforded Cain is proof this mark/sign was passed down to Cain's descendants.
15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
Five generations later lamech was born. An obvious fight took place between lamech and another younger man. The younger man wounded Lamech and Lamech killed the younger man. Lamech had this to say in connection to his great, great, great, great, great grandfather Cain.
23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Level 1

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#200 May 16, 2013
Example 1
GOD CHOOSES WHAT HE WILL DO.

If A HUMAN WORM LIKE YOURSELF INTERPRETS THE BIBLE TO SAY CAIN HAD A MARK THAT WAS BLACK SKIN COLOR, AND YET GOD DID NOT CAUSE THAT MARK TO BE BLACK RACIAL SKIN COLOR....

THEN GOD DID NOT DO IT.

YOU SAYING HE "MIGHT" WHEN THE BIBLE AND EVERYTHING ELSE SHOWS HE DID NOT...

THEN HE DID NOT.

YOU SAYING "HE MIGHT" WHEN HE DID NOT IS NOT RELEVANT.

NOW GOD DOES NOT DO WHAT GOD DOES NOT WISH TO DO.

NO ONE ELSE IS "FORCING" GOD TO DO ANYTHING.

GOD DID NOT MAKE CAIN INTO THE FIRST NEGRO RACIAL TYPE PERSON.

I"VE PROVEN IT.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Your entire post had absolutely nothing to do with my response to your post. And what you stated previously you have twisted now to mean something else so lets try this again.
You wrote...
osirica wrote:
GOD will not do that which he does not want to do.
I disagreed without giving examples. I'll now give examples.
God is not a God that loves hate and anger and mayhem and murder etc. God is a God of love but he is a disciplinary God.
We can pretty much feel guaranteed that God didn't want to do what he did do in the following examples.
God didn't want to curse and punish Adam and Eve but he did it.
God didn't want to curse Cain but he did it.
God didn't want to flood the earth and kill off everyone I am sure though he did just that.
God didn't want to let his people face slavery by the Egyptians but he allowed it to happen.
God wanted Moses to enter the promised land but for discipline measures he didn't allow Moses into it.
God didn't want to have his son beaten and crucified but he allowed it.
So your statement "GOD will not do that which he does not want to do." is factually untrue.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Level 1

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#201 May 16, 2013
Yes, and "some" is not "all"

Black people were enslaved to grow crops.

Conversation ended. Cain is not the ancestor of the black race.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I never specified black Africans or Egyptians. I did speak of scholars claiming a connection to Africa not being a great place to grow crops which they linked back to Cain's curse. I was referencing THEIR train of thought, not mine.
And much of Africa is known for it's many parts unusable for crops. But in the same breath I can find much of Asia and Russia and Australia that is unusable for crops. So what now?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Israelite Supremacist - A Day In The Life 1 min No_Watermelon_4_U 11
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Reality Check 1,523,978
Why do white girls get mad when white guys talk... 2 min blu 45
the trashiest looking mudshark I've ever seen 4 min No_Watermelon_4_U 2
White racist boys sexual frustration 10 min The Gleaming Axe 3
Am I a NOG? 19 min No_Watermelon_4_U 15
Negro behavior in public places 24 min No_Watermelon_4_U 139
Swedish girl gives head in the Congo! 43 min The Racist Axe 30
Trump ~ 100* Days ~ Major Accomplishments? 2 hr Mick 58
Trump ~ Skipping Correspondents Dinner 4 hr Trump WINS 2016 13
More from around the web