bomgeography wrote:The Book of Mormon is a historical record. 1NE 13 does foretell that Native American would unfortunately be devastated by the onslaught of European arrival. The diseases that Europeans brought. And the fact that Europeans stole their land. The government forcibly moving them to reservations.
You cannot foretell something that has already happened.
The Book of Mormon does not state that white people are better than any other national or skin color. people misinterpret the idea that the Book of Mormon when it refers to skin. The verses that people see as offensive I interpret as being a outward expression of one persons spiritual nature. Its uses is similiar to how its used in the Old Testament.
The Book of Mormon quite clearly states that dark skin is the punishment for their sins and to be a marker for Nephi's group to avoid them. The Book of Mormon was written in a day when the idea that the mark of Cain was dark skin.
It was not to long ago your avatar was a Native American riding a tapir a mockery of Native Americans and Mormons in general.
No, it only mocks apologists who suggest Book of Mormon horses were tapir's.
What you TAPIR are claiming that the Book of Mormon, Mormons or myself teach white supremacy is completely wrong, offensive and a blatant LIE.
Tapir has already explained that you are NOT representing the Mormon position. Your own words show that YOU are using the Book of Mormon to advocate a racist, supremacist ideology:
bomgeography wrote:people misinterpret the idea that the Book of Mormon when it refers to skin. The verses that people see as offensive I interpret as being a outward expression of one persons spiritual nature.
So you think lighter skin on the outside means a person has better character on the inside?
We find this same myth in the Book of Mormon, where the noble white race of the first Americans falls to decadent savages who are punished by having their skin darkened (2 Nephi 5:21; 3 Nephi 2:15; Alma 3:6).
Last edited by Guest on Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Themis wrote: I have brought up that the science has been very clear that Haplo x found in North America arrived well before Book of Mormon times and is related to Middle east and European x by well over 10 thousands years ago. You have ignored this over and over again. It cannot represent DNA from Book of Mormon people if they existed.
We have no idea as to what the genetic markers for the Book of Mormon peoples would look like.
We know what region they are claimed to be from, so we would know a little about the types of DNA they would have. We would also be able to see if a group arrived from the middle east 3k years ago and developed into many successful civilizations. How is it they can see DNA from a small group from japan 6k years ago? And we even have pottery patterns they brought with them.
bomgeography wrote:There plenty of archeological cultural artifacts and linguistic evidence to show.
Concerning Hattera Indians of North Carolina: “These Hattera tell us, that several of their Ancestors were white People, and could talk in a Book, as we do; the Truth of which is confirmed by gray eyes being found frequently amongst these Indians, and no others.” (John Lawson 1709 pg. 62) The Nephites who I believe had Caucasian DNA were killed off by the Lamanites.
This has been addressed to you on another post.
bomgeography wrote:Let's see what Native American tradition says concerning the topic
Concerning Hattera Indians of North Carolina: “These Hattera tell us, that several of their Ancestors were white People, and could talk in a Book, as we do; the Truth of which is confirmed by gray eyes being found frequently amongst these Indians, and no others.” (John Lawson 1709 pg. 62)
tapirrider wrote:this is a classic example of your cherry picking. You quoted from a particular reference that has nothing to do with ancient whites in the Americas. Perhaps you have twisted and distorted a writing to mean something that you want it to, and not what it says. Here is a link to the source:
You left out a very important part of the paragraph when you quoted from it. Here it is in full.
A farther Confirmation of this we have from the Hatteras Indians, who either then lived on Ronoak-Island, or much frequented it. These tell us, that several of their Ancestors were white People, and could talk in a Book, as we do; the Truth of which is confirm'd by gray Eyes being found frequently amongst these Indians, and no others. They value themselves extremely for their Affinity to the English, and are ready to do them all friendly Offices. It is probable, that this Settlement miscarry'd for want of timely Supplies from England; or thro' the Treachery of the Natives, for we may reasonably suppose that the English were forced to cohabit with them, for Relief and Conversation; and that in process of Time, they conform'd themselves to the Manners of their Indian Relations. And thus we see, how apt Humane Nature is to degenerate.
What this is actually about is the lost colony of Ronoak and that living American Indians at a later time allegedly claimed to be descended from some of it's members.
If you did this on purpose, you are dishonest. If it was an honest mistake because you did not comprehend what you read, then from this point forward you have no excuse to continue using this quote because you now have the facts.
You continue to misuse John Lawson's book even after the truth has been pointed out to you. You are being extremely dishonest in your claims of evidence, you won't fix your errors, you won't even fix your links, and you turn around try to use the same thing again and then try to fabricate a lie about my avatar. What are you really up to?
63 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
Have you looked at the family relationships among the church elites?
"Some people say a person receives a position in this church through revelation, and others say they get it through inspiration, but I say they get it through relation. If I hadn't been related to Heber C. Kimball I wouldn't have been a damn thing in this church."
--J. Golden Kimball
What about BY making his son an apostle at 12?
Religion is dynastic, which is at least partly genetic. We see it over and over in history. Cult leaders put their families above others and expect succession through the leader's lineage. Look at D & C 132. It's about "raising up seed". Dominance of the culture through dominance of the gene pool, not so different from the royal families throughout Europe and the practices of the Mafia, or from the herd behavior of a number of large mammals. Primate politics.
How was the patriarchal priesthood passed down in Mormonism?
Joseph Smith thought it was genetic.
By the way we don't need to know anything about Lehi's DNA to determine if there was an actual event where people from the middle east came to the America's. DNA can show if there are intrusions from a foreign source into a native source at a specific time in the past. In other words we can examine the DNA from native Americans at the time Lehi was purported to arrive and see if ANY foreign intrusions occurred at that time. If there weren't (and guess what? there weren't) then we can eliminate any foreign arrivals in the Americas at that time and prove there were no Book of Mormon people. So the Book of Mormon defense of not knowing what Lehite DNA looked like is meaningless. All we have to do is check for any DNA that does not match the native population.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
