The Book of Mormon DOES say "others" where there.....

[_sock puppet]

a TBM has to really be grasping at straws to keep the possibility afloat ...

At this, TBMs have a great depth and breadth of experience.

[_honorentheos]

a TBM has to really be grasping at straws to keep the possibility afloat ...

At this, TBMs have a great depth and breadth of experience.

This made me think of a swarm of ants that had been swept up into water...

http://media.al.com/live/photo/ball-of-ants-2jpg-e2900b6657086fd5.jpg

ETA: Here's one that meets the boards size restrictions:

[_ldsfaqs]

To those complaining that a verse or two in the Book of Mormon indicates that the Nephites were "kept from other nations".

1. The same exact kinds of statements exist in the Bible in relation to the Jews "promised land". Yet, everyone knows, even the Bible states "others" were around.

2. The verses says "nations" not "peoples".

3. The verses saying ZERO about the entire American Continent, that's reading into the text, not what the text states.

4. I've posted tons of evidences from the Book of Mormon that shows there were clearly others around.

To continue promoting the regular lies in this that anti-mormons do, given the actual full facts and truth is willful lying.

It always facinates me how much anti's claim to be all about the "truth", yet lie 1,000's of times on every given subject.

[_I have a question]

I've posted tons of evidences from the Book of Mormon that shows there were clearly others around.

No one is disputing this.

The Book of Mormon and the seminary lesson are both explicit in that the Americas were kept uninhabited and that Lehis party had the Americas "unto themselves". You can post as much non official stuff as you like, all you're doing is rebutting both the Book of Mormon and the Seminary programme. Keep it up!

[_ludwigm]

To continue promoting the regular lies in this that anti-mormons do, given the actual full facts and truth is willful lying.

This is nothing to do with the OP. No content. Not a word from the OP.

This is one of Outer Darkness comment, if I may ask. (It is not? No Hungarian content, so is it OK?)

Nothing to do with topic... Lies, lying --- OK, it is accepted.
Should I report it? Or cite the laws?

Or do ldsfaqs' beard Trump's my one?

... Just saying.

[_ldsfaqs]

I've posted tons of evidences from the Book of Mormon that shows there were clearly others around.

No one is disputing this.

The Book of Mormon and the seminary lesson are both explicit in that the Americas were kept uninhabited and that Lehis party had the Americas "unto themselves". You can post as much non official stuff as you like, all you're doing is rebutting both the Book of Mormon and the Seminary programme. Keep it up!

Clearly you don't read very well.... The Book of Mormon itself disputes your claim.
As usual, you simply falsely interpret the couple of statements that you think claims otherwise the "unto themselves" statements.

The Jewish promised land in the Bible was also "unto themselves", but both the Bible and history says they weren't alone.
Thus, "unto themselves" clearly isn't being said in such a STRICT interpretation you are putting onto the words.

Thus, you are disputing entirely, and it's a false dispute from you cherry picking a couple of statements, while ignoring the rest of the Book of Mormon text which shows they weren't alone at all. Yes, in their little "spot" it was free from "nations", but the Book of Mormon speaks nothing about their entire area being totally free from people, let alone the entire continent, which is the anti-mormon claim, and is a false one by reading into the text instead of what the text actually says.

[_I have a question]

Yes, in their little "spot" it was free from "nations", but the Book of Mormon speaks nothing about their entire area being totally free from people, let alone the entire continent, which is the anti-mormon claim, and is a false one by reading into the text instead of what the text actually says.

I refer you to the seminary lesson I quoted earlier which explicitly teaches that 'the land' referred to as being kept uninhabited was 'the Americas'. It's not my interpretation of what 'the land' means, it's the official Church interpretation. So you'd best take it up with them.

[_ludwigm]

Clearly you don't read very well...
As usual, you simply falsely interpret

Can not you write anything without insult? (offense, affront, humiliaton ?)

[_tapirrider]

The Jewish promised land in the Bible was also "unto themselves", but both the Bible and history says they weren't alone.
Thus, "unto themselves" clearly isn't being said in such a STRICT interpretation you are putting onto the words.

Thus, you are disputing entirely, and it's a false dispute from you cherry picking a couple of statements, while ignoring the rest of the Book of Mormon text which shows they weren't alone at all. Yes, in their little "spot" it was free from "nations", but the Book of Mormon speaks nothing about their entire area being totally free from people, let alone the entire continent, which is the anti-mormon claim, and is a false one by reading into the text instead of what the text actually says.

Both Jewish and non-Jewish scholars now consider the "promised land" conquering of the Caananites to be myth. The problem I have with the Book of Mormon is in 1 Nephi 13, with the verses about Columbus and gentiles having god's spirit to establish a new promised land and god's wrath being on America's indigenous peoples. Those teachings in the 21st century are a type of racism not associated with skin color. Apologists don't address it.

Apologists throw Joseph Smith under the bus in their efforts to argue for Mesoamerican limited geography. They often say that Joseph was wrong and that we should rely only on what the Book of Mormon actually says. Well, the only thing the Book of Mormon actually says about other nations coming to punish the seed of Lehi is in 1 Nephi 13.

Sorenson speculates on that beyond what the Book of Mormon actually says.
http://publications.maxwellinstitute.by ... 78&index=2

So let's examine actual facts. There is no evidence of an ancient Hebrew conquering of the Caananites. In fact many scholars now consider it a myth. There is no evidence in the Book of Mormon of other nations coming with god's spirit to execute his wrath on the people in America who have gone astray EXCEPT in 1 Nephi 13.

The only actual fact is that Columbus did find America and it led to the European colonization. And the Book of Mormon is the only scripture in the world that has canonized that event. LDS teachings that god's wrath was on America's indigenous inhabitants are morally condemnable. It is an actual fact that the majority of deaths during the colonization were from smallpox and other diseases, most often un-intentional from the Europeans. But Mormonism provides fuel to believe that god wiped out up to 90 percent of America's indigenous inhabitants off the land with those diseases to clear it for a new chosen people.

If god wanted to punish a small group who had gone astray, why were all inhabitants of America caused to suffer and die? Those "others" you are arguing for the existence of all suffered under your god's wrath beginning in 1492, and that is the only reference in the Book of Mormon of other nations coming to punish America's inhabitants for rejecting your god. If your god's spirit was with the Europeans to execute his wrath but only a small group of Book of Mormon people were deserving of it, then your god was a murderer and his spirit was with European immigrant murderers who did in fact intentionally kill innocent American Indian women and children unjustly in land conquests.

Apologist like Sorenson argue that through intermarriage, all of the inhabitants had blood ties to Book of Mormon people. So your god punished women and children who were cursed because some ancestors had been cursed with a generational curse? He punished them with smallpox and violent deaths at the hands of "other nations"? Those women and children had never known about any of the Book of Mormon stories or of their alleged ancestors from Lehi. But god, in his wrath wiped them out so a new people could have a promised land?

ldsfaq, you call people on here "bigots" and no doubt you will probably call me one, but I find your Book of Mormon racist and morally condemnable and I will speak out about it. It doesn't mean that I think Mormons are racist. Most are fine and decent people, but they are being influenced by a 19th century work of fiction that belongs in a museum of racism instead of being a canonized scripture in the 21st century.

Perhaps the LDS church will never address and deal with this blatant racism but I did. I resigned from the LDS church.

[_ldsfaqs]

Clearly you don't read very well...
As usual, you simply falsely interpret

Can not you write anything without insult? (offense, affront, humiliaton ?)

Then people should stop being offensive, affronting, lying, etc.
You people are so used to engaging in bigotry you think it's normal. To good people, it's not normal, it's bigotry.