tapirrider wrote:ldsfaqs wrote: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=2So 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.
1. First of all, you create a strawman. They were sent to a promised land, they weren't necessarily were sent to "conquer" it in total.
They clearly took over the highlands while the Philistines etc. had control of the lowlands, and it is clear that it wasn't a total conquest, but one of mingling also with those of Canaan. So, your representation of the history is a bit false.
Second, my point wasn't to address the history, but to point out the "likeness" of scriptural wording.
2. No idea what you're gibbering about..... The Book of Mormon speaks of all kinds of Gentiles and their sins. There is no racism in the Book of Mormon, that' anti-mormon fantasyland.
3. Now you just show how uneducated you are. Joseph Smith was entirely open as to where Book of Mormon events took place, even toward the end fully believing primary events took place in Central South America even publishing works related to such in the Times and Seasons. He was searching for the truth from the Book of Mormon just as the rest of us do. Thus, claiming we "throw him under the bus" is a joke.
4. Mormonism has always taught a limited and hemispheric geography. Limited in the location Book of Mormon events took place, and hemispheric in relation to all the native peoples being Lamanites, a.k.a. the Book of Mormon's version of the Bibles Gentile. Everyone non-Nephite was called a Lamanite, the Book of Mormon is clear on this, so that's what Church leaders have always called natives of the America's.
5. Don't know what you're gibbering about "Gods wrath" on the natives, no such thing in the Book of Mormon.
We have ZERO teachings that natives were "whipped out" for the chosen people.... etc. You're just making crap up.
In fact, you go on and on with this fantasy of us punishing innocent, blah blah. Wow, get a clue, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
6. Sorensen talks about intermarriage to make clearly that Lehi's DNA would be in nearly every single native of the America's, thus when LDS leaders have addressed Lamanites (a.k.a. natives of the America's and Islands) as being from father Lehi, it's literal. Then you have anti's claiming that Jewish DNA can't be found, yet it wouldn't be found to any degree if a small group inserted into a larger one, however through genetic migration etc. Lehi's DNA would be in nearly every native, it's just not the dominant DNA that is detectable. So, get your facts strait. His arguments have nothing to do with natives being punished, etc. You have some weird crap going on.
7. I won't call you a bigot for anything yet, you haven't crossed that line per say that I've seen, just completely ignorant.
If you actually read the Book of Mormon and read the Bible, you wouldn't find the Book of Mormon any more racist than the Bible, thus the Book of Mormon is not racist in ANY manner.
You only look at it so by completely ignoring it's context. You cherry pick some statements and cry racism, when there was no racism intended from the verses. They are talking about good and evil, light and darkness using ancient symbolism methods.
Watch these and learn something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQFev9I ... -MRSZjtEGw8. So what.... I once left the Church because of the Priesthood ban primarily as one of my big three issues, but I was ignorant, when I learned more, I changed my mind. The church, it's scriptures, the priesthood ban, ALL have zero to do with racism, at least by the Church anyway.
It is the small minded and ignorant that see's racism where there is none actually there or intended.
The Book of Mormon is a Bible..... it's not racist in any way shape or form. It's scripture from God.
You are free to disagree, but don't be lying about things. I know what racism is, and it's not the book or the Church. Saying such is is lying. Period.