BCSpace is my favorite mopologist

[_thews]

Consig is a liar, and a very good liar. His intentions my seem valiant to you, but intentional deception is not an admirable quality in a human in my opinion.

So relating his experiences constitutes a lie if the experiences do not have either a silver lining or a faith promoting feel and appearance?

What precisely is the lie?

While ignoring PP's ignorant tripe, I'll answer you moksha. Consig continuously posts about his "teaching" methods to distort the truth. Whether his audience is made up of uninformed Christians or TBM's, he selectively chooses to impart his spin on the truth. What is key here is that one has to know the truth in order to spin it. Consig fancies himself as some sort of trendsetter for stepping slightly outside the box his leaders have put him in, but make no mistake... the boundaries of that box define his motives.

Let's take Consig's spin on "scales of darkness" for example. While there's many references to dark skin in Mormon doctrine to define the curse of Cain, what he's doing by cherry picking one instance (scales of darkness meaning the soul) he can attempt to pass as not racist, it simply is not the truth. He knows this, but to the uninformed it sounds palatable enough. What it is, is a lie.

To "teach" Christians that the LDS are also Christians would imply Christianity embraces Mormon doctrine... it doesn't. There is nothing "Christian" about Mormon doctrine, as it's exclusive to the LDS faith. Consig won't mention the occult seer stones that Joseph Smith used to "translate" the supposed golden plates, or the Jupiter Talisman, or all the ludicrous inaccuracy in the Book of Abraham translation of a common Pagan papyrus, but what he will do is deceive them by what he doesn't tell them. This is also a lie, as it's intentional deception.

While you may embrace Consig as a nice guy, I'm sure he is. I'm sure David Bokovoy is also a nice guy, but they are both liars... liars from the word go. You may discount their lies as well intended by some obscure metric, but I don't. Jeff Lindsay is in the same boat, as his intent is to distort the truth. If the truth is distorted and itching ears believe what these guys are telling them, then they will be successfully deceived. You can't un-know the truth once you do know it, but you can use it to intentionally deceive others that don't know the truth that you do... they are false teachers, which is their intent. If you find this trait admirable, continue to stick up for their deception. They're nice guys... right?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The irony is Mr. Thews quotes the Bible in his sig line.

Liars, indeed...

V/R
Doc

[_moksha]

While you may embrace Consig as a nice guy, I'm sure he is. I'm sure David Bokovoy is also a nice guy, but they are both liars... liars from the word go. You may discount their lies as well intended by some obscure metric, but I don't. Jeff Lindsay is in the same boat, as his intent is to distort the truth.

I know Consig and David are nice guys. I really don't know Jeff Lindsay other than he ran and apologetic website and from what I know about it, I see a difference between what Consiglieri and Bokovoy talk about and what is presented in hardcore apologetics. If you think of pure apologetics as representing the boiling point of water, then Jeff is at 100 centigrade. Bokovoy is at luke warm and Consiglieri is slightly cooler.

Now consider this: To be a liar, you must not only furnish inaccurate information of a non-humorous nature, but also realize you are not telling the truth. Why? Because truth outside of any purely empirical data is subjective in nature. Because they believe it to be true when they say something, you cannot immediately jump on them and call them liars. Besides being legally inaccurate, it lacks graciousness. Also, omitting information happens all the time. You will notice these two paragraphs contain no point spread information on the NCAA college basketball tournament, but I am not trying to deceive you into not putting $100 on Wichita State.

Hope that helps. Good day.

[_thews]

While you may embrace Consig as a nice guy, I'm sure he is. I'm sure David Bokovoy is also a nice guy, but they are both liars... liars from the word go. You may discount their lies as well intended by some obscure metric, but I don't. Jeff Lindsay is in the same boat, as his intent is to distort the truth.

I know Consig and David are nice guys. I really don't know Jeff Lindsay other than he ran and apologetic website and from what I know about it, I see a difference between what Consiglieri and Bokovoy talk about and what is presented in hardcore apologetics. If you think of pure apologetics as representing the boiling point of water, then Jeff is at 100 centigrade. Bokovoy is at luke warm and Consiglieri is slightly cooler.

Now consider this: To be a liar, you must not only furnish inaccurate information of a non-humorous nature, but also realize you are not telling the truth.

I agree with this last sentence. When Consig was boasting about his curse of Cain "teaching" insinuating that "scales of darkness" did not refer to skin color, I asked him if he included the many references to skin color in LDS doctrine. His flippant response didn't answer the question. You be the judge:

posting.php?mode=quote&f=1&p=722360

The subject matter of the presentation was not the use of dark skin as a curse in the Book of Mormon, which did not apply to black people and has nothing to do with priesthood.

It was the historical development of the priesthood ban on blacks within LDS history that was the subject.

Going over what I consider to be the most important elements of that history took an hour and forty-five minutes.

I am hoping the scales will fall from your eyes soon, thews.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

posting.php?mode=quote&f=1&p=568750

Although I have traditionally thought that the Book of Mormon is speaking literally and not symbolically about the skin color issue, I tripped to something yesterday in 2 Nephi 30 that does indicate a symbolic meaning may be intended.

2 Nephi 30:6--"And then shall they (the latter-day converted Lamanites) rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people."

(Note that "white" was changed to "pure" in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon, but it is my understanding that the original manuscript had "pure" before it was subsequently changed to "white." This alone may suggest a perceived equivalence of the two adjectives on the part of the editor.)

It is clear from the passage that "scales of darkness" falling "from their eyes" is not meant to be taken literally, which lends credence to the idea that the following description of converted Lamanites becoming "white and delightsome" was intended figuratively, as well.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

So you see Moksha, while "It is clear from the passage that "scales of darkness" falling "from their eyes" is not meant to be taken literally" from Consig, the supporting LDS doctrine contradicts what "is clear" regarding Consig's conclusion, which is why I asked the question regarding what he didn't include this in his teaching:

http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm#full

Doctrine supported by LDS Scriptures
Scriptures
2 Nephi 5: 21

'And he had caused the cursing 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 delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.'
Alma 3: 6

'And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.'
2 Nephi 30: 6

"...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."
NOTE: THE TERM 'WHITE' WAS CHANGED TO 'PURE' IN 1981.
3 Nephi 2:15

"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."
Jacob 3: 5, 8-9

5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.

8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.

9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.
1 Nephi 12:23

23 And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.
1 Nephi 13:15

15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.

Mormon 5:15

15 And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.
Moses 7:8
8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.
Moses 7:22

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 them.

So Moksha, while "scales" are an outwardly visual metaphor, it really has no significance in this case, as the multiple references to black and dark skin clearly define the curse of Cain.

Why? Because truth outside of any purely empirical data is subjective in nature.

What is not subjective is the multiple references that define the truth.

Because they believe it to be true when they say something, you cannot immediately jump on them and call them liars.

It isn't a function of what they believe is true vs. false, but rather what they omit in making the argument.

Besides being legally inaccurate, it lacks graciousness. Also, omitting information happens all the time. You will notice these two paragraphs contain no point spread information on the NCAA college basketball tournament, but I am not trying to deceive you into not putting $100 on Wichita State.

Hope that helps. Good day.

Not sure where you're attempting go go with the obscure NCAA analogy, but my opinion is based on the facts presented, but more importantly, the fact omitted. Consig is an intelligent man and it's my opinion that his conclusion regarding the scales of darkness doesn't make sense. What one teaches behind closed doors is known only to them and the target audience. If I'm wrong in your opinion, I can respect that as well, but intentional deception is a lie in my opinion.

[_moksha]

Yes, I agree that racism found within those passages is more than symbolism for blindness to the truth. When taken in toto, it looks much like racial ideas that were prevalent then and still remain in some enclaves today.

I have a problem with calling people liars. Seems we are releasing needless strife into the universe when we do such name calling. I didn't like it at MAD and I don't like it here. There are better ways to to disagree with a statement than abusing someone's character.

[_thews]

Yes, I agree that racism found within those passages is more than symbolism for blindness to the truth. When taken in toto, it looks much like racial ideas that were prevalent then and still remain in some enclaves today.

I have a problem with calling people liars. Seems we are releasing needless strife into the universe when we do such name calling. I didn't like it at MAD and I don't like it here. There are better ways to to disagree with a statement than abusing someone's character.

Ok, but when someone's intent is to intentionally deceive it strikes a chord with me, because the goal is to deceive. If one is upfront and places all the cards on the table, then the student has the knowledge the teacher has. When the teacher excludes knowledge with the intent to deceive, it defines a character flaw in my opinion.

[_consiglieri]

Yes, I agree that racism found within those passages is more than symbolism for blindness to the truth. When taken in toto, it looks much like racial ideas that were prevalent then and still remain in some enclaves today.

I have a problem with calling people liars. Seems we are releasing needless strife into the universe when we do such name calling. I didn't like it at MAD and I don't like it here. There are better ways to to disagree with a statement than abusing someone's character.

Thanks for the back-up Moksha.

I just now saw this series of postings from thews and thought it might help flesh things out a bit by including this quote of mine that thews omitted:

I continue to theorize because I think the evidence is not all one way.

If we have one instance where the whiteness of skin is an apparent metaphor, does that not open the door to subsequent usages also being metaphoric?

The first thing I have to note is that the Book of Mormon is not racist to the degree that it states that all are acceptable unto God, whether white or black, male or female.

In other places, the Book of Mormon says that the Lamanites are more righteous than the Nephites.

From that point, I have to consider what it says about skin color. While there are some places where the usage looks symbolic, there are other places where an actual color shift seems indicated.

In a book filled with remarkable and unlikely miracles, it is noteworthy that the Book of Mormon nowhere to my knowledge says that a dark skinned Lamanite immediately turns white upon conversion.

Instead, it seems be a process that takes generations to complete. Why is that, I wonder, unless it is something meant to be taken (at least in these usages) as genetic in some sense.

In other words, in the passages that talk about a color shift over generations, it doesn't seem to be associated with the righteousness of the individual, but perhaps with something else.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_bcspace]

Yes, I agree that racism found within those passages is more than symbolism for blindness to the truth. When taken in toto, it looks much like racial ideas that were prevalent then and still remain in some enclaves today.

There's no evidence for that whatsoever. For racism to be present, it must be said that black skin is the source of bad things happening or curses etc. Nothing like that is extant in LDS scripture or doctrine past and present.

[_No Mas Mentiras]

Yes, I agree that racism found within those passages is more than symbolism for blindness to the truth. When taken in toto, it looks much like racial ideas that were prevalent then and still remain in some enclaves today.

There's no evidence for that whatsoever. For racism to be present, it must be said that black skin is the source of bad things happening or curses etc. Nothing like that is extant in LDS scripture or doctrine past and present.

Jesus, you're thick

[_moksha]

Yes, I agree that racism found within those passages is more than symbolism for blindness to the truth. When taken in toto, it looks much like racial ideas that were prevalent then and still remain in some enclaves today.

There's no evidence for that whatsoever. For racism to be present, it must be said that black skin is the source of bad things happening or curses etc. Nothing like that is extant in LDS scripture or doctrine past and present.

Bc, have all the past policies and statements from Church Prophets and Apostles not indicated to you that racism was in full bloom at the time these policies were present or when the statements were made? If you answer that they did not represent racism, then what precisely did they represent?



Against the wind
We are denyin' against the wind
We are old and stubborn, we were denyin'
Against the wind