consiglieri wrote:thews wrote:To Consig, please give us your take on 2 Nephi 5: 21. While you claim "some" LDS doctrine isn't racist, what you're insinuating is that "some" of it is. I contend the multiple references to dark/black skin in LDS doctrine is slam dunk cut and dry regarding its meaning, which would also explain why men with dark skin could not hold the priesthood until 1978. Please enlighten me with your knowledge of the subject.
I thought I had made it clear that I think Book of Mormon references to changing skin color
appear to be intended to be understood literally.
Note the use of "appear to be intended to be understood literally" in the above. When you make the argument that "scales of darkness" are
not a reference to skin color, you are intentionally inserting distortion. As I've stated many times, there is no question that the curse of Cain was dark/black skin. What is your conclusion, rather than a left-hand use of "appears to be" in your responses?
consiglieri wrote:All I did was mention the one passage where it talks about "scales of darkness falling from their eyes," observe that this could not possibly be intended literally, and asked whether a similar thing might be happening with the dark skin descriptions.
No, that's not all you did. When I specifically asked you whether or not your teaching included the references I cited, you claimed something on the lines of
I'm sure Mormons have read the Book of Mormon, to imply your target audience knew of the references. You didn't answer the question then, and you imply you answered it now.
consiglieri wrote:It was a question, thews. A question. Not a conclusion.
What is your conclusion Consiglieri? That is what I'm asking you. Was the curse of Cain based on skin color?
consiglieri wrote:Once again, while I think the majority of skin color references in the Book of Mormon appear to be intended to be understood literally, the question raised by the "scales of darkness" passage is nevertheless an important point to make if we are to take the Book of Mormon text as a whole rather than merely cherry picking sections that support our predispositions.
Once again you inject "appear to be intended to be understood" which leaves doubt. What is your conclusion Consiglieri? Not what might be or could be, or more relevant what "appears" to be, but what is it? I contend that multiple references that specifically define to be darkness/blackness of skin are all that's required to draw a conclusion. Are you on the fence? If so, why? What element would suggest 2 Nephi 5: 21 leaves any doubt?
consiglieri wrote:I hope that disabuses you of your perennially false notions regarding my views in this regard.
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
It doesn't, because you have not taken a stance, but rather implied the direction you
appear to be leaning. Please Consig, what is your take on 2 Nephi 5: 21 specifically?
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths