So God did on purpose, and meant what he meant exactly what mormons for years have thought it meant There is no other explanation if you are a believer. The Book of Mormon is not a text originating in modern America or from modern racial concepts in America. To believe that the racial interpretative meaning is the correct one is an act of epic ahistorical presentism and cultural arrogance on our part.
This is not something Mormons are immune to either. The Nephites never had the book; neither did the Lamanites of ancient times. It was meant for us. Rick, I believe Ezra Taft Benson was saying that Mormon redacted and compiled the records for our use - He was not saying the Nephites kept records hidden from themselves for hundreds of years.
Am I wrong? You'll have to ask Ezra Taft Benson what he meant. I can only infer that he meant what he said. Maybe if you translate what he said into ancient Maya, and then back to English, the meaning will be clear to all of us. Rick, thats like saying the Jews never had the Bible. And why is it so hard to distinguish doctrines vs teachings? Or the word of God vs understanding of men?
A Plain English Reference To The Of Mormon PDF Book
The plan is perfect--People will only believe what they want to believe. Mark Hansen- There is no indication that the stone God wrote on was magical, nor did he write anything about skin color.
God wrote ten laws given to Moses for Israel. But this has nothing to do with the current discussion, nor is any kind of rock writing relevant to Church history.
Subscribe to RSS
If you are curious about the mechanics of a Urim and Thummin, you may search Hebrew testimonies if you do not trust Mormon testimonies. I hope this clears up your confusion. Personally, I believe Laman and Lemuel were marked, just like Cain, for similar reasons. It is the racists behind the modern "political correct" movement that want to make this an issue, to decieve us. Why is it so hard to distinguish doctrines vs teachings? I don't know. Nineteenth-century American racial ideology is all over the Mormon scriptures, for the simple reason that they are 19th-century American texts.
We can put this issue to rest.
Tradutor on-line com a tradução de Book of Mormon em 25 línguas
Now, we just need to prove that the author of the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price was Mayan so we can make sense of the skin curse in that book, too. Did you realize that many of the phrases you might think are uniquely Mormon phrases are actually found in non-Mormon writing between the years and Check it out.
- Book of Mormon Written in Modern-day English.
- Follow by Email?
- My Wishlist?
- Renaissance Woman: A Sourcebook: Constructions of Femininity in England.
- Smugglers Treasure (Timothy Jones Autobiography Book 3);
- Best Remedy For Yeast Infection!
- Is the Book of Mormon ‘chloroform in print’? - Quora.
None of these are in the Bible. Go to Googlebooks. Limit your search to Type in any of these phrases. You will find photocopies of the sources that contain these phrases. These were all part of the global Christian dialogue before the Book of Mormon was even published.
The Book Of Mormon
One can wonder how they all made their way into the Book of Mormon. But one can be certain that the Nephites weren't the ones who came up with these concepts.
All of the words in the Book of Mormon, with the exception of some names, had been used as part of the English language prior to the translation. Joseph was not inventing a language, but using a language as a tool to convey meaning. Phrases are like words, and are even made up of words. They are part of the language and can be used to convey meaning in a translation.
It isn't just phrases. The phrases in many cases refer to doctrinal and theological concepts that were developed by Europeans and Americans. For instance, the concept of an "infinite atonement" is found discussed in Universalist and Unitarian literature of the period. The idea of "satisfying the demands of justice" is from the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement developed by St.
The phrases refer theological constructs that were not being discussed in any ancient Jewish literature, especially not Ancient American Jewish literature. I have long maintained the "blackness" was metaphorical, though in the context of Old World traditions which link black to evil and white to purity.
Part of the definition for "blackness" that Daniel Webster provides in his dictionary is "atrociousness or enormity in wickedness. The Maya use of the term adds an intriguing twist to the term. The only problem I have with the article is that it was too short! I have always taken 2 Nephi 5 as a great demonstration of people already being around when the Lehites arrived.
The chapter spans about 30 years which allows it to cover multiple generations. If Laman and Lemuel joined up with some locals and their children intermarried with them, the result would be that the dominant genes for darker skin would be present in the offspring. This chapter is where Nephi refers to his brothers, not as "brethren", as he always had before, but as "the people who were now called Lamanites", which could include any people that had mixed in.
Nephi didn't know about genetics so he simply said God had marked them. I don't think we can apply much of Mayan meaning to Nephi, since he had just arrived and might not have altered his Hebrew view or the reformed Egyptian meanings from what he had been using. Later in the 3 Nephi when some Lamanites become white like unto the Nephites this meaning could easily be applied.
This new perspective also misses that the purpose of the mark as Nephi saw it, no matter how politically incorrect, was so "that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them". As modern pop culture demonstrates, hollow insides have no bearing on the level of enticement to others unless it is taken literally. And with the Hebrew view of not mixing with outsiders, having different skin color would make it easier to see who outsiders were and to not be enticed to mix as a result of that cultural view.
Chapter 5 doesn't say that the people put this mark on themselves. It quite explicitly says that God did it. Which is technically true since they would be born with the aforementioned genes, which Nephi knew nothing about, as God intended. We also have a strong case that marks and curses are not the same thing, even though they can be found together. The whole skin of blackness thing is, in my belief, Nephi's way of explaining that his brother's descendants had mixed with the locals and at the same time were dark spiritually as they learned to hate him and his group and were cut off from God.
Though, Nephi was not retarded. A dark skinned child born of dark skinned parent s is not a difficult concept. I have often wondered about the people of Zerahemla, and the Jaredites, and how they affected genetics. Too bad God wasn't capable of telling his prophets that all his children were created equal. Instead God seemed more than happy to let a large percentage of His children on earth be banned from the blessings of the temple for a large period of time It happened in the Bible, too.
For a period of time in ancient times, the vast majority of people in the world could not hold the priesthood, including most of Israel. Even in the New Testament it happened and people did not receive blessings for a time in certain lands. Jesus told the disciples to go into all the world, but when they were carrying that out the Holy Ghost forbade them to go into Asia Acts ; and, so on and so forth. The mental gymnastics you people are capable of boggles the mind.
You rival Scientologists in your ability to excuse away the bad of the religion you were indoctrinated into. Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Community Reviews.
Related A Plain English Reference to the Book of Mormon
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved