Moksha Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Whence do you derive this strange doctrine? From the 15th Century text, Doctrinia Satiricus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 If you believe so, then please explain to me what is meant by "being victim's [sic] of white prejudice"... It meant being considered less than human, being subject to rapes and murders by Bubbas with hoods, being disenfrancished and being denied full participation in what we consider to be the true Church.and how that differs from being victims of black prejudice, or of some other sort of prejudice. Both forms of prejudice are clearly wrong.:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 It meant being considered less than human, being subject to rapes and murders by Bubbas with hoods, being disenfrancished and being denied full participation in what we consider to be the true Church.But this is false. The Lamanites were subject to none of these things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deseretgov Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 But this is false. The Lamanites were subject to none of these things.I thought the Lamanites were the ones doing the murdering and raping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 I thought the Lamanites were the ones doing the murdering and raping.Well towards the end the Nephites fell victim to not knowing God and did some pretty dastardly things themselves. That's just the pendant in me, I'm not trying to make a point or anything out of pointing such out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Well towards the end the Nephites fell victim to not knowing God and did some pretty dastardly things themselves. That's just the pendant in me, I'm not trying to make a point or anything out of pointing such out.True enough, but that's not what we were responding to. Explaining the statement that the Lamanites were "victim's [sic] of white prejudice", Moksha claimed that:It meant being considered less than human, being subject to rapes and murders by Bubbas with hoods, being disenfrancished and being denied full participation in what we consider to be the true Church.But this is foolishness. Moksha knows very well that the Lamanites were not "considered less than human" by the Nephites, that for most of Nephite history Lamanites were not "subject to rapes and murders by Bubbas with hoods" (a rather startling and almost humorous anachronism), and that the Lamanites who desired to unite with the Saints most certainly were not "denied full participation in what we consider to be the true Church."Not sure what Moksha intended by this, but he is too intelligent to believe such asininity. So his point in making openly false, racially charged claims about the Book of Mormon history is...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 True enough, but that's not what we were responding to. Explaining the statement that the Lamanites were "victim's [sic] of white prejudice", Moksha claimed that:Oh, I was just responding to Deseretgov's comment that it was the Laminates doing the dastardly things, I wasn't commenting on the subject at large. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.