Mormon Myths

[LionHeart]

<div class='quotemain'>

Actually, I did look it up. This wikipedia article appears to talk about Jews as a religion, however, I'm referring to the jews that actually live in jerusalem. This is more understandable if one knows about the origins of the jews, the gentiles, and the canaanites. This, however, requires a belief in the bible.

You neednt believe in the Bible to understand that the Jews in Israel date back thousands of years and are near or middle eastern in their origen. DNA evidence is available on the matter.

http://foundationstone.com.au/HtmlSupport/...icGenetics.html

Are you aware of any credible evidence (I already know the answer to this) that Jews are European in origen?

Not European, just resembled "White Europeans." And no, you don't need to believe in the bible to know that the Jews date back thousands of years, however you do need to believe in the bible to understand the origins of the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Canaanites.

[Snow]

Either way... the answer is NO.

Thought so but thank you. Since there is no credible evidence, perhaps you would like to explain the emotional motivations that make you want to believe so...

[LionHeart]

Either way... the answer is NO.

Thought so but thank you. Since there is no credible evidence, perhaps you would like to explain the emotional motivations that make you want to believe so...

What makes you so sure that he wasn't? If it's just the fact that Arabic people occupy Jerusalem today, you're being a little presumptuous, wouldn't you say? Like I mentioned before, Jerusalem was conquered by the Turks; an Arabic empire. Whatever Jews were spared, were mixed in with the new occupiers. But you say; "Wait, what did the people look like before the Turks got there?" Well, if you knew your bible, you wouldn't wonder about this.

And FYI, I hold no racial malice against any race. Saying someone of importance was caucasion does not make someone racist. I just happen to know my history concerning this matter. But again, one would have to assume the bible is correct for my story to be true.

So the question becomes "What do you get when you mix a presumptuous Know-It-All with a cocky response?"

The One, The only, "SNOW DON VON LICHTENSTIEN"

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Snow]

Let's see now. You make an absurd and outrageous claim and then defend and support your kooky idea by calling me a "presumptuous Know-It-All?"

I suppose it's possible that you are just playing a joke by seeing if you can get someone to think that you actually believe what you are saying but I doubt that. You seem to actually believe what you are saying. Obviously the reason you believe can't be because there is any credible evidence for it so your motivation has to be emotional. I am asking you why it is so important to you to believe that Jesus was white. And - it is just Christ that white or was it all Semites?

Saying someone of importance was caucasion does not make someone racist.

No - in this case it just makes them silly.

[Guest Syble]

I read somewere (please don't ask for references, 'cuz I don't remember) of a study in which they had people recount a childhood memory, then later they showed them a video that had actors dramatizing the memory. The video script had been changed somewhat, and key elements of the story changed slightly. After showing the test subjects the altered re-enactment video, they asked them to recount the childhood memory again. Almost everyone would then "remember" the memory the way the video dramatization had portrayed it and NOT how they had originally recounted it.

This would explain the silly exagerated stories written by Fran Brody and other supposed plural wives.

<div class='quotemain'>

Actually, no one was allowed to see the plates until the time that the Lord appointed. Only then, were the first three witnesses allowed to see them; who were showed them by an angel. And then later, the eight witnesses were showed them by Joseph Smith. Another inaccuracy about the painting is that in reality, there was a curtain dividing the room; Joseph Smith on one side and the scribe on the other. Emma Smith was his first scribe, who was later replaced by Martin Harrris, who was also later replaced by Oliver Cowdery. Sometimes, when Oliver Cowdery couldn't be present, David Whitmer filled in for him.

So the painting is literally inaccurate. Not to say it is not a lovely painting though. Like I mentioned before, the true scene probably would have been less appealing. The painting would give the wrong impression to someone who didn't know the facts about the incident.

Won't it be wonderful when this is all over with and we know the facts, but then, perhaps they won't be so darned important then and we will be busy about Father's work. Just a thought...

B)

Absolutely! I can't wait!

Let's see now. You make an absurd and outrageous claim and then defend and support your kooky idea by calling me a "presumptuous Know-It-All?"

I suppose it's possible that you are just playing a joke by seeing if you can get someone to think that you actually believe what you are saying but I doubt that. You seem to actually believe what you are saying. Obviously the reason you believe can't be because there is any credible evidence for it so your motivation has to be emotional. I am asking you why it is so important to you to believe that Jesus was white. And - it is just Christ that white or was it all Semites?

<div class='quotemain'>

Saying someone of importance was caucasion does not make someone racist.

No - in this case it just makes them silly.

Weren't the Hebrews a white people? Was Abraham? Was Joseph who was sold into Egypt? If they were dark when did that happen? How?

[Snow]

Weren't the Hebrews a white people? Was Abraham? Was Joseph who was sold into Egypt? If they were dark when did that happen? How?

No. The proto-typical Hebrew was likely dark. The Hebrews originate with Abraham who came out of Mesopotamia and the early inhabitants of Mesopotamia with brown or negroid in origin. Specifically Abraham came out of Sumerian city of Ur. Ancient Sumerians were akin to modern Black Dravidians of India. The Sumerians were closely tied with the Elamites who were also black.

The decendants of Abraham wound up in Egypt. Even if someone imagines (for unknown reasons) that Abraham and his decendants were not dark, they most certainly would have been after inter-marriage with the black Egyptians.

The Human race starts off in central Africa, migrates to the Middle East, forks off up to Europe on one side and West Asia, then South and East Asia on the other.

Besides being silly, to think that man started off white in Europe and migrates down into the Middle East flies in the face of science as we understand it today.

[Guest Syble]

So being a decendant of Joseph, and being white says what?

[LionHeart]

Okay, you've given us the scientific viewpoint, but remember, science also claims that humans evolved from monkeys. This, in my opinion is absurd. So let's refer to the biblical account:

In the beginning, God created man in his own image. So then Adam has children. Two of them are Cain, and Abel. Cain kills Abel and gets his skin turned dark as a punishment.

Okay, for one thing, how could his skin be turned dark if it was not light to begin with? For another thing, where did the whites come from? God cursed someone and made him white? I think not.

Now, to continue, Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was married to a descendant of Cain. Ham had a son named Canaan; the father of all of the Canaanites. Canaan saw Noah naked so as a result, Noah cursed him saying his seed would be a despised people; and as a result of his preisthood authority, the curse stuck. Hence the instructions from the Lord to Abraham not to allow his children to mix with the Canaanites. (Although this was not always followed, however, anyone who violated this was usually cut off) So, the seed of Shem, the "Semites" and later called the "Israelites" eventually settled in the land of Israel. The seed of Ham, or the "Canaanites" settled in the lands of Egypt and Arabia and such. The seed of Japheth or the "Gentiles" settled in the European isles. During the perilous time of Israel, a group of the tribe of Ephraim broke off from Israel and went north among the Gentiles. This is what justifies Joesph Smith in claiming to be descended from Ephraim.

In summary: Since we have three basic groups of people, the Semites, the Canaanites, and the Gentiles, and we have an account of only one of these groups getting their skin turned dark, it is reasonable to conclude that the other two were white. Especially since the Gentiles are the only ones who did not mingle with the Canaanites because they settled so far away, these would be the most accurate example of man in his original form. Since we have a modern historical account of the Israelites mixing with the Canaanites, it is only obvious that they would resemble the Canaanites; especially since the historical account also says that most of the inhabitants of jerusalem were slaghtered.

Another account I read (not a biblical account) was of someone who was foreign to the land of israel who had traveled there to see Jesus. After his visit, he described Jesus as being "The Handsomest Man In The World" also pointing out that he had the "Bluest Eyes He Had Ever Seen" You don't see Canaanite descendants with blue eyes.

Also, if Jesus had Canaanite blood in him, why did he refuse to heal the Canaanite woman's child; saying the food of his table was not fit to give to the dogs?

Much evidence here, I would say.

For one to say that I'm racist because of this, would mean that they brand every believer in the bible a racist.

This account holds as much water as yours does as you said yourself " The proto-typical Hebrew was LIKELY dark."

My version is based on the bible, yours is based on scientific assumption.

So you can stand by your scientific version if you want; but in doing so, you will also be admitting that you are descended from a long line of monkeys.

[Snow]

Okay, you've given us the scientific viewpoint, but remember, science also claims that humans evolved from monkeys.

Wrong - have you discovered your obvious mistake yet?

This, in my opinion is absurd.

You're anti-scientific. I am not surprized.

So let's refer to the biblical account:

In the beginning, God created man in his own image. So then Adam has children. Two of them are Cain, and Abel. Cain kills Abel and gets his skin turned dark as a punishment.

Okay, for one thing, how could his skin be turned dark if it was not light to begin with? For another thing, where did the whites come from? God cursed someone and made him white? I think not.

Now, to continue, Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was married to a descendant of Cain. Ham had a son named Canaan; the father of all of the Canaanites. Canaan saw Noah naked so as a result, Noah cursed him saying his seed would be a despised people; and as a result of his preisthood...

So, despite your earlier protestations, your views are racist. Thank goodness most Mormons have left that kind of thinking on the trash heap.

Besides which, such racists views say absolutely zero about the Jews skin color.

[LionHeart]

So let's refer to the biblical account:

In the beginning, God created man in his own image. So then Adam has children. Two of them are Cain, and Abel. Cain kills Abel and gets his skin turned dark as a punishment.

Okay, for one thing, how could his skin be turned dark if it was not light to begin with? For another thing, where did the whites come from? God cursed someone and made him white? I think not.

Now, to continue, Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was married to a descendant of Cain. Ham had a son named Canaan; the father of all of the Canaanites. Canaan saw Noah naked so as a result, Noah cursed him saying his seed would be a despised people; and as a result of his preisthood...

So, despite your earlier protestations, your views are racist. Thank goodness most Mormons have left that kind of thinking on the trash heap.

So you admit that you believe that every one who believes in the bible is racist.

I see no flaws in the account that I gave. It is according to the bible.

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

So let's refer to the biblical account:

In the beginning, God created man in his own image. So then Adam has children. Two of them are Cain, and Abel. Cain kills Abel and gets his skin turned dark as a punishment.

Okay, for one thing, how could his skin be turned dark if it was not light to begin with? For another thing, where did the whites come from? God cursed someone and made him white? I think not.

Now, to continue, Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was married to a descendant of Cain. Ham had a son named Canaan; the father of all of the Canaanites. Canaan saw Noah naked so as a result, Noah cursed him saying his seed would be a despised people; and as a result of his preisthood...

So, despite your earlier protestations, your views are racist. Thank goodness most Mormons have left that kind of thinking on the trash heap.

So you admit that you believe that every one who believes in the bible is racist.

I see no flaws in the account that I gave. It is according to the bible.

Oh please, that is as idiotic a thing as I have heard in, well days at least, but idiotic nevertheless.

Your first statement doesn't even make sense, not even a little. I believe in the Bible. I don't think I am racist. My Bishop believes in the Bible. He certainly isn't racists. Racist are ugly little creatures. Believing in the Bible, I would hope, makes one less ugly (talking character and deceny here, not appearance), not more.

On your second statement - in a show of good nature I am willing assume that you are not a liar. Therefore I must assume that you have never read the bible. Personally I think ignorance is a better trait than dishonesty, but not by much.

The Bible says absolutely nothing, zero, zip, zilch, nada, about Jews being white. It says the exact same amount (nothing) about the offspring of Cain or Ham (though Canaan) being black. Let me give you the reference since you know nothing about it, Genesis 4 and Genesis 9.

Your whole point is so incredibly silly... that dark skins are cursed. Jesus wasn't cursed, therefore he is white.

Arghhhhhhh!

[Guest Syble]

Oh please, that is as idiotic a thing as I have heard in, well days at least, but idiotic nevertheless.

Your first statement doesn't even make sense, not even a little. I believe in the Bible. I don't think I am racist. My Bishop believes in the Bible. He certainly isn't racists. Racist are ugly little creatures. Believing in the Bible, I would hope, makes one less ugly (talking character and deceny here, not appearance), not more.

On your second statement - in a show of good nature I am willing assume that you are not a liar. Therefore I must assume that you have never read the bible. Personally I think ignorance is a better trait than dishonesty, but not by much.

The Bible says absolutely nothing, zero, zip, zilch, nada, about Jews being white. It says the exact same amount (nothing) about the offspring of Cain or Ham (though Canaan) being black. Let me give you the reference since you know nothing about it, Genesis 4 and Genesis 9.

Your whole point is so incredibly silly... that dark skins are cursed. Jesus wasn't cursed, therefore he is white.

Well if not racist, then surely prejudicial! You might be considered a step worse than a racist as your lines of prejudice are based upon you're believing your are superior in intellect and understanding, not to mention knowledge.

[Snow]

Oh please, that is as idiotic a thing as I have heard in, well days at least, but idiotic nevertheless.

Your first statement doesn't even make sense, not even a little. I believe in the Bible. I don't think I am racist. My Bishop believes in the Bible. He certainly isn't racists. Racist are ugly little creatures. Believing in the Bible, I would hope, makes one less ugly (talking character and deceny here, not appearance), not more.

On your second statement - in a show of good nature I am willing assume that you are not a liar. Therefore I must assume that you have never read the bible. Personally I think ignorance is a better trait than dishonesty, but not by much.

The Bible says absolutely nothing, zero, zip, zilch, nada, about Jews being white. It says the exact same amount (nothing) about the offspring of Cain or Ham (though Canaan) being black. Let me give you the reference since you know nothing about it, Genesis 4 and Genesis 9.

Your whole point is so incredibly silly... that dark skins are cursed. Jesus wasn't cursed, therefore he is white.

Well if not racist, then surely prejudicial! You might be considered a step worse than a racist as your lines of prejudice are based upon you're believing your are superior in intellect and understanding, not to mention knowledge.

Don't be absurd. I don't consider myself superior to anyone. You can only talk about you or how you feel not about what I think of myself. I can't control how you feel.

Someone chooses to be racist - to believe that blacks or any darker skinned children of God (who are punished for their own and not their father's transgressions) such as the Hebrews are inferior and cursed is disgusting. That in time gone by, other people were a product of their culture and failed to raise above their culture is sad but understandable. That someone in this day and age sinks below their culture and adopts such bigoted views is disgusting.

[LionHeart]

The Bible says absolutely nothing, zero, zip, zilch, nada, about Jews being white. It says the exact same amount (nothing) about the offspring of Cain or Ham (though Canaan) being black. Let me give you the reference since you know nothing about it, Genesis 4 and Genesis 9.

Your whole point is so incredibly silly... that dark skins are cursed. Jesus wasn't cursed, therefore he is white.

Actually I admit, I haven't read the whole bible yet. I read as far as proverbs and then I have read the first four books in the new testament.

And you are right about the bible not saying anything about the Jews being white. One must use the process of elimination to come to that conclusion. If they are not dark then they must be light. See what I am getting at?

You are also right about the bible not saying that the Canaanites were black. I never said they were black either. It does say that Cain was cursed, yes, CURSED. Does it make me racist to quote the bible?

The bible also says that Noah CURSED Canaan. There's that word again. These darn racists who wrote the bible. They should've known better.

Now, since we know that Canaan's seed settled Syria and Egypt and roudabout, and that those people were dark complected, (not black. I admit I don't know how the blacks originated) it is logical to assume that somewhere along the line, someone, somewhere was turned dark. Wouldn't it be most logical to assume that it happened when the cursings took place? Especially since books like the Book of Jasher say that this is when it happened? And yes, I have read the Book of Jasher.

So you see, it's not so silly after all. Quite logical actually.

As for me being racist, I would say no more so than Joseph Smith was. I beleive that all men should be treated equally. I have also known a few black people. These ones that I knew were quite respectable in my opinion.

These remarks of yours about me being being racist seem to be no more than attacks on my personality because you know I'm right and you refuse to admit it. So you then resort to foul play.

[Guest Syble]

Don't be absurd. I don't consider myself superior to anyone. You can only talk about you or how you feel not about what I think of myself. I can't control how you feel.

When you put it out all over the board, you better believe we can talk about what you think about yourself.

[Snow]

These remarks of yours about me being being racist seem to be no more than attacks on my personality because you know I'm right and you refuse to admit it. So you then resort to foul play.

Right,

Me... and all the anthropologists, biologists and historians, including Tacitus who comtemporaneously wrote on the characteristics of the ancient Jews all got together and refused to admit that you were right.... and I call you a racists, not because you believe blacks became black by being cursed for something they didn't do, but rather because I know you are right.

Syble.

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I'm not), but this is the third time now that you have posted about my personality, out of the blue, not even being part of an on-going discussion in at least 2 if not 3 of those occasions.

I'm happy to be the object of your attention, I can always use the residuals, but maybe you're just a little to attached to me to be healthy.

[LionHeart]

Right,

Me... and all the anthropologists, biologists and historians, including Tacitus who comtemporaneously wrote on the characteristics of the ancient Jews all got together and refused to admit that you were right.... and I call you a racists, not because you believe blacks became black by being cursed for something they didn't do, but rather because I know you are right.

I knew you would eventually come to terms with it. Perhaps there is a light shining after all. I must say, I'm glad you've learned something from all of this.

[LionHeart]

All sarcasm laid aside, let's not lose sight of what this debate is about. It is about whether Jesus was caucasion or arabic. I have presented my biblical evidence, and you have presented your scientific evidence. With both viewpoints out in the open, everyone can choose which one they want to believe. The whole racial issue is beside the point and has no place in this discussion. But I will make myself clear on one point which I appear to have been mis-understood on. I mentioned that Cain was cursed and had his skin turned dark. Did he pass the dark skin onto his offspring? Obviously. Did he pass the condemnation onto his offspring? No. I do not believe that God punishes anyone for the sins of their fathers.

Let that suffice.

[begood2]

All sarcasm laid aside, let's not lose sight of what this debate is about. It is about whether Jesus was caucasion or arabic. I mentioned that Cain was cursed and had his skin turned dark. Did he pass the dark skin onto his offspring? Obviously. Did he pass the condemnation onto his offspring? No. I do not believe that God punishes anyone for the sins of their fathers.

Let that suffice.

LionHeart,

I couldn't care what color of skin or what race Jesus was...I'm Caucasian and he is my savior, that is what matters to me.

I agree with you...I don't believe that God punishes anyone for the sins of their fathers...that is why I believe that the LDS church is right about there not being an original sin that all babies are born with like some Christan churches believe.

[Snow]

All sarcasm laid aside, let's not lose sight of what this debate is about. It is about whether Jesus was caucasion or arabic. I have presented my biblical evidence, and you have presented your scientific evidence. With both viewpoints out in the open, everyone can choose which one they want to believe. The whole racial issue is beside the point and has no place in this discussion. But I will make myself clear on one point which I appear to have been mis-understood on. I mentioned that Cain was cursed and had his skin turned dark. Did he pass the dark skin onto his offspring? Obviously. Did he pass the condemnation onto his offspring? No. I do not believe that God punishes anyone for the sins of their fathers.

Let that suffice.

Couple corrections:

You have present zero evidence biblical evidence about Jesus's complexion,

You have presented zero evidence that Cain was cursed with dark skin.

The only reason you have to propose that Christ was of Middle Eastern desent is that you desperately want him to be white. That's racists. For all you know Adam and Eve were Korean.

[LionHeart]

Couple corrections:

You have present zero evidence biblical evidence about Jesus's complexion,

You have presented zero evidence that Cain was cursed with dark skin.

The only reason you have to propose that Christ was of Middle Eastern desent is that you desperately want him to be white. That's racists. For all you know Adam and Eve were Korean.

Actually, on the contrary, I have presented much obvious evidence. If you can't see that, it's not my responsibility. I don't know what's the matter with you. I mean, if my eyes were broken I would go get them fixed. But I can't make someone else go and fix their eyes.

[Ray]

Let’s try to be clear, here.

Jesus was born through Mary, and through the scriptures we know that Mary was “exceedingly fair and white”. And while we haven’t been specifically told about what color of skin our Heavenly Father has, we do know He is radiant with light.

I think it is also important to note that the curse of Cain was not dark skin.

The curse of Cain was that he was shut out of the presence of God, beyond the point of redemption. Or in other words, the dark skin was not the curse, as that was actually given to him for protection.

[Outshined]

I think it is also important to note that the curse of Cain was not dark skin.

The curse of Cain was that he was shut out of the presence of God, beyond the point of redemption. Or in other words, the dark skin was not the curse, as that was actually given to him for protection.

Exactly. That's a mistake I've heard repeated now and again, and it is one that can cause a lot of confusion. Thanks for the clarification. B)

[Maureen]

...Or in other words, the dark skin was not the curse, as that was actually given to him for protection.

But Genesis does not specifically say that this mark given to Cain was dark skin either. We really do not know what that mark was per the Bible.

But the Lord said to him, "All right then, if anyone kills Cain, Cain will be avenged seven times as much." Then the Lord put a special mark39 on Cain so that no one who found him would strike him down. (Genesis 4:15, NET)

39 tn Heb "sign"; "reminder." The term "sign" is not used in the translation because it might imply to an English reader that God hung a sign on Cain. The text does not identify what the "sign" was. It must have been some outward, visual reminder of Cain's special protected status.

And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. (Genesis 4:15, KJV)

M.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

...Or in other words, the dark skin was not the curse, as that was actually given to him for protection.

But Genesis does not specifically say that this mark given to Cain was dark skin either. We really do not know what that mark was per the Bible.

Heh, just another example of what can happen when you limit yourself to only those books in the Holy Bible.