Mormon Myths

[Amphiblitz]

O.K. I've got one. This one has even been casually alluded to and directly mentioned here in this forum as if it were some commonly known and established fact. I figured this might be a good one to mention.

And it is:

Originally posted by Dr. Marleen S. Williams

Contrary to folklore, LDS women are not more depressed than other women are. This is a myth that started years ago but had no real data to back it up. Recently, there have been several scientific studies that show LDS women do not have a greater prevalence of depression. In addition, religious beliefs can be a buffer and support against depression in women. Women have lifetime prevalence for depression of about 20%. This is also true for LDS women.

You can read the full address by Dr. Williams here.

[LionHeart]

Yes, the book of genesis is a little vague on exactly what that "mark" is. However it says in the Book of Jasher that Cain's son and grandson were out hunting, and they saw Cain off in the distance, and thinking he was a beast, they shot him with an arrow and he died. If Cain appeared to be a beast, one might conclude that he had dark skin.

[Amphiblitz]

Yes, the book of genesis is a little vague on exactly what that "mark" is. However it says in the Book of Jasher that Cain's son and grandson were out hunting, and they saw Cain off in the distance, and thinking he was a beast, they shot him with an arrow and he died. If Cain appeared to be a beast, one might conclude that he had dark skin.

...and/or that he was very hairy!

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

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.

Again - I’ll suspend reasonable belief and assume that you are not lying, rather you just have no idea of what constitutes evidence. That’s a huge stretch but here we go.

This is your argument boiled down to it’s basic steps:

LionHeart’s Theory:

1. The Bible is a reliable source or real literal history.

2. God cursed Cain and his offspring and marked them with blackness. God punished Ham by cursing Ham’s child and his child’s offspring and marked them with blackness.

3. Although the Bible says nothing about how the cursed Cain and cursed Ham were marked, we can infer that the mark was blackness because...

4. Ham’s descendants settled in Egypt and Egyptians are black.

Further...

5. Christ is good.

6. White is good and black is not good.

7. Therefore Christ is white.

8. That Christ is white is confirmed... ”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.”

I honestly believe that any normal person could look at your argument and say... ‘What a load of trash. Besides being moronic on the face of it, it is obviously racist.’ Nevertheless, I break down the many ways that your argument fails miserably.

1. The Bible is a poor source of real literal history and the two examples (1.Adam, Eve Cain and Abel, and 2. Noah) are notorious examples of just how poor a source of real history the Bible is. The entire legitimate scientific utterly rejects the Adam-Eve-Cain-Abel story as described in the Bible as plain mythology. Man and woman were not created a mere 6000 years ago (out of mud or out of ribs - take your pick, the Bible has two conflicting accounts). Rather modern man is on the order of 100,000 years old. The logical fallacy you have employed is an appeal to authority.

2. The Bible says nothing about what type of mark was placed on Cain or Ham. The very idea - that God is unjust and punishes man for their father’s transgression is contrary to the LDS understanding of the gospel. The source of the myth that blackness is a biblical curse is ancient Jewish writings in the Midrash and Talmud and more recently by 12th century Catholics and most recently by Protestants to justify slavery... ie if blacks are less-than-human, we can enslave them. The logical fallacies you have employed are an appeal to ignorance and an appeal to hatred among a number of other. It is sun and evolution that causes black skin, not magical curses.

3, 4, Your inference that because Ham’s descendants settled in Egypt and since blacks live in Egypt, Ham’s descendants must have been the cause of the blackness is such a poor use of inference that it is any child could see it. Evidence that Egyptians were living in the Nile valley predate Ham and Cain by thousands of years. Golly - did you ever stop to think that maybe they were already black by the time Ham rolled about and peeked at his naked father?

5, 6, and 7 - This is the real motivation for your racist theory. I won’t dignify such ugly thinking with any further debate about it.

8. Let’s see - how can I put this nicely... Any one that believes such obviously nonsense.... er, uh - here - you do the work. Who said such a thing, what was his name, when did he write it. Name one single authority that doesn’t believe that the idea is pure idiocy.

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.

New's flash Ray. Mary skin color was not exceedingly white. Even albino's do not have white skin. Look at your monitor. If someone had white colored skin they would be an unbelievable freak. Mary may have been pure and good and fair but here skin color was flesh and the color of the Middle Eastern peoples in not that of the Norwegians.

[LionHeart]

Make up your mind. First you say that you believe in the bible then you say it is mythology. Which is it going to be? It can't be both true and false.

And I don't think Ray was saying that Mary was literaly white. And you accuse me of being foolish. Just because the caucasion race is also called 'the whites' doesn't make us a clan of freaky albinoes.

And for the last time, NOT BLACK. DARK. Do you not know how to read? Or perhaps you just thought you already knew how to read during reading class in grade school; calling the teacher an absurd idiot.

No matter how hard I try to exclude the whole racist issue from this discussion, you always seem to drag it back in. It causes me to wonder what your obsession is with racism. You know, when someone takes such a strong stand against a certain wrong principle, it often means that they are guilty of that very thing. They strongly oppose it so as to appear not to be guilty of it. They might also accuse some one else of it in an attempt to convince theirself that they are not alone in thier sin. After all, misery loves company. So how about it Holmes? Why don't you fess up? I think you are racist in the extreme. Burn any crosses out in some black guy's yard lately? I suppose no one would have suspected you due to your pointy, white hood.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Dr. Marleen S. Williams

Contrary to folklore, LDS women are not more depressed than other women are. This is a myth that started years ago but had no real data to back it up. Recently, there have been several scientific studies that show LDS women do not have a greater prevalence of depression. In addition, religious beliefs can be a buffer and support against depression in women. Women have lifetime prevalence for depression of about 20%. This is also true for LDS women.

No, the LDS sisters in my former ward aren't depressed anymore...cause they're all on Prozac! LOL

[Maureen]

...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....

LionHeart - I believe the assumption that you may sub-consciously have these racist notions is from one of your quotes above. You say this is a biblical account, except you are adding your own prejudice by assuming the mark given Cain is darkness, even though the "biblical account" does not specify what that mark actually is - and you mistakenly think this mark is a punishment, when it has already been pointed out it was for Cain's protection. So, would you say that maybe, just maybe, you've gotten some of the facts wrong?

M.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

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.

New's flash Ray. Mary skin color was not exceedingly white. Even albino's do not have white skin. Look at your monitor. If someone had white colored skin they would be an unbelievable freak. Mary may have been pure and good and fair but here skin color was flesh and the color of the Middle Eastern peoples in not that of the Norwegians.

Heh, there you go again, jumping to more false conclusions.

You jumped on the word “white” as if that was a description of Mary’s skin color, yet the word “white” was often used by prophets of our Lord to describe cleanliness and personal worthiness.

The words that should have given you a clue regarding the color of Mary’s skin was that she was seen to be “exceedingly fair”, which would seem to fairly indicate that she didn’t have much if any of a “tan”.

And btw, the phrase “exceedingly fair and white” could mean that she was exceedingly fair, and white.. not necessarily being both exceedingly fair and exceedingly white.

And for anyone who doesn’t know this scripture, I’ll post it here for reference:

And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white. – 1 Nephi 11:13

…and Nephi goes on to say that she was most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.

[LionHeart]

<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....

LionHeart - I believe the assumption that you may sub-consciously have these racist notions is from one of your quotes above. You say this is a biblical account, except you are adding your own prejudice by assuming the mark given Cain is darkness, even though the "biblical account" does not specify what that mark actually is - and you mistakenly think this mark is a punishment, when it has already been pointed out it was for Cain's protection. So, would you say that maybe, just maybe, you've gotten some of the facts wrong?

M.

You are right Maureen, when you say that the mark given to Cain is unspecified by the bible. I went back and looked, and I can find nowhere where it specifies that the mark was dark skin.

However, the assumption that the mark was dark skin, is not a prejudice of mine. That is a definite teaching of the early LDS Church. It is not a conclusion that I came up with.

If one reads all of the available accounts of the incident, including the bible, the book of Josephus, the LDS book of Moses, and the book of Jasher, then, that is certainly a very likely conclusion to come to. Although none of them specifically state that the descendants of Cain had dark skin, it is certainly a likely conclusion considering the cultural description given of those people. And one might ask theirself, 'What else would the mark be? Did the Lord paint a sign on his forehead? Or maybe He cut his hands off? Or perhaps He gave him horns?'

But let's consider the facts: We have people among us with dark skin. How did this happen? What made them that way? I think the evolution concept is worse than the scriptural one on the grounds that evolutionists say that we evolved from monkeys. This would offer an insult to the darker races by inferring that they are less evolved than the caucasion race; therefore, they are more closely related to the monkeys.

I, for one, prefer to believe the scriptural account.

[Amphiblitz]

Originally posted by Dr. Marleen S. Williams

Contrary to folklore, LDS women are not more depressed than other women are. This is a myth that started years ago but had no real data to back it up. Recently, there have been several scientific studies that show LDS women do not have a greater prevalence of depression. In addition, religious beliefs can be a buffer and support against depression in women. Women have lifetime prevalence for depression of about 20%. This is also true for LDS women.

No, the LDS sisters in my former ward aren't depressed anymore...cause they're all on Prozac! LOL

Sharing that quote in no way minimizes the fact that there is depression in women in the Church. One would hope that we might have a lower prevalence of depression. But that is not the case. We still have work to do in order to get that number significantly lower than the general population.

[Aristotle]

Sharing that quote in no way minimizes the fact that there is depression in women in the Church. One would hope that we might have a lower prevalence of depression. But that is not the case. We still have work to do in order to get that number significantly lower than the general population.

Yes, I agree.

[Outshined]

O.K. I've got one. This one has even been casually alluded to and directly mentioned here in this forum as if it were some commonly known and established fact. I figured this might be a good one to mention.

And it is:

Originally posted by Dr. Marleen S. Williams

Contrary to folklore, LDS women are not more depressed than other women are. This is a myth that started years ago but had no real data to back it up. Recently, there have been several scientific studies that show LDS women do not have a greater prevalence of depression. In addition, religious beliefs can be a buffer and support against depression in women. Women have lifetime prevalence for depression of about 20%. This is also true for LDS women.

You can read the full address by Dr. Williams here.

For reasons that are their own, people tend to perpetuate such things to fit their own feelings about the subject. We all have anecdotal evidence for both sides, I imagine.

[Aristotle]

My findings were based upon the sisters' admittance to such.

[Outshined]

As are the "findings" of others who disagree.

[Aristotle]

I suppose some would engage in such folly (disagreeing with facts). LOL

[Outshined]

Some would say you have...

[Aristotle]

Did you know that when you point your finger at someone, three fingers point back in your direction?

[Guest Syble]

They have come up with documentation on the fact that our food sources and our environment polutants can bring on these kinds of illnesses.

As many would like to blame membership for these things, it would behove us to check back a couple centuries to what our forebearers had to endure and they didn't suffer from depression.

It is our food source and polutants which comes from all sorts of different sources that cause our bodies to break down and our mental capacities to diminish.

There is a new movement afoot which I applaud hardily. Winder Dairy in Utah is now offering dairy products and grain products which have no preservatives or refined elements in them. They are purifying their sources and we can all benefit at a price that is competitive with what we might find in the grocery stores.

If we truly find we need to help those who are suffering from depression, we should support such efforts as being put out by Winder Dairy by giving them our patronage.

[Aristotle]

I agree, and thanks for that information, Syble. Do they have a mail order catalog?

[sgallan]

As many would like to blame membership for these things, it would behove us to check back a couple centuries to what our forebearers had to endure and they didn't suffer from depression.

Wow.... you must be a really really really old sociologist.

[Snow]

Sharing that quote in no way minimizes the fact that there is depression in women in the Church. One would hope that we might have a lower prevalence of depression. But that is not the case. We still have work to do in order to get that number significantly lower than the general population.

Huh?

What work do we have to do? Is the gospel only true if Church members are free of depression? Is freedom from depression required for salvation?

[Snow]

Make up your mind. First you say that you believe in the bible then you say it is mythology. Which is it going to be? It can't be both true and false.

They say I should be nice and not say stuff like "What a positively moronic statement!."

Well Lionheart, you make it tough to be nice. So your position is that unless I believe that donkey's talk, that God killed 42 children because they called Elihah "bald head," that Elhanan slew Goliath, and that it is better to be celibate that to be married and have children, then I must believe that the Bible is false?

That's bloody brillant thinking Lionheart. Kudos on your excellent thinker.

And I don't think Ray was saying that Mary was literaly white. And you accuse me of being foolish. Just because the caucasion race is also called 'the whites' doesn't make us a clan of freaky albinoes.

I guess my point was just a little to subtle for you. The point is that the Church reworded the Book of Mormon from "white and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome." Maybe Mary was "pure" as compared to "white" especially since her skin was most definately not white but rather flesh colored.

And for the last time, NOT BLACK. DARK. Do you not know how to read? Or perhaps you just thought you already knew how to read during reading class in grade school; calling the teacher an absurd idiot.

No matter how hard I try to exclude the whole racist issue from this discussion, you always seem to drag it back in. It causes me to wonder what your obsession is with racism. You know, when someone takes such a strong stand against a certain wrong principle, it often means that they are guilty of that very thing. They strongly oppose it so as to appear not to be guilty of it. They might also accuse some one else of it in an attempt to convince theirself that they are not alone in thier sin. After all, misery loves company. So how about it Holmes? Why don't you fess up? I think you are racist in the extreme. Burn any crosses out in some black guy's yard lately? I suppose no one would have suspected you due to your pointy, white hood.

Good thinking LionHeart. Maybe it's me that is saying that black skin is a curse from God and that Jesus just gots to be white instead of dark (like anyone with a working brain knows) instead of you. Yeah. That's it. When I complain that I find your racist attitude mind-boggling, that is just a sign of my racism.

Brillant, bloody brilliant.

[Snow]

That is a definite teaching of the early LDS Church. It is not a conclusion that I came up with.

Here's a few more early Church teachings that are in line with your school of thought:

“Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness HE BECAME THE FATHER OF AN INFERIOR RACE.” (JFS The Way to Perfection, page 101)

“And after the flood we are told that the CURSE that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through HAM'S WIFE, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? because it was necessary that the DEVIL SHOULD HAVE A REPRESENTATION upon the earth as well as God;...” (JT Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22, page 304)

If one reads all of the available accounts of the incident, including the bible, the book of Josephus,

The book of Josephus?

Is that like the book of Stephen Ambrose?

But let's consider the facts: We have people among us with dark skin. How did this happen? What made them that way? I think the evolution concept is worse than the scriptural one on the grounds that evolutionists say that we evolved from monkeys. This would offer an insult to the darker races by inferring that they are less evolved than the caucasion race; therefore, they are more closely related to the monkeys.

I, for one, prefer to believe the scriptural account.

That's disgusting and an embarrassment to decent Mormons. Fortunately most all the Mormons I know and respect are much better educated. Do you even have a single clue why people have various colors of skin?

[LionHeart]

I have tried to reason with you; obviously with no success. Apparently racists are evaded by reason.

And for your information, I am 1/16 American Indian. So according to your superficial stance, I must hate myself.

But don't be getting any ideas; if I see someone around here with a pointy white hood trying to kill me, I'll know it's you.

[Snow]

I have tried to reason with you; obviously with no success. Apparently racists are evaded by reason.

And for your information, I am 1/16 American Indian. So according to your superficial stance, I must hate myself.

But don't be getting any ideas; if I see someone around here with a pointy white hood trying to kill me, I'll know it's you.

Here's a clue Eistein, being a racist doesn't mean you are prejudiced towards all races. Some Jews are prejudice towards blacks, some Asians dislike hispanics, some caucasian think that black skin is a curse from God.

Now Eistein... point out one single racist thing I have ever said on this site. Go ahead, name one, just one. One!

Like I said - it's fortunate that today's Church isn't comprised entirely of ignorant hicks who think that God punishes progeny by paintlng them black.

I have tried to reason with you; obviously with no success. Apparently racists are evaded by reason.

And for your information, I am 1/16 American Indian. So according to your superficial stance, I must hate myself.

But don't be getting any ideas; if I see someone around here with a pointy white hood trying to kill me, I'll know it's you.

Here's a clue Einstein, being a racist doesn't mean you are prejudiced towards all races. Some Jews are prejudice towards blacks, some Asians dislike hispanics, some caucasians think that black skin is a curse from God.

Now Einstein... point out one single racist thing I have ever said on this site. Go ahead, name one, just one. One!

Like I said - it's fortunate that today's Church isn't comprised entirely of ignorant hicks who think that God punishes progeny by paintlng them black.

Book of Jasher - Bloviate.