The Contested Color of Christ


Kawazu
 Share

Recommended Posts

You should be able to provide a scholar who states that mixed marriages did not take place back then.

Failing any positive reference, you should at least mention some of the sources that lead you to believe that such was the case.

All in all, a very Nicodemean moment!

Well, from BYU, discussing the Hebraisms of the BoM...

"2. A new law was then issued that no Nephite should intermarry with the Lamanites. The penalty for anyone who might break this law was affliction with a curse (see 2 Nephi 5:23). This New World prohibition compares to the similar law given to the Israelites at the time of their conquest in the Old World: it prohibited them from intermarrying with the Canaanites (see Deuteronomy 7:3-4)."

Or there is a good book discussing the development and application on the prohibition from Oxford University Press discussed here...

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2004.12.06

You're the one making the claim that Palestinian Jewry was homogeneic. Please substantiate this claim. Or are you citing yourself as an authority?

Actually I did not make that statement that I can see. Perhaps you could cite me specifically?

I don't know how common this was, but there were bound to be some like that. Also, it wasn't until the Rabbinic era, as Michael Satlow has shown, that the idea of marriage castes really took off. Tacitus indicates that Jews had a reputation for marrying non-Jews, and this can be supported to a certain extent from other sources.

Where in Tacitus? I was an ancient history undergrad, and that was a while ago, but I am not aware of any comment like that. For your ease here is Tacitus

The Internet Classics Archive | Works by Tacitus

Also Satlow is available online as well, could you cite specifically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand LM's confusion as your IP address is coming from Missouri.

Well I am military and I've manage to get training scheduled between Thanksgiving and Christmas allowing my family to be with their larger family for the holidays. Also if he knows enough to read IP addresses he should know that you can make your IP address anything. I have a VPN overseas, since Netflix will not work outside of the US, and AFN is not that great, so we use Netflix and Hulu, but that IP is somewhere in New Jersey.

Is this the sort of questioning most new members have to live with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I am military and I've manage to get training scheduled between Thanksgiving and Christmas allowing my family to be with their larger family for the holidays. Also if he knows enough to read IP addresses he should know that you can make your IP address anything. I have a VPN overseas, since Netflix will not work outside of the US, and AFN is not that great, so we use Netflix and Hulu, but that IP is somewhere in New Jersey.

Is this the sort of questioning most new members have to live with?

You can also state your location is anything. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My resume is on LinkedIn. Again, do most members get grilled?

Only those who come onto a new site like gangbusters claiming anything anyone says is wrong and only you are right. It does make us question the intention of the said user.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only those who come onto a new site like gangbusters claiming anything anyone says is wrong and only you are right. It does make us question the intention of the said user.

I don't believe I have said anything untrue, doctrinally incorrect, or without actually putting a lot of study into the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe I have said anything untrue, doctrinally incorrect, or without actually putting a lot of study into the subject.

Then please show some courtesy when you are asking for people's views. You ask for views (polygamy thread) and then you tell everyone those said views are wrong. Don't ask for others viewpoints if you aren't willing to acknowledge that others may think differently than you. Just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also would be well advised to read the site rules - especially #'s 3 and 4. You can be as true and doctrinally correct as one could possibly be, and still run afoul of them and find yourself infracted or banned.

Please understand we get a lot of trolls here, spammers, porn throwers, bots, liars, and the vile and venom-spewing. It's sometimes hard to tell the difference between them and doctrinally correct folks who show up a bit contentious and who's IP address shows a different location than they claim. I'm sure you understand.

Anyway, thanks for your service. If you can play nice, you are welcome here.

Edited by Loudmouth_Mormon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then please show some courtesy when you are asking for people's views. You ask for views (polygamy thread) and then you tell everyone those said views are wrong. Don't ask for others viewpoints if you aren't willing to acknowledge that others may think differently than you. Just saying.

But the views WERE wrong. Per the Church Handbook of Instruction, Book 1, Section 8. Just because someone says something does not mean they cannot be wrong. I asked about the moral loophole caused by the recognition of government marriage as valid, which has no basis in theology. To argue that the loophole does not exist is to ignore or be unaware of our theology and doctrine. I was unaware that these issues were as esoteric as they apparently are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also would be well advised to read the site rules - especially #'s 3 and 4. You can be as true and doctrinally correct as one could possibly be, and still run afoul of them and find yourself infracted or banned.

Please understand we get a lot of trolls here, spammers, porn throwers, bots, liars, and the vile and venom-spewing. It's sometimes hard to tell the difference between them and someone who shows up to argue and who's IP address shows a different location than they claim. I'm sure you understand.

Anyway, thanks for your service. If you can play nice, you are welcome here.

That makes no sense with regards to this line of questioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how common this was, but there were bound to be some like that. Also, it wasn't until the Rabbinic era, as Michael Satlow has shown, that the idea of marriage castes really took off. Tacitus indicates that Jews had a reputation for marrying non-Jews, and this can be supported to a certain extent from other sources.

BTW, you might want to re-read Tacitus...

"They will not feed or intermarry with gentiles. Though a most lascivious people, the Jews avoid sexual intercourse with women of alien race."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the views WERE wrong. Per the Church Handbook of Instruction, Book 1, Section 8. Just because someone says something does not mean they cannot be wrong. I asked about the moral loophole caused by the recognition of government marriage as valid, which has no basis in theology. To argue that the loophole does not exist is to ignore or be unaware of our theology and doctrine. I was unaware that these issues were as esoteric as they apparently are.

CHI Book 1 is only available to priesthood eclesiastical leaders.

Here is the link to book 2:

Handbook 2: Administering the Church

I suspect that you don't hold an official copy of Book 1. Those who would be in possession of Book 1 wouldn't need to ask such a question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CHI Book 1 is only available to priesthood eclesiastical leaders.

Here is the link to book 2:

Handbook 2: Administering the Church

I suspect that you don't hold an official copy of Book 1. Those who would be in possession of Book 1 wouldn't need to ask such a question.

Wrong on both counts, sort of. The current version is available in multiple places on the internet if you're interested. The Church does not sanction it, but it is there nonetheless. I do not necessarily know why they are not posted, they are hardly salacious, but...

Also you would be remiss in assuming I have not had an official copy at one point in time, why would you suspect otherwise? Also the situation I was discussing is not covered by the CHI, that is why it is a administrative loophole, though the theological principles are, which is why I was pointing out that many posters were wrong. The same principles are also posted on various articles as well as an Ask Gramps article...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because there are sacred and confidential things on the internet does not give the faithful "license" to just search them out since they're there.

The faithful also do not seek out "loopholes" in the commandments of the Lord, or in the law of the land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share