Mar 15, 2012 -- 11:22AM, Habala?! wrote:

Mar 15, 2012 -- 12:07AM, Ironhold wrote:

Mar 14, 2012 -- 11:58PM, Habala?! wrote:

So you're just going to ignore the fact that the BoM decribes swords with hilts and pointed ends and your obsidian studded clubs lack those things?

Very telling.

...or maybe it's just that I've got a lot of ground to cover despite being a wee bit pressed for time.

It's actually after 11 PM here, meaning that I need to wind it up for the night pretty soon so that I don't wake my neices (who are in the room next to where I'm typing).

You have been igonring it.  Despite the descriptions of metal swords with hilts and pointed tips you keep bringing up clubs studded with obsidian. We've hashed this out before and you just stopped responding without admitting that they just aren't the same as what's described in your scriptures.

When one has zero, one must yell like heck. 

Mar 15, 2012 -- 4:22PM, Ironhold wrote:

Mar 15, 2012 -- 12:12PM, Esdraelon wrote:

FAIR, FARM and the like

Define "the like".

..it does not matter as I am done with you.

So rather than admit you've got a dud of an argument, you're going to pretend I don't exist?

So that's how Mormons conclude the issue?

I've got a excellent argumentS, you simply continue to beg the question....so unless you actually address the current science already posted on this thread, you are correct, you do not exist.

Mar 15, 2012 -- 4:45PM, wohali wrote:

"When Columbus discovered America, the native inhabitants, the American Indians as they were soon to be designated, were a people of mixed blood and origin. Chiefly, they were Lamanites, but such remnants of the Nephite nation as had not been destroyed had, of course, mingled with the Lamanites. Thus the Indians were Jews by nationality.... [since then] there has been [a]... dilution of the pure Lamanitish blood. ... But with it all, the great majority are the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel. The Indians are repeatedly called Lamanites in the revelations to.... become again a white and delightsome people as were their ancestors a great many generations ago."
- Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd Ed., 1966, pp. 32-33.

I just love the "white and delightsome" crap.....................

I guess one determines "Israelitish" origin by seeing tiny Menorahs in the DNA under a Utahish electronic microscope, using BYU-ish electrish. 

Mar 15, 2012 -- 10:48PM, Ironhold wrote:

Mar 15, 2012 -- 4:45PM, wohali wrote:

"When Columbus discovered America, the native inhabitants, the American Indians as they were soon to be designated, were a people of mixed blood and origin. Chiefly, they were Lamanites, but such remnants of the Nephite nation as had not been destroyed had, of course, mingled with the Lamanites. Thus the Indians were Jews by nationality.... [since then] there has been [a]... dilution of the pure Lamanitish blood. ... But with it all, the great majority are the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel. The Indians are repeatedly called Lamanites in the revelations to.... become again a white and delightsome people as were their ancestors a great many generations ago."
- Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd Ed., 1966, pp. 32-33.

I just love the "white and delightsome" crap.....................

To be honest, no Mormon I know of will take any MD citation before the '78 edition, and some won't take a citation from before '94.

You see, Mormon Doctrine was actually McConkie's pet project, and had no official sanction. The end result was that the '55 edition, which represented the first printing, was more "McConkie's personal beliefs" than actual theology.

The book was forced out of print when the leadership found out and made him produce an edited version (the '66 edition), but further "refinement" was still needed before it would be fully in line with the church's theology; the final, corrected edition was first sent to the printers in '78, and it finally entered regular publication in '94.

Thing is, critics of the church love to cite the '55 and '66 editions, often without telling people that they're citing the earlier editions. This is because the title makes it sound official despite it not really being so, yet the contents are so far from church theology that the critics can often pull whatever they want from it and still make it seem like the book is taking their side.

Making matters worse, the same kinds of critics who cite the earlier editions also tend to be the same kinds of critics who aren't exactly known for ensuring that their quotes are correct... if you know what I mean.

That's right: critics will often misquote (typically deliberately) whatever church works they do cite.

So what you're going to need to do is pick up a '78 or a '94 edition and check to see if that citation is still even in there, and if so, what the context is.

You do realize that this makes your leadership look about as impressive as the Keystone Cops, don't you? Not to mention no one is going to just forget the whole "white and delightsome" thing. Lord, that phrase makes me ashamed to have been born into such a church. Frankly, it makes me want to vomit in disgust.

Ironhold, thanks! It's good to learn that the LDS never taught that Indians are "cursed" with dark skin and will turn "white and delightsome" if they convert to Mormonism.............