the curse upon Laman and Lemuel
John Walt
Alma (3:6-7) says "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark,
according to the mark which was set upon their fathers,
which was a curse upon them because of their transgression
and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted
of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and
holy men. And their brethren sought to destroy them,
therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark
upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons
of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women".
A few questions come to mind.
Did God curse Laman, Lemuel, and the sons and daughters of
Ishmael with dark skin during their departure out of Jerusalem,
in the wilderness, or during the trip to the promised land on
the ship Nephi built?
Why were the skins of the Lamanites dark for what their ancestors
had done many years before?
When the Lamanites repented and became righteous, did their
skin color change back to white like the Nephites' skin
changed to black who mingled with the wicked Lamanites?
John Walt
_________________________________________________________________
Fight Allergies With Live Search
http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=Remedies+For+Spring+Allergies&mkt=en-ca&FORM=SERNEP
Jeff
> Did God curse Laman, Lemuel, and the sons and daughters of
> Ishmael with dark skin during their departure out of Jerusalem,
> in the wilderness, or during the trip to the promised land on
> the ship Nephi built?
>
Not sure.
> Why were the skins of the Lamanites dark for what their ancestors
> had done many years before?
>
They either inherited the same curse or they just inherited the skin
color so their parents would not faint due to shock at their birth.
> When the Lamanites repented and became righteous, did their
> skin color change back to white like the Nephites' skin
> changed to black who mingled with the wicked Lamanites?
>
There is no indication on how quickly this change in skin color
occurred. It could have been like "presto!" or it was gradual. If it
was like the mark of Cain, then I would say "presto!"
>From what I have read, the curse was taken away from the Lamanites
when they became believers and were associated with the Nephites, but
this was not until approx. A.D. 15 (at least that is what it says for
a timeline in the Book of Mormon in the commentary for 3 Nephi 2:15).
It was not recorded that previous Lamanites converts had their skin
color changed.
As for the other Lamanites, their curse seems to have been removed
already because it is stated that some of the Lamanites' skins will be
whiter than the Nephites' skin as they appear before the throne of
God.
When it was removed, I don't know. Will Negroes have their black skin
removed? I don't know that either.
But since dark skin is a sign of the curse in the Book of Mormon and
the Pearl of Great Price, it is difficult to differentiate who has it
and who doesn't ... considering that many nationalities in today's
world have some shade of dark skin in their pigmentation. If you marry
someone with dark skin and you are not cursed with the same curse as
the Nephites of old, then you can safely assume that this black person
did not have the curse of the Lamanite.
I hope this makes sense.
Jeff
Gerald Fuller
"Jeff" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:138bif4...@news.supernews.com...
Snip
> I hope this makes sense.
I think it makes at least as much sense as most discussions of how skin
color and purity of spirit may be related. I was working in the St. Louis
Temple this weekend. I work with a man in his 20s as I estimate his age, who
has a dark skin. We along with several others during a slack time were
discussing the use of the word "white" as in "white and delightsome" and he
pointed out, before I had a chance to do so, that white in the Book of
Mormon is essentially interchangeable with "pure". His is a fairly dark
complexion, dark brown eyes, black hair etc. He happened to be wearing a
wrist watch with a black dial. Of course we were wearing white clothing. I
happen to be a fairly light skinned Caucasian with blue eyes and when I was
young light blond hair which before it started turning grayish white, and
falling off my head, was medium brown, I guess with some touches of red. I
pointed to his watch and asked if he, a so called black man was the same
color as his watch dial. I asked if I was the same color as my shirt. Of
course both questions have negative answers. I have occasion frequently to
be holding the hand of another individual, man or woman, and now, since I am
warned not to get too much exposure to the sun, my complexion is paler than
almost ever in my life. When I compare my hand with that of a man who is
outside even a moderate amount of the time, when I look at my own skin, I
can see some pinkish red from the blood (unless my hands are cold) I can see
some sort of light tan, I can see some sort of yellow, but I see _NO_ white.
To think of the color of some of the Germanic or Teutonic peoples as being
somehow superior to the color of other peoples strikes me as strictly a
hold over from cultural prejudices.
One of the silly ideas that some "Mormons" have is that the darker skin is
supposed to make people unattractive to lighter skinned people. In some
cultures, I am sure this is the case in general. But in the United States of
America, a lot of money goes into the treatments that allow men and women to
look "tanned and healthy" (at least until they have unattractive dried and
probably wrinkled and very possibly diseased skin) Thinking on that point, I
have made it to almost 77 1/2 years of age without having had any skin
cancers removed, even though in my teens and early 20s I had a lot of sun
exposure. Well, that is about to end. I have a probable Basal Cell Carcinoma
on the top part of my left ear and another on the bridge of my nose. See, I
like the darker skin also. But mostly I like to work outside in the summer
with no shirt and often with no hat.
To sort of summarize, for me there are so many more important things to
consider in the truths of the Gospel that it is not something I want to do
to consider the "finer points" of skin color and the reasons therefore.
Gene
Jeff
> To sort of summarize, for me there are so many more important
> things to consider in the truths of the Gospel that it is not
> something I want to do to consider the "finer points" of skin
> color and the reasons therefore.
Since you believe the Book of Mormon is the Word of God, why do you
believe the finer points of God's teachings are something not worth
considering?
I would figure the finer points are the most important points.
Suppose if everyone in the church were to decide to not consider the
finer points in the scriptures ... I would say that this church would
in fact be telling God that they were not interested in hearing and
learning everything that God had recorded for them to know.
And when this begins, that individual is already on the slippery
slopes of apostasy.
Jeff
Gerald Fuller
> On Jul 1, 3:41 am, "Gerald Fuller" <gfuller1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Snip
> Since you believe the Book of Mormon is the Word of God, why do you
> believe the finer points of God's teachings are something not worth
> considering?
For one thing I have never told you that I believe that the Book of Mormon
is the Word of God. According to John 1, the Word of God became flesh and
dwealt among us and we beheld His glory. That is the true Word of God, and
it is not writings in a book. The book of Mormon, like the Bible, contains
some of the words of God, some of the words of good men, some of the words
of evil men, some of the words of Satan and maybe a few other people.
I was not, however, talking about the "finer points of God's teaching"
whatever is meant by that, but the finer points of skin color.
"Finer points" here is not something I really want to define, but it
certainly does not refer to anything like a more pointed understanding. I
mean the very less importan poits, as in if I am making concrete I really do
need some aggregate of different "fineness" but can do with the very fine
dust.
> I would figure the finer points are the most important points.
In my context I would not.
Snip a paragraph with which I basically disagree and have already said why.
> And when this begins, that individual is already on the slippery
> slopes of apostasy.
Well, that could be. But in this case I think worrying about things that
very probably are not from God (at least as it can now be understood) are
not important for faith.
The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson
> Alma (3:6-7) says "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark,
> according to the mark which was set upon their fathers,
<snip>
> A few questions come to mind.
>
> Did God curse Laman, Lemuel, and the sons and daughters of
> Ishmael with dark skin during their departure out of Jerusalem,
> in the wilderness, or during the trip to the promised land on
> the ship Nephi built?
I am surprised that you didn't find the verse where it describes the
curse the first time, which would have given you the context for the time.
2 Nephi 5:5
And it came to pass that the Lord did warn me, that I, Nephi,
should depart from them and flee into the wilderness, and all
those who would go with me.
2 Nephi 5:6
Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family,
and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and
his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also
my sisters, and all those who would go with me. And all those
who would go with me were those who believed in the warnings and
the revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken unto my
words.
[...]
2 Nephi 5:21
And he had caused the cursing to come upon [those that stayed behind],
yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they
had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto
a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and
delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the
Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
2 Nephi 5:22
And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be
loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their
iniquities.
The curse took place after Nephi and those who listened to him fled
into the wilderness. For those not following along at home, this was
after they fled Jerusalem, after the trip to the Promised Land and
after they landed and built an initial settlement in the Promised Land.
> Why were the skins of the Lamanites dark for what their ancestors
> had done many years before?
Or, perhaps, the Lamanites were dark for what their ancestors had not
done. Personally, I like the "skin of blackness" description that
Nephi used, rather than thinking in terms of dark skin. I see this as
something different from an attempt to depict melanin content and more
as an observation of what happens when people become homeless. That
(in my rather singular opinion) was the cause of the skin of blackness.
> When the Lamanites repented and became righteous, did their
> skin color change back to white like the Nephites' skin
> changed to black who mingled with the wicked Lamanites?
Consider that blackness is a description of the grime the accumulates
from months of living rough and that whiteness / purity is provided as
a contrast with grime, and you should have your answer. It might take
a while, but it is certainly possible to transition from one to the other.
Remember that the term "white" is clearly used as a relative term,
since the people of Nephi would have been olive drab in comparison to
someone without any pigment. White is also used to refer to the result
of being washed in the blood of the Christ, which seems to make the
use of white and blackness more a relative figure and less a black and
white distinction.
Craig
Jeff
> For one thing I have never told you that I believe that the
> Book of Mormon is the Word of God.
Ok.
> According to John 1, the Word of God became flesh and dwelt
> among us and we beheld His glory. That is the true Word of God.
Is the true Word of God a procreated spirit being of Heavenly Mother
and Father who had to progress into becoming God (like The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches)?
Jeff
Jeff
<c...@olsonBLOCKhome.com> wrote:
> I am surprised that you didn't find the verse where it describes the
> curse the first time, which would have given you the context for the time.
<snip>
> 2 Nephi 5:21
> And he had caused the cursing to come upon [those that stayed behind],
> yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity.
Ok. Those people who stayed in Jerusalem (and/or other parts of
Palestine) were cursed with a skin of blackness.
> 2 Nephi 5:22
> And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be
> loathsome unto thy people
Ok. Those that remained in Jerusalem (and/or other parts of Palestine)
remained loathsome unto the people of the Nephites when they were in
another continent.
Jeff
David Bowie
> The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson wrote:
>> I am surprised that you didn't find the verse where it describes the
>> curse the first time, which would have given you the context for the time.
>> 2 Nephi 5:21
>> And he had caused the cursing to come upon [those that stayed behind],
>> yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity.
> Ok. Those people who stayed in Jerusalem (and/or other parts of
> Palestine) were cursed with a skin of blackness.
You should re-read it, and figure out who those who stayed behind were.
It was not who you're saying it was.
>> 2 Nephi 5:22
>> And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be
>> loathsome unto thy people
> Ok. Those that remained in Jerusalem (and/or other parts of Palestine)
> remained loathsome unto the people of the Nephites when they were in
> another continent.
Same comment.
David, suddenly reminiscing about JLK
--
David Bowie University of Central Florida
Jeanne's Two Laws of Chocolate: If there is no chocolate in the
house, there is too little; some must be purchased. If there is
chocolate in the house, there is too much; it must be consumed.
Gerald Fuller
You claim that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that.
I was baptized a member of the Church in 1984 and do not believe the Church
teaches that. So we have no discussion on this point. I understand that this
"teaching" may appear to be in some of the "introductory level" books for
investigators and new members, but I have no idea who has approved them. Nor
do they in any way constitute "dogma".
If He had to progress to become God, then this was before the beginning
spoken of by John.
The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson
> On Jul 2, 2:50 pm, The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson
> <c...@olsonBLOCKhome.com> wrote:
>> I am surprised that you didn't find the verse where it describes the
>> curse the first time, which would have given you the context for the time.
>
>> And he had caused the cursing to come upon [those that stayed behind],
>> yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity.
>
> Ok. Those people who stayed in Jerusalem (and/or other parts of
> Palestine) were cursed with a skin of blackness.
No, wrong.
>> 2 Nephi 5:22
>> And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be
>> loathsome unto thy people
>
> Ok. Those that remained in Jerusalem (and/or other parts of Palestine)
> remained loathsome unto the people of the Nephites when they were in
> another continent.
No, wrong.
You seem to be missing something. Perhaps if you looked in the
dictionary, somewhere between "cluck" and "clump" you might find it.
Craig, thinking Gene will be able to help
Gerald Fuller
> On Jul 2, 2:50 pm, The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson
> <c...@olsonBLOCKhome.com> wrote:
>> I am surprised that you didn't find the verse where it describes the
>> curse the first time, which would have given you the context for the
>> time.
>
> <snip>
>
>> 2 Nephi 5:21
>> And he had caused the cursing to come upon [those that stayed behind],
>> yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity.
>
> Ok. Those people who stayed in Jerusalem (and/or other parts of
> Palestine) were cursed with a skin of blackness.
You appear to be overly selective in your reading. Read a bit earlier, like
for example, 2 Nephi 5:6 and following. This may give you the idea that Lehi
and his group were already in the New World, no longer in or around
Jerusalem. So they certainly are not talking about those who remained in
Jerusalem.
So in verse 5, Nephi, by this time having for some time been in the new
world, was warned by the Lord to get away from his older brethren and others
who resented him and worked against him. In verse 6 we are tole he left. But
he had been gone from Jerusalem for some years.
Now it is clear to me, at least, that the cursing was not, or at least was
not only, a dark skin, since in verse 24, we are told that because of the
curse they had become an idle people, full of mischief, etc. Now unless one
truly believes a dark skin brings in idleness, one cannot believe that dark
skin was the curse. I do not believe that dark skin was even the cause that
thepeople became loathesome
>> 2 Nephi 5:22
>> And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be
>> loathsome unto thy people
>
> Ok. Those that remained in Jerusalem (and/or other parts of Palestine)
> remained loathsome unto the people of the Nephites when they were in
> another continent.
No, your chronology is way off. This might cause some to wonder at your real
understanding of other parts of the teachings of the Church. I suggest you
read that whole chapter again and try to see how it makes sense but not
quite what you now are supposing it to be
.
At least you are to be commended that you seem to be trying to ask questions
instead of merely telling us what you think we believe and telling us that
is wrong.
Gene
David Bowie
> On Jul 1, 8:39 pm, "Gerald Fuller" <gfuller1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> According to John 1, the Word of God became flesh and dwelt
>> among us and we beheld His glory. That is the true Word of God.
> Is the true Word of God a procreated spirit being of Heavenly Mother
> and Father who had to progress into becoming God (like The Church of
> Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches)?
STOP IT!
And yes, i meant to shout.
Jeff, please just stop it. This has become a standard M.O. lately from
you--you swoop in and ask leading questions, inserting something along
the lines of "like TCoJCoL-dS teaches".
Yes, this is a leading question, and it's especially odious when you
throw in those leading bits in cases when it's certainly far from
settled whether TCoJCoL-dS ever teaches precisely what you're saying it
teaches.
To take the bit above as an example, for certain definitions of some of
the terms you give, the answer is yes--so an answer of no would be a
lie. However, for the definitions most people would read that question
under, the answer yes would *not* be true--but we've already established
that no can't be an answer.
And, of course, your parenthesis makes assumptions that you have not
argued into evidence, and is therefore simply out of line.
So please, stop it. If you're actually trying to get at something, out
with it. If you're just trying to needle people on this ng, then out of
here, i say.
David, who only pointlessly needles people on ARM
Gerald Fuller
"The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson" <cr...@olsonBLOCKhome.com> wrote
in message news:138ocu3...@news.supernews.com...
Snip
> You seem to be missing something. Perhaps if you looked in the
> dictionary, somewhere between "cluck" and "clump" you might find it.
>
> Craig, thinking Gene will be able to help
Hmmm. I would guess you think he needs a "clue". I think at least two of us
have suggested he read that chapter again. Maybe he should read it to learn
what it says, not what someone has told him it says or wherever he did get
those strange notions. I think I have mentioned the dangers of depending on
"proof texts". I probably learned that lesson as a Southern Baptist, a long
time ago, but some never seem to learn it.
But can I help him find a clue? Probably not. He has to do that for himself,
don't you think?
Gene
Jeff
> No, your chronology is way off. This might cause some to wonder at your real
> understanding of other parts of the teachings of the Church.
:-)
My answers were versed in sarcastic lingo in reply to Craig. It was my
attempt to show that his chronology was incorrect.
Jeff
Gerald Fuller
Thank you for that "clarification". Is it your contention that an error is
shown best by replying to it with an even greater error? I am not sure that
Craig was in error, but if he was, it seems to me yours was greater. But I
failed to see that you were doing any such thing as you say you were, such
as showing that his chronology was not correct.
Gene
The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson
<aside>
Perhaps you should try using <sarcasm> tags, so readers would be able
to read your content in context.
</aside)
So, if my chronology was incorrect, perhaps you would be kind enough
to share the correct chronology?
Craig. always willing to learn
Jeff
<c...@olsonBLOCKhome.com> wrote:
> So, if my chronology was incorrect, perhaps you would be kind enough
> to share the correct chronology?
>
One can gather the chronology from John's original post of Alma
(3:6-7).
The curse of the dark skin happened after they are said to have
departed Jerusalem.
Jeff
The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson
I quoted 2 Nephi 5:5-6, to wit:
2 Nephi 5:5
And it came to pass that the Lord did warn me, that I, Nephi,
should depart from them and flee into the wilderness, and all
those who would go with me.
2 Nephi 5:6
Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family,
and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and
his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also
my sisters, and all those who would go with me. And all those
who would go with me were those who believed in the warnings and
the revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken unto my
words.
Which part of the world, in your view, is the wilderness to which
Nephi et al. fled?
Craig, watching _Lost_ en français, which seems apt all too often.
Jeff
<cr...@olsonBLOCKhome.com> wrote:
> Which part of the world, in your view, is the wilderness to which
> Nephi et al. fled?
According to the Book of Mormon, some wilderness near the Red Sea.
Jeff
The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson
> The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson wrote:
>> Which part of the world, in your view, is the wilderness to which
>> Nephi et al. fled?
>
> According to the Book of Mormon, some wilderness near the Red Sea.
While it is true that at some time the Book of Mormon reports that
Nephi and the gang did, indeed, hang out in a wilderness by the Red
Sea you appear to have your wildernesses confused.
The Red Sea wilderness adventure lasts from roughly the 2nd until the
17th chapter of 1 Nephi and ends with the ben Lehi tribe living in a
land they call Bountiful.
Then they get on the boat, for something greater than a 3-hour cruise.
In fact, it takes the entire chapter of 1 Nephi 18 to get there.
They get off the boat in the wilderness, which they call the Promised
Land. Time (and chapters) pass in the Promised Land, they build some
form of permanent structure to live in and others to worship in.
And then, in 2 Nephi chapter 5, sibling rivalry reaches near-murderous
proportions and Nephi and those who care about (or care to listen to)
him pack up and flee into the wilderness, yet again.
But this wilderness is in the Promised Land, not around Bountiful or
on the shores of the Red Sea.
So, perhaps, before you begin to question the accuracy of the answers
of others, you might want to check your facts first.
Craig, planning on going to the fireworks on the 14th.
Gerald Fuller
If I were the teacher in Jeff's Book of Mormon class I would suggest he get
a tutor.
Jeff
wrote:
> If I were the teacher in Jeff's Book of Mormon class I would suggest he get
> a tutor.
Hopefully both the teacher and the tutor will have a map with the
location of Bountiful, plus or minus 10,000 kilometres.
Jeff
Gerald Fuller
That should not be needed if the words are read and understood.
David Bowie
Oh, i can do better than that:
David, always keeping a straight face