Having said that, I cannot recall a time (and don't believe it exists) when DrSteveJ violated any of those FR rules. In fact, he is quite gentlemanly in his posts and will seldom even make a pointed remark.
P-Marlowe, restornu, and WhiteMountain have similar credentials. PM has not violated the FR rules. He is an EX-MORMON and, therefore, can bring up theological points that might make mormons uncomfortable. But that is fair game. Everyone's theology should be open to question, or nobody's should be.
I encourage you to restore the pulled thread EXCEPT for any posts that are racist, violent, etc. Restor
I encourage you to restore the pulled thread EXCEPT for any posts that are racist, violent, etc.
dittos- I will also ask why it just didnt get relegated to the "smokey back room"?
All of Religions that are TRINITY CAN HAVE YOU DOCTRINE OPINION Of the LDS concept of the Father,Son and Holy Ghost!
Still you have not the right to LIE and DISTORT and PAINT the LDS Church, and leaders as RACIST!
1- A mark is not a skin color it is a mole, birthmark, scare.
2- Cain was not turn black 3- The Egyptian were black
THE SEED OF CAIN HAD TO BE PRESERVED
Could it not be said of Ham that he was righteous in that he followed his father into the Ark? The seed of Cain had to be preserved, and Cain was chosen for that mission. It is very possible that Ham received his name due to the fact that he married a black woman. We learn that the names of many individuals in those early years were given them—and often changed—due to incidents which occurred in their lives. For example, Esau's name was changed to Edom, and Jacob's name to Israel, and Abraham was at first known as Abram. It is likely that Ham's name was changed because he had a black wife, for ham is an adjective in Egyptian for black. The name Egyptus means forbidden. ("Abr. 1:23Abraham 1:23.) Is it not reasonable to believe that this has reference to the fact that her descendants, as well as her ancestors, were denied some great blessing? And that that great blessing was denial of the priesthood?
We are informed that the right to the priesthood was denied Pharaoh, and this is in full accord with the attitude of Enoch and others before the flood. Then is it not reasonable to think that Ham named one of his sons Caanan after Cain? We may not be justified in declaring that the daughters of Ham were fair before the flood. We have no evidence that Ham had either sons or daughters before the flood. We have no evidence that it was the sons and daughters of any of the sons who entered the Ark who received the condemnation of the Lord. It could have been sons and daughters of other sons who refused to hearken to their father, and to the sons who rebelled, there may have been daughters who were fair. In fact, this is the plain implication of the scriptures.
In those days their was not race ideas like today so be careful when trying to think of modern day thinking and how people saw things in those day. And The is the trouble that these myobic men PM & Steve try to make a connection on something that was not so!
I love studing history and trying to see what really was going on and we can not judge by today's ignorance of ancient times unless we study with Holy Spirit of the Lord to help us see and feel those days. It is a different mearsuring stick!
As far as the LSD Church was concern we are all sisters and brothers from the beganning.
One must keep in mind that the Lord took the Priesthool away from many who he had made a convanant with Cain was first, the the the Judah were next, Ephraim also losted it,the Pharaoh denied. Not all of the details are given us.
It was the bigots in the 1500's who distorted the scriptures.
I THINK ONE HAS TO BECAREFUL WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS AND MAKE SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS WE SHOULD LOOK FOR TRUTH! NOT TRY TO HURT ANOTHER BECAUSE YOUR DOTRINE IS CHALLEGNE!
WE HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED IN FREEDOM OF CHOICE- EVEN IN THE OPENING OF THE BOOK OF MORMON THE CHILDREN OF LEHI MADE AND OFFER AND PROMISE TO THE EGYPTIAN ZORAM AND HIS FAMILY TO BE A FREEMAN!
1 Nephi 4
31 And now I, Nephi, being a man large in stature, and also having received much astrength of the Lord, therefore I did seize upon the servant of Laban, and held him, that he should not flee.
32 And it came to pass that I spake with him, that if he would hearken unto my words, as the Lord liveth, and as I live, even so that if he would hearken unto our words, we would spare his life.
33 And I spake unto him, even with an oath, that he need not fear; that he should be a free man like unto us if he would go down in the wilderness with us.
34 And I also spake unto him, saying: Surely the Lord hath commanded us to do this thing; and shall we not be diligent in keeping the commandments of the Lord? Therefore, if thou wilt go down into the wilderness to my father thou shalt have place with us.
35 And it came to pass that Zoram did take courage at the words which I spake. Now Zoram was the name of the servant; and he promised that he would go down into the wilderness unto our father. Yea, and he also made an oath unto us that he would tarry with us from that time forth.
36 Now we were desirous that he should tarry with us for this cause, that the Jews might not know concerning our flight into the wilderness, lest they should pursue us and destroy us.
37 And it came to pass that when Zoram had made an oath unto us, our bfears did cease concerning him.
38 And it came to pass that we took the plates of brass and the servant of Laban, and departed into the wilderness, and journeyed unto the tent of our father.
I asked you a simple question "What Thread Was Pulled!"
You can have your opinion that we follow a false Church and Prophets. What I do take exception to is lying and ignoring the facts that malign the Church and Leader. Now you I am not talking about doctrine for we will agree to that. I am talking about events that we clearly show was not what some have said for self serving purpose!
When ever the LDS point out an outright deception or lie than the topic moves to area that subjective and is only Opinion and some times left is an impassed!
There are certain subjects that do have teeth to defend or show it is ridiculiou to even suggest!
On is maligning the Church and Leaders with RACISM! this can not be tolerated!
***
Now back to my origial point I ASKED YOU A SIMPLE QUESTION! "WHAT THREAD WAS PULLED!" ~ AND YOU MADE IT PERSONAL!
***
You choose to aline yourself with Trinitarian, WHICH THIS CONFLICT WAS NOT ABOUT, it was about PAINTING a PEOPLE FAITH Having a History of Racism!