Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2014, 02:29 PM
RE: Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
(18-01-2014 08:04 AM)maklelan Wrote:  I don't really have any hard feelings toward you to begin with, it was more of an attempt to make another point that would ultimately be lost on everyone here anyway.

If you only new how to communicate a clear point, it would have saved much frustration! None of us seem to be good enough to get you, so find a crowd of certified and degreed suck-wads who can.

And thanks for clearing up all those misrepresentations of Mormonism - super job!

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
18-01-2014, 02:34 PM
RE: Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
(18-01-2014 02:16 PM)Alla Wrote:  please tell me how is it possible that a man was born with black skin and then his skin turned white? it is not possible. it is against natural laws. or is it some kind of illness?
lol he had this really rare skin condition where pigmentation of parts of his skin became white.

though according to the book of Mormon this condition kinda fits in context of of skin becoming "Exceedingly fair&delightsome from black&cursed" lol

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2014, 03:21 PM
RE: Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
(18-01-2014 02:16 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(18-01-2014 01:53 PM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  You don't know about Micheal jackson? Blink
please tell me how is it possible that a man was born with black skin and then his skin turned white? it is not possible. it is against natural laws. or is it some kind of illness?



Alla, you have internet and can Google Michael Jackson's history whenever you wish. Only a suggestion but it might be better than people going through explaining it to you And you could just read on it when you have any extra time.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2014, 06:43 PM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2014 06:55 PM by Raptor Jesus.)
RE: Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
[quote='IndianAtheist' pid='470426' dateline='1390073104']
I was just wondering... was Micheal jackson a Mormon ??
[Image: mj_split_200x150-52bc7ebf6404a8b07a83253...s6-c30.jpg] o_O
[/quote

Maybe just a rhetorical question? But either way, he was actually a Jehovah's Witness.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2014, 07:26 PM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2014 08:08 PM by docskeptic.)
RE: Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
(18-01-2014 01:17 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  
(18-01-2014 08:09 AM)maklelan Wrote:  I think I'm done here.

Awwww! Now I'll never find out if Adam and Eve were white or colored. Anyone else know?

Doc

I asked this question in earnest. If Adam and Eve were truly white then their skin pigmentation genes were recessive. Therefore they could only produce white children. Genes for dark skin are autosomal dominant, i.e., they express themselves even when present as a single allele. In other words, the product of a white person and a black person will be darker than the white parent and lighter than the black parent.

Adam and Eve could not have produced colored progeny if they were white since they only had recessive genes. Therefore they had to have been black or mulattoes. Where then did the Nephites and Lamanites come from? Did God induce a sudden genetic mutation in the Lamanites when he cursed them in 2 Nephi 5: 21, "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, 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."

All this flies straight against the science of genetics which teaches that humans evolved light skin from dark skin. Science also has the advantage of not passing moral judgment against any race.

One last thought: Go New England Patriots!

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like docskeptic's post
18-01-2014, 07:28 PM
RE: Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
(17-01-2014 07:03 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(17-01-2014 06:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  Does he actually think that none of us have thought deeply about this?

Yes CathyM, Cheapthrillseeker, Taqqiya Mockingbird and WitchSabrina are exemplars of deep thought. It's entirely inexplicable how someone could think otherwise of the forum.

Sadcryface2 Laughat

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2014, 09:12 PM
RE: Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
(18-01-2014 05:49 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  How ironic. Chippy using personal attacks and insults to insist he's not using ad hominem attacks.

Once again you simply do not understand the fallacy of ad hominem and simply asserting that you do does not change that. An insult or a personal attack doesn't constitute an instance of argumentum ad hominem. It is just a personal attack or an insult.

Quote:Chippy, I would advise you to also consider this gem from Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning by Douglas Walton and Eric Krabbe who identify the first of 3 types of ad hominem fallacy as "The personal or abusive ad hominem (which) alleges bad character for veracity, or bad moral character generally."

The first thing I will point out about Walton and Krabbe's treatment of argumentum ad hominem is that they contend that it isn't necessarily fallacious. Thus if you are telling me that I am using argumentum ad hominem and are referencing Walton and Krabbe what exactly are you telling me?

Here is the page from which you quoted:

[Image: 20r79ep.png]

It appears that you didn't actually understand what you were reading. If you are going to appeal to Walton's conceptualisation of argumentum ad hominem you need to also specify whether an instance is fallacious or non-fallacious.

Walton and Krabbe write, "For an attorney to raise allegations about the bad moral character or character for veracity of a witness he is cross-examining in court can be a reasonable kind of ad hominem argumentation." Isn't the attorney simply invoking an inductive argument that anticipates the utterance of falsehoods based on previous observations of the witnesses behaviour. We can argue about the extent to which the attorney's observations confirm his inductive conclusion but the attorney's argument is valid. A valid inductive argument is just that--a valid inductive argument--it is not a "reasonable" argumentum ad hominem.

Walton and Krabbe's inability to actually define what a "reasonable" argumentum ad hominem is--which is essential to the project of their book--suggests that they have confused themselves. Without telling their readers what it means for an argumentum ad hominem to be "reasonable" they have rendered their discussion of the fallacy (or non-fallacy) useless. The arm waving about "context" in your beloved Commitment in Dialogue doesn't help.

Shortly after Walton co-authrored your beloved Commitment in Dialogue he wrote an entire book on argumentum ad hominem called Ad Hominem Arguments where he spends a considerable amount of ink trying to define a reasonable, i.e. non-fallacious argumentum ad hominem. Rather than define argumentum ad hominem such that it is always fallacious--which you mistakenely believe Walton and Krabbe have done--Walton sets out on a tedious Quixotic quest and manages to produce a 300-page book on a single fallacy.

You repeatedly use the phrase "ad hominem attack" which you have picked up from Walton and Krabbe. This is a nonsense phrase, it is pointless Latination. If they/you mean "personal attack" then why not just say "personal attack"? A personal attack is not an instance of the fallacy (or non-fallacy) of argumentum ad hominem so if they/you mean the fallacy (or non-fallacy) then say argumentum ad hominem.

For someone to commit the fallacy (or non-fallacy) of argumentum ad hominem they need to have presented an argument--either implicitly or explicitly--which features a (circumstantial, abusive, etc) reference to the person as one of its premises.

Re-read the above because this is what you and some others on this forum don't seem to understand. If the (circumstantial, abusive, etc) reference to the person does not occur as a premise then there is no argumentum ad hominem there is just an insult or personal attack.

Quote:Also, Chippy, I at least know the difference between "relative" and "relativistic". I'd be careful about throwing that "ignorant" label about.

Actually you don't. The term relativistic was in the philosophy lexicon well-before it came to appear in the physics lexicon. The earliest attestation of relativistic in the context of philosophy is 1886:

Encycl. Brit. XXI. 382/2 The elaborate presentation of sceptical and relativistic arguments.

The earliest attestation of relativistic in the context of physics is 1914:

L. Silberstein Theory of Relativity iv. 94 It requires, according to the relativistic view itself, some essential, though numerically slight, modifications.

(Source: Entry on relativistic in OED 2nd Ed (1989))

You are entirely wrong on both matters. You are a village atheist that has no deep understanding on any of the matters you post about on this forum. You have no substantive knowledge of formal or informal logic. You have read one (awful) book and failed to even understand that. That you think the term relativistic belongs exclusively to physics shows that you are not only philosophically illiterate but unwilling to even check a dictionary before pontificating.

You are an ignorant tool. And that is just an insult.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2014, 09:13 PM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2014 09:29 PM by Raptor Jesus.)
RE: Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
(18-01-2014 07:26 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  
(18-01-2014 01:17 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  Awwww! Now I'll never find out if Adam and Eve were white or colored. Anyone else know?

Doc

I asked this question in earnest. If Adam and Eve were truly white then their skin pigmentation genes were recessive. Therefore they could only produce white children. Genes for dark skin are autosomal dominant, i.e., they express themselves even when present as a single allele. In other words, the product of a white person and a black person will be darker than the white parent and lighter than the black parent.

Adam and Eve could not have produced colored progeny if they were white since they only had recessive genes. Therefore they had to have been black or mulattoes. Where then did the Nephites and Lamanites come from? Did God induce a sudden genetic mutation in the Lamanites when he cursed them in 2 Nephi 5: 21, "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, 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."

All this flies straight against the science of genetics which teaches that humans evolved light skin from dark skin. Science also has the advantage of not passing moral judgment against any race.

One last thought: Go New England Patriots!

Doc

All relevant LDS scripture in "spoiler" below.

Well, Cain was “marked” with black skin, and all of his descendants, so as to distinguish him/them from other peoples. Being that as “God” bothered to make his skin color black, then he must have not been black to begin with. Given the flow of subsequental scriptures on the topic, it seems apparent they all did start off white, not simply a lighter shade of brown.

Also, as you point out, where both with Cain and the Lamanites, the "marking" or darkening of their skin was clearly written as an immediate event. Not one that follows from generations of genetic evolution within a population. On defense a more liberal minded Mormon might have is that the story explains how the Native Americans came to have dark skin, and would be willing to claim it happened over generations (the story of the Lamanites is about the Native Americans). However liberal a view, and more reality based, it still doesn't match with what scripture says.

Plus, the default position is implied to be that of white "delightsome" skin, which is only changed to dark skin due to poor behavior. It seems fair to assume, unless a population of people did anything wrong, they were the default white. After all, what would be the point of "marking" people with dark skin to differentiate people, if there are people who started off with dark skin? There would be no differentiate that could be made.

Especially if we considered the thought experiment of some populations naturally starting off being very dark skinned, given a text that we already know turns light skinned dark repeatedly. If they were "punished" with a "mark", and were too dark to be darkened, they would have to be lightened. But then how could anyone differentiate anyone from any other skin color in order to determine who is good and who is bad? If you saw a light skinned person, you couldn't know if they were naturally dark, did something bad, and were "marked" white, or if they were naturally white, and where never "marked", and are still good. Or vice versa. It clearly has to be directional if it's to have any meaning as a "mark" at all, in order to differentiate bad people from good, as the scripture claims skin color is for. White=good, black=bad, lighter brown=not as bad but not good. This is all the more evident when we review scripture and see not one mention of dark skinned people being punished by being turned light. Only light skinned people being punished by being turned dark.

But of course, as you've pointed out, either we are taking a liberal view, which does not match with, or make sense to do in light of LDS scripture. Or we are taking a literal view of LDS scripture, in which case it breaks with science. Either way, it doesn't make sense, and is racist regardless of which to views one takes, or the third view that some conartist simply made it up. Racist either way one looks at it.

LDS Pearl of Great Price, Moses 5:40-41;
40 And I the Lord said unto him: Whosoever slayeth thee, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And I the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
41 And Cain was shut out from the presence of the Lord, and with his wife and many of his brethren dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

Pearl of Great Price, Moses 7:22
22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.


LDS Pearl of Great Price, Moses 7:8,12
8 For behold, the Lord shall acurse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.
12 And it came to pass that Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were the people of Canaan, to repent;


LDS Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 1:21-27
21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, …Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, …

Book of Mormon, Alma 3:6,8-9,13-14
6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a acurse 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.
8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.
9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.
13 Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads.
14 Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.

2 Nephi 5:21-24;
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, 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.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Raptor Jesus's post
18-01-2014, 10:30 PM
RE: Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
(18-01-2014 07:26 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  I asked this question in earnest.

No you asked rhetorical question that is irrelevant given what Maklelan already stated about the BoM.

Quote:If Adam and Eve were truly white then their skin pigmentation genes were recessive. Therefore they could only produce white children. Genes for dark skin are autosomal dominant, i.e., they express themselves even when present as a single allele. In other words, the product of a white person and a black person will be darker than the white parent and lighter than the black parent.

Skin pigmentation is not a Mendelian trait (your example suggests that) and a large group of genes are implicated. Since skin pigmentation is a polygenic trait it is incorrect to say "[g]enes for dark skin are autosomal dominant". It makes sense to characterise a trait as dominant or recessive only if it is monogenic.

Quote:Adam and Eve could not have produced colored progeny if they were white since they only had recessive genes. Therefore they had to have been black or mulattoes.

This is false. Polygenic traits do not behave in this simplistic fashion. Just as it is possible but uncommon for parents both with blue eyes to produce dark-eyed children so too can light skinned parents produce darker skinned offspring.[1]

Quote:All this flies straight against the science of genetics which teaches that humans evolved light skin from dark skin.

You are also wrong on this in that it is an oversimplification:

"It is likely that the integument of the earliest proto-hominids was similar to that of our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, being white or lightly pigmented and covered with darkhair (Post et al, 1975b)".[2]

The increased pigmentation coincided with the gradual loss of body hair. The heavier pigmentation had to evolve also it didn't just magically appear.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2014, 05:33 AM
RE: Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
(18-01-2014 09:12 PM)Chippy Wrote:  .

You are an ignorant tool. And that is just an insult.

Aw, Chippy. I'm flattered. You actually read my post and deigned to reply. Whose "tool" am I?

Also, you neglected to comment on my NE Patriots cheer.

Regards,
Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: