LDS.org writes the following as a chapter heading:

An account of the death of Lehi. Nephi’s brethren rebel against him. The Lord warns Nephi to depart into the wilderness. His journeyings in the wilderness, and so forth.

Specifically 2 Nephi 33:


33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.


Why would they be discussing black people in 2 Nephi? There would have been no black people in the Americas at this time. Or am I missing something?

And one other thing. Why didn't God mention that he wanted only children who live with hetero parents -- not Gaybies?

I can't speak to the "black" issue, but on the gay issue, obviously they didn't exist yet.

It's my understanding that the idea of choosing to be attracted to the same sex came in during the Industrial Revolution, when people started having enough free time to decorate.

LOLLLOLOL!!!!

LMFAO! DAMMIT, olddog! I've got a coffee here! Now it's all over my screen!

I learn so much about history here!

ha ha, very good, edog. And great OP, Devoted. Ebony and irony?

Thank you, Devoted Exmo. I had didn't remember the BoM ever mentioning black people, I just remembered the constant "dark skin" thing that would refer to the Lamanite brown.

This is like a handy grenade for my arsenal.

More hard questions for the Mormons. I would love to give a talk in General Conference with this verse as the basis. That could give some pause to all those deaf ears.

Devoted Exmo, In 2N 5:21 Nephi describes the Lamanites as having been cursed with a "skin of blackness".

The part I like best is "he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men." I have a relative who tells me that things don't always have to make sense. Why the need for all the splaining? Their own scriptures say he is very clear.

Yeah, noticed that too. That certainly no longer works with current mormon thinking (or should I say policy, or revelation?)

The entire chapter reads like a playbook of what's going on in Joe's Myths world at the time.

Good point!

I haven't researched it yet, but is this one of the verses Joe plagiarized from the bible?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2016 11:55AM by zero.

2 Nephi 17 versus 3 and 4. The Lord is talking to Isaiah. And continues on this way until chapter 18.

" 3 Then said the Lord unto Isaiah: Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller’s field;

4 And say unto him: Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be faint-hearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.

And then suddenly in 1 Nephi 18, verse 1:

1 Moreover, the word of the Lord said unto me: Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man’s pen, concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz.



So, he begins with the lord talking to Isaiah and then suddenly, mid rant starts talking to Nephi??? Or is Isaiah suddenly in the Americas, writing in the book of 2 Nephi?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2016 12:05PM by Devoted Exmo.

Well, it also mentions "bond and free", so who were the slaves at this point?

I'm sure that apologists would simply say that god was speaking in "universal" terms.

You got me? I guess they could have been talking about Cain. He was suppose to be wandering around america at that time with the curse and was black? God loves cain?