Cobalt-70 Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) Holy cow! If I didn't see it with my own eyes I wouldn't believe it.Let's not play this game. I'm just saying what the Book of Mormon says. I'm not saying that I agree with it--in fact, I expressly disagree with it. I strongly disagree: (1) with the Book of Mormon's teaching that dark skin makes a person loathsome, ugly, and un-mateable, and (2) the teaching of LDS leaders from Joseph Smith to Spencer Kimball and beyond that Native Americans and Polynesians are either (a) Lamanites, or (b) cursed in any way whatsoever. Polynesians are not, and never have been, a "dark and loathsome people," and I can't believe Kemara is an apologist for the "dark and loathsome" description of his people. Edited November 20, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Cobalt-70 Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) Was the sound turned on? Are you hard of hearing? I only ask because you must have missed the part where the Maori elder said:"To us the ugliest man is the most handsome."Indeed. The "ugliest" is the most desirable and handsome. "Ugly" in this sense is dominant and fearsome, and indeed, handsome--far from being "loathsome," despised, and un-dateable, as were the Lamanites. That he said the "ugliest" was "the most handsome" does not mean that the "ugliest" was truly the most loathsome, and the least likely to be a suitable sexual partner. Quite the opposite. I'm not talking about the same kind of "ugly" that he was. Edited November 20, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Kemara Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Indeed. The "ugliest" is the most desirable and handsome. "Ugly" in this sense is dominant and fearsome, and indeed, handsome--far from being "loathsome," despised, and un-dateable, as were the Lamanites. That he said the "ugliest" was "the most handsome" does not mean that the "ugliest" was truly the most loathsome, and the least likely to be a suitable sexual partner. Quite the opposite. I'm not talking about the same kind of "ugly" that he was.Absolute nonsense. 3
Cobalt-70 Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) You might want to think in terms of Paul in Romans 11:16-28 regarding the election of the natural branches (Israel) and the grafting in of the Gentiles for a time (I'd mention Jacob 5 also, but you'd probably dispose of it as "fictional," even though you have no evidence upon which to base such a claim). For the first shall be the last, and the last shall be the first.Jacob 5 is surely fictional, even from an apologetic perspective. I don't know of any Mormon who thinks that this chapter is a historical account of a real vineyard owner and a servant who actually planted trees, and grafted in wild branches, etc.In any event, neither Romans 11 nor Jacob 5 say that any gentiles (the wild branches) were grafted into the "Lehite" tree (the tree in the "good" spot of ground, according to Jacob 5). The Lehite tree, according to Jacob 5, came from a branch of the original tree of Israel, with no mention of grafting in "wild" branches. (Indeed, the trees that were in that "good" spot of ground originally had been cut down [v. 44] to clear room for the Israelite branch--which does violence to the "limited geography" theory that the Lamanites mixed with pre-existing Asians who had crossed over the Bering Strait.) Edited November 20, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Kemara Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 I can't believe Kemara is an apologist for the "dark and loathsome" description of his people.Absolute nonsense. 4
blackstrap Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Head vs brick wall.It usually feels better when one stops the thumping. 3
Calm Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Indeed. The "ugliest" is the most desirable and handsome. "Ugly" in this sense is dominant and fearsome, and indeed, handsome--far from being "loathsome," despised, and un-dateable, as were the Lamanites. That he said the "ugliest" was "the most handsome" does not mean that the "ugliest" was truly the most loathsome, and the least likely to be a suitable sexual partner. Quite the opposite. I'm not talking about the same kind of "ugly" that he was.You are ignoring the whole point.They are seen as ugly and loathsome by outsiders, are they not? 3
Cobalt-70 Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) You are ignoring the whole point.They are seen as ugly and loathsome by outsiders, are they not?Maybe to you. I find most of them quite attractive. Edited November 20, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Kemara Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Maybe to you. I find them quite attractive. No you dont, and that is one of the reasons why you are trying so hard to reshape things to conform to your ethnocentric nonsense.
volgadon Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) Kemara, in traditional lore, what are some of the qualities most honoured about ancestors? Edited November 20, 2012 by volgadon
Scott Lloyd Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 No you dont, and that is one of the reasons why you are trying so hard to reshape things to conform to your ethnocentric nonsense.I agree that Cobalt is being insufferably argumentative. 1
Calm Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Maybe to you. I find most of them quite attractive.Alright. Let's try another question...Do they believe they appear ugly and loathsome to outsiders? 1
Cobalt-70 Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Alright. Let's try another question...Do they believe they appear ugly and loathsome to outsiders?Ask one of them if they think the purpose of the Haka is to make themselves appear un-dateable to white people.
Cobalt-70 Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 No you dont, and that is one of the reasons why you are trying so hard to reshape things to conform to your ethnocentric nonsense.And you that I don't find Maori people attractive how? Do you even know me?Back off from using your interpretation of the BOM for race baiting if you want to stay in the thread.
Kemara Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) And you that I don't find Maori people attractive how? Do you even know me?No no no Cobalt you naughty little boy, I have already told you how this is going to go, you answer all of my questions before I answer any more of yours. I am not playing your nasty little game. Edited November 20, 2012 by Kemara
Nathair/|\ Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Personally, I thought the Haka videos were pretty cool, but then my ancestors used to save the skulls of their most honored enemies and drink wine out of them. Some sources have it also that we first taught the Native Americans to scalp. 1
Kemara Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) dupe Edited November 20, 2012 by Kemara
mfbukowski Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 No you dont, and that is one of the reasons why you are trying so hard to reshape things to conform to your ethnocentric nonsense.But I am sure some of his best friends are Polynesian. 3
mfbukowski Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 Alright. Let's try another question...Do they believe they appear ugly and loathsome to outsiders?And then we have the philosophical question- ARE they actually "ugly" or do they only APPEAR ugly? What is the ontological reality here? 2
Kemara Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) Kemara, in traditional lore, what are some of the qualities most honoured about ancestors? Volgadon you need to be careful about asking me these types of questions I could go on about it all day. It can depend somewhat on the tribe one belongs too and what the people of prominence were skilled at.As an example of what I mean by this, all tribes highly value a man’s skill at warfare. In one particular tribe the two most prominent members were brothers, the younger brother was very skilled in the art of war, while the older brother was not. The older brother engaged in what can only be described as a marketing campaign extoling the virtues of the people who were involved in food production. Why food production? Because that was something the older brother excelled at. He convinced his younger warrior brother of this fact, stating that without food all of the younger brother’s skill were worthless (an extremely delicate position to take regardless of them being brothers). Therefore in that tribe two of the most highly valued qualities were warfare and food production.Common qualities amongst almost all tribes that are honoured and valued in our ancestors are skill with weapons, physical strength, physical appearance, bravery/courage, death occurring while engaged in a worthy act e.g. war, the ability to communicate with the Gods, ability to engage in supernatural acts, hospitality, negotiation, navigation, I really could go on and on. Probably the most honoured quality of our ancestors is warfare. This includes fighting, strategy, motivation of warriors and one’s ability in the rituals of war. One of those rituals being haka. Honoured qualities can also changed over time, where warfare with enemy tribes was once highly valued, when the English invaded this value obviously shifted to the English not only because they invaded Maori lands but because they were now seen as the most worthy adversary against which to measure themselves as warriors (worthy in the context of battle, the Maori didn’t think much of those smelly, lice ridden, badly behaved Englishmen). The Maori found no value in killing an inferior enemy. This obviously translated to the battlefields of WW2 but with a slight twist. Fighting the Germans armed only with knives became a common measuring stick of one’s worth as a warrior.“At this time, the battalion's skills with the bayonet earned them a reputation as "scalp hunters" among German commanders, including Rommel.” http://en.wikipedia....Māori_BattalionIf scalping was all that the Maori done to any German they captured it would not have been so bad.Engaging in war, battle, fighting and duelling are the most highly regarding qualities of our ancestors. Stories from the beginning of time to battling Rommel at El Alamein form part of our lore and are retold in honour of our dead. The more vicious the engagement, the more loathsome the participants, the better.One specific story that is germane to our discussion happened in Africa during WW2. To cut a long story short, the 28th Maori Battalion are sitting at the bottom of hill getting a bit of R&R. An unsuspecting German force came over the hill. Upon seeing the Germans the Maori performed a Haka that has become part of Maori folk lore. The Haka was performed with such ferocity and in such a frenzy that the Germans turned and ran. Now there might be a little bit of urban lore mixed in with the folklore, I am told that this event was captured on film and shown on national television many years ago, but I have not seen it. In any case it is quite well documented that the haka scared the ever living heck out of the Germans even when they heard it. I think this was helped by the Maori’s reputation for being absolutely ruthless butchers, one could even say loathsome. I could tell second hand accounts, having heard a number of stories from my uncles who fought in WW2, but this post is too long as it is.“The Maori battalion would perform a haka before battle then charge. The chanting would frighten the Germans. The Maori battalion had a reputation for ripping in with bayonets. The Germans feared them; they thought that if they surrendered they would be killed anyway.” http://nzetc.victori...ody-d3-d17.htmlNothing would have pleased a Maori warrior more than knowing they were feared by their enemy because of their skill and brutality. Edited November 21, 2012 by Kemara 2
Kemara Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 But I am sure some of his best friends are Polynesian. :rofl:
volgadon Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) But I am sure some of his best friends are Polynesian.Or they have been to Hawaii. Edited November 21, 2012 by volgadon 2
Calm Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 Ask one of them if they think the purpose of the Haka is to make themselves appear un-dateable to white people.I am now convinced you are not interested in a serious conversation, but just defending yourself. Wasn't sure before. 3
Calm Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 As an example of what I mean by this, all tribes highly value a man’s skill at warfare. In one particular tribe the two most prominent members were brothers, the younger brother was very skilled in the art of war, while the older brother was not. The older brother engaged in what can only be described as a marketing campaign extoling the virtues of the people who were involved in food production. Why food production? Because that was something the older brother excelled at. He convinced his younger warrior brother of this fact, stating that without food all of the younger brother’s skill were worthless (an extremely delicate position to take regardless of them being brothers). Therefore in that tribe two of the most highly valued qualities were warfare and food production....Apparently the older brother was good at advertising as well. 1
Recommended Posts