Buffalo wrote: The doctrine is that blacks are descended from Canaanites, who were supposedly black and cursed due to the lineage of Cain through Ham. Of course, the Jews were practically Canaanites themselves, and neither group were black at all. They intermarried all the time. So the doctrine is pure BS.
OK, now I'm really confused. Ham was a son of Noah, who was a descendant of Seth, not Cain. Can anyone explain this?
According to LDS scripture Ham was married to a descendent of Cain.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The doctrine hasn't changed regarding the ban. But I get the impression some of you choose to ignore what the doctrine is and is not.
So doctrine does not change but it can be applicable or not applicable in different times or seasons?
Such change is an intrinsic part of the doctrine. It's just like plural marriage ala Jacob 2:30. So likewise, it's been known that blacks would one day hold the priesthood. Hence, no change in doctrine.
If the doctrine of the ban has not changed, what can we learn from this doctrine? Should expired doctrine be studied or ignored?
It was certainly authorized by God (see the scriptures) else it would not have been. There may have been flaws in it's implementation. So yes, it should be studied.
The doctrine is that blacks are descended from Canaanites, who were supposedly black and cursed due to the lineage of Cain through Ham. Of course, the Jews were practically Canaanites themselves, and neither group were black at all. They intermarried all the time. So the doctrine is pure BS.
Depends on what you mean by "Canaanites" as the PofGP distinguishes between pre and post Flood Canaanites. In addition, the ban is based on Hamitic descent after the Flood. So would there be difficulties determining purity of descent? Of course. But the Church did the best it could with the knowledge it had at the time. God did not intervene, so the course must have been correct. In addition, the ban is not racist by definition so again, no repudiation is needed.
bcspace wrote: It was certainly authorized by God (see the scriptures) else it would not have been. There may have been flaws in it's implementation. So yes, it should be studied.
The doctrine is that blacks are descended from Canaanites, who were supposedly black and cursed due to the lineage of Cain through Ham. Of course, the Jews were practically Canaanites themselves, and neither group were black at all. They intermarried all the time. So the doctrine is pure BS.
Depends on what you mean by "Canaanites" as the PofGP distinguishes between pre and post Flood Canaanites. In addition, the ban is based on Hamitic descent after the Flood. So would there be difficulties determining purity of descent? Of course. But the Church did the best it could with the knowledge it had at the time. God did not intervene, so the course must have been correct. In addition, the ban is not racist by definition so again, no repudiation is needed.
Sometimes any attempts at a refutation would be purely superfluous.
I often wonder why in these discussions the need to parse subtle meanings from words like 'doctrine' and 'policy' is even necessary. In fact, it allows the Mormon defender to utilize their own meanings of those words to avoid the 800 lb gorilla in the room, namely, the entire institutional history that is being discussed. Who cares what categorization one places on it. The fact that many were excluded from the brotherhood and grace of the priesthood of all things that were primarily of a certain race, that stories of 'less valient in the pre-existence' circulated widely, and the whole Cain and Egyptus nonsense that resonated and grew in racist corners of Protestant thought to defend slavery found its way into Mormon scripture, literature and consciousness for such lengths of time and in such depth to actually create and imbed cultural stories and thought that found themselves entrenched in Mormon society and teaching, which are now defended in myriad ways, is alone simply enough to condemn the institution that claims deity themselves visited the earth, that it is a restoration of ancient "true" Christianity, that it holds the keys to the priesthood authority that were given to Peter by the laying on of hands, and is led by revelation from a divine source for heavens sake.
John Wesley and many others that didn't have such divine bestowals and gifts condemned the lineage nonsense. To ask the same of the professing veridical institution is not ungracious or insincere. It doesn't matter if it was authorized or not, revealed or not, policy or doctrine, cultural or not, race or lineage - the semantics be damned, a divinely led institution with the divine gifts and bestowments the Mormon Church claims simply would not have such a history whether you call it policy, doctrine, heritage, lineage, race whatever - it is repugnant and leaves any reasonable and moral person shaking their head. It is a basic, primary and fundamental axiom, not an argument where reasonable people might see it differently. Sorry.
my regards, mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
The fact that many were excluded from the brotherhood and grace of the priesthood of all things that were primarily of a certain race,
The ban is based on descent. Unfortunately, race was the only known way to identify descent.
that stories of 'less valient in the pre-existence' circulated widely,
Some did so speculate. Doesn't make it doctrine though.
and the whole Cain and Egyptus nonsense that resonated and grew in racist corners of Protestant thought to defend slavery found its way into Mormon scripture, literature and consciousness
Yet Mormons were against slavery.
John Wesley and many others that didn't have such divine bestowals and gifts condemned the lineage nonsense. To ask the same of the professing veridical institution is not ungracious or insincere. It doesn't matter if it was authorized or not, revealed or not, policy or doctrine, cultural or not, race or lineage - the semantics be damned, a divinely led institution with the divine gifts and bestowments the Mormon Church claims simply would not have such a history whether you call it policy, doctrine, heritage, lineage, race whatever - it is repugnant and leaves any reasonable and moral person shaking their head. It is a basic, primary and fundamental axiom, not an argument where reasonable people might see it differently. Sorry.
You should be since you ascribe as doctrine to the LDS Church that which is not doctrinal.
You didn't read my post, or you didn't understand it. I don't care about the doctrinal/policy/lineage/race/descent semantics, the history itself doesn't resonate with the fundamental claims of the restoration whether it is doctrinal or not. The whole point of my post was to avoid the kind of answers you just gave. I would be pleased to discuss with you what I actually posted.
my regards, mikwut
Last edited by Guest on Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
Your doctrine/policy dichotomy had nothing to do with anything as far as I could tel and you erroneously assumed that internal speculation counts for something against the Church.
Your doctrine/policy dichotomy had nothing to do with anything as far as I could tel
Goodness, I was quite clear to make much more than a simple binary dichotomy. Please read what I said again.
you erroneously assumed that internal speculation counts for something against the Church.
Ok, If you want to call historical realities "internal speculation" fine by all means, but please be so kind as to still answer why from a tree of divine restoration, additional scripture, the guidance of ordained prophets receiving divine revelation, the bestowal of the authority to act in God's name on earth, the plethora of priesthood blessings, ordinances and endowments, the gifts of the Holy Ghost, etc... that such "internal speculation" ran so deep in the historical consciousness of that same institution and its many members but did not in institutions and followers of Christ without those many gifts? It is a reasonable and sincere inquiry that suggests mature reflection and thought, not hand-waving and dismissal by curt one liners.
my regards, mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40