Sufficient repudiation? Why or why not?

[_chesslord1979]

http://fairwiki.org/Mormonism_and_racia ... ated_ideas

[_bcspace]

Repudiation of what?

[_Simon Belmont]

http://fairwiki.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Repudiated_ideas

Ah, the King's Gambit.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Well, they can't exactly repudiate it but that they can't exactly embrace it either. To repudiate it would mean that the leaders weren't really commanded by God. To embrace it is to continue to be racist. The best they can do is really just ask the membership to ignore the history and embrace the current doctrine, which is what Hinckley did.

[_bcspace]

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.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

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? If the doctrine of the ban has not changed, what can we learn from this doctrine? Should expired doctrine be studied or ignored?

[_Dad of a Mormon]

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.

On what basis were those of African descent excluded from holding the priesthood before 1978?
On what basis were those of African descent allowed to hold the priesthood after 1978?

[_Buffalo]

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.

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.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

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.

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?

[Guest]

OK, now I'm really confused. Ham was a son of Noah, who was a descendant of Seth, not Cain. Can anyone explain this?

Ham's wife was supposedly a decedent of Cain.