Page 1 of 3
Sufficient repudiation? Why or why not?
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 5:42 pm
by _chesslord1979
Re: Sufficient repudiation? Why or why not?
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:46 am
by _bcspace
Repudiation of what?
Re: Sufficient repudiation? Why or why not?
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:43 am
by _Simon Belmont
chesslord1979 wrote:http://fairwiki.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Repudiated_ideas
Ah, the King's Gambit.
Re: Sufficient repudiation? Why or why not?
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:10 pm
by _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.
Re: Sufficient repudiation? Why or why not?
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:12 pm
by _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.
Re: Sufficient repudiation? Why or why not?
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:22 pm
by _Wisdom Seeker
bcspace wrote: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?
Re: Sufficient repudiation? Why or why not?
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:31 pm
by _Dad of a Mormon
bcspace wrote: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?
Re: Sufficient repudiation? Why or why not?
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:39 pm
by _Buffalo
bcspace wrote: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.
Re: Sufficient repudiation? Why or why not?
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:14 pm
by _Dad of a Mormon
Buffalo wrote:bcspace wrote: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?
Re: Sufficient repudiation? Why or why not?
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:34 pm
by _Buffalo
Dad of a Mormon wrote:
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.