Loran:
First, this alters nothing as to the relation of official doctrine to the membership of the church. It was never official doctrine, and it was never put before the membership of the church for their sustaining support. The idea of less valiant spirits has a scriptural and doctrinal basis, but as applied to blacks never had an official, binding character. There is no question as to its having been used in a doctrinal sense, but so have other ideas that have never been part of the core, settled doctrines of the gospel.
I won't carry the water of Mormon folk doctrine or statements of GA's on various subjects (like evolution, the nature or Adam, or the Priesthood ban), that were never a part of the fundamental concepts required of a faithful adherent of the restored gospel.
You know, at some point we're all going to get beyond our continued pathological obsession with race, and in particular, with the history of race relations regarding black people in this country and grow up intellectually about it. The Priesthood ban is over. Relations between blacks and whites, when left to themselves and not set upon incessantly by ideologues and race hustlers, is just sterling.
Every time I see a thread like this I think "oh no, NOT another thread on blacks and the Priesthood". You know, there will still be people trying to free Mumia ten thousand years from now. Permanent revolution. It will never end. The grievance and pathological, flagellating collective guilt will still be with us.
Well, I've gone beyond it and, in fact, I was never part of it because my parents never taught me racist attitudes and I was never part of any racial oppression of anyone nor did I ever support such oppression, so I bear no guilt or responsibility for it. I guess I have trouble understanding why this rotting corpse won't stay in its grave.
Loran
Hi Loran,
I am sorry my friend but I am not sure that your prescription for doctrine is or has been applied consistently in the Church. I understand the process of canonization and all. But when numerous GAs take a position, when the FP calls it doctrine in an official statement, and when it is taught routinely to members how can it not be called doctrine. I understand that desire to minimize LDS doctrine down to the canon and the canonization process. But there is much taught that seems to be considered doctrine that has not gone through this process that we want to sweep under the table when later it seems uncomfortable or embarrassing. I see this happening now in relation to the ides of the KFD. Many apologists argue it is not canon thus not doctrine. But it has been taught over the pulpit, in manuals, and reiterated in oh so many ways that it has to be doctrine and in fact was once something LDS were quite proud of teaching as a unique and wonderful idea.
So who should we believe? You or the Prophets and apostles who taught this as doctrine as well as an FP that issued an official statement of doctrine about it?
Temple ceremonies are not in canon nor have they been sustained by the body of the Church. Yet the need for them is doctrinal. The Lectures on Faith were canonized by the process you describe and sustained as the doctrine of the 1835 Doctrine and covenants. Later they were removed from the canon without a vote and relegated to beneficial but not doctrine or on par with the revelations.
JFS argued that his position on evolutions was doctrinal and official and that one could believe different and remain a member but if they taught they would not be considered a member in good standing (See Lowell Bennion Bio-I can get a page reference later if you want). Of course JFS took perhaps too much in himself then because President McKay disagreed with him and was not happy President Smith published Man, His Origin and Destiny behind his back.
Anyway, this was doctrinal. Perhaps not to the level of Canon, but to those who interpret canon it was their understanding of scriptures and thus the doctrine at that time.
Why does it rear its head? I am not sure, It is interesting, it is a difficult issue, maybe some believe rather then sweep it under the rug it would be nice to admit that it was a mistake to teach such things especially if you are correct and it was never doctrine.
One thing is made clear as I read the SWK bio. When the change was made and the statement issues to the public the leaders were very concerned that no admission of error in the past policy be discussed and the the statement should be plain, simple and to the point with a prospective out look. I am ok with that and admire Pres. Kimball's courage and undaunting petitions to the Lord about this and believe the Lord did direct him to make the change.
Thanks