Holland in that interview said he thinks now that the Curse of Cain Doctrine was a mistake. Of course, that is NOT what LDS Public Affairs is saying and has said since 1996. They speak for the Church. It is their JOB to speak for the Church. They are saying: "The Church NEVER taught that blacks are cursed". Yes, that is what they've been saying since 1996.
And that is a LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!
When people ask the First Presidency for a response, the FP forwards them to LDS Public Affairs, who says: "It was never taught as a doctrine, but some Members may have believed it".
That is also a lie, a deception.
Yes, the Church is LYING, and has been since 1996.
Elder Holland was being candid, but read his entire interview, and he was also being deceptive, when he said he was a young apostle, and did not know much about it. BS! He taught the Curse of Cain Doctrine while a Seminary teacher in the 1960s! He knows all about it.
RayAgostini wrote:Daheshist wrote:Ummmmmmm....here is the truth:
1. The Church DID teach the Curse of Cain Doctrine as "a doctrine of the Church" for 130 years.
2. The Church NOW says: "It was never a doctrine".
3. The Church is lying.
If the Church STOPS LYING....there is no reason I would have to want to
expose their lying.
I would rather that the Church DID NOT LIE. A True Church....does no tneed to "lie" to help it along.
And who is "the Church"?
Where were you when you heard that the ban was lifted on blacks in the priesthood?
I can remember exactly where I was. For us that's the "where we [were] when Kennedy was shot," this deep, deep, spiritual, emotional moment in the history of the church. I was a very young commissioner of education, still in my 30s, and I was coming over from my office in the church office building to the suite of General Authority offices for something or other. ... I walked into the office of the General Authority I was going to see, and he said, "Have you heard the news?" This was barely moments out of the temple meeting and the announcement where it was official. And I said: "What news? I haven't heard any news." And he said all worthy men -- regardless of race or status or circumstance -- all worthy men are to receive priesthood.
You're going to think all I do is cry, but this is in the same family as that missionary experience I described to you. I started to cry, and I was absolutely uncontrollable. I felt my way to a chair ... and I sort of slumped from the doorway into the chair and held my head, my face in my hands and sobbed. ...
There's no issue in all my life that I had prayed more regarding -- praying that it would change, praying that it would come in due time. I was willing to have the Lord speak, and I was loyal to the position and the brethren and the whole concept, but there was nothing about which I had anguished more or about which I had prayed more. And for that to be said in my lifetime, when I wasn't sure it would happen in my lifetime, ... it was one of the absolute happiest days of my life. ...
One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...
It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.
(Emphasis added)
Jeffrey R. Holland, PBS interview.