bcspace wrote:There is no doctrinal notion that people with black skin are inherently inferior.
You're joking, right?
Book of Mormon, skin of blackness vs white and delightsomeness....
2 Nephi 5:21 "And the Lord had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."
Technically, what bcspace said is true. With both the Lamanites and the descendants of Cain, they were not inferior because they had dark skin. God gave them dark skin because they were inferior. We need to keep our causes and effects straight.
bcspace wrote: Not possible considering the scriptures and the doctrine. The reason for the ban has never been because of skin color.
Are you saying that pre 78 if I was white and from South Africa I would have been banned from having the priesthood?
Skin color was not the reason for the ban, the reason was given as being both the reason for the ban and the skin color. A lack of valor in the pre-existance being the source of both and both evidenced by race. Being of African descent.
Ask a pre 78 missionary who served in Brazil about the hoops they had to jump through to ensure an investigator was white. The clues in features they were taught to watch for. It was all about race, namely black African.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
With both the Lamanites and the descendants of Cain, they were not inferior because they had dark skin. God gave them dark skin because they were inferior. We need to keep our causes and effects straight.
Not true. They were cursed because of choices made, not because they were inherently incapable of anything.
This means that a man with the priesthood is not superior to a man without it. Thank you for your insight.
You're welcome! But it is true that the choice to not accept the priesthood results in damnation. D&C 84:42
bcspace wrote: Not at all. The ban was based on descent and choices made, not race.
The ban was based on race, which is based on descent. Again you are being dishonest here. I showed the definition of racist that fits perfectly with the church's priesthood ban.
Look at number 2. Again you are proven wrong. Must be embarrassing.
Not at all. The ban was based on descent and choices made, not race.
There are some religions that believe in mantras, wherein you keep saying the same thing over and over again and somehow that will make you spiritual. One of those religions is Mormonism. How many times will we see the the argument by assertion that "descent" or "lineage" is different from "race"?
lineage:lineal descent from an ancestor; ancestry or extraction: She could trace her lineage to the early Pilgrims.
race:a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
racism:a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
Is it still too subtle that "DESCENT" AND "LINEAGE" ARE SYNONYMS FOR "RACE"?
Not possible considering the scriptures and the doctrine. The reason for the ban has never been because of skin color.
Are you saying that pre 78 if I was white and from South Africa I would have been banned from having the priesthood?
Never implied it, no.
Skin color was not the reason for the ban,
Amen.
the reason was given as being both the reason for the ban and the skin color.
Never heard that.
A lack of valor in the pre-existance being the source of both and both evidenced by race. Being of African descent.
Some did speculate that this was the case. Lack of valor is not inherent, it's a choice by the way.
Ask a pre 78 missionary who served in Brazil about the hoops they had to jump through to ensure an investigator was white. The clues in features they were taught to watch for. It was all about race, namely black African.
Doesn't mean the ban was racist. For that to be true, the reason for the ban would have to be because of black skin. However, we see that the reason for the ban was descent and murder among other things; perhaps an imitation of the priesthood etc.
Is it still too subtle that "DESCENT" AND "LINEAGE" ARE SYNONYMS FOR "RACE"?
Race has nothing to do with the ban. We are all children of Adam no matter what our skin color according to the doctrine. Was he white or black? Does it matter? Of course not. Where in LDS doctrine does it say that people with black skin are inherently inferior?
With both the Lamanites and the descendants of Cain, they were not inferior because they had dark skin. God gave them dark skin because they were inferior. We need to keep our causes and effects straight.
Not true. They were cursed because of choices made, not because they were inherently incapable of anything.
Oh, right, because a black man in 1965 made the choice for Cain to murder Abel. And also he made a choice before he was born---which he doesn't remember---to not be as excited about the Plan of Salvation as the rest of the human race. Free agency means being cursed because of a choice you don't remember making.
This means that a man with the priesthood is not superior to a man without it. Thank you for your insight.
You're welcome! But it is true that the choice to not accept the priesthood results in damnation. D&C 84:42
Why should you be damned for rejecting the priesthood, since the priesthood confers no superiority?