Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?

[Guest]

Droopy
I actually find no fault with your argument about the ban in its origination and application to the first generation it applied to.

Well thanks. That's one gold star of Jason as, as of this point, he's now one of the only civil, reasonable posters in this thread.

But what can you say about it after it has been thousands of years from those originally cursed? Those born into the black African race were denied the priesthood period. And it was simply because of their blood line and in modern time not through any choice of their own. This seems to me to move it into the realm of race.

I think the fundamental answer, from a "TBM" perspective, would be that the original ban was in force for as long as the Lord determined that it should be in force, and that the reason for that aspect of it, is, as the Church has made clear, not known, nor can or will be known until further revelation is received on the matter.

I'm OK with that, as I'm OK with any number of other mysteries within the gospel that do not have definitive intellectual answers as of the present. My testimony of the gospel as a system, however - of the entire gospel and church as wholes - allows me to "endure to the end" on such matters while knowing that the answers, whatever it may be, will be an integral and coherent part of that entire system and be entirely consistent with the Lord's overall plan for all his children as he deal with each of them, and different goupings of them, in unique and specific ways.

So why is the ban not a race issue in modern times?

Because its meaning never actually changed in a doctrinal sense, from ancient times to the present, and the removal of the ban, according to settled church doctrine, was foreseen long before its removal. This would indicate to me then, as a "TBM," that the removal itself was a part of the ban as an entire doctrinal whole. As to precisely why any of this occurred in any detail, I have no more idea than does the Church, which they have already admitted.

[_Droopy]

The church's official websites simultaneously teach that faithful Mormons will get their own world and we don't teach that faithful Mormons will get their own world.

"Official" doesn't seem to be very reliable.

Just more milk, for those who require it, that's all. Key verses in the New Testament indicate that we will receive "all things." "Worlds" are only the beginning.

I think also that "getting" our own planet, or whatever, is a misapprehension of LDS doctrine, asked in that way. We will, in "partaking of the divine nature," become creators, as our Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ are, of worlds, and they will be "ours," and part of our "mansions" and "dominions" in eternity, under the direction and authority of Jesus Christ.

[_Droopy]

Exactly. Repeating over and over again that it's not racist will not make it so. It simply reinforces the church's racist stereotype.

The question is, who is really responsible for creating the stereotype?

[_Droopy]

Do you know what makes me sick?

Justin Bieber?

[_Droopy]

What are you trying to say ldsfaqs? Because it sounds awfully like you are saying that darker skinned people are more primitive.

Screaming, frothing savages to a man!

[_Droopy]

Everyone has shown that it's racist.

Some (of the more rational critics, which provides us with a needle in a haystack problem around here) have attempted to argue, theoretically, that the ban was racist. They have not succeeded, through the arguments they have used thus far, in so doing.

The reason is that the critic's arguments are not based upon anything other than an a priori assumption regarding what must be the case here given those assumptions. Any sound logical argument ends there, unless those assumptions are taken to be a closed case, by mere assertion. The critics have no better idea of why the ban began than does the Church, as to any detail.

You can argue that Rush Limbaugh is slim, and repeat over and over again that he is slim. You are free to believe that, but don't pretend like it's the truth.

By the same logic, you can argue that the ban was racist until blue in the face, and repeat it over and over again, but without actual cogent evidential connections between the premises and conclusions of one's arguments, facts, or documentary evidence, you are arguing by mere assertion and from your own assumptions of what should be the case (if your assumptions happen to be true), not necessarily what is the case.

[_Droopy]

1964: Apostle urges Mormon governor to oppose African-American civil rights.

Don't you mean black civil rights?

Have you ever met an "African American?"

[_Droopy]

Here's a little logic lesson for you...

From...you? Isn't that a bit like Godzilla giving lessons on etiquette?

The revelation with accompanying canonized letter would not need to specifically state that worthy males could now be ordained regardless of "race or color" if such ordinations previously had not been banned because of "race or color." Duh!

Your going to have to think a great deal deeper, harder, and with much more creativity and nuance if your going to convince anyone with a substantive knowledge of LDS doctrine that you have one up on them.

The Church is just using the term "race" in the standard, colloquial sense it has been used in American society for generations as a matter of convention. It need not be taken as an indication that the Church or any of the GAs believe that "race" is an actually existing reality.

"Race" is a human, cultural construct; it is not a scientific concept or an actually existing phenomena. There are no "races" of human beings. There is one species, homo sapiens sapiens, among which are any number of trivial variations, such as skin color, that is of vastly less consequence than the really radical differences present among the various breeds of dogs, all of which are also of the same species.

Blacks, Asians etc. do not represent subspecies of the human species, but slight variations within the same species. The concept of "race" is only of any real value to two fundamental camps, the first being traditional racists, who hold irrational prejudice toward people of other ethnic backgrounds and who do not look the same as they do, and the second being modern racialists - found disproportionately on the Left - who hold similar views but in an ideologically rectified or transmuted form.

Racial consciousness is the bond between them both, and neither find it possible to be colorblind.

[_Doctor Scratch]

By the same logic, you can argue that the ban was racist until blue in the face, and repeat it over and over again, but without actual cogent evidential connections between the premises and conclusions of one's arguments, facts, or documentary evidence, you are arguing by mere assertion and from your own assumptions of what should be the case (if your assumptions happen to be true), not necessarily what is the case.

Droopy,

The "actual cogent evidential connections" are very simple: the ban excluded blacks. "Black" is a designation used to describe race. Therefore, the ban was racist. Even if you want to head down the rabbit hole of bizarre, scripturally-based, exegetical "explanations" for the ban, the fact remains that, in practice, it was racist. I don't know what additional "facts, or documentary evidence" you need: there are mountains of statements from GAs, scripture, Church articles, news articles, and so on documenting all of this. Even if you accept the Church's silly declaration that "we don't know" why the ban was in place, it doesn't change the fact that the ban, practically speaking, was racist in nature.

If you consistently refuse to speak with or look at people of a specific race, it doesn't really matter what your explanation is for doing so; the fact remains that your behavior is racist. You can say that you have a scriptural basis for shunning these people--that it actually has to do with lineage, or a message from God, or whatever. You can say that you "don't know" why you consistently shun and exclude these people. Your explanation ultimately doesn't matter if your actions are demonstrably racist. And the same is true of the priesthood ban. Cook up whatever rationale you want: it's not going to change the practical facts of the matter.

[_bcspace]

The church's official websites simultaneously teach that faithful Mormons will get their own world and we don't teach that faithful Mormons will get their own world.

"Official" doesn't seem to be very reliable.

Please provide both links and references.