Coggins7 wrote:OK Rollo, I'm now going to use Scratch's "nuannced" interpretation of the term "lie" and brand you as a bald, flat footed liar. It was not ever doctrine and it was never part of the official settled doctrinal core of the Church. You are a liar and a deciever and I'm calling you on it right here.
Are you lumping me in with all those "lying and deceiving" Brethren who taught and wrote this principle?
It was counsel and it was the perception, conditioned by the culture, and especially nineteengh century frontier culture, of some people of those times.
Perhaps that is where it came from (man, not God), but it was still treated and taught as doctrine (perhaps false doctrine, but doctrine nonetheless).
It was also hyperbolic teaching that was clearly, on many occasions not meant to be taken literally. I don't care what church manuals or magazines it appeared in; it was never doctrine and it was never required of the the membership of the church to beleive it.
It's not important whether members believed it (although many did and still do); the important fact is that Brethren believed it and taught it as doctrine to the membership.
Further, not all GA's taught it by any stretch of the imagination.
But many in the highest qourums in the Church did teach it. That's the point.
It also flies in the face of the doctrine of the Atonement and the official teachings of the church on forgiveness and repentance ....
I agree, which is why I always found this teaching repugnant.
As you still clearly have not the slightest idea what the difference is between official doctrine and any other kind of teaching or counsel within the LDS church ....
Are you talking to yourself again?
I do, however, have problems with slithering little reptiles like you who have no intention of serious, honest debate but who are only out gunning for the faith and sacred things of others.
How so?
There is nothing here preventing what SWK saw as being purly genetic in origin. Their are white Indians living in Latin America and they've been known for sometime. Further, as you have no idea what intermarriage or sexaul pairing took place in those Indian families in past centuries, and what genetic material their may actually be in that mix, you are blowing smoke out your considerable backside and doing nothing more. My wife's grandmother was a full blooded Cherokee. She doesn't look Amerindian, but the genetic material is there. She married a man who was half Japanese. One son is lighter skinned and has sandy hair, the other has black hair, a slightly darker complexion, and an obvious eye flap, which the other lacks.
Pout all you want, but SWK's own words make clear that his observations had nothing to do with science or genetics, but with the Book of Mormon promise that Indians would become "white and delightsome."
You see Rollo, your problem, like most other professional gainsayers, is that you are a blind, true believeing ideologue who has no conern for the disciplines of critical thought or nuanced reasoning. Your mind is the mind of the political activist mixed with that of the rightours, passion imbued fanatic. That's why you can lie through your pearly whites to people like me, Wade, and Gazelam who know perfectly well you don't know what you're talking about but can sit here and watch you try to tell us what our church teaches and what is doctrine and what isn't when clearly it doesn't really matter to you what the chruch teaches, as long as you can extract some cultural practice or folk doctrine from the dusty attic of church history and use it as a charm to cast out your own personal demons.
I sense you are about to have a meltdown. Calm down. We're just having a friendly debate here.
This is indicative of another pathetic and morally decrepit psycholgical and intellectual derangement known as socialism, or leftism, to which sin you have already confessed.
Being "liberal" is now a sin? Who knew!
They are equal under the law of God and the Gospel, and they are equal partners in the home.
No, they are not -- reread my Joseph F. Smith quote in a prior post.
The man presides because of certain characteristics that inhere both in the eternal gendered spirit, and in biology.
Like what? What male "characteristics" support the husband's being in charge in the home?
Equality is always relative and embedded in the natural hierarchies of human relationships, and there is nothing wrong with hierarchy when mediated by the principles of righteousness.
But can such "righteousness" really exist when we are told the husband presides over the wife in their own home? I don't think so.
There is a reason why the man "presides" in the home but as you don't have the intellectual capacity or self honesty to understand the concepts involved, I'd reather lecture my Venus Flytrap on the finer points of belly dancing.
I'm still waiting for you to give me that "reason," but you can't because there is none, other than the standard 'well, that's just the way its always been' excuse. That just ain't gonna cut it, bub.
All men are subject to Christ. Christ is subject Old Testament God the Father. The Father is subject to his Father.
Agreed, but all women are "subject" to their husbands, in this and the next life. Try to remember the first covenant a woman makes in the temple -- without getting into details, she makes it to her husband, not to God (to whom the man makes it).
We must also have PURE, LITERAL EQUALITY there as well as in the home.
And why shouldn't we? What is wrong with a wife being truly equal to her husband, in which they co-preside over their family?