Buffalo wrote:It was from those Christians that the church got the doctrine of the curse.
We are the Christians who turned a racist belief into scripture and doctrine.
Unfortunately true. It's also unfortunate bcspace continues to embarrass himself yet again with this issue. He seems to have some definition of racism I have never seen before.
But we are not, nor ever have been, those Christians. So again, how does that fit the definition of racism?:
It was from those Christians that the church got the doctrine of the curse.
How were the descendents of Cain cursed? According to the PGP, it wasn't black skin, though it does tell how their black skin came about, and the PGP didn't come from other Christians.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Themis wrote:Unfortunately true. It's also unfortunate bcspace continues to embarrass himself yet again with this issue. He seems to have some definition of racism I have never seen before.
As I recall, he believes that unless something explicitly states that one race is superior to another, it isn't racist. It's just another word game like all the others he enjoys playing. I don't think it's occurred to him that he might be embarrassing himself and his religion, extension.
bcspace wrote:How were the descendents of Cain cursed? According to the PGP, it wasn't black skin, though it does tell how their black skin came about, and the PGP didn't come from other Christians.
bcspace wrote: How were the descendents of Cain cursed? According to the PGP, it wasn't black skin, though it does tell how their black skin came about, and the PGP didn't come from other Christians.
Cursed in terms of priesthood and cursed to be slaves. That's the racist doctrine of the church, a borrowed idea that we couldn't abandon because it became enshrined in revelation.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Themis wrote:Unfortunately true. It's also unfortunate bcspace continues to embarrass himself yet again with this issue. He seems to have some definition of racism I have never seen before.
As I recall, he believes that unless something explicitly states that one race is superior to another, it isn't racist. It's just another word game like all the others he enjoys playing. I don't think it's occurred to him that he might be embarrassing himself and his religion, extension.
Every defense they're giving for the ban applies to Jim Crow laws. I'd like to see them state that Jim Crow laws weren't racist. :)
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
So, then you're saying the doctrine isn't racist, but the policy and the prophets who implemented it were?
Not quite.
Either way, I'd say the notion of a "curse" implies inferiority.
Some individuals in the Church certainly thought that. But the curse was based on an original choice, not inherent inability. Think Jacob and Esau. That's a curse (or lack of blessing) based on an original choice but by your erroneous logic it's racism because it effects thousands of future generations. What about when the New Testament says Jew first, then the Gentile? Also racism according to your logic. And then there is priesthood only given to the Levites. More racism. That is why it is irrational and illogical to consider LDS ban and scripture racist.
Cursed in terms of priesthood. That's the racist doctrine of the church, a borrowed idea that we couldn't abandon because it became enshrined in revelation.
Again, how so?
and cursed to be slaves
Is that LDS doctrine? And even if so, how again does it meet the definition of racism?
