Question about the Race/Lineage ban.

[_Morley]

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.

Esau's (or anyone's) "lack of blessing" is not the same as a curse.

Even if it had been, no subsequent hirsute men were denied blessings.

[_Runtu]

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.

Yeah, I've heard all of these things before. The racism you mention is all from the Old Testament (and it is racism, because I reject the belief that racism must involve a hierarchy). As you well know, it was revealed to Peter that the divisions among people were done away with following the Atonement. Thus, to the Jew first, and then to the Greek refers to Jesus having come to the Jews and then the gospel being preached to all after the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

But suddenly, 1850 years later, LDS prophets thought that alleged writings of Abraham thousands of years before Christ superseded the New Testament. Weird, that.

[_Buffalo]

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?

Race-based discrimination is racist by definition. Hope this helps.

And yes, it's official doctrine. A prophet of the lord proclaimed it through official channels.

[_bcspace]

Is that LDS doctrine? And even if so, how again does it meet the definition of racism?

Race-based discrimination is racist by definition. Hope this helps.

Well, then the Church is in the clear as far as doctrine is concerned.

[_Runtu]

Well, then the Church is in the clear as far as doctrine is concerned.

I disagree, but it sounds like you're conceding that the ban as practiced was racist.

[_Buffalo]

Race-based discrimination is racist by definition. Hope this helps.

Well, then the Church is in the clear as far as doctrine is concerned.

No. Official Declaration 2 makes it clear the ban was race-based.

[_bcspace]

Well, then the Church is in the clear as far as doctrine is concerned.

No. Official Declaration 2 makes it clear the ban was race-based.

Where? How is reserving the priesthood, based on descent or race or color or whatever, without implication of inferiority, racist? As noted before, the ban came about because of choices made, not because of some notion of inferiority.

[cacheman]

Once again, the problem is that, if the priesthood ban came from God, it can't have been wrong. So, even though 33 years have passed, people still feel a need to justify it. There really are only two options:

1. God is a racist. Yes, I've actually heard this many times, as well as the corollary "it's not racist if God does it."

2. The policy and doctrine that restricted priesthood by race were not in any sense racist. Apparently, this works for a few clever Mormons, but it is utterly unconvincing to everyone else.

If President Hinckley wanted us to put it behind us, it would stand to reason that no one need justify the ban any longer.

ETA: Back when I was a believer, when people asked me about the ban, I said I didn't understand it and was glad it had ended. If they asked if I thought it was wrong, I would just say that prophets are not infallible. But to deny with a straight face that there was anything racist about it would have been dishonest.

[_bcspace]

Once again, the problem is that, if the priesthood ban came from God, it can't have been wrong. So, even though 33 years have passed, people still feel a need to justify it. There really are only two options:

1. God is a racist. Yes, I've actually heard this many times, as well as the corollary "it's not racist if God does it."

2. The policy and doctrine that restricted priesthood by race were not in any sense racist. Apparently, this works for a few clever Mormons, but it is utterly unconvincing to everyone else.

If President Hinckley wanted us to put it behind us, it would stand to reason that no one need justify the ban any longer.

[taps the sign]
As noted before, the ban came about because of choices made, not because of some notion of inferiority.

[_Morley]

As noted before, the ban came about because of choices made, not because of some notion of inferiority.

A curse is a "notion of inferiority."