Racist Book of Mormon Stories - Refuting the Mopologists

[_Runtu]

Lineage was relevant. I think you missed the point here, Johnnie. "Race" and "skin color" are descriptive terms of common usage in America and the West generally. The Brethren here simply clarifying the scope (coverage) of the revelation in the colloquial, vernacular phraseology in common usage.

There is no logical means of extrapolating a doctrinal core (which we know has to do with lineage, as that is what the Church has always taught was its meaning) from colloquial expressions used in the explication of a policy.

No "conditions" are mentioned in the above statement relevant to the doctrinal basis of the ban. Descriptive terms of common, settled usage, regarding who, in particular, falls within the perimeters of the revelation, used in the process of the explication of the scope of the ban, do not allow any inference as to the ground of the original policy - only to whom it was related.

Will you please show me from the scriptures where the priesthood ban is clearly defined doctrinally?

[_Drifting]

But there's no such thing as race! Ron Lafferty told us, in this very thread! Race is a leftist construct!

"Race" is a human cultural construct. The Left uses it as a weapon of ideological warfare and as a means of leverage to political power.

And the Church advises using it as a means of determining who should be your eternal partner...

[_Droopy]

Yeah, there sure is BIG MONEY in civil rights litigation!!!

Just ask Brother Jesse.

Anyway, how is this in any way relevant to prophets and apostles in the LDS Church specifically classifying people according to "race"?

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110:

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.

Try finding a source of official, settled doctrine that could be remotely understood as something "the Church" teaches, Johnnie.

Same bat time, same bat channel.

[_Droopy]

Lineage was relevant. I think you missed the point here, Johnnie. "Race" and "skin color" are descriptive terms of common usage in America and the West generally. The Brethren here simply clarifying the scope (coverage) of the revelation in the colloquial, vernacular phraseology in common usage.

There is no logical means of extrapolating a doctrinal core (which we know has to do with lineage, as that is what the Church has always taught was its meaning) from colloquial expressions used in the explication of a policy.

No "conditions" are mentioned in the above statement relevant to the doctrinal basis of the ban. Descriptive terms of common, settled usage, regarding who, in particular, falls within the perimeters of the revelation, used in the process of the explication of the scope of the ban, do not allow any inference as to the ground of the original policy - only to whom it was related.

Will you please show me from the scriptures where the priesthood ban is clearly defined doctrinally?

It isn't, which is why GBH said we don't know the origin of it. The doctrinal basis in a lineage dispossessed of the right of the priesthood is found, of course, in the Book of Abraham (and there are some extracannonocal sources intimating such as well).

[_Darth J]

Very interesting. How do you clarify the scope of something by referring to a condition that was never relevant?

Lineage was relevant. I think you missed the point here, Johnnie. "Race" and "skin color" are descriptive terms of common usage in America and the West generally. The Brethren are here simply clarifying the scope (coverage) of the revelation in the colloquial, vernacular phraseology in common usage.

There is no logical means of extrapolating a doctrinal core (which we know has to do with lineage, as that is what the Church has always taught was its meaning) from colloquial expressions used in the explication of a policy.

No "conditions" are mentioned in the above statement relevant to the doctrinal basis of the ban. Descriptive terms of common, settled usage, regarding who, in particular, falls within the perimeters of the revelation, used in the process of the explication of the scope of the ban, do not allow any inference as to the ground of the original policy - only to whom it was related.

The revelation said to stop denying men the priesthood on the basis of race, but the priesthood ban had nothing to do with race.

We've always been at war with Eastasia.

[_Drifting]

Try finding a source of official, settled doctrine that could be remotely understood as something "the Church" teaches

Even Hinckley struggled with that one.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

You need to learn how to completely ignore the meaning of words, and twist your brain in to pretzels!

FTFY

- VRDRC

[_Runtu]

Here are, as far as I can tell, the relevant passages:

Moses 7: 5-8:

5 And it came to pass that I beheld in the valley of Shum, and lo, a great people which dwelt in tents, which were the people of Shum.

6 And again the Lord said unto me: Look; and I looked towards the north, and I beheld the people of Canaan, which dwelt in tents.

7 And the Lord said unto me: Prophesy; and I prophesied, saying: Behold the people of Canaan, which are numerous, shall go forth in battle array against the people of Shum, and shall slay them that they shall utterly be destroyed; and the people of Canaan shall divide themselves in the land, and the land shall be barren and unfruitful, and none other people shall dwell there but the people of Canaan;

8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

Moses 7:20-22

20 And it came to pass that Enoch talked with the Lord; and he said unto the Lord: Surely Zion shall dwell in safety forever. But the Lord said unto Enoch: Zion have I blessed, but the residue of the people have I cursed.

21 And it came to pass that the Lord showed unto Enoch all the inhabitants of the earth; and he beheld, and lo, Zion, in process of time, was taken up into heaven. And the Lord said unto Enoch: Behold mine abode forever.

22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

Abraham 1:25-27:

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that aorder established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain bclaim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

[_Runtu]

It isn't, which is why GBH said we don't know the origin of it. The doctrinal basis in a lineage dispossessed of the right of the priesthood is found, of course, in the Book of Abraham (and there are some extracannonocal sources intimating such as well).

Then please show me how the verses in the Book of Abraham have anything to do with black Africans.

The problem here isn't that there's no doctrine, but that the doctrine was not thought out, never nailed down, and left to the whims of the leadership, with predictable results.

[_Droopy]

The "doctrine" has been cobbled together by two seemingly unrelated scriptures in the Pearl of Great Price. But make no mistake, the ban was always about race, as the First Presidency stated twice, once by revelation.

Then I'm sure you can provide a CFR for this, in which "race," and not lineage, is clarified as the basis for the restriction of priesthood. This will probably be a rather simple matter for a determined apostate critic, as all you need to do is point out the association of ethnicity and lineage and conflate the two, to make your case.

I'm ahead of you, John.

If the doctrine were so clear about lineage, why do you suppose so many apostles and prophets struggled to find a doctrinal basis for the ban?

They never struggled for a doctrinal basis. There is something about the linage that came through Ham and entered into the DNA of the Canaanites (Phoenicians), Egyptians, and other associated ethnic groups. What they struggled with was why the restriction, not that it had occurred, and why it had lasted so long.

In the end, President Hinckley said the doctrine was "interpreted that way" by the earlier prophets and apostles. But the doctrine isn't clear about who couldn't have the priesthood and why not. If it had been, Joseph Smith never would have ordained Elijah Abel.

Your problem, John, is that you are looking at this issue, like so many others, through purely secular eyes, without the Holy Ghost and the Spirit of the Lord to guide and enlighten your thinking and intellectual creativity on the matter.

So long as that is the case, your kicking of and against the pricks will continue.