Question about the Race/Lineage ban.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

To whoever argues that the African ban was based on lineage and not race:

1. The implication is that black and Hottentot Africans are descended from an individual (call him Patient 0) that was cursed by the Lord that his descendants could not hold the PH or be endowed.

2. Theoretically, if Patient 0 was not the first "black" as well as the first banned individual then there could be "blacks" not of his lineage, and thus could get all the goodies in this life.

OK so far?

3. All African blacks WERE banned from the goodies after BY. If you were "black" and traced this "blackness" to Africa, the church would not recognize, yo.

4. The implication is that somewhere (in the Ark) Patient 0 existed, and there were either no blacks before him, or no blacks survived the Flood. This is the only way a "black" ban could be based on lineage and not race.

Therefore,

5. Arguing in favor of a lineal ban (and a racial ban) is also arguing in favor of a literal Sin Flood. Worldwide, that is. Otherwise there would exist vast numbers of "blacks" that were not of the same lineage of Patient 0.

So, Obiwan, bcspace, or whoever else. Noah? Really? You believe that nonsense?

[_Drifting]

To whoever argues that the African ban was based on lineage and not race:

1. The implication is that black and Hottentot Africans are descended from an individual (call him Patient 0) that was cursed by the Lord that his descendants could not hold the PH or be endowed.

2. Theoretically, if Patient 0 was not the first "black" as well as the first banned individual then there could be "blacks" not of his lineage, and thus could get all the goodies in this life.

OK so far?

3. All African blacks WERE banned from the goodies after BY. If you were "black" and traced this "blackness" to Africa, the church would not recognize, yo.

4. The implication is that somewhere (in the Ark) Patient 0 existed, and there were either no blacks before him, or no blacks survived the Flood. This is the only way a "black" ban could be based on lineage and not race.

Therefore,

5. Arguing in favor of a lineal ban (and a racial ban) is also arguing in favor of a literal Sin Flood. Worldwide, that is. Otherwise there would exist vast numbers of "blacks" that were not of the same lineage of Patient 0.

So, Obiwan, bcspace, or whoever else. Noah? Really? You believe that nonsense?

bcspace has already proven that the Church officially teaches that some Bible stories are not meant to be taken literally. The xample bcspace kindly provided was the content of an Institute manual where it explained that the tale of Eve being made from Adam's rib is not meant to be taken literally. However the implication of that is potentially all of the Bible stories are ultimately not to be taken literally - including the Flood; which leaves Mormonism where? If 'some' of the stories are not to be taken literally then which ones are and which ones are not?

[_aranyborju]

It the end, the problem, whether doctrine or not, all boils down to the gospel being influenced by narrow minded...

[_DarkHelmet]

To whoever argues that the African ban was based on lineage and not race:

1. The implication is that black and Hottentot Africans are descended from an individual (call him Patient 0) that was cursed by the Lord that his descendants could not hold the PH or be endowed.

2. Theoretically, if Patient 0 was not the first "black" as well as the first banned individual then there could be "blacks" not of his lineage, and thus could get all the goodies in this life.

OK so far?

3. All African blacks WERE banned from the goodies after BY. If you were "black" and traced this "blackness" to Africa, the church would not recognize, yo.

4. The implication is that somewhere (in the Ark) Patient 0 existed, and there were either no blacks before him, or no blacks survived the Flood. This is the only way a "black" ban could be based on lineage and not race.

Therefore,

5. Arguing in favor of a lineal ban (and a racial ban) is also arguing in favor of a literal Sin Flood. Worldwide, that is. Otherwise there would exist vast numbers of "blacks" that were not of the same lineage of Patient 0.

So, Obiwan, bcspace, or whoever else. Noah? Really? You believe that nonsense?

This is an excellent point. However, apologists like to compartmentalize each issue. The apologetic theories may work independently, but as you point out here, the apologetic argument for one issue contradicts the apologetic argument for another issue.

[_Jaybear]

I can shorten your argument.

1. Anyone who believes that "blacks" trace their lineage back to Cain, the worlds first bad guy, is dumb, and a racist.

2. Ergo, only a dumb racist would argue or believe the ban is not racist, because it based on lineage.

[_Buffalo]

Another huge problem with the ban is it's based on the notion that blacks are descended from the black-skinned Canaanites. The only problem is it's not true. The Canaanites were the same race as the ancient Hebrews. Same culture too. You can rightly think of the Hebrews, ethnically, culturally and religiously, as an offshoot of the Canaanites.

[_Daheshist]

The literal Canaanites still exist today, and they are called the Lebanese and Tunisians. And also Spain was a colony of Carthage (Tunis), a Canaanite city, and they have a lot of Canaanite blood in them. All of these people are WHITE. Also, JUDAH, the son of Israel, married a Canaanite woman, of whom Jesus is a descendant. Just more evidence Mormon "prophets" were full of crap.

Another huge problem with the ban is it's based on the notion that blacks are descended from the black-skinned Canaanites. The only problem is it's not true. The Canaanites were the same race as the ancient Hebrews. Same culture too. You can rightly think of the Hebrews, ethnically, culturally and religiously, as an offshoot of the Canaanites.

[_just me]

The "seed of Cain" was preserved in the Flood through the wife of Ham....Egyptus.

[_bcspace]

5. Arguing in favor of a lineal ban (and a racial ban) is also arguing in favor of a literal Sin Flood. Worldwide, that is. Otherwise there would exist vast numbers of "blacks" that were not of the same lineage of Patient 0.

So, Obiwan, bcspace, or whoever else. Noah? Really? You believe that nonsense?

As I said before, I don't accept the official LDS doctrine of a global Flood. I do accept a local Flood However, such is not necessary for a descendant of Cain to have come through Ham and then "leavened" if you will a whole set of people by mixing with them and bringing false traditions etc.

The modern wisdom If I recall correctly, is that the Greeks and others besides Africans also are descendent (or leavened) from Cain and so that, and not anything about the Flood, is what makes a ban on black Africans only problematic. It may have been technically correct, but what about others?

However, we know already that the ban was not racist so my opinion is that, at worst, the Church tried to follow Abraham 1 and the identification of black Africans was to the best of their knowledge.

The apologetic theories may work independently, but as you point out here, the apologetic argument for one issue contradicts the apologetic argument for another issue.

Notice that this does not happen with any of my arguments.

[_Buffalo]

Notice that this does not happen with any of my arguments.

Your arguments don't even work separately, let alone together.