Question about the Race/Lineage ban.

[_Runtu]

[taps the sign]
As noted before, the ban came about because of choices made

So what? What difference does that make?

not because of some notion of inferiority.

Denying the clear implications of scripture and the consistent statements of generations of prophets and apostles does not help your cause in the least.

[_bcspace]

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."

Or retribution or punishment or applied consequence etc. There is nothing stating that the ban came about because blacks or descendents of Cain are inferior.

As noted before, the ban came about because of choices made

So what? What difference does that make?

It means that the ban is not racist because there is no evidence it came about because someone thought someone else was inferior.

[_Runtu]

It means that the ban is not racist because there is no evidence it came about because someone thought someone else was inferior.

That's just plain silly, bc. The curse made them inferior, not the other way around (at least according to LDS doctrine). However, it's quite clear that this whole thing has its origins in 19th-century notions of race, not in the teachings of Abraham.

[_Buffalo]

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.

Ironically, the part about "choices made" is the part the church has now distanced itself from. Not that that would change the fact that the church banned a race from certain ordinances.

But let's sum up:

Race-based bans aren't racist. How do you feel about this sign?

[_bcspace]

That's just plain silly, bc. The curse made them inferior, not the other way around (at least according to LDS doctrine).

Not having the priesthood is an inferior condition, but it says nothing about how innately inferior one may or may not be.

However, it's quite clear that this whole thing has its origins in 19th-century notions of race, not in the teachings of Abraham.

The Book of Abraham predates the 19th century AD by a long shot.

Ironically, the part about "choices made" is the part the church has now distanced itself from.

And your reference is?

Race-based bans aren't racist. How do you feel about this sign?

Differently than from the priesthood ban because I know the sign isn't based on choices made like the ban is, but an actual notion of racial inferiority.

[_Runtu]

Not having the priesthood is an inferior condition, but it says nothing about how innately inferior one may or may not be.

Even if I believed that racism must involve notions of inferiority, generations of prophets and apostles explicitly taught that black people were inferior. That you can't recognize that the ban itself implies inferiority does not change anything.

The Book of Abraham predates the 19th century AD by a long shot.

Hmmm. Last I checked, it was written between 1835 and 1842. But even granting for the sake of argument the dubious proposition that the Book of Abraham is of ancient origin, why does it supersede the New Testament and the Atonement?

Imagine that the state of Missouri, having rescinded the extermination order in 1840, discovered an even earlier document containing the extermination order. By your logic, that older document should take precedence over the rescission, and thus Missourians should do their duty and drive out the Mormons.

Your position makes no sense.

[_Morley]

Race-based bans aren't racist. How do you feel about this sign?

Differently than from the priesthood ban because I know the sign isn't based on choices made like the ban is, but an actual notion of racial inferiority.

What "choices made" was the ban based on? (Please give doctrinal references.)

[_Morley]

Bumping for BCSpace.

[_bcspace]

What "choices made" was the ban based on? (Please give doctrinal references.)

Moses 5:36–39. Cain Was Cursed

Part of the curse Cain received for killing Abel was that the ground would no longer “yield unto [Cain] her strength,” and that he would be a “fugitive and a vagabond” (Moses 5:37). A fugitive is a person who is running from the law, and a vagabond is someone who has no home. Cain was also driven out “from the face of the Lord” (Moses 5:39). The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “The power, glory and blessings of the Priesthood could not continue with those who received ordination only as their righteousness continued; for Cain also being authorized to offer sacrifice, but not offering it in righteousness, was cursed. It signifies, then, that the ordinances must be kept in the very way God has appointed; otherwise their Priesthood will prove a cursing instead of a blessing” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 169).

Moses 5:39–40. A Mark Was Placed upon Cain

It must be noted that the mark that was set upon Cain was not the same thing as the curse that he received. The mark was to distinguish him as the one who had been cursed by the Lord. It was placed upon Cain so that no one finding him would kill him. A parallel that illustrates the difference between a mark and a curse might be the account of the Lord placing a mark and a curse upon the Lamanites and their posterity (see 2 Nephi 5:20–24; Alma 23:16–18). It should be noted that the curse was based on individual disobedience and that by obedience to God the curse was removed, although the mark may not have been removed immediately. Eventually, however, the mark was also removed from some (see 3 Nephi 2:12–16).

PoGP Student Manual

[_Morley]

What "choices made" was the ban based on? (Please give doctrinal references.)

Moses 5:36–39. Cain Was Cursed

Part of the curse Cain received for killing Abel was that the ground would no longer “yield unto [Cain] her strength,” and that he would be a “fugitive and a vagabond” (Moses 5:37). A fugitive is a person who is running from the law, and a vagabond is someone who has no home. Cain was also driven out “from the face of the Lord” (Moses 5:39). The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “The power, glory and blessings of the Priesthood could not continue with those who received ordination only as their righteousness continued; for Cain also being authorized to offer sacrifice, but not offering it in righteousness, was cursed. It signifies, then, that the ordinances must be kept in the very way God has appointed; otherwise their Priesthood will prove a cursing instead of a blessing” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 169).

Moses 5:39–40. A Mark Was Placed upon Cain

It must be noted that the mark that was set upon Cain was not the same thing as the curse that he received. The mark was to distinguish him as the one who had been cursed by the Lord. It was placed upon Cain so that no one finding him would kill him. A parallel that illustrates the difference between a mark and a curse might be the account of the Lord placing a mark and a curse upon the Lamanites and their posterity (see 2 Nephi 5:20–24; Alma 23:16–18). It should be noted that the curse was based on individual disobedience and that by obedience to God the curse was removed, although the mark may not have been removed immediately. Eventually, however, the mark was also removed from some (see 3 Nephi 2:12–16).

PoGP Student Manual

BCSpace.

What does this have to do with anything? How do Cain's transgressions impact anyone else? How is this possibly a "choice made" by those who where banned from the priesthood until 1978?