Question about the Race/Lineage ban.

[_bcspace]

1) You don't think we humans are necessarily descended from Adam and Eve. But you believe that African blacks are all descended from a cursed son of Adam named Cain--and that they were denied the priesthood only because of this bloodline.

Or they followed after him.

2) You don't believe in a global flood, but you believe the African people are all descended through the loins of Ham, who was on Noah's boat carrying the curse of Cain in a local flood in the Middle East.

Or their population is "leavened" by the descendants of Ham and/or the believers in that attempt to imitate the Priesthood.

3) African blacks carried this curse (from their ancestor, Cain), through all times and places, until 1978 when the president of the Church released them from it and allowed them to finally have the priesthood.

I believe the Church did the best it could with the knowledge it had to apply Abraham 1. I believe it was probably good enough to accomplish the goal (I can only speculate as to what that was). I have never said they did it perfectly. The ban itself is not a problem because it is in the scriptures and doctrine.

4) The second Article of Faith says: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." However, Cain's descendants had to be punished for his transgression for thousands of years. And Cain's descendants are only African blacks or those with that bloodline.

I've already differentiated between being punished for one's own sins and the consequences one's choices can have on an entire group of people.

Additionally, (except for the local flood) you believe these are all LDS doctrine (or at the very least are compatible).

As you can see, that is not the case.

[Guest]

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.

BCSpace, do you have a peer-reviewed journal of anthropology you could recommend where I could read more about the ancient Greeks being "leavened" with the.....yeast.....of Cain?

No. I'm referring to Christian tradition. I think you yourself would agree that if Ham existed (assuming you don't believe he did), his literal descendents would not be limited to "black Africa" even if his children settled there exclusively.

[_bcspace]

*LDS.org, online scriptures 16th January 2012*

I notice that they are still using the phrases 'white' and 'skin of blackness' to differentiate between righteous and unrighteous people - God, according to the Book of Mormon, definitely advocates using skin colour as a worthiness indicator.

Yet many Lamanites ultimately joined the Church and were more "worthy" than the Nephites at times. There is no hint of any inferiority teaching about these people. The fact that they were at times wicked or "wild" is merely because of the culture and beliefs they inherited from their parents and continued to persist in despite attempts to teach them. No racism here.

[_Themis]

Or they followed after him.

Did you really convince yourself of this BS?

I've already differentiated between being punished for one's own sins and the consequences one's choices can have on an entire group of people.

More BS. A whole race was denied because they were considered to be the descendants of Cain. This is punishing them for the mistake of one individual, unless you go for a more BS idea that they were not valiant in the pre0mortal life.

[_Themis]

Yet many Lamanites ultimately joined the Church and were more "worthy" than the Nephites at times. There is no hint of any inferiority teaching about these people. The fact that they were at times wicked or "wild" is merely because of the culture and beliefs they inherited from their parents and continued to persist in despite attempts to teach them. No racism here.

There certainly are racist ideas being promoted in the Book of Mormon. That it talks about some lamanites repenting does not take away from those racist ideas.

[_bcspace]

I've already differentiated between being punished for one's own sins and the consequences one's choices can have on an entire group of people.

More BS. A whole race was denied because they were considered to be the descendants of Cain. This is punishing them for the mistake of one individual, unless you go for a more BS idea that they were not valiant in the pre0mortal life.

You obviously don't accept the Bible then. Numbers 14:18 for example. But this concept is not hard to understand because we have similar examples in modern times. If a parent or parents falls away from the Church, the children are likely to follow after and thus they suffer the consequences even though they did not make the initial decision.

There certainly are racist ideas being promoted in the Book of Mormon.

Such as?

[_Yoda]

If a parent or parents falls away from the Church, the children are likely to follow after and thus they suffer the consequences even though they did not make the initial decision.

Maybe so, but when the children reach adulthood, or even reach an age where they can read and comprehend things, it is certainly possible for them to find their way back into the Church. If you condemn the child siimply based on the parent's actions, or make broad stroke assumptions, then you are not allowing that child to have his/her free agency.

[_bcspace]

Maybe so, but when the children reach adulthood, or even reach an age where they can read and comprehend things, it is certainly possible for them to find their way back into the Church.

Sure. But as you can plainly see, sometimes the Lord applies consequences for generations. The Lord does seem to have an order as far as the gospel is concerned (cf Jew first, then Gentile). Perhaps these initial actions and choices had an ordering effect in God's plan. Of course that still doesn't imply any racism nor does it deny agency.

[_Themis]

You obviously don't accept the Bible then. Numbers 14:18 for example. But this concept is not hard to understand because we have similar examples in modern times. If a parent or parents falls away from the Church, the children are likely to follow after and thus they suffer the consequences even though they did not make the initial decision.

Why do you keep embarrassing yourself with this, evolution and doctrine threads? Even if one's children are less likely to not go to the church their parents fell away from, that in itself does not mean they can't hold the priesthood or go to the temple if they or any of there posterity does join the church. That's the big difference between your example and the priesthood ban.

[_bcspace]

You obviously don't accept the Bible then. Numbers 14:18 for example. But this concept is not hard to understand because we have similar examples in modern times. If a parent or parents falls away from the Church, the children are likely to follow after and thus they suffer the consequences even though they did not make the initial decision.

Why do you keep embarrassing yourself with this, evolution and doctrine threads?

How is it embarrassing to accept the scriptures and evolution?

Even if one's children are less likely to not go to the church their parents fell away from, that in itself does not mean they can't hold the priesthood or go to the temple if they or any of there posterity does join the church.

But it also doesn't mean that the Lord wont apply consequences over generations as the scripture examples teach. Maybe the Lord is simply stating a fact of life and culture and it is the group of people cursed who have actually cursed themselves?

That's the big difference between your example and the priesthood ban.

My example is real and intellectually honest. Your example refuses to consider all verses and doctrine on the subject.