bcspace wrote: Sure they do. But as you well know, according to the Bible example, the choices of an ancestor can result in consequences for generations to come. Numbers 14:18 for example or Jacob and Esau.
But modern revelation invalidates that idea:
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Sure they do. But as you well know, according to the Bible example, the choices of an ancestor can result in consequences for generations to come. Numbers 14:18 for example or Jacob and Esau.
But modern revelation invalidates that idea:
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
How so? The former is temporal consequences for actions, the later is punishment in the afterlife.
bcspace wrote:Do you not sometimes on your own call it "the curse of Cain" doctrine? If so, you have answered your own question unless you don't really believe the scriptures say Cain offered an incorrect sacrifice because of Satan's influence and then killed Abel. That was all a choice.
According to you, it was based on a choice Cain made.
According to you as well and by your own logic I'll be willing to bet. I suggest you take another approach if any exist.
No one else got to make a choice.
Sure they do. But as you well know, according to the Bible example, the choices of an ancestor can result in consequences for generations to come. Numbers 14:18 for example or Jacob and Esau.
BCSpace. You didn't answer the question. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, so I'll restate and amplify.
1) Where in Church doctrine does it state that the priesthood ban was based on choices that black people (themselves) made?
2) Where in Church doctrine does it state that the priesthood ban was the result of the so-called 'Curse of Cain'?
race:a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
racism:a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
Next, we'll delve into where the rubber meets the road. It seems that 6,000 years ago or so, the human race began with a single breeding pair in Missouri. One of their inbred sons murdered his inbred brother, because the god-man who lives on a planet near Kolob (whose light is reflected to all the other stars in the universe, because stars are basically like mirrors) wanted everyone to sacrifice animals to him instead of plants. This idea of murder came from the scary invisible man who wants us to masturbate and criticize our church leaders and vote for Democrats. The scary invisible man came to the plant-sacrificing son and made a secret pact with him to kill his brother. This angered the god-man, so he turned the murderous brother into the first Negro. The Negro's lineage persisted through one of the 8 people who were on a big boat along with all the surviving animals, as the entire planet was turned into an ocean. This explains the origins of black people (of African descent, even though not all black people in Africa are of the same ethnicity). And because of this history, men of black African heritage were denied the privilege to rub magic cooking oil on the heads of sick people and learn secret Masonic handshakes that are necessary for people to become gods. This changed in 1978, when a church president who believed that American Indians turn white when they convert to Mormonism had a warm, fuzzy feeling that maybe black people are okay, too.
You know, I can totally see your point about the need for a rigorous, intellectually serious discussion about all of this.
Hilarious!
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
BCSpace. You didn't answer the question. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, so I'll restate and amplify.
I never claimed #1 and for #2, you can start with Abraham 1 and go on to a variety of places such as Ensign Apr 1980 "The Coming Tests and Trials and Glory", to the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith Chapter 8.
bcspace wrote: I never claimed #1 and for #2, you can start with Abraham 1 and go on to a variety of places such as Ensign Apr 1980 "The Coming Tests and Trials and Glory", to the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith Chapter 8.
You’re wrong. Neither of these says that blacks couldn’t have the priesthood because of the ‘Curse of Cain.’ The closest references I could find (in the above) are the following:
McConkie, in The Coming Tests and Trials and Glory, implies that 'the seed of Cain were denied a 'priestly power.' He doesn't say they should have been denied it or that they were black Africans.
"We see the seed of Cain—long denied that priestly power which makes men rulers over many kingdoms—rise up and bless Abraham as their father."
“This, then, is the nature of the Priesthood; every man holding the Presidency of his dispensation, and one man holding the Presidency of them all, even Adam; and Adam receiving his Presidency and authority from the Lord, but cannot receive a fullness until Christ shall present the Kingdom to the Father, which shall be at the end of the last dispensation.
“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.”
Neither says blacks are the descendants of Cain. Neither says that the descendants of Cain should be denied the priesthood.
You’re wrong. Neither of these says that blacks couldn’t have the priesthood because of the ‘Curse of Cain.
Sure they do and you quoted them yourself.
McConkie, in The Coming Tests and Trials and Glory, implies that 'the seed of Cain were denied a 'priestly power.' He doesn't say they should have been denied it or that they were black Africans.
Should wasn't the question. The seed of Cain were denied as you have just admitted. Your question has been answered. I know you are trying to twist this into what the descendents do to deserve the ban, but that has NEVER been the question because it doesn't apply.
Here is what the LDS Apologist Obiwan/ldsfaqs wrote in another Thread here:
For one black skin wasn't the "curse"..... Being denied the Priesthood was the curse. Black skin was a "mark", not a sure sign..... Other things like lineage determined if you were under the curse or not.
Even white men were denied the Priesthood..... Those DAMN RACIST Mormons!!!
This is similar to what the LDS Apologist Jeff Lindsay wrote in one of his Web Site Pages. Here is what the LDS Apologist Jeff Lindsay wrote in his Web Site Page dealing with the issue of race:
Interestingly, the exclusion policy applied to ancestry, not to skin color. There were completely white-skinned Americans who had been serving in the priesthood who later found out that they were of partial African descent. These white Americans then had to step down from their priesthood offices. Likewise, natives of the Fiji Islands, who have a beautiful, deep black skin, are apparently not of African descent and were able to hold the priesthood prior to 1978. And Asians, native Americans, Indians, and many other peoples of color have always had access to the priesthood.