Official LDS doctrine: Priesthood Ban Divinely Appointed

[_consiglieri]

What corner? It's the Church's doctrine, not mine.

But you are its most ardent defender.

The fasting hermit and very saint of Mormon Doctrine.

[_bcspace]

What corner? It's the Church's doctrine, not mine.

But you are its most ardent defender.

I might be one of the few brave enough to mention it. But since the doctrine isn't racist, what is there to fear?

Isn't that the point of apologetics? To defend the doctrine? Can one who denies the doctrine be considered an apologist? So who are the real apologists in this case?

[_MsJack]

I don't get it. What is the difference between this:

From the dispensation of Adam until the dispensation of the fulness of times, there has been a group of people who have not been allowed to hold the priesthood of God. The scriptural basis for this policy is Abraham 1:21–27 .

And this?

In his office, religion professor Randy Bott explains a possible theological underpinning of the ban. According to Mormon scriptures, the descendants of Cain, who killed his brother, Abel, “were black.” One of Cain’s descendants was Egyptus, a woman Mormons believe was the namesake of Egypt. She married Ham, whose descendants were themselves cursed and, in the view of many Mormons, barred from the priesthood by his father, Noah. Bott points to the Mormon holy text the Book of Abraham as suggesting that all of the descendants of Ham and Egyptus were thus black and barred from the priesthood.

[_bcspace]

I don't get it. What is the difference between this:

And this?

One gives details that may be speculative and the other does not. The real problem though is some on the MDD have erroneously interpreted the Church's statements as a blanket rejection of the doctrine of the first quote. Nothing could be further from the truth as those statements did not specify what is and is not speculation. The Church would have removed these and other quotes long ago if that were the case.

[_malkie]

Mormonism is a corporate cult. It defines itself as a "church" in order to receive tax exemption under US 501(c)(3). It uses human beings to generate income in the form of tithing.

The cult needs to print a huge "Terms Of Service" on their membership records with things like "we reserve the right to update or modify these Terms of Use at any time, without prior notice", and "What was, is not, and what is, was not".

Why do you guys even bother with bcspace? The guy is nothing but a parrot - a broken record. He never offers anything of substance. If anything he is just consistent in his meaninglessness.

It's time to put him on your ignore filter and stop wasting time with him.

I disagree.

I often find it useful to read what bcspace says: his consistency is a virtue, in that we can always use it as a benchmark.

Often (not always - which worries me a bit) I disagree with what he says. But my only problem with bcspace, recently, is that he has ignored my questions on a number of occasions. However, I know that, as one of the few defenders here, he is kept quite busy with more substantive posters than myself.

[_MsJack]

One gives details that may be speculative and the other does not.

Which parts of the statement that I cited from Bott were speculative?

[Guest]

Which parts of the statement that I cited from Bott were speculative?

As far as I can tell:

"One of Cain’s descendants was Egyptus," (used in the context of "Mormon scriptures") but probably true given the doctrinal fact of a global Flood (I personally don't accept a global Flood). However, there is also the problem of why Ham? Because he married a Canaanite or because he, like Cain, was also disobedient?

"According to Mormon scriptures, the descendants of Cain, who killed his brother, Abel, “were black.” " (Edit: actually, this is true, Moses 7:22)

"Bott points to the Mormon holy text the Book of Abraham as suggesting that all of the descendants of Ham and Egyptus were thus black."

[_bcspace]

It's time to put him on your ignore filter and stop wasting time with him.

I'll be willing to bet you never have and never will, actually and permanently, put me on ignore.

However, I know that, as one of the few defenders here, he is kept quite busy with more substantive posters than myself.

Could be it (to give you the benefit of the doubt). Also, sometimes, once I've said my piece, I rest my case. Sometimes it's devolved into a yes-it-is no-it-isn't back and forth. Sometimes the one debating with me has nothing but invective so it's not worth my time. Sometimes, as you say, there is just too much. I'm on many boards and I also have work and family.

Right now, I've simply been waiting for things to start while my family gathers (first grandchild). In between my last two posts and the one previous, I went and videoed one of my daughters for a test interview for what they used to call Junior Miss.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Right now, I've simply been waiting for things to start while my family gathers (first grandchild). In between my last two posts and the one previous, I went and videoed one of my daughters for a test interview for what they used to call Junior Miss.

Great, congrats. Here's to you spending more quality family time than internet time in the future.

1) Are there any errors in "Mormon doctrine" as you understand it, any factual errors? If so, what?

2) Do you disbelieve any particular doctrine which you believe to be part of official Mormon doctrine? If so, which?

3) Are there any openly contradictory teachings within Mormon doctrine as you have defined it? Can you identify any?

4) Does Mormon doctrine as you understand it ever change even to the point of overturning prior doctrinal components?


Thanks.

[_sock puppet]

Right now, I've simply been waiting for things to start while my family gathers (first grandchild). In between my last two posts and the one previous, I went and videoed one of my daughters for a test interview for what they used to call Junior Miss.

Great, congrats. Here's to you spending more quality family time than internet time in the future.

1) Are there any errors in "Mormon doctrine" as you understand it, any factual errors? If so, what?

2) Do you disbelieve any particular doctrine which you believe to be part of official Mormon doctrine? If so, which?

3) Are there any openly contradictory teachings within Mormon doctrine as you have defined it? Can you identify any?

4) Does Mormon doctrine as you understand it ever change even to the point of overturning prior doctrinal components?


Thanks.

Looking to lose your TR, are you, LoaP?