Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?

[_Infymus]

Making my lunch today at work I respectfully asked a co-worker who is very active what he knew about the curse of Cain. He spelled it out exactly the PE, the POS - the works, exactly the same way I was taught as a member. I asked him if he had seen the statement made by the LDS newsroom where the doctrine is denied. He hadn't but said he'd look.

Looks like he is going to need to be re-educated, forget the prior doctrines and begin stating "We don't know."

I'll leave that up to him.

[_bcspace]

. . . it's published by the Church which is the standard for doctrine.

That's just your personal opinion, its not official church doctrine.

Incorrect:

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

I asked him if he had seen the statement made by the LDS newsroom where the doctrine is denied.

I've seen the Newsroom statements. Nothing was specific was denied. I'll bet you can't quote anything in particular that was denied.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Angels dancing on the head of a pin.

Cursed with a black skin.

Cursed and then given a black skin.

Black skin is a curse.

The cursed just happen to have black skins.

The above concepts are rather meaningless in terms of distinction.

The reality here is that the Lord didn't want the two communities intermarrying and gave one a dark skin. That doesn't necessarily mean the dark skin means that one was cursed. But it is easy to read the text that way. We see similar commandments against intermarrying in Ezra, where the Jews committed to give up their foreign wives as a precondition to returning to fellowship with the Lord.

[_lulu]

bcspace posted:

"With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications."

That's just the personal opinion of the anonymous author of the press release. It's not official church doctrine.

[_Droopy]

bc has clearly and succinctly (as possible, I think) yet again elucidated the fundamental doctrine, clearly articulated from within the Book of Mormon, regarding the "curse" and its symbolism as originally imposed by the Lord (according to LDS doctrine) on certain peoples.

None of this is in any way different from the long, extended arguments I've made here and at the MDD board on the same subject. None of this is in any sense all that difficult to process intellectually if one is willing to approach the subject with an open mind and if one is equally willing to set aside, if only for a moment, their contemporary politically correct notions of the overwhelming centrality of race to any discussion of human differences, morphological or otherwise, and the ideological saturation of our culture with the catch-all circumvention of serious discussion of human differences known as racism, or "the race card."

As I've argued until blue in the literal face, dark skin was:

1. Not the curse itself.

2. Not the cause or reason for the curse.

3. A symbol or marker of the curse signifying cultural separation among the original peoples involved.

4. A symbol or marker having no relation to innate, underlying characteristics or attributes, but only to specific restrictions imposed by the Lord due to an original cultural disaffiliation from the gospel and gospel principles.

In the case of the Lamanites, this could be remedied at any time (and was, on occasion) by repentance, or by the use of free agency to remove the curse as it was passed on intergenerationally through enculturation in Lamanite society. In the case of black people, the curse was prolonged according to some timetable known only to the Lord, and for which I have no explanation and feel no need to extend one beyond what the Church has already said. When the "long promised day" arrived, it was removed.

The modern all consuming, all encompassing vortex of race - and this was my point in the "racialism" thread I started at the MDD that got me banned there - always ends by consuming its own children. It makes civil, rational discussion of issues involving differences among ethnic groups, either in a religious or political context, impossible, and poisons wells to such an extent that no good faith is present even at the outset of any debate in which disparities between ethnic groups is part of the discourse.

This makes it virtually impossible for bc, myself, Le Sellers, or anyone else here or at MDD to adduce the argument that the ban itself was not "racist" but based upon a curse grounded in a specific lineage to which dark skin - not race - was correlated and may have, in its original form, been, as with the Lamanites, a symbolic reference signifying cultural distance, not racial inferiority. It becomes impossible because the modern, post-sixties assumptive prejudice against any discussion of differences among ethnic groups not being racially motivated poisons any possible intelligent or productive debate.

The "race card" is precisely a moral Trump, used to shut down careful, critical discussion and introduce the quick and easy politically correct moral excoriation. It usually works is magic, and, unfortunately, is not likely to run its course any time soon.

[_Droopy]

bcspace posted:

"With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications."

That's just the personal opinion of the anonymous author of the press release. It's not official church doctrine.

If you really find it this difficult to be intellectually serious, why bother at all?

[_lulu]

bcspace posted:

"With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications."

That's just the personal opinion of the anonymous author of the press release. It's not official church doctrine.

If you really find it this difficult to be intellectually serious, why bother at all?

Wherein do you find a lack of intellectual seriousness?

[_bcspace]

That's just the personal opinion of the anonymous author of the press release. It's not official church doctrine.

It's the Church's official website. Doesn't matter who wrote it (you don't even know who formulated it, you're just guessing), the Church approves it. The Church even writes the word "Official" above it. It's been around since 2007 (similar statements have been around even longer). If it were incorrect, the Church would've modified or deleted it by now. You won't be able to communicate with most active Mormons unless you accept it because they have for many decades now.

[_Jason Bourne]

Droopy
I actually find no fault with your argument about the ban in its origination and application to the first generation it applied to.

But what can you say about it after it has been thousands of years from those originally cursed? Those born into the black African race were denied the priesthood period. And it was simply because of their blood line and in modern time not through any choice of their own. This seems to me to move it into the realm of race. It would be the same if say it were Danish people who were initially cursed but generations down the line are still denied the priesthood based on the acts of their long dead ancestors. That would seem a race issue as well.

So why is the ban not a race issue in modern times?

[_Buffalo]

That's just the personal opinion of the anonymous author of the press release. It's not official church doctrine.

It's the Church's official website. Doesn't matter who wrote it (you don't even know who formulated it, you're just guessing), the Church approves it. The Church even writes the word "Official" above it. It's been around since 2007 (similar statements have been around even longer). If it were incorrect, the Church would've modified or deleted it by now. You won't be able to communicate with most active Mormons unless you accept it because they have for many decades now.

The church's official websites simultaneously teach that faithful Mormons will get their own world and we don't teach that faithful Mormons will get their own world.

"Official" doesn't seem to be very reliable.