MADness - banned - folk versus orthodox Mormon

[_Ray A]

Was it the 1978 revelation? What was it?

Who knows, but one thing seems certain, what is doctrine today, might be "folk doctrine" tomorrow.

[_beastie]

Note the distinction between core doctrines and other doctrines. It seems to me some of these "other doctrines" are the kind that might be called "folk doctrine" by some, while other "folk doctrine" is of the passee and embarrassing kind, like those based on racist statements and policies of the past.

So this would seem to support the idea that GAs would be tolerant of "folk Mormons", and disapprove of divisive language expressed by certain internet defenders of the faith towards their fellow LDS who believe these things.

[_Nimrod]

A question I wanted to ask on MAD, but for some reason I can't log in*; why do they call the doctrine that blacks were less valiant in pre-existence a "folk doctrine" when it was an official statement by the First Presidency in 1949, who called it a doctrine?

Yes. How did it go from being doctrine to not being doctrine? I am glad it is not, but what exactly was the mechanism? Was it the 1978 revelation? What was it?

Whatever denigration is intended by those putting the term 'folk' before 'doctrine', the black race issue cannot in good conscience be relegated by any caring, thinking human being to the category of lesser LDS Church doctrine. This was a full-blown doctrine that was implemented. Blacks were excluded from the priesthood and temple endowments. Many died before they could receive what they honestly believed was necessary to their eternal salvation. Shoehorning Cumorah into Guatemala is one thing--but to trying to sweep under the rug the very wrong, mean spirited doctrine and practice against believing black LDS members is of the same ilk (though perhaps not affecting as many people) as modern day denials of the Holocaust.

[_Droopy]

A question I wanted to ask on MAD, but for some reason I can't log in*; why do they call the doctrine that blacks were less valiant in pre-existence a "folk doctrine" when it was an official statement by the First Presidency in 1949, who called it a doctrine?

Oh, our mendacious little stinkpot is at it again.

Here's what the statement actually says:

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

Notice that the term "valiant" doesn't even appear in the text, only the doctrinally settled teaching that our unique circumstances in the premortal world affect our circumstances here.

Ray claimed that that blacks being less valiant in the premortal world was doctrine.

One may also take note of numerous caveats and clarifying statements that articulate the larger context of the issue (all of us come to earth with some kind of handicap or limitation, some being quite severe, and which can be manifest in countless ways).

Interesting how far and deep one can sink into mendacity while driven on and on by the fiery whips of one's own agenda.

[_Ray A]

One may also take note of numerous caveats and clarifying statements that articulate the larger context of the issue (all of us come to earth with some kind of handicap or limitation, some being quite severe, and which can be manifest in countless ways).

Thank you for establishing my point about Mormon doctrine.

[_Droopy]

One may also take note of numerous caveats and clarifying statements that articulate the larger context of the issue (all of us come to earth with some kind of handicap or limitation, some being quite severe, and which can be manifest in countless ways).

Thank you for establishing my point about Mormon doctrine.

Thanks for sniveling and slinking your way out of another one of your intellectual and moral debacles.

[_Ray A]

Thanks for sniveling and slinking your way out of another one of your intellectual and moral debacles.

And thank you for justifying my opinion of Mormons.

Or am I being unfair to real Mormons?

Nope. Droops is a Mormon, so that's what Mormonism must really be all about, and I have it from Droop's example.

[_Ray A]

You know what the real shame is, Droop? That you still haven't been banned from the MAD board. That they will own such cretans like you is just a testament to their own moral bankruptcy.

[_Droopy]

You know what the real shame is, Droop? That you still haven't been banned from the MAD board. That they will own such cretans like you is just a testament to their own moral bankruptcy.

Why would I have ever been banned from there?

[_Ray A]

Why would I have ever been banned from there?

I don't seriously believe so. Honour among thieves.