where does it say "the prophet cannot lead us astray"???

[Paularby]

Good comment TFP thank goodness they don't cannonize everything that's said

[Timpman]

It is disheartening to see that some members of the Church may be holding on to racist teachings of the past. Consider again the essay that was approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

 

"Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." [Emphasis added]

 

The disavowed theories were absolutely, categorically racist by any modern definition. I wish members would stop clinging to teachings of dead prophets and follow what is taught today. We do not need a direct revelation from God repudiating past teachings when it has already been made clear.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Timpman

[The Folk Prophet]

It is disheartening to see that some members of the Church may be holding on to racist teachings of the past. Consider again the essay that was approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

 

"Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." [Emphasis added]

 

The disavowed theories were absolutely, categorically racist by any modern definition. I wish members would stop clinging to teachings of dead prophets and follow what is taught today. We do not need a direct revelation from God repudiating past teachings when it has already been made clear.

 

I think you miss the point here. No one is sustaining or holding on to racist teachings. I, for example, fully place the curse of Cain thinking into my mental bin of "who knows - forget about it". To imply I secretly have it in my "I think it might be true and hope it is", or the, "I believe it secretly even though it's been disavowed" bin is false.

 

But, realistically, the point isn't about the theories at all. It's about, as stated, "reading more into the capability, understanding, and revelatory prowess of the early church prophets."

 

It's one thing to take the theories and cast them aside as non-doctrinal. It's another thing entirely to read into that a philosophy concerning the "dead prophets" as being lesser, mistaken, broken, selfish, carnal, hateful, full-of-it, led by malice, lustful, bitter, stupid, or whatever pet theory one may be trying to sustain.

[Vort]

It is disheartening to see that some members of the Church may be holding on to racist teachings of the past. Consider again the essay that was approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

 

"Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." [Emphasis added]

 

The disavowed theories were absolutely, categorically racist by any modern definition. I wish members would stop clinging to teachings of dead prophets and follow what is taught today. We do not need a direct revelation from God repudiating past teachings when it has already been made clear.

 

Baloney. The disavowed teachings were "racist" only if you deem them so. Simply saying that our present state in this life is a result of decisions made premortally is not "racist".

 

I put little credence in the disavowed teachings. They strike me as the reasoning of men searching to find some underpinnings for things they did not understand. But to call those who hold to such reasoning "racist" is mere name-calling.

[Timpman]

"You are black because you were not valiant in the pre-existence. You must have been a fence-sitter."

"Your black skin is a sign that you are cursed by God."

"Being black means you are a descendant of Cain, the first murderer, the son of perdition."

 

If you don't see how statements like those are racist, I cannot have a conversation about this with you. 

 

Please note that I didn't call anyone a racist. I said "some members of the Church may be holding on to racist teachings of the past."

Edited July 21, 2015 by Timpman

[The Folk Prophet]

Just out of curiosity Timpman...by way of side discussion on the matter...what's your stand on the "racist" nature of the Book of Mormon?

Edited July 21, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Timpman]

I am absolutely saying that past prophets were mistaken regarding race issues. I am not, however, saying they were hateful, stupid, or any of those other things. I’m not judging their motives or standing in the afterlife. Brother Brigham and others after him were wrong. I’m just facing that. Any and all past racism has been condemned and I’m on board with the brethren of today. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Any and all past racism has been condemned and I’m on board with the brethren of today. 

 

Can you please then explain your view of the "racism" in the Book of Mormon. Condemned?

Edited July 21, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

 

"You are black because you were not valiant in the pre-existence. You must have been a fence-sitter."

"Your black skin is a sign that you are cursed by God."

"Being black means you are a descendant of Cain, the first murderer, the son of perdition."

 

Suppose, for a moment, that the above statements are actually true. The Church has never denied the possibility that they are true, only that they are not LDS doctrine.

 

Assuming they are true, are they still "racist statements"? Is it possible for truth itself to be "racist"?

 

If so, then the term "racist" has no useful objective meaning.

 

If not, then your statement that various theories are themselves intrinsically "racist" is clearly untrue.

 

If you don't see how statements like those are racist, I cannot have a conversation about this with you. 

 

Can't say I'm surprised by this. "If you don't agree with me, we can't talk (and you are bad)." Rather a common sentiment among many these days, especially among the American political left.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Vort

[Timpman]

Suppose, for a moment, that the above statements are actually true. The Church has never denied the possibility that they are true, only that they are not LDS doctrine.

 

Assuming they are true, are they still "racist statements"? Is it possible for truth itself to be "racist"?

 

Such statements have been disavowed and condemned. I do not believe the brethren are disavowing and condemning the truth. I don't care to entertain the hypothetical question. 

 

Can't say I'm surprised by this. "If you don't agree with me, we can't talk (and you are bad)." Rather a common sentiment among many these days, especially among the American political left.

 

 

Vort, that's not what I meant and I didn't say you are bad. If don't see those statements as racist, then I don't see how we can have a productive conversation. I can't convince you. I don't want to fight. 

Edited July 21, 2015 by Timpman

[Just_A_Guy]

"You are black because you were not valiant in the pre-existence. You must have been a fence-sitter."

"Your black skin is a sign that you are cursed by God."

"Being black means you are a descendant of Cain, the first murderer, the son of perdition."

 

If you don't see how statements like those are racist, I cannot have a conversation about this with you. 

 

Please note that I didn't call anyone a racist. I said "some members of the Church may be holding on to racist teachings of the past."

 

I, for one, can see how the plain text of statements like the above is racist.  My problem, though, is twofold.

 

First, dismissing such statements is generally used as a basis for dismissing some more nuanced corollaries that we do know to be true.  Personalizing the whole "fence-sitter in the pre-existence" thing is certainly hurtful; but we do know as a general principle that certain spiritual privileges come to us, in part, as a result of events that occurred before we were born (Alma 13, Abraham 3).  Accusing specific individuals of being "cursed" merely because of their skin tone is obviously un-Christian--but again, as a general principle, there is precedent for God asking specific groups of people to stay away from each other; and as reminders of these instructions God has apparently at times endowed certain groups with certain physical and inheritable characteristics (2 Ne 5, Moses 5-7).  No one likes to be descended from a murderer--but then again, from a past-sins standpoint, it's not like Caucasian Mormons who claim forbears like Abraham or Jacob or even the tribe of Ephraim don't have some dirty laundry in their own family history.

 

The history, as Vort says, is what it is.  The racism only comes into play when that history is used as a rationale to treat a certain group of people as sub-human, which leads me to my next point:  The priesthood ban.  Either that policy was ordered by God--for a reason--or it was of spurious origin, imposed and perpetuated by erring racists.

 

When the Church says "we don't know why the ban existed", they mean "we don't know why the ban existed".  They do not mean "there is no reason why God might have had that policy as part of His overall plan for the church and, therefore, those who ascribe the ban to racism must win by default".  But, that's the way a lot of progressive Mormons try to spin it.  Thus, I rather suspect that in many cases the attempt to dismiss all theological explanations for the priesthood policy is in effect a thinly disguised effort to ascribe the priesthood ban to error--thus paving the way for arguing that a whole slough of modern Church teachings, policies, and practices are also subject to revision and, in the interim, not worthy of our conformance or deference. 

Edited July 21, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Timpman]

Just out of curiosity Timpman...by way of side discussion on the matter...what's your stand on the "racist" nature of the Book of Mormon?

I have not formed a solid opinion on it. I am leaning toward believing that Nephi just recorded what he saw and was mistaken when he wrote "the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them" (2 Nephi 5:21), and the prophets after Nephi followed suit. I think it's more plausible that the Lamanites mixed with other people and their offspring had darker skin, and it was not something actively caused by God.  Among other verses, I have carefully considered the following:

 

1 Nephi 2:21-24

1 Nephi 12:19-23

1 Nephi 13:14-15

2 Nephi 1:17-20

Alma 3:14-20

2 Nephi 5:20-25

2 Nephi 30:3-6

Jacob 3:3-9

Alma 9:13-14

Alma 17:14-15

3 Nephi 2:14-16

4 Nephi 1:10

Mormon 5:15

 

There is not one instance of God saying he caused their skin to be darkened. It’s possible that it was a false assumption. I could be wrong. Like I said, I don’t have a solid opinion. 

[Vort]

 

Such statements have been disavowed and condemned.

 

Not so. The statements have been disavowed. Racism has been condemned. That the statements are themselves racist is merely your interpretation, not what they said.

 

I don't care to entertain the hypothetical question.

 

Which is another way of saying, "I refuse to discuss the issue. You must agree with my opinion or we can't talk."

 

Vort, that's not what I meant and I didn't say you are bad. If don't see those statements as racist, then I don't see how we can have a productive conversation. I can't convince you. I don't want to fight. 

 

I don't want to fight, either. But nor am I willing to let passive aggressive falsehoods fly by unchallenged. Believing theories, even disavowed theories, does not make one racist. And calling the theories or suppositions themselves "racist" is a dangerous misuse of language bordering on Goodthink.

 

Though I do think it would be better if we did a lot less speculating and were much more careful in our suppositions, especially those we say out loud or tell around. Perhaps we are in agreement on this point.

[The Folk Prophet]

 

I have not formed a solid opinion on it. I am leaning toward believing that Nephi just recorded what he saw and was mistaken when he wrote "the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them" (2 Nephi 5:21), and the prophets after Nephi followed suit. I think it's more plausible that the Lamanites mixed with other people and their offspring had darker skin, and it was not something actively caused by God.  Among other verses, I have carefully considered the following:

 

 

 

1 Nephi 2:21-24

 

1 Nephi 12:19-23

 

1 Nephi 13:14-15

 

2 Nephi 1:17-20

 

Alma 3:14-20

 

2 Nephi 5:20-25

 

2 Nephi 30:3-6

 

Jacob 3:3-9

 

Alma 9:13-14

 

Alma 17:14-15

 

3 Nephi 2:14-16

 

4 Nephi 1:10

 

Mormon 5:15

 

 

 

There is not one instance of God saying he caused their skin to be darkened. It’s possible that it was a false assumption. I could be wrong. Like I said, I don’t have a solid opinion. 

 

 

But this is, clearly, conflating "skin color", with "race", which are not the same thing at all. There is no question whatsoever that the Lamanite race were cursed, and that that curse fell to their descendants. Whether the Lord caused a darkness to come upon their skin or not is only part of the "racist" equation. Racism is not just about skin color. Ask a Jew if if you question this.

 

As to the issue of whether Nephi was mistaken or not -- that seems fairly fully to fly in the face of the most correct of any book on earth idea. Are you really comfortable with writing off scripture as mistaken? Is there any support, beyond your interpretation of the condemnation of all things racist, that the church condemns these things in the Book of Mormon and declares Nephi mistaken? That seems like a pretty broad reach, and quite problematic as to the "keystone of our religion".

 

Realistically, you're saying that when a prophet (scratch that...many prophets -- several who wrote this and one who carefully added it into prophesied scripture for our day) declares "the Lord caused" something that it is unreliable -- in canonized scripture even!

 

In other words, by declaring this, you are declaring the Book of Mormon (or at least portions of it) racist, and thereby condemned.

 

Problem?

Edited July 21, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Timpman]

Vort, please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that "Believing theories, even disavowed theories, [makes] one racist." However, I am saying "the theories or suppositions themselves" are racist. I'll own that. Please note that the following is a single paragraph: 

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

 

It is not a stretch at all to say the second sentence applies to the first, in my opinion. I am troubled when anyone defends the disavowed theories in any way, and to any degree. The brethren certainly don't. 

 

The Folk Prophet, this Book of Mormon discussion is too big to have here. I presented a theory and said it's not my solid opinion. Let's just let it go. 

[The Folk Prophet]

The Folk Prophet, this Book of Mormon discussion is too big to have here.

 

Too big? We're only on page 2 of the thread.

 

I presented a theory and said it's not my solid opinion. Let's just let it go. 

 

If it isn't obvious, the question is to the point. If the church condemns all racism past and present, and these theories are racist, then it follows that the same theories presented in the Book of Mormon are also racist, and thereby condemned. Specifically, one could just as easily alter your points vis-a-vis, "Your Lamanitish skin is a sign that you are cursed by God."

"Being Lamanitish means you are a descendant of the sinners Laman and Lemuel."

 

The point being, you can't have it both ways. Either the church has disavowed parts of the Book of Mormon, or these concepts are not (as Vort points out) actually racist in and of themselves.

 

The ultimate point being that it's a bit overly simplistic to just take a one-liner in a church essay and apply it broadly and unconditionally across the entire spectrum of understanding without any logical nod to the obvious nuances of the matter whatsoever. (Something that is, sadly, common practice in the progressive culture).

[Timpman]

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

 

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

 

It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978). It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles.

https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/library/talks/ces-symposium-addresses/all-are-alike-unto-god_eng.pdf

[Vort]

You realize, I assume, that Elder McConkie was refuting a specific belief that he and others had held and even voiced, and not refuting every single idea that had ever been suggested on the topic:

 

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

 

In fact, as I recall, Elder McConkie and others continued to refer to African blacks as "children of Cain" or some such thing, indicating that they had not modified their opinions on the origins of the "black race", but only on their approval to hold the Priesthood of Jesus Christ.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Vort

[The Folk Prophet]

 

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

 

 

 

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

 

 

 

It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978). It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles.

 

https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/library/talks/ces-symposium-addresses/all-are-alike-unto-god_eng.pdf

 

 

I'm not sure how this is meant to be applied to the discussion at hand.

Edited July 21, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

You realize, I assume, that Elder McConkie was refuting a specific belief that he and others had held and even voiced, and not every single idea that had ever been voiced on the topic:

 

And further, from that same talk:

 

 

The gospel goes to various peoples and nations on a priority basis. . . .

 

Not only is the gospel to go, on a priority basis and harmonious to a divine timetable, to one nation after another, but the whole history of God’s dealings with men on earth indicates that such has been the case in the past; it has been restricted and limited where many people are concerned. . . .

 

There have been these problems, and the Lord has permitted them to arise. There isn’t any question about that. We do not envision the whole reason and purpose behind all of it; we can only suppose and reason that it is on the basis of our premortal devotion and faith.

[Timpman]

My initial comment here was:

It is disheartening to see that some members of the Church may be holding on to racist teachings of the past. Consider again the essay that was approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

 

"Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." [Emphasis added]

 

The disavowed theories were absolutely, categorically racist by any modern definition. I wish members would stop clinging to teachings of dead prophets and follow what is taught today. We do not need a direct revelation from God repudiating past teachings when it has already been made clear.

 

I presented these statements as examples of racist theories:

"You are black because you were not valiant in the pre-existence. You must have been a fence-sitter."

"Your black skin is a sign that you are cursed by God."

"Being black means you are a descendant of Cain, the first murderer, the son of perdition."

 

Here are some definitions of racism:

: the belief that some races of people are better than others

: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

: racial prejudice or discrimination

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

 

: Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racism

 

 : prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against people of other racial or ethnic groups

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/157097?redirectedFrom=racism#eid

 

I don't know what to say to anyone who believes the statements I presented are not racist except this: I respectfully but strongly assert that such a belief has no merit. 

 

So, why are any of you defending the disavowed theories or holding on to any possibility that they may have been, or still are, true? Does anyone really think it may have been true that black people were not not valiant in the pre-existence? If so, did that somehow change in 1978? 

 

I am saying "It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978). It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

 

If Elder McConkie or anyone else referred to the "children of Cain" in or after 1978, then forget that, too. If anyone insists on perpetuating the "children of Cain" theory, or any other of the disavowed theories, then "all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet."

Edited July 22, 2015 by Timpman

[Just_A_Guy]

Here are some definitions of racism:

 

I don't know what to say to anyone who believes the statements I presented are not racist except this: I respectfully but strongly assert that such a belief has no merit.

 

I'm not sure whether your post was directed in part at my earlier post or not.  For the sake of discussion, I'll assume that it was.  :)

 

First off:  Bear in mind that you've offered a very sweeping definition of "racist".  Any "discrimination" (i.e. "distinction") between race or ethnicity is, by this measure, racist.  That includes the priesthood ban itself.  It includes the prophecies--even the good ones--about the future of the Lamanites, and of the Jews, and of Israel.  It includes our practice of sorting Church members--by means of a patriarchal blessing--into disparate "houses" of Israel, each with (as we see it) its own unique blessings and obligations.

 

"Racism" is such a loaded term that, generally speaking, I don't care three straws for whether a prior or current Church practice or teaching is deemed "racist".  All I care about is whether the practice was in fact divinely instituted, or whether the teaching was/is, in fact, true.

 

 

So, why are any of you defending the disavowed theories or holding on to any possibility that they may have been, or still are, true?

 

Speaking for myself:  I do not defend the first two theories as you have stated them.  I think the theories you cite may invoke (horribly bastardized) principles that can have general application (and which, again, I outlined in my earlier post); but I would certainly never apply them universally against each and every black individual who ever lived (nor, to my knowledge, did any Church leader).

 

But that which I do defend, I defend because it has not been expunged from LDS teaching.  It has not been disavowed.  You have not made--and I submit, can not make--any doctrinal case against those concepts with any semblance of orthodoxy, except for repeating the "R" word.  If you want me to walk away from a hundred eighty five years of theological development, you're going to need to produce something a little stronger than a generic "racism is bad" statement--especially if you're going to insist on using such a broad definition of "racism".

 

 

Does anyone really think it may have been true that black people were not not valiant in the pre-existence? If so, did that somehow change in 1978?

 

I don't know.  I prefer not to limit my perception of God by twenty-first century political mores.

 

But, I think you pose an interesting question and I'd like to turn it back on you for a moment.  What do you think changed in 1978 that led God to finally authorize the ordination of black men to the priesthood, after having denied authorization for such ordinations for over a century?

 

 

I am saying "It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978). It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

 

What did the 1978 revelation say that affirmatively disproves the earlier theories?  Please, be specific.

 

 

If Elder McConkie or anyone else referred to the "children of Cain" in or after 1978, then forget that, too. If anyone insists on perpetuating the "children of Cain" theory, or any other of the disavowed theories, then "all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet."

 

Which living, modern prophet?  Again--please be specific.

[The Folk Prophet]

Timpman, I cannot quite understand what your objective here is. Mine is plain. I defend the church, the gospel, the prophets, etc. I find it dangerous ground to accuse prophets based on things not said. I find it worrisome to interpret disavowed theories as, point-blank, 'the prophets were wrong'. I accept the literal facts of what the church has stated, but beyond that I look carefully to understand it within the scope of what I believe to be true -- the prophets are led by God and their words (particularly official) are His. With this understanding, I seek to reconcile current teachings with past ones rather than pitting them against each other. This is my plain objective, and something that should be quite understandable for any believing Latter-day Saint.

 

What, however, is your objective? What are you defending. You are dismissive of the fact that I and others have clearly and plainly stated that we accept the disavowals expressed by the church. Why are you determined that we do more than accept, as the church has declared, that they are non-doctrinal? What is it, exactly, that you're trying to defend?

 

I cannot understand what's to be gained from such a firm declaration that the past prophets were wrong, wrong, WRONG!! *fist shake*

 

Or, in other words, how are the points we're trying to make harmful?

Edited July 22, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Timpman]

Just_A_Guy, sorting people into houses is not the same as dividing by race. Regarding Lamanites and Nephites, anyone could leave one group and join the other at any time so that situation was not race-based.

 

If Elder McConkie or anyone else referred to the "children of Cain" in or after 1978, then forget that, too. If anyone insists on perpetuating the "children of Cain" theory, or any other of the disavowed theories, then "all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet."

 

Which living, modern prophet?  Again--please be specific. 

In applying Elder McConkie’s quote to this conversation, “a living, modern prophet” refers to Thomas S. Monson, Henry B. Eyring, Dieter F. Uchtford, and all the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I say that because they approve of the Race and the Priesthood article.

 

I will address your other remarks later.

[Timpman]

The Folk Prophet, and everyone, my objective here is to urge others to disavow past teachings and move forward with the Church. Past teachings regarding black people have been immeasurably harmful to the Church.

 

The Folk Prophet: You are dismissive of the fact that I and others have clearly and plainly stated that we accept the disavowals expressed by the church. Why are you determined that we do more than accept, as the church has declared, that they are non-doctrinal?

 

Disavowing something is more than saying “we don't know so don't teach, preach, or otherwise expound on these things.” Consider these definitions:

 

:  to deny responsibility for :  repudiate

:  to refuse to acknowledge or accept :  disclaim

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disavow

 

: Deny any responsibility or support for

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/disavow

 

 : to say that you know nothing about something, or that you have no responsibility for or connection with something

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/disavow

 

The church is denying any support for the theories. It refuses to accept them. We want no connection to them. Those theories have been repudiated. To say, “They are non-doctrinal now but they still might be true” is not disavowing them.

 

Just_A_Guy: Speaking for myself:  I do not defend the first two theories as you have stated them…

 

But that which I do defend, I defend because it has not been expunged from LDS teaching.  It has not been disavowed.  You have not made--and I submit, can not make--any doctrinal case against those concepts with any semblance of orthodoxy, except for repeating the "R" word.  If you want me to walk away from a hundred eighty five years of theological development, you're going to need to produce something a little stronger than a generic "racism is bad" statement… 

 

I am sorry if you feel it’s important to defend the notion that black people descended from Cain. Telling anyone they are a descendant of Master Mahan is not productive and we don't even know if there's any merit to it. I am sorry if you are planting your flag on that hill. 

 

My point is not to declare “the past prophets were wrong, wrong, WRONG!!” (The Folk Prophet) and I am not shaking my fists. My point is that all members should completely disavow “the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else.”

 

Though it is not my point, past prophets were actually wrong in this case. Prophets are not infallible and that does mean they can sometimes teach false things from the pulpit even when speaking in the capacity of President of the Church. Unfortunately, it is sometimes not possible to “reconcile current teachings with past ones” (The Folk Prophet).

 

For example, as discussed earlier in this thread, Brigham Young taught the Adam-God theory from the pulpit when speaking as the prophet and those teachings have been explicitly repudiated. I do not rejoice in this and I am not “paving the way for arguing that a whole slough of modern Church teachings, policies, and practices are also subject to revision and, in the interim, not worthy of our conformance or deference” (Just_A_Guy). There actually is something to be gained by respectfully acknowledging a past prophet was mistaken if it means we can move forward with more light and knowledge and grow the church.

 

Continuing to defend any disavowed theory regarding black people to any degree will continue to harm people and the Church. 

Edited July 22, 2015 by Timpman