LDS- Dark skin is a curse? (salvation, hell, doctrine, church)

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by sojourner

Maybe not exactly, but the same lessons will be read everywhere (with a few exceptions.) All lectionaries agree on a three-year cycle.

That's interesting. I didn't know that.

[Comprehend]

Originally Posted by Victor

I gotcha. I see now where all the confusion comes in. If you scroll back a couple pages you’ll notice Scott was looking to see if this was official doctrine (post# 12 he used “definitive manner”). In post# 18 Jonny says, I believe that there were racist beliefs in the past. They are no longer taught (or really believed by most members) today.

Jonny may not have caught that Scott was looking for official teaching but one of your other LDS members did (comprehend). So he fought tooth in nail (rightly so) to tell everyone it was never doctrine. The confusion came about with the word “doctrine” and “taught”. The LDS Church can teach something, but that doesn’t mean its official correct? I mean, it is one thing for members to believe X and quite another to have the clergy (such as Brigham Young) teach it and believe it.

But it doesn’t really matter to me if the clergy taught it as well. If it didn’t make it official, it doesn’t matter if BY taught that the moon was made of cheese. If it didn’t make it officially, it’s for good reason in my book. But if it did make it in the D&C in the time of BY, then that can be problematic in my book.

Peace be with you,
~Victor

Victor - if I could climb through my computer and kiss you right now I would (ok, maybe no kissing ). Thank heaven that somebody besides me finally saw that and pointed it out. thank you thank you thank you.

FRUBALS

[SoyLeche]

Originally Posted by Victor

I gotcha. I see now where all the confusion comes in. If you scroll back a couple pages you’ll notice Scott was looking to see if this was official doctrine (post# 12 he used “definitive manner”). In post# 18 Jonny says, I believe that there were racist beliefs in the past. They are no longer taught (or really believed by most members) today.

Jonny may not have caught that Scott was looking for official teaching but one of your other LDS members did (comprehend). So he fought tooth in nail (rightly so) to tell everyone it was never doctrine. The confusion came about with the word “doctrine” and “taught”. The LDS Church can teach something, but that doesn’t mean its official correct? I mean, it is one thing for members to believe X and quite another to have the clergy (such as Brigham Young) teach it and believe it.

But it doesn’t really matter to me if the clergy taught it as well. If it didn’t make it official, it doesn’t matter if BY taught that the moon was made of cheese. If it didn’t make it officially, it’s for good reason in my book. But if it did make it in the D&C in the time of BY, then that can be problematic in my book.

Peace be with you,
~Victor

Seems to me that they were arguing the same thing. This idea was in fact taught in the church - by the leaders of the church even. As you note, though, that doens't make it doctrine. Comprehend came in and said that (essentially) if something is taught, then by definition it is doctrine. Most of us here do not accept that definition.

Nobody here claimed that it was doctrine. We aren't going to hide by saying that it wasn't taught though.

[Comprehend]

Originally Posted by SoyLeche

Seems to me that they were arguing the same thing. This idea was in fact taught in the church - by the leaders of the church even. As you note, though, that doens't make it doctrine. Comprehend came in and said that (essentially) if something is taught, then by definition it is doctrine. Most of us here do not accept that definition.

Nobody here claimed that it was doctrine. We aren't going to hide by saying that it wasn't taught though.

Soy, I think you have misunderstood my argument (don't worry, so did everyone else). I said "the lds church never taught racism" meaning it was never taught BY the church (official teaching = doctrine), not that it was never taught IN the church, nobody could be responsible for every thing ever uttered by somebody speaking in front of a pulpit or in a classroom. My problem was that Jonny (and the rest of you apparently) was equating the fact that SOMEBODY taught it (which I never disagreed with) as meaning that OUR CHURCH taught it (which would be church DOCTRINE by definition), which is just plain wrong. Again, see the definition of doctrine I provided and you will see that it does not mean *anything* that happens to be taught IN a church but what is taught BY the church which was how I was using the word.

To illustrate this, look at my original post #25. you will see that point 3 says "3. The LDS church has never taught racism, this is ridiculous and I would challenge Johnny (or whoever said that) to show me where that was ever our doctrine." THAT statement was the basis for the entire argument. Now looking back over what transpired, I think it is obvious that Jonny misunderstood what was at issue.

In the quote above you will see that I clearly stated two things, first, that THE LDS CHURCH has never taught racism, and secondly I challenged jonny to show me "where that was ever our doctrine." This makes the clear use of the term *taught* to not include just anything taught IN the church which would have to include zillions of hair-brained ideas that I have heard from people throughout the years, but rather what is taught BY the church.

By the way, we all DO agree on what the definition of what church doctrine is. The reason you do not think you do is again because you guys think I am equating things taught BY the church and IN the church, but there is a clear distinction between the two. If you refer back to the definition I provided in post #49 you will see that the plain meaning is for things officially taught by a religion and that was the meaning I was operating under.

To sumarize, I do not see how we disagree on what constitutes church doctrine and I think if you will go back over my argument (thank goodness there is a record), you will see as victor quite aptly noticed, that I was properly addressing Scotts question and others misunderstood and then further misunderstood what my argument was leading to the problem.

edited: for clarity

[Victor]

*waves hands* Listen, if you guys can agree that it was never official and therefore not doctrine (which you all seem to) then I'm pretty much done with this thread.

If I hear someone saying "the LDS Church used to teach racism" I'd be sure to clarify what teach means as explained to me here in this thread. Just wanted to let you guys know that I get it. That can't be a bad thing.

[SoyLeche]

I know - this isn't necessary - but you and Jonny started out, apparently, talking past each other, and IMO Jonny was more clear in what he was saying:

Originally Posted by Jonny

Before you start cutting down the other LDS members who post on the forum, you might try to understand what is being said. Any Mormon who says that racist teachings were never a part of the church is a liar. Obviously they were never doctrine.

Originally Posted by Comprehend

Jonny, besides calling me a liar, you just said that racism was taught, but not doctrine. Maybe you should go look up the word DOCTRINE in the dictionary and save yourself from further embarrassment. (thanks for the help though)

oh, I'll do it for you...

doc·trine
–noun 1.a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine. 2.something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine. 3.a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

[Comprehend]

Originally Posted by SoyLeche

Nobody here claimed that it was doctrine. We aren't going to hide by saying that it wasn't taught though.

actually, that was the problem. Scott OP was asking if it was our doctrine and then you had this exchange:

Jonny – I wouldn’t say that the LDS church teaches this now. #7

Scott1 - …but it has at one time in the past? #9

Jonny – I believe that there were racist beliefs in the past. They are no longer taught (or really believed by most members) today. #18

Scott – Wow…bless you jonny…love an honest answer! #19

Beckysoup61 – None of us ever said we weren't ever racist. We'll all admit we've had racists-sounding and racist doctrine in a manner-of-speaking, but that shouldn't matter now. #20

Jonny – (referencing becky’s post) The vast majority of the members of the church today were not members of the church when these beliefs were common. #22

It is quite obvious that Scott was asking about our official teachings (or doctrine) and Jonny and Becky were saying yes. Then Becky removes any doubt that is what was being discussed with post #20 and then Jonny does not deny it or correct it but apologizes and tries to distance himself from it. After that nonsense was when I stepped in and made it very clear that it was definitely NOT part of our doctrine because two people had just made it appear that it was our doctrine (whether they intended to or not).

[Comprehend]

Originally Posted by SoyLeche

I know - this isn't necessary - but you and Jonny started out, apparently, talking past each other, and IMO Jonny was more clear in what he was saying:



[/i]

But you are not taking the definition in the context of the OP by Scott which is what we were all talking about. Also see Jonny's previous posts where he is equating taught with doctrine to scott. That was how scott was using the word taught as well. He was asking if it was doctrine. or am I mistaken...