Anti- Catholicism

[jkwilliams]

I'd rep this post if I knew how, I hope one day I can hear about your journey because I feel like my education was one long meandering path to the Church. From Plato I learned that God didn't create ex nihilo, but reorganized matter, from Aristotle I learned that gender is eternal, from Christ of the New Testament I learned about the Kingdom of God, from Marcus Aurelius I learned about spiritual discipline through the intellect, from Augustine I learned about the power of Grace, from Thomas Aquinas I learned that faith must be rational, from Descartes I learned to doubt the efficacy of skepticism, from Spinoza I learned to reject the dualism of matter and spirit, from Hume I learned to test all things by their fruits, from Kant I learned that intelligence shapes nature, and from Wittgenstein I learned how to observe instead of speculate.  Yet, it was Joseph Smith who brought together all these various threads of philosophy and theology into a coherent whole.

Sounds like you have a very interesting story to tell about your life and how you arrived at Mormonism. Would be great to hear it.

[mfbukowski]

I'd rep this post if I knew how, I hope one day I can hear about your journey because I feel like my education was one long meandering path to the Church. From Plato I learned that God didn't create ex nihilo, but reorganized matter, from Aristotle I learned that gender is eternal, from Christ of the New Testament I learned about the Kingdom of God, from Marcus Aurelius I learned about spiritual discipline through the intellect, from Augustine I learned about the power of Grace, from Thomas Aquinas I learned that faith must be rational, from Descartes I learned to doubt the efficacy of skepticism, from Spinoza I learned to reject the dualism of matter and spirit, from Hume I learned to test all things by their fruits, from Kant I learned that intelligence shapes nature, and from Wittgenstein I learned how to observe instead of speculate.  Yet, it was Joseph Smith who brought together all these various threads of philosophy and theology into a coherent whole.

Somehow I missed this post.

While deciding what my masters thesis in philosophy would be about, I had a life-changing experience while reading Wittgenstein-the later stuff- specifically Philosophical Investigations. I had studied William James and the Pragmatists heavily.

I realized that Wittgenstein was right and that all alleged philosophical problems were grammatical/semantic problems caused usually by lack of clarity in thinking and letting "words get in the way".

I thought about my life in academic philosophy and wondered if I really wanted to spend my life in academic politics pointing out the semantic problems of philosophy, and I decided I did not. Philosophy became a dead end for me, so I left academia.

Flash forward 10 or so years later and I became interested in the most pragmatic religion I had found- Mormonism. Somebody gave me a Book of Mormon, and being a good William James student, I was open to religious experience.

I have continued studying philosophy in my own way, reading what I find important to my life.

Your post was interesting because it seemed to focus on non-traditional ways of seeing the philosophers you mentioned. I never thought about Aristotle believing that gender was eternal, for example.

But anyway, I have been posting here for a long time and have many projects going now and find this board increasingly irrelevant to my interests of late.

So check the top of your main screen and you will see a little envelope icon- which hopefully will have a red spot on it indicating that you have a private message from me. I will send you my email address because I would like to continue this discussion off line- or if you prefer, let me know by email that you started a thread that I might be interested in seeing in case I do not see it. I would definitely love to talk more!

Thanks

Mark

[mfbukowski]

I'd rep this post if I knew how, I hope one day I can hear about your journey because I feel like my education was one long meandering path to the Church. From Plato I learned that God didn't create ex nihilo, but reorganized matter, from Aristotle I learned that gender is eternal, from Christ of the New Testament I learned about the Kingdom of God, from Marcus Aurelius I learned about spiritual discipline through the intellect, from Augustine I learned about the power of Grace, from Thomas Aquinas I learned that faith must be rational, from Descartes I learned to doubt the efficacy of skepticism, from Spinoza I learned to reject the dualism of matter and spirit, from Hume I learned to test all things by their fruits, from Kant I learned that intelligence shapes nature, and from Wittgenstein I learned how to observe instead of speculate.  Yet, it was Joseph Smith who brought together all these various threads of philosophy and theology into a coherent whole.

oops- looks like I cannot send you a pm because I think you do not have enough posts to allow that.

I will watch this thread for a while to see if you respond. Hope we connect

Or you can respond to Calm. She has my email too

Edited October 19, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Alan]

In 150 CE the people of the British Isles were still controlled by the Romans. The Romans of that era weren't noted for their Christianity.

It is thought that Christianity arrived in the British Isles as early as 37AD.

[thesometimesaint]

It is thought that Christianity arrived in the British Isles as early as 37AD.

 

Possible, but I don't believe it is likely. We're not exactly sure when Jesus died. Probably between 30-40 CE. That would put Britain too early for the Apostles and given the travel condition not likely for any disciples.

[Russell C McGregor]

Point to some incontrovertible historical fact & pretend it substantiates the implication you made.  That trick always works 'round here...

;0)

What, the incontrovertible historical fact that Protestantism was a repudiation of key Catholic truth claims?

Well, it does.

 

Actually my favorite recent bit of LDS blame-shifting on the board (which actually connects with the topic of this thread) was here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66109-same-sex-marriage-vs-convenience-abortion-a-question-of-priority-and-societal-harm/?p=1209540997

That's an example of not one but two of my favourite Protestant anti-Mormon demagogue tactics: (1) When you are losing, change the subject and (2) Blame all Mormons for what one Mormon does.

You do them so well.

 

Such practiced skill on display.

 

[cynth]

I have a lifelong background in Mormonism at least as rich as yours, and I don't recall have a lifelong background in Mormonism at least as rich as yoursthe equating of the great and abomination church with Catholicism as ever being a settled or authoritative point. Your insistence that it was may be more a function of your own myopia than of reality.

I also have a lifelong background in Mormonism 'at least as rich as yours,' and I do recall the Catholic church being called a great and abominable Church, and no, my memory is not myopic. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I also have a lifelong background in Mormonism 'at least as rich as yours,' and I do recall the Catholic church being called a great and abominable Church, and no, my memory is not myopic. 

I don't deny that it has been called that. What I do deny is that it was ever a settled or authoritative teaching in the Church, as Teancum seemed to imply in his post.

 

If you're going to respond to me, please address what I actually said.

[jkwilliams]

I don't deny that it has been called that. What I do deny is that it was ever a settled or authoritative teaching in the Church, as Teancum seemed to imply in his post.

If you're going to respond to me, please address what I actually said.

Was anything settled or authoritative before 1971? How would one determine if it was or not?

[Scott Lloyd]

Was anything settled or authoritative before 1971? How would one determine if it was or not?

What do you mean by "anything"?

 

Anything at all, or anything pertaining to the meaning of "great and abominable church"?

 

And what's the deal with 1971? Why are you picking that as some sort of landmark year?

 

Without any clarification, your question won't make sense to me.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

What do you mean by "anything"?

Anything at all, or anything pertaining to the meaning of "great and abominable church"?

And what's the deal with 1971? Why are you picking that as some sort of landmark year?

Without any clarification, your question won't make sense to me.

It is a landmark year. It is the reason church publications online go back only to 1971. When I was working at the COB we were told anything we quoted before 1971 was not necessarily authoritative and would have to be reviewed by correlation.

Pre-correlation, how does one determine whether something is authoritative or settled? I don't know. Do you?

[cynth]

I don't deny that it has been called that. What I do deny is that it was ever a settled or authoritative teaching in the Church, as Teancum seemed to imply in his post.

 

If you're going to respond to me, please address what I actually said.

I did address what you actually said, and, to quote you, 'if you are going to respond to me, please address what I actually said.' 

Edited October 19, 2015 by cynth

[Scott Lloyd]

It is a landmark year. It is the reason church publications online go back only to 1971.

The reason is probably because that was the year the current Church English language magazines (Ensign, New Era, Friend) were established.

 

When I was working at the COB we were told anything we quoted before 1971 was not necessarily authoritative and would have to be reviewed by correlation.

 

You mean Correlation didn't review what you wrote unless you quoted something prior to then? I'm skeptical about that. Correlation reads every word we produce prior to it going to press. And we are not forbidden or restricted from quoting pre-1971 material any more than we are forbidden from quoting anything else.

 

According to this chapter in Church History in the Fulness of Times, Church correlation stems back to the early 1960s. To say it didn't begin until 1971 is misstating history.

 

Pre-correlation, how does one determine whether something is authoritative or settled? I don't know. Do you?

 

 

 

If it has been repeatedly taught and sustained in official Church publications and at fora such as general conferences over a period of many years, I believe it can be safely assumed that it is authoritative. I don't believe determining that is as difficult as you are trying to make it sound.

 

And the above doesn't describe the notion about identifying the great and abominable church with a specific religious faith. I know there were some who thought that, but it doesn't mean it was binding on the Latter-day Saints or expressed the official doctrine of the Church. That's why we have Correlation: to prevent such things from getting entrenched in the minds of people as being the official word.

[Scott Lloyd]

I did address what you actually said, and, to quote you, 'if you are going to respond to me, please address what I actually said.' 

You did not address what I actually said. You lectured me about the Catholic church being called the great and abominable church by some individuals.

 

I never denied that was the case. What I did deny was that such thinking constituted the established or official or authoritative doctrine of the Church.

 

Why are you having trouble grasping this?

Edited October 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

I have a lifelong background in Mormonism at least as rich as yours, and I don't recall the equating of the great and abomination church with Catholicism as ever being a settled or authoritative point. Your insistence that it was may be more a function of your own myopia than of reality.

Oh you bet Scott. Accusing someone of a myopic view coming from you is rich. Sort of like that pot and kettle thing.

It seems to me that you, who so often states you will always defer to the prophets and apostles in what they say will do so unless it is prior statements by apostles and prophets that you and the church would prefer not to own today.

But I will grant you this. My comment was made response to yours that lumped the idea of the Catholic Church being the great and abominable church in with what you called the speculative explanations for the priesthood ban. The Catholic Church teaching and what it was seems less authoritive than the explanations to the preisthood ban.

Never the less LDS leaders did preach it and write it. But church does not want to own it now.

 

Everybody stop the personal sniping.

[Stargazer]

But anyway, I have been posting here for a long time and have many projects going now and find this board increasingly irrelevant to my interests of late.

I'd miss your presence here if you stopped posting, but I know what you mean.

Due to my recent widowhood I am going to have to begin work on some projects that I have long put off due to not having the time for them, just so I can stop myself from going stir-crazy. This board has served as a very valuable place to "get away from the inevitable" for the past few months, and it currently serves to help keep me sane. In a month or two I'm going to start finding posting here to be counterproductive, taking away valuable time I need to devote to more important tasks. But in the meantime I still have the luxury of time.

So I'll keep posting as long as I can, as I hope you do, as well.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Stargazer

[Alan]

Possible, but I don't believe it is likely. We're not exactly sure when Jesus died. Probably between 30-40 CE. That would put Britain too early for the Apostles and given the travel condition not likely for any disciples.

It is known that when St Augustine arrived in Britain, Christianity was already here and had been for a long time.

It wasn't found among the Angle and Saxon (English) invaders, but was thriving with the Celts. They claimed no connection at all with Rome, and maintained they had received their faith and authority from John.

The Roman church went about trying to snuff them out and many Celtic Christians were driven out and killed. They found refuge in the Celtic fringe for a while but the Roman apostasy was too strong.

[Stargazer]

It is known that when St Augustine arrived in Britain, Christianity was already here and had been for a long time.

It wasn't found among the Angle and Saxon (English) invaders, but was thriving with the Celts. They claimed no connection at all with Rome, and maintained they had received their faith and authority from John.

The Roman church went about trying to snuff them out and many Celtic Christians were driven out and killed. They found refuge in the Celtic fringe for a while but the Roman apostasy was too strong.

That's fascinating, Alan! What are your sources for this? I'd love to read more.

[Zakuska]

 

But I will grant you this. My comment was made response to yours that lumped the idea of the Catholic Church being the great and abominable church in with what you called the speculative explanations for the priesthood ban. The Catholic Church teaching and what it was seems less authoritive than the explanations to the preisthood ban.
 

 

Speculative Explanation of the Priesthood ban? What?

 

There was nothing "speculative" about the Priesthood ban. They knew exactly the doctrine they where teaching.  The "Curse of Cain" was preached from the pulpit at General Conference for over 100 years (until 1978) and printed in the official Publications of the day. 

 

eg.

 

Apostle Erastus Snow 

 . . through this blessing of Noah upon Shem, the Priesthood continued through his seed; while the offspring of Ham inherited a curse, and it was because, as a revelation teaches, some of the blood of Cain became mingled with that of Ham's family, and hence they inherited that curse (Journal of Discourses, vol. 21, p. 370).

 

President John Taylor

And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God; and that man should be a free agent to act for himself, and that all men might have the opportunity of receiving or rejecting the truth, . . . (Journal of Discourses, vol. 22, p. 304).

 

It's even still Canonized for heck sake.

 

Abraham1

 21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.

 22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.

 23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

 24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

 25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

 26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

 

 

Apostle Bruce R McConkie continued this teaching in our time....

 

 

See CAIN, HAM, NEGROES. Two women of note, a mother and her daughter, both carried the name Egyptus. The mother, a descendant of Cain, was the wife of Ham; the daughter was the mother of Pharaoh, the first ruler of Egypt. Abraham says that in the Chaldean tongue Egyptus "signifies that which is forbidden," meaning apparently that Ham married outside the approved lineage (Abra. 1:20-27; Gen. 6:2) (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie, Bookcraft, 1979 edition, p. 214).See

CAIN, EGYPTUS, NEGROES, PRE-EXISTENCE, PRIESTHOOD. Through Ham (a name meaning black) "the blood of the Canaanites was preserved" through the flood, he having married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain. (Abra. 1:20-27.) Ham was cursed, apparently for marrying into the forbidden lineage, and the effects of the curse passed to his son, Canaan. (Gen. 9:25.) Ham's descendants include the Negroes, who originally were barred from holding the priesthood but have been able to do so since June, 1978 (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie, Bookcraft, 1979 edition, p. 343).

 

But what do the scriptures say about Hams descendants and where was the land of their Inheritance after the Flood?

 

Joseph Smith taught:

 

July 1831: Joseph Smith identifies Negroes as lineage of Ham: "The first Sabbath after our arrival in Jackson county, Brother W. W. Phelps preached to a western audience...wherein were present specimens of all the families of the earth; Shem, Ham and Japheth; … quite a respectable number of negro descendants of Ham ..." (History of the Church, 1:190).

 

Brigham Young took Joseph Smiths teaching and expanded more.  Hams lineage started in Egypt but according to history the whole African Continent became their land of Inheritance everything west of the Nile to the sea.

 

Read for example:

 

According to the Hebrew Bible, Ham was one of the sons of Noah and the father of Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan, who are interpreted as having populated Africa and adjoining parts of Asia. The Bible refers to Egypt as "the land of Ham" in Psalms 78:51; 105:23,27; 106:22; 1Ch 4:40. Since the 17th century a number of suggestions have been made that relate the name Ham to a Hebrew word for burnt, black or hot, to an Egyptian word for servant or the Egyptian word Kmt for Egypt.[4]

 

 

Jubilees

The chronological scheme of the Book of Jubilees has Ham born in the year 1209 A.M. — two years after Shem, three before Japheth, and 99 before the flood. It gives the name of his wife who also survived the flood as Na'eltama'uk. After his youngest son Canaan was cursed in 1321 A.M., he left Mount Ararat and built a city named for his wife on the south side of the mountain. In 1569 A.M., he received a third division of the earth along with his two brothers for his inheritance: everything west of the Nile River, and to the south of Gadir. In 1639 A.M. when the nations were scattered following the failure of the Tower of Babel, Ham and his children journeyed to their allotment, with the exception of Canaan, who settled in Shem's territory, thus receiving another curse.

 

According to Jubilees 10:29–34, this second curse is attributed to Canaan's steadfast refusal to join his elder brothers in Ham's allotment beyond the Nile, and instead "squatting" within the inheritance of Shem, on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, the region later promised to Abraham:

 

And Canaan saw the land of Lebanon to the river of Egypt, that it was very good, and he went not into the land of his inheritance to the west (that is to) the sea, and he dwelt in the land of Lebanon, eastward and westward from the border of Jordan and from the border of the sea. And Ham, his father, and Cush and Mizraim his brothers said unto him: 'Thou hast settled in a land which is not thine, and which did not fall to us by lot: do not do so; for if thou dost do so, thou and thy sons will fall in the land and (be) accursed through sedition; for by sedition ye have settled, and by sedition will thy children fall, and thou shalt be rooted out for ever. Dwell not in the dwelling of Shem; for to Shem and to his sons did it come by their lot. Cursed art thou, and cursed shalt thou be beyond all the sons of Noah, by the curse by which we bound ourselves by an oath in the presence of the holy judge, and in the presence of Noah our father.' But he did not hearken unto them, and dwelt in the land of Lebanon from Hamath to the entering of Egypt, he and his sons until this day. And for this reason that land is named Canaan. – Jubilees 10:29–34,

 

What can I say...? Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Erastus Snow, AND Brigham Young all knew their scriptures and history and exactly what they were talking about. Others can label JS, BY and other leaders as Racist bigots but I wont.

 

Thread derail. Zakuska is removed.

[jkwilliams]

 

 

 

Speculative Explanation of the Priesthood ban? What?

 

There was nothing "speculative" about the Priesthood ban. They knew exactly the doctrine they where teaching.  The "Curse of Cain" was preached from the pulpit at General Conference for over 100 years (until 1978) and printed in the official Publications of the day. 

 

eg.

 

Apostle Erastus Snow

 

 

President John Taylor

 

 

It's even still Canonized for heck sake.

 

 

 

Apostle Bruce R McConkie continued this teaching in our time....

 

 

 

But what do the scriptures say about Hams descendants and where was the land of their Inheritance after the Flood?

 

Joseph Smith taught:

 

 

Joseph Smith taught:

 

 

 

But what do the scriptures say about Hams descendants and where was the land of their Inheritance after the Flood?

 

Joseph Smith taught:

 

Brigham Young took Joseph Smiths teaching and expanded more.  Hams lineage started in Egypt but according to history the whole African Continent became their land of Inheritance everything west of the Nile to the sea.

 

Read for example:

 

 

 

 

What can I say...? Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Erastus Snow, AND Brigham Young all knew their scriptures and history and exactly what they were talking about. Others can label JS, BY and other leaders as Racist bigots but I wont.

 

 

You might find these interesting:

 

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/download/6994/6643

 

http://text.rcarabbis.org/misreading-the-torah-the-curse-of-ham-and-racism/

[Zakuska]

Thanks. Intresting read. But Ill stick with the Prophets thank you very much.

 

Origen (c. 185-c. 254):

For the Egyptians are prone to a degenerate life and quickly sink to every slavery of the vices. Look at the origin of the race and you will discover that their father Cham, who had laughed at his father’s nakedness, deserved a judgment of this kind, that his son Chanaan should be a servant to his brothers, in which case the condition of bondage would prove the wickedness of his conduct. Not without merit, therefore, does the discolored posterity imitate the ignobility of the race [Non ergo immerito ignobilitatem decolor posteritas imitatur] (Homilies on Genesis 16.1).

The Eastern Christian work, the Cave of Treasures (fourth century), explicitly connects slavery with dark-skinned people:

When Noah awoke…he cursed him and said: "Cursed be Ham and may he be slave to his brothers" … and he became a slave, he and his lineage, namely the Egyptians, the Abyssinians, and the Indians. Indeed, Ham lost all sense of shame and he became black and was called shameless all the days of his life, forever.

Ishodad of Merv (Syrian Christian bishop of Hedhatha, ninth century):

When Noah cursed Canaan, “instantly, by the force of the curse… his face and entire body became black [ukmotha]. This is the black color which has persisted in his descendents.”

Eutychius, Alexandrian Melkite patriarch (d. 940): “Cursed be Ham and may he be a servant to his brothers… He himself and his descendants, who are the Egyptians, the Negroes, the Ethiopians and (it is said) the Barbari.”

Ibn al-Tayyib (Arabic Christian scholar, Baghdad, d. 1043): “The curse of Noah affected the posterity of Canaan who were killed by Joshua son of Nun. At the moment of the curse, Canaan’s body became black and the blackness spread out among them.”[4]

The Syrian Christian scholar Bar Hebraeus (1226-86) writes:

“‘And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and showed [it] to his two brothers.’ That is…that Canaan was cursed and not Ham, and with the very curse he became black and the blackness was transmitted to his descendents…. And he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan! A servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.’”[5]

CHAM (חם): Hebrew name meaning "blackness" or "heat.

Strong's #2526: Cham (pronounced khawm). the same as 2525; hot (from the tropical habitat);

Hebrew Meaning: The name Cham is a Hebrew baby name. In Hebrew the meaning of the name Cham is: Hot.

CHAMA (חָמָא): Aramaic form of Hebrew Cham, meaning "heat."

2. Ham as a Nationality (30 Nations came out of Ham):

The name given, in Psalms 105:23,17; 106:22 (compare 78:51), to Egypt as a descendant of Ham, son of Noah. As Shem means "dusky," or the like, and Japheth "fair," it has been supposed that Ham meant, as is not improbable, "black." This is supported by the evidence of Hebrew and Arabic, in which the word chamam means "to be hot" and "to be black," the latter signification being derived from the former.

We don't need to worry about any of this though because the "curse" has been declared null and void with OD2.

Besides... everyone knows the true "curse of ham" turns things green not black.

https://books.google.com/books/content?id=20BaAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&imgtk=AFLRE70RSWS5OEhnJyedWCvS3_-vB96ukMs0BrBPt6lbLvavqVWz7HUBFnfLSiWGTQCWB9bGW3aQ4740O6zYYAn1hdwElUerPG8QcwESbRMIBU5eBYGh7g6yJtvscPEEb_LGF30NMp1J

Edited October 20, 2015 by Zakuska

[Calm]

Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church....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.24

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Edited October 20, 2015 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

Thanks. Intresting read. But Ill stick with the Prophets thank you very much.

 

We don't need to worry about any of this though because the "curse" has been declared null and void with OD1.

Besides... everyone knows the true "curse of ham" turns things green not black.

https://books.google.com/books/content?id=20BaAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&imgtk=AFLRE70RSWS5OEhnJyedWCvS3_-vB96ukMs0BrBPt6lbLvavqVWz7HUBFnfLSiWGTQCWB9bGW3aQ4740O6zYYAn1hdwElUerPG8QcwESbRMIBU5eBYGh7g6yJtvscPEEb_LGF30NMp1J

 

If you're sticking with these earlier teachings, you aren't following the prophets, who have explicitly repudiated these teachings about a supposed curse. There's nothing in OD-2 (I think you meant that) that declares any curse null and void. As Calm has posted, current doctrine is that what you call "doctrines" are speculations, nothing more.

[Zakuska]

Yep... As predicted... theres that calling of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and many other early Church leaders who taught this over the pulpit in the tabernacle for over 100 years as Bigoted Racists. Who didn't know what they were talking about.

Apparently the Modern church doesn't even stick with Canonized scripture.

Abraham1

21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.

22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.

23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Zakuska

[jkwilliams]

Yep... theres that calling of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and many other early Church leaders as Bigoted Racists. Who didn't know what they were talking about.

Hmmm. I must have missed that part of the church essay. CFR that the essay calls JS or BY racists and so forth.