Mark E Petersen On Race

[jwhitlock]

No, but I am neither an Apostle nor a Prophet, nor do I hold myself out to be, nor have I been called and sustained as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelatory. A Special Witness of Christ has a high standard to uphold and an obligation to the flock of Christ to either get it right or shut up. It's just that simple.

 

I find no scriptural or other support for this opinion of yours.

 

On the other hand, your opinion about what leaders should be denies that they should have any ability to exercise their agency in their callings. That is pretty much contradictory to what the gospel stands for.

[jwhitlock]

The constant emphasis on "follow the brethren" as well as the often repeated story of Heber Grant telling Mariom Romney that the he would be blessed for following the prophet even if it is wrong....but he did not need to worry because the prophet would never lead the church astray....and so on seems to conflict with what you say above.

Additionally sure one can pray fo confirmation of anything the GAs say but what happens if the answer disagrees with the leaderships?

 

It's really kind of sad when someone portrays cultural Mormonism as the essence of the restored gospel.

 

But, as I mentioned before, it's the easy way of explaining why the church is wrong. It is, after all, so much more difficult to try to understand the why's of Mormonism.

[Calm]

Your ideas are in conflict with at least what I was taught, and what I taught as a missionary, as to what the benefits of having a prophet, apostles and continuous revelation are. What good are prophets and apostles if it is as messy as you and other apologists claim?

Because they help us think of the questions to ask God when we go to him for one thing.  They also help us form a faith community, which is essential imo to getting enough momentum to seek out new revelation for mankind to be receiving as well as offering the support in our seeking (and sometimes opposition which is necessary for growth). If all interaction with God is done solely on an individual basis, then much knowledge will be lost.

 

And I believe that ordinances must be done with the proper authority (I believe this because of revelation that I believe I've had a spiritual witness to plus it just makes sense to me in terms of how government must work, even if it is divine).  Authority must come with an organization and appointed leaders, divine authority must come with appointment by God through revelation/inspiration.

 

I am sure I could come up with some other reasons if I took the time to think about it.  I want to read some other threads though, so won't.

 

If you accept (because you go to the Spirit and ask and he tells you so) that you were wrong (on those things we conflict on) and were taught wrong and that I am right because I was taught right and wrong and used the Spirit to confirm the right parts and dispense with the wrong parts, it will all make a lot more sense to you.  

Edited August 28, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Additionally sure one can pray fo confirmation of anything the GAs say but what happens if the answer disagrees with the leaderships?

 

Then you will discover how confident and dependent you are on the Spirit most likely.

Edited August 28, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

No, but I am neither an Apostle nor a Prophet, nor do I hold myself out to be, nor have I been called and sustained as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelatory. A Special Witness of Christ has a high standard to uphold and an obligation to the flock of Christ to either get it right or shut up. It's just that simple.

I hadn't read all the others' similar comments at the time of my writing that comment.  My apologies for the repetition, probably got a bit much I am thinking.

 

I had removed it but you and Teancum responded first...so I responded myself, hopefully different enough to be interesting.  

Edited August 28, 2015 by calmoriah

[Teancum]

It's really kind of sad when someone portrays cultural Mormonism as the essence of the restored gospel.

 

But, as I mentioned before, it's the easy way of explaining why the church is wrong. It is, after all, so much more difficult to try to understand the why's of Mormonism.

What is the church but what its leaders and members say, do and reflect? If that is not the essence of Mormonsim then let those who lead it correct it rather than let it perpetuate and even to promote it. Take Benson's 14 Fundamental Principles of a Prophet for example. A BYU speech that allegedly President Kimball was not happy about. Did the church leadership publicly dismiss it? Nope. And now in the past two years to GC talkes have focused on it. And a recent talk in my sacrament meeting highlighted it.

Apologists like the you love to try to differentiate between what the church really is and some other gospel that only the enlightened really know of. But what the LDS church really is is what you want to call cultural Mormomism.

[Russell C McGregor]

Oh well let me see..MINOs, a silly term that I am sure makes you feel more special and superior to us filthy apostates,

You are projecting, as you habitually do.

MINO's has nothing to do with me feeling "superior" to anyone. It has to do with the fact that there are those who call themselves Mormons, and then there are actual believing Latter-day Saints, and those who are always harping on about the fallibility of the leaders of the Church -- meaning, that we should listen to them instead -- are not in the latter (NPI) group.

Is that clear now?

don't claim that God speaks to us, that we are prophets, seers and revelators and that we can't lead the church astray.

We don't claim that God will remove us rather than let us lead the church astray.

Then there's no reason for us to listen to you.

Thank you for admitting that.

I am sure it will be tough for you to see the difference.

You are projecting again.

And wherein did Elder Peterson's talk lead the Church astray?

What did members of the Church do wrong that they would otherwise not have done, had Elder Peterson not given that talk?

What did members of the Church fail to do that they would otherwise have done, had Elder Peterson not given that talk?

[canard78]

Sure it sounds really racist now. Believe it or not at the time this was given no one thought much about it. It was a product of the times and conditions and opinions of society and some people living in the church at the time. By line upon line, precept by precept teaching we have received further light and knowledge about this subject and have made the necessary adjustments in our thinking.

Exactly. And this simply stands as evidence that LDS apostles are a product of their time and environment.

[Thinking]

Oh, you mean she wouldn't speak the same language as the people around her, wear similar clothes, drive on the same side of the road, vote in the same elections, shop at the same stores?

How do you know exactly what influences come from your culture? Do fish feel wet?

Have you ever really tried doing some thinking, Thinking?

 

I guess you're having trouble understanding the difference between "in the world" and "not of the world." Let me 'splain. No...you know the difference. The fact that your ramblings found their way to a question about fish tells me that I answered your CFR adequately but you won't admit it.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Because American Jews shouldn't be expected just like everyone else to have the highest standards?

 

Is there something inherently wrong with people that they can't be wonderful without having the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

 

Please don't misrepresent what I say, of course I expect good people, but I expect my fellow LDS to be better. 

The question is, are we better than any other group?

 

 

Which, even if true, is quite a different thing from being "free from racism." How many Jewish mamas were urging their sons to go out and find some nice black girl to marry?

 

American Jews were probably not free from racism, but they were better than most Christians groups. 

According to Robert Smith 

 

 

The Jewish community had a very close and special relationship with the Black community, unlike anything from other groups.  I heard Toni Morrison talking about it in detail just the other day (she is the Nobel Prize winning Black novelist).  The notion that every group is equally evil and equally righteous is nonsense.  There have been stark differences, with many groups having to be shamed into making changes.  Repentance has been particularly difficult for some.

 

The strong and very close relationship of Jews and Blacks began long before the birth of Dr King, and was not based on mutual needs. It was based on the extraordinarily high moral and ethical teachings of Judaism, which alone could drive so many Jews (including Schwerner & Goodman) to place their lives on the line on behalf of Black civil rights.

 

 

and Yes, it is true.

 

"By the early 20th century both the Jewish and African-American communities were organizing socially and politically to combat anti-Semitism and racism respectively"

http://northerncity.library.temple.edu/people-and-places/jewish-african-american-relations

 

"American Jews played a significant role in the founding and funding of some of the most important civil rights organizations, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). In 1909, Henry Moscowitz joined W.E.B. DuBois and other civil rights leaders to found the NAACP. Kivie Kaplan, a vice-chairman of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (now the Union for Reform Judaism), served as the national president of the NAACP from 1966 to 1975. Arnie Aronson worked with A. Philip Randolph and Roy Wilkins to found the Leadership Conference"

http://www.rac.org/jews-and-civil-rights-movement#sthash.q1jRLpSQ.dpuf

Edited August 28, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Robert F. Smith]

What is the church but what its leaders and members say, do and reflect? If that is not the essence of Mormonsim then let those who lead it correct it rather than let it perpetuate and even to promote it. Take Benson's 14 Fundamental Principles of a Prophet for example. A BYU speech that allegedly President Kimball was not happy about. Did the church leadership publicly dismiss it? Nope. And now in the past two years to GC talkes have focused on it. And a recent talk in my sacrament meeting highlighted it.

Apologists like the you love to try to differentiate between what the church really is and some other gospel that only the enlightened really know of. But what the LDS church really is is what you want to call cultural Mormomism.

I have no problem with someone desiring to label the LDS Church according to a broadscale sociological analysis, as long as they tell us that is what they are doing.  Of course, in that mix we would have to do expert analysis of Mormon folklore as well, because that too to is a major ingredient of cultural Mormonism (with obvious differences for Mormons of the intermountain West, of California, of Latin America, Europe, Africa, Polynesia, etc).  However, to take that as the "real LDS church" seems to beg the question, and to take a particularly strong secularist tack.

 

Even though the Gospel of Jesus Christ can be interpreted in manifold cultural ways throughout the world, and even though it can be seen through the lens of a variety of competing systematic theologies, one presumes that God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost have a unified view of what that Gospel really is, and that they most certainly do not interpret it according to the narrow norms of cultural Mormonism.

 

The Church of Jesus Christ is the Kingdom of God on the Earth, not some solitary yokel's interpretation of it.  That may make you uncomfortable, but God runs his Church through his servants the prophets -- fallible though they may be.

[Robert F. Smith]

You are entitled to believe that. I do not.

It is a matter of historical fact, as TheSkepticChristian points out in his post #210.

 

Of course, you will believe what you want to believe.  My question is why do you have such a negative view of modern Judaism, and /or the Jewish community?  Is it that you are simply unacquainted with them?

[Robert F. Smith]

.......................................................................................

and Yes, it is true.

 

"By the early 20th century both the Jewish and African-American communities were organizing socially and politically to combat anti-Semitism and racism respectively"

http://northerncity.library.temple.edu/people-and-places/jewish-african-american-relations

 

"American Jews played a significant role in the founding and funding of some of the most important civil rights organizations, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). In 1909, Henry Moscowitz joined W.E.B. DuBois and other civil rights leaders to found the NAACP. Kivie Kaplan, a vice-chairman of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (now the Union for Reform Judaism), served as the national president of the NAACP from 1966 to 1975. Arnie Aronson worked with A. Philip Randolph and Roy Wilkins to found the Leadership Conference"

http://www.rac.org/jews-and-civil-rights-movement#sthash.q1jRLpSQ.dpuf

I would only add to that the founding in 1920 and very effective action by the ACLU, heavily supported by the Jewish community.  No other organization defended the Constitution and Bill of Rights as well.  Certainly not the U. S. Dept of Justice.  Time and again the U. S. Supreme Court sided with the ACLU.

 

All too often, Mormons, Jews, Catholics, and Blacks were the victims of bigotry and illegal discrimination.  We have all come a long way, even though some of us forget the reality of what once was.

[Russell C McGregor]

Please don't misrepresent what I say, of course I expect good people, but I expect my fellow LDS to be better. 

The question is, are we better than any other group?

 

 

 

 

American Jews were probably not free from racism, but they were better than most Christians groups. 

According to Robert Smith 

 

 

 

and Yes, it is true.

 

"By the early 20th century both the Jewish and African-American communities were organizing socially and politically to combat anti-Semitism and racism respectively"

http://northerncity.library.temple.edu/people-and-places/jewish-african-american-relations

 

"American Jews played a significant role in the founding and funding of some of the most important civil rights organizations, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). In 1909, Henry Moscowitz joined W.E.B. DuBois and other civil rights leaders to found the NAACP. Kivie Kaplan, a vice-chairman of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (now the Union for Reform Judaism), served as the national president of the NAACP from 1966 to 1975. Arnie Aronson worked with A. Philip Randolph and Roy Wilkins to found the Leadership Conference"

http://www.rac.org/jews-and-civil-rights-movement#sthash.q1jRLpSQ.dpuf

Sigh.

I'm going to try to make this as simple as I possibly can, in the (increasingly faint) hope that it might eventually sink in.

"Racist" does not mean "unkind to black people." Sometimes that is how (non-black) racists behave, but that's not what it actually means.

Not only that, but just because some group A has a "special relationship" with some other group B does not mean that members of group A are "not racist."

In fact, it doesn't even mean that they are any less "racist" than anyone else.

It just means that they have a "special relationship" with group B.

That's all.

[Russell C McGregor]

I guess you're having trouble understanding the difference between "in the world" and "not of the world." Let me 'splain. No...you know the difference.

You're right. I do know the difference.

It is a specific doctrinal teaching, not a bumper-sticker cliche to be bandied about by someone who puts all his "thinking" into his posting handle to save him the trouble of actually doing any.

John 15:

18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

It does not say that we will be impervious to cultural influences; being "not of the world" means being in a covenant relationship with Christ.

So you can stop using it as a bludgeon with which to beat the Lord's servants for not being up with fashionable cultural currents. It doesn't work.

Sorry.

The fact that your ramblings found their way to a question about fish tells me that I answered your CFR adequately but you won't admit it.

If ever I want lessons in how to not discuss things in good faith, I will come straight to you, the resident expert.

Until that day, you will kindly refrain from consciously projecting your own behaviour upon me.

Thankyouverymuch.

[Teancum]

You are projecting, as you habitually do.MINO's has nothing to do with me feeling "superior" to anyone. It has to do with the fact that there are those who call themselves Mormons, and then there are actual believing Latter-day Saints, and those who are always harping on about the fallibility of the leaders of the Church -- meaning, that we should listen to them instead -- are not in the latter (NPI) group.Is that clear now?Then there's no reason for us to listen to you.Thank you for admitting that.You are projecting again.And wherein did Elder Peterson's talk lead the Church astray?What did members of the Church do wrong that they would otherwise not have done, had Elder Peterson not given that talk?What did members of the Church fail to do that they would otherwise have done, had Elder Peterson not given that talk?

Hardly projecting Russell. But thank you anyway. Your explanation of NIMO finely reinforces my point about the way you use it, And we can add smugness to it as well.

Next I am not asking anyone to listen to me. Just commenting. Take it or leave it. No worries for me.

Lastly regarding your questions about Elder Peterson's comments.....well I am sure you are bright enough to figure out how his racist remarks were perpetuated for many years by him and others in explaining the reasons for the priesthood ban that are now dismissed as folklore.

[jwhitlock]

What is the church but what its leaders and members say, do and reflect? If that is not the essence of Mormonsim then let those who lead it correct it rather than let it perpetuate and even to promote it. Take Benson's 14 Fundamental Principles of a Prophet for example. A BYU speech that allegedly President Kimball was not happy about. Did the church leadership publicly dismiss it? Nope. And now in the past two years to GC talkes have focused on it. And a recent talk in my sacrament meeting highlighted it.

Apologists like the you love to try to differentiate between what the church really is and some other gospel that only the enlightened really know of. But what the LDS church really is is what you want to call cultural Mormomism.

 

As Robert noted, the essence of Mormonism consists of the direction of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. Cultural Mormonism is temporal baggage that is only a manifestation of the exercise of agency in this life. It will not last.

 

Again, it's far easier to point to cultural Mormonism as the essence as you do. It doesn't require much thinking. It's far more difficult to understand the church and the Restored Gospel in the context of eternity and the influence of the Spirit given by the God who is ultimately in charge. That's what the church really is, and what we as members of the church struggle to fully tap into.

 

Instead, like you, we get diverted by the surface cultural baggage, thinking it's the norm. I believe the Savior called that "missing the mark".

[CV75]

exactly, you can't have it both ways.

Oh yes you can! On one hand, they are just like us and are held to the same standard; on the other, they are to be held to a higher standard. Either and both are true, depending on context, but we are all governed by the same eternal laws.

 

I heard a report on the radio this morning discussing an article in Science magazine: “Scientific progress is a cumulative process of uncertainty reduction that can only succeed if science itself remains the greatest skeptic of its explanatory claims.” http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716.full

 

I would say the same holds for revealed doctrine and knowledge. That we see through a lens darkly, and some less darkly than others, shows that there is an individual cumulative process at work. Uncertainty is not doubt; it is created by faith acting against doubt, and reduced by knowledge, a product of faith. The divine standard of remaining “skeptical” is remaining open or humble, “as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.”

 

On that basis, there no need to demand apologies of those or in behalf of those whose teachings have been disavowed. They will have their chance to make amends as the Lord deems necessary.

 

What have remained constant are the presence of the keys of the kingdom and the salvation they open up to the faithful, hopeful, and charitable.

[Guest]

Cause it is so slap worthy?

That it is.

[The Nehor]

It is a matter of historical fact, as TheSkepticChristian points out in his post #210.

Of course, you will believe what you want to believe. My question is why do you have such a negative view of modern Judaism, and /or the Jewish community? Is it that you are simply unacquainted with them?

I am just convinced their motives were not as altruistic as suggested in some posts on this thread.

My negative view of Judaism comes from having blond hair, blue eyes, and my burning support for fascism brought about by the glorious and ethnically clean Nazi party. Heil Hitler!

Edited August 28, 2015 by The Nehor

[HappyJackWagon]

Here are a couple of new Mormon definitions to add to your Mormon Dictionary alongside "translate", "Nearly 15" and "carefully worded denials"...

 

Prophet/seer/revelator- God's mouthpiece on earth except when he says something that is embarrassing or verifiably false.

 

Prophetic- The ability to apply 20/20 vision to past statements and determine which were not prophetic. Wait...I'm confused.

 

Racism- Deplorable beliefs the church currently disavows and pretends was taught a "theory" instead of "doctrine"

 

Theory- Official church teachings that fall out of favor. See Adam/God, Blood Atonement, and Fencesitters

 

Doctrine- The official teaching of the church until it is demoted to theory

[BlueDreams]

Please don't misrepresent what I say, of course I expect good people, but I expect my fellow LDS to be better. 

The question is, are we better than any other group?

No, we're not. And thinking we are or should be, in my mind, is half the problem. 

 

We have a specific role on earth and this call is what makes us unique. But we collectively are not necessarily better than the billions of other humans on earth. And at specific things/qualities there are definitely others who were better. We don't have a monopoly on goodness, etc. We have a call/mandate of the Lord and a role to fill that we must meet up to....and we're not there yet (notice Zion (a people of one heart/mind) hasn't happened yet). 

 

In general I find this discussion about prophets and apostles odd. I do get that it's a natural question when they got something so wrong, what else do they have wrong. But the first mistake, IMO is the assumption that Prophets and Apostles are not just better than those outside the church, they are better than us, the generalized membership. They're not, and I've never met an Apostle who acted as such. Furthermore, I've never heard a scripture that states as much. Some of the prophets and OT high priests, particularly in the Bible, are extremely flawed men. Some of them don't end up following God or push against him incessantly until they comply or are forced to recognize him. On the list are Jonah, Balaam, Job, Noah,  Eli, Moses gets lectured, Peter, Judas, Thomas,  etc. And then there's the BoM: The Nephites in general are compared and described as feasibly worse than the Lamanite 3-5 times in the BoM. In fact I'm convinced that the reason no missionary efforts worked for a couple hundred years, wasn't just that the Lamanites were fallen from the covenants, but because the Nephite had some issues too and probably led off froma one-up approach. Ammon and the lot were the first to come in in humility. Nephi lamented his weaknesses, Alma's son was living as a royal hypocrite while he preached the word and Alma doesn't do anything about it until after the fact (he's the prophet, shouldn't he know someone directly in his stewardship is chasing the ladies, particularly his son), Alma also demonstrates lack knowledge of Gospel doctrine that we now have. A few keepers of the record note that they were wicked men, so they don't feel qualified to write much, the brother of Jared ignored God for a while, etc. 

 

So basically the call does not make the person/people somehow free from human foibles; it doesn't necessarily imbue them with the capacity to transcend time and space to see all things with a perfect clarity. And even when they do see clearly, it doesn't mean they're perfect in execution. Some have noted that there are things that emphasize following the prophet above all else and them not leading us astray etc. Maybe I was somehow special, but along with those lessons still came others about seeking answers for oneself, the power of personal revelation, and that it would be better if we were all prophets (little p). They balanced each other out. 

 

Being wrong on race, does not mean that they could be fundamentally wrong about basic truth. As important as it is and as needed as the Gospel be open to all is. The priesthood ban was never a fundamental doctrine (note that I didn't say it wasn't taught as doctrine, it was). There's a reason it never really shows up in scripture until it was removed. It was a mix of policy, a little actual doctrine, and far more folk beliefs and quasi-doctrinal extrapolations...then cemented both by internal prejudices and external pressures. It also went against one of the fundamental calls of the Gospel restoration and having the message of the gospel proclaimed to all. Throwing it out does not mean that now everything is on shaky ground.

 

But I do think it should lead to a personal introspection...what things do we (as individuals first, then as a ward, stake, area, and church) hold that may not be true? No one is free from it and the moment one assumes you're more generally enlightened than another is the moment one should really start to worry.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 28, 2015 by BlueDreams

[The Nehor]

Here are a couple of new Mormon definitions to add to your Mormon Dictionary alongside "translate", "Nearly 15" and "carefully worded denials"...

 

Prophet/seer/revelator- God's mouthpiece on earth except when he says something that is embarrassing or verifiably false.

 

Prophetic- The ability to apply 20/20 vision to past statements and determine which were not prophetic. Wait...I'm confused.

 

Racism- Deplorable beliefs the church currently disavows and pretends was taught a "theory" instead of "doctrine"

 

Theory- Official church teachings that fall out of favor. See Adam/God, Blood Atonement, and Fencesitters

 

Doctrine- The official teaching of the church until it is demoted to theory

Incorrigible Idiot - Anyone who believes the above.

[HappyJackWagon]

Incorrigible Idiot - Anyone who believes the above.

Thanks for adding to the conversation with name calling. I'm interested in a thoughtful rebuttal to my satirical post if you have one.

Or lighten up and laugh a little.

[The Nehor]

Thanks for adding to the conversation with name calling. I'm interested in a thoughtful rebuttal to my satirical post if you have one.

Or lighten up and laugh a little.

So a satirical response is somehow an offensive response to a satirical comment?