Mark E Petersen On Race

[Bobbieaware]

I think you are reading emotion into the conversation where there isn't any, at least from others besides yourself.  Perhaps this subject is one you feel emotionally charged over so you are assuming others feel this way.

 

And certainly Bluedreams has been very deliberate and thoughtful in responding to you.

 

Apparently you were able to construct a list of questions that wasn't too emotionally charged for Bluedreams to answer.  

 

It would be polite for you to just go ahead and do what you promised to do and answer her questions.  

 

I promise that if I see the least bit of overcharged emotions leaking from Bluedreams, I will do my best to calm her down.

I will answer one question at a time and I will answer each question thoughtfully and thoroughly. This is not a delaying tactic but just simply the way I want to handle this extremely controversial subject. This subject requires calm, rationality and deliberation, and answering one question at a time will help me toward this end. If I'm annoying you, there are plenty of other folks to chat with.

[Tacenda]

I think your stuck in the past somewhat Bobbieaware, no disrespect.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Tacenda

[Bobbieaware]

I think your stuck in the past somewhat Bobbiaware, no disrespect.

Be specific and tell me why and how you believe I'm stuck in the past?

[Tacenda]

Be specific and tell me why and how you believe I'm stuck in the past?

I'm about ready to board a plane and will get back with you.

[Calm]

Your insistence makes is appear you think Bluedreams is incapable of approaching it in a "calm and deliberate" without your guidance.  That you would even assume that a one question at a time is needed since you were able to handle multiple questions without leading the conversation to become emotionally charged, especially given the past evidence of her posts for thoughtfulness and calm makes me wonder why you feel the need to portray the situation in such a way.

 

If she is satisfied with the limitations you are imposing on the conversation for whatever reasons, I won't complain, but you are wasting her time and I find it arrogant and selfish of you to insist on manipulating the conversation in this manner after she graciously answered your questions even after you refused to answer hers at first.

Edited August 29, 2015 by calmoriah

[Bobbieaware]

Your insistence makes is appear you think Bluedreams is incapable of approaching it in a "calm and deliberate" without your guidance.  That you would even assume that given the past evidence of her posts makes me wonder why you feel the need to portray the situation in such a way.

 

If she is satisfied with the limitations you are imposing on the conversation for whatever reasons, I won't complain, but you are wasting her time and I find it arrogant and selfish of you to insist on manipulating the conversation in this manner after she graciously answered your questions even after you refused to answer hers at first.

There are no limitations. I can answer her four questions ome at time (in her post she asked more than four questions, although she said she had only four. I find that confusing) and all will be accomplished soon enough. If she had 400 questions, I could see your point.

[Jeanne]

Would you consider it appropriate to apologize for the actions of your ancestors?

I would love to answer this  I do think it is appropriate to apologize.  I found out not to long ago that my great-great grandfather was a part of the MMM.  I want to apologize for his acceptance to participate in such a devastating and hateful event.  (I feel only a little better now).

[Bobbieaware]

Back from dinner and now I'm going to prepare for the Sabbath by studying up for the lessons we're going to receive tomorrow. If Blue Dreams asks her first question tonight, I will answer it tomorrow. Being a denizen of NYC, I now bid you all a goodnight until my much-anticipated words of wisdom will grace this thread on the morrow.

[ttribe]

Back from dinner and now I'm going to prepare for the Sabbath by studying up for the lessons we're going to receive tomorrow. If Blue Dreams asks her first question tonight, I will answer it tomorrow. Being a denizen of NYC, I now bid you all a goodnight until my much-anticipated words of wisdom will grace this thread on the morrow.

 

Is this for real?

[omni]

Wonder what my bishop would have said had I told him "I'm just a product of my time" after confessing to fornication in a TR interview?

[jwhitlock]

Uh no not really.

 

Post #292.

[jwhitlock]

Ah ok.  Carry on in whatever you feel you need to in order to maintain your testimony. If it works for you I am happy for you.,  But you your claim that I have double standard based on your own specious comments without explaining why is revealing.

 

Additionally your attempt to poison the well is apparent.  I have no contempt al all for the Church nor for its leaders though I think they and the apologists should own things rather than dismiss them as is so very common. 

 

Believe it or not I still attend and hold a TR though I was surprised after my last interview that I got one.  Since I still live the commandments but have issues with the belief questions at least for my bishop and SP it seems orthopraxy is more important than orthodoxy.

 

I've referred you to my post. I suspect that, as usual, you'll just dismiss it.

 

And yes, you display clear contempt for the church and its leaders.

[Robert F. Smith]

Wonder what my bishop would have said had I told him "I'm just a product of my time" after confessing to fornication in a TR interview?

The problem is, of course, that people who are a product of their time are unaware of the fact.

 

Thus, in Classical Greece, it would not occur to a citizen of Athens (not even to Socrates or Plato) that there might be anything wrong with the rampant homosexuality among men.  Virtually every young boy was introduced to homosexual sex by an older mentor, and this was considered entirely normal.  Thus, in an interview by a priest of Demeter to determine whether you would be ready for admission to the Telesterion ("Initiation-Hall") in order to experience the Eleusinian Mysteries, your homosexual sexual activity would not be an issue.

[Stone holm]

The problem is, of course, that people who are a product of their time are unaware of the fact.

 

Thus, in Classical Greece, it would not occur to a citizen of Athens (not even to Socrates or Plato) that there might be anything wrong with the rampant homosexuality among men.  Virtually every young boy was introduced to homosexual sex by an older mentor, and this was considered entirely normal.  Thus, in an interview by a priest of Demeter to determine whether you would be ready for admission to the Telesterion ("Initiation-Hall") in order to experience the Eleusinian Mysteries, your homosexual sexual activity would not be an issue.

. So in other words we are not aware that we are a product of our times. It must be history before someone knows whether someting is a product of the times or not?

[PeterPear]

The problem is, of course, that people who are a product of their time are unaware of the fact.

 

Thus, in Classical Greece, it would not occur to a citizen of Athens (not even to Socrates or Plato) that there might be anything wrong with the rampant homosexuality among men.  Virtually every young boy was introduced to homosexual sex by an older mentor, and this was considered entirely normal.  Thus, in an interview by a priest of Demeter to determine whether you would be ready for admission to the Telesterion ("Initiation-Hall") in order to experience the Eleusinian Mysteries, your homosexual sexual activity would not be an issue.

"It would not occur." What a bold absolute and erroneous claim.

Laws 636c. Plato considered it to be unnatural due to unbridled lust.

Quote:

In the Laws, Plato’s last book, the Athenian speaker says that, "I think that the pleasure is to be deemed natural which arises out of the intercourse between men and women; but that the intercourse of men with men, or of women with women, is contrary to nature, and that the bold attempt was originally due to unbridled lust." (Laws 636C; see also Symposium of Xenophon, 8:34, Plato’s Symposium, 219B-D). - See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/what_would_the_greeks_have_thought_of_gay_marriage/11903#.dpuf

The Prophet Alma told his son to bridle his passions. Plato was able to figure that out as well.

Apparently, Robert F. Smith can't give credit to the Lord for providing the Light of Christ to all his children.

[Calm]

The problem is, of course, that people who are a product of their time are unaware of the fact.

And if we believe God operates more on a question-inspiration basis and less often on a hit over the head, you've got a mission, do it this way basis, if one doesn't know one is supposed to ask a question, one won't.

And when do explanations come from God without asking for them in the scriptures? Can anyone think of an example? Even if God is the first to open the door, he seems to require those he choose to speak up and ask to keep the conversation going.

Even the hit over the head times in the scriptures that I can think of (calling of Moses, Alma the Younger's experience, probably Saul/Paul) was a result of someone appealing to God for an answer or help on a specific problem even if it wasn't the person who ended up being called asking.

That doesn't mean to me that the Light of Christ isn't in some fashion telling us our behaviour is wrong if it is putting distance between us and our God and his other children. If we are secure in our knowledge though, I think our certainty is able to block out the inspiration or rewrite in such a fashion we think we are doing enough right when the 'right' is really just a small faction of our behaviour. I suspect Elder Peterson thought he was saying nice things about people of color in his talk and perhaps he allowed his certainty of belief in segregation to convince him what he said was enough when the Spirit was inspiring him to be a lot more loving and open than he was. But future teachings and clear doctrine from our leaders and scripture demonstrate his views on segregation were wrong imo (I am certain there are things in my life he could have pointed out to me I was screwing up when I thought I wasn't if we happened to have lived at the same time, but I do believe we have been blessed with further light and knowledge on this as President McConkie said so I don't think my judgment on those few aspects of Elder Peterson's expressed beliefs that differ from current teachings is wrong, I don't think our gratitude for what our leaders got right in the past should block us from listening to what our leaders are teaching us now and hopefully have mostly right if it is different).

Which leads me to wonder what I am blind about and how in the world I can open myself up on those things if pretty much everyone else in my culture is telling me I am fine on top of my own certainty. Humility and not being so sure about what I am so sure about probably helps a lot.

So does that mean I should doubt I am not humble enough to listen to everything the Spirit is trying to tell me and that I should doubt that I cut the Spirit off at times because of my certainty.

Edited August 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

. So in other words we are not aware that we are a product of our times. It must be history before someone knows whether someting is a product of the times or not?

Even though we imagine ourselves postmodern and self-reflective, most of us are very naive when it comes to calling our own folkways into question.  The customs of our culture and time are so deeply ingrained that they are rarely questioned.

[omni]

The problem is, of course, that people who are a product of their time are unaware of the fact.

Thus, in Classical Greece, it would not occur to a citizen of Athens (not even to Socrates or Plato) that there might be anything wrong with the rampant homosexuality among men. Virtually every young boy was introduced to homosexual sex by an older mentor, and this was considered entirely normal. Thus, in an interview by a priest of Demeter to determine whether you would be ready for admission to the Telesterion ("Initiation-Hall") in order to experience the Eleusinian Mysteries, your homosexual sexual activity would not be an issue.

So in my hypothetical situation would I have a legitimate excuse? Something on the order of over 90% of Americans getting married today have fornicated - I would have been a product of our time indeed.

[Teancum]

I've referred you to my post. I suspect that, as usual, you'll just dismiss it.

 

And yes, you display clear contempt for the church and its leaders.

Oh well sure if you say so. And you display contempt of anything that challenges your own world view.

[jwhitlock]

Oh well sure if you say so. And you display contempt of anything that challenges your own world view.

 

Nope. Your penchant for painting things with a broad brush means that you'll typically miss the mark.

[Teancum]

There is no distinction. Organizations consist of people, and ultimately it's people apologizing for other people.

 

Every one of us has ancestors whose actions have impacted the lives of people living now. Under your definition, everyone had better start apologizing ad infinitum because there's so much of it that 's happened.

 

There's also a significant difference between people and apologies for current actions, vs people and apologies for past actions.

 

Apologies for current actions involve people who are going to directly interact with each other.

 

Apologies for past actions are far more problematic. Both parties in such situations were not directly responsible for those past actions. In addition, demands for apologies rarely stop there. After apologies come demands for reparations or compensation. After reparations come demands for censorship of the current individuals or organization, or additional legal punishment.

 

Most people understand that its better not to dwell on past injustices, perceived or real. If the current individuals / organizations have moved on and made changes, then there's no reason to dig up the past and rehash it. We recognize that people's actions always impact others. That's the way the world is, and if we spend all of our time apologizing and compensating and censuring then it becomes a miserable world to live in.

 

Since all of us have skeletons in our closets and our ancestors closets, it amounts to clear hypocrisy to demand an apology from someone else for past historical offenses of others connected to them without applying those same rules to ourselves. The only exceptions to this should be where there is a clear, ongoing burden that needs to be corrected and clearly should be corrected, and that does typically involve compensation. Where it doesn't apply - which includes the subject at hand - demands for apologies are typically not being made in good faith.

Let's be clear. I did not start this thread nor do I demand apologies. Repudiation of past harmful teachings might be nice and I mean real repudiation not tossing leaders of the past under the bus as simple unenlightened folklore. But I don't expect it.

Still your responses attempt to let the church escape institutional responsibility and your comparisons are stil apples to oranges in my opinion for what it is worth. The LDS church was quite happy when the modern governor of Missouri removes Boggs extermination order and apologized. Based on your argument he should not have bothered.

[Teancum]

Nope. Your penchant for painting things with a broad brush means that you'll typically miss the mark.

could be. I often admit I could be wrong....unlike most the believers here.

[jwhitlock]

Let's be clear. I did not start this thread nor do I demand apologies. Repudiation of past harmful teachings might be nice and I mean real repudiation not tossing leaders of the past under the bus as simple unenlightened folklore. But I don't expect it.

Still your responses attempt to let the church escape institutional responsibility and your comparisons are stil apples to oranges in my opinion for what it is worth. The LDS church was quite happy when the modern governor of Missouri removes Boggs extermination order and apologized. Based on your argument he should not have bothered.

 

Did the church ask for an apology? And until the extermination order was removed, did it still apply as law?

 

I think you need to look for another rationalization.

[jwhitlock]

could be. I often admit I could be wrong....unlike most the believers here.

 

Still painting with that broad, contemptuous brush.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

You will find a far more accurate portrayal of the homosexuality in ancient Greece, and with Socrates and Plato at http://www.livius.org/articles/concept/greek-homosexuality/ .

 

The Prophet Alma told his son to bridle his passions. Plato was able to figure that out as well.

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

 Perhaps for you, both Alma and Plato lived in the same time and place and were subject to the same folkways.  Perhaps you believe that every time and place is the same, and cannot be differentiated.