Mark E Petersen On Race

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

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.

They who have not the Law, are a law unto themselves (Rom 2:14)

[Teancum]

Still painting with that broad, contemptuous brush.

No just stating the obvious experiences and Interactions I have had. And that is not a broad brush at all.

And it is amazing that you keep beating me with a broad brush of being contemptuous. Honestly I find you among numbered among the most contemptuous of the beleviers here when you are in opposition to someone . Maybe I am the same. I try not to be but I guess it is easy to fall into.

But feel free to have the last word. This *** for tat with you gets old and is unproductive for both of us.

I really waste far too much time here on the board. There is a topic I would like to start at some point maybe on how better to build bridges between the beleviers and the skeptics. I am not sure though whether it would go across well here and it may just be futile.

We will see. Maybe I should just stay away for a while.

Edited August 30, 2015 by Teancum

[thesometimesaint]

The truly amazing and wonderful thing is that God still wants to help us very flawed mortals.

[BlueDreams]

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.

 

I wrote four simple questions 10 or so pages ago. To this you asked me about 8. I answered ALL of them in one post. I asked you to answer my 4 questions. You responded with a very long non-answer answer that didn't touch any of the questions I initially asked. That's what led to more questions...those, if you'd prefer, can be considered rhetorical and more a point to indicate some of the major problems with Peterson's address. But what I care about and all I've asked is for 4 simple questions be answered...2 are in yes/no formats, so those I assume could be answered fairly quickly. 2 more may take more time but are dependent on your first answers...but not that much time considering you've studied at least some of this out from what you're suggesting. So no, one at a time is not reasonable when you had me answer 8.

 

Here they are, numbered:

1. Do you think I, because of my ancestry will only obtain the level of servant in the CK?

2. If no, do you think my Black african predecessors will be servants in the CK not matter how much they embrace the gospel and the pertaining ordinances?

3. If so, where is your scriptural proof for it?

4. Also if so, ask yourself is this just/fair; are you better than me in following the Gospel because of your skin color/ancestry?

 

Also on my emotionally charged state. I'm a therapist, my morning was spent with emotionally charged individuals and helping them to calm and find even a moment of solace and understanding. I wrote the one post with several questions and then made an avocado sandwich while watching a star trek episode...then I listened to a conference talk and headed for my shift as a temple worker and literally gave no thought to this until right now.   The most emotionally charged I've been all day is a 2-3 on a scale of 1-10....and it wasn't you. After I finish writing this, I may shake my head at how it's been 2 days to answer 4 questions and you've been able to post several fairly extensive posts....but somehow my questions are too difficult to tackle in a single post (CV did it in 1 sentence). But after that head shake I will more likely focus intently on my lesson for tomorrow, head to bed, and then work on it the next morning.  I'm not emotionally charged, that is definitely you reading into things. 

Edited August 30, 2015 by BlueDreams

[PeterPear]

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/ .

 

 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.

Perhaps your reply stinks of a red herring to deflect your lack of knowledge of Greek history.

You claimed it would never occur to Plato that homosexuality was wrong. Plato (b. 428 B.C.) advocated laws AGAINST homosexuality and such laws existed in early Greek history. Some Greek philosophers even recommended a death sentence for it:

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=plato+laws+840de&source=bl&ots=ZlVC0WkcCf&sig=pPWIdPR2aHQDanXzkiRyOw0D9nA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ6AEwBWoVChMI8t2Ti_vPxwIViqWICh1Q9wC2#v=onepage&q=plato%20laws%20840de&f=false

I suggest you quit implying, because of your lack of knowledge, that the Ancients were idiots because every time and place was not the same.

[Robert F. Smith]

Perhaps your reply stinks of a red herring to deflect your lack of knowledge of Greek history.

You claimed it would never occur to Plato that homosexuality was wrong. Plato (b. 428 B.C.) advocated laws AGAINST homosexuality and such laws existed in early Greek history. Some Greek philosophers even recommended a death sentence for it:

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=plato+laws+840de&source=bl&ots=ZlVC0WkcCf&sig=pPWIdPR2aHQDanXzkiRyOw0D9nA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ6AEwBWoVChMI8t2Ti_vPxwIViqWICh1Q9wC2#v=onepage&q=plato%20laws%20840de&f=false 

I suggest you quit implying, because of your lack of knowledge, that the Ancients were idiots because every time and place was not the same.

Thank you for that reference.  It was enlightening, although your comment that I have somehow implied "that the Ancients were idiots" seems rather odd.  The cultural practices of various peoples throughout the ages do not indicate idiocy or the lack of it, but rather speak to their anthropological state at any given time and place.  It seems to be you who is making invidious value judgments.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/27/opinion/l-plato-on-homosexuality-238493.html ,

Plato praises pederasty in the Phaedrus, but condemns homosexual intercourse.   Prof. R. E. Allen points this out and goes on to say that “The ‘Laws’ (Book VIII) rejects homosexual intercourse because it can render men unfit for marriage and because it is contrary to nature and a shameless indulgence.

 

“The ‘Laws’ recommends that homosexuality, like adultery, fornication and the use of prostitutes, not be engaged in; that if it is engaged in, it be kept private or closeted, and that if it is discovered, it be punished by deprivation of civil rights, a severe penalty. In effect, the ‘Laws’ recommends criminalization.”

 

Thus, it may well be that late in life Plato did condemn homosexual intercourse, but not pederasty.  For us today, there is no meaningful difference.

 

Excerpts from http://www.livius.org/articles/concept/greek-homosexuality/ ,

Homosexuality was an “integral part of social life” in Classical Athens.

 

Moreover, due to “publications like Charles Hupperts' thesis Eros Dikaios (2000). It is now clear that homosexuality was not restricted to pederasty, and that we have to study our evidence more carefully.”

 

“. . . the philosophy of the Athenian Plato. He has painted a very remarkable picture of his teacher Socrates, who is shown - in Plato's own words - as boy crazy. When Socrates was in the company of beautiful boys, he lost his senses. Some sort of mania (divine madness) took possession of him and he was almost unable to resist it. He often complained about the fact that he was helpless towards adolescents, and said that he could only cope with the situation by asking difficult questions to these beautiful boys and teaching them philosophy. So, according to Plato, Socrates sublimated his passion.”

 

“. . . for Plato, the only type of real love is the love between two men, and he has dedicated two of his dialogues to that subject: the Symposium and the Phaedrus. After all, homo-erotic love is related to education and gaining knowledge, and this makes it superior to other types of love.”

 

“In 399 BCE, Socrates was executed on a charge of corrupting the Athenian youth. This is a bit mysterious, because there was no Athenian law that said that people who taught bad ideas to young people ought to be killed. Socrates can not have been guilty of breaking any written law. However, his fellow-citizens have interpreted this ‘corruption of the youth’ as sexual corruption: they took literally Socrates' metaphor that he loved boys, and this was indeed breaking the old law of 450 (above) that forbade young citizens to sell themselves. Correctly or not, Socrates was held responsible for inducing boys to prostitution.”

[TheSkepticChristian]

  God is not constantly uploading information into the brains of his prophets. ay.

 

I agree, I don't expect prophets to be perfect, but I expect God to chasten them immediatly.

 

I sometimes wonder why Elder Peterson (or any other prophet) didn't feel bad after saying something wrong?

 

Is there any evidence that Elder Peterson apologized for what he said 

[Robert F. Smith]

I agree, I don't expect prophets to be perfect, but I expect God to chasten them immediatly.

 

I sometimes wonder why Elder Peterson (or any other prophet) didn't feel bad after saying something wrong?

 

Is there any evidence that Elder Peterson apologized for what he said 

I don't know whether he ever apologized for his 1954 remarks, but he certainly got his comeuppance in 1978 -- wouldn't you say?

 

Bear in mind also, that he was made an apostle in 1944 to take the place of Elder Richard Lyman, who was excommunicated.  Yes, apostles have been excommunicated.  They are human and get things wrong.  The idea that they must be perfect and that they are not creatures of their times is ridiculous.  The idea that Brother Brigham should have been struck down by a Jovian bolt from the blue for his racist comments is equally silly -- even though I do have an ancestor who was a Presbyterian minister (Rev Sampson Smith) who was indeed struck down by lightning.  So, maybe God does such things once in a while.  I tend to think that, overall, God was pleased with Brother Brigham -- a diamond in the rough -- and I myself tend to have a fondness for him.  However, were he here among us today, I'd tell him on no uncertain terms just how wrong he was.  And he would smile and agree that he had gotten it wrong, and repeat his own truism:  "No man's opinion is worth a straw."

[TheSkepticChristian]

  They are human and get things wrong.  The idea that they must be perfect and that they are not creatures of their times is ridiculous.

 

I agree, but they also have the Holy Ghost to tell them when they need to repent.  Why didn't Brigham Young, Elder Peterson,  and other prophets feel bad about the incorrect stuff they said?

 

God chasten Moses, Joseph Smith, Peter and other prophets immediatly, God didn't wait years to chasten them.

 

D&C condenms slavery, but did Brigham Young ever feel bad for allowing slavery?

 

Elder Oaks said, "comforter dwells in us (see John 14:17). He teaches us all things and brings all things to our remembrance"

 

 The idea that Brother Brigham should have been struck down by a Jovian bolt from the blue for his racist comments is equally silly

 

 

I am not saying that, but  please tell me why the Holy Spirit didn't tell him to repent?

Edited August 30, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Bobbieaware]

I

1. Do you think I, because of my ancestry will only obtain the level of servant in the CK?

After the 1978 revelation, the answer to your question is no; before the 1978 revelation, the informed answer to your question would be "I don't know." If you will go back and read Elder Petersen's speech, you will see that toward the end of it he quotes Heber C Kimball who said he believed that one day the Lord would remover the priesthood ban and that those Church members formerly under the ban would one day be entitled to full exaltation in the celestial kingdom. So if you will carefully reread the speech you will plainly see that in 1954 the now reviled (among some members of this board) prophet of God, Mark E. Petersen, admitted at that time he didn't know, one way or the other, if those under the priesthood ban would ever see the day when they would have the opportunity to receive full exaltation -- but he definitely held out that hope as a possibility!

You see, in 1954 the priesthood ban was still firmly in place and, like it or not, as long as the priesthood ban remained in place Elder Petersen had no choice but to say that since those under the ban could not hold the priesthood, and if the ban was never lifted the most those under the ban could hope for is entry into the celestial kingdom in the status of servants but not fully exalted gods. I say he had no choice but to say what he said because the 132nd section of the D&C clearly states that those who do not have a temple marriage that has been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise may inherit a celestial glory, but not the fullness thereof. Like it or not, unpleasant or not, what follows is what informed Elder Petersen to say what he said in his controversial speech. Please thoughtfully read and digest what the Lord says...

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but ARE APPOINTED ANGELS in heaven, which angels are ministering SERVANTS (there's that word), to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, WITHOUT EXALTATION, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth ARE NOT GODS, BUT ARE ANGELS of God forever and ever. (D&C 138)

So in Elder Petersen's day, an honest member would have to admit that since those under the priesthood ban could not receive the priesthood, and therefore could not receive the priesthood ordinance of eternal marriage, and if the ban was never lifted (and it wasn't for another 24,years), the best that one under the ban could obtain in the resurrection would be a celestial glory in the status of an angelic servant (and please note: the word servant is the Lord's -- NOT ELDER PETERSEN'S)

Now I must say I believe the only reason why you felt you had to ask this question is because it's likely you didn't read Elder Petersen's speach carefully enough. But I said that in order to answer your questions there would be "hard sayings" that would have to be made, so I sincerely hope the unvarnished truth will not cause you to falter. You asked for the unvarnished truth and you got it. But please understand that for those of us who were members of the Church before 1978, there is nothing I've said here that would have come as a surprise in those days, much less a shock.

I'm going to have a busy Sabbath day. So if I don't respond to any additional posts from you today, I will be sure to do so sometime tomorrow.

Have a great day!

Edited August 30, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Sevenbak]

No, apostles don't have to be perfect, but I expect them to be better than American Jews.

If one apostle makes a mistake, we have 14 other apostles to immediately correct his mistake.

The church told the Bishops to read a letter about gay marriage to their wards, why can't our church do the same to condemn folk doctrines like

1. The Lamanite curse/mark was dark skin

2. The mark of Cain was black skin

Robert F. Smith said about American Jews

but I am still waiting for the church to clarify that the lamanite mark/curse was not dark skin. The new essay doesn't say anything about the mark of Cain or the Lamanite mark.

The Catholic church teaches the opposite of what it did centuries ago, but Pope Francis still apologized for church's "sins" against indigenous peoples

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-apologies-for-catholic-churchs-sins-against-indigenous-peoples/

We all agree the apostles are not perfect, so that means that an apology shouldn't be that hard to make.

True, but at least we LDS should be better than other groups because we have the aid of the gift of the Holy Ghost

A bit too much steadying the ark for me.

[Teancum]

I don't know whether he ever apologized for his 1954 remarks, but he certainly got his comeuppance in 1978 -- wouldn't you say?

Bear in mind also, that he was made an apostle in 1944 to take the place of Elder Richard Lyman, who was excommunicated. Yes, apostles have been excommunicated. They are human and get things wrong. The idea that they must be perfect and that they are not creatures of their times is ridiculous. The idea that Brother Brigham should have been struck down by a Jovian bolt from the blue for his racist comments is equally silly -- even though I do have an ancestor who was a Presbyterian minister (Rev Sampson Smith) who was indeed struck down by lightning. So, maybe God does such things once in a while. I tend to think that, overall, God was pleased with Brother Brigham -- a diamond in the rough -- and I myself tend to have a fondness for him. However, were he here among us today, I'd tell him on no uncertain terms just how wrong he was. And he would smile and agree that he had gotten it wrong, and repeat his own truism: "No man's opinion is worth a straw."

Hello Robert.

I will attempt to respond in a non contemptuous way though I really don't think my questions about what we perhaps should question and expect for those who ask we sustain them as a prophets, Seers and Revelators. Perhaps some view any challenge as contentious and contemptuous . A podcast I am listening to about how to build bridges between political factions and the secular and religious seems to indicate that such is our primal emotional response whenever we are challenged be something disagreeable or threatening to us.

So let me share a few thoughts .

First I personally do not expect perfection. Yes LDS leaders can and do sin like the rest of us. I don't expect they won't or don't sin. Yes they make mistakes in what they say and teach. But the struggle I have is often the church wants it both ways as far as their teachings go and the expectations that we as members follow them.

Carbon dioxide I believe posted some quotes a page or two back about members can dismiss or set aside teachings from leaders that do not comply with the standard works. They are good quotes, I used to use them all the time as as defender.

On the other hand we have thngs like this:

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

And this:

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-the-living-prophets-student-manual/chapter-2-the-living-prophet-the-president-of-the-church?lang=eng

And there are more. We are told to follow the brethren over and over. I think if we spent some time searching for comments like Carbon dioxide provided and ones that I link to above we would find it would far more tilt to follow the brethren and even in the way as as Heber Grant told Marion Romney about following the prophet and being blessed even if what they say is wrong.

If these men are Prohets, Seers and Revelators in my ideal world they would be more accountable for what comes from their teachings. If one is getting something wrong why not correct them? Allegedly President Kimball was not happy with Benson's 14 Fundamentals of a prophet talk but it was not ever said to the public that the talk was Benson's opinion and here we are today with it being used by leaders in conference, published in church magazines and on the church web site. According to that talk the living prophet is more important to us than the scriptures or prior prophets. That seems to conflict with the quotes Carbon dioxide provided.

Elder Peterson's remarks were clearly part of his culture. I don't think he was an evil man. I don't hate him or any other leaders as Bobbieaware seems to think those that ask these questions do. But bobbieaware essentially agreed with much of what he said about where a black person would be in the celestial kingdom based on the then existing priesthood ban. Now these teachings are dismissed as simply speculative and folklore now. But the living members certainly did not think so then. I grew up in the 60s and 70s and I believed the less valiant argument as well as the relegation of those of African descent to a limited level in the celestial kingdom. These were the common explanations for the ban.

Well I have rambled enough. I have always had it in my heart to follow the brethren. I used to hang on their every word. It has been much more difficult as I have realized what at least I view as some major inconsistencies. Maybe I am just to spiritually immature but my trust level has diminished in them. I don't see them as having any better access to knowing what God wants than any other human being. People can call that contemptuous if they wish.

Edited August 30, 2015 by Teancum

[Tacenda]

No just stating the obvious experiences and Interactions I have had. And that is not a broad brush at all.

And it is amazing that you keep beating me with a broad brush of being contemptuous. Honestly I find you among numbered among the most contemptuous of the beleviers here when you are in opposition to someone . Maybe I am the same. I try not to be but I guess it is easy to fall into.

But feel free to have the last word. This *** for tat with you gets old and is unproductive for both of us.

I really waste far too much time here on the board. There is a topic I would like to start at some point maybe on how better to build bridges between the beleviers and the skeptics. I am not sure though whether it would go across well here and it may just be futile.

We will see. Maybe I should just stay away for a while.

Do it! I think some on this board make better apologists than missionaries. Edited August 30, 2015 by Tacenda

[Jude2]

May the Lord forgive me but I’m going to argue with Mark E. Peterson and I guess with Joseph Fielding Smith whom he quotes. 

 

He says “we must accept the fact of pre-existence, and that in our pre-existence we had free agency.” and that the Lord somehow judged us before we came to earth and placed us in our various situations here based on our actions there.  

 

He quotes Eze 18

 

“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” 

 

And then draws the conclusion that anyone born black had made choices in their pre-earth life to cause them to be born unworthy of the priesthood. 

 

“9. Is there any reason to think that the same principles of rewards and punishments did not apply to us and our deeds in the pre-existent world as will apply hereafter? Is there reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life is not a reflection of our worthiness or lack of it in the pre-existent life? We must accept the justice of God. He is fair to all. His is not a respector of persons. He will mete to us according to what we deserve.”

 

But what of John 9 where there is a man blind since birth;

“ And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.” 

 

It seems we are not cursed with some earthly curse because of actions done in our pre-earth lives. 

 

Instead there is a parable in D&C 88 which I think helps explain what was happening. A man sends his twelve servants out into the field and then visits them one by one. 

 

“58 And thus they all received the light of the countenance of their lord, every man in his hour, and in his time, and in his season—

 

 59 Beginning at the first, and so on unto the last, and from the last unto the first, and from the first unto the last;

 

 60 Every man in his own order, until his hour was finished, even according as his lord had commanded him, that his lord might be glorified in him, and he in his lord, that they all might be glorified.”

 

Not one of his servants received more glory than another just at different times. And as has been quoted by others here “…that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the Priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we are now entitled to." BY

 

Those children of God who died without the priesthood blessing which consist of nearly all of our Father’s children will receive those blessings.   

 

There is a passage from the Book of Mormon which he did not add to the mix from which he developed his theories. 

 

 "Wherefore, ye shall remember your children, how that ye have grieved their hearts because of the example that ye have set before them; and also, remember that ye may, because of your filthiness, bring your children unto destruction, and their sins be heaped upon your heads at the last day." Jacob 3, see also D&C 29: 47-48

 

Couldn’t we apply this to Cain? Lots of men kill and we know they will receive forgiveness of sins at some point but not so with Cain he is perdition. He took his children and dwelt in the land of Nod or he separated himself and his family from the people of God. He was a poor example and didn’t teach his children to serve God, so the sins of his children are placed upon his head. 

 

In a sense not having the priesthood is a blessing “but sin is not imputed when there is no law” and “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” Rom 5:13, James 4:17

 

And from Luke 12;

“And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.”

 

And lastly 

“ And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.” Luke 13

 

I just think there are many who assume they are going to be first to march into the Celestial Kingdom who are going to be surprised they came in last.  

[williamsmith]

It took only two replies for somebody to appeal to the product of the times excuse.

 

Should not the true church be ahead of the times and not a product of them?

 

Paul thought women should not speak in Church, and it was better to not be married.

Those views clearly were not Church doctrine at least one then, but especially now.

 

Was Paul not a product of his times?  And yet Christ appeared to him when he was Anti-Christ and made him an Apostle.

 

Reality and fact are not "excuses"..... It's simply what is.

The Church is ahead of it's time, but the people in it sometimes aren't.

 

However, there are exceptions to this.  God often only reveals truth when man is ready for it.

So, this implies that the Church also sometimes isn't "ahead of it's time", but waiting for man to catch up, before God has a more perfect way.

The Gospel itself is a "more perfect way" compared to the "Law".  Clearly, it took man some time to finally be ready to be taught the Gospel Itself.

But remember also, Mark E. Petersen was not the Church.  It was HIS interpretation of a policy and doctrines.

Sometimes Apostles can be wrong, such as Paul.

Thus, you trying to make Mark E. Petersen "The Church" is just misrepresenting things.  No man, including the Prophet is "The Church".

 

The Church's policy was clear.  Those of African descent could not have the Priesthood yet, according to a ban in the scriptures the Church believed applied.

Pre-mortality had nothing to do with it.  Yes, that was a doctrine, but some applying it to the Priesthood was seriously mistaken.

They were looking for "reasons why", and that was a wrong one.

 

Remember however when the ban was removed?  Racism also ended at the same time in any major degree.

Personally, I don't find that a coincidence.  Man was ready, thus the ban was removed.

[carbon dioxide]

 

 

He says “we must accept the fact of pre-existence, and that in our pre-existence we had free agency.” and that the Lord somehow judged us before we came to earth and placed us in our various situations here based on our actions there.  

 

He quotes Eze 18

 

“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” 

 

And then draws the conclusion that anyone born black had made choices in their pre-earth life to cause them to be born unworthy of the priesthood. 

Given the fact that the spirits in premortal world had agency and we were not copies of each other, not everyone was the same so some would have been more righteous and more valiant than others.  Withing any large group you will find a large spectrum of individuals.   I just don't see the indication that God lumped a group of people who made certain choices and had them all born in the black race.  Some of them would have been born black but I am sure many were born in other racial groups.  It is on that point that I think Petersen when too far.  His conclusion is not established in the scriptures. 

 

The whole banning of the priesthood is not well understood and I can understand those like Petersen trying to find explanations for it.  I think it simply would have been better for them to say they did not know the reasons for it than go off on ideas that may or may not be correct.  Overall I think the teaching point that can be made is an issue exists that we don't understand, better to not say anything and say we don't know than speculate blindly which most likely will arrive to a wrong conclusion.   If I was to take the view to be correct, all those spirits who made choices that caused them to be unworthy of the priesthood had been born and had died by 1978.  Everyone living from 1979 and beyond are spirits who did not make those choices.  I find that hard to believe given how bad the world we live in today.

 

[Calm]

 

The whole banning of the priesthood is not well understood.

Was not well understood.

I am not sure we should say that now given the recent scholarship. See Paul Reeve's FM presentation when it gets posted or even better buy his book, Religion of a Different Color. Excellent documentation.

I believe there is another book on the subject coming out that provides even more background...can't remember the name, but anything by Russell Stevenson on the subject is another must imo.

[TheSkepticChristian]

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

 

but God knows everything, why didn't the Holy Ghost tell the church leaders to repent?

 

"Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions"

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

 

So why didn't they feel bad?  

[Calm]

Go ask God or wait till you die and ask them. Maybe they did but they chose to ignore it for some reason.

We have no way of knowing what goes on internally or how hard or not God tries to convince our leaders when they are in error. At best we can extrapolate from our own experience.

[Calm]

The fundamental problem with attempting to justify any of Elder Peterson's remarks in his talk imo is that the whole premise of his talk was to condemn the attempts, as he saw it, for the Negro race to be absorbed into the white race, especially through intermarriage. He was promoting segregation not on the basis of the Priesthood Ban since he stated in the talk that segregation of all races should occur while acknowledging that other races such as the Chinese would be able to experience exaltation. His main focus was not attempting to explain the Ban, he was using that to justify segregation.

And as far as him believing the Ban would be lifted in the eternities, while he quoted two leaders' positions on this, he believed they were their personal opinions and no one really knew what would happen.

And then he ends with in regards to intermarriage with the Negro race "There must be no intermarriage."

People who focus on his ideas about the preexistence in debating the talk are missing the point imo. He was using those beliefs to justify his stance on intermarriage as a sin and evil in society. He even counsels his listeners to not get carried away by softer feelings referring to "what they used to say about sin: first we pity, then endure, then embrace."

Jude2 has posted some excellent scriptural rebuttals of Elder Peterson's beliefs on segregation. Elder Peterson was not being blunt about correct principles in his talk. According to current doctrine (Pres. Hinckley's quote on racism) and the scriptures, he was wrong even though the ban was still in place in the Church at that time. While I have no doubt that we need to continue to respect the man for the good he accomplished as an apostle as well as love him as our brother, he himself expresses strongly the need to stand against and refute error. That in this case the error is his own is very sad to me, but we still need to accept that responsibilty. I think he would be pushing us to do just that if he were to be able to give a speech today.

Edited August 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[TheSkepticChristian]

Go ask God or wait till you die and ask them. Maybe they did but they chose to ignore it for some reason.

 

All of them? including the prophet?

 

In the scriptures what happens when a prophet ignores God?

 

 

We have no way of knowing what goes on internally or how hard or not God tries to convince our leaders when they are in error. At best we can extrapolate from our own experience.

 

We know that God disciplines his prophets, but not always apparently. 

[Calm]

We know that God disciplines his prophets, but not always apparently.

Did he discipline Abraham or Jacob for being bad husbands and ignoring their wives' competition? Did he discipline Moses for killing a man? Did he discipline Elijah? for calling out a bear to kill those who were mocking him for being bald? Did he discipline the Israelites for having slaves?

And even if God attempts to teach his prophets, there is no guarantee it takes. We do not hear of Jonah becoming an activist for Nineveh, for example. The story ends with the lesson, there is no word if Jonah got it.

Maybe he did for all we know, maybe the prophets who have been in error (as we see it) in modern times were disciplined as well, but as long as we have our agency it would appear we are all able to get it wrong.

We talk about Alma and Saul's experience as if that were God removing their agency by rubbing their nose in their error. Well, Laman and Lemuel had pretty much the same experience but they refused to change their hearts...and God didn't force them to. We don't know if he kept sending them signs they were wrong because Nephi and Jacob don't write of it. We don't know their internal experience because they don't share that. We know very little of most prophets' experiences in the scriptures, their lives were many decades and most we can read about in an hour or two or much less. So if you want to find out how God dealt with them and modern prophets, you aren't going to able to get most of the details in the records ao that leaves it between you and God.

Edited August 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[Raingirl]

Thank you for your concern. My request for one question at a time is a deliberate attempt on my part to try to bring calm and deliberation to an emotion-charged situation.

 

Did I express "concern"?  I simply was expressing how baffled I am at your refusal to answer four simple questions.  Believe me, that doesn't rise to the level of "concern".

 

I don't see BD being "emotionally charged".  At all.  I have seen plenty of patience shown and calmly repeating the four questions that you seemed unable to find.  Perhaps a little (a lot) of projection going on from your part.

 

I don't see how making condescending statements like your post above is an attempt to "calm" anything.  Not that there was anything that needed calming.

 

You seem to be capable of writing at length when posting your non-answers, yet you are demanding four separate posts when it comes to simply saying yes or no?  Do you have a post-count goal you're trying to achieve?

 

Now I am taking my non-emotion-charged, non-concerned, calm self off to more important things.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Did he discipline Abraham or Jacob for being bad husbands and ignoring their wives' competition? 

 

Why would a loving God not do it? I am personally not a fan of the Old Testament, but in some parts God immediately disciplines his prophets. 

 

Please remember that a prophet is the face of the church, why would the spirit not tell him to repent?

 

Didn't the prophets feel bad about what they said? 

Edited August 30, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

Did he discipline Abraham or Jacob for being bad husbands and ignoring their wives' competition? 

 

Elder Maxwell said, "The Lord is truly there to chastise those whom He loves, including the spiritually preeminent"

 

So why not? A  loving god should discipline his prophets, especially because prophets teach us the way, and we should follow their example. 

 

 

 

And even if God attempts to teach his prophets, there is no guarantee it takes. We do not hear of Jonah becoming an activist for Nineveh, for example. 

 

 

Why would God choose prophets that cannot understand? What is the point? 

Edited August 30, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian