Mark E Petersen On Race

[Thinking]

All he did was state that being LDS did not make you immune to cultural values. You treated this as if it was some groundbreaking revelation which is stupid. So logically I have to figure out what kind of stupid it is.

Of course I enjoyed it. I come to this board for entertainment.

 

Wow! I am stupid.   I didn't know this thread was about being LDS. I thought this thread was about some alleged racist statements made by an apostle, which was defended by claiming they were a product of the times. I've got to learn how to read.

[The Nehor]

Wow! I am stupid.   I didn't know this thread was about being LDS. I thought this thread was about some alleged racist statements made by an apostle, which was defended by claiming they were a product of the times. I've got to learn how to read.

The key connection here is that most LDS apostles are LDS.

[busybee]

What I find rather puzzling about these requests/demands for an apology for things said 56 years ago is that they are being made by people who have 'no dog in the fight' so to speak. I was raised in apartheid South Africa. I have never heard any of our Black, Asian or Bi-racial brothers and sisters clamoring for an apology for things said so long ago. If anyone has a right to demand an apology, surely it should be the

'(perceived or real) injured party'. 

 

Personally, I think it is quite patronizing to demand an apology on behalf of someone else, as though they haven't the ability to request one for themselves if they should so desire.

Edited August 28, 2015 by busybee

[ERayR]

What I find rather puzzling about these requests/demands for an apology for things said 56 years ago is that they are being made by people who have 'no dog in the fight' so to speak. I was raised in apartheid South Africa. I have never heard any of our Black, Asian or Bi-racial brothers and sisters clamoring for an apology for things said so long ago. If anyone has a right to demand an apology, surely it should be the

'(perceived or real) injured party'. 

 

Personally, I think it is quite patronizing to demand an apology on behalf of someone else, as though they haven't the ability to request one for themselves if they should so desire.

 

And they expect an apology from someone who has no authority to apologize for the person they are wanting an apology from.

[Thinking]

The key connection here is that most LDS apostles are LDS.

 

 So your justification for an apostle not acting apostolic is that he is LDS?

[ERayR]

I disagree,  why would God choose hypocrites to teach his will?  So, I do expect them to be better than the rest of the world.

 

and that is why I don't expect apostate LDS to be better, in fact I expect them to be worst than other groups.

The question is, are they really worst?

 

I am not talking about the priesthood ban or even Elder Peterson.

I simply want to see church leaders clarify that

1. Lamanite mark/curse is not dark skin

2. The mark of Cain is not black skin

 

He wouldn't but he definitely uses human beings.  Some better than others.  All better than the average.

 

Apostate LDS better then who/what?

 

You seem to have gotten it so wasn't it clear enough for you?  Or do you consider yourself of superior intellect and abilities?

[ERayR]

 So your justification for an apostle not acting apostolic is that he is LDS?

 

Red herring alert:  I think it was you that was insisting he wasn't acting as an apostle, not Nehor.

[TheSkepticChristian]

He wouldn't but he definitely uses human beings.  Some better than others.  All better than the average.

 

and I agree prophets are not perfect, but I expect them to be better than Mother Theresa, Pope Francis, American Jews, and tibetan buddhists

[ERayR]

and I agree prophets are not perfect, but I expect them to be better than Mother Theresa, Pope Francis, American Jews, and tibetan buddhists

 

Why?

[TheSkepticChristian]

Why?

 

because prophets teach the will of God, and prophets have the spiritual gifts.

 

as for your other question, see post 245, I added some words.

[ERayR]

because prophets teach the will of God, and prophets have the spiritual gifts.

 

as for your other question, see post 245, I added some words.

 

Mother Theresa, Pope Francis, American Jews, and tibetan buddhists:  All these you have mentioned also teach the words of God.

[Sanpitch]

What I find rather puzzling about these requests/demands for an apology for things said 56 years ago is that they are being made by people who have 'no dog in the fight' so to speak. I was raised in apartheid South Africa. I have never heard any of our Black, Asian or Bi-racial brothers and sisters clamoring for an apology for things said so long ago. If anyone has a right to demand an apology, surely it should be the

'(perceived or real) injured party'. 

 

Personally, I think it is quite patronizing to demand an apology on behalf of someone else, as though they haven't the ability to request one for themselves if they should so desire.

I really doubt the non-white or even the white LDS members in South Africa are aware of Petersen's speech or other teachings of the church so I can see why they wouldn't complain about it.  But that doesn't answer your question why someone who doesn't have a dog in the fight feel there should be an apology for someone who is dead.  Maybe there isn't a good answer.

 

In my opinion it's similar to why do I care about the tribes of Native Americans killed to the last person in Sand Creek, Colorado or The Bear River Massacre in Southern Idaho - Northern Utah and many other examples?  I didn't have a dog in the fight, I didn't even know any of them.  I did grieve for the kids, mothers and men who were slaughtered for practically no reason than the hate of Native Americans.  I grieve for Black Slaves in the early days of America, who never had a chance for a normal life.  Family members sold back and forth and beat by the owners.  I didn't have a dog in that fight either.  I still care even thought there's no one who can apologize other than the nation as a whole, such as the leaders of the nation.  I grieve somewhat for the Black race who know of and listened to and believed the garbage coming out of Petersen's mouth. 

 

That is my excuse for feeling an explanation of the error was in order and it's probably already been given by the church.  So case closed.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Sanpitch

[Bobbieaware]

I'm no sure if the following has already been posted on this thread but the FAIR Mormom author explains why he believes there is no apology necessary for Elder Petersen's comments:

"It is unknown exactly what Maher was using as the source of such a comment, as it has never been a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ that blacks would enter heaven only as slaves. It is possible, however, that Maher misread and was referring to an address given by Elder Mark E. Petersen at Brigham Young University on 27 August 1954 entitled "Race Problems—As They Affect the Church." Elder Petersen said in this address:

Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the lord in sending him to earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin.... In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory. He will not go then even with the honorable men of the earth to the Terrestrial glory, nor with the ones spoken of as being without law.[1]

At the time of Elder Petersen's remarks, black members of the Church did not and could not hold the priesthood in this life. The reasons behind this are complex, and still debated.

Main article: Pre-1978 Priesthood ban

However, despite the restriction on priesthood, Elder Petersen asserted that black members of the Church who were faithful to their covenants would be exalted in the celestial kingdom, the highest degree of glory in LDS theology (see D&C 76:50-70). Those who attain to this glory are "the church of the Firstborn," brought forth in the "resurrection of the just," who have "overcome all things." They are "just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant."

It is not clear what he meant by saying a faithful black would have to go "as a servant." Glory within the celestial kingdom is not differentiated, since the "glory of the celestial is one, even as the glory of the sun is one" (D&C 76:96). Only the telestial kingdom has differentiated levels of glory between members in LDS theology, "for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world..." (D&C 76:98).

However, many LDS members and leaders have understood D&C 131:1-4 as teaching that there are three "subkingdoms" within the celestial kingdom. As Elder John A. Widtsoe explained this view:

To enter the highest of these degrees in the celestial kingdom is to be exalted in the kingdom of God. Such exaltation comes to those who receive the higher ordinances of the Church, such as the temple endowment, and afterwards are sealed in marriage for time and eternity, whether on earth or in the hereafter.[2]

Under this view, access to the celestial kingdom requires baptism (which black members could receive), while access to the two higher "subdegrees" requires temple ordinances, for which black members were not eligible to receive, in this life, under the pre-1978 policy.

As Elder Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, without reference to black members or the priesthood ban:

...they who are clean in their lives; who are virtuous; who are honorable; but who will not receive this covenant of eternal marriage in the house of God, shall come forth-and they may even enter into the celestial kingdom, but when they enter there they enter as servants-to wait upon those "who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory." (italics added)[3]

The difference, of course, is that it was not that black members would not receive the "covenant of eternal marriage in the house of God," but that they could not because of the priesthood ban. The same is true of any person, of any race, who will not receive the covenant of eternal marriage, for whatever reason. Black members have always had the opportunity to eventually receive that blessing, even if after this life—though at the time of Elder Petersen's talk, the timing of that opportunity was unknown.

Thus, given the policy in place at the time of Elder Petersen's remarks, black members would be eligible for exaltation, though they like others who had not received all the ordinances would assist and help others as "servants." This is not slavery, but a partnership between exalted beings. A modification would have required a lifting of the priesthood ban. Elder Petersen appears to be pointing out that black members are candidates for exaltation, even if the priesthood ban was never lifted in this life. (The lifting of the ban was a subject of intense debate at the time.) This eventual exaltation would presumably mean that the priesthood would have been received in the spirit world after this mortal existence. It is clear from other comments in Elder Petersen's talk that he expected this eventuality.

Elder Petersen acknowledged that leaders and members did not have full information on the removal of the priesthood ban, and that those who spoke of the timing of the removal were expressing their own ideas. In 1978, as a result of the revelation on the priesthood, further knowledge was available and the change was welcomed by virtually all members of the Church.

Elder Petersen's comments were, to some degree, a reflection of the cultural beliefs of his time and generation in the U.S., and were based on his interpretation of the limited light and knowledge he had available. Many of the expressions he used in his speech are objectionable to a twenty-first century audience that has better learned the lessons of racial equality and tolerance.

It is clear from the context of this talk that Elder Petersen did not believe that any group or race would be slaves in heaven. That notion goes against all teachings concerning the nature of the Celestial kingdom. It is a notion that is completely reprehensible to any responsible member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Anyone who believes that there will be slavery in heaven is absolutely mistaken.

Latter-day Saints need feel no responsibility to defend what may, by today's standards, seem to be racist statements attributed to fallible Church leaders in the past. No mortal man is above error, and there has been only one perfect person in all of human history. Each of us, to one degree or another, reflects the culture in which we are raised. As President Gordon B. Hinckley reminded Church members:

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ...

Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.[4]

No person will be judged by the fallible ideas or policies of men; "the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel, and he employeth no servant there" (2 Nephi 9:41)."

[BlueDreams]

Bobbie, 

this is interesting and all (I have a few discrepancies with it) but I would really like to know your specific sentiments/opinions about the questions I asked you earlier.  

 

And I will mention my discrepancies, if you're interested, after you've answered my questions. 

 

Thanks,

BD

Edited August 29, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

They (we) should have imo stopped at this.

"↑ Mark E. Petersen, "Race Problems—As They Affect The Church," address at Brigham Young University, 27 August 1954. This address is not available at the BYU Speeches web site. The text is (perhaps not surprisingly) available on various anti-Mormon web sites. Its absence from the BYU site would seem to suggest that the Church disavows the concepts taught in this address."

[BlueDreams]

Also just in case you don't want to dig through 7 pages of posts here are my questions: 

 Do you think I, because of my ancestry will only obtain the level of servant in the CK? 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? If so, where is your scriptural proof for it? Ask yourself is this just, is this fair, are you better than me in following the Gospel because of your skin color/ancestry? Again I'll answer your Q's, but if you cannot answer these, I'll point back to them until I get a response

 

I'm assuming sense I've seen several new posts from you on other spots in the board in the last day or so...some fairly extensive, you should have time now to answer 4 fairly simple questions....the first two are in yes/no formatting.

[Rivers]

erased

Edited August 29, 2015 by Rivers

[carbon dioxide]

and I agree prophets are not perfect, but I expect them to be better than Mother Theresa, Pope Francis, American Jews, and tibetan buddhists

Should one judge a person by a statement they made at one moment in time or on a particular issue they hold?  If one is going to judge a person, judge the whole of them and not just the things they don't like.

[carbon dioxide]

Some people think that the relationship between God and his prophets is like the Borg or two computers that constantly are in contact with each other.  Prophets only know what God tells them and God is not in constant communication with them.  God is not constantly uploading information into the brains of his prophets.  Elder Petersen held some views that I do not agree with but he did the best he could under the light that he had.  For every statement that he held that I don't agree with, there are probably hundreds from him that I would agree with.  I am sure all of us have said things in our lives that are not correct.  Everyone does it.  We are fallible human beings at the end of the day.

[Bobbieaware]

Also just in case you don't want to dig through 7 pages of posts here are my questions:

Do you think I, because of my ancestry will only obtain the level of servant in the CK? 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? If so, where is your scriptural proof for it? Ask yourself is this just, is this fair, are you better than me in following the Gospel because of your skin color/ancestry? Again I'll answer your Q's, but if you cannot answer these, I'll point back to them until I get a response

I'm assuming sense I've seen several new posts from you on other spots in the board in the last day or so...some fairly extensive, you should have time now to answer 4 fairly simple questions....the first two are in yes/no formatting.

Hello BD, Quite honestly, throughout the day I wondered to myself if I should continue to post my personal opinions on this thread, all the while remembering I told you I'd answer your last post to me..The reason why I feel some hesitation to continue on this thread is that I don't believe it will do any good. Many people here seem very set in their ways, and appear to be unwilling to seriously consider any comments that might be made in defense of Elder Petersen.

But as for myself, many years ago I decided to always give the General Authorities, both past and present, the benefit of the doubt, even when what they have said seems offensive to modern sensibilities. As a result of that decision, and the fact that I really have tried to make a good-faith and CHARITABLE effort to understand what it is our past and present leaders have had to say, I have received many revelatory insights into deep spiritual things that many cannot and often are not willing understand. And for this reason, in a very personal way I have learned it is spiritually counterproductive to speak evil of the Lord's anointed or lightly consider what it is they have to say, especially when what they say appears to fall into the category of what the Bible calls "hard sayings."

For example, I can read Elder Peterson's remarks and plainly see he is teaching many profound spiritual truths, truths that are in full harmony with the LDS doctrinal worldview. But because most modern readers are so filled with explosive reactive emotion when the see certain "trigger words" and "trigger expressions" in the text (words and expressions that were were more common and acceptable in a bygone era) a veil is immediately pulled over the mind and the power of rational, objective reasoning comes to an end. And I have also learned that angry emotion is one of the main hinderences to personal revelation. Further, I have observed that when members of the Church begin to develop an attitude that seems to revel in a sort of iconoclastic tearing down of the Church leaders, former or present, this will also cause the rivers of personal revelation to become nearly dried up streams.

It has taken many years of hard effort and diligent seeking for me to arrive at my present point of understanding, and the wisdom I have gained in this quest informs me that one cannot quickly "upload" spiritual knowledge, gained after much struggle, into the minds of those who are sincere but unprepared to know, or those who are insincere and don't really want to know. But the bottom line is that there are many things pertaining to the kingdom of God that are "hard sayings," things that are difficult to chew on and digest, and for this reason God has left many in the relative dark.

I have always found it profoundly interesting that Paul told the saints of his day that the reason why God did not allow many of them to know the deeper mysteries of the kingdom of God is because most of the saints of his day didn't have the spiritual discernment and wisdom needed in order to be able to accurately differentiate between good and evil. This can only mean that the deeper mysteries of the kingdom will appear to be evil to the spiritually immature. And this is why Paul likened the deeper truths of God to strong meat that cannot be forced into the mouths of "babes" who are only prepared to consume easy to digest mother's milk. And the demonstrable proof of what Paul said can be observed in the way the deeper mysteries of celestial plural marriage and the priesthood ban are regarded by many on this board. And is it not sobering to realize the Prophet Joseph Smith said if he were to reveal the deeper mysteries of the kingdom to the Chuch in his time, his most loyal and devoted followers would want to take his life?

Finally, what I have said should not be taken to mean I think the wording in Elder Petersen's speech couldn't be expressed more accurately,, clearly and charitably. In fact, I imagine that if I was around back then -- and had his trust and ear -- I'm quite sure I could have helped him "clean up" the speech, while leaving his general concepts in tact, so it wouldn't seem as offensive and insensitive as it does to today's modern ear. But I must reiterate that underneath some of Elder Petersen's blunt and indelicate language there is much sound doctrine and several profound insights to be gleaned from his words. You see, when one is filled with the spirit of revelation, he or she quickly learns that even when it comes to spiritual things, it isn't wise to throw the proverbial (doctrinal) baby out with the bath water.

Now why don't we all go ahead and read some of Elder Petersen's General Conference addresses and observe how this great man of God, who may have been a spiritual "diamond in the rough" at the time of this speech, continued to grow in the grace and knowledge of God and ultimately proved himself to be wonderfully worthy of his profession?

Edited August 29, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[TheSkepticChristian]

Some people think that the relationship between God and his prophets is like the Borg or two computers

 

but prophets are called to teach the will of God. The best way to teach is by example. Like I said, I don't expect Prophets to be perfect, but I expect them to be giants among men.  Prophets are there to show us the way.

 

 

Should one judge a person by a statement they made at one moment in time or on a particular issue they hold?  If one is going to judge a person, judge the whole of them and not just the things they don't like.

 

I am not even talking about Elder Peterson

 

 

Mother Theresa, Pope Francis, American Jews, and tibetan buddhists:  All these you have mentioned also teach the words of God.

 

So why do we need General  Conference?

Edited August 29, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Calm]

Hello BD, Quite honestly, throughout the day I wondered to myself if I should continue to post my personal opinions on this thread, all the while remembering I told you I'd answer your last post to me...

Now why don't we all go ahead and read some of Elder Petersen's General Conference addresses and observe how this great man of God, who may have been a spiritual "diamond in the rough" at the time of this speech, continued to grow in the grace and knowledge of God and ultimately proved himself to be wonderfully worthy of his profession?

So instead of answering her questions as promised,youwish to place yourself as her teacher on how to best read Elder Petersen's talk.

Why if his talk is so full of wisdom you can't teach from there and instead choose to teach from conference talks.

Are you now disavowing his talk you were so eager to defend earlier?

Edited August 29, 2015 by calmoriah

[Bobbieaware]

So instead of answering her questions as promised,youwish to place yourself as her teacher on how to best read Elder Petersen's talk.

Why if his talk is so full of wisdom you can't teach from there and instead choose to teach from conference talks.

Are you now disavowing his talk you were so eager to defend earlier?

Why did you ask if I am now disavowing the speech when I thought I made myself quite clear? I said I believe Elder Petersen's speech was indelicately and -- especially by today's standards -- insensitively phrased: but that if one is able to look beyond the overly blunt language there is much sound and well-reasoned doctrine to be gleaned. Do you remember that part, or did you not read that far (I'm asking that question sincerely)?

But what I could have added is I think it's best for the members to learn how to wade through controversial matters on their own, and with the Lord's help learn how to figure out things for themselves. Being spoonfed by others rarely works. This was the great error of the Swedish area authority Hans Mattsson. He failed to realize that with the gift of the Holy Ghost to help him he could have figured things out for himself.

But I tell you what: One question at a time I'll answer BD's questions when I have time. But if I see the strong doctrine is beginning to make some board members choke and/or mock, I'm going to immediately back off. Stay tuned.

All the best,,,

Edited August 29, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[busybee]

I really doubt the non-white or even the white LDS members in South Africa are aware of Petersen's speech or other teachings of the church so I can see why they wouldn't complain about it.  But that doesn't answer your question why someone who doesn't have a dog in the fight feel there should be an apology for someone who is dead.  Maybe there isn't a good answer.

 

.

Wow!! Why would you assume that about the members in South Africa?? Do you have ANY knowledge of the history of the church in South Africa? What teachings of the church do you think South African members are unaware of, and why would they be unaware? 

 

FYI the first missionaries came to South Africa in 1853.

 

Mark E. Petersen visited South Africa in the early 1970's.

 

South Africa and it's people are not the uncivilized and uninformed place and people you appear to believe they are. 

Edited August 29, 2015 by busybee

[Kenngo1969]

This post seems to have ignited a little firestorm.

 

As with any good satire, what you have written is also true.

So ... The Book of Mormon (the musical, that is, and not the actual book) is "true"?

 

Huh.    Who knew?