Mark E Petersen On Race

[Flyonthewall]

I was not aware that one is called to be an Apostle based on their doctrinal knowledge or Scriptural understanding, but rather to be a special witness of Christ.

The Apostles in Jesus' time were not doctrinal experts - they had disagreements and even squabbled amongst themselves about different topics.

There were times when Jesus spoke plainly to His Apostles, but they still did not fully understand what He was trying to teach them.

Their position and calling is based on their testimony of Jesus Christ period. That can give them more insights on other doctrines than most others, but not necessarily.

Elder Petersen gave a talk that today seems very racist, but at the time most likely would not be taken the same as it is today. How does that affect his special witness of Jesus Christ?

Let us also jump on Paul for being sexist - 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Should we now re-think all of Paul's contribution in the scriptures because he was an Apostle of Jesus Christ but got this soooo wrong? What else did he get wrong?

As long as we are questioning what Apostles have gotten wrong, why not bring into question the entirety of the NT? Why stop there? Why not question all of the OT as well?

Heck, what has God gotten wrong too?

[busybee]

I was not aware that one is called to be an Apostle based on their doctrinal knowledge or Scriptural understanding, but rather to be a special witness of Christ.

The Apostles in Jesus' time were not doctrinal experts - they had disagreements and even squabbled amongst themselves about different topics.

There were times when Jesus spoke plainly to His Apostles, but they still did not fully understand what He was trying to teach them.

Their position and calling is based on their testimony of Jesus Christ period. That can give them more insights on other doctrines than most others, but not necessarily.

Elder Petersen gave a talk that today seems very racist, but at the time most likely would not be taken the same as it is today. How does that affect his special witness of Jesus Christ?

Let us also jump on Paul for being sexist - 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Should we now re-think all of Paul's contribution in the scriptures because he was an Apostle of Jesus Christ but got this soooo wrong? What else did he get wrong?

As long as we are questioning what Apostles have gotten wrong, why not bring into question the entirety of the NT? Why stop there? Why not question all of the OT as well?

Heck, what has God gotten wrong too?

I am out of rep points!!!        

[HappyJackWagon]

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. 

Are you suggesting that Peterson's racist teachings were not accepted among whites in South Africa in the 70's?

[busybee]

Are you suggesting that Peterson's racist teachings were not accepted among whites in South Africa in the 70's?

 

 

That is not what was said by Sanpitch. He said he doubted that the members in South Africa were aware of Mark E. Petersen's speech or other teachings of the church. I am asking what teachings Sanpitch thinks that the members in South Africa would be unaware of, and why he would imagine that they would be unaware of such teachings.

 

South African members don't live under rocks. They have access to all the information that members throughout the world have. As I said, the church was introduced in South Africa in 1853.

Edited August 29, 2015 by busybee

[HappyJackWagon]

No I'm not. That is not what was said by Sanpitch either. He said he doubted that the members in South Africa  were aware of Mark E. Petersen's speech or other teachings of the church. I am asking what teachings Sanpitch thinks that the members in South Africa would be unaware of, and why he would imagine that they would be unaware of such teachings. South African members don't live under rocks.

So the racist teachings of Peterson were known to whites in South Africa in the 70's, and they were accepted the same as in the US.

And you're getting upset that Sanpitch was maybe giving South African's the benefit of the doubt that maybe they weren't aware of such racist teachings by church leaders?

 

It didn't read like he was accusing South Africans of being stupid or uncultured but rather as if he was trying not to assume that South Africans accepted the same racist teachings. Communications in the 70's were significantly different than they are now. Not sure why you're so upset that someone granted a generous benefit of the doubt, not knowing how communications to the far reaches of the church worked back then. I don't think any offense was intended.

[Sanpitch]

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. 

Busybee, relax, I know practically nothing of South Africa.  I assumed incorrectly.  But I also assume most active LDS in Utah are not very aware of Petersen's speech.  I may be wrong there also.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Sanpitch

[ERayR]

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.

 

My answers are no and no.

 

Now a question for you.  Do you think an apology made by someone other than the offender has any validity?  In other words can some third party apologize for my or your actions?

[HappyJackWagon]

My answers are no and no.

 

Now a question for you.  Do you think an apology made by someone other than the offender has any validity?  In other words can some third party apologize for my or your actions?

You didn't ask me but I'll answer anyway.

 

Of course its right for an organization to apologize for terrible things their representative has said. We would expect this from any church, business or organization.

 

When someone is an official representative of an organization that organization is responsible for their statements. If the representative is off base then he should be censured and corrected publicly if the statements were made publicly. Otherwise approval of the organization is implied.

 

If the CEO of a major corporation made racist comments would we not expect that CEO to be censured by the board and an apology to be issued by the organization? Of course we would.

[jwhitlock]

You didn't ask me but I'll answer anyway.

 

Of course its right for an organization to apologize for terrible things their representative has said. We would expect this from any church, business or organization.

 

When someone is an official representative of an organization that organization is responsible for their statements. If the representative is off base then he should be censured and corrected publicly if the statements were made publicly. Otherwise approval of the organization is implied.

 

If the CEO of a major corporation made racist comments would we not expect that CEO to be censured by the board and an apology to be issued by the organization? Of course we would.

 

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

[ERayR]

You didn't ask me but I'll answer anyway.

 

Of course its right for an organization to apologize for terrible things their representative has said. We would expect this from any church, business or organization.

 

When someone is an official representative of an organization that organization is responsible for their statements. If the representative is off base then he should be censured and corrected publicly if the statements were made publicly. Otherwise approval of the organization is implied.

 

If the CEO of a major corporation made racist comments would we not expect that CEO to be censured by the board and an apology to be issued by the organization? Of course we would.

 

Do you think it valid for your children to apologize for you when you still hold your same views?

[thesometimesaint]

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

 

 Buddhists don't have personal God like Catholics and Jews do.

 

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

 

Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity,^[1][2] refused to endorse many views on creation^[3] and stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending suffering.^[4][5]Buddhism instead emphasizes the system of causal relationships underlying the universe (pratītyasamutpāda or Dependent Origination) which constitute the natural order (dharma) and source of enlightenment. No dependence of phenomena on a supernatural reality is asserted in order to explain the behaviour of matter. According to the doctrine of the Buddha, a human being must study nature (dhamma vicaya) in order to attain prajñā "wisdom" regarding the nature of things (dharma). In Buddhism, the sole aim of spiritual practice is the complete alleviation of dukkha ("suffering") in saṃsāra,^[6][7] which is called nirvana.

[ERayR]

 Buddhists don't have personal God like Catholics and Jews do.

 

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

 

Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity,^[1][2] refused to endorse many views on creation^[3] and stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending suffering.^[4][5]Buddhism instead emphasizes the system of causal relationships underlying the universe (pratītyasamutpāda or Dependent Origination) which constitute the natural order (dharma) and source of enlightenment. No dependence of phenomena on a supernatural reality is asserted in order to explain the behaviour of matter. According to the doctrine of the Buddha, a human being must study nature (dhamma vicaya) in order to attain prajñā "wisdom" regarding the nature of things (dharma). In Buddhism, the sole aim of spiritual practice is the complete alleviation of dukkha ("suffering") in saṃsāra,^[6][7] which is called nirvana.

 

Does that prevent them from speaking words of God? 

[thesometimesaint]

Does that prevent them from speaking words of God? 

 

Yes. By definition.

[ERayR]

Yes. By definition.

 

No.  If a Buddhist monk tells you "Go forth and love your neighbor, grasshopper." is he not speaking the words of God?  Just because he doesn't recognize them as such doesn't negate that they are.

[HappyJackWagon]

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

Maybe. If there are people hurting because of something they had done I wouldn't be opposed to apologizing for their wrong doings.

 

But you miss a distinction between something being a personal issue and being a representation of a large organization. If I said or did something harmful to many people in a public way and I officially represent my church and my employer, I would expect them to apologize for me and correct me, even IF I think I was justified or still believe in what I said or did. Why? Because if I officially represent more than just myself, I am responsible to them.

[thesometimesaint]

No.  If a Buddhist monk tells you "Go forth and love your neighbor, grasshopper." is he not speaking the words of God?  Just because he doesn't recognize them as such doesn't negate that they are.

 

Buddhism is neither Theistic nor Atheistic. Also a good idea is a good idea no matter where it comes from be it Men, God, or Demons.

[jwhitlock]

Maybe. If there are people hurting because of something they had done I wouldn't be opposed to apologizing for their wrong doings.

 

But you miss a distinction between something being a personal issue and being a representation of a large organization. If I said or did something harmful to many people in a public way and I officially represent my church and my employer, I would expect them to apologize for me and correct me, even IF I think I was justified or still believe in what I said or did. Why? Because if I officially represent more than just myself, I am responsible to them.

 

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.

[ERayR]

Buddhism is neither Theistic nor Atheistic. Also a good idea is a good idea no matter where it comes from be it Men, God, or Demons.

 

I was not defining Buddhism.  I was saying when one does good it is of God.  Skeptic seemed to think if one wasn't LDS their works could not measure up.

[Tacenda]

Has anyone mentioned the apology (apology in my mind) about past leaders by President Uchtdorf in a conference talk?

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

"And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes."

[BlueDreams]

My answers are no and no.

 

Now a question for you.  Do you think an apology made by someone other than the offender has any validity?  In other words can some third party apologize for my or your actions?

Direct one on one. Usually no. But I do think apologies for major social trends that have far reaching effects may be healing at times. For example the Australian government apologize to the aboriginal people for a policy that ripped up families based off of racist ideas to try and breed out their culture for decades (ie stolen generation). And it was helpful because it states that something was wrong and acknowledges the pain and oppression of a people. A family apologizing for the act of their child inflicting a wound on another family, can be helpful and healing. 

 

The idea of individually apologizing for another seems ridiculous, because it is for the most part though. but I think there can be something powerful of an apology or an acknowledgment of the wrongness of a policy and set of beliefs, structures, etc that harmed and may continue to hinder another people. Because the ownership is broader than just one person speaking to another. It's one group hindering another...and in doing so there can be an acknowledgment of the pain that may still be occurring. For example I think it would be good for the U.S. Government to apologize for Native American genocide that happened based on policies and attitudes that shattered communities....because there is very little acknowledgment in the public square to the fact that this was a real thing (ergo why the Redskins still think it's ok to be called that).

 

Personally, I don't need an apology, I don't really care. I do know others who do. But I can say that anything that begin to address some of the wrongs in the past and rectifies them is suprisingly healing. I don't know how to explain this feeling...but it's more than just an acknowledgment that the past was wrong, but that my live experience as a minority now and my perspective has legitimacy and equal value. (saying that it does with no evidence of it having such, isn't enough) 

 

IMHO, you can do that with or without an apology, but I can empathize for those who may want one.

 

With luv, 

BD

[busybee]

So the racist teachings of Peterson were known to whites in South Africa in the 70's, and they were accepted the same as in the US.

And you're getting upset that Sanpitch was maybe giving South African's the benefit of the doubt that maybe they weren't aware of such racist teachings by church leaders?

 

It didn't read like he was accusing South Africans of being stupid or uncultured but rather as if he was trying not to assume that South Africans accepted the same racist teachings. Communications in the 70's were significantly different than they are now. Not sure why you're so upset that someone granted a generous benefit of the doubt, not knowing how communications to the far reaches of the church worked back then. I don't think any offense was intended.

Do you know anything about South Africa in the 70's. Apartheid was part of the culture. Most people in the seventies didn't know any different in South Africa.

Sanpitch stated that he doubted that South Africans knew about some teachings of the Church. I asked why he would assume such? SImple.

[busybee]

Well while we're talking about apologies. Would the British please apologize for putting my husband's ancestors into concentration camps in the Boer War. 

 

I'll wait patiently while I live here in Britain.

 

It's ridiculous to require people to apologize for the actions/words of others. Such apologies are meaningless.

[busybee]

I would like an answer to my question to Sanpitch about what teachings the members in South Africa would be unaware of. I'm REALLY curious. You said it. Back it up.

[thesometimesaint]

I was not defining Buddhism.  I was saying when one does good it is of God.  Skeptic seemed to think if one wasn't LDS their works could not measure up.

 

I don't have a problem with Buddhism. I just don't agree with it.

 

That is a truism. Whether there is a God,or not, is a faith statement. A non-falsifiable hypothesis. 

 

I'll let Skeptic defend his own claims. But I don't accept that claim.

[TheSkepticChristian]

I was not defining Buddhism.  I was saying when one does good it is of God.  Skeptic seemed to think if one wasn't LDS their works could not measure up.

 

and I am not saying that, I am saying that a prophet teaches the will of God, and he is suppose to be a good example.

 

So why do we need General Conference for?

Edited August 29, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian