Mark E Petersen On Race

[Calm]

"Why would a loving God not do it?"

I do not know. Why do you keep asking others' God's motivations? He is the one that can tell you.

Why would you trust anyone else's opinion? This whole conversation demonstrates people can be wrong about godly things.

There is nothing in LDS teachings that says God will abandon us if we make some mistakes. It is intentional turning away from him that cuts off the Spirit. Even if we err and don't know it...in part because we don't want to know, if we try to seek God's word and will about other things in our lives sincerely, do you think he will turn us away? We would have to be without any intentional sin before he would talk to us on that premise and that isn't how it works.

Yes, there will come a point where the Spirit ceases to strive for men, and this appears to have happened with some apostles who have turned apostate. So far it hasn't happened with any presidents of the Church.

[Calm]

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.

but Jonah ignored the commandment of God, so what happened to him? A fish ate him.

And then he got spat out, went to Nineveh and ignored the Lord again.

I am not saying God doesn't discipline his prophets. I am saying we don't always see it or the results.

What God doesn't do is force people to change. How would that be loving to treat your child like your puppet?

Edited August 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[TheSkepticChristian]

And then he got spat out, went to Nineveh and ignored the Lord again.

I am not saying God doesn't discipline his prophets. I am saying we don't always see it or the results.

What God doesn't do is force people to change. How would that be loving to treat your child like your puppet?

 

I agree, but what happens to a Prophet that doesn't want to follow the will of God? Remember when Joseph Smith didn't want to practice polygamy?  

 

"If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place" - President Woodruff

 

Please remember that we should follow the Prophet and his example. 

 

If a prophet makes a mistake, the Holy Ghost should tell him  to repent, or discipline him immediately. 

[Calm]

Has there been any prophet who has been perfect, TSC? If not, then every last prophet must have ignored the Spirit in something or they would have changed and become perfect.

We have records of apostles who ignored the Spirit too much and too far and ended up excommunicated. Some then listened and repented and some were even reinstated as apostles when they did.

One needs to look at the whole history of God interacting with mankind, especially with what we know personally to begin to know what questions to ask, let alone what the answers might be.

[Calm]

I agree, but what happens to a Prophet that doesn't want to follow the will of God? Remember when Joseph Smith didn't want to practice polygamy?  

 

"If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place" - President Woodruff

 

Please remember that we should follow the Prophet and his example. 

 

If a prophet makes a mistake, the Holy Ghost should tell him  to repent, or discipline him immediately.

We should follow the examples of all of his prophets, which include the apostles.

And yet some apostles have been excommunicated, some even turn apostate.

You need to expolore for yourself why it happened with these and not others for their errors.

[TheSkepticChristian]

What God doesn't do is force people to change. How would that be loving to treat your child like your puppet?

 

So do you remember when Joseph Smith didn't want to practice polygamy? What did he say?  

I agree we all have agency. 

 

 

We should follow the examples of all of his prophets, which include the apostles.

 

and I am doing that. 

 

 

Has there been any prophet who has been perfect, TSC? If not, then every last prophet must have ignored the Spirit in something or they would have changed and become perfect.

 

No, but they probably repent during the Sacrament. If a Prophet says something wrong during General Conference, he should correct his statement in the next session (immediately). 

 

 

And yet some apostles have been excommunicated, some even turn apostate.

You need to expolore for yourself why it happened with these and not others for their errors.

 

True, but allowing slavery or saying stuff about blacks is not nice.

 

 

 

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

 

and I don't understand why God didn't tell them to repent. 

 

If he did tell them to repent, then I don't understand why God didn't remove them for refusing to repent. 

Edited August 30, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Calm]

Because.

Really, no one is going to be able to give you a better answer until you find out for yourself. Then you won't need one.

[Sanpitch]

In over 19 pages of comment this has probably been mentioned but I might have missed it somewhere.  I think there has never been scripture to support the Black Ban.  There is a vague mention in the BofA but not really clear as I remember.  So I would put the responsibility for the ban on Brigham Young.  Anyone one know of anything different?

[Calm]

Read the Paul Reeve's Presentation when posted or his book. It will give you details of development.

Some read the ban into the scriptures, I don't believe such was justified personally.

[Russell C McGregor]

Thank you for correcting me.  I figured that doctrine, teachings, and practices of the true church would also be included in "not of this world."  Now I know that only covenants belong in that category. It's OK to teach for doctrine the commandments of men. It's OK if the world influences what the church believes and teaches, especially if it was 60 years ago. Thank you.

 

If you tried doing some actual "thinking," instead of allowing your posting handle to do it all for you, it might just occur to you that avant-garde cultural currents are every bit as much "of this world" as conservative ones.

[Russell C McGregor]

This post seems to have ignited a little firestorm.

 

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

 

I am shocked! shocked! to discover that someone as consistently TBM as Rockpond agrees with a string of anti-Mormon bumper-stickers.

 

Whatever is the world coming to?

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

 

Let's take a look at some of what you've posted to me and others and see if those quotes speak for themselves.

 

Oh well excuse me that I did not see all your silly posts before my responses,

What a vapid response.

What good are prophets and apostles if it is as messy as you and other apologists claim?

MINOs, a silly term that I am sure makes you feel more special and superior to us filthy apostates,

Scott is not tolerant. He is just trying to score points in line with his preferred religious views.

This thread is a fine specimen of th persecution complex that is still alive and well in the minds of true believing Mornons.

Like I said... the Church wants it members to be like children in respect to their position over them.

It seems to me that this is just one more way out church culture creates an environment of dependence and control over the membership. Indeed it emphasizes among other things that do as well, a parent child relationship. At least in my opinion it can develop people who become spiritually and intellectually immature. Of course most will dismiss my thoughts on this as the views of a filthy negative apostate.

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

But the apologist tosses anything that is odd, strange and uncomfortable as opinion or culture or a prophet is such only when acting as such 

 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. 

Well if they are no better than being products of their time and culture why should I listen to them?

Your attempt to make such comparisons to avoid the responsibility the LDS Church should have on such things is apples and oranges and beyond.

So yes, an institution that claims such fantastic authority in insight as to what the God of this Universe wants us to do should apologize for the nonsense some of its Prophets, Seers and Revelators have espoused and which certainly found their way into the institutional Church

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

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

 

 

 

I don't think you "fall into" it. From your denigration of apologists and believers to your outright attacks on the church and its leaders, you are contemptuous. .

 

So here's an observation on "building bridges". That will never happen when the attitude above is defended by critics of the church.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

 

I'm inclined to suspect that you are right.  I consider myself fairly well-informed on doctrinal matters, but nobody in my lifetime has ever used or even referred to that speech in a lesson or a talk in Church.  I first heard of it from anti-Mormon sources.  I continue to hear of it from anti-Mormon sources.

 

And no others.

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

Wonder when the critics are going to read Reeve's book and start shooting at it.

[Calm]

I just hope enough members read it for the info to get around.

[Teancum]

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.

What seems at great contradictions to me Cal is Joseph Smith was able to roll out plural marriage in a time when it was culturally an abomination. Allegedly he resisted. Allegedly it was so important for him to do it that God sent am angel with a flaming sword to make him do it. Yet in 1954 we still have our leaders teaching things we now disavow as limited light and knowledge as well as folklore and cultural norms. Didn't God care enough to fix this as he did in forcing Joseph to do polygamy ?

[jwhitlock]

I just hope enough members read it for the info to get around.

 

I think Reeve struck the right tone with the book. Explained things factually without any excuses. Gave good context on what was going on which explains many of the whys of the ban.

[Calm]

Ask him.

The answer won't really change no matter how often or how varied the question is stated.

At least until a revelation comes.

[Calm]

I think Reeve struck the right tone with the book. Explained things factually without any excuses. Gave good context on what was going on which explains many of the whys of the ban.

Yes, indeed.

I am not attempting to explain it because a post or two couldn't cover the subject sufficiently to promote understanding. It was as his presentation continued there were aha moments for me. It makes most sense if built up as he did.

Which makes me a wee bit frustrated waiting for it as once people can read it, then sections can be addressed because enough context is provided but I need to practice patience I guess.

Edited August 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[Teancum]

Let's take a look at some of what you've posted to me and others and see if those quotes speak for themselves.

I don't think you "fall into" it. From your denigration of apologists and believers to your outright attacks on the church and its leaders, you are contemptuous. .

So here's an observation on "building bridges". That will never happen when the attitude above is defended by critics of the church.

I think context is important in the above cherry picking you have performed. Some of it is in response in like kind to a believer initiating contempt on their side. I think you need to hold the believers to the same standard. I could do much of the same with your posts and others here as well if I wanted to spend some time with it. Additionally a number of those comments are honest questions and not contemptuous at all. That they may bug you does not make them contemptuous.

On the other hand I see that I have initiated some responses on my own that are contemptuous. I will own those and I will try to do better and raise the level of dialogue. Will you?

Edited August 30, 2015 by Teancum

[rockpond]

I am shocked! shocked! to discover that someone as consistently TBM as Rockpond agrees with a string of anti-Mormon bumper-stickers.

Whatever is the world coming to?

Concluding that those statements are "anti-Mormon" is the problem.

If you see one that is untrue, feel free to explain why. Just sttacking the messenger is typically a technique used by one who does not have a good rebuttal.

[rockpond]

del

Edited August 30, 2015 by rockpond

[Russell C McGregor]

PS The American Jews were not affected by their time

 

When you first made that claim, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and presumed that you were honestly mistaken.

 

You no longer have any excuse for this false claim.

 

American Jews, like everyone else, were affected by their time.

American Jews were, by and large, no less racist than most people, and more so than some.

 

Having a particular kind of relationship with a particular ethnic group doesn't mean you are not racist; it simply means you have a particular kind of relationship with a particular ethnic group.

 

To argue from that particular kind of relationship with a particular ethnic group to blanket non-racism is really muddled thinking.

 

To persist in the muddled thinking when it has been pointed out to you is probably self-serving.

[BlueDreams]

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!

 

Before I respond, I want to know if you've answered all of my questions. I can see the answers to 1 and 2 but I'm not sure about questions 3 and 4. 

[jwhitlock]

I think context is important in the above cherry picking you have performed. Some of it is in response in like kind to a believer initiating contempt on their side. I think you need to hold the believers to the same standard. I could do much of the same with your posts and others here as well if I wanted to spend some time with it. Additionally a number of those comments are honest questions and not contemptuous at all. That they may bug you does not make them contemptuous.

On the other hand I see that I have initiated some responses on my own that are contemptuous. I will own those and I will try to do better and raise the level of dialogue. Will you?

 

I do not mind questions that raise troubling issues about the church. I think they're needed and beneficial to a point. What I do have is little patience for outright denigration, and my responses often reflect that. Honest questions need to be phrased to convey that they are honest questions - and not criticisms that make it appear that understanding is not desired. In my mind, honest questions need to be explored. Critical denigration needs to be addressed in stronger terms.

 

I will make one suggestion. Get rid of the term "believer" as the enemy in your posts. Aside from being a generalization, it sets up a wall and tone that tends to destroy any chance of productive dialogue - especially when you note that you're a member who holds a temple recommend.