Mark E Petersen On Race

[Sanpitch]

A little comment from me since I started this thread.  In my opinion there are some church leaders in the LDS Church and other churches who get caught up in their own importance and their closeness to God and guidance from the Holy Spirit which does not happen to align up with standard church teachings.  Apparently Petersen did that and Bruce McConkie, who the younger members probably do not know much about.  He happened to be a son in law of Joseph F Smith or was it Joseph Fielding Smith.  He seemed to me to be caught up in his knowledge of what the doctrines of the church were, and had to be corrected by church leaders.  There are probably others but those two come to mind right off.  It's not really a criticism of the Church, it happens in all organization.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Sanpitch

[Teancum]

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.

I actually have been using believer rather than TBM. Do you have a suggestion? Conservative vs liberal....that does not seem to work. Some terms are needed when discussing where people stand. I have been referred to here as an apostate more than once by more than one poster. That is distasteful to me and I use it satirically in some of my posts. But I will refer to myself as a skeptic .

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

I think that his book goes a long way in explaining how and why some leaders of the church like Elder Petersen said and believed some of the things they did - again, without excusing it.

 

Might be a good idea to open up another thread on it.

[jwhitlock]

I actually have been using believer rather than TBM. Do you have a suggestion? Conservative vs liberal....that does not seem to work. Some terms are needed when discussing where people stand. I have been referred to here as an apostate more than once by more than one poster. That is distasteful to me and I use it satirically in some of my posts. But I will refer to myself as a skeptic .

 

The term "believer" can be problematic since all faithful and supportive members of the church are, by definition, believers. It's also too general of a term to be useful as anything other than a stereotype, and attacking stereotypes is not a valid form of argument.

 

I can't give you a suggestion. You'll have to think of something that's more specific to the argument you're making. Otherwise, I don't think criticisms of "believers" as a group is going to go over well in any discussion.

[Teancum]

The term "believer" can be problematic since all faithful and supportive members of the church are, by definition, believers. It's also too general of a term to be useful as anything other than a stereotype, and attacking stereotypes is not a valid form of argument.

 

I can't give you a suggestion. You'll have to think of something that's more specific to the argument you're making. Otherwise, I don't think criticisms of "believers" as a group is going to go over well in any discussion.

Perhaps this is off topic but how is this any different than your use of the word critic in a post above? In many cases the term seems appropriate. I will have to think about this.

[Calm]

 In my opinion there are some church leaders in the LDS Church and other churches who get caught up in their own importance and their closeness to God and guidance from the Holy Spirit which does not happen to align up with standard church teachings.  Apparently Petersen did that and Bruce McConkie....

I think it would be hard for it not to happen from time to time for every leader.  Some members even get caught up in the alleged specialness of being Mormon.  We need to all keep our eye out for missteps due to pride for ourselves.  Confidence is great, is needed (speaking as someone who has at times had a really hard time in life because I lack confidence in a few areas of my life and I have a hard time calling people to be responsible about somethings), but can be a trap if one becomes certain that no change is needed (this happened to my dad, he was right in his confidence in his own capability...if you wanted someone to rely on in almost everything he was the guy to choose, but he would say things like 'I am content, why should I change?' or 'no need to reinvent the wheel' when one of us kids would tell him we thought things could be different and wanted to make our own decisions and in only supporting what he thought had value from his own perspective he prevented personal and family growth and caused a great deal of family conflict without understanding he was the root cause; not quite the same but I hope you can see the similarity...adapt it to a church leader's relationship with his flock or any member's interaction with other members, after all the ward and by extension the Church is supposed to be family as well).

 

I don't know much about Elder Peterson.  I should study him more, he was a leader in a transitional time and so I think there are things I could probably learn from him, both in how to do things right and what to avoid.  I don't think I will quote from him much though.  Elder McConkie, I don't like Mormon Doctrine, I don't think he should have written it and there are a few other things I am aware of that I think he could have done much better if he had taken more time and care with but he has had some magnificent talks, sharing of his beliefs and experiences in life and especially his testimony of Christ, and I have heard stories from those who knew him personally that showed great love for others and a good sense of humor besides.  

 

It is unfortunate that we only get to know our leaders these days from a distance.  I think the commitment to following Joseph Smith was in part due to the personal nature of his relationship to many in the Church.  They got to see all sides of him and I think a well rounded view helps us love and forgive someone much easier.  I think the distance also sets a burden on them as they don't usually have the opportunity to easily correct missteps before the impact has widely spread and because of that there may be reluctance to be as open as they really want to be, both as individuals and as an organization.

Edited August 31, 2015 by calmoriah

[jwhitlock]

Perhaps this is off topic but how is this any different than your use of the word critic in a post above? In many cases the term seems appropriate. I will have to think about this.

 

All I'm saying is use "believers" in your posts at your own risk. I think that LDS believers are too diverse to be generalized.

 

"Critics" is a more narrow definition, as it implies someone critical of the church in any of its aspects. In my post, I wasn't making a generalization about critics (if I'm referring to the correct post) since it would typically be only critics who would take shots at Reeve's book. However, if I had stated that critics are weak minded sinners, that would be a generalization equivalent to stating that believers are spiritually immature. Those are just generalizations aimed at denigrating a group.

[Robert F. Smith]

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 ?

Sometimes God allows people to stew in their own juices.  Particularly if they have arrogated to themselves the right to insert their own social preferences in place of already clear-cut doctrine. In 1978 a number of leaders (including Peterson and McConkie) were humbled to discover that they had been wrong, and all the rest of us could clearly see that our leaders are never infallible -- a couple of excellent lessons.

 

You are free to demand perfection.  The rest of us live in the real world.

[Stone holm]

Sometimes God allows people to stew in their own juices.  Particularly if they have arrogated to themselves the right to insert their own social preferences in place of already clear-cut doctrine. In 1978 a number of leaders (including Peterson and McConkie) were humbled to discover that they had been wrong, and all the rest of us could clearly see that our leaders are never infallible -- a couple of excellent lessons.

 

You are free to demand perfection.  The rest of us live in the real world.

. Not sure what you are saying here. Should we not expect a high level of compassion and charity from our leaders? Is it not to be expected that they would not be blind and tone deaf especially on issues such as these? Are you saying the Lord would allow or even condone leaders placing huge obstacles in the way of an entire race just so He could humble a few leaders who lacked common decency and compassionate?

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

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.

My own view is that it is "muddled thinking" to suggest that all groups are equally racist and pigheaded in some way.  The notion that every group is the same as every other group is nonsense.  Different groups have divergent traditions and behaviors and should be judged fairly upon those characteristics.

 

It isn't that some group is unaffected by the Zeitgeist, but rather that some are more resistant to darker tendencies and set a good example for the rest of us.  We should be willing to admit it when it shows itself, rather than dismissing it with an arrogant wave of the hand.

[Russell C McGregor]

My own view is that it is "muddled thinking" to suggest that all groups are equally racist and pigheaded in some way.  The notion that every group is the same as every other group is nonsense.  Different groups have divergent traditions and behaviors and should be judged fairly upon those characteristics.

 

It isn't that some group is unaffected by the Zeitgeist, but rather that some are more resistant to darker tendencies and set a good example for the rest of us.  We should be willing to admit it when it shows itself, rather than dismissing it with an arrogant wave of the hand.

 

When I said "muddled thinking" I was being polite.

 

The more important error in view is the notion that someone's attitude towards North American blacks is the sum total of all their racial attitudes, and that "racism" is exactly equal to the negative attitude, and "non-racism" to the positive.

 

The argument that all the members of some group X were not racists because they were nice to some other group Y is actually idiotic.  Especially when those of group X officially regard themselves as a special caste apart from all others, who are ipso facto unclean.

 

I'm not saying that what they did WRT blacks wasn't praiseworthy.  But claiming that it makes them simon-pure, fully sanitised, 21st-century non-racists is bunk.

[Calm]

I think Russell was just focusing on American Jews at that particular time and place and not saying every group has been equally racist (after all he qualified it with more racist than some so he is recognizing different levels of racism specifically at that time).

 

Has anyone here suggested that all groups are equally racist?

 

add-on:  Like he said...

Edited August 31, 2015 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

I grew up in the 40s and 50s and never bought  into the "less valiant" folklore or anything else which diminished the value of Black people here or hereafter.  I was particularly horrified by the regular lynchings of Black folk in the deep South (Emmet Till was my age when murdered).  Moreover, given our LDS temple theology, there is no reason why anyone should assert that Black folk denied blessings here could be denied them hereafter.

 

You call yourself a "skeptic," well and good.  We should all be skeptics.  Follow the Brethren by all means, but never blindly.  God does not need Stepford wives and husbands.  He needs resourceful, thinking humans working on his behalf.

 

I was very comfortable as a Mormon when marching with Dr King's SCLC, and with the NAACP, CORE, and other civil rights organizations.  It was the Lord's work then and now.  Too bad Elder Mark E. Petersen was not there with me.  A darn shame.

 

I was thinking when reading the second of your above lds.org articles that the humble apostles selected by Jesus were quite ordinary men who were given extraordinary responsibilities.  It was very hard for them to catch the deeper meaning of the Gospel, and they stumbled a great deal along the way.  They were just as blind as Elder Petersen in our own time.  Yet all of us have stumbled, and we desperately need the forgiveness of our fellow Saints for those shortcomings.

[Robert F. Smith]

My own view is that it is "muddled thinking" to suggest that all groups are equally racist and pigheaded in some way.  The notion that every group is the same as every other group is nonsense.  Different groups have divergent traditions and behaviors and should be judged fairly upon those characteristics.

 

It isn't that some group is unaffected by the Zeitgeist, but rather that some are more resistant to darker tendencies and set a good example for the rest of us.  We should be willing to admit it when it shows itself, rather than dismissing it with an arrogant wave of the hand.

When I said "muddled thinking" I was being polite.

 

The more important error in view is the notion that someone's attitude towards North American blacks is the sum total of all their racial attitudes, and that "racism" is exactly equal to the negative attitude, and "non-racism" to the positive.

 

The argument that all the members of some group X were not racists because they were nice to some other group Y is actually idiotic.  Especially when those of group X officially regard themselves as a special caste apart from all others, who are ipso facto unclean.

 

I'm not saying that what they did WRT blacks wasn't praiseworthy.  But claiming that it makes them simon-pure, fully sanitised, 21st-century non-racists is bunk.

Sheer nonsense, Russell.  None of what you say here has anything to do with my contention about the Jews.  You have created a straw man instead of dealing with your declaratory nonsense.  Try replying to what I actually said.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Teancum]

Sometimes God allows people to stew in their own juices.  Particularly if they have arrogated to themselves the right to insert their own social preferences in place of already clear-cut doctrine. In 1978 a number of leaders (including Peterson and McConkie) were humbled to discover that they had been wrong, and all the rest of us could clearly see that our leaders are never infallible -- a couple of excellent lessons.

 

You are free to demand perfection.  The rest of us live in the real world.

Your post was quite fine till the last sentence and that is a straw man since I have never said I demand perfection and even layed out my view on this a page or two back in what I thought was at least in a reasoned tone.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Right on, cal !!

[Robert F. Smith]

Your post was quite fine till the last sentence and that is a straw man since I have never said I demand perfection and even layed out my view on this a page or two back in what I thought was at least in a reasoned tone.

I was responding to your following claims, which seemed to me to demand perfection:

 

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 ?

Edited August 31, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Russell C McGregor]

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

If you see one that is untrue, feel free to explain why.

Okay.

 

Here are a couple of new Mormon definitions to add to your Mormon Dictionary alongside "translate", "Nearly 15" and "carefully worded denials"...

Standard anti-Mormon propaganda technique, as used by HappyJackWagon and fully approved by Rockpond: smearing by association. It's also known as "tarred with the same brush." A thoughtful discussion of those anti-Mormon talking points would show that they actually have some validity, but using them in a drive-by swipe is all it takes for the anti-Mormons to high-five each other on the way past.

 

Prophet/seer/revelator- God's mouthpiece on earth except when he says something that is embarrassing or verifiably false.

This has been a standard anti-Mormon claim for a long time. It is actually a wilfull distortion of a statement made by that FARMS apologist (who has thankfully been repudiated by the kinder, gentler Maxwell Institute) Joseph Smith, who said, "A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such."

Anti-Mormons like to pretend that a prophet is acting as such whenever he talks about anything remotely doctrinal. But that's not what a prophet in particular does; it's what a preacher does. And while it is true that all prophets have been preachers, not all preachers have been prophets.

A prophet acts as a prophet when he explicitly declares what God has revealed to him.

But this strays dangerously close to nuanced thinking, which anti-Mormons avoid like the plague.

 

Prophetic- The ability to apply 20/20 vision to past statements and determine which were not prophetic. Wait...I'm confused.

No. He isn't.

 

Racism- Deplorable beliefs the church currently disavows and pretends was taught a "theory" instead of "doctrine"

This is another standard anti-Mormon technique. The reality of the former Priesthood ban -- beloved of all the most unprincipled demagogues for its "hot button" value -- requires more of that pesky thoughtful, nuanced discussion. More importantly, it takes a lot more time to defend than attack.

Which is why those who attack the Church of Jesus Christ -- anti-Mormons, in other words -- invariably fall back on it.

 

Theory- Official church teachings that fall out of favor. See Adam/God, Blood Atonement, and Fencesitters

More rapid-fire accusations. As you perfectly well know, all of them can be defended; as you equally well know, and fully approve, using them in this scatter-gun fashion is simply a matter of slinging as much mud as possible to see if anything sticks long enough to prejudice anyone against the Church of Jesus Christ.

Incidentally, the "Fencesitters" claim is a dead giveaway. It proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the person using it loves lies.

President Brigham Young expressly denied it. Not one Prophet or Apostle since his time is on record as supporting it.

The use of this discredited falsehood is anti-Mormonism 101. Only anti-Mormons use it, and only anti-Mormons approve of it.

 

Doctrine- The official teaching of the church until it is demoted to theory

Standard anti-Mormon drivel.

Incidentally, "satire" is a somewhat non-standard way to spell "slander."

Just so you know.

 

Just sttacking the messenger is typically a technique used by one who does not have a good rebuttal.

There's that "scent of hypocrisy" again.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

Sheer nonsense, Russell.  None of what you say here has anything to do with my contention about the Jews.  You have created a straw man instead of dealing with your declaratory nonsense.  Try replying to what I actually said.

 

Don't blame me for creating a straw man.  If you are not trying to defend TheSkepticChristian's claims about the pure, sanitized non-racism of American Jews -- which is what I was refuting -- then you (1) are not following the discussion, and (2) are talking right past me anyway.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Don't blame me for creating a straw man.  If you are not trying to defend TheSkepticChristian's claims about the pure, sanitized non-racism of American Jews -- which is what I was refuting -- then you (1) are not following the discussion, and (2) are talking right past me anyway.

Try quoting him to that effect -- that TheSkepticChristian claimed "the pure, sanitized non-racism of American Jews."  I must have missed that somewhere.  I have never in my life heard such an ignorant claim about the Jews, and certainly not from the Jews themselves.

 

The Jews, the same people who have given us some of the highest ethical and moral teachings in modern times, also gave us "Murder Incorporated" (with Meyer Lansky, Ice-pick Willy, Bugsy Siegel, and all the rest, hitmen for the Sicilian Mob), http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/186130/the-jewish-gangsters-of-murder-incorporated .  Awareness of the one does not obviate the other.  You lack a sense of perspective.

[rockpond]

A thoughtful discussion of those anti-Mormon talking points would show that they actually have some validity...

Good. We both agree that the points have some validity. And then you went on to highlight most of the areas where I saw that validity. Perfect.

As an aside, a thoughtful discussion would require your baseless name-calling of me to end. But I've not known you to be capable of that. (It's always entertaining, though, to come home from a long Sunday of serving in my calling to then read that I'm an anti-mormon.)

Edited August 31, 2015 by rockpond

[Calm]

Try quoting him to that effect -- that TheSkepticChristian claimed "the pure, sanitized non-racism of American Jews."  

 

 

From Skeptic:

 

 I simply disproved the claim that everybody was racist in the 1950s

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65955-mark-e-petersen-on-race/page-3#entry1209530747

 

Which seems to imply that the group he was talking about was not racist in the 1950s, which group was the American Jews.

 

Now he may not have meant that given he also said a little later...but it is not an absolute, he allows for them being free from racism, just that they were probably not:

 

American Jews were probably not free from racism

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65955-mark-e-petersen-on-race/page-11#entry1209531181

 

 

And then he goes on to say the below which to me implies he is again stating American Jews were not racist since the discussion is about being racist due to being a product of a person's time, but perhaps he meant they were racist because of their beliefs and not because of the culture of the 1950s.

 

The American Jews were not affected by their time

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65955-mark-e-petersen-on-race/page-16#entry1209531668

 

At the very least, his claims are somewhat confusing.

[Calm]

As an aside, a thoughtful discussion would require your baseless name-calling of me to end. But I've not known you to be capable of that. 

 

 

And I think a thoughtful discussion would require the ending of pointing out someone else's behaviour and claiming they had been incapable of changing.

 

It would be nice if both of you would stop it, imo.

Edited August 31, 2015 by calmoriah

[Russell C McGregor]

Good. We both agree that the points have some validity.

I agree with you about very little.

And then you went on to highlight most of the areas where I saw that validity. Perfect.

You are very consciously misrepresenting my side of the discussion, which is hardly surprising.

As an aside, a thoughtful discussion would require your baseless name-calling of me to end. But I've not known you to be capable of that. (It's always entertaining, though, to come home from a long Sunday of serving in my calling to then read that I'm an anti-mormon.)

Given that you have told us that you intentionally keep your priesthood leaders in the dark as to your activities, and the positions you argue here, in order to avoid incurring Church discipline for apostasy, it shouldn't really come as news to you.

I, for one, haven't forgotten your "scent of hypocrisy" thread; and probably won't for a while.

[rockpond]

And I think a thoughtful discussion would require the ending of pointing out someone else's behaviour and claiming they had been incapable of changing.

It would be nice if both of you would stop it, imo.

So do I let him continue to call me anti-mormon when I am not?