Mark E Petersen On Race

[ERayR]

Basically we have a statement about 60 years ago made a BYU that few today would be considered relevant.  The Church did not adopt his views.  In fact a number of statements by others go against what he said about blacks being servants in the Celestial Kingdom (we will all be servants to God in the Celestial Kingdom even in our exalted states)

 

Brigham Young, who clearly believed in the "Curse of Cain," said "when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the Priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we are now entitled to."—quoted by the First Presidency, August 17, 1949.

 

Wilford Woodruff said, "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have"—quoted by the First Presidency on August 17, 1949.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Mark_E._Peterson_claims_that_Blacks_become_servants_in_heaven

 

Aw but those are overlooked because they don't support the preconceived prejudices. 

[strappinglad]

All men are born equal...NOT. Some are born blind or deaf. Some are born to privilege , most are not. Some are born during peaceful times, others born knowing nothing but war. Some are tall, some are short, some handsome, some not so much. It is a laudable goal to have all men equal before the law, but we all know that is an illusion. Is it really such a leap of logic to see inequality all around and not think that , " Well, God must want it that way ,so I guess it is OK to discriminate " Of course there is a higher law , but one must truly battle natural law to obey it. Ask the people of Bosnia just how long it took to go from peaceful coexistence to burning the families of neighbors . We are constantly being told to put off the natural man. Some do, most don't .Again with the unequalness!

[TheSkepticChristian]

Basically we have a statement about 60 years ago made a BYU that few today would be considered relevant. 

 

I agree it is not relevant, but what about the racist folk doctrines that existed for years? 

 

1. The Lamanite curse was dark skin

2. The Mark of Cain was Black skin (The church has clarified that it has nothing to do with the priesthood ban)

3. The assumption that first humans had to be white

 

Today, the church makes clear statements against gay marriage, and tells the Bishops to read them to the congregations. Did the church immediately condemn all racist folk doctrines?  

 

When did the church say the Lamanite curse was not dark skin? I only found one church manual that condemns that teaching, but not in general conference. 

Edited August 27, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[saemo]

Holy cow. In the 30s and 40s they were virulenty anti Catholic. A lot of the Supreme Court freedom of religion cases concerned their right to insult catholics with degrading speech at funerals and other semipublic places. They were pariah and outcasts because of their terrible intolerance, but they were just doing Judge Rutherford's will. They are much different today.

And they practice shunning.

JWs retain their anti-Catholicism. Maybe toned down in public displays, but it is still there.

[carbon dioxide]

 

I agree it is not relevant, but what about the racist folk doctrines that existed for years? 

 

1. The Lamanite curse was dark skin

2. The Mark of Cain was Black skin (The church has clarified that it has nothing to do with the priesthood ban)

3. The assumption that first humans had to be white

 

Today, the church makes clear statements against gay marriage, and tells the Bishops to read them to the congregations. Did the church immediately condemn all racist folk doctrines?  

 

When did the church say the Lamanite curse was not dark skin? I only found one church manual that condemns that teaching, but not in general conference. 

 

The Lamanite skin was a mark set by God so that the Nephites would not mix with the Lamanites.  The curse itself was that they were cut off from God.

 

The mark of Cain really is not racist at all.  Cain was given a mark for his protection. 

 

I suppose in both cases God could have given them green freckles but he did not do so.

 

As to Adam and Eve being white, was that ever taught in the Church?  Adam may not have been black but that does not mean that automatically defaults Adam to a white guy. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

The Lamanite skin was a mark set by God so that the Nephites would not mix with the Lamanites.  The curse itself was that they were cut off from God.

 

lol I know a lot of intelligent LDS that disagree with that. Brant Gardner says the mark was not black skin. 

 

I don't want to debate about what the Book of Mormon says.  I am simply saying that many LDS still believe that 

 

1. The lamanite curse is dark skin

2. The mark of Cain is black skin

3. The original humans had to be white. 

 

Again, am not talking about what the scriptures say (or don't say), I am talking about what a significant number of LDS believe. 

 

When will the church clarify in General Coference that the lamanite curse is not dark skin, and that the mark of Cain is not black skin? 

Edited August 27, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Nevo]

Sure it sounds really racist now. Believe it or not at the time this was given no one thought much about it.

 

At the recent MHA conference, Matt Harris, one of the editors of the forthcoming book, The Mormon Church and Blacks: A Documentary History, gave a paper called, "Mark E. Petersen, J. Reuben Clark, and Civil Rights: Two Apostles Respond to Brown vs. Board of Education (1954)." Harris mentioned that the talk aroused criticism both inside and outside the Church and that some Church educators were "alarmed" by Peterson's message. However, Harris also noted that the talk "arguably represented the orthodox Church position at the time."

 

Peterson's talk was reacting to the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision handed down on May 17, 1954. Joseph Fielding Smith later remarked that Brown brought a "flood of correspondence" to Church headquarters, most of it questioning or condemning the Church's stance on race. Peterson's "little talk on the race question"—as he called it—was his unofficial response. It never appeared in any Church publication. In later years, he seemed embarrassed by it. When Lowry Nelson asked him about it in 1975, Peterson claimed to have forgotten it.

 

J. Reuben Clark wrote three drafts of a talk for the October 1954 general conference (perhaps as something of a corrective to Peterson's) intending to address the status of blacks in the Church. In part of his talk, he came out in favor of full civil rights for blacks—partly endorsing Brown v. Board of Education:

 

"The Latter-day Saints willingly accord to them in civil matters all the rights, privileges, liberties and protection guaranteed them by the Constitution of the United States and laws in this country, and by equivalent instruments in other countries, in all their social, economic and political activities."

 

This was a fairly progressive stance for the time (interestingly, Elder Peterson pronounced the talk "excellent"). Unfortunately, Clark never delivered the talk (apparently at the behest of President McKay) and the Church would not publicly endorse civil rights until 1963.

 

Anyway, this is just a bit of background from Harris's paper that I thought some here might be interested in.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Nevo

[Bob Crockett]

And then, one of the justices who heard the Reynolds decision against the Mormons was President of a major Evangelical Bible society which was promoting a Constitutional amendment to declare the US a Christian nation and to outlaw Catholicism.

When the Republicans were persecuting the Mormons in the 1890s the hated Catholics came to their defense.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela, PA) had a black Apostle in the 1920's and disfellowsipped people for racism. Why weren't they a product of their time?

[Kenngo1969]

People in and out of the Church ave done and still do things that are not right.  If we are waiting for apologies how about apologies from the anti-Mormon descendants for the inheritance stolen from my ancestors so that it could not be passed down to me. 

 

 

 

They may have stolen a temporal inheritance from you, but fear not: Your ancestors, I am sure, bequeathed to you a rich spiritual inheritance.  I'm disinclined to judge Elder Petersen or anyone else too harshly because, while they were/are far from perfect, I do have a testimony that they are/were called of God.  I'm sure the Atonement will cover any pain inflicted by Elder Petersen's remarks, or President Brigham Young's remarks, or anyone else's.

[juliann]

The JWs were never racist where Blacks of or others were concerned, why weren't they affected by "product of the times"?

Ah come on. At least get your facts straight. It was the 1950s, everybody was racist. They used the same servant/curse rhetoric we did. And there were incidences of segregation. They cleaned it up so kudos to the Witnesses. Google it and you can read their old writings just like you can ours.

 

No religion is going to win at this game, Sanpitch. And Mormons weren't the worst by any stretch. What I have found is what I see with you...the real problem is that those who point at one religion are unfamiliar with the history of race and religion. And there is plenty for us all to do to improve so what is your point really?

[JAHS]

Church critics don't really want the church to apologize for the real reason an apology should be given; they want the world to see how wrong the church was about something so they can use that as amunition against our claim to revelation from God. Years from now critics will want an "apology" for things that Boyd K. Packer has been bold enough to say. Some are starting to want apologies for what President Kimball said in his book "Miracle of Forgiveness".   God doesn't take over a prophet's brain and make him say and do everything perfectly. He allows them to retain their agency to say what they think is right; hopefully it will be inspired by God or the Holy Ghost but not every single time. It's the best we can do with what we have and I am willing to go with it, 

[Russell C McGregor]

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

 

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

 

Call for references, please.  What scriptural or other revealed mandate is there for that assumption?

[The Nehor]

 

Has the Church ever apologized for this speech, I think they should have. 

 

Why don't you apologize for the speech? True, you didn't give it but neither did the people you are asking to apologize for it so it should be equally meaningful.

[The Nehor]

Is the church not responsible for what anyone says because it's their own opinion?  Then who can you trust and depend on if there's loose cannons going around giving their own opinion? 

 

We have this really neat person/God called the Holy Ghost. You might have heard of him. Teaches the truth of all things, verifies truth, and all that stuff.

[The Nehor]

None but the wife has been one since 1965 and I have read and familiar with their history.  They stressed that we were all equal.

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

God doesn't take over a prophet's brain and make him say and do everything perfectly. He allows them to retain their agency to say what they think is right; hopefully it will be inspired by God or the Holy Ghost but not every single time. It's the best we can do with what we have and I am willing to go with it, 

 

I agree with that, but we have a prophet and 14 apostles. The prophet can immediately correct and condemn false doctrines. 

Many LDS still believe in racist folk doctrines, but our church has not condenmed all of them yet.

Please tell me when was the last time the church said that 

1. Lamanite curse was not dark skin

2. Mark of Cain was not black skin

3. The first humans were not necessarily white

 

I am not saying the Book of Mormon teaches that, but a significant number of LDS believe that.

 

 

Church critics don't really want the church to apologize for the real reason an apology should be given; they want the world to see how wrong the church was 

 

I am not a critic, but I want to see the church apologize for racist folk doctrines taught by church leaders in the past. 

Pope Francis apologized for church's "sins" against indigenous peoples

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

 

What is so hard about that?

 

 

It was the 1950s, everybody was racist. 

 

Not true 

 

American Jews played a significant role in the founding and funding of some of the most important civil rights organizations, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). In 1909, Henry Moscowitz joined W.E.B. DuBois and other civil rights leaders to found the NAACP.

Edited August 27, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Russell C McGregor]

it would have made a lot of difference to my foster sister who waited to turn white..Pueblo Indians don't turn white.  The church should at least acknowledge that Mr. Peterson's remarks were not what the church believes.

 

So you are saying that your foster sister would have been better off staying on the reservation (or wherever she was from) than staying in your family and going to school?

[Russell C McGregor]

American Jews played a significant role in the founding and funding of some of the most important civil rights organizations, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). In 1909, Henry Moscowitz joined W.E.B. DuBois and other civil rights leaders to found the NAACP.

 

And you really think no American Jews ever approved of segregation?

 

Do you know what the word "Goyim" means?

Edited August 27, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[TheSkepticChristian]

And you really think no American Jews ever approved of segregation?

 

Please do not add words to my mouth, I simply disproved the claim that everybody was racist in the 1950s

[JAHS]

I agree with that, but we have a prophet and 14 apostles. The prophet can immediately correct and condemn false doctrines. 

Please tell me when was the last time the church said that 

1. Lamanite curse was not dark skin

2. Mark of Cain was not black skin

3. The first humans were not necessarily white

 

 

 

I am not a critic, but I want to see the church apologize for racist folk doctrines taught by church leaders in the past. 

Pope Francis apologizes for church's "sins" against indigenous peoples

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

 

What is so hard about that?

 

 

 

Not true 

 

American Jews played a significant role in the founding and funding of some of the most important civil rights organizations, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). In 1909, Henry Moscowitz joined W.E.B. DuBois and other civil rights leaders to found the NAACP.

"I am not a critic, but I want to see the church apologize for racist folk doctrines taught by church leaders in the past. 

Pope Francis apologizes for church's "sins" against indigenous peoples

What is so hard about that?"

 

Can you tell me what good an apology would really do?  And what makes you so special that YOU want to see an apology? At the time church leaders said those things they sincerely believed they were right. Today, no church leader has said or done anything that could be called racist.

I think the church has done better than an apology by what it has done in our times. The blacks now have the priesthood and are entitled to all eternal blessings. More and more of them are becoming leaders in higher positions. They have corrected false ideas about why priesthood was not given to blacks. We have all been educated and have improved our attitudes about the respect we should have for all races. 

[Thinking]

So you are saying that your foster sister would have been better off staying on the reservation (or wherever she was from) than staying in your family and going to school?

 

Are you saying that she would not have been better off staying where she was?

[Bobbieaware]

Putting controversy aside, I'm wondering how many here can go along with Elder Peterson's central premise: that the degree of faithfulness and valiance to God"s will one demonstrates in the preexistence has a direct affect on one's circumstances and opportunities in this life, and in the same way the degree of faithfulness and valiance to God's will one demonstrates in this life will have a direct affect on the circumstances and opportunities he will have after the resurrection?

A way to restate the same premise is to say that since there were some spirits who proved to ne noble and great in the pre-earth life, this fact necessarily indicates there were other spirits in the pre-earth life who were lress noble and not as great -- hence the disparity of circumstances and opportunities observed in this life; and as a natural corollary.to this principle it can be said our post-resurrection lives will be affected by how faithful and valiant we are to God's will in this life.

Speaking of the above concept. the Lord has said our works follow us from one life into the next. In eastern religion, this process of reaping what one sows as one passes from one phase of existence to another is called karma. And though this concept is Mormonism 101. problems will inevitably occur if anyone ever dares to use real-life examples of the disparities among individuals and peoples to demonstrate how the principle is manifested in real-life.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Robert F. Smith]

Why should the Church apologize for it.  The views that Peterson put forth were his views and not endorsed or taught by the Church.  I generally hate the idea of people apologizing for statements, positions, or actions of others.  The apology is meaningless. 

sanpitch does have a point:  An apostle of the Lord does broadly represent the Church.  That is why we call them "general authorities," and Elder Petereson was not the only GA to say such things, though Joseph Smith himself would have rebuked both Brother Brigham and other of the GAs who have said such things.

 

However, having said that, it might be well to point out that the source cited was from Jerald and Sandra Tanner, who had no tolerance for racism -- which is commendable.  At the same time, despite being putative evangelical Christians, they overlooked the shortcomings and foibles of the Apostles of Jesus Christ.  Time and again Jesus had to rebuke his own Apostles for their lack of understanding of key elements of the Gospel, not to mention the betrayal of Judas.  Long after his death, his Apostles began to show some backbone and a true understanding of the real meaning of the sacrifice and teachings of their Lord and Master.

 

The Tanners had no sense of perspective and consequently threw out the baby with the bathwater.  In my own life, even though I always knew such racism to be completely wrong (and said so), I had other shortcomings to deal with.  We all have our blindspots to overcome.  Let us be understanding and forgiving of the foibles of others, that we may also obtain mercy.

[sunstoned]

Why should the Church apologize for it.  The views that Peterson put forth were his views and not endorsed or taught by the Church.  I generally hate the idea of people apologizing for statements, positions, or actions of others.  The apology is meaningless. 

With this in mind then anything said by an apostle or prophet (unless canonized) is just a view not endorsed by the church. A more current example would be: Two sets of earrings = personal view, not endorsed by the church.