Mark E Petersen On Race

[Calm]

We will all go to the Celestial Kingdom as servants or we won't be going. Don't you remember Christ washing the feet of the Apostles?

True, but Elder Peterson was teaching it as an exception. Iirc immediately before he spoke of the Chinese of being able to go and be exalted with no reference to being servants. He only used that term in reference to blacks.

[ttribe]

So using the same tone on you that you used on me is offensive?  Physician heal thyself.  

 

[double sigh]  Never mind.  Thought I was being helpful by pointing out that, in fact, the First Presidency had used the word "doctrine" in the past to describe the ban (perhaps to help you understand where HJW, et al. were coming from).

 

For the record, I've long held that the ban was erroneous.  That there is no evidence that there was an originating revelation.  And, that later members of Church leadership were in error both in perpetuating the ban and myths surrounding it, as well as referring to it as "doctrine."  That doesn't change the implication that my opinion would not have been considered in harmony with previous teachings.

[KevinG]

This is foolish.  You have as many Saints here expressing different opinions as there are Saints here...  meanwhile the critics are lapping it up with glee and saying "See I told you so!"

 

If you want to know the Lord's mind about race and priesthood, study and pray for yourself.  If you don't think the church has addressed it or apologized sufficiently write the brethren.  Poking holes in other peoples understanding on the internet does nothing but make the self deluded feel superior.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

When Elder Oaks says we were "wrong", and Elder Holland says we were "wrong or spectacularly wrong", I believe them.  When President Hinkley says racist attitudes are not worthy of Priesthood holders I believe him.

 

What I see here is critics and Saints who want to justify their own bigotry cherry picking comments and not being up to speed with what General Authorities have taught in public, and even General Conference.

 

Now I'm going to take flak from both sides.  Time to go get lunch.

If faithful members of the church aren't getting the message you think is so clear, is it really their fault or might there be more ambiguity than you are willing to allow? See this thread:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62412-how-do-you-read-the-race-statement/

 

Faithful posters like bluebell, JLFProf, Pogi, Rivers, juliann, Scott Lloyd, Mystery Meat and others all say the statements are at least ambiguous. 

Edited August 31, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ttribe]

Thanks- I have seen the quotes you share here.  So do you believe they override what more recent living prophets and apostles have said about the priesthood?

 

We are not subject to the teachings of dead prophets not canonized, and we believe in receiving additional light and knowledge as a church and as individuals.  I have no problem thinking those might have been well meant, but erroneous "doctrines".  Of course I'm not a big fan of prophetic inerrancy (another false folk doctrine) and I do like confirming what church authorities say with my own prayer and personal revelation.  Something many Saints could be better at.

 

See my post at #502.

 

This is foolish.  You have as many Saints here expressing different opinions as there are Saints here...  meanwhile the critics are lapping it up with glee and saying "See I told you so!"

 

If you want to know the Lord's mind about race and priesthood, study and pray for yourself.  If you don't think the church has addressed it or apologized sufficiently write the brethren.  Poking holes in other peoples understanding on the internet does nothing but make the self deluded feel superior.

 

Who are you talking to?

[KevinG]

[double sigh]  Never mind.  Thought I was being helpful by pointing out that, in fact, the First Presidency had used the word "doctrine" in the past to describe the ban (perhaps to help you understand where HJW, et al. were coming from).

 

For the record, I've long held that the ban was erroneous.  That there is no evidence that there was an originating revelation.  And, that later members of Church leadership were in error both in perpetuating the ban and myths surrounding it, as well as referring to it as "doctrine."  That doesn't change the implication that my opinion would not have been considered in harmony with previous teachings.

 

I agree it was erroneous.  I have heard many people express that opinion, including the first black missionary in the Church, and they weren't censured for it.  In fact that brother has been asked to publish repeatedly on it by the church and other Mormon outlets.  Even before 2006.

 

So you aren't in bad company.

[KevinG]

See my post at #502.

 

 

Who are you talking to?

 

Venting in general.  

[ttribe]

I agree it was erroneous.  I have heard many people express that opinion, including the first black missionary in the Church, and they weren't censured for it.  In fact that brother has been asked to publish repeatedly on it by the church and other Mormon outlets.  Even before 2006.

 

So you aren't in bad company.

 

Yeah, well, I wish I'd had both the understanding I now have, as well as the courage to say so when I was a missionary in TN and KY from '91-'93 because I'm pretty sure I made a huge mess out of trying to explain this issue away to some of my black investigators.  I very much regret it.

[KevinG]

If faithful members of the church aren't getting the message you think is so clear, is it really their fault or might there be more ambiguity. See this thread:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62412-how-do-you-read-the-race-statement/

 

Faithful posters like bluebell, JLFProf, Pogi, Rivers, juliann, Scott Lloyd, Mystery Meat and others all say the statements are at least ambiguous. 

 

So what would you say that hasn't been said, published or distributed by Prophets and Apostles to get it into the heads and hearts of the Saints that the priesthood ban was not doctrinal and racism is evil?  Perhaps you can join Skeptical Christian in his letter writing campaign.

[KevinG]

Yeah, well, I wish I'd had both the understanding I now have, as well as the courage to say so when I was a missionary in TN and KY from '91-'93 because I'm pretty sure I made a huge mess out of trying to explain this issue away to some of my black investigators.  I very much regret it.

 

That is a shame.  That was only a year before my discussions with the black brother about race.  I was a convert too.  Perhaps that helped me see more clearly without the historical LDS lens on race and justification for folk doctrines?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Elder McConkie, Elder Oaks and Elder Holland did.  I don't know about Hinkley- I don't think he ever said it did come from God.  Certainly by the time he was President of the Church he disavowed it, and spoke strongly against discrimination.

None of these men have ever said the ban didn't come from God. Elder McConkie's "Forget everything I said" statement is applied way more broadly than he intended. Elder McConkie was admitting to being wrong about the Ban being lifted before the end of the millennium. Elder McConkie continued to publish the now disavowed folklore in his book Mormon Doctrine after this statement.

[Calm]

I too am comfortable with Christ being the perfect leader. However we do have Scripture(The Bible) that has Christ as refusing to go to the non-Jews until after his mortal ministry. It was the argument between Peter and Paul that motivated Peter to ask God what to do about that Ban.

Where is the scripture for God telling his leaders not to give the Priesthood to the blacks in modern times?

[ttribe]

That is a shame.  That was only a year before my discussions with the black brother about race.  I was a convert too.  Perhaps that helped me see more clearly without the historical LDS lens on race and justification for folk doctrines?

 

Perhaps.  I'd heard the folk-doctrine stuff for many years by the time I was 19.  Honestly, I didn't come across Elder McConkie's "forget all that was said" statement until I joined this board about seven years ago; and I considered myself reasonably well read.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So what would you say that hasn't been said, published or distributed by Prophets and Apostles to get it into the heads and hearts of the Saints that the priesthood ban was not doctrinal and racism is evil?  Perhaps you can join Skeptical Christian in his letter writing campaign.

A simple statement like yours would be great! "The priesthood ban was not doctrinal." Wow that was easy. 

[ALarson]

Already quoted but here it is again.  Remind me to laugh the next time someone writes that the Church "hides things".

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/05/the-need-for-greater-kindness?lang=eng

Where in this talk does President Hinckley state that the ban originated with Brigham Young and was not from God?  (Or is there another talk you were referring to in your post to me?)

 

And, also what did President Hinckley discuss in this talk that members claim was hidden by the church?

[rockpond]

And the race practices are not, and were never doctrinal.

 

What is your definition of doctrinal?

 

I use this definition of doctrine:  a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

 

So, the priesthood/temple ban and the associated reasons given for it were all doctrinal (at the time).

[TheSkepticChristian]

Just as I thought, cal.  Russell claimed that TheSkepticChristian had maintained "the pure, sanitized non-racism of American Jews," which he had not.  Those were Russell's words, not the Skeptic's.  I know of no one, including the Jews themselves, who has ever claimed that there are not now and have never been racist Jews.  That was not in any case the subject of our discussion, and was a red herring thrown out by Russell simply to distract from the historical facts.

 

I have restrained myself from suggesting the real reasons for Russell's obfuscation, because I am not a mind reader.  It would be charitable to say that perhaps he simply doesn't understand history.

 

thanks Robert.

 

I never said all Jews were perfect, some of them probably were very racist, but it is clear that a significant number of Jews were against racism.

For example, Mr. Sanders was arrested for protesting segregation, discrimination, and racism. 

Edited August 31, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[rockpond]

To my way of thinking, ecclesiastical apologies would express regret and culpability for moral offenses. Past theories and racism are not exactly moral offenses.

 

If what we did was not directed of God, it was a moral offense to say those things about a race of people and to deny them equality because of their race.  Racism is a moral offense.

[KevinG]

What is your definition of doctrinal?

 

I use this definition of doctrine:  a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

 

So, the priesthood/temple ban and the associated reasons given for it were all doctrinal (at the time).

 

The Iron Rod,

 

Scriptures

Holy Ghost

Teachings of the current prophets (as long as they are consistent with the above)

 

D&C 93 sums it up nicely too.

[ALarson]

The Iron Rod,

 

Scriptures

Holy Ghost

Teachings of the current prophets (as long as they are consistent with the above)

 

D&C 93 sums it up nicely too.

So, was the Priesthood ban doctrine during Brigham Young's time (the current Prophet) and up until the ban (practiced during many other "current Prophets")?  Or do you believe it was not consistent with scripture and the Holy Ghost?

Edited August 31, 2015 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

Already quoted but here it is again.  Remind me to laugh the next time someone writes that the Church "hides things".

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/05/the-need-for-greater-kindness?lang=eng

From President Hinkley in this article-

 

How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

It's a great question. The bigger question remains. How can any prophet of God arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

 

The doctrines explaining the ban have been disavowed but the ban itself still has not been officially disavowed. On this thread alone we see many who believe it was the will of God, yet Hinkley wonders how this could ever be believed. Understanding this inconsistency is a struggle many still face.

[Buckeye]

Where is the scripture for God telling his leaders not to give the Priesthood to the blacks in modern times?

 

The pearl of great price claims to convey ancient accounts, but is provided to us only through modern prophets (specifically joseph). I don't accept the curse of cain nonsense but I can understand how prophets and normal members could get such a reading from the PoGP. At least there are verses discussing a priesthood restriction based on lineage.

 

In contrast, there are zero scriptures (ancient or modern) speaking to a gender-based restriction on the priesthood. No where does God say "don't ordain the women." Our current practice is based entirely on the assumption that God intended a limitation. That may be correct, but it's still without scriptural foundation. In fact, much less scriptural foundation that the racial ban.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Buckeye

[rockpond]

The Iron Rod,

 

Scriptures

Holy Ghost

Teachings of the current prophets (as long as they are consistent with the above)

 

D&C 93 sums it up nicely too.

 

I agree with that definition.  But there were at the time (and probably still are) many who believe that the ban and the reasons for it were consistent with scripture. The ban was (and still is) often justified by scriptural statements regarding the curse of Cain, the dark skin of the Lamanites, and Christ limiting teaching to the Jews.

[stemelbow]

I don't know why Mark E Peterson's position is seen so poorly at the expense of the prevailing view among leaders of the church in his era. In 1949 the First Presidency compared having black skin to being "handicapped" for crying aloud. Why anyone presumes to suggest that his was a one time expression of racism in the Church is just silly. It was institutional. I know the practice today is to play it down and to hope it never was. But it was. to have institutional racism is to be uninspired, at least on this one point. They were, as McConkie pointed out, working with limited understanding. They spoke presumptuously for God, on these matters. It happened and will happen again. We must accept that fact in order to move forward and in order to be dynamic enough to accept truth no matter from where it comes.

This thread, overall, has been quite discouraging to me.

[Teancum]

Yeah, well, I wish I'd had both the understanding I now have, as well as the courage to say so when I was a missionary in TN and KY from '91-'93 because I'm pretty sure I made a huge mess out of trying to explain this issue away to some of my black investigators.  I very much regret it.

 

I served a mission from 79-81.  I was so glad the ban had been lifted. But I still believed it was of God and that the justification related to spirits that were less valiant and even "fence sitters" were born into the race of Cain. I am happy to say I have longed moved past that idea.