Mark E Petersen On Race

[rockpond]

I am laughing at (not about) the ridiculous posts, not the issue.

 

HappyJack gave a solid response in post 572 to your points so I'll just add that I too am laughing... at the amount of spin you have to place on this matter to avoid admitting that the church should follow its own teachings and apologize.

[rockpond]

So you assent to the Church's definitive, authoritative position that "God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife," do you?

 

And here we go again.  if you are going to say that I am not faithful because of my beliefs about sexual orientation than you really aren't creating a space for thoughtful, nuanced discussion.  You're attempting to box in a space in which the only faithful approach is that one that matches yours.  That's neither thoughtful or nuanced.

 

Though, yes, I do assent to that position (though I recognize that you dissent from my nuanced and thoughtful view of it).

Edited August 31, 2015 by rockpond

[Bobbieaware]

2. 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?

3. If so, where is your scriptural proof for it?

4. Also if so, ask yourself is this just/fair; are you better than me in following the Gospel because of your skin color/ancestry?

After I answered question 1, at some length, with what I believe is a well-reasoned and well-documented answer, I took it for granted you would realize I was acting in good faith when I said I wanted to answer your questions one at a time. After all, why would I have bothered to take the time to craft a thoughtful and thorough response if I wasn't acting in good faith? But you continued -- and continue -- to harangue in spite of that good-faith effort. Even though questions 2 through 4 require only yes or no a answers, I was going to craft similarly thorough answers so as to make Elder Petersen's speech more clear and understandable in light of the Church's position on the priesthood ban and it's consequences IN HIS DAY. But since you seem intent on trying to make it look like I'm hesitating to answer you, when in reality I simply wanted our discussion to be deliberative and methodical, I will answer your remaining 3,questions with brevity.

2) Even in the days when the priesthood ban was being enforced, the Spirit manifested to me -- through personal revelation -- that one day all people of black African heritage would have the fullness of all the blessings of the Gospel. In those days, the Spirit also manifested to me that the ban was a modern Abrahamic test (neither I nor anybody I knew liked or wanted the ban, but we felt it was a cross we all had to bear)), a test that if successfully endured (like the curse placed upon the Lamanites) would turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Just as the curse on the Lamanites proved to be no hindrance to the salvation of the many incredibly valiant Lamanites who were converted in the days of the sons of Mosiah (through their conversion they brought an end to the curse In their lives), I knew every single son and daughter of God of black African heritage, past and present. would one day have the blessed opportunity to receive the Gospel and the fullness of all its blessings. In fact, about 2 years before the ban was lifted, as I watched a Church produced film wherein President Kimball, in no uncertain terms, proclaimed that the Restored Gospel was going to be preached to all the inhabitants of Africa, the Spirit whispered to me the ban was about to come to an end. As God is my witness, this is the truth.

3) While there IS scriptural proof that the Lord has previously cursed certain peoples as pertaining to hearing the Gospel and/or not being able to hold the priesthood, even so, because of the personal revelation I received during the days of the ban, I knew that in the Lord's own good wisdom and time the ban would end and all those previously denied the priesthood, both living and dead, would have full access to all the blessings of the Gospel, including the fullness of the holy Priesthood. I also knew by personal revelation that the leaders of the Church were holy and loving men, and that if God wanted to end the ban before 1978 he would have commanded his faithful earthly servants to carry out his will.

4) To the spiritually untutored, the Lord seems to do things that appear unfair -- like placing a curse upon the Lamanites that caused the Nephites to loathe them, But through the scriptures the Lord has revealed to me that though at certain times he curses individuals and groups of people, all doubters will learn on the day of judgement, if not before, that the curses of the Lord are actually blessings in disguise. For instance, the curse of the fall has passed upon all men, women and children, and as a consequence of that fall the most horrific things imaginable happen all over the world on a constant basis (without taking time to catalogue them myself, in your own mind tjust hink of all the incredibly terrible things that have happened -- and still do happen -- since Adam brought the curse of the fallen nature into the world). Yet the Lord has promised us in spite of all the horrors that have occurred -- and do constantly occurr -- on this planet, the atoning and healing power of Christ is going to make it possible for all things to work out for the best. Also, consider that the scriptures teach us that our Lord Jesus Christ was the most cursed man who ever lived. Yet the great curse that was placed upon him when he made his infinite and eternal sacrifice for sin turned out to be the greatest of all the blessings of his life and ours.

One final point to all who may read this post: Continuing to speak poorly of the Lord's anointed, and acting presumptuously before the time when the Lord reveals all the mysteries of his will at the beginning of the millennium, amounts to nothing less than walking on spiritual thin ice.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Russell C McGregor]

No, I wasn't consciously misrepresenting your side. We were discussing acknowledged satire. Not every word is true or accurate but it was based in certain truths or it wouldn't be satire.

No, it was based in ugly caricatures and malicious distortions.

 

I openly acknowledge the negative tone the satire had and agree with you on those points. But we also both agree that there was some validity there as well. Your words.

You mistake the import of my words. What I referred to as having validity are the actual positions your buddy was caricaturing, not the anti-Mormon criticisms he prefers.

 

And I have actually been quite open with my leaders about my beliefs.

Really? Didn't you say this?

 

Since, for example, I know how the Bishop feels about gay marriage - I don't share my views in my capacity as his counselor.

And didn't you also, in a number of posts, cite the following?

 

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

4. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

You see Rockpond, it is apparent to me that the reason you keep your "unorthodox" views (and activities) from your bishop is to avoid him correcting you, and thus bring point 2 into play.

 

Not sure what you're "not forgetting" about the scent of hypocrisy thread but feel free to PM me as to not derail here.

I'm not forgetting that you started it in order to attack the Church.

[rockpond]

No, it was based in ugly caricatures and malicious distortions.

You mistake the import of my words. What I referred to as having validity are the actual positions your buddy was caricaturing, not the anti-Mormon criticisms he prefers.

Really? Didn't you say this?

And didn't you also, in a number of posts, cite the following?

You see Rockpond, it is apparent to me that the reason you keep your "unorthodox" views (and activities) from your bishop is to avoid him correcting you, and thus bring point 2 into play.

I'm not forgetting that you started it in order to attack the Church.

You took that June 29 quote out of context: I have told my bishop about my views on marriage. What I stated in that quote (when read in full context) is that I don't share my personal views with ward members in my capacity as his counselor. I recognize that I am representing him and I take that charge very seriously.

And the "scent of hypocrisy" thread (as you've dubbed it) was not an attack on the church. It was to raise a discussion on what the data had to say. When it became too contentious and ugly, I closed it.

I'm not sure you'll ever believe me but I am a faithful committed member.

[rockpond]

You mistake the import of my words. What I referred to as having validity are the actual positions your buddy was caricaturing, not the anti-Mormon criticisms he prefers.

I wasn't mistaking the import of your words. What you've written here is exactly what I understood you to be saying. And I agree.

[Russell C McGregor]

I wasn't mistaking the import of your words. What you've written here is exactly what I understood you to be saying. And I agree.

See, this is where you let yourself down.  You pretend to be holding out an olive branch, and then you set out to provoke me by arrogantly presuming to know my views better than I do.

 

My position as stated is definitive.  I regard the pro-LDS views that your anti-Mormon buddy was misrepresenting as having some validity to them; however, he oversimplified and distorted them for rhetorical effect, and you approved.

[Calm]

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

Has someone in this thread stated this? Lost track and am now curious.

[Calm]

It is appropriate to condemn something without it being a moral offense.

 

The Church is being consistent with the teaching in Alma where the law can have no power on any man because of his belief; ideology is not a secular or moral offense (note in the context of Alma, the secular and ecclesiastical law on this point were the same). Thus racism as an ideology is rightly condemned without it being a moral offense and without an apology being necessary.

What about practices and actions that are undertaken based on ideology?

[Calm]

I did not mean it as a defense.  I was only pointing out the incongruity of the outrage at the LDS Church and the silence concerning all the others.

I can understand this if one is engaging in a conversation specifically about the LDS faith and not a generic discussion about religious racism.

[Thinking]

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.

 

Has someone in this thread stated this? Lost track and am now curious.

 

2nd Post

 

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. 

[Calm]

2nd Post

I don't see CO saying it was a one time event, though I can understand why some might interpret it that way.

Perhaps he can clarify.

Add on: while he doesn't label them as racist, in later posts he is talking about multiple leaders being in error, so I don't think his intent was to claim Elder Peterson's talk was unique.

Edited August 31, 2015 by calmoriah

[Thinking]

I don't see CO saying it was a one time event, though I can understand why some might interpret it that way.

Perhaps he can clarify.

 

He didn't say that it was a one-time event but he did say that those views were Petersen's views and not endorsed by the Church. I interpreted stemelbow's quote to focus more on the institutional nature of the quote than the "one-timeness" of it.

 

Perhaps he can clarify.

[Russell C McGregor]

And here we go again.  if you are going to say that I am not faithful because of my beliefs about sexual orientation than you really aren't creating a space for thoughtful, nuanced discussion.  You're attempting to box in a space in which the only faithful approach is that one that matches yours.  That's neither thoughtful or nuanced.

 

Though, yes, I do assent to that position (though I recognize that you dissent from my nuanced and thoughtful view of it).

 

I believe it to be true as stated.  I "dissent from" attempts to explain it away, or make it mean something other than what it says.

[provoman]

I'm not sure you'll ever believe me but I am a faithful committed member.

I am amazed at the effort you put into trying to convince him or others. People just do not want to accept that there is plenty of room in the Church for many opinions. Christ is the Judge. The Pharisees and Sadducees set themselves up as the standard bearers in their own times.

[Calm]

"like placing a curse upon the Lamanites that caused the Nephites to loathe them"

"This is my commandment, That ye loathe one another."

Something seems off but I can't quite pinpoint it.

Edited September 1, 2015 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

See, this is where you let yourself down.  You pretend to be holding out an olive branch, and then you set out to provoke me by arrogantly presuming to know my views better than I do.

 

My position as stated is definitive.  I regard the pro-LDS views that your anti-Mormon buddy was misrepresenting as having some validity to them; however, he oversimplified and distorted them for rhetorical effect, and you approved.

 

You've lost me here, Russell.  By agreeing with you did I "arrogantly presume to know [your] view better than [you] do"?

 

I approved of his satire.  I didn't pretend that it wasn't satire.

[rockpond]

I believe it to be true as stated.  I "dissent from" attempts to explain it away, or make it mean something other than what it says.

 

I also believe it to be true as stated.

[rockpond]

I am amazed at the effort you put into trying to convince him or others. People just do not want to accept that there is plenty of room in the Church for many opinions. Christ is the Judge. The Pharisees and Sadducees set themselves up as the standard bearers in their own times.

 

Maybe I shouldn't.  But I do want people to realize that there is a wealth of diversity in the church and they are still faithful members.  Too often they keep their voices silenced out of fear.

[Russell C McGregor]

You've lost me here, Russell. By agreeing with you did I "arrogantly presume to know [your] view better than [you] do"?

I approved of his satire. I didn't pretend that it wasn't satire.

Here is what I previously said:

 

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.

When I said "those anti-Mormon talking points" I was referring to the items at which Happy Jack was jeering; I was not referring to his jeers.

 

In which case, I was not agreeing with you that his "satire" was valid.

 

For example, it is relevant, when discussing the translation of the Book of Mormon, to look into how Joseph used the word "translate" in various contexts. This is a simple matter of making an honest effort to understand what is being said. It is utterly boilerplate anti-Mormon propaganda to pretend that there's something devious or nefarious about that; but since that accusation cannot withstand scrutiny, nobody ever makes it outright. (At least, not any more.) They simply mention it and snort, as if that disposes of it.

That is what Happy Jack did, and that is what you evidently approved of.

Happy Jack's oinking and grunting has no validity. None.

That is my position.

Is that what you thought you were agreeing with?

Edited September 1, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[rockpond]

Here is what I previously said:

 

When I said "those anti-Mormon talking points" I was referring to the items the anti-Mormon in question was jeering at; I was not referring to his jeers.

 

In which case, I was not agreeing with you that his "satire" was valid.

 

For example, it is relevant, when discussing the translation of the Book of Mormon, to look into how Joseph used the word "translate" in various contexts. This is a simple matter of making an honest effort to understand what is being said. It is utterly boilerplate anti-Mormon propaganda to pretend that there's something devious or nefarious about that; but since that accusation cannot withstand scrutiny, nobody ever makes it outright. (At least, not any more.) They simply mention it and snort, as if that disposes of it.

That is what Happy Jack did, and that is what you evidently approved of.

Happy Jack's oinking and grunting has no validity. None.

That is my position.

Is that what you thought you were agreeing with?

 

I'm not going to keep engaging with you if you insist on calling people "anti-Mormon" who are not.  It's just pointless.

[Russell C McGregor]

I'm not going to keep engaging with you if you insist on calling people "anti-Mormon" who are not.  It's just pointless.

 

Just for you, I've edited my post.

 

I wouldn't want to miss out on your devastatingly good counter-argument.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

I don't see why.  At least you have it right, and I just gave you a rep point.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

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

Yes, but that is because, in the words of the sage, Jack Nicholson:  "You can't handle the truth !"  

Edited September 1, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Yes, and the Liahona too.