Mark E Petersen On Race

[Robert F. Smith]

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

....................................................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 disparities among individuals and peoples to demonstrate how the principle is manifested in real-life.

Does this mean that we Mormons are really just karma chameleons a la Boy George?

[Calm]

And though this concept is Mormonism 101. problems will inevitably occur if anyone ever dares to use real-life examples of disparities among individuals and peoples to demonstrate how the principle is manifested in real-life.

And that would be because we can't truly judge whether being born or provided with a comfortable or luxurious life is really a blessing given how Jesus said it is the meek who will inherit the earth and the poor in spirit heaven while the chances of a rich man were like a camel attempting to thread a needle (with itself, not a thread...but both actually work as comparable impossibilities).

Edited August 27, 2015 by calmoriah

[sunstoned]

Sure it sounds really racist now. Believe it or not at the time this was given no one thought much about it. It was a product of the times and conditions and opinions of society and some people living in the church at the time. By line upon line, precept by precept teaching we have received further light and knowledge about this subject and have made the necessary adjustments in our thinking. 

Believe it or not, this was not a product of the times.  When this talk was given there were many who were fighting for equal rights for minorities and women. Because of the efforts of these brave people the 1964 civil rights act was passed.  As a member of this church I would like to be able to point to a portion of our history and say we took a stand for equal rights, civil freedom and equal treatment of all,  but I can't do that because the church is decades late on addressing these issues and even then was pressured to act.  Women, Blacks, Gays.  They are all God's children. They deserve the same opportunities as all of us. 

Edited August 27, 2015 by sunstoned

[Calm]

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

Are you saying her parents were wrong for thinking so (they apparently thought it would be a benefit to her or they wouldn't have given permission...and they were likely the best judges).

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Do you know what the word "Goyim" means?

That reminds me of a story I once heard:

 

The Pope in Rome loved to hear the bells in St Peter's Basilica.

One day, one of those bells cracked.

The Pope ordered that the best bell caster in Rome be contracted to replace it.

The best bell caster was a Jew.

Came the day when the bell was finished and installed.

The Pope listened for it and here is what he heard:

"Goyimmmm, Goyimmmm . . ."

 

Of course that is just a silly joke.  Here is the sound they actually make:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guCUSBD8shw .

[The Nehor]

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

 

By modern standards they were with VERY few exceptions. They were just much less racist then their contemporaries.

[Robert F. Smith]

Believe it or not, this was not a product of the times.  When this talk was given there were many who were fighting for equal rights for minorities and women. Because of the efforts of these brave people the 1964 civil rights act was passed.  As a member of this church, I would like to be able to point to a portion of our history and say we took a stand for equal rights, civil freedom and equal treatment of all,  but I can't do that because the church has is decades late on addressing these issues and even then was pressured to act.  Women, Blacks, Gays.  They are all God's children. They deserve the same opportunities as all of us. 

And were you or your parents there on the barricades in 1964 with Dr King, or with his SCLC, or the NAACP, or CORE, singing those old civil rights songs, and risking assault by hard core racists?  Perhaps you are too young to know, but there were faithful Mormons out there demonstrating on behalf of civil rights for all -- in the spirit of Joseph Smith, who did not hesitate to ordain black men, and whose 1844 Presidential platform included freeing the slaves.

 

edited to add:  By that measure (the real Mormon Church), Mark E. Peterson should have been on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma in 1965.  Jesus would have been there . . .

Edited August 27, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[The Nehor]

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

 

1. The book of Mormon does not say that. It was a mark associated with a curse though clearly not the Curse of Cain we may have believed in as repentance was offered to the Lamanites. In fact the Lamanites were generally better then the Nephites.

 

2. Probably not.

 

3. Who cares? All I know is they can be really glowey now so their skin color is probably not that noticeable.

 

 

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 is not hard. It is just presumptuous to apologize on behalf of another. If Mark E. Peterson needs and chooses to apologize then he can do it on his own. Admittedly we may have to wait until death to hear about it.

 

 

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.

 

American Catholics and Protestants did too. So did American Atheists. So did American Mormons (though they are of course also Christian).

 

Each also had their share of racist nutbags.

 

There is no group devoid of saints or sinners. I would argue that the Mormons (and I suspect the Jews too) got more then their fair share of the extremists on both sides of the saint/sinner spectrum. Seems to be the way it works. Most of the most wicked people I have ever met have been LDS but most of the best have also been LDS.

[sunstoned]

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?

The "product of the times" excuse is really a low bar.  It could apply to anyone and any protestant preacher.  However, in the LDS framework it only applies to dead prophets. All utterances from living prophets are the word of god (one set of earrings, no bare shoulders, etc).  Of course once a prophet or apostle passes, then the bar lowers and their words can be discarded as opinion and a product of the times.  I guess BY's ban on blacks was a "product of the times".   

[sunstoned]

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?

In the 1850-60's people were risking their lives to support and assist the underground railroad to help blacks escape slavery.  At the same time BY was declaring that slavery was a divine institution*.  Go figure.

 

* Horace Greeley interviewed Brigham Young for the New York Tiibure in 1859

[The Nehor]

The "product of the times" excuse is really a low bar.  It could apply to anyone and any protestant preacher.  However, in the LDS framework it only applies to dead prophets. All utterances from living prophets are the word of god (one set of earrings, no bare shoulders, etc).  Of course once a prophet or apostle passes, then the bar lowers and their words can be discarded as opinion and a product of the times.  I guess BY's ban on blacks was a "product of the times".   

 

Why can't it apply to a prophet today?

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

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

 

American Catholics and Protestants did too. So did American Atheists. So did American Mormons (though they are of course also Christian).

 

Each also had their share of racist nutbags.

 

There is no group devoid of saints or sinners. I would argue that the Mormons (and I suspect the Jews too) got more then their fair share of the extremists on both sides of the saint/sinner spectrum. Seems to be the way it works. Most of the most wicked people I have ever met have been LDS but most of the best have also been LDS.

Actually, TheSkepticChristian is quite correct in his assertion, Nehor.  The Jewish community had a very close and special relationship with the Black community, unlike anything from other groups.  I heard Toni Morrison talking about it in detail just the other day (she is the Nobel Prize winning Black novelist).  The notion that every group is equally evil and equally righteous is nonsense.  There have been stark differences, with many groups having to be shamed into making changes.  Repentance has been particularly difficult for some.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[sunstoned]

Why can't it apply to a prophet today?

Because if you were to say the living prophet or apostle was only speaking as a man, you would be censored, or worse.  Best hold your criticisms until they pass, then you would be regarded as a apologist. 

[sunstoned]

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.

^This^.  Very well stated.

[The Nehor]

Actually, TheSkepticChristian is quite correct in his assertion, Nehor.  The Jewish community had a very close and special relationship with the Black community, unlike anything from other groups.  I heard Toni Morrison talking about it in detail just the other day (she is the Nobel Prize winning Black novelist).  The notion that every group is equally evil and equally righteous is nonsense.  There have been stark differences, with many groups having to be shamed into making changes.  Repentance has been particularly difficult for some.

 

I did not say or imply that all groups had equal ratios.

 

Yeah, there was a lot of friendship between the Jewish and Black communities.

 

“Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect her right to exist, its territorial integrity and the right to use whatever sea lanes it needs. Israel is one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security, and that security must be a reality." -Martin Luther King

 

While I am sure some of it was selfless there was some mutual support out of self-interest.

 

I imagine Dr. King is not as impressed with Israel now.

[The Nehor]

Because if you were to say the living prophet or apostle was only speaking as a man, you would be censored, or worse.  Best hold your criticisms until they pass, then you would be regarded as a apologist. 

 

I try to hold my disagreements with past prophets and apostles close too even when I think they were wrong so I am not sure how I am favoring the living over the dead in this regard.

 

I guess if you consider that the only kind of disagreement that matters is one yelled about publicly it would be hard to understand such a stance.

 

I still believe that following the Prophet leads to salvation and Christ. No one was ever damned for following Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or Thomas Monson. If the prophets got it wrong the sin be upon the head of the prophet. Too many are busy trying to surpass or anticipate the prophet which generally means imagining God agrees with them on various views and assuming later prophets will change to match those views.

[Robert F. Smith]

I did not say or imply that all groups had equal ratios.

 

Yeah, there was a lot of friendship between the Jewish and Black communities.

 

“Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect her right to exist, its territorial integrity and the right to use whatever sea lanes it needs. Israel is one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security, and that security must be a reality." -Martin Luther King

 

While I am sure some of it was selfless there was some mutual support out of self-interest.

 

I imagine Dr. King is not as impressed with Israel now.

The strong and very close relationship of Jews and Blacks began long before the birth of Dr King, and was not based on mutual needs.  It was based on the extraordinarily high moral and ethical teachings of Judaism, which alone could drive so many Jews (including Schwerner & Goodman) to place their lives on the line on behalf of Black civil rights.

[The Nehor]

The strong and very close relationship of Jews and Blacks began long before the birth of Dr King, and was not based on mutual needs.  It was based on the extraordinarily high moral and ethical teachings of Judaism, which alone could drive so many Jews (including Schwerner & Goodman) to place their lives on the line on behalf of Black civil rights.

 

You are entitled to believe that. I do not.

[Bobbieaware]

Does this mean that we Mormons are really just karma chameleons a la Boy George?

Very funny and incredibly clever, Robert! I would say progressive Latter-day Saints are more likely to be the karma chameleons when it comes to the karmic principle because while they will grudgingly agree with the principle in theory they will simultaneously reject any and all suggestions as to how the principle may be seen to work real life (e.g. a "Chinaman" who never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel before his death, verses a General Authority who grew up in a strong LDS family in Utah). But it's also true that even many TBMs would cringe and try to distance themselves from Elder Peterson's comments, so in truth they might be said to be karma chameleons to some extent as well.

But as I said, the controversial nature of the theory only rears its ugly head when someone attempts to demonstrate how the theory works by citing what they believe to be real-life examples of the karmic principle in action. In other words, the karmic principle is just fine and dandy as long as it remains a theoretical principle without anyone trying to put forth any specific examples of how the principle may actually be seen to operate in the real world..

In his day, Elder Peterson could speak his mind on the karmic principle, and even provide specific "examples" of what he believed to be the principle in action, without facing much backlash because the topic wasn't nearly as "hot button" in the early 50s as it is today. But in today's politically correct environment, if anyone has what they believe are real-life examples of how the karmic principle operates, it would be more than wise for that man to keep his opinions to himself.

In the recent past, it was simply taken for granted there were numerous examples of the karmic principle at work just about anywhere and everywhere one looked. But with the recent official church acknowledgement that we, for the most part, are almost totally ignorant of what occurred in the preexistence, it's best to not openly theorize on possible examples of the karmic principle in action except when amoung a group of sympathetic friends who are not adverse to occasional theoretical flights of fancy.

[Sanpitch]

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?

I may have to do a little more research on the JW racism.  I've been depending on what I've been told and it may not be accurate.

[Bobbieaware]

And that would be because we can't truly judge whether being born or provided with a comfortable or luxurious life is really a blessing given how Jesus said it is the meek who will inherit the earth and the poor in spirit heaven while the chances of a rich man were like a camel attempting to thread a needle (with itself, not a thread...but both actually work as comparable impossibilities).

I agree. But just because we don't now know doesn't mean we will never know. And oh what cognitive dissonance will grip the minds and hearts of the masses if it turns out that Elder Peterson was correct! It is possible, you know? After all, since we don't know, who can say for sure he wasn't right?

Edited August 27, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[CV75]

 

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

I think fundamentally, the Church doesn’t have much responsibility or role for apologies.  Before finding this article, I searched the scriptures for the word “apology” and “excuse” and didn’t find anything applicable:

 

"I know that the history of the church is not to seek apologies or to give them," Oaks said in an interview Tuesday. "We sometimes look back on issues and say, 'Maybe that was counterproductive for what we wish to achieve,' but we look forward and not backward… “(Salt Lake Tribune – Utah, February 2, 2015)

 

I think this is exemplified in the Race and Priesthood essay: “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past… Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form… Since that day in 1978, the Church has looked to the future…”

 

The fundamental value of the Church is in the eternal keys and not the mortal personalities, and in the eternal covenants and not the temporal restraints of the wilderness within which she operates—whether that means entire societies or imperfect individuals struggling through their probation in this world. The Restoration is only the Church coming out of the wilderness, and both have been proceeding since 1820, and this will continue to go on.

 

Considering the types of things the Church has been established to proclaim, and its true value, I can’t think of an example where the Lord would direct the Church to issue a proclamation of apology. The Lord will lead people into His kingdom in mysterious ways!

[Calm]

"And oh what cognitive dissonance will grip the minds and hearts of the masses if it turns out that Elder Peterson was correct! It is possible, you know? After all, since we don't know, who can say for sure he wasn't right?

Edited August 27, 2015 by calmoriah

[smac97]

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

Are you sure you want to single out the Mormons of yesteryear for "racism"?

Have you read some of the writings of Charles Taze Russell and Joseph Rutherford regarding their views on black people (and, as a corollary, their views on "the white race" compared to other races)?

I think you may want to double check your assumptions. I don't mean to run down the JWs, but your attempt to run down our faith by comparing our forbears by comparison is simply not borne out by historical fact. What we today call "racism" was, in yesteryear, deeply entrenched and systemic. That is unfortunate, and I am glad we have improved and continue to improve in that regard.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

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?

 

Elder Neil L. Anderson addressed this well:

 

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

With this in mind, here are a few questions to consider when reviewing Elder Peterson's talk:

1. How many times has this talk been quoted by other general authorities subsequent to its original presentation in 1954?

2. Are the sentiments expressed in Elder Peterson's talk (which apparently "was never published but is kept as a manuscript in the Special Collection") "congruent with" the Church's current doctrines regarding race?

3. Are the sentiments expressed in Elder Peterson's talk "taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve?" Or are they better described as being "hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk?"

FAIR has compiled some useful information about Elder Peterson's talk in particular and about LDS belief regarding inerrancy by the Brethren (or, more aptly stated, the lack thereof).

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac