Mark E Petersen On Race

[smac97]

Do you have any concern for the people who were hurt by talks such as Petersen's.  Brigham Young's statements were even worse but we better ignore that.

 

Yes, I have concern for such people.  I also have contempt for critics of the Church who pull it out of mothballs with the specific and designed intent to cause such hurt.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[stemelbow]

I don't understand the complaints here. It makes every bit of sense for the Church to apologize for wrong teachings from its leaders. It should be in the business of correcting wrongs and apologizing to those who were negatively effected by those wrong teachings. Why that's a bad thing is beyond me.

We are now dealing with the effects of the Church's racist past. Every black person I taught on my mission ran for the hills as soon as he/she learned a little bit about the racist past. It sucks. Black members today often feel uncomfortable because, as it turns out, some members, particularly older generations, haven't gotten over the comfortable racism that was, for them, institutionalized.

I mean, my goodness, we'll deal with this forever at this rate. We'll seemingly never move beyond it. But if we can officially apologize, we have a chance to move past it. More than 30 years before the lifting of the ban a member of the Church in writing to the 1st Presidency said it best "Are we becoming so legalistic (after the fashion of the Pharisees) that we cannot adjust our institutions to the changing needs of mankind? Are we, as some have charged, more Hebraic than Christian?" -Lowry Nelson (mentioned by Nevo earlier)

Sorry the near institutionalized attitude of Church members on this matter sucks.

[stemelbow]

Elder Neil L. Anderson addressed this well:

 

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

Doesn't seem like a very good excuse to me. As bad as Elder PEterson's talk was, he was just following the traditional teaching fo the past. It wasn't but 5 years before that when the first Presidency put out an official statement on race that itself was racist. To pretend racist teaching was found only in Elder Peterson's talk is just silly.

[Sanpitch]

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

As I said to Juliann above, "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."   I may have to back off on that statement.

[Tacenda]

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?

I thought the church kind of apologized in the church essay. But do remember the talk by Dallin H. Oaks about the church apologizing.

I met Mark E. Petersen once at the University Medical center. He seemed like a nice man, just grew up with the wrong information. Glad the world is more knowledgeable about these things. Well, most of the world.

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2122123-155/no-apology-really-mormons-question-apostle

"The church doesn't "seek apologies," he said, "and we don't give them."

[Bobbieaware]

"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? "

I think it is more like Christ was right myself.

What did Elder Peterson say that contradicts the Savior? Did he not make it plain all have the opportunity for celestial glory? Didn't even the Savior seem harsh when he likened the Samaritans to dogs and commanded his disciples to preach the Gospel only to those of the blood of Israel. Yet, in the end, it all works out for the best.

Our God is a chastening God, but his chastening, as severe and unpleasant as it might be, is administered in wisdom to maximize our opportunities for spiritual growth. By personal revelation I know God gave me certain physical handicaps and spiritual weaknesses as a consequence of my behavior in the pre-earth life; but I now realize those handicaps and weaknesses were designed by a perfect wisdom to ultimately bless rather than curse me.

[Gray]

What did Elder Peterson say that contradicts the Savior? Did he not make it plain all have the opportunity for celestial glory? Didn't even the Savior seem harsh when he likened the Samaritans to dogs and commanded his disciples to preach the Gospel only to those of the blood of Israel. Yet, in the end, it all works out for the best.

Our God is a chastening God, but his chastening, as severe and unpleasant as it might be, is administered in wisdom to maximize our opportunities for spiritual growth. By personal revelation I know God gave me certain physical handicaps and spiritual weaknesses as a consequence of my behavior in the pre-earth life; but I now realize those handicaps and weaknesses were designed by a perfect wisdom to ultimately bless rather than curse me.

 

What is he said is incompatible what what President Hinckley taught:

 

 

Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

 

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. 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?

[stemelbow]

What is he said is incompatible what what President Hinckley taught:

The Church can lead with President Hinckley's quote when it offers an apology. That'd be great.

[smac97]

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.

CFR, please, regarding the "significant number of LDS" who presently believe these things. I have lived in Utah County for 30+ years. Mormon Central. As a child I may have been oblivious to race-related issues. However, as an adult I feel fairly plugged in. I have spent the last ten years as a Gospel Doctrine teacher, a member of my stake's high council, an assistant to a High Priest Group Leader, and in a bishopric. I don't say any of this to brag, but to lay the groundwork for my next statement, to wit: In all my interactions with my fellow Saints, including gospel doctrine lessons, priesthood lessons, Sacrament Meeting talks, bishopric talks, firesides, general conference talks, high council meetings, bishopric meetings, ward council meetings, and on and on and on, I have not detected any appreciable "racism" among my fellow Saints.

My stake is in the middle of Provo. We have a Spanish-speaking ward (the fastest growing ward in the stake, I believe) and a Japanese-speaking ward, the latter of which shares a building with my ward. My ward has a rather small number of children, so our ward has combined its scouting and youth programs with that of the Japanese ward. I have never heard a single complaint or criticism or any remotely negative remark from any member of my ward about the Japanese ward or its members. Not one. To the contrary, the two wards get along very well.

The Spanish-speaking ward is thriving, largely because so much missionary work is going on with Hispanic folks in our stake boundaries. Again, I have never heard a single complaint or criticism or any remotely negative remark from any member of my ward about the Spanish ward or its members or other Hispanics. To the contrary, much of the missionary work in our stake is specifically directed toward Spanish-speaking peoples.

In my ward, we have members who are mostly "white" (of European extraction), but we also have members who are Native American, Hispanic (Mexico, Guatemala, Ecuador, etc.), Korean, and so on. We have a lot of students move in and out, with all sorts of races represented. Our ward mission leader is Hispanic. Our Young Men's President is Korean. Our previous HPGL was Tahitian/Chilean.

So color me skeptical that there are large swaths of systemic racism among the LDS faithful. If the sentiments you reference above are still held to, then the adherents sure don't talk about 'em much.

BTW, what does this mean: "The first humans were not necessarily white?" I've never heard any doctrine or teaching about Adam's and Eve's ethnicity.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 27, 2015 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

...  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. .... 

Really?  Someone has already pointed out that Joseph Smith's thinking on slavery was decades ahead of its time (though that may also have been one of the things that got him killed).  And Utah Territory granted women's suffrage in 1870, but those ENLIGHTENED feds revoked it in 1887 over polygamy.

 

But don't let me interrupt your handwringing about how unenlightened Mormons are.

[smac97]

.

Edited August 27, 2015 by smac97

[stemelbow]

CFR, please, regarding the "significant number of LDS" who presently believe these things. I have lived in Utah County for 30+ years. Mormon Central. As a child I may have been oblivious to race-related issues. However, as an adult I feel fairly plugged in. I have spent the last ten years as a Gospel Doctrine teacher, a member of my stake's high council, an assistant to a High Priest Group Leader, and in a bishopric. I don't say any of this to brag, but to lay the groundwork for my next statement, to wit: In all my interactions with my fellow Saints, including gospel doctrine lessons, priesthood lessons, Sacrament Meeting talks, bishopric talks, firesides, general conference talks, high council meetings, bishopric meetings, ward council meetings, and on and on and on, I have not detected any appreciable "racism" among my fellow Saints.

My stake is in the middle of Provo. We have a Spanish-speaking ward (the fastest growing ward in the stake, I believe) and a Japanese-speaking ward, the latter of which shares a building with my ward. My ward has a rather small number of children, so our ward has combined its scouting and youth programs with that of the Japanese ward. I have never heard a single complaint or criticism or any remotely negative remark from any member of my ward about the Japanese ward or its members. Not one. To the contrary, the two wards get along very well.

The Spanish-speaking ward is thriving, largely because so much missionary work is going on with Hispanic folks in our stake boundaries. Again, I have never heard a single complaint or criticism or any remotely negative remark from any member of my ward about the Spanish ward or its members or other Hispanics. To the contrary, much of the missionary work in our stake is specifically directed toward Spanish-speaking peoples.

In my ward, we have members who are mostly "white" (of European extraction), but we also have members who are Native American, Hispanic (Mexico, Guatemala, Ecuador, etc.), Korean, and so on. We have a lot of students move in and out, with all sorts of races represented. Our ward mission leader is Hispanic. Our Young Men's President is Korean. Our previous HPGL was Tahitian/Chilean.

So color me skeptical that there are large swaths of systemic racism among the LDS faithful. If the sentiments you reference above are still held to, then the adherents sure don't talk about 'em much.

BTW, what does this mean: "The first humans were not necessarily white?" I've never heard any doctrine or teaching about Adam's and Eve's ethnicity.

Thanks,

-Smac

You're claiming in all of your years and experience you've never seen an LDS member say something or do something that is racist? Either you aren't aware of what is racism or you have decided to close your eyes and ears. There's really no way around it. It happens, even to the best of us.

[Bobbieaware]

What is he said is incompatible what what President Hinckley taught:

Be specific, post actual passages from Elder Peterson's address you believe the Savior and President Hinkley and then we can talk.

[smac97]

You're claiming in all of your years and experience you've never seen an LDS member say something or do something that is racist? Either you aren't aware of what is racism or you have decided to close your eyes and ears. There's really no way around it. It happens, even to the best of us.

I am aware of what racism is. And I have not closed my eyes and ears. My point is that "racism" in the Church has essentially become like an alcohol or porn addiction: Sure, it exists to some extent, but it's not condoned or embraced or advocated or readily shared. The Saints know it's wrong. The Saints are getting better at getting along.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

Be specific, post actual passages from Elder Peterson's address you believe the Savior and President Hinkley and then we can talk.

 

The very first post in the thread pretty much does that. 

[CV75]

I don't understand the complaints here. It makes every bit of sense for the Church to apologize for wrong teachings from its leaders. It should be in the business of correcting wrongs and apologizing to those who were negatively effected by those wrong teachings. Why that's a bad thing is beyond me.

***

Sorry the near institutionalized attitude of Church members on this matter sucks.

How can the Church as an institution not act as an institution, and why would members expect otherwise?

 

Apology has a place in satisfying personal motivations and relationships, but that doesn't make it necessarily warranted. In order for an institution to apologize for disavowed teachings and practices of the past, the current stewards and those who sustain them would have to assume the guilt for the formers’ actions, which typically is not fair or warranted. And even on a personal basis an apology to the offended on behalf of dead men is superficial for the very reason the apologizer is above the ground; the mutal deeper meaning is negotiated on a personal level between the parties. This cannot be accomplished by a one-way institutional edict. The most thorough eradication is to disavow and move on, and the Light of Christ is available to everyone, especially the offended innocent.

 

The ongoing empathy, sympathy and encouragement we hear from the institution is far more effective and meaningful in assisting the offended to progress than a one-time apology. Institutionally, there are no limits on who the Lord invites to “partake of his goodness” (to paraphrase the essay).

[thesometimesaint]

I don't understand the complaints here. It makes every bit of sense for the Church to apologize for wrong teachings from its leaders. It should be in the business of correcting wrongs and apologizing to those who were negatively effected by those wrong teachings. Why that's a bad thing is beyond me.

We are now dealing with the effects of the Church's racist past. Every black person I taught on my mission ran for the hills as soon as he/she learned a little bit about the racist past. It sucks. Black members today often feel uncomfortable because, as it turns out, some members, particularly older generations, haven't gotten over the comfortable racism that was, for them, institutionalized.

I mean, my goodness, we'll deal with this forever at this rate. We'll seemingly never move beyond it. But if we can officially apologize, we have a chance to move past it. More than 30 years before the lifting of the ban a member of the Church in writing to the 1st Presidency said it best "Are we becoming so legalistic (after the fashion of the Pharisees) that we cannot adjust our institutions to the changing needs of mankind? Are we, as some have charged, more Hebraic than Christian?" -Lowry Nelson (mentioned by Nevo earlier)

Sorry the near institutionalized attitude of Church members on this matter sucks.

 

Was not Bruce R. McConkie every bit an Apostle that Mark E. Peterson was? He apologized for the racist statement he and others made. So you've gotten you apology. Time to move on.

SEE ""There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, 'You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?' All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world".

[ERayR]

Sorry the near institutionalized attitude of Church members on this matter sucks.

 

Sorry the near institutionalized attitude of Church members (in whose mind the Church can do nothing right) on this matter sucks.

[BlueDreams]

 

Has the Church ever apologized for this speech, I think they should have.  That speech was from 1954 at BYU, it has bothered me ever since, so racist.  It may be one man's opinion, but he was an Apostle.  People listened to him.  Think how you'd feel if you were of the Oriental or Black race, you were so much lower in status than the pure white race.  I love the fact that Mark would be willing to allow Blacks to have a Cadillac if they could afford it. Just selected paragraphs:

Personally, I could care less whether they do or don't. I'm half black and when I hear whites and 1950's I assume racist until proven otherwise. It's not a big surprise to me that his comments would err to the side of maintaining the status quo....there were plenty who did. I was watching this documentary that featured a gallup poll from 1963 asking whether whites and minorities are treated equally for housing, education, and employment....66% said yes and 85% believed that blacks had the same opportunities as white children. White people were often very oblivious to minority realities. And that separation probably seemed to range from inert and a non-issue to natural and an acceptable order (everyone has their space). Most learned otherwise and the vast majority would not agree with his talk today.....that's what's more important to me. I care more about today and the residual issues surrounding race than yesteryear when my grandmother was a teen and it made sense to say "the negro."  

 

Small thing: "oriental" is an antiquated term, similar to "the negro"....asian is better. 

 

CFR, please, regarding the "significant number of LDS" who presently believe these things. I have lived in Utah County for 30+ years. Mormon Central. As a child I may have been oblivious to race-related issues. However, as an adult I feel fairly plugged in. I have spent the last ten years as a Gospel Doctrine teacher, a member of my stake's high council, an assistant to a High Priest Group Leader, and in a bishopric. I don't say any of this to brag, but to lay the groundwork for my next statement, to wit: In all my interactions with my fellow Saints, including gospel doctrine lessons, priesthood lessons, Sacrament Meeting talks, bishopric talks, firesides, general conference talks, high council meetings, bishopric meetings, ward council meetings, and on and on and on, I have not detected any appreciable "racism" among my fellow Saints.

 

Haha....you have obviously never met my (white, rural-stock, generally conservative) family. My grandmother, despite having several brown grand-babies and two mexican son-in-laws, had problems with my youngest aunt dating a black guy. My other aunt still blocks me on FB because I confronted her quasi-racist rant about Ferguson. My other aunt (the one who dates mainly brown guys) I've had to help explain a little about minority perspectives as to why 'white pride" isn't taken super well. My mother (who only has had children with minority males) believed in the Mark of Cain/Ham/Lamanites being a darker skin tone...and probably still does. I dissuaded her on the premortal fence sitting. At a recent family event I overheard my Uncle postulate about how MLK had the mark of the beast (to my family's credit, most of them were extremely uncomfortable with this idea). At same said event I heard my mom talk about how a sports team was good because they had a lot of black people who had their natural athletic ability. My little brother and I will often give a knowing look and mutter racist under our breath when she says something like this (it's not uncommon). Another aunt told me to be weary of a part poly guy who liked me because of her own views about polynesians being lazy among other things.

 

My family is odd in that they never sugar coat their opinions, find the dinner table the perfect time to bring up controversial topics, and yet still love each other most days...beyond that, they're not all that odd. None of them separate the cousins out by race. My grandma doesn't hug me different because of her leeriness to black-white relationships. You wouldn't, immediately know and none of them are overt racists or would view themselves as racist. But it's there (and I still look forward to seeing them ).

 

I think I've stated this before...but LDS (and U.S. society in general) are not free from racist beliefs, sentiments, or ideals. The vast majority of them are not overtly racist. Usually it's a mix of obliviousness, misconceptions, and stereotypes. Sometimes it feels like the last residues from a very racist past and imperfect present that can't entirely be shaken. And sometimes it's connected in someways to some uniquely LDS beliefs creating a folk-doctrine of sorts...some with quotable statements (easy example: interracial dating). But it's still there. The black half of my family in UT would state so and experienced it in the 30 years or so they've also lived here. Many of the minorities I've interacted with over the last several years would state so. And I would state so from my own experience growing up LDS and living in UT for most of my adulthood.  

 

BTW, what does this mean: "The first humans were not necessarily white?" I've never heard any doctrine or teaching about Adam's and Eve's ethnicity.

 

 

It's not doctrine, but somewhat an unwritten assumption depicted in all of our art and media of A+E.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 27, 2015 by BlueDreams

[stemelbow]

I am aware of what racism is. And I have not closed my eyes and ears. My point is that "racism" in the Church has essentially become like an alcohol or porn addiction: Sure, it exists to some extent, but it's not condoned or embraced or advocated or readily shared. The Saints know it's wrong. The Saints are getting better at getting along.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree with that. Thanks for clarification.

[ttribe]

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?

 

My conscience tells me so.

[ERayR]

Some LDS still believe

1. The lamanite curse was dark skin

2. The Mark of Cain was Black skin (nothing to do with the priesthood ban)

3. The first humans are white

 

That is why we need a black Adam or Eve in at least on of the temple films.

It is not fair that Adam and Eve are always white American

 

No only that, we LDS have the aid of the gift of the Holy Ghost. We LDS believe in objecte morality, and that God is the same yesturday, today, and forever.

 

So the "product of the times" is simply a bad argument.

 

I agree that God allows humans to make mistakes, I don't expect the apostles to be perfect, but I do expect them to better than most people

 

Some LDS still believe

1. The lamanite curse was dark skin

2. The Mark of Cain was Black skin (nothing to do with the priesthood ban)

3. The first humans are white

4. Intellectual elitism

 

That is why we need a black Adam or Eve in at least on of the temple films.

and a native American one

and a Mexican one

and a Polynesian one

and an Eskimo one

and a ............ on and on Ad Infinitum.

I am sure you can get the picture.

 

And finally I am sure the Apostles do, do better than most people.

[stemelbow]

How can the Church as an institution not act as an institution, and why would members expect otherwise?

 

Apology has a place in satisfying personal motivations and relationships, but that doesn't make it necessarily warranted. In order for an institution to apologize for disavowed teachings and practices of the past, the current stewards and those who sustain them would have to assume the guilt for the formers’ actions, which typically is not fair or warranted. And even on a personal basis an apology to the offended on behalf of dead men is superficial for the very reason the apologizer is above the ground; the mutal deeper meaning is negotiated on a personal level between the parties. This cannot be accomplished by a one-way institutional edict. The most thorough eradication is to disavow and move on, and the Light of Christ is available to everyone, especially the offended innocent.

 

The ongoing empathy, sympathy and encouragement we hear from the institution is far more effective and meaningful in assisting the offended to progress than a one-time apology. Institutionally, there are no limits on who the Lord invites to “partake of his goodness” (to paraphrase the essay).

I disagree overall, but I appreciate your perspective. An apology is just one step. It sure is good that the Church has a much better face on when it addresses race, no doubt. And that too is helpful.

[stemelbow]

Was not Bruce R. McConkie every bit an Apostle that Mark E. Peterson was? He apologized for the racist statement he and others made. So you've gotten you apology. Time to move on.

SEE ""There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, 'You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?' All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world".

Dismissing it is not an apology. But I do appreciate the frankness of McConkie's statement in saying it was wrong.

[smac97]

I don't understand the complaints here. It makes every bit of sense for the Church to apologize for wrong teachings from its leaders. It should be in the business of correcting wrongs and apologizing to those who were negatively effected by those wrong teachings. Why that's a bad thing is beyond me.

We are now dealing with the effects of the Church's racist past. Every black person I taught on my mission ran for the hills as soon as he/she learned a little bit about the racist past. It sucks. Black members today often feel uncomfortable because, as it turns out, some members, particularly older generations, haven't gotten over the comfortable racism that was, for them, institutionalized.

I mean, my goodness, we'll deal with this forever at this rate. We'll seemingly never move beyond it. But if we can officially apologize, we have a chance to move past it. More than 30 years before the lifting of the ban a member of the Church in writing to the 1st Presidency said it best "Are we becoming so legalistic (after the fashion of the Pharisees) that we cannot adjust our institutions to the changing needs of mankind? Are we, as some have charged, more Hebraic than Christian?" -Lowry Nelson (mentioned by Nevo earlier)

Sorry the near institutionalized attitude of Church members on this matter sucks.

The Church has officially stated: "The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that 'no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.'"

 

The Church has also officially stated this (after itemizing in some detail the Priesthood Ban and its attendance circumstances): "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. ... The Church proclaims that redemption through Jesus Christ is available to the entire human family on the conditions God has prescribed. It affirms that God is “no respecter of persons” and emphatically declares that anyone who is righteous—regardless of race—is favored of Him."

 

We know that the Church has emphatically and expressly repudiated and condemned racism "in any form."  So it's hard to see a good faith basis for demands for a further apology.  Frankly, such demands can come across as a rather unhealthy mixture of racial self-loathing (people who despise their own ethnicity because many of their forbears harbored racist sentiments), race-baiting ("the unfair use of statements about race to try to influence the actions or attitudes of a particular group of people"), anti-Mormon bigotry (trying to embarrass the LDS Church by resorting to a talk given 61 years ago, the substance of which has been repudiated), a pretextual maneuver (calling on the Church to "apologize" for racism as a precursor to calling on the Church to "apologize" for other things, such as its position on same-sex marriage - see here for an example), and/or a weird exercise in imputing "inerrancy" onto LDS leaders.

 

Are all Christians to be condemned because of the apparent prejudice exhibited by Jonah against the people of Nineveh?  Or the apparent prejudice by some of the Savior's early apostles against the Gentiles?  More to the point, are folks running around and demanding that Christians everywhere "apologize" for such things?

 

Any Latter-day Saint who harbors animosity toward some of his/her brothers and sisters owing to their racial heritage are out of harmony with the teachings of the Church.  They need to repent, surely.  But external calls for an "apology" simply do not seem to fairly enter into the picture.  I do not think they are presented in good faith.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited August 27, 2015 by smac97