Mark E Petersen On Race

[TheSkepticChristian]

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.

 

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.

 

About time someone admits that I am right. Thanks 

I am talking about the American Jews of the early 20th century.

 

 

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.

 

The Nehor,

 

I am not talking about what the Book of Mormon teaches, I am just saying that a significant number of LDS believe the Lamanite curse is dark skin, and the mark of Cain is black skin.

 

So color me skeptical that there are large swaths of systemic racism among the LDS faithful.

smac97,

 

The LDS that believe the mark of Cain is black skin are not racist. They don't see themselves as racist, you are creating a straw man.

I also didn't say "most" I simply said a "significant number"

 

 

CFR, please, regarding the "significant number of LDS" who presently believe these things. I have lived in Utah County for 30+ years.

 

In Utah, but not in other parts of the USA and the world. 

Some missionaries from South America believe that (I know because I asked them), so it is not just in my stake.

 

I cannot give you studies, I can only tell you my experience.

 

 

I don't understand the complaints here. It makes every bit of sense for the Church to apologize for wrong teachings from its leaders.

 

Sure, 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/

 

The apology didn't harm the Catholic Church at all, why should an apology harm the LDS church (true church)?

 

I am sure you can get the picture.

ERayR

I a not surprised that you never understand what I say

Edited August 27, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ERayR]

ERayR

I a not surprised that you never understand what I am saying

 

I have a pretty good grasp of the English language and a fair vocabulary so I am reasonably sure I understand what you wrote.  I am not sure you understand what you are saying.

[stemelbow]

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

I disagree, SMac. I do love the quotes you offered condemning racism. They are awesome. I think an apology would go a long way to helping all of us.

It would show us that the Church can apologize and should for mistakes it has made.

It would show the world our racism of the past is in the past and we are fully on board with good faith efforts to repent and love everyone.

it clearly tells us all that the treatment that leaders and other members gave to black people of the past were not in harmony with what we see as the gospel. The statements we've seen, including those you've quoted get really close to this, I acknowledge. I appreciate them, for sure.

Those are enough for me. I guess you can question my faith when I say it is a good idea to apologize. But that doesn't matter at all.

[thesometimesaint]

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

 

Dismissing

SEE

dis·miss

 (dĭs-mĭs′)tr.v. dis·missed, dis·miss·ing, dis·miss·es

1. To end the employment or service of; discharge.

2. To direct or allow to leave: dismissed troops after the inspection; dismissed the student after reprimanding him.

3.

a. To stop considering; rid one's mind of; dispel: dismissed all thoughts of running for office.

b. To refuse to accept or recognize; reject: dismissed the claim as highly improbable.

 

3b is your use of the term. Which is misplaced at best, and risible.

[bluebell]

It's crazy to me that people used to actually believe things like Peterson expressed about people who weren't white.  Culture can sure mess a person up sometimes.  

[ALarson]

It's crazy to me that people used to actually believe things like Peterson expressed about people who weren't white.  Culture can sure mess a person up sometimes.  

I have known some who still believe the early teachings (older members of the church who grew up hearing these teachings from their leaders and in lessons).  But it's rare to ever hear them spoken anymore.

 

I guess the question I have is that there are those on here who say that when an Apostle is speaking, it is the Lord's words (Ahab comes to mind from the other thread about plagiarism).  If that's the case, why would Mark E. Petersen speak the words he did? 

[BlueDreams]

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.

 

So you believe, Bobbie, that for no reason other than my racial makeup that (especially in the 50's) would have been viewed as "just black" or falling under a curse because of the one drop rule lds extrapolation...even if I do all that is asked of me today in faith, including be sealed in the temple....that my celestial glory will be to be a servant? Still somehow lower in glory, inspite of Following Christ all my days. Because that's what Peterson is stating. If it's somehow time sensitive and something magical happened between 1852 (ish)-1978 and just those black/mixed-with-black people would be called to eternal servanthood because, try as they might, they couldn't go to the temple to receive their endowments or be sealed.....even if their work has now been done for them....they would be the ones to be eternal celestial servants.

 

That still means God is not only a respector of persons but arbitrary human social rankings, definitions of race, and meaning to said race. Or that the idea of an ultimate oneness, removing arbitrary -ite categories to make a people who have "all things in common" seen in the BoM is basically a pipe dream. Because there was no equity in segregation. There is only respecting human-based divisions/hierarchies of people in Peterson's statements. It goes against the temple blessings, and puts an unnecessary qualifier in the mix. In my mind, it would mean "God would cease to be God" because He would be made a liar....

 

But please, look through D&C  76, 131, &132 and find the passage/verse that explains the qualifiers for not only the CK but also to receive the highest heaven and show me the place where it mentions you also have to be racially lily-white.

 

With incredulity,

BD

Edited August 27, 2015 by BlueDreams

[ttribe]

Re: BlueDreams' post

 

That.Was.Epic.

 

Well done.

[smac97]

I disagree, SMac. I do love the quotes you offered condemning racism. They are awesome. I think an apology would go a long way to helping all of us.

It would show us that the Church can apologize and should for mistakes it has made.

It would show the world our racism of the past is in the past and we are fully on board with good faith efforts to repent and love everyone.

it clearly tells us all that the treatment that leaders and other members gave to black people of the past were not in harmony with what we see as the gospel. The statements we've seen, including those you've quoted get really close to this, I acknowledge. I appreciate them, for sure.

Those are enough for me. I guess you can question my faith when I say it is a good idea to apologize. But that doesn't matter at all.

 

I didn't mean to question your faith, but in retrospect my remarks were too harsh.  I apologize.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

P.S. I quite acknowledge the value of an individual making a non-compulsory apology.  Now, if you were to ask me to apologize for a racist remark made by my grandmother 50 years ago . . . 

[smac97]

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.

 

I don't think we can justify the problematic aspects of Elder Peterson's talk in any material or meaningful way.  

 

I hope the above post is not an attempt at gaslighting.  That just ain't cool.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited August 27, 2015 by smac97

[thesometimesaint]

So you believe, Bobbie, that for no reason other than my racial makeup that (especially in the 50's) would have been viewed as "just black" or falling under a curse because of the one drop rule lds extrapolation...even if I do all that is asked of me today in faith, including be sealed in the temple....that my celestial glory will be to be a servant? Still somehow lower in glory, inspite of Following Christ all my days. Because that's what Peterson is stating. If it's somehow time sensitive and something magical happened between 1852 (ish)-1978 and just those black/mixed-with-black people would be called to eternal servanthood because, try as they might, they couldn't go to the temple to receive their endowments or be sealed.....even if their work has now been done for them....they would be the ones to be eternal celestial servants.

 

That still means God is not only a respector of persons but arbitrary human social rankings, definitions of race, and meaning to said race. Or that the idea of an ultimate oneness, removing arbitrary -ite categories to make a people who have "all things in common" seen in the BoM is basically a pipe dream. Because there was no equity in segregation. There is only respecting human-based divisions/hierarchies of people in Peterson's statements. It goes against the temple blessings, and puts an unnecessary qualifier in the mix. In my mind, it would mean "God would cease to be God" because He would be made a liar....

 

But please, look through D&C  76, 131, &132 and find the passage/verse that explains the qualifiers for not only the CK but also to receive the highest heaven and show me the place where it mentions you also have to be racially lily-white.

 

With incredulity,

BD

 

Thank You. :good:

[Rivers]

I am not talking about what the Book of Mormon teaches, I am just saying that a significant number of LDS believe the Lamanite curse is dark skin, and the mark of Cain is black skin.

smac97,

The LDS that believe the mark of Cain is black skin are not racist. They don't see themselves as racist, you are creating a straw man.

The problem is that many people universalize the Lamanites mark/curse by assuming every dark skinned race has darker skin due to being marked by God. Same with the mark of Cain. Too bad we can't edit these things out of the standard works....

Or can we?

Edited August 27, 2015 by Rivers

[smac97]

The problem is that many people universalize the Lamanites mark/curse by assuming every dark skinned race has darker skin due to being marked by God.

 

And those that do are out of harmony with the teachings of the Church.

 

So what, exactly, does this have to do with an apology for a talk given to BYU students 61 years ago?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[rameumptom]

How about this statement:

 

“Forget everything I have said, or what … Brigham Young … or whomsoever has said … 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.” [bruce R. McConkie, “New Revelation on Priesthood,” in Priesthood, no editor given, but presumably edited by McConkie (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 126-137, esp. 126-127.]

http://www.blacklds.org/quotes

[ksfisher]

Perhaps everyone could just forgive rather than demanding apologies.  That seems to be what the scriptures teach.

[Sanpitch]

Perhaps everyone could just forgive rather than demanding apologies.  That seems to be what the scriptures teach.

If everyone forgave everyone and everyone agreed on everything, what would there be to argue about.  What would there be to live for.

 

Seriously I have learned quite a bit from this thread.  It's been worthwhile for me.

[Guest]

I think it is unfortunate that such beliefs existed for the most part among many Christian faiths. Many sermons of that day in other faiths, especially here in the South, would have used a different word than Negro. They believed that Balck people could be saved, just as we did, but unlike our faith they would not be allowed to meet with White Churches (with few exceptions). In Joseph's day Black men were given the Priesthood in a number of cases and one I know even served as a Seventy until his death. Sadly at some point Eastern members who were racist were able to sway such decisions, after an incident that occurred in Winter Quaters (I believe) where a Black man professed the gift of Prophecy and lived a polygamist lifestyle with a number of white women. Then it seems the Southern ideas of sexual politics took over and none were allowed to hold the Priesthood, for if they had, the same might occur in Utah. Racism is just silly, as God has always required, each man should be accepted or rejected by the Church based on their willingness to obey the commandments of God. But the damage is done and almost all Black coverts live in Africa, and as a faith (not a single congregation) we remain one of the Whitest of faith in America, and will remain so. Just a few years ago when President Obama was being sworn into office repeated to me a horrible joke his clerk had just told him. After calling him to repentance and reminding him he had six Black members in his Ward, he apologized. It would seem though in most Churches all over this country that Martin Luther King Jr was a Prophet on the day when he declared that "11:00 on Sunday is the most segregated hour of the week"...if not a prophecy of what we see today, certain a very observant man.

I will b honest, if many of my friends in the faith, I meet with or have met with over the last three decades saw what I just write, they would delete me from Facebook. How do I know this, it has already happened, even rude remarks in Priesthood. Sadly, the Church's position on such things in the past, has embedded racism in generations to come. Sorry if this offends, but truth often does. The Church has come a long way, but; have we?

[ksfisher]

If everyone forgave everyone and everyone agreed on everything, what would there be to argue about.  What would there be to live for.

 

Seriously I have learned quite a bit from this thread.  It's been worthwhile for me.

 

I'm guessing that the part about if there was nothing to argue about there would be nothing to live for is tongue in cheek.

 

Thing to live for is we didn't argue:

Chocolate

Prairie Home Companion

Hearing my daughter play the piano

My sons upcoming wedding

Watching Jeeves & Wooster with my wife

 

Feel free to add your own.

[Bobbieaware]

So you believe, Bobbie, that for no reason other than my racial makeup that (especially in the 50's) would have been viewed as "just black" or falling under a curse because of the one drop rule lds extrapolation...even if I do all that is asked of me today in faith, including be sealed in the temple....that my celestial glory will be to be a servant? Still somehow lower in glory, inspite of Following Christ all my days. Because that's what Peterson is stating. If it's somehow time sensitive and something magical happened between 1852 (ish)-1978 and just those black/mixed-with-black people would be called to eternal servanthood because, try as they might, they couldn't go to the temple to receive their endowments or be sealed.....even if their work has now been done for them....they would be the ones to be eternal celestial servants.

That still means God is not only a respector of persons but arbitrary human social rankings, definitions of race, and meaning to said race. Or that the idea of an ultimate oneness, removing arbitrary -ite categories to make a people who have "all things in common" seen in the BoM is basically a pipe dream. Because there was no equity in segregation. There is only respecting human-based divisions/hierarchies of people in Peterson's statements. It goes against the temple blessings, and puts an unnecessary qualifier in the mix. In my mind, it would mean "God would cease to be God" because He would be made a liar....

But please, look through D&C 76, 131, &132 and find the passage/verse that explains the qualifiers for not only the CK but also to receive the highest heaven and show me the place where it mentions you also have to be racially lily-white.

With incredulity,

BD

Try carefully rereading Elder Peterson's remarks and see if he has anything reasonable or positive to say when considered in light of the teachings of the Church in a day 24 years prior to the 1978 revelation)? Some questions:

1) Do you believe the Book of Mormon account that speaks of the curse God placed upon the Lamanites?

2) Do you believe the Book of Moses account concerning the descendants of Cain being denied the right to the Priestood?

3) Do you believe there are three degrees of glory in heaven and that some will obtain a glory likened to the brightness of the sun, while others will receive a diminished glory likened to the brighteness of the moon, and that a vast larger group will receive an even more diminished glory that's likened to the brightness of the stars?

4) if you can answer the previous question affirmatively, do you believe the fact that those in the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms will not be allowed to enter and mingle with the inhabitants of the celestial kingdom can reasonably be considered a form of discrimination or segregation.

5) If you can answer the previous question affirmatively, do you believe there is any injustice in God not permitting the inhabitants of the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms to enter and mingle with the inhabitants of the celestial kingdom.

6) Do believe the scriptures when they tell us tell us that in the pre-earth life some spirits were totally unfaithful to the Lord and cast out of heaven, and others -- known as the noble and great ones -- were very faithful to the Lord and for that reason we're foreordained to become the leaders of the kingdom of God on earth?

7) If you can answer the previous question affirmatively, do you believe there were other spirits in the pre-earth life who's measure of faithfulness to the Lord fell somewhere in between those who were totally unfaithful were cast out and those who proved to be the noble and great followers of God?

8 ) If you can answer the previous question affirmatively, do you then believe a spirit's measure of faithfulness to the Lord in the pre-earth life can have any affect whatsoever on his circumstances and opportunities when placed upon the earth in the flesh?

Simple yes or no answers will suffice.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Guest]

So you believe, Bobbie, that for no reason other than my racial makeup that (especially in the 50's) would have been viewed as "just black" or falling under a curse because of the one drop rule

BD

Glad when that mindset was around there was no DNA testing as countless millions of white people have at least some % of Afician ancestry, even members of that day. I once had a friend say she had stopped doing genealogy for fear of finding this out. She has since repented of that evil.

[ttribe]

Try carefully rereading Elder Peterson's remarks and see if he has anything reasonable or positive to say when considered in light of the teachings of the Church in a day 24 years prior to the 1978 revelation)? Some questions:

1) Do you believe the Book of Mormon account that speaks of the curse God placed upon the Lamanites?

2) Do you believe the Book of Moses account concerning the descendants of Cain being denied the right to the Priestood?

3) Do you believe there are three degrees of glory in heaven and that some will obtain a glory likened to the brightness of the sun, while others will receive a diminished glory likened to the brighteness of the moon, and that a vast larger group will receive an even more diminished glory that's likened to the brightness of the stars?

4) if you can answer the previous question affirmatively, do you believe the fact that those in the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms will not be allowed to enter and mingle with the inhabitants of the celestial kingdom can reasonably be considered a form of discrimination or segregation.

5) If you can answer the previous question affirmatively, do you believe there is any injustice in God not permitting the inhabitants of the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms to enter and mingle with the inhabitants of the celestial kingdom.

6) Do believe the scriptures when they tell us tell us that in the pre-earth life some spirits were totally unfaithful to the Lord and cast out of heaven, and others -- known as the noble and great ones -- were very faithful to the Lord and for that reason we're foreordained to become the leaders of the kingdom of God on earth?

7) If you can answer the previous question affirmatively, do you believe there were other spirits in the pre-earth life who's measure of faithfulness to the Lord fell somewhere in between those who were totally unfaithful were cast out and those who proved to be the noble and great followers of God?

8 ) If you can answer the previous question affirmatively, do you then believe a spirit's measure of faithfulness to the Lord in the pre-earth life can have any effect whatsoever on his circumstances and opportunities when placed upon the earth in the flesh?

Simple yes or no answers are all that's required.

 

Try answering her questions first, Bobbie.  Careful, you are way out on a limb here.

[Stone holm]

How about this statement:

 

“Forget everything I have said, or what … Brigham Young … or whomsoever has said … 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.” [bruce R. McConkie, “New Revelation on Priesthood,” in Priesthood, no editor given, but presumably edited by McConkie (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 126-137, esp. 126-127.]

http://www.blacklds.org/quotes

"Limited understanding" people with limited understanding really should not have repeatedly published the things that he published. We expect persons high up in the Church to not hide behind "limited understanding" , if they had such limited understanding they had a duty to recognize the fact that they had "limited understanding" and keep their mouths shut and their pens in their pockets. Especially, when we discourage anyone from criticizing whatever may come out of their mouths. Its one thing to have an opinion, its another thing to broadcast that opinion on clearly religiously relevant matters when you hold a high calling in the Church. If you want to express opinions without understanding on religious matters, then resign from your calling before doing so, or at least not condemn people who openly criticize what you have said.

[ALarson]

Try carefully rereading Elder Peterson's remarks and see if he has anything reasonable or positive to say when considered in light of the teachings of the Church in a day 24 years prior to the 1978 revelation)? Some questions:

...

6) Do believe the scriptures when they tell us tell us that in the pre-earth life some spirits were totally unfaithful to the Lord and cast out of heaven, and others -- known as the noble and great ones -- were very faithful to the Lord and for that reason we're foreordained to become the leaders of the kingdom of God on earth?

7) If you can answer the previous question affirmatively, do you believe there were other spirits in the pre-earth life who's measure of faithfulness to the Lord fell somewhere in between those who were totally unfaithful were cast out and those who proved to be the noble and great followers of God?

8 ) If you can answer the previous question affirmatively, do you then believe a spirit's measure of faithfulness to the Lord in the pre-earth life can have any affect whatsoever on his circumstances and opportunities when placed upon the earth in the flesh?

Simple yes or no answers will suffice.

 

From the church essay titled "Race and the Priesthood" (emphasis added):

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 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.

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Edited August 27, 2015 by ALarson

[Buckeye]

Try carefully rereading Elder Peterson's remarks and see if he has anything reasonable or positive to say when considered in light of the teachings of the Church in a day 24 years prior to the 1978 revelation)? Some questions:

1) Do you believe the Book of Mormon account that speaks of the curse God placed upon the Lamanites?

2) Do you believe the Book of Moses account concerning the descendants of Cain being denied the right to the Priestood?

3) Do you believe there are three degrees of glory in heaven and that some will obtain a glory likened to the brightness of the sun, while others will receive a diminished glory likened to the brighteness of the moon, and that a vast larger group will receive an even more diminished glory that's likened to the brightness of the stars?

4) if you can answer the previous question affirmatively, do you believe the fact that those in the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms will not be allowed to enter and mingle with the inhabitants of the celestial kingdom can reasonably be considered a form of discrimination or segregation.

5) If you can answer the previous question affirmatively, do you believe there is any injustice in God not permitting the inhabitants of the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms to enter and mingle with the inhabitants of the celestial kingdom.

6) Do believe the scriptures when they tell us tell us that in the pre-earth life some spirits were totally unfaithful to the Lord and cast out of heaven, and others -- known as the noble and great ones -- were very faithful to the Lord and for that reason we're foreordained to become the leaders of the kingdom of God on earth?

7) If you can answer the previous question affirmatively, do you believe there were other spirits in the pre-earth life who's measure of faithfulness to the Lord fell somewhere in between those who were totally unfaithful were cast out and those who proved to be the noble and great followers of God?

8 ) If you can answer the previous question affirmatively, do you then believe a spirit's measure of faithfulness to the Lord in the pre-earth life can have any affect whatsoever on his circumstances and opportunities when placed upon the earth in the flesh?

Simple yes or no answers will suffice.

 

And I was wondering what Professor Bott was doing in retirement. Welcome to the board!

[Avatar4321]

A speech on God being merciful to all people should be condemned because the speaker misunderstood aspects on the importance of race?

I tend to believe God is merciful to all even if I don't agree on the specifics.