Mark E Petersen On Race

[CV75]

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.

 

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..

Institutionally, the Church is only one reflection of the object of our faith (Christ), which reflection already abounds in the lives and world around us (D&C 88). Building upon that, she is the key element in repentance where legitimate priesthood involvement is required, and then she the only means on earth to receive baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost and the other restored priesthood ordinances. After that, she provides only one of many needful means by which we demonstrate our endurance to the end.

 

So no one can justify salvation necessitating an institutional apology. The Church’s progress has never been dependent on apologies, and she does not model this behavior for others. Instead, she shows that there are higher principles at play, in other ways.

 

For example, from 1 Peter 3:21, “…even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,)…” Baptism doesn’t save us because we have repented of things that we soon discover require more refinement as life goes on, but because our conscience is clean enough to become cleaner as life goes on. There is no need to apologize for undertaking the slow, ongoing sanctification process as He designed it to go. Instead we are encouraged to press forward to perfection in faith and cheer. I think the Church models this on an institutional level.

[BlueDreams]

I can gladly answer all of your questions with simple answers, and will. But you have side stepped my major one: Do you think I, because of my ancestry will only obtain the level of servant in the CK? 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? If so, where is your scriptural proof for it? Ask yourself is this just, is this fair, are you better than me in following the Gospel because of your skin color/ancestry? Again I'll answer your Q's, but if you cannot answer these, I'll point back to them until I get a response

 

 

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:
 

 

First, I tried to read through his remarks....it's on my list of most wince-worthy things I've read. In the first few paragraphs he plays off of fears in generalized disgust of intermarriage. "Embracing" interracial relationships is unilaterally described as a sin. I was going to say that I'm sure there are things that are reasonable or positive, because I think there is in just about everything. But so far in this reading, I've found nothing. It's based on cultural and socially accepted beliefs about racial differences and the "natural order" which is based on a worldview that is littered with falsehood and evil. So no, not really.  

 

But To your questions: 

 

1) Do you believe the Book of Mormon account that speaks of the curse God placed upon the Lamanites? Yes, but not in a belief that the mark of said curse has anything to do with skin tone or race. THat is placing racist ideologies of the 19th and 20th century into the book. The curse was also easily and immediately lifted in the same process that we all are saved from our fallen states: repent and submit to the Lord. 

2) Do you believe the Book of Moses account concerning the descendants of Cain being denied the right to the Priestood? Yes, but not in a belief that we know who these decsendants are, what the mark even was, whether it was physically transmitted over generations, or that the qualifiers for a right to the priesthood would have been different from the Lamanites...ie. repent and be cleansed. So basically, also no in the antiquated beliefs surround cain's cursing (or ham's) based on a religious philosophy dating well prior to JS to justify the practice of slavery.

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? No. I believe in 3 degrees and I believe they have differing glories. I do not know the percentage of people who will fall in each of these. The scriptures describing them, don't really say  

 

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.

I didn't answer the above all that affirmatively, but I'll continue to answer. I don't know what the interaction between each glory will be....a higher kingdom ministers to the next, so I'm assuming that we're not super separated and segregation is not an accurate depiction of this. As for discrimination, in the social definition of: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex....no, not at all. in the generalized definition of recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. yes, sure.

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.

I don't know what it'll look like. and our placement in the kingdoms isn't based on our ancestry but whether we were true and accept the Light of Christ, His gospel, and His ordinances/laws. 

 

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?

For the first part, yes...for theg second part, no. That sounds like the Jews back in Jesus' day assuming the messiah would be this great overarching leader who would overturn Roman rule. Our version of leader and power is not God's....I also assume this is tied to Peterson's statement here:

" With that in mind, can we account in any other way for the birth of some of the children of God in darkest Africa, or in flood-ridden China, or among the starving hordes of India, while some of the rest of us are born here in the United States? We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in our pre-existance some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Indians, some as Negroes, some as Americans, some as Latter-day Saints. These are rewards and punishments, fully in harmony with His established policy in dealing with sinners and saints, rewarding all according to their deeds."

 

Of course this wrong in abotu 8 different ways....but it also ignores the reason many of these peoples where up a creek in the first place: White european Colonization, genocide, and overt oppression. But sure, blame it on their unseen past like some grand game of Karma and caste systems....it's entirely what Christ taught  (note: sarcasm) 

 

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? No...no qualifiers on that one....just no.

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?

Yes, but not in the way we measure opportunities. This probably too personal, but my PB notes words of leadership, strength, etc that would allude to "greatness." My circumstance when I was born and being raised would not be and does not fit the LDS mold for a blessed circumstance. But I believe God more than common socially derived understandings for what constitutes greatness, leadership, and possibilities..  

 

Again, I won't respond beyond this though, until you answer the initial points.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 27, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Bobbieaware]

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

I would be interested to to see how you will answer my questions as well. It should only take about 4 or 5 minutes of your time. Thank you.

[Bobbieaware]

I can gladly answer all of your questions with simple answers, and will. But you have side stepped my major one: Do you think I, because of my ancestry will only obtain the level of servant in the CK? 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? If so, where is your scriptural proof for it? Ask yourself is this just, is this fair, are you better than me in following the Gospel because of your skin color? Again I'll answer your Q's, but if you cannot answer these, I'll point back to them until I get a response

 

 

 

First, I tried to read through his remarks....it's on my list of most wince-worthy things I've read. In the first few paragraphs he plays off of fears in generalized disgust of intermarriage. "Embracing" interracial relationships is unilaterally described as a sin. I was going to say that I'm sure there are things that are reasonable or positive, because I think there is in just about everything. But so far in this reading, I've found nothing. It's based on cultural and socially accepted beliefs about racial differences and the "natural order" which is based on a worldview that is littered with falsehood and evil. So no, not really.  

 

But To your questions: 

 

1) Do you believe the Book of Mormon account that speaks of the curse God placed upon the Lamanites? Yes, but not in a belief that the mark of said curse has anything to do with skin tone or race. THat is placing racist ideologies of the 19th and 20th century into the book. 2) Do you believe the Book of Moses account concerning the descendants of Cain being denied the right to the Priestood? Yes, but not in a belief that we know who these decsendants are, what the mark even was, whether it was physically transmitted over generations, or that the qualifiers for a right to the priesthood would have been different from the Lamanites...ie. repent and be cleansed. So basically, also no in the antiquated beliefs surround cain's cursing (or ham's) based on a religious philosophy dating well prior to JS to justify the practice of slavery.

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? No. I believe in 3 degrees and I believe they have differing glories. I do not know the percentage of people who will fall in each of these. The scriptures describing them, don't really say  

 

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.

I didn't answer the above all that affirmatively, but I'll continue to answer. I don't know what the interaction between each glory will be....a higher kingdom ministers to the next, so I'm assuming that we're not super separated and segregation is not an accurate depiction of this. As for discrimination, in the social definition of: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex....no, not at all. in the generalized definition of recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. yes, sure.

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.

I don't know what it'll look like. and our placement in the kingdoms isn't based on our ancestry but whether we were true and accept the Light of Christ, His gospel, and His ordinances/laws. 

 

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?

For the first part, yes...for the second part, no. That sounds like the Jews back in Jesus' day assuming the messiah would be this great overarching leader who would overturn Roman rule. Our version of leader and power is not God's.

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? No...no qualifiers on that one....just no.

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?

Yes, but not in the way we measure opportunities. This probably too personal, but my PB notes words of leadership, strength, etc that would allude to "greatness." My circumstance when I was born and being raised would not be and does not fit the LDS mold for a blessed circumstance. But I believe God more than common socially derived understandings for what constitutes greatness, leadership, and possibilities..  

 

Again, I won't respond beyond this though, until you answer the initial points.

 

With luv,

BD

Thank you very much. When I have time, I'll respond. But you need to know it was the Lord himself who described the preexistent valiant spirits as noble and GREAT. So before I respond to the rest of your post I'm wondering why you think the Lord chose to describe the preexistent valiant spirits as "great ones?" Bad choice of a word perhaps?

 

You need to respond to questions if you are going to ask them.

[BlueDreams]

Thank you very much. When I have time, I'll respond. But you need to know it was the Lord himself who described the preexistent valiant spirits as noble and GREAT. So before I respond to the rest of your post I'm wondering why you think the Lord chose to describe the preexistent valiant spirits as "great ones?" Bad choice of a word perhaps?

 

Answer this first, and then i'll respond: 

 

I can gladly answer all of your questions with simple answers, and will. But you have side stepped my major one: Do you think I, because of my ancestry will only obtain the level of servant in the CK? 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? If so, where is your scriptural proof for it? Ask yourself is this just, is this fair, are you better than me in following the Gospel because of your skin color? Again I'll answer your Q's, but if you cannot answer these, I'll point back to them until I get a response

[mnn727]

Y'all know that nobody has the right to never be offended, right?

 

So Mark E Peterson and Brigham Young, when viewed by 2015 standards, come off as racist - sorry, get over it.

It was a different time and these are men. Jesus was the only perfect person.

 

I lived in the 50's and 60's and their statements were light compared to many peoples beliefs. In the 60's there were still separate drinking fountains in the north, not just the south.

[ttribe]

I would be interested to to see how you will answer my questions as well. It should only take about 4 or 5 minutes of your time. Thank you.

 

 

Thank you very much. When I have time, I'll respond. But you need to know it was the Lord himself who described the preexistent valiant spirits as noble and GREAT. So before I respond to the rest of your post I'm wondering why you think the Lord chose to describe the preexistent valiant spirits as "great ones?" Bad choice of a word perhaps?

 

You aren't the teacher here, Bobbie.  You are way out of your element and your arrogance is causing you to defend the indefensible.

 

Answer her questions.  She's been far more patient than you deserve.

 

ETA: If you don't "have time" to deal with her questions right now, then you shouldn't have kicked the hornet's nest on this; and kick the nest you did.

Edited August 27, 2015 by ttribe

[cinepro]

 

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:

 

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/curseofcain_appendix_b.htm

 

"Let us consider the great mercy of God for a moment. A Chinese, born in China with a dark skin, and with all the handicaps of that race seems to have little opportunity. But think of the mercy of God to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel. In spite of whatever they might have done in the pre-existence to justify being born over there as Chinamen, if they now, in this life, accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and that means they can have exaltation. Isn't the mercy of God marvelous?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Think of the Negro, cursed as to the Priesthood. Are we prejudiced against him? Unjustly, sometimes we are accused of having such a prejudice. But what does the mercy of God have for him? This negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa—if that negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory. He will not go then with even the honorable men of the earth to the terrestrial glory, nor with the ones spoken of as being without law.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now we are generous with the negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, "what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Only here we have the reverse of the thing—what God hath separated, let not man bring together again."

 

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/curseofcain_appendix_b.htm

​

 

 

 

You will be pleased to learn that the Church has apologized for this speech.

 

If you understand that the way the Church "apologizes" for the erroneous (and offensive?) statements of past Prophets and Apostles is to take such statements out of circulation, not publish them in any official Church publication or curriculum, and to teach the exact opposite clearly and publicly, you will see that they have apologized for that talk handily. 

 

If you're looking for more than that, then get used to disappointment.  There's more than one way to atone for the sins of the past.

[cinepro]

And since you brought the subject up, it is interesting to note that Elder Peterson was still an apostle when the discussions about Official Declaration 2 were being had in the late 1970s, but through coincidence, revelation or fate, he was away on assignment in South America when the actual vote was taken among the Q12 and FP.  As described in President Kimball's biography:

 

On June 8, Spencer telephoned Elder Peterson in Quito, Ecuador, informed him what had happened, had Francis Gibbons read him the announcement about to be published, and received his approval.  Elder Peterson later recalled, "I was delighted to know that a new revelation had come from the Lord.  I felt the fact of the revelation's coming was more striking that the decision itself.  On the telephone I told President Kimball that I fully sustained both the revelation and him one hundred percent."

 

The footnote adds:

 

Elder Peterson continued to disapprove of interracial marriage and expressed low expectations for the first mission in black Africa.  The June 17 issue of the Church News that ran the revelation announcement also ran, reportedly at the insistence of Elder Peterson, the article "Interracial Marriage Discouraged."

 

As late as 1983 Elder Peterson was also highly critical of Lester Bush's research into the origins of the priesthood policy and asked Bush's stake president to call him in.  But note also that Elder Petersen is apparently the one who suggested that President Kimball consider the Bush article [years before the revelation during his studies regarding the origin of the ban].

 

Lengthen Your Stride, Working Draft, Chapter 23, page 3

[bluebell]

"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.

 

We all have limited understanding though-we all see thru a glass darkly as it were.  You, nor I, nor anyone could ever publish anything if we couldn't publish unless we had a full understanding of something.

[ERayR]

We all have limited understanding though-we all see thru a glass darkly as it were.  You, nor I, nor anyone could ever publish anything if we couldn't publish unless we had a full understanding of something.

 

But that doesn't hold for Apostles.  They must be perfect.

[cinepro]

But that doesn't hold for Apostles.  They must be perfect.

 

There is a lot of space between being "perfect" and saying the things Elder Petersen said in the OP.  Some might think it's not too much to ask for the Lord's Apostles to be a little closer to the "perfect" end of the spectrum without demanding that they fully attain it.

[stemelbow]

"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.

This would be excellent--leaders not telling us that they know something that they simply don't know. But it happens.

[TheSkepticChristian]

. 

Edited August 27, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[bluebell]

Some might think it's not too much to ask for the Lord's Apostles to be a little closer to the "perfect" end of the spectrum without demanding that they fully attain it.

 

I wonder why that is?

 

The men that Jesus called and ordained as apostles certainly didn't seem to be any closer to the 'perfect' end of the spectrum than anyone else.  I wonder where the idea comes from that apostles, if they are truly called of God, must be more perfect than other people?

 

That's probably a question for a different thread but it's an interesting issue i had never considered before.

[jwhitlock]

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

 

And a significant number of abolitionists were also segregationists.

[TheSkepticChristian]

But that doesn't hold for Apostles.  They must be perfect.

 

No, apostles don't have to be perfect, but I expect them to be better than American Jews. 

If one apostle makes a mistake, we have 14 other apostles to immediately correct his mistake. 

 

The church told the Bishops to read a letter about gay marriage to their wards, why can't our church do the same to condemn folk doctrines like 

1. The Lamanite curse/mark was dark skin 

2. The mark of Cain was black skin 

 

 

I lived in the 50's and 60's and their statements were light compared to many peoples beliefs.

 

Robert F. Smith said about American Jews  

 

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.

 

 

There is a lot of space between being "perfect" and saying the things Elder Petersen said in the OP.  Some might think it's not too much to ask for the Lord's Apostles to be a little closer to the "perfect" end of the spectrum without demanding that they fully attain it.

 

but I am still waiting for the church to clarify that the lamanite mark/curse was not dark skin. The new essay doesn't say anything about the mark of Cain or the Lamanite mark. 

The Catholic church teaches the opposite of what it did centuries ago, but Pope Francis still apologized for church's "sins" against indigenous peoples

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-apologies-for-catholic-churchs-sins-against-indigenous-peoples/

 

We all agree the apostles are not perfect, so that means that an apology shouldn't be that hard to make. 

 

 

We all have limited understanding 

 

True, but at least we LDS should be better than other groups because we have the aid of the gift of the Holy Ghost 

Edited August 27, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Stone holm]

This would be excellent--leaders not telling us that they know something that they simply don't know. But it happens.

Yeah, and there can be group think as well. One of the dangers of discouraging any alternative ideas.

[stemelbow]

We all have limited understanding though-we all see thru a glass darkly as it were.  You, nor I, nor anyone could ever publish anything if we couldn't publish unless we had a full understanding of something.

Certainly we would all be better off now if the leaders back in the day acknowledged though they spoke authoritatively and decisively on this topic, that they really didn't know. instead they would implicate God in their wrong teachings. We must acknowledge that for our own benefit, going forward, I would think. We have to accept that though they claim to speak for God on some issues, sometimes they are speaking presumptuously and could very well be wrong. If it happened then, it could happen now.

Interestingly this issue should be alive and well today. We should accept that our leaders are probably wrong about something--they see through a glass darkly, afterall. And that may mean they are telling us something that they claim to be from God but is not. this really puts far more of the onus on us. I think that's how it should be. But we're told otherwise all too often--that we should just follow, not questions or challenge.

Oh well, maybe some day we'll get this figured out. As of now, it feels like we're setup to continue in our errors.

[Buckeye]

I wonder why that is?

 

The men that Jesus called and ordained as apostles certainly didn't seem to be any closer to the 'perfect' end of the spectrum than anyone else.  I wonder where the idea comes from that apostles, if they are truly called of God, must be more perfect than other people?

 

That's probably a question for a different thread but it's an interesting issue i had never considered before.

 

Perhaps it comes from the requirement that apostles hold a current temple recommend.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

Which, even if true, is quite a different thing from being "free from racism." How many Jewish mamas were urging their sons to go out and find some nice black girl to marry?

 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.

Change was remarkably -- some might say miraculously -- easy for us.

[stemelbow]

I wonder why that is?

 

The men that Jesus called and ordained as apostles certainly didn't seem to be any closer to the 'perfect' end of the spectrum than anyone else.  I wonder where the idea comes from that apostles, if they are truly called of God, must be more perfect than other people?

 

That's probably a question for a different thread but it's an interesting issue i had never considered before.

You're definitely on to something. I don't believe for a second that they are closer to perfect than everyone else.

[bluebell]

Perhaps it comes from the requirement that apostles hold a current temple recommend.

 

That wouldn't make much sense since a lot of members currently hold temple recommends, yet most members also expect apostles to be closer to perfection than they are.

 

Since we (recommend holding members) seem to want to hold apostles to a higher standard of beliefs, conduct, and knowledge than we hold ourselves to, we (temple recommend holding members) obviously don't see recommends as being that kind of a litmus test.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

So why do the Church's critics, from the [dis]loyal opposition all the way to the outright anti-Mormons, continue to make such a song and dance about this six-decades-old talk? If there are so many other better sources around, why do they love to slap us in the face with this one?

[ttribe]

That wouldn't make much sense since a lot of members currently hold temple recommends, yet most members also expect apostles to be closer to perfection than they are.

 

Since we (recommend holding members) seem to want to hold apostles to a higher standard of beliefs, conduct, and knowledge than we hold ourselves to, we (temple recommend holding members) obviously don't see recommends as being that kind of a litmus test.

 

I suspect that the impetus for the expectation you are discussing is the fact that the general membership of the Church is expected to follow the teachings of members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, arguably, without challenge.