Mark E Petersen On Race

[jwhitlock]

"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.

 

Yep. SO glad that we don't have the limited understanding they did. We know everything, don't we.

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

And at least one of His apostles was far closer to the imperfect end of the spectrum than (hopefully) most of the rest of us are.

[stemelbow]

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?

Beats me. I haven't used this quote from Elder Peterson to slap anyone. But it raises an interesting point for us today--if Church leaders, so sure of themselves then, were wrong about this, then what today are church leaders also wrong about?

[CV75]

We should accept that our leaders are probably wrong about something--they see through a glass darkly, afterall.

 

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

I would think that finding comfort in mutual imperfection would remove the need for an apology, unless the imperfection in one or more party is stoking enmity.

[CV75]

Beats me. I haven't used this quote from Elder Peterson to slap anyone. But it raises an interesting point for us today--if Church leaders, so sure of themselves then, were wrong about this, then what today are church leaders also wrong about?

Given your mutual imperfection with them, I think it more productive to run with what you believe they aren't wrong about, and with what you sense you and they are sure about.

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

I'm unaware of that "fact". Perhaps you can provide us with an official church statement that specifies we follow them "without challenge".

[jwhitlock]

Beats me. I haven't used this quote from Elder Peterson to slap anyone. But it raises an interesting point for us today--if Church leaders, so sure of themselves then, were wrong about this, then what today are church leaders also wrong about?

 

Evidently, for those who like to use this rationalization, church leaders are wrong about anything that disagrees with their world view.

 

With an emphasis on "world".

[ttribe]

I'm unaware of that "fact". Perhaps you can provide us with an official church statement that specifies we follow them "without challenge".

 

Oh, good grief, don't be obtuse.  I realize there are varying degrees of interpretation of what "sustaining the brethren" means. Hence, my insertion of the word "arguably" (which you conveniently left out).

 

Are you denying that there is at least a widespread cultural belief that any challenge to a talk, writing, etc. given by a member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve in their official capacity is verboten?  Does the "Parable of the Pickle", ring a bell?

Edited August 27, 2015 by ttribe

[BlueDreams]

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.

 I don't know if that's necessarily fair and rings of presentism....nor do we really have a record of a people who were all that good at what you suggest, apostles included.  

[jwhitlock]

Oh, good grief, don't be obtuse.  I realize there are varying degrees of interpretation of what "sustaining the brethren" means. Hence, my insertion of the word "arguably" (which you conveniently left out).

 

Are you denying that there is at least a cultural belief that any challenge to a talk, writing, etc. given by a member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve in their official capacity is verboten?  Does the "Parable of the Pickle", ring a bell?

 

Your original point clearly veered into blind obedience territory, which is not what the church requires. Hence, I find it disingenuous of you to accuse me of being "obtuse", while you send mixed signals by using "fact" and "and "arguably" in the same sentence. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

While there are members of the church who find it easier to follow the leaders of the church literally without thinking about it too much, there are also plenty of members who understand church teaching that we get our own confirmation through the Holy Ghost of what we are taught. I find nothing in such a teaching that justifies the "fact" that challenges are off limits.

 

Those who are clear supporters of the church leadership and where their callings come from do have a certain amount of leeway in what they can challenge. Hugh Nibley comes readily to mind as an example of this. It all depends on how those challenges are made - something that critics and faux members of the church don't seem to understand (and I'm not referring to anyone specific with that last phrase).

[Stone holm]

Yep. SO glad that we don't have the limited understanding they did. We know everything, don't we.

We aren't Apostles what comes out of our mouths about religion carries with it no deference, nobody could have their faithfulness challenged for strongly disagreeing with it. That carries a very, very high standard for getting things right. You can't on the one hand expect the deference and on the other hand shrug it off as well everybody makes mistakes we didn't happen to know what we were talking about at the time. Of course we know what we are talking about now, so don't steady the ark or speaking badly of the Lord's anointed.

[cinepro]

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.

 

If we held the modern Apostles to the same standards as the Apostles of Jesus' day and Joseph Smith's day, the argument could be made that we should have no expectations at all for any presumed gospel knowledge, allegiance to the Church and the Gospel, or character in general. 

 

Having a spiritually knowledgeable, competent Apostle would be more the result of good luck than any presumed inspiration on God's part, since that argument would imply that God doesn't have much of a standard at all for the position, considering Judas, John Boynton, Albert Carrington etc.

Edited August 27, 2015 by cinepro

[ttribe]

Your original point clearly veered into blind obedience territory, which is not what the church requires. Hence, I find it disingenuous of you to accuse me of being "obtuse", while you send mixed signals by using "fact" and "and "arguably" in the same sentence. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

While there are members of the church who find it easier to follow the leaders of the church literally without thinking about it too much, there are also plenty of members who understand church teaching that we get our own confirmation through the Holy Ghost of what we are taught. I find nothing in such a teaching that justifies the "fact" that challenges are off limits.

 

Those who are clear supporters of the church leadership and where their callings come from do have a certain amount of leeway in what they can challenge. Hugh Nibley comes readily to mind as an example of this. It all depends on how those challenges are made - something that critics and faux members of the church don't seem to understand (and I'm not referring to anyone specific with that last phrase).

 

Well, it seems to me, unless you are specifically looking for a fight, there is really no reason to read my use of the word "fact" other than as a loose expression of describing something that is a general norm, rather than a literal "FACT" in evidence.  Perhaps if I had replaced the word "fact" with "notion", "idea", "generally-held belief"?  Maybe a suggestion of your choice?

 

I find it personally insulting that you accuse me of being "disingenuous" when a simple benefit of the doubt reading of my statement would have prevented an unnecessary confrontation.

Edited August 27, 2015 by ttribe

[Nevo]

If we held the modern Apostles to the same standards as the Apostles of Jesus' day and Joseph Smith's day, the argument could be made that we should have no expectations at all for any presumed gospel knowledge, allegiance to the Church and the Gospel, or character in general. 

 

Having a spiritually knowledgeable, competent Apostle would be more the result of good luck than any presumed inspiration on God's part, since that argument would imply that God doesn't have much of a standard at all for the position, considering Judas, John Boynton, Albert Carrington etc.

 

A bit surprised to see John Boynton make your shortlist of lousy apostles. Agree on the other two, though.

[jwhitlock]

We aren't Apostles what comes out of our mouths about religion carries with it no deference, nobody could have their faithfulness challenged for strongly disagreeing with it. That carries a very, very high standard for getting things right. You can't on the one hand expect the deference and on the other hand shrug it off as well everybody makes mistakes we didn't happen to know what we were talking about at the time. Of course we know what we are talking about now, so don't steady the ark or speaking badly of the Lord's anointed.

 

I read this five times and I'm still not sure I understand it.

[Stone holm]

I read this five times and I'm still not sure I understand it.

If you are an Apostle, you are accorded deference by the membership as to what you say concerning religion.With that deference comes a very high standard and obligation, to get things right with respect to religion. I assume you are not an Apostle, and I know that I am not an Apostle -- what we say is accorded no deference than is accorded to any other human. If I say that man will not reach the moon because it is out of the bounds which the Lord has set, and you disagree with me...nobody really cares. Its just two cranks having a discussion or argument. However, if an Apostle says something like that, then a fair amount of deference is given. And if I strongly disagree with the Apostle about that position -- then I am likely to be accused of speaking badly of the Lord's anointed. Is that clearer?

[jwhitlock]

Well, it seems to me, unless you are specifically looking for a fight, there is really no reason to read my use of the word "fact" other than as a loose expression of describing something that is a general norm, rather than a literal "FACT" in evidence.  Perhaps if I had replaced the word "fact" with "notion", "idea", "generally-held belief"?  Maybe a suggestion of your choice?

 

I find it personally insulting that you accuse me of being "disingenuous" when a simple benefit of the doubt reading of my statement would have prevented an unnecessary confrontation.

 

"Fact" is a word that should be carefully used. You didn't do so, especially in the context of making the point that we aren't allowed to challenge church leaders on anything they teach.

 

Feel insulted all you want. However, I find it interesting that you would be insulted after telling me that I'm obtuse - especially when you now tell me that I should have given you some kind of nebulous "benefit of the doubt" about what you posted.

[ttribe]

"Fact" is a word that should be carefully used. You didn't do so, especially in the context of making the point that we aren't allowed to challenge church leaders on anything they teach.

 

Feel insulted all you want. However, I find it interesting that you would be insulted after telling me that I'm obtuse - especially when you now tell me that I should have given you some kind of nebulous "benefit of the doubt" about what you posted.

 

Fine.  You win.  Everything I did was wrong and you are without error.

[jwhitlock]

If you are an Apostle, you are accorded deference by the membership as to what you say concerning religion.With that deference comes a very high standard and obligation, to get things right with respect to religion. I assume you are not an Apostle, and I know that I am not an Apostle -- what we say is accorded no deference than is accorded to any other human. If I say that man will not reach the moon because it is out of the bounds which the Lord has set, and you disagree with me...nobody really cares. Its just two cranks having a discussion or argument. However, if an Apostle says something like that, then a fair amount of deference is given. And if I strongly disagree with the Apostle about that position -- then I am likely to be accused of speaking badly of the Lord's anointed. Is that clearer?

 

No, I don't give automatic deference to the leaders of the church. I take what they say and evaluate in the context of confirmation by the Spirit, just like I do with my local leaders.

 

Automatic deference is blind obedience. That's not church doctrine.

 

I would suggest that the proper perspective we have towards church leaders is 1) that they are called of God in their positions, 2) that when they teach something, I pay attention to it and evaluate it with the Spirit to get my own confirmation and understanding of what they're saying, and 3) that they deserve our support generally as being inspired unless proven otherwise - with the understanding that everything they say is not necessarily inspired or binding.

 

I do not believe that they want automatic deference to them, nor that we as church members should give them automatic deference. Instead, we hold them in esteem, pay attention to what they say, and act on it through the understanding that the Spirit gives us.

 

They tend to be right far more often than they are wrong. I don't dwell on their mistakes or problems with some of what has been taught. They're not perfect, and they're not close to being perfect, but they get a truly surprising number of things very right, which is testimony to how much inspiration they do generally work with.

 

By the way, a very good book (in my estimation) to read on the whole subject of race and the church is "Religion of a Different Color" by W. Paul Reeve. I came away with a greater appreciation for the struggles that surrounded questions of race with the church and society, and a better understand of what mistakes were made and how some of those mistakes came about, along with the consequences of those mistakes. I think the Lord gives all of us far more leeway when it comes to mortality and our agency than we realize, and that includes leaders of the church.

 

It's important to understand that as we look at what our relationship is to our leaders.

[Scott Lloyd]

Prediction:  This thread will not end well.

Is this turning into a self-fulfilling prohecy?

[thesometimesaint]

If we held the modern Apostles to the same standards as the Apostles of Jesus' day and Joseph Smith's day, the argument could be made that we should have no expectations at all for any presumed gospel knowledge, allegiance to the Church and the Gospel, or character in general. 

 

Having a spiritually knowledgeable, competent Apostle would be more the result of good luck than any presumed inspiration on God's part, since that argument would imply that God doesn't have much of a standard at all for the position, considering Judas, John Boynton, Albert Carrington etc.

 

I'm just glad that God works with us very fallible human beings.

[jwhitlock]

Fine.  You win.  Everything I did was wrong and you are without error.

 

Pffft. I don't buy that for a second.

 

It's easy to sit on the sidelines and snipe at the foibles of Mormon culture. It's even easier to pretend that they're the norm.

 

It's a lot more difficult to try to understand the complexities of what it means to be a member of the church. Maybe that's the reason so many people fall back on the easy stuff.

[Stone holm]

No, I don't give automatic deference to the leaders of the church. I take what they say and evaluate in the context of confirmation by the Spirit, just like I do with my local leaders.

 

Automatic deference is blind obedience. That's not church doctrine.

 

I would suggest that the proper perspective we have towards church leaders is 1) that they are called of God in their positions, 2) that when they teach something, I pay attention to it and evaluate it with the Spirit to get my own confirmation and understanding of what they're saying, and 3) that they deserve our support generally as being inspired unless proven otherwise - with the understanding that everything they say is not necessarily inspired or binding.

 

I do not believe that they want automatic deference to them, nor that we as church members should give them automatic deference. Instead, we hold them in esteem, pay attention to what they say, and act on it through the understanding that the Spirit gives us.

 

They tend to be right far more often than they are wrong. I don't dwell on their mistakes or problems with some of what has been taught. They're not perfect, and they're not close to being perfect, but they get a truly surprising number of things very right, which is testimony to how much inspiration they do generally work with.

 

By the way, a very good book (in my estimation) to read on the whole subject of race and the church is "Religion of a Different Color" by W. Paul Reeve. I came away with a greater appreciation for the struggles that surrounded questions of race with the church and society, and a better understand of what mistakes were made and how some of those mistakes came about, along with the consequences of those mistakes. I think the Lord gives all of us far more leeway when it comes to mortality and our agency than we realize, and that includes leaders of the church.

 

It's important to understand that as we look at what our relationship is to our leaders.

Right and congratulations, you are correct in theory. As a practical matter for most Mormons...ah you are on another planet. Most Mormons defer as to religious issues as to what comes out of the mouths of the holy prophets regardless of whether it makes sense doctrinally.

[Damien the Leper]

Is this turning into a self-fulfilling prohecy?

Possibly. I don't like threads like this. For me, I had to separate the theologically racist rhetoric from righteous epistemology and the divine appointments of prophets and apostles.

[ttribe]

Is this turning into a self-fulfilling prohecy?

Nice.