Mark E Petersen On Race

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

You might be surprised at how many Mormons are practical.

[ttribe]

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.

 

And with that last little thinly-veiled insult, I'll bow out.

[Thinking]

It took only two replies for somebody to appeal to the product of the times excuse.

 

Should not the true church be ahead of the times and not a product of them?

 

Call for references, please.  What scriptural or other revealed mandate is there for that assumption?

 

From the teachings of the Savior we have adopted the common saying in the Church, “to be in the world, but not of the world.” L. Tom Perry

 

A person or a church that is in the world but not of the world would not be a product of the times.

[Guest]

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

 

With luv,

BD

Much in the way of,opinion has been stated, with your permission I will point out the facts. Since the advent of Christ and after his resurrection, all were able to receive his Gospel, including one of the earliest coverts who was of Afician descent. After the early Church established by Christ as his Apostles fell into apostasy, the blessing of the Gospel (as it relates to the fullness) was lost to every race. When the Gospel was restored in it's fullness, it became available to the repentant and baptized. The Social norms of America are the reason that those of Afician descent were not allowed. Joseph tried and did ordain Black men to the Priesthood, but something went terribly wrong, and our faith has been the poorer for it. Be it Brigham Young, Mark E. Peterson or Bruce R McConkie words...no baptized member ever will be denied any blessing that any imperfect man denied them while here on earth. Our faith was born in a Nation sick with the disease of slavery...God help us all to heal from it! Now many will want to debate the issue, but it is long overdue that the Church or it's members try to defend this practice. The one great thing about our faith is that God and the Prophet Joseph put in place a system to right these wrongs...Rejoice "Blue Dreams", you will live to see it's day, I only hope I will.

[Calm]

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.

The only explicit racism I have heard myself since my grandparents died (and they never said anything negative, just treated "colored folks" like children; made us cringe) has come from a new convert (very prejudiced about the First Nations up in Canada, her son came up and apologized afterwards he was so upset) and from a 13 year old girl who was just repeating something nasty she had heard from an uncle (who have I no clue about whether or not he was a member) without realizing the implications of what she was saying.  All three leaders, including myself, took turns in teaching her that what she said was not funny, was inappropriate and that she needed to be careful and think about what she was saying and how it might hurt someone even if she was making fun of another person who wasn't there.  

 

I've been grateful that my personal experience has been limited in this way, I only wish that I knew it was always this way, but from others who I know well enough to know they are not dramatizing it, I know that it is not always so and some individuals in the Church I have to work at forgiving them and not being ashamed that they are members because of their unkindness to others.  I need to work on loving those who are prejudiced as much as I work on loving those who suffer because of them.

 

And I have no doubt there are pockets of racism among members because we are a part of the world no matter how much we try to focus on following Christ and being brought up in a culture where there has been disdain for those who are different is going to have an impact.  And what general culture doesn't have that...I have yet to find one, whether it was the English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians having troubles with each other, Russians having problems with Chechens, different parts of the States mocking other parts of the States, plus all those other conflicts between ethnic groups all over the world and then add in conflicts between political and religious groups...I don't see how anyone can escape growing up without some prejudice against some group.  Even if one realizes it and works hard to remove it from one's POV, there is still that initial gut response that pops up until we see that it is there and shut it down as quick as we can.

 

I think our biggest problem as a faith community in the US (speaking generally, not individually) is a lack of understanding of what it means to be a minority not by choice (such as religious faith or what we choose to identify as our 'homeland' identity), but by our genetic nature.  While we can imagine and attempt to put ourselves in someone else's place, there are some things that must be lived day in and day out with no escape from ever to be understood and because of that, those who don't have chronic illness will never completely understand those who do and may unintentionally be unkind because of that.  Those who are in a majority group that holds most of the power in their community and will never be rejected on some level over and over again for who they are (because they are not people of color in a primarily white community or obese or mentally, emotionally, or physically challenged, uneducated or whatever) will never really get the insecurity of not knowing when being different may get them slapped in the face again (hopefully figuratively).  They won't get that some wake up every morning and have to brace themselves to walk out the door because while that day may not bring attacks or insults, they know they will come eventually and often sooner than later for many.  For most LDS members in the US, the closest we get to it is being told we are not Christian and for many, that would never happen unless they intentionally have put themselves into that situation...save for perhaps hearing or reading it reported in the news as happened during the Romney campaign.

 

The lack of understanding is not the fault of being Mormon though, it is simply a fact of life that everyone deals with.  And just because someone is insulted or has to endure the challenges of being a minority in one way doesn't mean they are suddenly more understanding towards other minorities.  The only way I see to counter this aspect of humanity is through the gospel (and it doesn't need to be a fulness of the gospel though I believe that helps).  I think being exposed to other cultures, especially being concerned enough with trying to know them to learn their language through being a missionary is a huge bonus of church membership and I wish it were possible that every missionary was sent to a place that would expose them to a different culture than what they were brought up in.  

 

I also think the research demonstrates there is a real caring for others outside of our own faith community, that we tend to look at others in much more positive ways than the general population (especially given the general population has a negative view of Mormons which would tend to lead, one would think, to a more negative view in response rather than positive).  Of course we should since a fundamental belief of ours is that we are brothers and sisters, though being family doesn't automatically mean we like our family members and sometimes we have good reason for that dislike.

 

I believe that as communication gets better so that ties established as missionaries will be easier to maintain when one comes home and as we get more and more global as a church, we will have the opportunities we need to learn to put our gospel teachings into action.  Book learning, even if it is scripture, doesn't change the heart, one must do to become something more than we are (and I believe doing with the Spirit leading is essential even for those who don't realize the Spirit is there).

 

I don't know of any other organization in comparison to the LDS Church that so easily gives us a lifetime opportunity to keep challenging ourselves to love others more, not only through continuously teaching we should love and serve our neighbors, even those on the other side of the world we will never meet, but giving us ways to do it through home and visiting teaching, compassionate service, ward missionary work, senior missions, humanitarian projects, Helping Hands and now the JustServe program.  We can be faithful members and stay isolated, but I think that actually requires more work than letting ourselves become connected with others outside our comfort box in the long haul.

Edited August 28, 2015 by calmoriah

[juliann]

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?

Cause it is so slap worthy?

[Russell C McGregor]

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?

Which, to thoughtful people, in turn raises further questions, such as: If inspired Church leaders can be wrong on matters of doctrine, why should uninspired MINO's assume that they are right about everything? What makes them any less fallible?

[Russell C McGregor]

A person or a church that is in the world but not of the world would not be a product of the times.

Oh, you mean she wouldn't speak the same language as the people around her, wear similar clothes, drive on the same side of the road, vote in the same elections, shop at the same stores?

How do you know exactly what influences come from your culture? Do fish feel wet?

Have you ever really tried doing some thinking, Thinking?

[Calm]

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

Since we only ultimately have control over our own behavior and only know our own motivations (well, as well as we can that...sometimes we aren't even that insightful), it does seem to me to make the most sense investing in that.

 

But then I wonder if God would like me to help others to forgive as well and what that might entail.  

 

The idea of apologizing for people long dead doesn't make sense to me.  But it apparently does to others.  And I think eventually we need to figure out why it is important and solve that issue even if it turns out that apologizing isn't the right thing to do for resolution.

[CV75]

Simple yes or no answers will suffice.

That simply won't do. I agree with reasons you're not getting an answer from BlueDreams. However, let's get a coupleof things straight:

 

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

 

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

 

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. “Innumerable” inhabitants of the telestial world (D&C 76:109) does not translate into more in number or less in number than the innumerable celestial company of angels in verse 67.

 

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 don’t think D&C 76:112 necessarily means there a complete lack of interaction (see #5).

 

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. There is perfect justice, mercy and grace in the resurrection, but that may not mean complete lack of interpersonal interaction between the inhabitants of the kingdoms. After all, those of higher kingdoms minister to those in lesser kingdoms, and those in lesser kingdoms serve those in higher kingdoms (D&C 76:86-88), and all of them glorify God.

 

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? Yes, and a person needn’t lead in the kingdom only within the constraints of a priesthood office. There are many righteous people who lead without a position of authority or priesthood office.

 

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? Yes, but just as some noble and great ones fail to fulfill their commission, some of us ordinary people rise to the occasion, and through grace fulfill commissions that were dropped by others. (D&C 114).

 

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? See Acts 17:26-31. It can, and may, and might, but there is a lot of wiggle room otherwise.

[Calm]

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....

 

If you are interested in the likely historical development of the Priesthood Ban, I highly recommend Paul Reeve's book or at least his FM presentation that summarizes it, if I understand correctly.  It was brilliant and documents well imo what really happened in when which is somewhat different from what has been previously claimed as you have done here.  It makes much more sense in why it happened now to me, though saddens me even more that it happened when we started out pretty decently.  Presentation is not up yet, keep an eye out of it though.

[Calm]

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.

It may have cleared that mindset faster though since many might have reconsidered their own beliefs when they found out they had genetic signatures that indicated African ancestry.

[Calm]

enough others said it, don't need to make it an endless repeat.... 

Edited August 28, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

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

I think when it teaches that his mercy is less to some based on race (even if he believed that it was justified because of their own behaviour at some time in their existence) it should be pointed out that it is wrong and contradicts church doctrine as we now are taught.

 

And teaching that members of a particular race could never receive exaltation (and only be servants in the Celestial Kingdom) when the rest of the world could does mean that God is less merciful to some because the Atonement allows anyone to reach exaltation who wants it (by which I mean they are willing to do put aside their natural man and align their wills with God and become one with him, in part through obedience to his commands) and God would be withholding the opportunity to accept the full Atonement if those who had African ancestry weren't allowed it no matter how much they desired it.

 

See ALarson's post 123 for citation

Edited August 28, 2015 by calmoriah

[Jeanne]

So you are saying that your foster sister would have been better off staying on the reservation (or wherever she was from) than staying in your family and going to school?

No..I am not saying that.  But she was 12 years old....and in love with cute missionaries and all her friends were already in the program.  She was happy to go home in the summer and her family visited us..no problem.  But..her Book of Mormon classes later in high school kind of blew her away..I mean she finally read the Book and didn't know what to think..same girl..same color..and God and Mark E. Peterson made her feel inperfect and had to struggle a a bit more to be proving.

[jwhitlock]

If you are interested in the likely historical development of the Priesthood Ban, I highly recommend Paul Reeve's book or at least his FM presentation that summarizes it, if I understand correctly.  It was brilliant and documents well imo what really happened in when which is somewhat different from what has been previously claimed as you have done here.  It makes much more sense in why it happened now to me, though saddens me even more that it happened when we started out pretty decently.  Presentation is not up yet, keep an eye out of it though.

 

Reeve's book was excellent. Title is "Religion of a Different Color". Good insight as to what went on from a historical perspective.

[Calm]

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

 

Because American Jews shouldn't be expected just like everyone else to have the highest standards?

 

we LDS should be better than other groups because we have the aid of the gift of the Holy Ghost 

 

Is there something inherently wrong with people that they can't be wonderful without having the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

Edited August 28, 2015 by calmoriah

[Teancum]

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.

The constant emphasis on "follow the brethren" as well as the often repeated story of Heber Grant telling Mariom Romney that the he would be blessed for following the prophet even if it is wrong....but he did not need to worry because the prophet would never lead the church astray....and so on seems to conflict with what you say above.

Additionally sure one can pray fo confirmation of anything the GAs say but what happens if the answer disagrees with the leaderships?

[Calm]

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?

Just because they were wrong then, doesn't guarantee they are wrong about something now.  

 

Given the belief in continuing revelation and gaining greater light and knowledge for God as time goes on if we as a church (and humanity in general I would think) seek for it, eventually there will come a time when the wrongs have been removed.  And we still may not have complete knowledge, just that what we know is going to be built upon and not needing to be removed.  (I think that this is what will happen in the next life, we will be corrected and improved in what we do know before getting additional knowledge...first purified and then glorified so to speak).

 

Now I don't actually believe we've reached that point yet.  I think the ability of the apostles to lead the Church in light and knowledge has a great deal to do with whether or not we really want them to in our hearts.  I believe we as a people need to ask God to enlighten our apostles to teach us God's ways before they will receive revelation to teach us.

 

I also think that God allows apostles/prophets to make some real whoppers, even ones that hurt deeply, so that we will be driven not to depend on them as it seems we are so willing to do (and perhaps that is why so many of us hear this teaching more than we hear the teaching we are to gain our own testimonies and confirmations of God's revelations, as long as we really want that teaching as a people, that is the teaching we are going to be getting), but we will be driven to seek out God.  The scriptures talk about Israel being driven through suffering and oppression to turn to their God again, why could this also not happen for us through the weaknesses of our leaders (not saying they are weaker than us, just that if they are mortal, they have weaknesses).  God told Nephi he would use our weaknesses to make us strong.  Why would that not go for us as a people as well as us as individuals?  And God told Joseph that he could turn all things for our good...so even when we (because our leaders are us) make major mistakes, are unkind and foolish and everything else, that doesn't mean that we have to condemn ourselves, either as individuals or as a community.  It seems instead that forgiveness and turning to God will be much more effective for change than looking for errors to condemn.

Edited August 28, 2015 by calmoriah

[BlueDreams]

If you are interested in the likely historical development of the Priesthood Ban, I highly recommend Paul Reeve's book or at least his FM presentation that summarizes it, if I understand correctly.  It was brilliant and documents well imo what really happened in when which is somewhat different from what has been previously claimed as you have done here.  It makes much more sense in why it happened now to me, though saddens me even more that it happened when we started out pretty decently.  Presentation is not up yet, keep an eye out of it though.

I've been slowly reading his book. It's so good! And oddly with Peterson's remarks I could see vestiges of what Reeves was talking about.

[Teancum]

Just because they were wrong then, doesn't guarantee they are wrong about something now.  

 

Given the belief in continuing revelation and gaining greater light and knowledge for God as time goes on if we as a church (and humanity in general I would thing) seek for it, eventually there will come a time when the wrongs have been removed.  And we still may not have complete knowledge, just that what we know is going to be built upon and not needing to be removed.  (I think that this is what will happen in the next life, we will be corrected and improved in what we do know before getting additional knowledge...first purified and then glorified so to speak).

 

Now I don't actually believe we've reached that point yet.  I think the ability of the apostles to lead the Church in light and knowledge has a great deal to do with whether or not we really want them to in our hearts.  I believe we as a people need to ask God to enlighten our apostles to teach us God's ways before they will receive revelation to teach us.

 

I also think that God allows apostles/prophets to make some real whoppers, even ones that hurt deeply, so that we will be driven not to depend on them as it seems we are so willing to do (and perhaps that is why so many of us hear this teaching more than we hear the teaching we are to gain our own testimonies and confirmations of God's revelations, as long as we really want that teaching as a people, that is the teaching we are going to be getting), but we will be driven to seek out God.  The scriptures talk about Israel being driven through suffering and oppression to turn to their God again, why could this also not happen for us through the weaknesses of our leaders (not saying they are weaker than us, just that if they are mortal, they have weaknesses).  God told Nephi he would use our weaknesses to make us strong.  Why would that not go for us as a people as well as us as individuals?  And God told Joseph that he could turn all things for our good...so even when we (because our leaders are us) make major mistakes, are unkind and foolish and everything else, that doesn't mean that we have to condemn ourselves, either as individuals or as a community.  It seems instead that forgiveness and turning to God will be much more effective for change than looking for errors to condemn.

Your ideas are in conflict with at least what I was taught, and what I taught as a missionary, as to what the benefits of having a prophet, apostles and continuous revelation are. What good are prophets and apostles if it is as messy as you and other apologists claim?

[Teancum]

Cause it is so slap worthy?

Or maybe some think that being an Prophet, Seer and Revelator ought to mean what these men say should ascend beyond being products of their culture. If not who needs them?

[Teancum]

Which, to thoughtful people, in turn raises further questions, such as: If inspired Church leaders can be wrong on matters of doctrine, why should uninspired MINO's assume that they are right about everything? What makes them any less fallible?

Oh well let me see..MINOs, a silly term that I am sure makes you feel more special and superior to us filthy apostates, don't claim that God speaks to us, that we are prophets, seers and revelators and that we can't lead the church astray.

We don't claim that God will remove us rather than let us lead the church astray.

I am sure it will be tough for you to see the difference.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Teancum

[Stone holm]

So does the fact that you have limited understanding prevent you from speaking up?  It doesn't seem to.  (I am assuming you don't believe you have a perfect knowledge yet and thus have limited understanding just like the rest of us)

No, but I am neither an Apostle nor a Prophet, nor do I hold myself out to be, nor have I been called and sustained as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelatory. A Special Witness of Christ has a high standard to uphold and an obligation to the flock of Christ to either get it right or shut up. It's just that simple.

[Stone holm]

The constant emphasis on "follow the brethren" as well as the often repeated story of Heber Grant telling Mariom Romney that the he would be blessed for following the prophet even if it is wrong....but he did not need to worry because the prophet would never lead the church astray....and so on seems to conflict with what you say above.

Additionally sure one can pray fo confirmation of anything the GAs say but what happens if the answer disagrees with the leaderships?

exactly, you can't have it both ways.