The Underlying Principles For Mark E Petersen's Address

[Bobbieaware]

I've read Elder Petersen's talk.

It was not about ensuring that one was able to have the Priesthood for one's children.

It was about maintaining purity of race, ensuring that blacks could not achieve their goal of being absorbed into the white race.

And the driving force that gave his argument any validity at all (in that place and time) is that the priesthood ban had very serious real-life consequences for those who who would intermarry. Take away the priesthood ban and Elder Petersen's arguments would have all the impact of an antebellum street preacher from 19th century Alabama.

[Calm]

Since Bruce R McConkie's original edition of Mormon Doctrine was criticized for one or two of its entries (amid hundreds of other solid entries)

Talking of revising history:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book)

Edited September 12, 2015 by Calm

[Calm]

Take away the priesthood ban and Elder Petersen's arguments would have all the impact of an antebellum street preacher from 19th century Alabama.

And the Lord has taken away the ban, so that leaves....

In case you missed this:

He [Elder Petersen] doesn't even speak one word of caution that a white man or woman risks their children losing the Priesthood through intermarriage.

It is all about justification of segregation. He doesn't even state he worked to get a branch to allow a very faithful black family to meet with them after having a group of white families threaten to leave the Church if the family was accepted into the meetings, so the bp banned them from attending though he took their tithing. Instead the missionaries gave them the Sacrament in their home. Instead his help amounts to having his wife send them replacements for their worn out songbooks and making sure to have his family's proxy work done in the temple....emphasizing it was only baptism and confirmation, no more.

What does any of that have to do with making sure one's children have the opportunity of the Priesthood?

Whatever you are doing, you are not being the messenger of Elder Petersen's talk. You are cherry picking what you want out of it, pretty much the same thing you are accusing others of doing when we reject more of it then you do.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Calm

[CV75]

I hope you're right and that Elder McConkie, President Smith and lowly I are wrong. I certainly have no desire to hold any individual back from full exaltation. It will be wonderful if one fine day we learn the the Lord was being a wee bit cagey when he said, "strait be the gate and narrow the way, and few there be that find it."

You haven't the keys, and that is all I care about. In their publications, the two quotes you referenced don't use scriptures that back them up.

 

Are "few" innumerable or not? Few there be that find it at any given time in this world. Few there be that find it without a true prophet (take the saying in context!). Twelve are few in relation to those to whom they are commissioned to minister (take the saying in context!); few there be that are given the keys to lead the rest. This is the case and context with every scriptural reference: Matt. 7: 14; 3 Ne. 14: 14; 3 Ne. 27: 33; D&C 132: 22

 

Please answer my questions from post #99. Who do you think came up with these ideas and published them first, Elder Smith in the early 1950s, or his son-in-law Elder McConkie in the late 1950s?

 

"I don not doubt but that the question was asked of the Savior by his disciples: “Who, then, can be saved?” There are very few of the children of Father Adam and Mother Eve, who will be prepared to go into the Celestial Kingdom. Those who prepare themselves here, below, through obedience to the Gospel, receiving through their faithfulness the keys of the Priesthood, and sanctifying themselves through the truth, they are preparing themselves to become the sons of God. If we become the sons of God, we shall be joint heirs with Jesus Christ to all the inheritances that the Father hath prepared for the faithful. But there are few of all the human family that will ever attain to this highest state of glory." (Brigham Young)

"I do not doubt..." He is doing the best of his own thinking. See the above comments, as they apply here as well. His remarks apply to the audience at hand, those he was trying to minister to. He said, "there are few of all the human family that will ever attain to this highest state of glory [in this world]," and that was as true then as it is now, because that is the limitation placed on this world, but it is not the dynamic of the spirit world.

Edited September 12, 2015 by CV75

[BlueDreams]

I've been in with clients all morning and will have temple all afternoon. I'll see if I can't respond to some of the things you've posted, Bobbie, before then. But first I need lunch

[BlueDreams]

In the verses I quoted from Alma 13, Alma's whole point is that those who exercised exceedingly great faith in following the Lord in the preexistence are foreordained to hold the holy priesthood of the Son of God in mortality, while those who were not similarly faithful and valiant are not foreordained to hold the holy priesthood and leadership positions in the earthly kingdom of God. Your interpretation that all were equally faithful and for that reason foreordained to hold the priesthood in mortality couldn't possibly be correct because Alma's whole point was to CONTRAST the exceeding faithful spirits, who were foreordained to hold the priesthood in mortality, with those less faithful spirits who were deprived of the opportunity to hold the priesthood because they didn't take full advantage of the equal opportunities for spiritual growth graciously provided to them by the Lord. In an October 1973 General Comference address, then Church President Harold B. Lee explained the Gospel principle of foreordination in this way:

"All these rewards were seemingly promised, or foreordained, before the world was. Surely these matters must have been determined by the kind of lives we had lived in that premortal spirit world. Some may question these assumptions, but at the same time they will accept without any question the belief that each one of us will be judged when we leave this earth according to his or her deeds during our lives here in mortality. Isn’t it just as reasonable to believe that what we have received here in this earth [life] was given to each of us according to the merits of our conduct before we came here?” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1973, 7–8; or Ensign, Jan. 1974, 5).

 

Bobbie,

 

You asked what I read in them and that’s what you got. I don’t know why it should be all that astounding that I don’t read this scripture like you do. Don’t get me wrong, I can see how you got this perspective from these verses. But that wasn’t the question, you asked me how I interpreted these scriptures. And that’s how I interpret them….in the context of not only this life but the life to come and our very mandated work to leave this call to the Order of Christ open to all. WE are all called to follow Him….even if that call could not be, for whatever reason, fully realized in this life. I don’t read him contrasting the faithful spirits with the “less faithful” ones. He’s talking to people who are less faithful and reminding them that repentance and the gospel calls them to the order of Christ. I’ve given you scriptural references to give you and idea as to why I believe such. You’ve given me 3 quotes from 30-40 (or for BY, 100+) years ago from past leaders….most of which are obvious assumptions, based on their reading and then extrapolation from their own social circumstances. I’m not exactly sure why you thought this would change my opinion about it. Like I said, I've read and ponder and prayed these concerns for several years. I am perpetually seeking to see God's Children more clearly and as He sees them. At times he has shown me, and I have been humbled by Heavenly Parent's love for children that are so messy.

 

Let's be honest. Is it not true some here are being deliberately obtuse on this point? In section 132 of the D&C, the Lord makes it clear only a comparative few members of the human race are going to obtain full celestial glory...

 

 

That’s the thing I AM being honest, so is Cal, and so is CV. I’m not being deliberately obtuse on this. I can see how you are interpreting these scriptures. But it’s not how I interpret said scriptures. I interpret verses in 132 with things like Moses 7, where it is the “residue” of the people (ie. the small amount of people left over) who experience the fires of hell and redemption from such by Christ in the end. I believe in a God who weeps for this residue and all that this represents. Because of the loss of souls that He made as whole beings. I do not see the vast majority of humanity surrounding me today as bound for the Telestial Kingdom. I just don’t and I have never read the verses that you have given me as you have inferred them to me.

Now, in all these posts, I have been nothing but honest. I have not tried to obfuscate my points. I have stuck with very simple questions. And I have openly answered yours. All I’ve wanted to know is how you work around the implications for a belief structure that assumes we were born into our circumstance based on our premortal existance...one that assumes that somehow you could tell, by their circumstances that part of your trials, struggles, or lack of priesthood/leadership callings somehow point to your less valiance. One where not only racism could (and has been) justified but other circumstance, like a mother being told by her bishop that she must have done something sin wise to have a still birth, isn't too insane (p.s. that's not a hypothetical situation).

 

I see this because I believe that we did not have the full capacity for moral agency needed for such a thing to happen. I think that the previous life the choice was clear cut: you choose good or you follow Satan. There wasn’t the capacity to choose otherwise because the light of our Heavenly Parents was clearly all around us. Our test was simply to keep our first estate. Here is where we have the full capacity to prove ourselves here is the place where the full option of choosing good or evil is given.

I’m sure it would be nice if we agreed, but that wasn’t likely to happen. All I’ve wanted to know is how you format these beliefs and then deal with the implications of having some form of karma pre-mortal existence. And as much as you’ve had me answer, I still don’t see how one can move around the fact that these principles clearly enable racist ideologies. Calling it “hard” or “controversial” or “racialist” or “bloodline markers” or some other term doesn’t move past the fact that in the structure that from what I’m getting in your assumptions (or at least Petersen), God cursed certain people and to “be fair” he put lesser spirits in their children, ones that weren’t really worthy of having the Order of Christ bestowed upon them. This is a God of segregation. A God of divisions. And a plan of salvation that means most of us, before this earth test even began, were destined to fail.

 

I do not believe in this.

 

There is no such thing as sacred segregation.

 

A divided family is not holy.

 

And we are all the children of God…equally called to develop our talents and equally given the gift of exaltation if we do. None of us were brought here to fail His ultimate purpose for us.

 

With luv,

BD

[juliann]

   After reading myself, I'm now convinced more than ever that the mark the Lord placed on the Lamanites actually was a dark skin, just as the Book of Mormon says. I can understand why making such an assertion in today's politically correct environment could cause a firestorm. especially in light of the Church's past history with the priesthood ban, but I see no compelling reason -- other than the fear of verbal assaults from the political correct -- to not take the Nephite prophets at their own literal word. 

 

You sure like to sidestep questions in between your sarcasm and insults. Does Job have black skin, Bobbie? DO YOU TAKE THE REFERENCES TO BLACK IN THE BIBLE JUST AS LITERALLY? Maybe if I scream you will respond. 

 

Is the cursed skin black...as in the absence of all color? Or was it dark brown? What shade of brown qualifies as a curse? Why doesn't all of that lineage have the same colored skin if they are under the same curse?  

Edited September 13, 2015 by juliann

[CV75]

Some other layers of meaning (which we can always find in scripture) for "few there be that find it": any number less than innumerable is "few", and any less than all is "few" or at least too few in relation to the Lord's design to save all.

 

Few there be that find the strait gate and narrow way in this life, but that does prevent them from exaltation or consign them to a telestial jusgement due to their being offered it through "the great work to be done in the temples of the Lord in the dispensation of the fulness of times, for the redemption of the dead, and the sealing of the children to their parents..." I think some of the "multitudes" in 1 Nephi 8:30 are among these.

 

*phew* - thank goodness!

[Tacenda]

You sure like to sidestep questions in between your sarcasm and insults. Does Job have black skin, Bobbie? DO YOU TAKE THE REFERENCES TO BLACK IN THE BIBLE JUST AS LITERALLY? Maybe if I scream you will respond.

Is the cursed skin black...as in the absence of all color? Or was it dark brown? What shade of brown qualifies as a curse? Why doesn't all of that lineage have the same colored skin if they are under the same curse?

Don't fault her, it's in the BoM and people that try to sidestep fail, IMO. Whomever wrote it was coming from a 19th century mindset, back when blacks were slaves in some states. The seerstones may have had some crossed messages. White supremacy, without all the hoopla. Bobbie is just reading what is there. Too bad she's not discounting it like some have done. It must just be ingrained to believe what she's told in the church. Now we're told it could have been racist, the BY's at the time and their quotes. But the BoM, it's not going anywhere fast, as far as the color of skin and righteousness, or it's curse. Here's a website that talks of how people read things into scripture that made them do what they did. Too bad they didn't have a moral compass. http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_race1.htm Edited September 13, 2015 by Tacenda

[BlueDreams]

Don't fault her, it's in the BoM and people that try to sidestep fail, IMO. 

 

Well, I'm glad that's just your opinion then. Personally, I think we look at these passages in the BoM like we look at a young lady and old woman in that famous illusion. Or those 3d image tricks (they drive me nuts, I can never seen anything). No matter what, some people will always see an old woman while others naturally see a young one. Society has taught us to interpret and give precedence to these descriptors as literal when there are interchangeable imagery that are obviously meant to be taken figuratively. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[Tacenda]

Well, I'm glad that's just your opinion then. Personally, I think we look at these passages in the BoM like we look by at a young lady and old woman in that famous illusion. Or those 3d image tricks (they drive me nuts, I can never seen anything). No matter what, some people will always see an old woman while others naturally see a young one. Society has taught us to interpret and give precedence to these descriptors as literal when there are interchangeable imagery that are obviously meant to be taken figuratively.

With luv,

BD

I think you might be in slight denial, but still love ya!

Tell me how you see it differently? In the link I provided there were scriptures in the BoM that were positive. But just not getting how the others can be misconstrued. I've listened to the apologists say a skin of blackness can mean something different and not mean skin pigmentation but that isn't wholly honest when reading some of those scriptures. And I am not throwing the books of scripture away, just someone's interpretation at the time. Maybe they were trying to make sense of the whole mess of slavery, when I say "they" I mean JS.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Tacenda

[Glenn101]

I think you might be in slight denial, but still love ya!

Tell me how you see it differently? In the links I provided there were scriptures in the BoM that were positive. But just not getting how the others can be misconstrued. I've listened to the apologists say a skin of blackness can mean something different and not mean skin pigmentation but that isn't wholly honest when reading some of those scriptures. And I am not throwing the books of scripture away, just someone's interpretation at the time. Maybe they were trying to make sense of the whole mess of slavery, when I say "they" I mean JS.

   When reading the words of the scriptures, we need to be wary of imposing our paradigms onto God's words. Christ was saying "I come quickly" to John in the Book of Revelations and many times repeated in the Doctrine and Covenants. And after all of those years, Christ has not made His official "Second Coming". It would appear that "come quickly" has a little bit different perspective to Jesus than it does to us mortals. I would not be surprised to find that such a perspective extends to other areas of His teachings and words also. Maybe we sometimes will find ourselves "straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel".

 

Glenn

[Guest]

So often apologies serve to make the offending organization feel better about themselves. For individuals who offend it is a requirement of the gospel that they seek out those (be it one or many) and seek forgiveness that they may be forgiven. When it is an Apostle, he can offend many and in this case it would not only be those who are Black. He was speaking doctrine as he understood it, but in a large audience such as this, it was even more egregious as all know the words of Church leaders are always shared later Churchwide.

If this is something the Church wanted publicized as a matter of doctrine it should have been done in Ward Council, and not from the pulpit.

Not long ago, a lot of Church organizations. Methodist, Baptists, especially Southern Baptists through their PR departments issue letters of apology while continuing to deny discriminations took place, citing NT teachings. Still today as Dr. King noted; "11:00 on Sunday is the most segregated hour of the week". After July 1978, the Church (instead of just giving lip service) went into action ordaining and preparing those already in membership to go to the Temple. A close friend of mine was made Bishop (about 25 years ago) of the Ward that shared a boundary with my Ward, and he and his family were the only Black members of that Ward. Over time more members would join...they would come as investigators and seeing this brought many into his Ward. Members who today serve as High Councilmen, Relief Society Presidents, etc. The point being, action is more important that apology, and apology without action is meaningless. I believe that one day, our action will be followed up with an apology. This apology, if it does nothing else, may serve as the Balm of Gilead to heal invisible or visible wounds that allow us all to move forward together.

Please forgive any misspelling...it is hard for me to type on this IPad in the positions that my back require me to sit or otherwise.

[BlueDreams]

I think you might be in slight denial, but still love ya!

Tell me how you see it differently? In the links I provided there were scriptures in the BoM that were positive. But just not getting how the others can be misconstrued. I've listened to the apologists say a skin of blackness can mean something different and not mean skin pigmentation but that isn't wholly honest when reading some of those scriptures. And I am not throwing the books of scripture away, just someone's interpretation at the time. Maybe they were trying to make sense of the whole mess of slavery, when I say "they" I mean JS.

 

Haha....me in denial. That's a little silly, if not patronizing, Tacenda. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before (I know I have on this thread). But to do so fully would take about 15 pages of single space notes that I have on this very topic. I don't speak about something unless I thoroughly understand it and have studied it out. And that's exactly what I've done. How much have you?

 

But I'll try to give you the basics of it in 10 minutes....because that's all I've got before church. Basically there are several black/white motifs throughout all books of scriptures that are used interchangeably to paint a unifying picture. Motif, if you're wondering, is a design or pattern. These motifs are often shown in dichotomies show in words such as: Light+fire/dark;  white/black;  pure/filthy; Delightsome/loathsome. They are enhanced with specific imagery that include: Veil, Skin, Countenance, Garment, Scales,  Mark, and Cloud.  When read as they are, interchangeable imagery, the method of cursing and covenants become far more integral to the text and easier to connect to other parts of the text, as well as us today. What we've ended up doing, though, is to focus solely on Skin and at times Mark, as well as white/black, because of our racist past and assumptions. This focus leaves the passages that would naturally interweave disjointed. For example the mark of Cain/Ham, which are presumed to deal with a skin change aren't described as such. Cain has an initial fallen countenance and then an unnamed mark placed on him Ham is stated in the JST to have a "veil of darkness" placed over him. The book of moses also uses similar phrases  (ie, veil/darkness/black/marked...but never skin) to describe peoples who have left the covenant of God....you have to assume it in there. Yet if you remove these other cursed groups and say, yeah sure THEY weren't made into black africans, that leaves the Lamanites as an odd stand-alone population and favors certain descriptors over others of this population. For example they become white in 3 nephi but then both the Nephites and Lamanites become white again during christ's visitation...which makes no sense. People may say that the one was literal (skin) and the other is more symbolic (clothes/countenance) but again, that leaves the texts disjointed.  To NOT read out 19th-21st century race/skin pigmentation fixations on the texts makes them more congruent as a text, not less so.

 

Also the article you mentioned is not exactly thorough... it's a soundbyte of information on this topic. It didn't tell me anything I haven't read/heard a dozen times. No offense. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 13, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

I've listened to the apologists say a skin of blackness can mean something different and not mean skin pigmentation but that isn't wholly honest when reading some of those scriptures.

As long as you approach that idea as someone has to be lying to suggest that, you are hardly likely to understand how others might believe differently.

Do you really think Bluedreams is being deceptive in her claims?

Or Marvin Perkins?

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/blacks-scriptures

Edited September 13, 2015 by Calm

[Tacenda]

So often apologies serve to make the offending organization feel better about themselves. For individuals who offend it is a requirement of the gospel that they seek out those (be it one or many) and seek forgiveness that they may be forgiven. When it is an Apostle, he can offend many and in this case it would not only be those who are Black. He was speaking doctrine as he understood it, but in a large audience such as this, it was even more egregious as all know the words of Church leaders are always shared later Churchwide.

If this is something the Church wanted publicized as a matter of doctrine it should have been done in Ward Council, and not from the pulpit.

Not long ago, a lot of Church organizations. Methodist, Baptists, especially Southern Baptists through their PR departments issue letters of apology while continuing to deny discriminations took place, citing NT teachings. Still today as Dr. King noted; "11:00 on Sunday is the most segregated hour of the week". After July 1978, the Church (instead of just giving lip service) went into action ordaining and preparing those already in membership to go to the Temple. A close friend of mine was made Bishop (about 25 years ago) of the Ward that shared a boundary with my Ward, and he and his family were the only Black members of that Ward. Over time more members would join...they would come as investigators and seeing this brought many into his Ward. Members who today serve as High Councilmen, Relief Society Presidents, etc. The point being, action is more important that apology, and apology without action is meaningless. I believe that one day, our action will be followed up with an apology. This apology, if it does nothing else, may serve as the Balm of Gilead to heal invisible or visible wounds that allow us all to move forward together.

Please forgive any misspelling...it is hard for me to type on this IPad in the positions that my back require me to sit or otherwise.

You couldn't have said/typed it any better Pa Pa, I'm glad you're discussing on the board again.  Bless you! 

[Tacenda]

As long as you approach that idea as someone has to be lying to suggest that, you are hardly likely to understand how others might believe differently.

Do you really think Bluedreams is being deceptive in her claims?

Or Marvin Perkins?

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/blacks-scriptures

No, of course not.  It seems people are in denial that the BoM isn't a bit racist.  That's all.  I know the intelligence and the thorough person BD is.  But I put all people that don't see this coming from the biblical scripture which was written by men, and the BoM which was written by scribes, also as taking from their thought process of the day.  That's all.  I just don't have the intelligence to put it down in words like most on this board do!  You totally misunderstood me on this Cal.  But I forgive you!    Not once did I say BD was being deceptive.  That would make me a cad!   

[Calm]

Right because telling someone they aren't being wholly honest isn't telling them at some level they are lying.

Who is being in denial now?

Did you read Marvin's presentation?

Edited September 13, 2015 by Calm

[thesometimesaint]

Yes at times the Book of Mormon characters are racists, sexist, dishonorable, violent, selfish, prideful, every other vice, and fault that is common to man is in the Book of Mormon. The fascinating and wonderful thing is that God still worked with them, and us, anyway.

[Calm]

"But I put all people that don't see this coming from the biblical scripture"

When the Bible was written, who were the slaves?

Please show where racism(more tribalism actually) was tied to skin colour by the Biblical authors.

[Calm]

Tacenda, maybe you should consider it is your own worldview and not the authors of the text that are causing you to see racism in the Bible (and if one believes the Book of Mormon to be an ancient text, in it). You would hardly be the first one. It was used after all to prove slavery of the black race was good by others who saw their own prejudices in the words of the Bible.

But they were wrong.

How can racism be in a text from 2000 or more years ago when "Race" is a modern concept?

http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-x.htm

"1. Race is a modern idea. Ancient societies, like the Greeks, did not divide people according to physical distinctions, but according to religion, status, class, even language. The English language didn't even have the word 'race' until it turns up in 1508 in a poem by William Dunbar referring to a line of kings."

There is bigotry in the Bible and Book of Mormon, but not all bigotry is racial.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Calm

[thesometimesaint]

"But I put all people that don't see this coming from the biblical scripture"

When the Bible was written, who were the slaves?

Please show where racism(more tribalism actually) was tied to skin colour by the Biblical authors.

 

Race in the Ancient Old World wasn't limited to just skin color.

[Calm]

Race in the Ancient Old World wasn't limited to just skin color.

Bigotry isn't automatically racism.

Race as an idea didn't appear until modern times. So tell me how it got in texts that are 2000 years old or older.

From the same site as I posted above:

"6. Slavery predates race. Throughout much of human history, societies have enslaved others, often as a result of conquest or war, even debt, but not because of physical characteristics or a belief in natural inferiority. Due to a unique set of historical circumstances, ours was the first slave system where all the slaves shared similar physical characteristics.

7. Race and freedom evolved together. The U.S. was founded on the radical new principle that "All men are created equal." But our early economy was based largely on slavery. How could this anomaly be rationalized? The new idea of race helped explain why some people could be denied the rights and freedoms that others took for granted."

[Calm]

Yes at times the Book of Mormon characters are racists, sexist, dishonorable, violent, selfish, prideful, every other vice, and fault that is common to man is in the Book of Mormon. The fascinating and wonderful thing is that God still worked with them, and us, anyway.

Not racists, just royal bigots.

Race is a modern concept that Nephites would not have thought in terms of.

[thesometimesaint]

The concept of race is far older than most like to think. The Celts thought of themselves as a race even thought their pigmentation was the same as their neighbors. Also the Neanderthals were a race of people that died out about 40,000 years ago.

Edited September 13, 2015 by thesometimesaint