Should anyone care about historical hate speech by senior Church leadership?

[pogi]

51 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

My opinion is as long as we don’t hang our hats on the idea that every prophet has only Spoken things that God has told him to speak, we can move through these things gracefully on our own and independently as we prayerfully ask God what are the things of the past AND Of the present that we should implement versus set aside.

Let us all be "cafeteria Mormons" in exercising the spirit of discernment as we heed the prophets - picking and choosing only those seeds which bear fruit that is delicious to our souls.  Being careful to give diligent heed to our prophets. 

51 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It would make things easier for people who struggle but I’m here to say it does not need to be a struggle.

I agree that it doesn't need to be a struggle when equipped with the proper paradigm, perspective, or set of beliefs, but so many are ill equipped to handle these things as you or I do because they are under a harmful illusion of what the church is or should be.  It is not their fault either.   That is the dilemma.  For some people it really does need to be a struggle - and I think that struggle is a necessary learning and growth experience.  I think the common ecclesiastical response to that struggle is not really helpful for many.  I think there are better ways to help people through that struggle, but that requires adopting different philosophies and paradigms that may make many conservative believers uncomfortable - namely relativity, pragmatism, and embracing cafeteria-Mormonism, and most of all emphasizing the principle of hope over doubt.  Make it less about "knowing" what is true (the book of Mormon), and shelving everything else - and make it more about embracing uncertainty, embracing fallibility, and planting hope from pragmatic spiritual seeds that bear fruit.  

51 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

We have a right to personal inspiration and inevitably it’s going to look different than it does to everyone else.

So true!  That is by design, it is not a flaw. 

Edited January 23 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Should it no longer matter because we've moved on?

It should no longer matter.

We have all moved on, haven't we?

We are all about eternal progression, and the church itself HAS TO be progressing itself as well.

Slavery is gone, at least legally, who knows what really happens in this world.  Within my lifetime I have seen racial segregation.

We have prophets FOR TODAY'S PROBLEMS, RIGHT?

They MUST be keeping up, or the church is dead, not the living church or is supposed to be.

On the other hand we cannot blame others for the times in which they lived.

In a hundred years, we will see the ignorance of our times today. 

Hopefully 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 23 by mfbukowski

[MustardSeed]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Let us all be "cafeteria Mormons" in exercising the spirit of discernment as we heed the prophets - picking and choosing only those seeds which bear fruit that is delicious to our souls.  Being careful to give diligent heed to our prophets. 

We are anyway.  Might as well own it. 

[The Great Pretender]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate on what you mean by your concluding statement ("I'm not OK with that")?  What does it mean?  

Also, how do you reconcile your perspective on Elder Petersen with the counsel given in Mormon 9:31?

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for your insightful responses. I appreciate your clarity of thought.

I think the issue I have with Mormon 9:31 in this particular context is that Official Declaration 1 states, “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.” This isn't simply a case of forgiving past mistakes; each member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is the President in waiting. They aren't waiting to serve as Ward Librarian, they are waiting to serve as the mouthpiece of God on Earth. I believe that statements put in the public domain that do not stand the test of time (particularly when people's lives are at stake) render an individual unfit for such an office. Or does the Lord kill off those who have said bad stuff (in the past) so they don't make it to the front of the line, especially if they don't ever retract their former erroneous statements that continue to get dredged up in Sunday School lessons to evidence someone's deeply held beliefs? I don't believe that is the case.

[mfbukowski]

This topic to me should include ANY historical speech.

To me it's all the same. Is the earth still flat?

ALL of human knowledge, to me, is a sea of paradigms we accept and alter as needed. 

If the historical Jesus never lived, would those paradigms of love your neighbor and hate no one, even your enemies be with us today for even atheists to believe?

Paradigms create who we are as humans. We need to see more about how PARADIGMS, theories function in shaping us and our worlds as we know them.

Are today's progressives worrying about hate speech and political "correctness" actually pushing "Christian" values of "correctness"?

Is there a difference?

[The Great Pretender]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Notably absent among these "others" is . . . the Church's website.  In contrast, Elder McConkie's "Forget everything that I have said" comments are cited a number of times on the Church's website.

Do you find this relevant to your inquiry?

Thanks,

-Smac

That's fascinating, thank you, yet it saddens me. It's like a get-out-of-jail card.

A former acquaintance of mine married a mixed-race (black and caucasian) woman and had three kids. He was a lifelong member who served a full-time mission and subsequently spent several years as a bishop, twice actually, before finally leaving his wife and the Church to pursue a series of same-sex relationships. He and I stopped communicating when I protested in the same way that I feel you are protesting. Logically, the argument is sound. But his feelings and outlook were irreparably damaged by the statements of yesteryear on both issues of ethnicity and identity.

The problem is, we as a church don't ever fully move on. Those of a certain age have had our opinions subtly shaped by small amounts of toxicity here and there. Church education materials still quote from Mormon Doctrine and The Miracle of Forgiveness, so it is reasonable to conclude that individuals will still be influenced by some of the damaging content in those publications.

[The Great Pretender]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You were assigned to give a talk on how to deal with historical alleged hate speech by past leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  Hmm.  That's an interesting topic.

If it were me, I might start here:

Matthew 7:1-5.

Lol, no. I already mentioned that it was about temple and covenants; however a search for material led me down some rabbit holes I rather wished I hadn't fallen into.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

Lol, no. I already mentioned that it was about temple and covenants; however a search for material led me down some rabbit holes I rather wished I hadn't fallen into.

Oh goodness, if you can climb out sooner than later, good for you.  But I understand what you're saying. The LGBTQ statements in conference is what gets to me. They stopped a year or so ago, luckily.  

But yes, I think it's good to apologize (?) like former president now Elder Uchtdorf did in conference a while back. It may have done him in because soon after, I believe, he wasn't called into the recent presidency. So sort of like a chop. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dieter-uchtdorf-mormon-leader-church-mistakes_n_4059683

“To be perfectly frank,” Uchtdorf said, “there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.”

God is perfect and his doctrine is pure, he said, but human beings — including church leaders — are not.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Oh goodness, if you can climb out sooner than later, good for you.  But I understand what you're saying. The LGBTQ statements in conference is what gets to me. They stopped a year or so ago, luckily.  

But yes, I think it's good to apologize (?) like former president now Elder Uchtdorf did in conference a while back. It may have done him in because soon after, I believe, he wasn't called into the recent presidency. So sort of like a chop. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dieter-uchtdorf-mormon-leader-church-mistakes_n_4059683

“To be perfectly frank,” Uchtdorf said, “there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.”

God is perfect and his doctrine is pure, he said, but human beings — including church leaders — are not.

 

 

+49.

But Dieter will never be "Frank".

 

[The Great Pretender]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That is pretty hard to read.

I agree that it is important for any organization to acknowledge its mistakes, learn from them, and move on.  That is a healthy process for progress in any institution.  Trying to move on without acknowledging and addressing mistakes of the past can lead to all sorts of problems within the organization.   In this particular case, however, I feel like the church has at least disavowed the hurtful and false comments in this talk.  The big issues in his talk were segregation, interfacial marriages, curse of Cain on blacks, and unrighteousness in the preexistence leading to their blackness.  All of these teachings have specifically been fully repudiated by the church today (thank goodness!) in a single sentence 

 

I think it is important that we acknowledge and give credit to the church when it does make efforts to disavow historically false and hurtful teachings.  I agree that there is more that could be done in this area that would be beneficial in so many ways, and it will be interesting to see how the church goes about this in the future.   I think it would be unrealistic for the church to be more specific beyond that and disavow each individual talk or condemn each speaker who said it.  I don't think the purpose should be to get stuck in the blame game and condemn individual leaders of the past.  That is not really a helpful strategy in learning from and progressing from past mistakes.  See: https://hbr.org/2011/04/strategies-for-learning-from-failure

 

 

You make a fair point. And I am almost persuaded.

But what do you make of the Church (or rather its employees whose actions MUST have the approval of senior priesthood leaders AKA the Q of the 12 and 1st Presidency) attempting to conceal inappropriate/misleading content on churchofjesuschrist.org to prevent it from being picked up by search engines and reflecting badly on the Church?

On another forum (or maybe even this one), I was directed to a General Conference talk by Hartman Rector Jr. ("Turning the Hearts"), several parts of which have been removed from the transcript on churchofjesuschrist.org, yet they can still be watched in the video? I have attached a Reddit link turned up by a quick Google search; and it is easily confirmed by checking the General Conference video on churchofjesuschrist.org.

Elder Petersen gave his unpleasant lecture on race at BYU, but you won't find it in the speech archive: https://speeches.byu.edu/speakers/mark-e-petersen/. Why is it missing if not because the leadership now accepts that its message was uninspired?

What about Elder Oaks? Hmm...dangerous territory, right? He also gave speeches while at BYU as its president, and one of them has been removed. Do you know which?

There is a fine line between seeing the good in everyone who says bad stuff in public (that damages people) and gullibility. When the Church and its associated business removes damaging stuff said by past leaders, I'm left feeling uncomfortable. When it removes stuff said by current Presidents in waiting, I'm left feeling shaken.

 

 

 

[The Great Pretender]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Oh goodness, if you can climb out sooner than later, good for you.  But I understand what you're saying. The LGBTQ statements in conference is what gets to me. They stopped a year or so ago, luckily.  

But yes, I think it's good to apologize (?) like former president now Elder Uchtdorf did in conference a while back. It may have done him in because soon after, I believe, he wasn't called into the recent presidency. So sort of like a chop. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dieter-uchtdorf-mormon-leader-church-mistakes_n_4059683

“To be perfectly frank,” Uchtdorf said, “there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.”

God is perfect and his doctrine is pure, he said, but human beings — including church leaders — are not.

 

 

And the lovely Elder Uchtdorf's statement is wholly commendable; but does it remediate any deep-rooted damage? I suspect not. It simply sounds like a platitude to avoid criticism. Anyone can give the impression of regret without actually making an apology.

Elder Oaks made it perfectly clear that the Church neither seeks nor offers apologies (the Salt Lake Tribune reported him as saying that a few years ago). No apologies suggests no wrongdoing, or it implies that individual leaders should offer their own, which almost never happens. I don't think it's OK to suggest that people who have been irreparably damaged as a result of comments broadcast to a worldwide audience should simply turn the other cheek. What if they killed themselves as a result?

[The Great Pretender]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Notably absent among these "others" is . . . the Church's website.  In contrast, Elder McConkie's "Forget everything that I have said" comments are cited a number of times on the Church's website.

Do you find this relevant to your inquiry?

Thanks,

-Smac

The Church has demonstrated that it is prepared to remove/redact content that risks damaging the narrative. Is it any wonder that you can't find it on churchofjesuschrist.org? Would you care for some examples? I will be happy to oblige.

[The Great Pretender]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

My opinion is as long as we don’t hang our hats on the idea that every prophet has only Spoken things that God has told him to speak, we can move through these things gracefully on our own and independently as we prayerfully ask God what are the things of the past AND Of the present that we should implement versus set aside.

if we’re waiting for accountability from the church we will never get it. It’s my opinion we don’t need it. It would make things easier for people who struggle but I’m here to say it does not need to be a struggle. We have a right to personal inspiration and inevitably it’s going to look different than it does to everyone else.

Your idea is hypothetically a good one. But what if you have been subconsciously groomed to believe certain things are a specific way simply by cultural precedent? In such cases, you will be unable to challenge an idea without bias.

For the longest time, I believed that men should remove their hats to pray because that's how I was taught in an LDS home and wider sphere. This idea was presented as doctrine by the apostle Paul in the New Testament, and even though the associated parts of this doctrine (of women covering their heads or shaving their heads to pray) have since been consigned to the social customs of Paul's day, the idea that men should remove their hats persists even now because no one has pointed out its invalidity. Have you rejected the idea? Would you remove a hat or cap before praying at a Church activity?

In April 1977, Elder Ezra Taft Benson, then President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, spoke on the topic of prayer during the Saturday Afternoon Session of General Conference. He shared a personal story, saying, “We left the building, went out to our car, removed our hats, and united in prayer.”

I am unaware of any Church authority saying anything to the contrary, so it still stands, right?

[The Great Pretender]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

No. But ask this same question in 50 or 100 years from now about what leaders say today and the answer will most likely be yes.

You answered "No" to "Are there current church authorities who have said and taught bigoted things?" (Not my question).

How certain are you about that?

 

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

You make a fair point. And I am almost persuaded.

But what do you make of the Church (or rather its employees whose actions MUST have the approval of senior priesthood leaders AKA the Q of the 12 and 1st Presidency) attempting to conceal inappropriate/misleading content on churchofjesuschrist.org to prevent it from being picked up by search engines and reflecting badly on the Church?

On another forum (or maybe even this one), I was directed to a General Conference talk by Hartman Rector Jr. ("Turning the Hearts"), several parts of which have been removed from the transcript on churchofjesuschrist.org, yet they can still be watched in the video? I have attached a Reddit link turned up by a quick Google search; and it is easily confirmed by checking the General Conference video on churchofjesuschrist.org.

Elder Petersen gave his unpleasant lecture on race at BYU, but you won't find it in the speech archive: https://speeches.byu.edu/speakers/mark-e-petersen/. Why is it missing if not because the leadership now accepts that its message was uninspired?

What about Elder Oaks? Hmm...dangerous territory, right? He also gave speeches while at BYU as its president, and one of them has been removed. Do you know which?

There is a fine line between seeing the good in everyone who says bad stuff in public (that damages people) and gullibility. When the Church and its associated business removes damaging stuff said by past leaders, I'm left feeling uncomfortable. When it removes stuff said by current Presidents in waiting, I'm left feeling shaken.

 

I see what you are saying.   I personally think that removing the content is itself a sign that they no longer espouse or defend those views and don't want those ideas propagated further by publishing harmful ideas from an official source.  I agree that it would be immensely helpful for so many people who struggle with this stuff (like you), to acknowledge and denounce past mistakes to help others move on too.

I am curious, is your concern that they still secretly espouse these views, or is your concern that they have moved on but have done so without acknowledging their mistakes?

[Dario_M]

5 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

 

That's a heartwarming soundbite, but what if some statements of prophets, seers, and revelators of yesteryear now qualify as abuse and/or hate speech according to dictionary definitions in 2023? Should it no longer matter because we've moved on?

Moved on from what actually? Abuse? 🤔

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

You answered "No" to "Are there current church authorities who have said and taught bigoted things?" (Not my question).

How certain are you about that?

 

Nothing really recent in print in an official publication of the Church that I know of. They may of course have a casual conversation with someone and say something that in the other person's opinion is bigoted.
I am confident that they would not intentionally say anything that is bigoted. But that's my opinion. Of course someone else with a different personality and certain issues may think something they say is bigoted.

[The Great Pretender]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I see what you are saying.   I personally think that removing the content is itself a sign that they no longer espouse or defend those views and don't want those ideas propagated further by publishing harmful ideas from an official source.  I agree that it would be immensely helpful for so many people who struggle with this stuff (like you), to acknowledge and denounce past mistakes to help others move on too.

I am curious, is your concern that they still secretly espouse these views, or is your concern that they have moved on but have done so without acknowledging their mistakes?

Thank you for asking the question. It is of huge concern to me that they might continue to secretly espouse these views in the absence of a public retraction.

I serve on my stake's high council, and I'm halfway through attending eight ward conferences. In each one, I raise my hand in support of the First Presidency (during the business section), yet I am now beginning to feel that my expression of support is disingenuous.

I am concerned that the wider Church membership is being sold a Disney-style narrative while the Brethren maintain a decidedly different story behind closed doors, like the Knights Templar protecting some priceless artefact. I took out my endowment back in 1982 when the ceremony included death threats. Like anyone of my age and older, we have simply adjusted because the changes didn't represent a personal attack. But what about when things of the past HAVE invalidated identities or whatever and have caused emotional distress and damage that cannot simply be brushed aside?

Elder Oaks gave a speech while serving as President of BYU. It has been removed from the archive, but you can still find it. Ask yourself why it has been removed? Its title was "The Popular Myth of the Victimless Crime." Go check it out. In it, Elder Oaks said, “I believe in retaining criminal penalties on sex crimes such as adultery, fornication, prostitution, homosexuality.” Each one of those principles can be found in my wider family, and I feel deeply troubled by the idea that our next spokesman for God said something to a legal audience in a public setting that has since been made to disappear (except we can still find it). Am I concerned he still holds those views in private? 100% I am.

The more I think about it, the more unsettled I become. He didn't say it over the fence to a buddy. He said those things in public. So, yes, I suspect his views remain unchanged in private.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

I think the issue I have with Mormon 9:31 in this particular context is that Official Declaration 1 states, “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray

Maybe that often quoted declaration is misunderstood by you and many others. What if that doesn’t mean what you think it means? What is it doesn’t mean that everything said will be accurate? What if instead it need something more broad which is to say that the Lord will never allow his leaders to teach the people anything that will move them in a direction away from God. It’s a bigger picture, not the minutia. Not to say that these issues are not important but in the big picture, the lords leaders all are pointing us to God.  We need not fear that they will ever have us work against God.  

I don’t have the answer for you but for me this is what works. 

[The Great Pretender]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Nothing really recent in print in an official publication of the Church that I know of. They may of course have a casual conversation with someone and say something that in the other person's opinion is bigoted.
I am confident that they would not intentionally say anything that is bigoted. But that's my opinion. Of course someone else with a different personality and certain issues may think something they say is bigoted.

Check out my post about Elder Oaks and his BYU lecture "The Popular Myth of the Victimless Crime" delivered as part of the Commissioner's Lecture Series for the Church Educational System. Sure, it was back in 1974. Does that make it irrelevant if he has never retracted his views? If I were next in line to be President of the Church and had said something inflammatory while serving in a senior, respected position of Church employment, no matter how many years ago, I might like to address that. But the less painful path is to simply make it go away.

[The Great Pretender]

7 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Maybe that often quoted declaration is misunderstood by you and many others. What if that doesn’t mean what you think it means? What is it doesn’t mean that everything said will be accurate? What if instead it need something more broad which is to say that the Lord will never allow his leaders to teach the people anything that will move them in a direction away from God. It’s a bigger picture, not the minutia. Not to say that these issues are not important but in the big picture, the lords leaders all are pointing us to God.  We need not fear that they will ever have us work against God.  

I don’t have the answer for you but for me this is what works. 

That's reasonable, and I like it.

However, if the bigger picture perpetuated for decades has led people to seek validation and acceptance outside the Church because they could not bear the finger pointing regarding issues over which they exerted no control, then I still feel uneasy. Issues like "should I only take the sacrament with my right hand" are neither here nor there. Those aren't the real challenges.

It feels to me like we are undergoing a process of whitewashing the past; of Disney-fying the Gospel of Jesus Christ to make it palatable to everyone, even if in private those in authority may feel differently.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Quote

Notably absent among these "others" is . . . the Church's website.  In contrast, Elder McConkie's "Forget everything that I have said" comments are cited a number of times on the Church's website.

Do you find this relevant to your inquiry?

That's fascinating, thank you, yet it saddens me. It's like a get-out-of-jail card.

Isn't that what the Atonement is all about?  Overcoming the consequences of our sins and failures?

Moreover, what does "a get-out-of-jail{-free} card" mean in this context?  Elder Petersen died nearly 40 years ago.  He's dead.  All that is left of him on this earth are the disintegrating remains of his physical body:

Could you clarify what you mean relative to Elder Petersen and "jail?"

I remember some years ago reading about the Cadaver Synod, see here:

Quote

The Cadaver Synod (also called the Cadaver Trial; Latin: Synodus Horrenda) is the name commonly given to the ecclesiastical trial of Pope Formosus, who had been dead for about seven months, in the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome during January 897.^[1] The trial was conducted by Pope Stephen VI, the successor to Formosus' successor, Pope Boniface VI. Stephen had Formosus' corpse exhumed and brought to the papal court for judgment. He accused Formosus of perjury, of having acceded to the papacy illegally, and illegally presiding over more than one diocese at the same time.^[2] At the end of the trial, Formosus was pronounced guilty and his papacy retroactively declared null.^[2]

Jean-Paul Laurens, Le Pape Formose et Étienne VI ("Pope Formosus and Stephen VI"), 1870
...

Probably around January 897, Stephen VI ordered that the corpse of his predecessor Formosus be removed from its tomb and brought to the papal court for judgment. With the corpse propped up on a throne, a deacon was appointed to answer for the deceased pontiff.

Formosus was accused of transmigrating sees in violation of canon law, of perjury, and of serving as a bishop while actually a layman. Eventually, the corpse was found guilty. Liutprand of Cremona and other sources say that, after having the corpse stripped of its papal vestments, Stephen then cut off the three fingers of the right hand that it had used in life for blessings, next formally invalidating all of Formosus' acts and ordinations (including his ordination of Stephen VI as bishop of Anagni). The body was finally interred in a graveyard for foreigners, only to be dug up once again, tied to weights, and cast into the Tiber River.^{[citation needed]}

According to Liutprand, Stephen VI said: "When you were bishop of Porto, why did you usurp the universal Roman See in such a spirit of ambition?"^[21]

 

Surely you are not suggesting that we do anything like this as regarding Elder Petersen and his unfortunate views on race.  So what are you suggesting?  What do you think we should do relative to Elder Petersen?

2 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

A former acquaintance of mine married a mixed-race (black and caucasian) woman and had three kids. He was a lifelong member who served a full-time mission and subsequently spent several years as a bishop, twice actually, before finally leaving his wife and the Church to pursue a series of same-sex relationships. He and I stopped communicating when I protested in the same way that I feel you are protesting.

I do not understand.  You "protested" . . . what as regarding your friend's behavior?

And against what is it that you think I am protesting?

2 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Logically, the argument is sound. But his feelings and outlook were irreparably damaged by the statements of yesteryear on both issues of ethnicity and identity.

I'm not sure I understand.  Whose "feelings and outlook were irreparably damaged"?  Your friend?

Also, what "statements of yesteryear on both issues of ethnicity and identity" are you referencing here?

Also, what is it you are suggesting we do regarding Elder Petersen?

2 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

The problem is, we as a church don't ever fully move on.

Yes, we do. 

How many people in the Church today have racialist views affected by remarks made by Elder Peterson 60+ years ago? 

Are those people listening to and following the counsel of the current leaders of the Church?

My (biological) brother, the one married to a Samoan woman, is currently serving as the bishop of a Polynesian ward in Utah County.  My son's current bishop (also in Utah County) is black.  Such things are utterly mundane in the Church now, in 2023, but would have been remarkable (or impossible) in Elder Petersen's era.

Elder Gong is Chinese, and Elder Soares is Hispanic.  Both are members of the Quorum of the Twelve.  

Look at the Presidency of the Seventy, which includes Elders José A. Teixeira and Carlos A. Godoy.

Look at the men in the Quorum of Seventy:

Quote

Marcos A. Aidukaitis	5 Apr 2008
Rubén V. Alliaud	6 Apr 2019
Jose L. Alonso	2 Apr 2011
Jorge M. Alvarado	6 Apr 2019
Ian S. Ardern	2 Apr 2011
Steven R. Bangerter	31 Mar 2018
W. Mark Bassett	2 Apr 2016
David S. Baxter	1 Apr 2006
Jorge T. Becerra	4 Apr 2020
Randall K. Bennett	2 Apr 2011
Hans T. Boom	6 Apr 2019
Shayne M. Bowen	1 Apr 2006
Mark A. Bragg	2 Apr 2016
Matthew L. Carpenter	31 Mar 2018
Yoon Hwan Choi	4 Apr 2009
Craig C. Christensen	5 Oct 2002
Weatherford T. Clayton	2 Apr 2016
Carl B. Cook	2 Apr 2011
Valeri V. Cordón	2 Apr 2016
Joaquin E. Costa	2 Apr 2016
LeGrand R. Curtis Jr.	2 Apr 2011
Massimo De Feo	2 Apr 2016
Benjamín De Hoyos	2 Apr 2005
Sean Douglas	3 Apr 2021
Edward Dube	6 Apr 2013
Kevin R. Duncan	3 Apr 2010
Michael A. Dunn	3 Apr 2021
Mark D. Eddy	2 Apr 2022
Randy D. Funk	6 Apr 2013
Eduardo Gavarret	5 Apr 2008
Jack N. Gerard	31 Mar 2018
Clark G. Gilbert	3 Apr 2021
Ricardo P. Giménez	6 Apr 2019
Patricio M. Giuffra	3 Apr 2021
Taylor G. Godoy	1 Apr 2017
Carlos A. Godoy	5 Apr 2008
Christoffel Golden	31 Mar 2001
Walter F. González	31 Mar 2001
Brook P. Hales	17 May 2018
Kevin S. Hamilton	6 Apr 2013
Allen D. Haynie	4 Apr 2015
Mathias Held	31 Mar 2018
Matthew S. Holland	4 Apr 2020
David P. Homer	31 Mar 2018
William K. Jackson	4 Apr 2020
Jeremy R. Jaggi	4 Apr 2020
Kelly R. Johnson	4 Apr 2020
Paul V. Johnson	2 Apr 2005
Peter M. Johnson	6 Apr 2019
Larry S. Kacher	5 Apr 2014
Patrick Kearon	3 Apr 2010
Jörg Klebingat	5 Apr 2014
Joni L. Koch	1 Apr 2017
Erich W. Kopischke	31 Mar 2007
Alfred Kyungu	3 Apr 2021
Hugo E. Martinez	5 Apr 2014
James W. McConkie III	22 Apr 2022
John A. McCune	6 Apr 2019
Kyle S. McKay	31 Mar 2018
Alvin F. Meredith III	3 Apr 2021
Peter F. Meurs	2 Apr 2016
Hugo Montoya	4 Apr 2015
Isaac K. Morrison	2 Apr 2022
Thierry K. Mutombo	4 Apr 2020
Marcus B. Nash	1 Apr 2006
K. Brett Nattress	2 Apr 2016
S. Gifford Nielsen	6 Apr 2013
Brent H. Nielson	4 Apr 2009
Adrián Ochoa	6 Apr 2013
Adeyinka A. Ojediran	4 Apr 2020
Ryan K. Olsen	2 Apr 2022
S. Mark Palmer	2 Apr 2016
Adilson de Paula Parrella	1 Apr 2017
Kevin W. Pearson	5 Apr 2008
Anthony D. Perkins	1 Apr 2006
Paul B. Pieper	2 Apr 2005
John C. Pingree Jr.	1 Apr 2017
Rafael E. Pino	5 Apr 2008
James R. Rasband	6 Apr 2019
Carlos G. Revillo Jr.	3 Apr 2021
Michael T. Ringwood	4 Apr 2009
Lynn G. Robbins	5 Apr 1997
Gary B. Sabin	2 Apr 2016
Ciro Schmeil	4 Apr 2020
Jonathan S. Schmitt	2 Apr 2022
Evan A. Schmutz	2 Apr 2016
Vaiangina Sikahema	3 Apr 2021
Denelson Silva	2 Apr 2022
Joseph W. Sitati	4 Apr 2009
Vern P. Stanfill	4 Apr 2015
Benjamin M. Z. Tai	6 Apr 2019
Brian K. Taylor	1 Apr 2017
Michael John U. Teh	31 Mar 2007
José A. Teixeira	5 Apr 2008
Juan A. Uceda	3 Apr 2010
Arnulfo Valenzuela	6 Apr 2013
Moisés Villanueva	4 Apr 2020
Juan Pablo Villar	31 Mar 2018
Takashi Wada	31 Mar 2018
Taniela B. Wakolo	1 Apr 2017
Alan R. Walker	6 Apr 2019
Scott D. Whiting	31 Mar 2012
Chi Hong (Sam) Wong	5 Apr 2014
Kazuhiko Yamashita	2 Apr 2011
Jorge F. Zeballos	5 Apr 2008

Look at the Area Seventies.  Look at Bro. Ahmad Corbitt in the Young Men's General Presidency,   Sis. Tracy Y. Browning in the Primary General Presidency, and Bro. Milton Camargo in the Sunday School General Presidency.

I'm not really into race-based nose-counting, but given your statement ("we as a church don't ever fully move on"), please compare the demographics of these leadership roles now, in 2023, to how the demographics of these roles in Elder Petersen's era (60+ years ago).

If "we as a church don't ever fully move on," I think it's largely because some few of use refuse to let go.  It's not our job to constantly re-litigate the errors and omissions of (usually long-dead) leaders of the Church.  We can acknowledge their flaws and mistakes (and have done), but we learn from them, all the while "giv{ing} thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto {us their] imperfections, that {we} may learn to be more wise than {they were}."

2 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Those of a certain age have had our opinions subtly shaped by small amounts of toxicity here and there.

Well, get over it.  If Elder McConkie could do it, so can you.

We need to ditch our expectations of infallibility.  Faultfinders pretty much always succeed at their endeavors.

We need to stop the navel-gazing.  Save One, none of us, past or present, is or has been perfect.  It is not our job to stand in judgment of dead people.  There are far more important matters deserving of our time, attention and effort than indulging in an endless online version of the Cadaver Synod.  Elder Petersen is dead.  Whatever sins he may have had are between him and the Lord. 

Racism is bad.  "{A}ll are alike unto God."  (2 Nephi 26:33.)  I think the general membership of the Church has a pretty good bead on this.  The Brethren surely do.  Let's listen to them.

2 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Church education materials still quote from Mormon Doctrine and The Miracle of Forgiveness,

Now you're extending notions of infallibility to not only the leaders of the Church, but to everything they ever wrote?

I ask that you give that some serious reconsideration.

2 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

so it is reasonable to conclude that individuals will still be influenced by some of the damaging content in those publications.

Well, no, I don't think that is particularly reasonable.  The entirety of those publications is not indelibly tainted because they erred in some places in terms of content and/or tone.  And I don't think you can merely assert this conclusion.  I think you ought to demonstrate it.

Expectations of perfection and infallibility appear to permeate your perspective on this.  If you can set aside those expectations, and if you can listen to and follow the counsel of the living prophets and apostles, this all becomes quite a bit more manageable.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 23 by smac97

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

Quote

Notably absent among these "others" is . . . the Church's website.  In contrast, Elder McConkie's "Forget everything that I have said" comments are cited a number of times on the Church's website.

Do you find this relevant to your inquiry?

The Church has demonstrated that it is prepared to remove/redact content that risks damaging the narrative.

And you . . . have a problem with this?

If a textbook teaching mathematics is found to have been published with errors, do you think those errors should be perpetuated ad infinitum?  Or would it be more appropriate to correct them?

55 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

Is it any wonder that you can't find it on churchofjesuschrist.org? Would you care for some examples? I will be happy to oblige.

Examples of what?

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

Thank you for asking the question. It is of huge concern to me that they might continue to secretly espouse these views in the absence of a public retraction.

I serve on my stake's high council, and I'm halfway through attending eight ward conferences. In each one, I raise my hand in support of the First Presidency (during the business section), yet I am now beginning to feel that my expression of support is disingenuous.

I am concerned that the wider Church membership is being sold a Disney-style narrative while the Brethren maintain a decidedly different story behind closed doors, like the Knights Templar protecting some priceless artefact. I took out my endowment back in 1982 when the ceremony included death threats. Like anyone of my age and older, we have simply adjusted because the changes didn't represent a personal attack. But what about when things of the past HAVE invalidated identities or whatever and have caused emotional distress and damage that cannot simply be brushed aside?

Elder Oaks gave a speech while serving as President of BYU. It has been removed from the archive, but you can still find it. Ask yourself why it has been removed? Its title was "The Popular Myth of the Victimless Crime." Go check it out. In it, Elder Oaks said, “I believe in retaining criminal penalties on sex crimes such as adultery, fornication, prostitution, homosexuality.” Each one of those principles can be found in my wider family, and I feel deeply troubled by the idea that our next spokesman for God said something to a legal audience in a public setting that has since been made to disappear (except we can still find it). Am I concerned he still holds those views in private? 100% I am.

The more I think about it, the more unsettled I become. He didn't say it over the fence to a buddy. He said those things in public. So, yes, I suspect his views remain unchanged in private.

He stated those things in 1974. 

We all know how President Oaks feels about the gay issue in general.  He reminds us nearly every single conference!  But in terms of criminalizing it, I think it is safe to say that he is not who he was in 1974.   It appears to me that the brethren have moved on (again, thank goodness!):

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/respect-for-marriage-act-statement

That is the position and future direction of the church.  It is a far cry from pushing to criminalize such things. 

You asked me to ask myself, "why it has been removed?"

I will simply repeat what I said previously:

"I personally think that removing the content is itself a sign that they no longer espouse or defend those views and don't want those ideas propagated further by publishing harmful ideas from an official source."  I think they view them as embarrassing and hurtful - and rightfully so. 

Sometimes changes in ideology happen so gradually over time, that he probably is unaware of what things he said from 1974 that might be worth publicly redacting.   I agree with you however, I think it would be extremely helpful for the church or any of its institutions, like BYU, to publicly and transparently state the reason for any redacted content and acknowledge that such views are no longer espoused - if that truly is the case.   It is not worth any misunderstandings that may cause someone to question their sustaining of the brethren further. 

Edited January 23 by pogi

[smac97]

2 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Quote

Could you elaborate on what you mean by your concluding statement ("I'm not OK with that")?  What does it mean?  

Also, how do you reconcile your perspective on Elder Petersen with the counsel given in Mormon 9:31?

Thank you for your insightful responses. I appreciate your clarity of thought.

I think the issue I have with Mormon 9:31 in this particular context is that Official Declaration 1 states, “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.”

A few thoughts:

First, I'm not sure OD-1 states that.  That statement is from excerpts of talks given by Pres. Woodruff.  I think those excerpts are explanatory, not canonical.  But in any event, I think they are substantively correct.  I don't think the Lord will ever allow this.

Second, Pres. Woodruff's remarks were about himself "or any other man who stands as President of this Church."  Elder Petersen was never President of the Church.

Third, I think you and I diverge in our understanding and interpretation of the phrase "never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray."  You seem to construe it as being essentially synonymous with "never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to {ever make a mistake about anything}."  Again, you seem to be harboring strong expectations of perfection/infallibility.  If so, I ask that you reconsider them, as I think they are unreasonable and incompatible with what both the scriptures and the living prophets and apostles have said.

2 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

This isn't simply a case of forgiving past mistakes;

You're right.  It's not about that because Elder Petersen did not trespass against me, so I have no need to forgive him.  And if he had trespassed against me, it is my duty as a disciple of Jesus Christ to forgive him.  Either way, "this isn't simply a case of forgiving past mistakes."

The only way it becomes such a "case" is if someone were to come along and refuse to forgive Elder Petersen regardless of whether he ever met that person.

So . . . is that the case?  Do you think you need to "forgive" Elder Petersen, a man long dead and whom you likely never met?  If so, what's preventing you from forgiving him?

2 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

each member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is the President in waiting.

You're really stretching here.  By your reasoning, every male member of the Church is abstractedly a "President in waiting."

2 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

They aren't waiting to serve as Ward Librarian, they are waiting to serve as the mouthpiece of God on Earth.

Well, no, they are not.  They are currently serving as apostles.  A substantial majority of them do not become "the mouthpiece of God on Earth."

And for those who do become the Presiding High Priest, they are not perfect.  They are not infallible.

This is a very important point, and I think you are not addressing it.

2 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

I believe that statements put in the public domain that do not stand the test of time (particularly when people's lives are at stake) render an individual unfit for such an office.  Or does the Lord kill off those who have said bad stuff (in the past) so they don't make it to the front of the line, especially if they don't ever retract their former erroneous statements that continue to get dredged up in Sunday School lessons to evidence someone's deeply held beliefs? I don't believe that is the case.

I don't know what "statements ... that do not stand the test of time" means.  Too vague.  Too abstract.  Too subjective. 

What is this "test?"  Who wrote it?  Who grades it?

Moses killed the Egyptian and hid the body.  Noah got drunk.  Jonah disobeyed God.  Peter quarreled with Paul.  Paul held the robes of those who stoned Stephen.  Judas betrayed Jesus Christ.

Your statement here is a combination of A) insistent expectations of perfection/infallibility, and B) presentism.  It doesn't work.  Nobody would survive this sort of relentlessly faultfinding scrutiny, not even the Son of God.

Thanks,

-Smac 

 

Edited January 23 by smac97