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

[Tacenda]

34 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. 

https://www.losangelesblade.com/2021/11/17/mormon-leader-denies-byu-used-electroshock-therapy-on-gay-students/

It would do a world of good for Pres Oaks to apologize for things like you mentioned he said, but it's so difficult for him to be wrong I guess. He should take a lesson from the lesson books though and do as we as members are taught to do when learning on Sundays. And for those that say we shouldn't think leaders are more than a mere man. Well, do the leaders believe it? I'm sure they do, and hopefully they will know we as members will and are taught to forgive. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/behold-your-little-ones-nursery-manual/lesson-16-i-will-say-im-sorry?lang=eng

Remind the children that when we say, “I’m sorry,” we can be happy and help others be happy. Invite the children to say, “I’m sorry.”

[MustardSeed]

36 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

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.

I’m with you.  And Tacenda I hear your vote for apology. 
 

WE WILL NOT GET ONE.  Ever.  So we have to find ways to build our own understanding so as to maintain our faith.  It is possible!  

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

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?

This feels very much like a damned if you do / damned if you don't kind of situation to me. If the church were to continue to publish the non-redacted, non-correlated versions of these talks, wouldn't critics just turn around and say that - by continuing to publish these hurtful words - the Church is giving its imprimatur to (and tacit continued support of) their content?

Personally, the absolute last thing I would want is for the Church to go back through all these old talks and add some kind of content / trigger warning to all of them. /blech

Here's the thing: Go back in time (not even that far back in time) and you can find oodles and oodles of people saying things that would be considered hurtful by today's standards. If you were to receive a transcript of everything your own family members said between 1900 and 1964, I would be shocked if you didn't find some racist remarks in there. I guess I don't see what the big deal is.

Would it be nice if there were never a racist Mormon ever? Sure. But it isn't like the Church isn't true just because that wasn't the case for a good while. You can either accept that God works with imperfect people or not - even when those imperfect people were flawed in ways that offend your personal sensibilities.

 

Edited January 23, 2023 by Amulek

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I guess I don't see what the big deal is.

He has stated that his big deal is that when living apostles have historically taught harmful views and have never publicly renounced such teachings or explained that they no longer espouse those views, he is concerned that these leaders may still secretly hold those views. 

I am certain he is not alone.  He has stated that because of this his sustaining of the brethren is starting to feel disingenuous.  I think it would be extremely helpful for the church in general to start to try to understand why this might be a big deal to some people and help them avoid unnecessary understandings in the future by transparently stating why talks and papers have been redacted.  If it was removed because the church no longer espouses these views, then it would be helpful for many to hear that.  I think his general concern is valid, but I think there is more than enough evidence to suggest that President Oaks has moved on from this specific issue. 

Until these concerns are validated, we are going to continue to lose many.  These are simple things to fix if we would all take notice and listen. 

Edited January 23, 2023 by pogi

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, Amulek said:

This feels very much like a damned if you do / damned if you don't kind of situation to me. If the church were to continue to publish the non-redacted, non-correlated versions of these talks, wouldn't critics just turn around and say that - by continuing to publish these hurtful words - the Church is giving its imprimatur (and tacit continued support) of their content?

Personally, the absolute last thing I would want is for the Church to go back through all these old talks and add some kind of content / trigger warning to all of them. /blech

Here's the thing: Go back in time (not even that far back in time) and you can find oodles and oodles of people saying things that would be considered hurtful by today's standards. If you were to receive a transcript of everything your own family members said between 1900 and 1964, I would be shocked if you didn't find some racist remarks in there. I guess I don't see what the big deal is.

Would it be nice if there were never a racist Mormon ever? Sure. But it isn't like the Church isn't true just because that wasn't the case for a good while. You can either accept that God works with imperfect people or not - even when those imperfect people were flawed in ways that offend your personal sensibilities.

 

I remember talking to my own grandmother(from the south) many years ago and she frequently referred to black people using the N word. I remember telling her that they don't like to be called that and she very matter-of-factly said "but that's what we called them"; and would have been appalled if someone called her racist.

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

WE WILL NOT GET ONE.  Ever. 

I remain hopeful. 

I probably would have said the same thing a decade ago about the church supporting legislation which legalizes gay marriage.

I think our collective wills and voices can make significant cultural changes which reach the top.  

But I agree with you that we don't need to lose our faith in the meantime.  Even if it never happens in this lifetime, we can still remain faithful. 

Edited January 23, 2023 by pogi

[Craig Speechly]

6 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Thanks. I posted for a specific reason of course. While searching for material for a sacrament meeting speaking assignment, I came across two things that have left me feeling uneasy as a Church member of many years. Without the internet, I'd be none the wiser. Sometimes, I wish we had no access to so much information. I suspect it would be far easier to live in ignorance. It certainly used to be.

I ended up on the Wikipedia page for Mark E. Petersen. While Wikipedia isn't the word of God (lol), it has plenty going for it as a global resource. On that page, there's a section about controversial teachings, and I searched and found the article in question ("Race Problems - As they Affect the Church"). I found a few sources, which led me to be satisfied about its authenticity. What I read there now feels like ignorant hate speech. I then read a bunch of explanatory opinions about the text from the likes of the fairlatterdaysaints.org website, but I guess I'm left feeling dissatisfied. Elder Petersen had been an apostle for 10 years before he made some arguably hateful comments (I certainly view them that way), and he subsequently continued to serve for another 30 years, during which the Civil Rights Movement took place and the rights of the priesthood were extended to all worthy males. Despite that, Petersen never publicly retracted his comments. That suggests to me that he continued to believe that his views were correct. I'm not OK with that.

And then there's all the comments made about issues of gender and identity, much of which is definitely worthy of the label "abuse" by today's standards.

By today's standards,  Mark E. Peterson was a racist & white supremacist as were many of his peers and many of his generation.  Judge him by the standards of his day not by our enlighten standards.  

But then when you realize that even by the standards of his day, he was still a racist then what?  He welded much influence in keeping the priesthood ban in place.  In fact Kimball waited to hold the vote to lift the ban until Peterson was out of the country.  I think that speaks volumes.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

He has stated that his big deal is that when living apostles have historically taught harmful views and have never publicly renounced such teachings or explained that they no longer espouse those views, he is concerned that these leaders may still secretly hold those views. 

If one can't bring oneself to sustain President Nelson as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator because some guy who was born in 1900 (and has been dead for nearly 40 years now) once said something objectionable in a talk given 50+ years ago, and that - because of this talk (by some other guy, mind you) - that somehow means one suspects President Nelson of currently being a closet racists, then...okay. Don't sustain him, I guess.

That seems like kind of a stretch to me, but whatevs.

 

Edited January 23, 2023 by Amulek

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If one can't bring oneself to sustain President Nelson as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator because some guy who was born in 1900 (and has been dead for nearly 40 years now) once said something objectionable in a talk given 50+ years ago, and that - because of this talk (by some other guy, mind you) - that somehow means one suspects President Nelson of currently a closet racists, then...okay. Don't sustain him, I guess.

That seems like kind of a stretch to me, but whatevs.

I don't think that is what he is saying in regard to Peterson.   But in regards to President Oaks, who is next in line to be President of the church, that is his valid concern.   

I don't think President Oaks currently holds those views based on the current direction of the church, but I must admit, I don't know his personal opinions on the current direction of the church in that regard.  I think he has likely changed with the church, but I can understand why he might be concerned.   

Again, there is no way he is the only person who has similar concerns.  It is worth taking this stuff seriously and trying to understand so that we can avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and lost faith. 

 

[rpn]

All the Lord has to run His church is after all flawed mortals.   (And if I understand correctly Elder Peterson was out of town on assignment when the Quorum of the Twelve received the revelation that blacks could hold the priesthood.)   I think that wasn't coincidence, and that he's probably not the only church leader who thought/acted in ways unacceptable to the Lord.    Not my problem (and quite possibly leaders who need refining or who offer a different perspective sometimes add to the discussions in ways that others recognize as unacceptable because of the bad example).

[The Nehor]

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't think that is what he is saying in regard to Peterson.   But in regards to President Oaks, who is next in line to be President of the church, that is his valid concern.   

Okay. So, again, nearly 50 years ago now (and 10 years prior to him being called as an Apostle), then President-of-BYU-only Oaks gave a talk about the law and in his discussion of "victimless crimes" included a comment about how he would have preferred to keep criminal statutes in place - even if they were deeply regulated and rarely enforced - for certain types of private, noncommercial sex offenses (e.g., adultery, fornication, homosexual activity, etc.). This tracks with President Oaks' previous legal comments about his thoughts about there being a "teaching" aspect to the law. Clearly such a position, if ever it were commonly held amongst those in the legal community, has long since been abandoned.

 

15 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't think President Oaks currently holds those views based on the current direction of the church, but I must admit, I don't know his personal opinions on the current direction of the church in that regard.  I think he has likely changed with the church, but I can understand why he might be concerned.   

Why? Even if President Oaks currently (and secretly) believes that adultery, fornication, and homosexual activity ought to be subject to some sort of criminal sanctions, that's a pretty esoteric and (clearly) minority position - one that modern legal jurisprudence has long since abandoned. And, based on current Supreme Court precedent, one which will never become a thing.

So, for all practical purposes, I have to ask: Even if, arguendo, President Oaks currently holds to an unpopular and untenable legal opinion about the purpose of law or how society relates to the law at a very high level, why should that prevent one from being capable of sustaining him if he never so much as mentions it (let alone advocates for it) for the rest of his natural life?

It's pretty clear to me from Elder Oaks' comments following the gay marriage debate in our country that the Church has said its peace on the matter and that it is now time to move forward with love and civility.

 

15 hours ago, pogi said:

Again, there is no way he is the only person who has similar concerns.  It is worth taking this stuff seriously and trying to understand so that we can avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and lost faith.

I have a hard time taking seriously the concerns of someone who goes and hunts down a 50 year old talk that is mostly about something else entirely - it's mostly about decriminalizing drugs - and then finds a single quote that, to his modern sensibilities, seems offensive - even when in the very next sentences the author (who, again, was not an Apostle) concedes that there are concerns with his suggested approach and would even favor something akin to a non-enforcement regime. Well, except maybe for prostitution. But, then again, I know lots of people who don't want to see prostitution decriminalized, and I don't have a problem sustaining any of them - even though, politically, I don't completely agree with them.

 

Edited January 24, 2023 by Amulek

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Even if, arguendo, President Oaks currently holds to an unpopular and untenable legal opinion about the purpose of law how society relates to the law at a very high level, why should that prevent one from being capable of sustaining him if he never so much as mentions it (let alone advocates for it) for the rest of his natural life?

Iirc, Pres Oaks said that the clerk who was refusing to give out marriage licenses back when the law was first changed to include same sex couples was failing in her job.  Even if he privately holds an opinion that something might be best to be a crime in order to support—in his view—moral choices, his personal belief that we should be a law abiding people appears to be dominant and more than counterbalances minor opinions.

I could see a concern that his personal views on the morality of homosexual behaviour will affect what direction the Church could take if he becomes president.  Or that talks about immoral homosexual behaviour might increase.  But as long as the law of chastity has homosexual sexual behaviour as a sin, not sure what one would expect to hear from leaders.  Is the frequency of talks going to make much difference as long as the basic content (homosexual behaviour is against the law of chastity) remains the same?  One needs to seek personal revelation on whether that fundamental issue is true revelation or is bigotry.  If one comes to a conclusion it is bigotry, I don’t think it unreasonable for that person to question whether our leadership is truly inspired and teaching God’s laws.  And where that goes is going to depend on what that person values most and their relationship with God. (And it is not on me to judge the right or wrongness of anyone’s choices who has to deal with such questions.)

If one comes to the belief that the law of chastity is meant to guide us to exaltation and there is something that is necessary in participating in a male-female eternal marriage to move to a state of being where one is fully prepared to receive the gift of godhood God wants to share with us, then it makes sense to believe the law of chastity is true revelation even if there likely may be ways it has not be taught as God would wish it taught, but that he allows our leaders’ errors in this as well as everything else because in some fashion it brings us to him (my personal belief is he allows our leaders to make mistakes, especially big ones so it is driven through our thick skulls our source of ultimate truth and knowledge needs to be him, through the Spirit, sought after with the best of our efforts).

In the end I think it best to look at current behaviour of the Church leaders to predict future behaviour rather than what leaders were doing 40 or more years ago.  And currently we have the Church supporting the passage of a law protecting civil rights and consistently promoting obedience to those laws and working with those who have differing beliefs, not attempting to suppress them.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/elder-oaks-balance-accommodation-not-culture-wars?imageView=Elder_Dallin_H_Oaks_2015.jpg

Quote

Although not mentioning Kim Davis by name, in a clear reference to the Kentucky county clerk who refused on religious grounds to issue a marriage license to a gay couple, Elder Oaks said public officials who take an oath have a responsibility to support the constitution and their local laws.

“Office holders remain free to draw upon their personal beliefs and motivations and advocate their positions in the public square. But when acting as public officials they are not free to apply personal convictions — religious or other — in place of the defined responsibilities of their public offices,” he said. “A county clerk’s recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle.”

And

Quote

Elder Oaks said that on the “big issues” that divide adversaries, religionists should not seek a veto over all nondiscrimination laws that offend their religion, and the proponents of nondiscrimination should not seek a veto over all assertions of religious freedom. 

“Both sides in big controversies like this should seek to understand the other's position and seek practical accommodations that provide fairness for all and total dominance for neither,” he said. 

Elder Oaks cited the example of the 2015 Utah Legislature, which, “in a head-on conflict over individual free exercise and enforced nondiscrimination in housing and employment,” crafted a compromise position under the banner of “fairness for all.” 

“It gave neither position all that it sought but granted both positions benefits that probably could not have been obtained without the kind of balancing that is possible in the law-making branch but not in the judiciary.”

Elder Oaks warned against “extreme voices that are heard from contending positions.”

“Extreme voices polarize and create resentment and fear by emphasizing what is nonnegotiable and by suggesting that the desired outcome is to disable the adversary and achieve absolute victory. Such outcomes are rarely attainable and never preferable to living together in mutual understanding and peace.”

 

Edited January 24, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

48 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Why? Even if President Oaks currently (and secretly) believes that adultery, fornication, and homosexual activity ought to be subject to some sort of criminal sanctions, that's a pretty esoteric and (clearly) minority position - one that modern legal jurisprudence has long since abandoned. And, based on current Supreme Court precedent, one which will never become a thing.

So, for all practical purposes, I have to ask: Even if, arguendo, President Oaks currently holds to an unpopular and untenable legal opinion about the purpose of law how society relates to the law at a very high level, why should that prevent one from being capable of sustaining him if he never so much as mentions it (let alone advocates for it) for the rest of his natural life?

If he did hold those personal views still (which I don't think he does), it might not affect the law in any practical way, but his biased view that gay people should be perceived and treated as criminals could negatively impact the direction he takes the church for generations.  I don't think he would, but he could undo lots of progress the church has made over the last decade. 

48 minutes ago, Amulek said:

It's pretty clear to me from Elder Oaks' comments following the gay marriage debate in our country that the Church has said its peace on the matter and that it is now time to move forward with love and civility.

I agree.  But who am I to dismiss the perspective others?  I don’t stand in their shoes.

48 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I have a hard time taking seriously the concerns of someone who goes and hunts down a 50 year old talk that is mostly about something else entirely - it's mostly about decriminalizing drugs - and then finds a single quote that, to his modern sensibilities, seems offensive - even when in the very next sentences the author (who, again, was not an Apostle) concedes that there are concerns with his suggested approach and would even favor something akin to a non-enforcement regime. Well, except maybe for prostitution. But, then again, I know lots of people who don't want to see prostitution decriminalized, and I don't have a problem sustaining any of them - even though, politically, I don't completely agree with them.

The fact that you don't take the concerns of a fellow saint who serves in his stake high council seriously, is troubling to me.  This is not some enemy of the church trying to take it down.  The suspicion and judgment of those who struggle is not helpful.  If we don't see things the same way they do, then that is a good reason to listen and try to understand.  Perhaps you could lift with a helpful perspective that they may not have considered.  He clearly wants to believe in the church that he serves in and is at a tipping point.   Why push him over the line?  He has stated that he is at a cross-roads.  Try compassion. 

Edited January 24, 2023 by pogi

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't think that is what he is saying in regard to Peterson.   But in regards to President Oaks, who is next in line to be President of the church, that is his valid concern.   

I don't think President Oaks currently holds those views based on the current direction of the church, but I must admit, I don't know his personal opinions on the current direction of the church in that regard.  I think he has likely changed with the church, but I can understand why he might be concerned.   

Again, there is no way he is the only person who has similar concerns.  It is worth taking this stuff seriously and trying to understand so that we can avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and lost faith. 

 

It is interesting what changes happens to a man when he becomes the prophet and president of the Church. I remember when Ezra Taft Benson was about to become the next president and a lot of people were worried about what he would do, given his political background and history. As an apostle Most of the 20 talks he gave at General conference were of a political nature. But what happened when he actually became the prophet? His main emphasis was the Book of Mormon and ridding ourselves of pride. It seems that God inspires the prophet and even changes him to be and do what is needed for the church, members, and world at the time he is serving.

[OGHoosier]

This gives rise to an interesting metaquestion. This whole conversation seems to take it as a granted that the proper thing to do is apologize on behalf of the actions of Church leaders from years past for statements we find offensive. However, the practical expectation of a corporate apology for wrongs in the distant past is itself a recent historical phenomenon, and seems associated with high degrees of belief in institutional personhood and the "arc of history" which I believe to be quite contingent. Put plain, the church has no enduring moral responsibility to do any such thing absent the assumption of temporal supremacy which is ever so common. 

For my part, I find the very strategy of "corporate apology" to be disingenuous, simply because I have failed to observe it produce practical effects. It doesn't seem to heal wounds or slake tensions. In fact, a recent study from Columbia University suggests that apologies from public figures only harden attitudes against them. Given that any such apology from the Church would invariably be analogous to that of a public figure, it seems utterly useless. 

For those who might be inclined to say that "even if it hardens attitudes, the Church has a moral duty to do it", I would ask: why? What duty? If an apology would harden attitudes against the Church, would anyone actually be helped by such a course, particularly if the Church genuinely believes it has necessary goods to offer the world? It seems to me that the conventional wisdom about apologies does not extend to public matters. An apology can be helpful in private. In public, apparently not.

Which may or may not be why God, speaking to Job from the whirlwind, does not apologize - and I do not fault Him for it. 

Edited January 24, 2023 by OGHoosier

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

In fact, a recent study from Columbia University suggests that apologies from public figures only harden attitudes against them.

I strongly suspect that a very large portion of those who bay for apologies from the Church understand this fact (at least intuitively) and are motivated thereby.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I strongly suspect that a very large portion of those who bay for apologies from the Church understand this fact (at least intuitively) and are motivated thereby.

I’m not sure why you would assume that. Accountability is a normal part of healing in relationships, so it seems reasonable to want accountability from organizations.  I personally accept it’s not going to happen from LDS church leadership.  But I can validate the desire from others without ascribing malintent . 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m not sure why you would assume that.

My suspicion is based on a) how frequently this topic appears on apostate forums filled with people keen to see the Church die off and b) how it is treated/discussed on such forums.

Quote

It seems reasonable to want accountability from organizations.

Which is not the same thing, in my opinion, as 'baying for apologies' -- language I chose intentionally -- though I do think one sometimes influences the other.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I strongly suspect that a very large portion of those who bay for apologies from the Church understand this fact (at least intuitively) and are motivated thereby.

I think the more likely reason is there is something very reassuring and comforting, even at times exhilarating about being told ‘you are right and I was wrong’ and many critics demanding apologies have formatted the conversation in their feelings that way even if not consciously.  I sure wouldn’t mind if a number of critics apologized for various things they have claimed about the Church publicly.  I suspect I would feel both excited and smug even though it likely has little to do with me personally.

[The Great Pretender]

Thank you to those who have expressed understanding for my discomfort. After almost 60 years of being fully invested in the Church as the "true" source of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I can finally acknowledge that part of my psyche is constructed from prejudices formed by "gospel" teachings in my early years. I never imagined they would return to haunt me, but they have. Can Christlike love overcome all challenges? In principle, yes, but life is never that simple. For example, Christlike love isn't a panacea for emotional or psychological damage. I don't know how to de-program my personality, so suggesting I be more Christlike, that my feelings are unwarranted, or that my argument is incoherent is unhelpful. 

I am a product of my country's Church culture. I have never previously processed the impact of decades of accepting some bad stuff along with all the good. I learned racial superiority along with hatred for homosexuals (not just homosexuality) and other "deviates" from respected figures in authority. I believed with all my heart that they spoke the words of God. Some of it was tantamount to grooming. These leaders may have either died or moved on (in which case they seem to consider it acceptable to simply discard awkward statements from the past), but I am left with complications I have no idea how to fix. And people such as Elder Oaks (who is probably a delightful grandfather figure in person—come to think of it, he once sat beside me for an entire sacrament meeting when he visited my ward back in the 1990s while I served on the bishopric) is, for me, a new and persistent reminder of past toxicity. That's the crux of it.

If there is any justice, the day of judgement will be uncomfortable for the purveyors of historical hatred and its resulting legacy. If/when Elder Oaks becomes the next President, I may just have to sit things out. As a covenant-keeping, endowed, sealed, conscientiously serving member, I never imagined I would consider that.

[teddyaware]

21 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

During the Saturday Morning Session of General Conference on October 1, 2022, President Nelson said, “Any kind of abuse ... is an abomination to the Lord.”

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?

Only someone who is being either willfully ignorant or unfair could possibly misconstrue Elder Peterson’s comments as being “hate speech.” In case you weren’t around when it was happening (I was), there was a priesthood ban in place, back in the days when Elder Peterson was an apostle, that the vast majority of members, including the General Authorities, believed to be divinely mandated. By calling attention to the precedent setting examples of priesthood banning and lineage cursing found in scriptures, Elder Peterson was simply offering some well reasoned possible justifications for why the ban existed.

Like it or not, back in those days believing members of the church had to deal with the ban as an ongoing reality of life, but rather than leave everyone in the dark, without any attempt at explanation, Elder Peterson was at least trying to offer some logical, scripture based justifications for the ban that made perfect sense under the current circumstances.

The focus of your displeasure shouldn’t be with elder Peterson but with the scriptures that provided him with so many examples of God’s past exclusivity that are even now being condemned by the  politically correct as examples of “hate speech.” Elder Peterson is gone and the priesthood ban has been rescinded, but those pesky scriptures Elder Peterson cited as possible explanations for the priesthood ban still exist. You are highlighting the symptom rather than the source, the actual source of your discomfiture being those verses of scripture that testify God once focused a great deal on race.

 

Edited January 24, 2023 by teddyaware

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In case you weren’t around when it was happening (I was), there was a priesthood ban in place, back in the days when Elder Peterson was an apostle, that the vast majority of members, including the General Authorities, believed to be divinely mandated. By calling attention to the precedent setting examples of priesthood banning and lineage cursing found in scriptures, Elder Peterson was simply offering some well reasoned possible justifications for why the ban existed. [emphasis mine]

Perhaps it is just me, but, IMO, this is the reason we should care. If we look at Elder Petersen's talk (and almost every other prophet/apostle who spoke on the issue before him), he isn't simply offering some possible justifications ("here are some possible explanations, but I cannot say for sure if they represent revealed truth.") He believes it is all divinely mandated, and the entirety of the talk is to use scripture and other prophets to declare with his apostolic authority what truths God has revealed about race and segregation. He opens the talk by saying, "We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject any more than any other subject," implying that what he is going to present is "feet on the ground" truth and not "the philosophies of men."

One statement in Elder Petersen's made towards intrigued me. Towards the end, he talks about "speculation" about the possible removal of the curse, and was willing to point out that other prophets and apostles who had "speculated" about the removal were possibly "expressing their own views." Elder Petersen seems to believe that it prophets and apostles are entitled to personal opinions.

From my vantage point in the 21st century, it seems ironic to me that Elder Petersen (and many others of his and earlier generations) could be so confused about what is "truth revealed from God" and what are "the philosophies of men." It seems to me that he got them exactly backwards. I am willing to grant Elder Petersen grace as an individual. In a church claiming to be built on the "rock of revelation" through a "foundation of prophets and apostles," I see a revelatory and discernment process that, for generations, falsely claimed that certain "philosophies of men" were really "God's revealed truth." That's a significant error! That's not "prophets seeing around corners" (as Sister Dew tried to explain it recently) or "prophets always teach[ing] truth" (Pres Nelson in Sep of 2018). I don't think we can just shrug it off or dismiss it lightly. I think the history of the priesthood and temple ban calls us to seriously consider how the church receives revelation and how that process is messy and muddy ("seeing through a glass darkly" as St. Paul so aptly put it). That messiness has implications for us today, and I think we should consider the process and those implications.

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps it is just me, but, IMO, this is the reason we should care. If we look at Elder Petersen's talk (and almost every other prophet/apostle who spoke on the issue before him), he isn't simply offering some possible justifications ("here are some possible explanations, but I cannot say for sure if they represent revealed truth.") He believes it is all divinely mandated, and the entirety of the talk is to use scripture and other prophets to declare with his apostolic authority what truths God has revealed about race and segregation. He opens the talk by saying, "We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject any more than any other subject," implying that what he is going to present is "feet on the ground" truth and not "the philosophies of men."

One statement in Elder Petersen's made towards intrigued me. Towards the end, he talks about "speculation" about the possible removal of the curse, and was willing to point out that other prophets and apostles who had "speculated" about the removal were possibly "expressing their own views." Elder Petersen seems to believe that it prophets and apostles are entitled to personal opinions.

From my vantage point in the 21st century, it seems ironic to me that Elder Petersen (and many others of his and earlier generations) could be so confused about what is "truth revealed from God" and what are "the philosophies of men." It seems to me that he got them exactly backwards. I am willing to grant Elder Petersen grace as an individual. In a church claiming to be built on the "rock of revelation" through a "foundation of prophets and apostles," I see a revelatory and discernment process that, for generations, falsely claimed that certain "philosophies of men" were really "God's revealed truth." That's a significant error! That's not "prophets seeing around corners" (as Sister Dew tried to explain it recently) or "prophets always teach[ing] truth" (Pres Nelson in Sep of 2018). I don't think we can just shrug it off or dismiss it lightly. I think the history of the priesthood and temple ban calls us to seriously consider how the church receives revelation and how that process is messy and muddy ("seeing through a glass darkly" as St. Paul so aptly put it). That messiness has implications for us today, and I think we should consider the process and those implications.

If the hypothesis is that revelation is by nature messy and muddy, what is the problem?

[MrShorty]

Problem 1) Do we really believe that revelation is naturally messy and muddy? When I read Sister Dew's talk, she didn't say much that alluded to a messy or muddy nature. Being able to "see around corners" as she put it, suggests a clarity to revelation that contrasts with the history of the priesthood and temple ban. What do we believe about the process of revelation?

Problem 2) If it is possible for prophets, apostles, and the rest of us to confuse "revelation from God" and "philosophies of men," what "philosophies of men" are we calling "revelation from God" in 2023? What "revelations from God" are we calling "the philosophies of men?" One thing I notice about the history of the priesthood and temple ban is that most of them did not even recognize that we were confused about revelation. Are we trying harder to recognize our own blind spots, or are we just as prone to accept our own biases and philosophies as if they are straight from God?