Peterson tries to excuse himself from the Priesthood Ban era

[Morley]

In what is probably an attempt at combating what he perceived to be a diminishing interest in him by this board, Peterson raises the hot button topic of the Priesthood Ban, and attempts to gaslight his reading and himself with the following… Oh well indeed. You see Dan, you cannot wave your hands and pretend that you were a stand up guy about it at the time. You weren’t. You raised your hand to the square to sustain those leaders who maintained the ban on black men and women entering the temple, and the ban on black men holding the Priesthood. By not raising a dissenting vote you are as culpable for it as the Church is.

Will you now publicly apologise for voting to sustain the Priesthood Ban in the years prior to June 1978? Your post is cheap gaslighting unless or until you are willing to do that.

Personally I have already apologised on this board for sustaining it by voting in favour of sustaining the leadership of that time period. Yes I was quite young at the time. Not an adult. But I’m still embarrassed that I didn’t have enough about me to recognise that it was wrong and to say so, and to take a stand at the time. How about you, Dan?

Quite the washing your hands of it there Dan. With such flimsy and meaningless fencesitting, is it any wonder that your fellow members in Utah are still exhibiting racism towards black members? Is it any wonder there are no black Apostles? How many black men or women are presenting at this year’s Interpreter Conference Dan?

There were people back in the day unsure how to react to the situation. Peterson's situation is hardly surprising. So one might wonder what you did in 1970 to confront the church leaders in their position?

I was dubious about the racial stuff but until I dropped belief in the church I did not feel I had a foundation to say their view was wrong even though it smelled wrong.

Huck, why did you think you had no foundation to say their view was wrong?

[huckelberry]

There were people back in the day unsure how to react to the situation. Peterson's situation is hardly surprising. So one might wonder what you did in 1970 to confront the church leaders in their position?

I was dubious about the racial stuff but until I dropped belief in the church I did not feel I had a foundation to say their view was wrong even though it smelled wrong.

Huck, why did you think you had no foundation to say their view was wrong?

Hi Morley, my first memory was a time I believed the church was directed by God and I did not know better than God. The black question invited some doubt about that but I needed collaborating reasons to actually decide that the church authority claims were not valid. Deciding the authority claims were not valid made it pretty easy to see the black policy as a bad thing.

Should I mention that racial attitudes have been deeply embedded in America and the 60s were a time of learning and changing attitudes (and resistance to such change)? As a youth I could not assume, of course MLK is right, though I remember a growing suspicion that he was.

There were deeper currents of racial assumptions within the church.

I rather doubt that the church can say they were wrong. There are too many copies of scripture to erase the problem passages. People remember and would see deleting parts as phony. An apology would be empty. Inclusion of more black people in leadership is probably the best help I can imagine.

[Morley]

Huck, why did you think you had no foundation to say their view was wrong?

Hi Morley, my first memory was a time I believed the church was directed by God and I did not know better than God. The black question invited some doubt about that but I needed collaborating reasons to actually decide that the church authority claims were not valid. Deciding the authority claims were not valid made it pretty easy to see the black policy as a bad thing.

Should I mention that racial attitudes have been deeply embedded in America and the 60s were a time of learning and changing attitudes (and resistance to such change)? As a youth I could not assume, of course MLK is right, though I remember a growing suspicion that he was.

There were deeper currents of racial assumptions within the church.

I rather doubt that the church can say they were wrong. There are too many copies of scripture to erase the problem passages. People remember and would see deleting parts as phony. An apology would be empty. Inclusion of more black people in leadership is probably the best help I can imagine.

Thanks, Huck. I wanted to read your thoughts on this.

I, too, think the Church is stuck--which is why, when confronted about this, its members blush, stammer, and then look at their feet. That's basically what I see Daniel as doing.

edit to add: I remember, at the time before the ban was rescinded, concluding that if the Church was right on this, then our supreme, all-knowing God must needs be a racist. And that the entire universe must be skewed in some nasty, dark, and obscene way.

[Morley]

The same God who notices every sparrow's fall and counts the tears of women lets (or, indeed, causes) this to happen.

To which MG would say, "Who are you to judge God?"

My reply: "This is not God."

[huckelberry]

Hi Morley, my first memory was a time I believed the church was directed by God and I did not know better than God. The black question invited some doubt about that but I needed collaborating reasons to actually decide that the church authority claims were not valid. Deciding the authority claims were not valid made it pretty easy to see the black policy as a bad thing.

Should I mention that racial attitudes have been deeply embedded in America and the 60s were a time of learning and changing attitudes (and resistance to such change)? As a youth I could not assume, of course MLK is right, though I remember a growing suspicion that he was.

There were deeper currents of racial assumptions within the church.

I rather doubt that the church can say they were wrong. There are too many copies of scripture to erase the problem passages. People remember and would see deleting parts as phony. An apology would be empty. Inclusion of more black people in leadership is probably the best help I can imagine.

Thanks, Huck. I wanted to read your thoughts on this.

I, too, think the Church is stuck--which is why, when confronted about this, its members blush, stammer, and then look at their feet. That's basically what I see Daniel as doing.

edit to add: I remember, at the time, concluding that if the Church was right on this, then our supreme, all-knowing God must needs be a racist. And that the entire universe must be skewed in some nasty, dark, and obscene way.

Morley, this is trying to remember details back sixty years and more. In general I hold a sense that racial assumptions and expectations were more deeply placed than a couple of scriptures and the exclusion. There are special bloodlines and being born into the church is a special nod. Then those reasons like fence sitters in the war in heaven were public and well known not hidden away. Once those ideas lived in an environment of, of course everybody knows that. The 60s were a decade when pervasive racist assumptions were being doubted and rejected but still widespread.

The change in the early 70s was so widespread that it is amazing to think LDS held there point so long. But of course they feel they know better than every body else so do not just go along.

Should I explain that even though I was born into a moderately liberal family they were not completely free of racial views? Racial views appeared in church and in society enough that I am aware of a racist substratum in my childhood learning. Doubting those assumptions was a progressive process. By 1967 I could be horrified hearing racist expressions. At the same time I do not think my emotions were entirely free of some racist knee-jerk feelings.

[malkie]

The same God who notices every sparrow's fall and counts the tears of women lets (or, indeed, causes) this to happen.

To which MG would say, "Who are you to judge God?"

My reply: "This is not God."

"Who am I
to deny
That maybe
God is me?"
--Piet Hein

[I Have Questions]

So one might wonder what you did in 1970 to confront the church leaders in their position?

I did nothing. I was a young child at that point. By the time 1978 came around I was old enough to recognise it was wrong, and old enough to express that viewpoint. But I didn’t. And I’m embarrassed and regretful that I didn’t. I own my failing. I thought I’d made that clear.

[Limnor]

The same God who notices every sparrow's fall and counts the tears of women lets (or, indeed, causes) this to happen.

To which MG would say, "Who are you to judge God?"

My reply: "This is not God."

"Who am I
to deny
That maybe
God is me?"
--Piet Hein

Fascinating response—in the best way. I’m interpreting this is saying that instead of judging God, perhaps the real insight is that the believer is asking “who am I to judge myself?”

[huckelberry]

"Who am I
to deny
That maybe
God is me?"
--Piet Hein

Fascinating response—in the best way. I’m interpreting this is saying that instead of judging God, perhaps the real insight is that the believer is asking “who am I to judge myself?”

My first reaction to the words was to think any meaning to the word God gets lost. I was not familiar with Piet Hein so asked Google. I learn the man made many little poems that turn expectations about to create questions and different angles to see anew.

I can take the phrases to open a variety of questions about our idea of God.