Tweet
Nathaniel Hawthorne, in speaking of his Puritan ancestry, reportedly said, "Let us thank God for having given us such ancestors, and let us thank Him, not less fervently, for being one step further from them in the march of ages."
Our official board apostate recently claimed that my little trolling expedition was damning evidence that I do not believe Mark E. Peterson or Bruce R. McConkie were racist. He offers this as the sole piece of evidence to back up his claim. You may look through the archives of this board and find that I've said nothing on the matter. Prior to that thread, I had mentioned Elder Peterson by name only once, to acknowledge that he had, in fact, died twenty-five years ago. Having established that my posts in that thread are the sole basis for the claim he made, he now requests that I uphold my offer to explain my position.
Well, he was wrong. They were racist. There's no sense arguing otherwise. Racism is the act of discriminating against a group or individual on the basis of race, and these men supported, upheld, and defended the actions of the church whereby groups and individuals were excluded on the basis of race. In an age where the world around them was learning to let go of discriminatory practices and ideology, they held fast to them. One might have hoped for a more enlightened world perspective from men who we revere as "prophets, seers, and revelators."
Yes, they were racist. But I have a hard time being much bothered by it.
When it comes to Mark E. Peterson, I really have a hard time being concerned one way or the other by what he said. To me, the most important fact you could mention about Mark E. Peterson is that when he died, the man who replaced the vacancy he left in the Quorum was Elder Russell M. Nelson. When the most important thing about a man is the guy who took his place when he died, you're just not going to capture my interest.
Bruce R. McConkie, on the other hand, has become an integral part of Mormonism, and very much defined his era. He literally wrote the book on Mormon Doctrine, which the membership largely accepted over the consternation of the leadership. You could very easily make the argument that no single individual has impacted the relationship of Latter-day Saints with their Canonical works as Bruce R. McConkie. A quick glance at the BYU religious department betrays the effect Elder McConkie has had on the Church and its unique brand of scholasticism. (All this, I might add, is both for better and for worse.)
Certainly, a major part of the legacy Elder McConkie left behind him is what he said regarding the priesthood ban. You can debate over how much of an impact Mark E. Peterson had on the issue, but as one whom members of the church regarded as a doctrinal authority like unto no other, Elder McConkie was a bulwark for the ban. Those who supported the ban had to consult him, and those who opposed the ban had to confront him. Both made statements that we can scarcely look upon in this day and age without shuddering, so ugly and, yes, racist they are. So yes, their support of the priesthood ban is an inseparable part of their legacy.
That's not to obfuscate the good they did, either. I don't know much about Elder Peterson, like I said, but I do respect him somewhat more since I heard a recent story about him wherein he told a bunch of blockhead missionaries in South America to stop dunking people who knew nothing of the church like they were washing plates in a diner. I've already touched on some of the positive impact Elder McConkie had.
Far and away, though, the most important thing Elder McConkie did or said in regards to the priesthood ban is what he said after the 1978 revelation reversing the ban:
Some of Us, perhapS, can appreciate how difficUlt it iS to admit that they were wrong, eSpecially when they Set themselveS Up aS an aUthoritative SoUrce. When the revelation reversing the ban came, Elder McConkie could have done a number of things. He could have tried to justify his previous statements or show why he didn't actually say anything incorrect. He could have even opposed the change. On a matter this important, where it was essential to have a united leadership to make the reversal, staunch opposition might have even prevented the reversal from taking place altogether. Who knows but that one or two men settin their foot down and saying the ban would remain as long as they lived would have prevented the reversal for any number of years more? Instead, Elder McConkie (and possibly Elder Peterson. I really don't know what he had to say after 1978) swallowed his pride and instructed all those who had looked to him for support for the racist practice of discriminating against blacks to disregard anything and everything he had said "with a limited understanding."
As a reflection of his era, Elder McConkie certainly represents the racist past of the church. To me, though, he also represents a great step away from that past in the march of ages. It seems wise to thank God for the good that we have learned from him, and to thank God no less fervently for the lessons we have learned from his mistakes.
"Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."
Our official board apostate recently claimed that my little trolling expedition was damning evidence that I do not believe Mark E. Peterson or Bruce R. McConkie were racist. He offers this as the sole piece of evidence to back up his claim. You may look through the archives of this board and find that I've said nothing on the matter. Prior to that thread, I had mentioned Elder Peterson by name only once, to acknowledge that he had, in fact, died twenty-five years ago. Having established that my posts in that thread are the sole basis for the claim he made, he now requests that I uphold my offer to explain my position.
Well, he was wrong. They were racist. There's no sense arguing otherwise. Racism is the act of discriminating against a group or individual on the basis of race, and these men supported, upheld, and defended the actions of the church whereby groups and individuals were excluded on the basis of race. In an age where the world around them was learning to let go of discriminatory practices and ideology, they held fast to them. One might have hoped for a more enlightened world perspective from men who we revere as "prophets, seers, and revelators."
Yes, they were racist. But I have a hard time being much bothered by it.
When it comes to Mark E. Peterson, I really have a hard time being concerned one way or the other by what he said. To me, the most important fact you could mention about Mark E. Peterson is that when he died, the man who replaced the vacancy he left in the Quorum was Elder Russell M. Nelson. When the most important thing about a man is the guy who took his place when he died, you're just not going to capture my interest.
Bruce R. McConkie, on the other hand, has become an integral part of Mormonism, and very much defined his era. He literally wrote the book on Mormon Doctrine, which the membership largely accepted over the consternation of the leadership. You could very easily make the argument that no single individual has impacted the relationship of Latter-day Saints with their Canonical works as Bruce R. McConkie. A quick glance at the BYU religious department betrays the effect Elder McConkie has had on the Church and its unique brand of scholasticism. (All this, I might add, is both for better and for worse.)
Certainly, a major part of the legacy Elder McConkie left behind him is what he said regarding the priesthood ban. You can debate over how much of an impact Mark E. Peterson had on the issue, but as one whom members of the church regarded as a doctrinal authority like unto no other, Elder McConkie was a bulwark for the ban. Those who supported the ban had to consult him, and those who opposed the ban had to confront him. Both made statements that we can scarcely look upon in this day and age without shuddering, so ugly and, yes, racist they are. So yes, their support of the priesthood ban is an inseparable part of their legacy.
That's not to obfuscate the good they did, either. I don't know much about Elder Peterson, like I said, but I do respect him somewhat more since I heard a recent story about him wherein he told a bunch of blockhead missionaries in South America to stop dunking people who knew nothing of the church like they were washing plates in a diner. I've already touched on some of the positive impact Elder McConkie had.
Far and away, though, the most important thing Elder McConkie did or said in regards to the priesthood ban is what he said after the 1978 revelation reversing the ban:
There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.
It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them.
It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them.
As a reflection of his era, Elder McConkie certainly represents the racist past of the church. To me, though, he also represents a great step away from that past in the march of ages. It seems wise to thank God for the good that we have learned from him, and to thank God no less fervently for the lessons we have learned from his mistakes.
"Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."
Comment