A shameful reaction to Brown v. Board of Education reveals priesthood ban motive

[SeattleUte]

Brown v. Board of Education was handed down in May 1954. "At Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954, at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Mark E. Petersen delivered a speech on 'Race Problems --As They Affect The Church'":

http://www.mormonismi.net/mep1954/

"The speech outlined the religious underpinnings of segregation, and supported the continued practice of segregation as it related to intermarriage between blacks and whites." Wikipedia article on Mark E. Peterson. Thus we see the true purpose of the priesthood ban.

The timeline of Brown and Peterson's speech is no coincidence. As is clear from the text of this "apostle's" speech, the speech came in direct response to Brown and the growing civil rights movement. This occurred at BYU! An institution that calls itself a university. Shame on BYU!

Peterson's article gives lie to the assertion oft-repeated here that Mormons were racist just as the rest of America was. No, as enlightened America was long past awakening to the evils of racism and racial discrimination, Mormonism was digging in its heels, fighting progress with all its might. Mormonism's elite were waging this ignoble fight at the LDS Church's supposed citadel of higher education. Here is irony.

They only stopped practicing apartheid to save themselves from extinction. But they aren't sorry. And they haven't said Peterson was wrong. Today millions of LDS members have no reason to doubt Peterson's words, and they certainly don't.

When I was a Zone Leader in Ecuador, Mark E. Peterson visited. He shook my hand and said he knew my father; they were friends. Still, I remember him as a cold hearted man. I had a feeling he was soulless. Anyone have evidence to the contrary? I offer the linked article as evidence to support my suspicion. An apostle of Jesus Christ, eh.

When I spoke to my daughter's fifth grade class about Brown v. Board of Education I choked up. Something about speaking to my daughter's class, to schoolchildren, about the Supreme Court decision that outlawed racial segregation among schoolchildren based on the Bill of Rights brought up the tears, and I couldn't stop them. Yes, I'm angry at my ancestors for teaching me racism as though it were holy writ, and I'm proud that I have broken out of that disgraceful legacy that is alive and well today.

[Indy Coug]

In the interest of time and legibility of the source material, could you just post a couple of relevant quotes from the paper?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

In the interest of time and legibility of the source material, could you just post a couple of relevant quotes from the paper?

Peterson relies on an interview with a black leader to show that Blacks want to inter-marry and assimialte with the "white race." AT the end Peterson relies on the quote from Brigham Young stating that the mark of Cain is why Blacks cannot receive the priesthood. As a result, he counsels against inter-racial marriages with blacks, as children of these marriages cannot have the priesthood. In an addendum that supposedly was included in the talk, he also counsels against ANY inter-racial marriage just becasue.

Neither Peterson's attitude nor the material he relies on is new. We have seen it before.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

In the interest of time and legibility of the source material, could you just post a couple of relevant quotes from the paper?

Scroll down the linked and you will see a more legible version of the speech, with key langauge highlighted. I did't want to link something as shouty as the linked but here you go.

http://mormontruth.blogspot.com/2007...st-speech.html

You know, as a father of Eurasian children his citing the Chinese supposed abhorance of Eurasion peoples as support for his thesis is particularly offensive to me.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Peterson relies on an interview with a black leader to show that Blacks want to inter-marry and assimialte with the "white race." AT the end Peterson relies on the quote from Brigham Young stating that the mark of Cain is why Blacks cannot receive the priesthood. As a result, he counsels against inter-racial marriages with blacks, as children of these marriages cannot have the priesthood. In an addendum that supposedly was included in the talk, he also counsels against ANY inter-racial marriage just becasue.

Neither Peterson's attitude nor the material he relies on is new. We have seen it before.

What struck me and I think is worth pointing out in particular is that this came in direct response to Brown v. Board of Education. So much for using "the times" as exculpation.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

What struck me and I think is worth pointing out in particular is that this came in direct response to Brown v. Board of Education. So much for using "the times" as exculpation.

You are overstating your case. First, this is peterson, not the church. Peterson is well-known for his statements on race relations (and, to be honest, I do find them distasteful; I am in a marriage he would reject). Second, you assert by implication that his reaction is representative of the membership and that both of these are inconsistent with the reaction across the country. SUrely you do not believe that evryone took Brown and accepted it happily. As you well know, the deciions was implemented over time and was not accepted readily by many groups.

While I had not previously read this address, I see nothing here that I had not previosuly seen from peterson or the Tanners before.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

What struck me and I think is worth pointing out in particular is that this came in direct response to Brown v. Board of Education. So much for using "the times" as exculpation.

Is anyone here defending Mark E. Peterson?

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by creekster

SUrely you do not believe that evryone took Brown and accepted it happily. As you well know, the deciions was implemented over time and was not accepted readily by many groups.

Seattle is a historical revisionist. We're talking 1954 here.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

You are overstating your case. First, this is peterson, not the church. Peterson is well-known for his statements on race relations (and, to be honest, I do find them distasteful; I am in a marriage he would reject). Second, you assert by implication that his reaction is representative of the membership and that both of these are inconsistent with the reaction across the country. SUrely you do not believe that evryone took Brown and accepted it happily. As you well know, the deciions was implemented over time and was not accepted readily by many groups.

While I had not previously read this address, I see nothing here that I had not previosuly seen from peterson or the Tanners before.

I disagree. He isn't overstating his case. He is dramatically overstating his case. Since when is it logical to assume that the statements of one individual can properly be attributed to the sentiments of each individual within an organization? Furthermore, how can we even know that his sentiments were those of the church as an organization (whatever that means)? He was an apostle, but wasn't the prophet, and he wasn't speaking in an official capacity, he was speaking at a random conference. There are many examples of apostles speaking out of line with church doctrine or beliefs and being rebuked in private (and occasionally in public).

What we can conclude from the speech, assuming it has been reprinted accurately, is that Peterson was racist and we ought to reject his statements as racist. What we can't conclude is everything else you want to believe. Creekster is also right when he notes that Brown v Board was not the reflection on American society that you want it to be. Racism was alive and well following Brown v Board. When do you think the Civil Rights Act was enacted? That went pretty smoothly, right?

I think the church has had a lot of problems with racism, meaning the leaders of the church and the members of the church. I don't think Peterson's speech "proves" that racism was the foundation for the priesthood ban, however. I tend to believe racism was the foundation, but I also tend to believe that the leaders of the church are imperfect and often make mistakes, some of which can have tragic consequences. I don't see that as a basis for leaving the church, anymore than I see it as a basis for ceasing to be American because of our nation's troubled past.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Is anyone here defending Mark E. Peterson?

Seattle likes to read things from his favorite apostles that nobody read. Peterson was a bigot, but I was not aware of what degree, until SeattleUteMarkPeterson had uncovered so many gems.

And Creekster is correct, Seattle conveniently ignores that many people were unhappy with Brown v. Board of Education when it first came out. My father tells me his Con Law examination involved discussing the same.

Again I'm all for inter-racial marriages and disagree completely with Peterson, as does Creekster, and many others here who have interracial marriages. I suppose Seattle is compensating for deficiencies elsewhere by over-emphasizing a dead leader's inane comments.