Racist Elder Stapley Letter To Gov. George Romney

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

You nailed it. The results of "civil rights leadership" was the destruction of the black family. It turned a patriarchal order into a matriarchal society. I wonder who is horrible?

The destruction of the black family huh.

My - even 40 years isn't enough time...

[pcarthew]

Yet there were plenty of people who didn't espouse such disgusting views. There have always been people who have risen above the stupidity and ignorance of their era; people on the "cutting edge" of societal progress. LDS church leadership is and has always been devoid of such people. Instead of being the instigator of progress, they have always been dragged behind, kicking and screaming the whole way.

Possibly. But it's a dead certainty that LDS church leaders will have plenty to be ashamed of.

I don't think the the Church is about "cutting edge" societal progress. The church does not set social norms or ever will. We have become so enlightened as a society...alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence, sex crimes, divorce, wife and child beatings, suicide and depression just to name a few. It is often these "cutting edge" thinkers that instigate such progress! It is the lack luster leadership of the church that promotes things like, the word of wisdom, personal restraint, caring for our neighbor and all the relief and aid work the church does around the world that creates substantial anchors for families and society.

[selek]

I am surprised that there is no thread on this already. I was intending just to lurk and see what people here had to say about the letter published in the Boston Globe from Apostle Elder Delbert Stapley to then Governor George Romney, but as it's not here already...

In short, Elder Stapley takes Gov. Romney to task for being progressive on civil rights as it is not in harmony with the gospel. To the Governor's credit, apparently he stepped up his efforts on endorsing civil rights a bit following receipt of the letter.

The letter can be read here.

There are lots of pertinent topics that this brings up, e.g., an apostle attempting to influence policy of a sitting governor, or the fortitude of standing for something contrary to the direct advice of an apostle, but in my view there are two insightful blogs discussing the letter from a more crucial angle. One at By common consent and the other at Main street plaza. Both are efforts to grapple at what it means to have something so ugly associated with something you hold dear. It is not easy to reconcile that many of the most horrifying attitudes and perpetrations in history have come from otherwise 'good' people. It is even more difficult when those 'good' people are ours.

An especially prescient comment comes from Aaron Brown on the BCC blog

There is also a hand written note in the margin saying that he (Romney) replied. It would certainly be interesting to know what he replied.

I can't say I'm terribly surprised at this. The far-left socialist media in Boston (also known as the Teddy Kennedy Fan Club or the Chappaqui**** Apologists Society) has been throwing mud at Mitt and the Romneys since he first decided to run for senator. This race-baiting and misrepresentation is merely more of the same.

Nor am I suprised that Northbound felt it crucial to bring up here. Having reviewed his posts, it's fairly obvious that Northbound is merely another troll and pot-rattler looking to stir up trouble. His concern for LDS understanding and reaction is as phony as an Al Capone tax statement.

Note how he conflates what is clearly a private communication- well outside any ecclesiastical authority- into a smear against the Church as a whole. Note the lack of any substantive evidence and the innuendo surrounding the elder-Governor Romney's response. Note the cherry-picked sampling of evidence and teh scare quotes around "good" people.

In his vast and varied contribution to the board (ten whole posts as of this writing), Northbound has yet to add anything to the discussion other than bitter vitriol, sarcasm, and rabble-rousing. Again, this is merely more of the same.

Northbound invites us to analyze the source of the putative letter, draw unwarranted conclusions, and then apply them to the Church as a whole.

I invite those participating in the thread to consider the attitude and behavior of the OP, his sources, and his supporters before drawing any conclusions about the Church or its members.

[captain-jack]

I don't understand.

I acknowledge that Bernard is allowed his opinion. Personal or otherwise.

And I acknowledge that I am allowed the same.

Where have I given the impression I don't belevie that to be the case?

I can disagree with Bernard. And I can let that be known.

Now I think your reaching a bit.

I'm saying that the welfare state is a different topic to civil rights. Two disctinctly different topics. And I beleive that Bernard - for whatever reason - believes one can just bleed into the other. And I DO beleive that is mis-direction. Bernard - and others - can disagree. That's OK. This is what is known as 'discussion'.

I never talked about deceiving. Your the one who has chosen to use that word.

I am. I'm affected by his statment.

Am I allowed to state that I am?

Because I don't think much of the opinion. Pretty simple...

And I've never believed you do either.

So - again - tell me how going on about the 'welfare state' is not a mis-direction from the topic - which is Stapley's letter?

I find Bernard's reaction to the Stapley letter 'harsh'. So - are we even?

I guess we are even, and I can't deny you the right to state your opinion. Misguiding and deceiving are synonymous, found in Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus online. I will ask once again to not assume I do not know what something is or isn't, it's very condescending and comes off as arrogant. I said no one else is effected, I never said you weren't. He stated something about the welfare system, he never asked for any one else's opinion or asked to discuss it. You and I have derailed the topic with our discussion on the matter of what Bernard has said.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Misguiding and deceiving are synonymous,

I agree we should get back on topic - but let me set the record straight here. I've looked back, and I can't see where I use the word 'misguide'. I can only see you saying that word. Not me.

I don't think Bernard was trying to be deceptive. But I do think he avoided the main issue, by getting other non-relavent issues involved.

And I stand by that.

[TAK]

Unbelievable! Not the letter itself, as that was pretty much standard thinking among many people of the day (in and out of the church),...

Would that include Christ? Is that what he would have thought then?

[selek]

I agree we should get back on topic - but let me set the record straight here. I've looked back, and I can't see where I use the word 'misguide'. I can only see you saying that word. Not me.

I don't think Bernard was trying to be deceptive. But I do think he's trying to avoid the main issue, by getting other non-relavent issues involved.

And I stand by that.

What do you see as the critical issue here, Phunk?

The smearing of the entire Church by the breaching of one alleged private communication forty-years after the fact?

Or the attempt to race-bait (yet again) against the entire Church by conflating one alleged private communication forty-years after the fact?

This letter (assuming its real) was written four decades ago- longer than many of our posters have been alive- and had nothing to do with the Church- it was the opinion of one man.

Why is it legitimate to try and stain all of us (including those who hadn't been born at the time) with a then-commonly-held opinion that has long since been repudiated?

Why is it that you just can't bring yourself to condemn political rabble rousing, race-baiting, and smear tactics aimed at Mormons as a whole?

[jwhitlock]

Would that include Christ? Is that what he would have thought then?

Yeah, and those darned Samaritans that He didn't want the gospel preached to...

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Why is it that you just can't bring yourself to condemn political rabble rousing, race-baiting, and smear tactics aimed at Mormons as a whole?

Ok - well, I think I already made it clear that the letter simply cannot be used to tarnish the LDS church as a whole. Mainly because Stapley said - and was very clear - in the letter itself that it was only his personal opinion.

Check post #7.

Do you need me to go further than that?

Ok - how about I say it this way:

"Anybody who tries to use this letter to tarnish the entire LDS church is clearly mis-directing the content of this letter".

Maybe this is in reference to the possibility that the appropiate permissions might not have been given to publish this letter? OK - if there is an issue there, then I'll give my opinion when I have the info. But at this point, I beleive it's a detail we don't know yet. Is that correct?

In return, may I ask if the LDS reaction to this letter - overall - could be better? Or is that question out of line?

I am heartened by some reactions, but thouroughly dissapointed by others. (As I'm sure you could be disappointed with my reaction, or perhaps lack of reaction towards some...)

I will accept that the 'motive' of bringing this up can be questioned. But I'd say the reaction to the content of the letter can be considered seperately to the question of whether it should have been published in the first place. (Or whether this thread should even have started...)

Whatever the circumstances, people still choose their reaction.

[captain-jack]

I agree we should get back on topic - but let me set the record straight here. I've looked back, and I can't see where I use the word 'misguide'. I can only see you saying that word. Not me.

I don't think Bernard was trying to be deceptive. But I do think he avoided the main issue, by getting other non-relavent issues involved.

And I stand by that.

You're right, you didn't say misguide. But what is the difference between guiding and direction? Both would sway the course or opinion of someone, could your misdirection be replaced with misguide and have the same effect? I know you didn't say it, but just because you didn't state it specifically doesn't mean they can't be defined as the same. Point still stands though, misdirection is still deception.

[selek]

Ok - well, I've already said that this letter simply cannot be used to tarnish the LDS church as a whole. Mainly because Stapley said in the letter itself that it was only his personal opinion.

Do you need me to go further than that before I can be taken seriously?

Phunk, you know how seriously I take you (and you me), and on the other hand, how critically serious this particular issue is to both of us.

Ok - how about I say it this way:

"Anybody who tries to use this letter to tarnish the entire LDS church is clearly mis-directing the intent of this letter".

How about that? Is that acceptable?

Perfectly, thank you.

Maybe this is in reference to the fact that the appropiate permissions might not have been given to publish this letter? OK - if there is an issue there, then I'll give my opinion when I have the info. But at this point, I beleive it's a detail we don't know yet. Is that correct?

I agree- except on one particular. Even if the letter is authentic, then someone clearly went to a lot of trouble to dredge up something that's been buried in archives for forty years. There are only two reasons to do something like this- to increase understanding or to stir up trouble.

Clearly, in this instance, the intent was the latter- not only with the Chappaqui**** Swim Team but with the OP, was well.

Would you be willing to admit that the LDS reaction to this letter - overall - could be better? Or is that question out of line?

I am heartened by some of them, but thouroughly dissapointed by others.

I'm not particularly interested in making that admission- primarily because I don't agree with it, and second, because the intent of the OP was to hit us for reactions which could be subsequently condemned and sneered at.

I won't play that game.

Your position that discussing the aftermath of the Civil Rights movement is off-topic is only half-right. The topic of this thread is a scandalous and malicious smear against the Church. All of the other issues- including your own- are off topic.

If you can raise the Civil Rights movement as a whole, then we can raise the actual long-term effects of Big-Government socialism on the whole, as well. One is no more off-topic than the other, whether you find the discussion politically incorrect or not.

The Civil Rights movement was something that was clearly long overdue and corrected deep and pervasive injustices in our society. For that it is to be lauded.

Unfortunately, once the major battles had been fought and won, the infrastructure of that movement became a self-perpetuating racket such as the Mafia can only eye enviously. The tactics are basically the same- extortion, racketeering, and pay-offs. The difference is that the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition has government protection where Al Capone didn't.

The Inner Cities are in many ways worse off now than they were in the fifties and early sixties. Illegitimacy, unemployment, poverty, and illiteracy are no better and in many instances far worse than they were forty, fifty, even a hundred years ago.

Civil Rights and equality stand well apart from these problems- which are largely the creation of goverment do-gooders who are were and are more concerned with the appearance of compassion and the impression that they "are doing something".

Ignoring the consequences of one's actions (both as individuals and as governments) is what got us into this mess in the first place. Continuing to ignore the problem merely condemns another generation (and another, and another) to the same langorous hell-hole of self-destruction, dependency, and misery.

But hey- it's all about appearing compassionate and maintaining political power, so the price is acceptable- especially when someone else's children are footing the bill.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Phunk, you know how seriously I take you (and you me), and on the other hand, how critically serious this particular issue is to both of us.

Thank you in return.

If you can raise the Civil Rights movement as a whole, then we can raise the actual long-term effects of Big-Government socialism on the whole, as well

And this is where I'll have to respectfully disagree.

Civil rights does not equal big goverment.

Civil rights does not equal socialism. (I can be an all-out nothing-but capitalism nutball, and still be 'equal rights'. It just means that - for instance - I think all races have every right to out-earn any other race they like. Yes, I'm being overly simplistic, but I'm not the one who wants to divert the thread into these kinds of topics. Philosophy regarding social monatery systems shouldn't be forced into other social issues hap-handedly...).

I'm sorry, but I see this as an attempt to make the issue at hand into other issues - without due warrant.

Now, if you have evidence that when Stapler talked about civil rights, he meant 'all these other things', then by all means - let's see it.

But until then, I see that you (and others) feel it appropiate to link all these issues together. And nothing more...

[Deborah]

Would that include Christ? Is that what he would have thought then?

Even when Christ was on the earth, he did not seek to change the social structure. There was slavery, crucifixion and all manner of abuses. He did not speak openly against these thing. His concern was to teach the principles of the gospel and to establish his church. He well understood as do the leaders of the church that real change comes from changing the hearts of men. Change through any other means is either not lasting or substitutes one kind of abuse for another.

[selek]

Civil rights does not equal big goverment.

Civil rights does not equal socialism. (I can be an all-out nothing-but capitalism nutball, and still be 'equal rights'. It just means that - for instance - I think all races have every right to out-earn any other race they like. Yes, I'm being overly simplistic, but I'm not the one who wants to divert the thread into these kinds of topics).

Civil rights was the topic of the letter, not the thread. The topic of the thread is the race-baiting by the Boston media and Northbound.

I'm sorry, but I see this as an attempt to make the issue at hand into other issues - without warrant.

Now, if you have evidence that when Stapler talked about civil rights, he meant 'all these other things', then by all means - let's see it.

But until then, I see that you (and others) feel it appropiate to link all these issues together. And nothing more...

Note what I said earlier- given the topic of the thread, both the Civil Rights movement and Big Welfare Socialism are off-topic.

One is just as much off topic as the other.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Note what I said earlier- given the topic of the thread, both the Civil Rights movement and Big Welfare Socialism are off-topic.

Ok - fair enough. I get what your saying...

I don't really get how civil rights can't be a legitamte topic for this thread, but I get what you're saying. I think...

Civil rights was the topic of the letter, not the thread. The topic of the thread is the race-baiting by the Boston media and Northbound.

Oh. The topic Northbound intended when starting the thread was his / her own race-baiting?

I wasn't aware of that...

[selek]

Ok - fair enough. I get what your saying...

Oh. The topic Northbound intended when starting the thread was his / her own race-baiting?

I wasn't aware of that...

Hellbound, I mean Northbound picked up the rant and reposted it here, then attempted to conflate the isolated statements in the letter into a condemnation against the Church as a whole. He even attempted to turn our ignorance of the media campaign into something sinister.

That is race-baiting.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

That is race-baiting.

I'm quite clear on how it can qualify as 'race-baiting'.

I'm just not so sure that it's the only legitamate topic that can be discussed in this thread.

I'd have thought 'civil rights' is also a perfectly legitamte topic to discuss in this thread.

[selek]

I'm quite clear on how it can qualify as 'race-baiting'.

I'm just not so sure that it's the only legitamate topic that can be discussed in this thread.

I'd have thought 'civil rights' is also a perfectly legitamte topic to discuss in this thread.

I agree- I also happen to think the impact of Big Government socialism on African-American society is also an acceptable topic.

My point has been, and remains, that one is no more off-topic that the other.

Or more off-topic than the discussion of what's off-topic .

[cjcampbell]

Having grown up in the Church in that era, I would think it fair to say that Elder Stapley's views were typical of people throughout the West. Even now, it is hard to find people of that generation who would not sympathize with these views.

It can be embarrassing to be with parents or other relatives who will express such views in private and, sometimes, even in public. What can you do? You don't want to hear it, but you don't want to spend all your time fighting a lost cause, either. There are some people whose opinions may never change. You cannot avoid them, because they may be close family members.

But you don't have to agree with them, either. If you want to end racism, I guess the best place is to start with yourself. As the Supreme Court recently said in its majority opinion, "The best way to end racial discrimination is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." No truer words were ever spoken.

I think it is unfortunate that people, especially politicians, will resort to race-baiting. It is odd that so many popular politicians seem to hold extremely racist views. I remember when General Powell was running for President that some Democrats chose to criticize him for wanting to end affirmative action programs, saying that Colin Powell could never have succeeded without such programs. It is odd that many people in both parties claim to oppose racism, but still seem to think that there are people who belong to certain races are incapable of accomplishing anything without help.

It is easy to single out Elder Stapley, but in fact a great many of his critics are every bit as racist as they claim he was. The hypocrisy that comes up every time people start to talk about racism is horrible. The 'right wing' racists deny that they are racist, but do not want inferior blood to be mingled among the races. The 'left wing' racists also deny that they are racist, but work from an assumption that some races cannot achieve on their own. You get right down to it, racism is probably even more prevalent today than it was in Elder Stapley's day. It has changed in the form it takes, but it is every bit as vicious as it was then.

There is no such thing as race. Until we learn that, there will always be people making comparisons of themselves with other people. That is pride, the sin of Satan.

Every prophet and apostle who has ever lived has been just as subject to pride as has anyone else. We have a long way to go if we truly wish to become like our Father in Heaven.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Big Government socialism on African-American society

And if Stapley had said one word about that, I'd agree.

Or more off-topic than the discussion of what's off-topic .

OK.

[selek]

Having grown up in the Church in that era, I would think it fair to say that Elder Stapley's views were typical of people throughout the West. Even now, it is hard to find people of that generation who would not sympathize with these views.

It can be embarrassing to be with parents or other relatives who will express such views in private and, sometimes, even in public. What can you do? You don't want to hear it, but you don't want to spend all your time fighting a lost cause, either. There are some people whose opinions may never change. You cannot avoid them, because they may be close family members.

But you don't have to agree with them, either. If you want to end racism, I guess the best place is to start with yourself. As the Supreme Court recently said in its majority opinion, "The best way to end racial discrimination is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." No truer words were ever spoken.

I think it is unfortunate that people, especially politicians, will resort to race-baiting. It is odd that so many popular politicians seem to hold extremely racist views. I remember when General Powell was running for President that some Democrats chose to criticize him for wanting to end affirmative action programs, saying that Colin Powell could never have succeeded without such programs. It is odd that many people in both parties claim to oppose racism, but still seem to think that there are people who belong to certain races are incapable of accomplishing anything without help.

It is easy to single out Elder Stapley, but in fact a great many of his critics are every bit as racist as they claim he was. The hypocrisy that comes up every time people start to talk about racism is horrible. The 'right wing' racists deny that they are racist, but do not want inferior blood to be mingled among the races. The 'left wing' racists also deny that they are racist, but work from an assumption that some races cannot achieve on their own. You get right down to it, racism is probably even more prevalent today than it was in Elder Stapley's day. It has changed in the form it takes, but it is every bit as vicious as it was then.

There is no such thing as race. Until we learn that, there will always be people making comparisons of themselves with other people. That is pride, the sin of Satan.

Every prophet and apostle who has ever lived has been just as subject to pride as has anyone else. We have a long way to go if we truly wish to become like our Father in Heaven.

Amen!

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

cjcampbell,

I pretty much fully agree with your post too.

Well said.

(It's possible that some may take it as contridictory - to some extent - that I do agree with pretty much all of it. If you do think this, I suggest you read the post very carefully...)

Both sides on any given issue can sometimes play the 'race' card unduly. I have no doubt about that...

[Bach]

[Devil's advocate]

More often than not, left-wing 'racists' work from the assumption that some races can't make it on their own because of pervasive, ingrained prejudice against them. This is different from the idea that some races can't make it on their own because they are inherently inferior.

[/Devil's advocate]

[jwhitlock]

[Devil's advocate]

More often than not, left-wing 'racists' work from the assumption that some races can't make it on their own because of pervasive, ingrained prejudice against them. This is different from the idea that some races can't make it on their own because they are inherently inferior.

[/Devil's advocate]

That is the public reason given.

In reality, many on the left are just as racist in every sense of the word as many on the right. For instance, Steve Sailer at www.isteve.com has been outspoken for many years on racial / gender issues and the hypocrisy of the left on those subjects. And he's been labeled racist for being so.

[Deborah]

It can be embarrassing to be with parents or other relatives who will express such views in private and, sometimes, even in public. What can you do? You don't want to hear it, but you don't want to spend all your time fighting a lost cause, either.

This reminds me of the reason the Israelites had to wander through the wilderness for 40 years. They had to wait for the older generation with all their traditions to die off. It is very true we are products of our society and upbringing and it may take a lot to do away with those things. That may be the very reason the Lord waited so long to lift the Priesthood ban. My generation was one which began to question those traditions and to look for more equality, and our children in turn wonder what all the fuss was about. Unfortunately there are still some of my generation who chose to pass on prejudices to their children, but fortunately those are a minority.