Racist Elder Stapley Letter To Gov. George Romney

[huckelberry]

It is true that one can find racist thought from time to time through Christian history. It is especially prevelent in the United States 1750 to 1970. However in that same time fram you can find the opposite kind of thought. You can even find people willing to sacrifice to further racial justice. The decade of the 1960 were very mixed. You could find some individuals making a big splash with segration now and forever. There were a lot of people becoming appalled at such words. Those attitudes were a major embarrasment to all kind of people. I found LDS speach in the decade of the 1960 a serious embarressment. I can remember that there were some LDS who remained LDS who also found it an acute embarressment at that time.

It seems to me some caution should be used for the excuse that Jesus was a racist too. Jesus preached in person to Samartans early in his ministry, John 4 and use a good Samaratan as one of his most vivid examples of what we should be. Perhaps the dog comment was not a function of his racism but of something else. (emphasis on the faith found in some outside of the circle of privilege while find unfaith with that circle of the chosen)

But that reading diminishes the importance of being chosen people so might no be as attractive as being willing to say he was just believing cultural prejudices or perhaps that God operates with cultural prejudices.

I will stick with the reading that sees the gospel opened to all people in the covenent Jesus made.

[Bach]

*double takes*

...woah - your right...!

Their all wearing suits too...

I don't think you guys are being fair to the Church. It clearly is an ardent supporter of diversity -- just look at all the differently-colored ties!

[Olavarria]

[NorthboundZax]

...

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.

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.

Well, as much as I like talking about me (HellboundZax sounds kind of catchy!), I think this thread has much more potential than that. I re-read my OP to see where the "bitter vitriol, sarcasm, and rabble-rousing" was and I fail to see it. Does just posting the letter qualify for all those things? Seems like an apologetics forum would want to see these things as they come up. I see more vitriol and ranting in your two posts than in all 10 of mine combined, but it would be better to get at the topic at hand.

Unfortunately, it looks like to me this thread has mostly taken rehashing the "the church practiced institutional racism! ... so did everybody else!" arguments we've all seen many times go round and round. I was hoping for more discussion on some of the other points like was brought out in either of the blogs. E.g., the post from Aaron Brown I put in the OP.

The real issue, IMO, is that many historical LDS leaders fervently believed that their flawed views were consistent with (or are even the embodiment of) certain gospel doctrines, and that they apparently didn’t have the ability to spiritually discern the difference between a gospel truth and a nefarious departure from that truth.

To me, that’s the real issue we need to grapple with: not so much the mere fact that the LDS leadership can be limited or culturally-influenced in their personal views, but that they actually understand those views to be central to a proper understanding of Gospel doctrine.

Aaron B

I think we can nearly all agree that apostle Stapley was wrong with equating racism to gospel principals. However, this is a much greater problem than simply being wrong on some opinion, because he preached and espoused that erroneous belief as something central and important to the gospel. How is it that leaders can be so astray on topics that they view as central to God's plan, and what does that mean for the membership at large? Seems to me that at a minimum, leadership stands on many things ranging from the literalcy of the BoM to women in priesthood positions and the incompatibility of homosexual relationships in God's plan should be taken with more than a large grain of salt. Maybe they are right on some or all of those issues, but Stapley couldn't tell the difference when it came to race. If the leaders can't tell, then ... well, then they are quite possibly wrong.

[sunstoned]

I think that the problem most people have with it (and I admit that I struggle with it as well) is that we do claim to be the one true church and our prophets claim to be God's mouthpiece on earth. From that perspective, we would expect our church to lead the world when truth is manifest, not be among the last to jump on the bandwagon. Yes, our leaders are human and subject to very human flaws, but I don't think it unreasonable to have the basic expectation that an apostle of God would be somewhat more inspired and in tune with God's will than the average, everyday person. Those are my thoughts anyway.

Kathy G., this is very well stated. We are constantly reminded in church publications, hymns and lesson manuals to follow the leaders, for they are inspired. They are placed, or have placed themselves, on such a high pedestal that it is wrong to criticize them, even if they are wrong. In this self made context, these are not just your ordinary men of the times. They claim the title of apostles of the lord. It would seem reasonable that we could expect a little more leadership from them in the areas of human rights. But sadly, Elder Stapleyâ??s attitude (if the letter is authentic) is in line with many of the ninetieth and twentieth century church leaders.

[juliann]

It is true that one can find racist thought from time to time through Christian history. It is especially prevelent in the United States 1750 to 1970. However in that same time fram you can find the opposite kind of thought. You can even find people willing to sacrifice to further racial justice. The decade of the 1960 were very mixed. You could find some individuals making a big splash with segration now and forever. There were a lot of people becoming appalled at such words. Those attitudes were a major embarrasment to all kind of people. I found LDS speach in the decade of the 1960 a serious embarressment. I can remember that there were some LDS who remained LDS who also found it an acute embarressment at that time.

I continue to ask for a full accounting of what was said and done. The sad truth is that critics know nothing more than the soundbites they churn out. I have yet to see one of them acknowledge what was said from the General Conference pulpit. But they will spend pages on a private letter.

Hugh B. Brown, Conference Report, April 1966, p.119

The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches the universality of God's concern for men and that obedience is a universal and fundamental law of progress, both temporal and spiritual. The aristocracy of righteousness is the only aristocracy that God recognizes. This leaves no room for self-righteous expressions in words or actions of being "holier than thou." There is a real unity in the human race, and all men have a right to equal consideration as human beings, regardless of their race, creed, or color.

For any church, country, nation, or other group to believe that it is the only people in whom God is interested or that it has special merit because of color, race, or belief, that they are inherently superior and loved by God without regard to the lives they live, is not only a great and dangerous fallacy but is a continuing barrier to peace. This is demoralizing, whether it is the exploded and presumptuous myth of an Aryan race of supermen or disguised in more subtle forms. Let us steadfastly avoid such demoralizing arrogance.

[juliann]

They are placed, or have placed themselves, on such a high pedestal that it is wrong to criticize them, even if they are wrong.

Are you sure about that? I have my Hugh B. Brown quotes right now...but I could bury you in quotes saying much the same from all eras. Why do these not count?

"Our brethren go into all the world to preach the gospel, so we naturally deem it necessary that the missionaries understand the fundamentals of all religions, religions especially that have played such tremendous parts in history. By knowing them, the brethren become more tolerant, for it opens up a bond of sympathy between them and the foreign races. If we have the new and everlasting gospel it is good for all God's children, for it will be received by all, but only in accordance with their reason and intelligence. The more we know, the better it is. People have little confidence in a teacher who knows but his own. It means that his belief is not the careful consideration of all other beliefs" Levi Edgar Young, Improvement Era 11: 202

If we hear any principle taught from the stand that we do not understand, let us seek to comprehend it by the Spirit of God. If it be not of God, we have the privilege of knowing it. We are not required to receive for doctrine everything that we hear. We may say, "I do not know whether this is true or not; I will not fight it, neither will I endorse it, but I will seek knowledge from God, for that is my privilege, and I will never rest satisfied until I have obtained the light I require."

If you hear a doctrine that does not agree with your feelings or that you do not believe, take this course; do not reject nor endorse hastily without knowing or understanding. By taking this course you will develop the principle that God designs we should possess, and we will thus become a wise and understanding people, for we will be based on the rock of revelation. George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, 270

"Let us not think because we feel and know that we have the truth that we have all the truth for there is truth yet to be revealed. Let not our knowledge that we have the truth stifle our search for more truth. Let us build into our characters the kind of faith that will accept the truth when it comes and by its coming perhaps modify some of our ideas about the truth" (The Abundant Life, SLC, Bookcraft 1965: 221).

[juliann]

Priceless jab. Well done.

My, my...do you really want to compare? Do the math...how many years has the LDS church been working on this? How many years has your version of Christianity been working on it? The black leadership is in your black churches. Do you really want to trade jabs stats?

So often Negroes in Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia and other places have been taken to that tree that bears strange fruit. And do you know that the folk lynching them are often big deacons in the Baptist churches and stewards in the Methodist churches feeling that by killing and murdering and lynching another human being they are doing the will of Almighty God? The most vicious oppressors of the Negro today are probably in church.

Marty Bell, "Fire in My Bones: The Prophetic Preaching of Martin Luther King, Jr.," Baptist History and Heritage (Winter 1999), 13.

â??In response to Kingâ??s famous â??I Have a Dreamâ? speech that his children might one day play together with white children, Graham, who had been invited but did not attend the 1963 March on Washington, said: â??Only when Christ comes again will little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with little black children.â??

Richard O. Emerson and Christian Smith, Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, p 47.

This is why I don't understand the fascination with race-baiting. No matter how bad Mormons are made to look they are nowhere near the worst. That leaves the race-baiter with the rather weak argument that Mormons should have known better, implying that their religious leaders were not inspired or expected to be.

[gitxsanartist]

Well, they are all very European looking. I can't help but notice how extraordinarily handsome Elder Uchtdorf (sp?) is. I also can't help but notice that there are no women in the picture.

Women have no place in this quorum, that is why we have the relief society. Feminism and racism are entirely two different things. Trying to bring feminist issues, homophobia etc... into the racial injustices argument only serves to dilute and weaken it. I am not saying that I am anti-feminist I just think that each issue should be addressed separately and given its due time and respect. Here we are dealing with racial injustices and attitudes regarding the black membership of the church, or towards blacks in general.

Personally I think alot of what was taught back in the early/mid 20th century by the church was not doctrine at all but just the personal prejudices and attitudes that were a product of their time. I am refering to the comments and teachings of the various general authorities during this time period.

[Bernard Gui]

I'm pretty sure I understand what Bernard Gui was trying to elude to.

And I stand my by judgement of 'mis-direction'.

My first concern was to repudiate the charge that Delbert Stapley was a horrible man.

Having heard him speak many times and having met him personally, I know that is false.

That he held a conservative separate-but-equal view of mixing races does not make him horrible. The horrible people are the ones who have since moved the American blacks into Uncle Sam's

plantation and keep them there for the purpose of maintaining power. That is horrible.

In many ways, the current situation, after all that has been said and done, for many black Americans

still is separate-but-unequal.

Bernard Gui tries to imply that equal rights according to race is somehow tied to issues such as 'the welfare state'. This is false - and a misdirection.

The substance of that letter was about the 'second-class status' of black citizens. Nothing more, nothing less. To make it about whatever other issue you think you can get away with is avoidance of the issue at hand.

The welfare state arose from the equal rights movement as a major part of the government's program to level the playing field. In its excess, it has done just the opposite. While I may not agree with Elder Stapley's views, I do not believe he would be pleased with what has resulted. In fact, I would rather

believe that he, as did many of his compatriots and successors, would have modified his views and

moved on to more productive means of lifting the shroud that covered Black Americans.

You may as well catagorise anybody who doesn't believe Stapley was taking the right and correct approach to this topic as 'Commie sympathisers and abortion lovers'. It's about as sensible...

Stapley was arguing for Joseph Smith's position which he cited in the Teachings of Joseph

Smith and the History of the Church. Certainly the course of history would have been

dramatically altered had the slaves been sent back to their countries of origin. Joseph and Stapley advocated a kind of apartheid, but I don't know what Joseph meant when he proposed putting them on a

"national equalization."

When it comes to whether blacks would have been 'better off' if they were still treated as second-class citizens today, I think I'd rather trust THEIR opinion on that.

Funnily enough, I think they might beg to differ on that fine assessment....

If you are calling me a racist, put up your dukes. Them's fighting words! I lived through the 50s, 60s,

and 70s, and have never advocated anything other than full and equal rights for all Americans. Having

taught in public schools for 35 years, I have seen the destruction of the black American male youth

first hand. Shame on the horrible people who have facilitated it. I believe Joseph and Elder Stapley would

have had no part in such a disaster and perhaps what they advocated may have had better results.

That will not be known, however, in this lifetime.

I would like to read George Romney's civil rights talk which drew this reponse from Elder Stapley. I would also like to have more information on Stapley's views later in his life. Since he was in the Quorum of 12 that

sustained President Kimball's revelation on the priesthood, I must assume that he was a man who

was capable of accepting change in the way that he believed it should come....by the hand of God and through revelation.

He was not a horrible man, but there are horrible men who have exploited and continue to use our Black brothers and

sisters. Shame on them.

Bernard

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

My first concern was to repudiate the charge that Delbert Stapley was a horrible man

Well, ok. Putting your words in that specific context, I do have more time for them.

I didn't agree with catagorising him as a 'horrible man' either.

I do think your over-stating your case. I think your severly down-playing the problems inherently involved in attitudes like segregation and talking about the 'place' of black people, or any other race of people. And I am very much opposed to doing that.

But I do take some of your overall points on board. I'm not saying that all those who championed civil rights got 'everything' right. I wouldn't even say that all those who 'appeared' to champion civil rights really meant it.

While I may not agree with Elder Stapley's views, I do not believe he would be please with what has resulted.

If you had said the above clearly in your first post in this thread, I doubt I'd have had that much problem with the rest of what you had to say.

It wasn't clear to me that you actually did disagree with Elder Stapley's view. But in my defense, I don't beleive you made it very clear...

The welfare state arose from the equal rights movement as a major part of the government's program to level the playing field.

I agree with the principle that people have to make their own way out of disadvantage - certainly to a certain extent. They can't be 'pulled out' just like that. Here I will agree.

I would ask what this has to do specifically with Stapley's views as expressed in his letter...

But if I keep it in the context of simply wanting to combat the catagorisation of a 'horrible man', then it becomes more understandable.

If you are calling me a racist, put up your dukes. Them's fighting words!

Gotta be honest - from your first post, I wasn't sure.

But you've put my mind at rest. And thank you for doing it.

I apologise if I took it the wrong way.

I would like to read Romney's civil rights talk which drew this reponse from Elder Stapley.

Yeap -fair enough. Agreed. It would be important to know if Romney talked about civil rights in a way that implies other 'agendas'.

Although from the direct replies that Stapley gave in the letter, I don't detect any.

He was not a horrible man, but there are horrible men who have exploited our Black brothers and

sisters. Shame on them.

Again, I think you are concentrating on one side and not the other.

Shame should ALSO be on all who encouraged segregation and the second-class status of blacks, or any other race. I WILL agree, however, that it doesn't make the people involved 'horrible men'. More often than not, just 'of their time', and short sighted.

And I agree that those who got it right when it came to 'civil rights', managed to get other areas wrong.

But on this point of 'it was just their time', somehow I don't think I would be allowed the same defense.

If I described a truly hedonistic lifestyle - drinking every night, sex with a different girl every night etc. - can I use the defense 'Well, plenty of people around me were doing it, and thought it was OK'. Is that a defense I'm allowed to use?

...if not, then why are past LDS leaders (or any religious leader, or any leader full stop) exused by it, and not me?

Final point - all kinds of groups, religious or otherwise, share resposibility for our racist past (and racist present no less...). It's so obvious it shouldn't need to be said, but in this context it's important to get it on the record - the LDS church is not alone in this. I'm quite aware of that. And any other group that wants to find themselves historically blameless is probably not standing on solid ground.

Does the atheist past have demons? Of course it does. Do I defend any of the wrong-doing? No.

Does the British past (I'm proud to be British) have demons? Of course it does. Do I defend any of the wrong-doing? No.

Does Libertarianism have demons? Of course it does. There are many interperetations of the Libertarian ideal. Some I agree with, others I don't. Do I defend any of the wrong-doing? No..

[Bernard Gui]

I find it amusing that so many get heartburn that a Mormon religious authority

gave political advice to a Mormon politician. I'm absolutely certain that this

does not occur in any other religious denomination in the US of A. Until the

Mormons learn to rein in their out of control patriarchy, no one should take

them seriously at any political level.

In fact, any Mormon contemplating a run for political office should be required to:

1. denounce his/her temple covenants

2. denounce any and all statements made by any and all LDS religious leaders

past or present on any topic

3. return unopened any communication from an LDS religious leader or immediately

disclose its contents to the appropriate news outlet or government agency

4. stop any kind of financial contributions to the Church and be required by law not to tithe

political contributions

5. advocate a new government commission on government/Mormon relations and maintain

constant and transparent contact with members of the commission. I recommend Al Sharpton,

Jesse Jackson, Billy Graham, Billy Carter, Pat Robertson, and Ed Decker as members of the commission, and Bill Clinton as chairman.

In the meantime, any Mormon seeking political office should just forget it.

Bernard

[Mighty Curelom]

My first concern was to repudiate the charge that Delbert Stapley was a horrible man.

Having heard him speak many times and having met him personally, I know that is false.

I stand by my charge. I don't care if Mr. Stapley fed stray cats, played catch with his son, and said please and thank you where appropriate. The fact that he actively advocated the subjugation of people who happen to have darker skin is sufficient to make him a bad man. The fact that he participated in something as undeniably evil as the dehumanization of his fellow man is enough. Surely you'd agree that a murderer is a horrible man. Yet the death of a single man is far less significant than the subjugation and oppression of an entire race of men. Mr. Stapley may not be guilty of the former, but he is certainly guilty of the latter.

[Deborah]

the death of a single man is far less significant than the subjugation and oppression of an entire race of men. Mr. Stapley may not be guilty of the former, but he is certainly guilty of the latter.

Now that is as about as gross an exaggeration as I've ever seen. As if this one man with one opinion, in a church that most of the people don't accept as having the word of God, had the power to subjugate a race.

[Deborah]

Maybe they are right on some or all of those issues, but Stapley couldn't tell the difference when it came to race. If the leaders can't tell, then ... well, then they are quite possibly wrong.

And here is the actual purpose of bringing up this old, if true, letter: to once again show that the LDS church has false prophets. My, my. I don't understand all the effort that goes into this since the critics don't believe in the veracity of the church to begin with. What does it matter to you what we believe?

[Hoops22]

My, my...do you really want to compare? Do the math...how many years has the LDS church been working on this? How many years has your version of Christianity been working on it? The black leadership is in your black churches. Do you really want to trade jabs stats?

Juliann,

Merely stating that this was funny - you gotta admit, this was well-timed and on point. After viewing other attempts at humor here that are not much more than academic snobbery it was good to see something that was actually funny. For the first time on this board, I laughed out loud.

I would love to trade stats, if that's what you're after. Bases on stats, I don't think the Brewers pitching will hold up. Do you?

I don't have a "version" of Christianity.

[Bernard Gui]

I stand by my charge. I don't care if Mr. Stapley fed stray cats, played catch with his son, and said please and thank you where appropriate. The fact that he actively advocated the subjugation of people who happen to have darker skin is sufficient to make him a bad man. The fact that he participated in something as undeniably evil as the dehumanization of his fellow man is enough. Surely you'd agree that a murderer is a horrible man. Yet the death of a single man is far less significant than the subjugation and oppression of an entire race of men. Mr. Stapley may not be guilty of the former, but he is certainly guilty of the latter.

Well, those who maintained the separate-but-equal position lost out and something else won. It remains

to be seen if the current path is the right one. So far, I see plenty of evidence that it is not, but such things

take place over long periods of time and we are too close to make the call. I doubt any of us will see

the end results in our lifetime.

Don't you find it interesting that many

in the Black community are calling for a return to all black schools, especially as a remedy for the

crushing environment faced by young black males? Are they calling for the dehumanization of their

children? I see this as a repudiation of the integration doctrine and an ironic recall of some form of

the separate-but-equal position that supposedly had been soundly rejected as evil incarnate.

I don't believe you can infer from this one letter that Elder Stapley advocated subjugation

and oppression of his fellow man. If you read his Joseph Smith references, you could not come to

that conclusion. Moveover, he does not specify what aspects of the civil rights movement he found

erroneous. That information is essential for continued debate about him.

Bernard

[Momus]

Since when do we allow our LDS board to be a pulpit to bash and critisize the LDS church leadership? Knock it off. Discuss the contents and the circumstances of the letter. Any continuing behavior of this sort will be dealt with and the thread closed.

Momus

[rameumptom]

Well, there's one thing we can all agree on: the church has come a long way with respect to racial attitudes. Right guys?

Ya know, Jesus' original apostles were rather racially segregated, also. Remember that he called Canaanites, "dogs." Should we reject Jesus, the only perfect being on the face of the earth, for racism?

That really opens up a major can of worms for Christians everywhere.

Gary

[jwhitlock]

I stand by my charge. I don't care if Mr. Stapley fed stray cats, played catch with his son, and said please and thank you where appropriate. The fact that he actively advocated the subjugation of people who happen to have darker skin is sufficient to make him a bad man. The fact that he participated in something as undeniably evil as the dehumanization of his fellow man is enough. Surely you'd agree that a murderer is a horrible man. Yet the death of a single man is far less significant than the subjugation and oppression of an entire race of men. Mr. Stapley may not be guilty of the former, but he is certainly guilty of the latter.

I am still looking for validation of the following:

a ) the letter was written by Elder Stapley

b ) how the letter came into the possession of the Boston Globe

c ) how it was verified as authentic

d ) what the real agenda is of the Boston Globe in disclosing it and why it has not been disclosed before.

Until those questions are answer first, as should have been done up front, comments such as the above are premature and inappropriate.

To the OP of this thread, I would think it is YOUR responsibility to answer these questions - and to answer them quickly. Further discussion of Elder Stapley's intentions, in my mind, without setting an appropriate foundation is worthless.

[juliann]

Yet the death of a single man is far less significant than the subjugation and oppression of an entire race of men.

This would be funny if it weren't so vicious. If you are an American you are being accused of much of the same as we speak. Are you really that impressed with yourself while being so completely out of touch? What is truly pathetic here is that Elder Stapley was never given the opportunity to rescind his harsh statements as the bulk of America was..including political leaders who really did have the power to subjugate a race. Had he not died before it became fashionable to denigrate people who lived in earlier times I have no doubt he would have changed his views. Repentence is a process open to even church leaders and by golly, the atonement applies to them, too. The only thing disgusting here is the hpocritical self-righteous pontificating by people who sit safely behind a computer screen and a phony name so their flaws will be hidden as they assault others.

[Mormon Vader]

Well, there's one thing we can all agree on: the church has come a long way with respect to racial attitudes. Right guys?

That's hilarious. Despite my disagreements with the Mighty MC (I realize the mighty mighty...funny, huh?), this board wouldn't be the same without you.

p.s. I miss your smoking gorilla. You should change back to that.

[Hawkmoon]

I stand by my charge. I don't care if Mr. Stapley fed stray cats, played catch with his son, and said please and thank you where appropriate. The fact that he actively advocated the subjugation of people who happen to have darker skin is sufficient to make him a bad man. The fact that he participated in something as undeniably evil as the dehumanization of his fellow man is enough. Surely you'd agree that a murderer is a horrible man. Yet the death of a single man is far less significant than the subjugation and oppression of an entire race of men. Mr. Stapley may not be guilty of the former, but he is certainly guilty of the latter.

I nominate this for THE MOST IDIOTIC POST OF THE YEAR award. Your ability to project a desire for the â??subjugation and oppression of an entire race" onto Stapley while simultaneously implying he is worse than a murderer was truly beyond comprehension! I bow to your obvious superiority in hyperbole and unfounded assertions.

[koakaipo]

I stand by my charge. I don't care if Mr. Stapley fed stray cats, played catch with his son, and said please and thank you where appropriate. The fact that he actively advocated the subjugation of people who happen to have darker skin is sufficient to make him a bad man. The fact that he participated in something as undeniably evil as the dehumanization of his fellow man is enough. Surely you'd agree that a murderer is a horrible man. Yet the death of a single man is far less significant than the subjugation and oppression of an entire race of men. Mr. Stapley may not be guilty of the former, but he is certainly guilty of the latter.

Here's my problem with this attitude. You are dehumanizing someone who is being....dehumanizing.

I've met so many racist bigots in my time it isn't funny-and I"m only 35 and have lived in Los Angeles for most of my life. My mom's been spat on for being intermarried and not welcomed in neighborhoods, my greatgrandfather was killed in Texas cause his Latina wife was a shade too dark for folks in those parts at the time. I mean, I get racism very well.

And to take your way of looking at things in some ways just continues the polarization. the way to deal with things is to humanize others and engage them. I've done this with people time and time again.

What I would hope, from reading that letter, is that Romney sent him back a couple thoughts of his own. And on top of that, I hope that Hugh B. Brown, and apostle during that time, gave him a piece of his mind as well. Brown was a Democrat and civil rights champion as well. And thank goodness we had folks like that in the ranks, like Romney and Brown, because through counsel they may have made a difference.

Brown definitely made a difference with counsel. He didn't alienate or peg people as hopeless horrible people. He challenged their beliefs but never gave up on folks, even some leaders during the time who made him want to poke his eyes out in fustration

[Calm]

can I use the defense 'Well, plenty of people around me were doing it, and thought it was OK'. Is that a defense I'm allowed to use?

Isn't this essentially the principle that people will be judged by that portion of the law they do have?