Racist Elder Stapley Letter To Gov. George Romney

[rufus]

So doesn't sending such a letter out on a Church letterhead by one of the main leaders of the Church constitute more than just a personal opinion and wasn't it an attempt to influence public policy (and influence it in a distasteful manner to boot)?

The civil rights struggle was very devisive in this country. Ministers of all faiths took positions and expressed them vociferously. There were no fence sitters. Most White Protestant clergy were against it, the Catholic and Jewish clergy for it. In the LDS community the concern was with the the public accomodations clause of the 1964 civil rights bill; there was a fear that the federal government would force the church to admit people of color to the priesthood. That did not come to pass. However, I think that is the main focus of the Stapley letter.

The letter itself is written on a pica typewritter rather than an elite. Elite at that time was the standard for business communications. The pica typewritter was basically used as a personal typewritter, but it was also used in composing newspaper articles.

Is the letter authentic? I suspect only the Stapley family could tell us for sure.

George Wallace in his latter days lay there blind and deaf, but still then he saw the error of his ways and recanted. I suspect Elder Stapley would do so also.

Rufus

[Hawkmoon]

So doesn't sending such a letter out on a Church letterhead by one of the main leaders of the Church constitute more than just a personal opinion and wasn't it an attempt to influence public policy (and influence it in a distasteful manner to boot)?

You keep asking this -- do you really want an answer? Anyway, letâ??s try approaching this in a different wayâ?¦ namely, by you answering a few questions, okay?

1. As a private citizen does he, or does he not, have the right to write to a public official and try to "influence public policy"? If not, why?

2. As a leader in a church is that right suspended? If so, how and why?

3. Did he state anywhere in his letter that he was acting in an official capacity, or that there would be repercussions for not doing as he suggested? If so, where?

4. As a personal friend do you think it is acceptable to send a private letter indicating differences of opinion? If not, why?

5. Other than using Church letterheadâ??in what other way do you feel he tried to influence public policy in a â??distasteful wayâ?? I am not asking whether or not his views are â??distasteful,â? but rather what part of his actions you find so.

Thanks.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

So doesn't sending such a letter out on a Church letterhead by one of the main leaders of the Church constitute more than just a personal opinion and wasn't it an attempt to influence public policy (and influence it in a distasteful manner to boot)?

If the 'opinion' that Elder Stapley was putting forward seemed glorious and enlightened to us, now in 2007, I doubt we'd be making much fuss about the fact that he wrote to a Governor with official church headed paper.

It's only because the opinion grates so forcefully with modern perspectives that we see it as 'distasteful'.

Don't get me wrong, this letter leaves a sick feeling at the pit of my stomach. And I have no issue with calling the opinion contained within straight-up 'immoral'. But it's because of the fact that I don't belevie that Elder Stapley was a 'horrible man' that it gives me that sick feeling. It's the fact that these attitudes were so 'common', so 'every-day' that made the entire situation such a tragedy.

I've met too many nice people who believe outrageous things to kid myself that everybody who thought like this was some kind of monster. It just isn't so. That's a dilution and distortion of the truth.

As eluded to earlier, it's not our job to judge Elder Stapley. It's to make sure we aren't making similar mistakes now.

So - are we? That's a question we all need to answer - for ourselves...

As we've also talked about, we've still got some way to go - as a society - when it comes to equality. We should probably worry more about what we still need to get 'right', rather than dwell too much on what others in the past have gotten wrong...

[Mighty Curelom]

As eluded to earlier, it's not our job to judge Elder Stapley. It's to make sure we aren't making similar mistakes now.

So - are we? That's a question we all need to answer - for ourselves...

Of course people are making similar mistakes now. They're being made by the people who have always been "men of their time," who have failed to rise above the ignorance and stupidity of the age--they're what we now call "conservatives." I'm not talking about Republicans versus Democrats. By "conservative," I'm refering to those who oppose social progress, and who would take us back a few steps if they could. They're the ones who opposed the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, the availability of birth control, civil rights, and now gay rights. They opposed women in the workplace and women in the military. They loathe anything that parts from tradition. Their ideology is based on fear--fear of change, fear of foreign culture, fear of sexuality.

Conservatives have consistently been on the wrong side of history. If I had to bet on who is currently making "similar mistakes," that's where I'd put my money.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Yeah but MC - what do you really think?

All we need now is Ann Coulter and some popcorn!

Overall - I agree with your assessment of how we should approach the kinds of issues you've raised. (At least in the context of how you describe 'conservatives' - I'm not sure how many of those who actually consider themselves conservatives would nessesarily agree with it, obviously!)

I don't think there is any difference between 'gay' rights and 'civil' rights. (Or one is just a sub-set of the other.) Many of the the lessons to be learned seem pretty much cut and dried to me - although I'd just be worried that I could have it wrong in the opposite direction, or that I'm part of an 'over-reaction'. (I think any POV can have it's extreme elements that should be kept in check).

I dont' have major doubts at this point in time, but it's a sanity check I try to keep in focus.

I'm also wary of reading motivations into all this - but each to their own.

EDIT: Out of interest - would you catagorise yourself as a 'Libertarian'? Or would the very attempt to catagorise the viewpoint be inaccurate?

[JNclone]

Since this board is about 'Mormon apologetics and discussion', what follows in relation to that topic from the letter (presumed genuine for the sake of the argument) and the subsequent discussion?

Firstly, the impression is strengthened that the general attitudes towards black people in the COJCOLDS were generally close to those of conservative Americans, and particularly conservative Utahns, in the period of the Stapley letter as in earlier periods. There is, for some non-LDS, a certain amusement to be derived from the fact that Stapley evidently thinks that to believe in equality for black people is a position so disfavored by God that one risks having a nasty accident by advocating it. But if I was black, somehow I don't think I would find it very funny, and of course LDS (and even some non-LDS who want to be allowed to post here) may also feel obliged to keep their faces respectfullly straight.

Some kinds of Christian in the US may of course have their admiration for the COJCOLDS increased by this example of the attitude to the black civil rights issue taken by one of its leadership (on official letterhead, but speaking ostensibly as a private individual). Some LDS may likewise stand just a little bit taller after reading the letter and seeing the courageous stand that was taken against a social and political change seen as threatening.

But for most US Christians who become aware of this letter (and not many will), I suspect the overall result will be an increased sense of puzzlement about the COJCOLDS claim to have special prophetic leadership when it so signally failed to lead from the front on what they think was one of the great moral issues facing 20th century US society. They may of course fail to understand what LDS prophetship is about (and I think that is very likely). But the overall result will be to make the COJCOLDS seem just a little less 'mainstream' than before.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Since this board is about 'Mormon apologetics and discussion', what follows in relation to that topic from the letter (presumed genuine for the sake of the argument) and the subsequent discussion?

Firstly, the impression is strengthened that the general attitudes towards black people in the COJCOLDS were generally close to those of conservative Americans, and particularly conservative Utahns, in the period of the Stapley letter as in earlier periods. There is, for some non-LDS, a certain amusement to be derived from the fact that Stapley evidently thinks that to believe in equality for black people is a position so disfavored by God that one risks having a nasty accident by advocating it. But if I was black, somehow I don't think I would find it very funny, and of course LDS (and even some non-LDS who want to be allowed to post here) may also feel obliged to keep their faces respectfullly straight.

Some kinds of Christian in the US may of course have their admiration for the COJCOLDS increased by this example of the attitude to the black civil rights issue taken by one of its leadership (on official letterhead, but speaking ostensibly as a private individual). Some LDS may likewise stand just a little bit taller after reading the letter and seeing the courageous stand that was taken against a social and political change seen as threatening.

But for most US Christians who become aware of this letter (and not many will), I suspect the overall result will be an increased sense of puzzlement about the COJCOLDS claim to have special prophetic leadership when it so signally failed to lead from the front on what they think was one of the great moral issues facing 20th century US society. They may of course fail to understand what LDS prophetship is about (and I think that is very likely). But the overall result will be to make the COJCOLDS seem just a little less 'mainstream' than before.

Wow, I guess you kind of overlooked the whole "slave question" as addressed by Joseph Smith, there. Not surprised, though, clone. You're as unobjective as they come.

[JNclone]

Wow, I guess you kind of overlooked the whole "slave question" as addressed by Joseph Smith, there. Not surprised, though, clone. You're as unobjective as they come.

JNclone:

the general attitudes towards black people in the COJCOLDS were generally close to those of conservative Americans, and particularly conservative Utahns, in the period of the Stapley letter as in earlier periods.

You don't think my statement was true, as regards "general attitudes" "in the period of the Stapley letter as in earlier periods"? My phrasing was designed to allow for some exceptions. Which of these statements do you take disagree with:

1. the general attitudes towards black people in the COJCOLDS in the period of the Stapley letter were generally close to those of conservative Americans, and particularly conservative Utahns, at that period.

2. the general attitudes towards black people in the COJCOLDS in earlier periods were generally close to those of conservative Americans, and particularly conservative Utahns in those earlier periods.

Or do you object to them both?

Edited to add:

In any case, I note that you are not trying to argue that the US Christians I referred to ought to try to see the COJCOLDS as having been in the mid 20th century a moral leader fighting for full civil rights for black people. You aren't doing that, are you?

[LifeOnaPlate]

JNclone:

You don't think my statement was true, as regards "general attitudes" "in the period of the Stapley letter as in earlier periods"? My phrasing was designed to allow for some exceptions. Which of these statements do you take disagree with:

1. the general attitudes towards black people in the COJCOLDS in the period of the Stapley letter were generally close to those of conservative Americans, and particularly conservative Utahns, at that period.

2. the general attitudes towards black people in the COJCOLDS in earlier periods were generally close to those of conservative Americans, and particularly conservative Utahns in those earlier periods.

Or do you object to them both?

Edited to add:

In any case, I note that you are not trying to argue that the US Christians I referred to ought to try to see the COJCOLDS as having been in the mid 20th century a moral leader fighting for full civil rights for black people. You aren't doing that, are you?

Why do you suppose Elder Stapley represents the general majority of feeling in the Church at the time?

[koakaipo]

Of course people are making similar mistakes now. They're being made by the people who have always been "men of their time," who have failed to rise above the ignorance and stupidity of the age--they're what we now call "conservatives." I'm not talking about Republicans versus Democrats. By "conservative," I'm refering to those who oppose social progress, and who would take us back a few steps if they could. They're the ones who opposed the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, the availability of birth control, civil rights, and now gay rights. They opposed women in the workplace and women in the military. They loathe anything that parts from tradition. Their ideology is based on fear--fear of change, fear of foreign culture, fear of sexuality.

Conservatives have consistently been on the wrong side of history. If I had to bet on who is currently making "similar mistakes," that's where I'd put my money.

The reality as almost none of us rise above our place and time, we are products of this and we tend to follow the scripts given us very closely. I'm a bed wetting liberal, and I"m sure my grandkids will find my viewpoints positively barbaric or stupid one day.

When we look at great men and women who "rose" above, we tend to see they rose for moments at a time. Not rose above, and then were home free or stayed there. It's only when we sanitize and revere folks, that we get a less complicated picture. I'm very fascinated with Thomas Jefferson, but when you look at ideals he laid out and his personal life, it can be a bit of a hot mess to align alot of the times. Same with someone like Abraham Lincoln. Or Martin Luther King. Or Joseph Smith. Humanizing people who are seen as great is often accepting they had great moments along with alot of not so great and backwards and pretty bad moments.

I think pop psychoanalyzing social conservatives as being exclusively fear based is wrong. And I say that as someone who is unashamedly liberal. There ARE some things worth conserving, and there's things we need to change, and then there's alot of 'things" that probably need a mix of both. Finding the right balance is always so hard to do for either side of the fence. Changing or preserving something will always have it's consequences, both good and bad, and usually unforseen in terms of the bad.

The interesting thing is that 13 years before this letter was written, David O'Mckay said the following:

"This principle of free agency and the right of each individual to be free[,] not only to think but also to act within bounds that grant to every one else the same privilege, are sometimes violated even by churches that claim to teach the doctrine of Jesus Christ. The attitude of any organization toward this principle of freedom is a pretty good index to its nearness to the teachings of Christ or to those of the evil one."

It's interesting to see that usually moments of inspiration, which I see as the above quote, most often don't reflect the person's reality or culture or place or time. I bet you many members struggled with being able to apply such a quote to real life realities. And yet, it was a quote that could serve as something ahead of it's time to help guide people to a better and more progressive standard. Jefferson spoke of all men being equal, and yet he was a slaveowner who may have had children among the mix. We could look at him as a hypocrite ....or we could look at him as someone who personally could not realize his own standard, but his words served as an ideal for later generations to get on the right page. I'm sure it's a bit of both, if we accept that we will be hypocrites in later generations eyes as well(to what degree is up for debate of course).

[selek]

Of course people are making similar mistakes now. They're being made by the people who have always been "men of their time," who have failed to rise above the ignorance and stupidity of the age--they're what we now call "conservatives." I'm not talking about Republicans versus Democrats. By "conservative," I'm refering to those who oppose social progress, and who would take us back a few steps if they could. They're the ones who opposed the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, the availability of birth control, civil rights, and now gay rights. They opposed women in the workplace and women in the military. They loathe anything that parts from tradition. Their ideology is based on fear--fear of change, fear of foreign culture, fear of sexuality.

Conservatives have consistently been on the wrong side of history. If I had to bet on who is currently making "similar mistakes," that's where I'd put my money.

Actually, MC- your Marxist indoctrination is showing. Put down the Kool-Aid and try and think for yourself, just this once, okay?

It was the conservative Republican party that fought to preserve the Union and issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

On the other hand, it was the liberal Democrats who invented carpet bagging, Jim Crow, and the Klan. Definitely the wrong side of history. Does the name Huey Long mean anything to you?

It was the liberal Democrats who invented the poll tax in the South. Wrong side of history.

It was the liberal Democrats (including Al Gore's daddy and Bill Clinton's mentor) who opposed the the Civil Rights Act of 1964- the progressive Democrats voted against it almost unanimously. That measure only passed because of strong conservative Republican support.

It was the liberal Democrats (Kennedy, and Johnson) who ordered the FBI to spy on the major civil rights figures of the time and to compose dossiers of black-mail material.

It was the same liberal Democrats who used our national intelligence resources to infiltrate and subvert the various radical organizations such as the Weathermen and Black Panthers and in some instances spur them to greater and more heinous criminal acts. History has not and will not be kind to them for that behavior.

It was Lyndon Johnson and his socialist Great Society that destroyed the structure of the black family and has created generations of impoverished dependents unable to provide (or in many instances, think) for themselves.

It was the liberal/progressive Democrats who advocated appeasement and surrender to Hitler, to Stalin, and agitated for our unilateral disarmament/surrender during the Cold War. Definitely the wrong side of history.

It was a liberal Democrat who got us into Vietnam (Kennedy), and who repeatedly escalated our commitment to the conflict (Johnson). Despite the bad rap given them by the leftist media and their socialist handlers, Nixon and Ford inherited the mess and ended the war with as much grace as possible. Time will tell who history truly judges.

Despite all their rhetoric, it is the progressive liberal democrats who are attacking the underpinnings of the Consitution and our rights. Note their recent assaults on our rights of free speech (McCain-Feingold, the renewed calls for a "Fairness" Doctrine"), peaceable assembly, and private property (confiscatory taxes, nationalization, and out-right government appropriation of people's property and money).

Your broad-brush slander of conservatives- simply because they don't subscribe to your "if it feels good, do it" attack on morality in general- is simply further proof that for all their posturing and preening, the "brights" are no more enlightened than their nihilist counterparts of centuries past.

[Daniel Peterson]

Of course people are making similar mistakes now. They're being made by the people who have always been "men of their time," who have failed to rise above the ignorance and stupidity of the age--they're what we now call "conservatives." I'm not talking about Republicans versus Democrats. By "conservative," I'm refering to those who oppose social progress, and who would take us back a few steps if they could. They're the ones who opposed the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, the availability of birth control, civil rights, and now gay rights. They opposed women in the workplace and women in the military. They loathe anything that parts from tradition. Their ideology is based on fear--fear of change, fear of foreign culture, fear of sexuality.

Conservatives have consistently been on the wrong side of history. If I had to bet on who is currently making "similar mistakes," that's where I'd put my money.

It's hard to imagine a larger quantity of ideologically-motivated nonsense being crammed into so little space.

[Defender]

i cant help but notice no one has been able to authenticate said letter yet. I really want to know how this letter came into the position of the news media.

Indeed.

I'm not sure I like what that says about a number of the people participating in this thread.

Isn't George Romney Mitt Romney's dad? This letter makes George Romney look pretty good, as the guy who was on the right side of history who rose above past Mormon racism and ignored what he considered immoral counsel from his church leaders, and instead did what he thought was correct. It was a private letter, so one would assume it was in the possession of the Romney household. It wouldn't surprise me if this letter was leaked by the Romneys to show that Mitt will not walk in lock step with Mormon leadership as President of the US, because his dad didn't.

[JNclone]

Why do you suppose Elder Stapley represents the general majority of feeling in the Church at the time?

The acrobatics are just going too fast for me here. Not long back, Stapley's opinions (which would be repugnant to the majority of Americans today) were being excused on this board on the grounds that most people thought like that then. Now you hint that his way of thinking may have been rare amongst LDS in those days?

Anyway ... if you have evidence that most LDS did not feel that way about 'the Negro' at the time, no doubt you will cite it here and confound me. Till that happens, your question seems to my no doubt limited understanding just a little like asking me why I suppose the moon is not made of green cheese.

[Avatar4321]

The acrobatics are just going too fast for me here. Not long back, Stapley's opinions (which would be repugnant to the majority of Americans today) were being excused on this board on the grounds that most people thought like that then. Now you hint that his way of thinking may have been rare amongst LDS in those days?

Anyway ... if you have evidence that most LDS did not feel that way about 'the Negro' at the time, no doubt you will cite it here and confound me. Till that happens, your question seems to my no doubt limited understanding just a little like asking me why I suppose the moon is not made of green cheese.

Do you have any evidence that this is an authentic documents?

Didnt think so...

[JNclone]

Do you have any evidence that this is an authentic documents?

Didnt think so...

I did not argue that it was certainly genuine. In fact I said quite carefully in a previous post (my added emphasis here):

Since this board is about 'Mormon apologetics and discussion', what follows in relation to that topic from the letter (presumed genuine for the sake of the argument) and the subsequent discussion?

My posts have, like that of most others, been subject to that conditional qualification, and unlike most others I went to the trouble of stating it explicitly.

Hope that cheers you up. Do you have any evidence one way or another about this document? Do you, for instance, have evidence that Stapley believed in civil rights for black people? I should in fact be pleased to hear that he did, since I like to think well of religious leaders. Enlighten us.

[koakaipo]

Why do you suppose Elder Stapley represents the general majority of feeling in the Church at the time?

I'm sure there was a broad range of feelings. I do think though for where he was from and his age group and when you read his mindset in the letter(regarding curses, tying race with curses of lineage, etc.), he was probably represented common feelings among many church members

[Hawkmoon]

Of course people are making similar mistakes now. They're being made by the people who have always been "men of their time," who have failed to rise above the ignorance and stupidity of the age--they're what we now call "conservatives." I'm not talking about Republicans versus Democrats. By "conservative," I'm refering to those who oppose social progress, and who would take us back a few steps if they could. They're the ones who opposed the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, the availability of birth control, civil rights, and now gay rights. They opposed women in the workplace and women in the military. They loathe anything that parts from tradition. Their ideology is based on fear--fear of change, fear of foreign culture, fear of sexuality.

Conservatives have consistently been on the wrong side of history. If I had to bet on who is currently making "similar mistakes," that's where I'd put my money.

At least we now know that your ignorance is not limited to Mormonism... nor your vitriol. Obviously, it spills over into every aspect of your life-- are you related to a Mr. Scratchy?

[Alf O'Mega]

But his private expression of his personal opinion was not immoral and, although we now find the opinion morally troubling (to say the least of it), there was no consensus at the time (and particularly among people of his socio-economic and geographical background and generation) that opinions of this sort were immoral.

Do you believe that his opinion can only be considered immoral from our current vantage point, or was it also immoral then, just not generally recognized as such within his cultural context?

[Daniel Peterson]

Do you believe that his opinion can only be considered immoral from our current vantage point, or was it also immoral then, just not generally recognized as such within his cultural context?

I'm inclined toward the latter. But that's still enough to make me bristle at the charge that he was an immoral or a "horrible" man.

There are many things in the past that basically good and decent people regarded as self-evident and that we now regard as self-evidently false and/or bad. I have no doubt that this phenomenon isn't confined to the past, and that we ourselves are unaware of things that later generations will see as incomprehensible and wrong. I would hope that they will be charitable to us, but I see no reason for us to expect such charity if we don't exercise it ourselves.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm inclined toward the latter. But that's still enough to make me bristle at the charge that he was an immoral or a "horrible" man.

There are many things in the past that basically good and decent people regarded as self-evident and that we now regard as self-evidently false and/or bad. I have no doubt that this phenomenon isn't confined to the past, and that we ourselves are unaware of things that later generations will see as incomprehensible and wrong. I would hope that they will be charitable to us, but I see no reason for us to expect such charity if we don't exercise it ourselves.

If I might offer an example of such a thing:

Most reputable physicians these days now acknowledge that the practice of routine neo-natal circumcision on boys has no appreciable medical or hygienic benefits. Yet it is still widely practiced -- and defended -- as a necessary procedure.

I predict that future generations will scratch their heads as to why we continued to have the procedure done to our newborn boys, even after it had been widely discredited by the health-care community.

[AndyOne]

If I might offer an example of such a thing:

Most reputable physicians these days now acknowledge that the practice of routine neo-natal circumcision on boys has no appreciable medical or hygienic benefits. Yet it is still widely practiced -- and defended -- as a necessary procedure.

I predict that future generations will scratch their heads as to why we continued to have the procedure done to our newborn boys, even after it had been widely discredited by the health-care community.

Of course, there are several new studies showing that circumcision helps reduce the risk of contracting HIV.

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course, there are several new studies showing that circumcision helps reduce the risk of contracting HIV.

I won't risk derailing the thread by commenting -- except to say that circumcision has long been a cure in search of a problem, a phenomenon that continues today.

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

[Alf O'Mega]

I'm inclined toward the latter. But that's still enough to make me bristle at the charge that he was an immoral or a "horrible" man.

I think I share your inclination to charity (although bristle implies a defensiveness about Elder Stapley that I no longer share). I wouldn't call him horrible, but he did promulgate a distinctly immoral opinion, which deserves at least some light opprobrium. The fact that there were plenty of contrasting opinions available that were being vigorously advocated makes it hard to entirely exonerate him.

There are many things in the past that basically good and decent people regarded as self-evident and that we now regard as self-evidently false and/or bad. I have no doubt that this phenomenon isn't confined to the past, and that we ourselves are unaware of things that later generations will see as incomprehensible and wrong. I would hope that they will be charitable to us, but I see no reason for us to expect such charity if we don't exercise it ourselves.

I agree. I wonder if, for example, society isn't moving in a transhumanist direction. It may turn out that PETA activists are someday viewed as some of the extremist abolitionists of the nineteenth century (such as John Brown) are today: obviously right about their pet principle but unjustified in some of their tactics.

The fact that some obviously wrong opinions were held so widely so recently has perhaps acclimated usâ??more, I think, than any other generation in historyâ??to making just this sort of moral comparison between ourselves and our predecessors. Generational chauvinism is nothing new (only one of the terms Enlightenment and Dark Ages was self-applied), but my sense is that moral recalibration is happening faster than ever, and the peril of self-satisfaction is therefore (or ought to be) more obvious than ever.

[Scott Lloyd]

Generational chauvinism is nothing new (only one of the terms Enlightenment and Dark Ages was self-applied), but my sense is that moral recalibration is happening faster than ever, and the peril of self-satisfaction is therefore (or ought to be) more obvious than ever.

And yet we continue to have people citing dubious studies in support of routine neo-natal circumcision.