Racist Elder Stapley Letter To Gov. George Romney

[tcandew]

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.

This is a pretty sophomoric analysis.

Liberal, does not equal Democrat nor vice versa.

Conservative, does not equal Republican nor vice versa.

conflating political ideology with political parties over the span of 150 years is really disingenious.

[Hawkmoon]

This is a pretty sophomoric analysis.

Liberal, does not equal Democrat nor vice versa.

Conservative, does not equal Republican nor vice versa.

conflating political ideology with political parties over the span of 150 years is really disingenious.

Maybe... but far less so than the imbecilic analysis that prompted his response in the first place.

[cksalmon]

Assuming the letter is genuine, Elder Stapley was simply wrong.

And he was wrong, not because 21st C America is particularly "enlightened"; rather, he was wrong because his views are inherently condemned by the message of the Gospel that predates him by 2000 years.

Lots of other well-meaning contemporary religionists in mid-20th C America were wrong on this issue as well. I want to stress that they (be they LDS or non-LDS) were fundamentally wrong vis-a-vis the Gospel message of NT.

And Southern Baptists were wrong to split from the Triennial Convention over the issue of its threatened ban on slave-holding missionaries in the mid-1800's.

Pace Dan, I'd say racist tendencies do indicate that humans are inherently "horrible." Unfortunately, it's a state we all share. But the redemption from such a universal and sad state of affairs is, at least partially, the point of Christ's earthly ministry.

My question, with regard to its impact on Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, is "So what?" Without trying to minimize the underlying and important issue of responsibly addressing race relations in America (past, present, and future), the letter is utterly irrelevant.

Best.

CKS

[kamenraider]

It seems to me that by circulating the letter someone was attempting to imply that if elected Mitt Romney wouldn't necessarily follow the political counsel or direction of LDS leaders, because in this instance his father clearly didn't.

[juliann]

Pace Dan, I'd say racist tendencies do indicate that humans are inherently "horrible." Unfortunately, it's a state we all share. But the redemption from such a universal and sad state of affairs is, at least partially, the point of Christ's earthly ministry.

Indeed. Wouldn't it be wonderful if these threads were about how we could all come together to improve this situation instead of using it as a weapon? It seems blacks can't catch a break.

[Ahman]

The burden of the priesthood can be viewed by looking at Noahs sons. Shem was the ancestor of Abraham, who asked God to bless his posterity to carry the priesthood, ensuring that Christ would be taught to his children in order to better ensure their salvation.

Japheths decendents strayed and became the Gentiles. The Gentiles had the priesthood witheld from them until after the time of Christ, who himself would not teach them during his mortal ministry.

Ham gave rise to the Cannanites. This is the Negro race, who had the priesthood witheld from them until President Kimball approached the Lord and asked that they be granted the right to bear it.

It may be that the darkening of skin and the witholding of the priesthood may be two seperate issues.

There is a common belief among members of the Church that denial of the right of the priesthood to the Cannanites is the result of the curse God placed on Cain. This assumption, however, is not supported by the scriptures. Abraham 1:26-27 is the only passage that explicitly mentions denial of the right to the priesthood and associates that with Ham because of his marriage to Egyptus, a "partaker of the blood of the Cannanites" (Abraham 1:21). No mention is made of Cain or any Genealogical connection with him. JST Genesis 9:25 states that Cannan was cursed and that "a veil of darkness shall cover him (Cannan), that he shall be known among all men." This darkness is assumed to refer to skin color. However the Cannanites of ancient Palestine were Caucasian, not black, and had no connection with Africa, where the black race seems to have originated. Moses 7:8 says that "a blackness came upon all the children of Cannan." That these people of Cannan were decendants of Cain is not explicitly stated, though it is often assumed. It is also not clear whether these antedeluvian Cannanites are the same people as the Cannanites found much later in Palestine. The Lord pronounced two curses on Cain because he murdered his brother, Abel. The curses were (1) that when he tilled the earth, it would not yield its strength, and (2) that he would be a fugitive and a vagabond (see Moses 5:37). No mention is made of a loss of priesthood or that the curse will be placed on to his posterity. In Moses 5:40 the Lord places a mark on Cain to identify him so others will not attempt to slay him. It does not say what this mark is, although it is generally assumed to be a dark skin, and again, there is no implication that this mark is to be passed on to his descendents.

In this dispensation, blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood until the revelation received by President Spencer W. Kimball in 1978 (see D&C Official Declaration 2). The Church has never given any official doctrinal statement as to why the priesthood was temporarily denied to blacks. The speculation that it is because they are the descendants of Cain is unsupported from the scriptures. In reality we do not know why God denied blacks the priesthood for a time. All we know is that He did, later making it available to them through a living prophet.

The Pearl of Great price: A verse-by-verse Commentary, Draper/ Brown/ Rhodes, pg. 256-257

It has always been my understanding that Hams wife was black, and that is how it continued through the flood. Egyptus settled Egypt, and in Abraham 1:27 Abraham emphasizes that , because of his descent through Ham, the first Pharaoh of Egypt did not have the right to the priesthood. This cause friction between pharaoh and Abraham, since Pharaoh was meant to be God incarnate, and Abraham was the Prophet of God who carried his authority and spoke for the one true God.

I think any time this topic is discussed this should be posted:

The revelation extending the full blessings of the priesthood to all races ranks among the great events of this dispensation. It is one of the singular events necessary for the fulfillment of prophecies that the fullness of the gospel would be taken to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people before the return of Christ.

The events that attended the receipt of this revelation constitute a classic illustration of how revelation is received. The time was right, and accordingly the Spirit of the Lord began to work on President Kimball. For months he labored with the issue, spending many hours in the most holy of places in the temple, importuning the heavens for direction. Preparatory to the receipt of this revelation, he was required - according to the pattern established in Doctrine and Covenants 9 - to study, search, and councel with those charged to direct the affairs of the Church. By his own ackknowledgment, it was also necessary for him to rid his own heart and soul of any possible sence of racial superiority, particularly as such feelings were common to the community in which he had been raised.

President Kimball did not act alone on the matter. He sought the feelings of his counselors and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. In March 1978 he invited any of the Twelve who desired to do so to make expressions to him in writing so that he could carefully consider them. Three members of that Quprum responded to this invitation: Elders Monson, Packer, and McConkie. Elder McConkie's memo centered on the doctrinal basis for confering the Melchizedek Priesthood on the blacks. After the revelation was received, he freely shared with his family the scriptural chain of thought he had suggested to President Kimball. The power of it was in its simplicity. He simply saw things in scripture that the rest of us had conditioned ourselves not to see. He saw them in a new light and had no hesitation in moving forward.

He reasoned that inherent in any passage of scripture that promised that the gospel would go to all mankind was the promise that it - with all its blessings - must go to the blacks. The Third Article of Faith states, "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." The word saved as used in the text, he said, meant to be exalted or obtain all the blessings of the celestial kingdom. To illustrate the point, he quoted Doctrine and Covenants 6:13: "If thou wilt do good, yea, and hold out faithful to the end, thou shalt be saved in the kingdom of God, which is the greatest of all the gifts of God; for their is no gift greater than the gift of salvation," and Joseph Smith's statement that "salvation consists in the glory, authority, majesty, power and dominion which Jehovah possesses and in nothing else."

He pointed out that all those who accept the gospel become the seed of the family of Abraham and are entitled to all of the blessings of the gospel. Jehovah told Abraham that his seed would take the gospel and the "Priesthood unto all nations" and that "as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father" (Abraham 2:9-10). Jehovah also promised Abraham that when his literal seed took the message of salvation to "all nations", then shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal" (Abraham 2:9, 11; emphasis added). This, of coarce, is the doctrine of adoption into the house of Israel.

In his address at Elder McConkie's funeral, Elder Boyd K. Packer observed that "President Kimball has spoken in public of his gratitude to Elder McConkie for some special support he received in the days leading up to the revelation on the Priesthood." It would be hard to suppose that this special help did not include the assurance of Elder McConkie's gospel understanding.

It is well withen the mark to say that no member of the Church was more excited or pleased than Bruce McConkie about the revelation given to President Kimball on this matter. One evidence of his excitement about this momentous event is the freedom with which he spoke and wrote about the events that led up to the receipt of the revelation.

As the First Presidency and the Twelve discussed the matter the week before the revelation, Elder LeGrand Richards identified the presence of President Wilford Woodruff in their temple meeting. Perhaps it was given to Elder Richards to know this because he was the only one of their number old enough to have actually seen Wilford Woodruff, which he had done as a young boy. As to why President Woodruff was there, Elder McConkie reasoned that since he had presided over the Church when the revelation to reverse its cource on the matter of plural marriage was given, it was natural that he would be called on to help direct the Brethren when the revelation was neded that represented a reversal of direction.

Elder Richards asked that the Twelve and the First Presidency keep his having seen President Woodruff a confidential matter because he did not want people thinking him some kind of great man to have had that experience. Elder Packer felt it proper to make this knowledge public at Elder Richard's funeral.

The revelation was received on Thursday, June 1, 1978, about twelve noon in the upper room of the Salt Lake Temple. The normal order of the day was for the Twelve to meet and attend to their business and then be joined by the First Presidency. When the two quorums meet, they unite in prayer, according to the pattern of the temple. They then conduct their bussiness, which normally ends about the middle of the afternoon. The Brethren then retire to a dining room for lunch, after which they leave the temple.

On Thursday, June 1, 1978, the Twelve met as usual. They were joined by the First Presidency, the Seventy, and the Presiding Bishopric at 9 a.m., and the normal meeting was held. It included partaking of the sacrament and the bearing of testimony. The Spirit of the Lord was present in great abundance. After the prayer closing that meeting, President Kimball took the usual step of inviting the members of the First Presidency and the Twelve to remain in the room and excused the other Brethren. All had come to the meeting fasting. President Kimball told the Twelve that he would like them to continue during the rest of the day to fast with the First Presidency and that the normal luncheon at the end of the bussiness meeting had been cancelled. He reminded the members of the Presidency and the Twelve that in recent months he had been giving extended serious prayerful consideration to the matter of conferring the priesthood upon the blacks and that he felt the need for divine guidance. He had spent many hours alone in the upper room in the temple pleading with the Lord for councel and direction. He said he hoped the Lord would give a revelation one way or another and resolve the matter. He indicated that if it was the mind and will of the Lord that the church continue in the present cource, denying the priesthood to the descendants of Cain, that he was willing to sustain and support that decision and defend it with all its implications to the death. He said, however, that if the Lord was willing to have the priesthood go to them, he hoped for a clear affirmation of this so there would be no question in anyone's mind.

A long discussion followed in which each member of the Quorum of the Twelve expressed himself. Elder McConkie recorded: "A strong, compelling spirit of unity was in the meeting. It seemed as though all of the Brethren were in effect joining in the prayers which President Kimball had recently been making on this tremendously important matter."

President Kimball suggested that they go forward with the prayer. He said that if it was agreeable with the Brethren, he would be voice. He importuned the Lord with great fervor and faith. He asked that a revelation be given manifesting the Lord's mind and will on this matter so that the issue could be resolved. "it was one of those occasions," Elder McConkie wrote in his journal, "when the one who was mouth in the prayer prayed by the power of the Spirit and was given expression and guided in the words that were used and the sentances said. The prayer he gave was dictated by the Holy Ghost."

While President kimball prayed, the revelation came. When he ended the prayer, there was a great Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit such as none of those present had ever before experienced. There are no words to describe what happened. It was something that could only be felt in the hearts of the recipients and which can only be understood by the power of the Spirit. Afterward, President Kimball, his couselors, and President Benson, representing the feeling of all who were present, expressed themselves to the effect that never in their experience in the Church had they felt or experienced anything in any way comparable to what occured on this occasion.

The manner in which the revelation was given could not have been more perfect. it came through the prophet of the Lord, President Spencer W. Kimball, and at the same time was received by way of confirmation by twelve others. Thus, the prophet received the revelation with twelve men (two members of the First presidency and ten members of the Quorum of the Twelve) all of whom had been set apart as apostles of the Lord and all of them receiving the same revelation at the same time to attest to the verity of the event.

Those absent were Elders Mark E. Petersen and Delbert L Stapley. Elder Petersen was on assignment in South America, and Elder Stapley was ill in LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City. It was felt that they should be given opportunity to learn what had transpired and to be asked if they were in accord. A call was placed to South America for Elder Petersen, who was in complete accord with the feelings of his Quorum. Later that day, the First Presidency called upon Elder Delbert L Stapley in the hospital. He, too, wholeheartedly sustained the revelation.

It was decided to present the matter to the rest of the general authorities the next Thursday, June 8, 1978. They were invited to attend the meeting fasting. The meeting enjoyed a marvelous outpouring of the Spirit that served both as a witness to all present that the time had come to give the priesthood to all races and also as a confirmation of the events the previous week.

Reflecting on the timing of these events, Elder McConkie observed, "I think the Lord waited to give this new direction to his earthly kingdom until his Church was big enough and strong enough to absorb those of all races and cultures, without being overwhelmed by the world, as the primitive saints were when the Church in their day gained acceptance in the Roman Empire."

Excerpt from "The Bruce R. McConkie Story, Reflections of a Son" - Joseph Fielding McConkie p.373-379

[rufus]

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

I believe that study was done in Africa. Those circumcised in that area of the world are basically Muslims, and they are not about to engage in the type of behaviour that leads to infection. It is the religious background and not the surgical procedure that reduces the risk of infection.

Rufus

[AndyOne]

"I believe that study was done in Africa. Those circumcised in that area of the world are basically Muslims, and they are not about to engage in the type of behaviour that leads to infection. It is the religious background and not the surgical procedure that reduces the risk of infection."

Well, behavior, however motivated (whether religious or otherwise), is the most obvious link to risk of infection, but that doesn't mean that circumcision may not further reduce the risk. Also, are you suggesting that there is not rampant promiscuity in the areas studied?

[consiglieri]

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.

They are just off to the right, polishing the marble columns.

You have to look close.

[JNclone]

"I believe that study was done in Africa. Those circumcised in that area of the world are basically Muslims, and they are not about to engage in the type of behaviour that leads to infection. It is the religious background and not the surgical procedure that reduces the risk of infection."

Well, behavior, however motivated (whether religious or otherwise), is the most obvious link to risk of infection, but that doesn't mean that circumcision may not further reduce the risk. Also, are you suggesting that there is not rampant promiscuity in the areas studied?

Please stop talking about circumcision. If you keep on like this sooner or later someone is going to find a way to link it to the Girl Scouts, then there will be a psychosexual meltdown on the part of certain vulnerable posters and the thread will be closed. We don't want that, do we?

[Daniel Peterson]

Pace Dan, I'd say racist tendencies do indicate that humans are inherently "horrible."

Actually, you're not really contradicting me. My reaction is to the notion that Elder Stapley (who, according to everything I've ever heard about him, was a kind and thoughtful and sincere person) was, individually speaking, "horrible." That he shared in the general human condition I do not doubt, and I don't think he would have denied it.

Another good example of genuinely good people doing something that we now universally recognize as (not just bad but) truly horrible would be the involvement of the Founding Fathers in slavery. Pick just about any one of them that you like. Particularly among the Virginia planters. George Washington was, I think, unquestionably a very great and good man. (I've been reading about him lately.) But he owned slaves. Was slave-holding horrible? Of course. Would it be proper to call George Washington "a horrible man"? I find the notion risible.

My question, with regard to its impact on Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, is "So what?" Without trying to minimize the underlying and important issue of responsibly addressing race relations in America (past, present, and future), the letter is utterly irrelevant.

I agree. It's pretty much on the level of the story of the late Seamus the Romney Family Dog.

[jwhitlock]

The original article in the Boston Globe that the link in the OP came from (and why we couldn't get the OP to provide the article link is beyond me) is located here. It may require registration (free) to get in.

I've e-mailed one of the authors to see if I could get some information on the source of the letter. We'll see what happens.

If anyone else has any information on the source, it would be appreciated if it could be posted here. I have not been able to find any other references to its source on the Internet.

[sunstoned]

bump

[Alf O'Mega]

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.

When I wrote this, I was not aware of the very specific meaning attached to the term transhumanist by a group that has adopted it to describe their mission to improve and extend the human condition. (See the Wikipedia article here.) I haven't looked to closely at it, but at first glance it strikes me as a technologically inflected sort of transcendentalism.

In any case, my use of the term was meant to convey a broadening of moral horizons to include other than human beings in the space of those to whom (or which) we owe certain moral obligations, including the recognition of fundamental rights of autonomy. I believe most of us already do sense a degree of moral duty that extends beyond the boundaries of the human species, but I'm wondering if perhaps this sense won't get broader and more robust in the coming generations, just as modern morality has come to extend beyond all racial boundaries.

[jwhitlock]

I received a reply back from one of the authors of the Boston Globe article today about the origins of the letter. It evidently was part of the archives of George Romney's offical papers and correspondence and was located by the reporter when he was sifting through that archive. Any further verification would have to be done directly from that archive.

[Olavarria]

If yer trying to say the twelve dont have any blacks yet or hispanics e.t.c,

L.O.L ! the lord calls whom he calls, he does not call racial quotas.

I dont care what anyone says, Marion G. Romney was Mexican!!!!!

So was sister Kimball.

[Olavarria]

I dont care what anyone says, Marion G. Romney was Mexican!!!!!

So was sister Kimball.

....and Elder Eyring is half Mexican too.

Lets not forget, all the post exodus- prophets who wrote the BoM, mexican.

[Pahoran]

I dont care what anyone says, Marion G. Romney was Mexican!!!!!

So was sister Kimball.

On my mission, a fellow once started ranting about how the Church was just a bunch of Americans from Utah. I flipped open a picture of the First Presidency and, tapping each one in turn said, "Arizonan, Canadian, Mexican." That shut him up, but didn't change his mind.

Regards,

Pahoran

[e=mc2]

Let us also not forget that Joseph married the daughter of the HIGH PRIEST of Heliopolis, that is, of the Pharaoh, who was cursed as to the priesthood, and our lineage comes from there.......