Kanye West Was Right. Ces Doesn't Care About Black People.

[mormonnewb]

Upon expressing my concerns about the Church's stance (or lack thereof) on civil rights, I've been counseled to stay in the Church and work for change from within. After all, the Church teaches valuable truths about family and community, which would build up any group. I find this to be a very persuasive argument, but I'm concerned that any efforts by black saints to bring more black Americans into the Church will not be reciprocated by Church leadership.

This became apparent to me when I started preparing for this week's EQ lesson from the ETB Teachings of the Presidents manual. I must confess that, given his rather vociferous opposition to civil rights, I was surprised that he would have been included in this series, but I thought, "Okay. No one is perfect. Let's just focus on his teachings." Yet, that isn't what the manual does. It lionizes him for "his love for the Lord and his steadfast commitment to living the gospel."

I'm sure that most of you don't see it this way, but I find it hard to see such a commitment to "living the gospel" from a man who wouldn't have even sat at a lunch counter with my grandfather. I just don't see such love for the Lord in a man, who for most of his adult life, was vehemently opposed to blacks receiving the priesthood (or even the unfettered right to vote). I just don't get the "warm and fuzzies" for the man. And this is understandable. We're all going to have our favorite and not-so-favorite prophets.

However, what I don't understand is that the Church seems to have taken no thought to how a black person might feel sitting through an entire year of hour long-lessons extolling the virtues of a man who closely aligned himself with the John Birch Society, which has been classified as a "hate group" (albeit a non-violent one). Did anyone even THINK that some black members might find this disconcerting? And more pertinently, does anyone in leadership even care?

My guess is NOT, because this is so obvious if one is paying attention AT ALL. You don't ask black people to stand up and extol the virtue of people who supported segregation during their lifetimes. Full stop. Period. The fact that no one seems to have even give this a second thought seems to indicate just how eager the Church is to bring black Americans into the fold. Not very.

Why is this so hard for anyone but me (and Kanye) to see?

Edited January 9, 2015 by mormonnewb

[drums12]

You simply have no idea what you're talking about. 

[Avatar4321]

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

I concur.

president Benson didn't hate any man.

[mormonnewb]

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm open to being corrected. I've read several quotes detailing his opposition/skepticism of various civil rights initiatives and leaders. But that might be just one side of the coin. I'm sure he must have said SOMETHING positive about blacks, integration, our inclusion in the Church, etc. So please just point me to some so that I can have a more balanced view of the man.

[guerreiro9]

You're right. No one who lived before the civil rights era and disagreed with any current sentiment could possibly be worthy of praise. I say we posthumously excommunicate him and remove his name from all church publications.

-guerreiro9

[sethpayne]

I'm open to being corrected. I've read several quotes detailing his opposition/skepticism of various civil rights initiatives and leaders. But that might be just one side of the coin. I'm sure he must have said SOMETHING positive about blacks, integration, our inclusion in the Church, etc. So please just point me to some so that I can have a more balanced view of the man.

 

I don't think President Benson's suspicion of the civil rights movement had anything to do with race.  It was all about his fear of communism.  Had MLK been a member of the John Birch Society I think he would have embraced him with open arms.  Although, I must admit it is unfortunate, then Elder Benson, chose to lend his name to this particular fear-mongering book:

 

 

I also suspect he may have come to regret recommending the nonsensical and absurd "None Dare Call it a Conspiracy" over the pulpit at General Conference.

Edited January 9, 2015 by sethpayne

[BCSpace]

This became apparent to me when I started preparing for this week's EQ lesson from the ETB Teachings of the Presidents manual. I must confess that, given his rather vociferous opposition to civil rights, I was surprised that he would have been included in this series, but I thought, "Okay. No one is perfect. Let's just focus on his teachings." Yet, that isn't what the manual does. It lionizes him for "his love for the Lord and his steadfast commitment to living the gospel."

 

Would you also be surprised to see a manual about Joseph Smith considering the following:

 

"The curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before Him; and those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel. (Prophet Joseph Smith, 1836, History of the Church 2:438)"

 

?

 

I'm sure that most of you don't see it this way, but I find it hard to see such a commitment to "living the gospel" from a man who wouldn't have even sat at a lunch counter with my grandfather. I just don't see such love for the Lord in a man, who for most of his adult life, was vehemently opposed to blacks receiving the priesthood (or even the unfettered right to vote). I just don't get the "warm and fuzzies" for the man. And this is understandable. We're all going to have our favorite and not-so-favorite prophets.

 

 

ETB's pamphlet, "Civil Rights: Tool of Communist Deception", says:

 

"Now there is nothing wrong with civil rights--it is what's being done in the name of civil rights that is alarming. There is no doubt that the so-called Civil Rights movement as it exists today is used as a communist program for revolution in America, just as agrarian reform was used by the communists to take over China and Cuba."

 

 

However, what I don't understand is that the Church seems to have taken no thought to how a black person might feel sitting through an entire year of hour long-lessons extolling the virtues of a man who closely aligned himself with the John Birch Society, which has been classified as a "hate group" (albeit a non-violent one). Did anyone even THINK that some black members might find this disconcerting? And more pertinently, does anyone in leadership even care?

 

Claiming the JBS is or was a hate group is just as ridiculous and wrong as claiming ETB was opposed to civil rights.

 

[mormonnewb]

You're right. No one who lived before the civil rights era and disagreed with any current sentiment could possibly be worthy of praise. I say we posthumously excommunicate him and remove his name from all church publications.

-guerreiro9

I'm a big fan of hyperbole myself, but do you think that I'm really suggesting that we vilify everyone who got it wrong on civil rights? And do you not see a distinction between excommunication and deification?

I just wonder if anybody even thought, "Hey, given Pres. Taft's quite vocal opposition to civil rights and given our recent efforts to move away from past rationalizations and justifications for the priesthood ban, perhaps we might want to spend the next year lionizing one of our prophets who was not a booster for a hate group?"

And this isn't unreasonable. The Church seems to have given considerable thought to how women think about a number of issues over the last year or so. Do blacks need to start an OB (Omit Benson) movement for anyone to even consider that some of us might not want to spend the next year telling everyone in my quorum about ETB's holiness and righteousness?

[The Nehor]

I know on more then one occassion he spoke of being worried for honest blacks "tricked" into supporting the civil rights movement which he believed was part of a larger communist plot against freedom. As an apostle he was regularly getting in trouble for his political speeches.

Here is what he said:

"First of all, we must not place blame on the Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder. Not one in a thousand Americans--black or white--really understands the full implications of today's civil-rights agitation. The planning, direction, and leadership come from the Communists, and most of those are white men who fully intend to destroy America by spilling Negro blood, rather than their own.

Next, we must not participate in any so-called 'blacklash' activity which might tend to further intensify inter-racial friction. Anti-Negro vigilante action, or mob action, of any kind fits perfectly into the Communist plan. This is one of the best ways to force the decent Negro into cooperating with militant Negro groups. The Communists are just as anxious to spearhead such anti-Negro actions as they are to organize demonstrations that are calculated to irritate white people.

We must insist that duly authorized legislative investigating committess launch an even more exhaustive study and expose the degree to which secret Communists have penetrated into the civil rights movement. The same needs to be done with militant anti-Negro groups. This is an effective way for the American people of both races to find out who are the false leaders among them."

He believed that both the civil rights movement and the black persecution movements like the KKK were pawns of communist forces.

To be fair some of the John Birch society allegations against Martin Luther King were correct. He was a philanderer and was associating with members and leaders of the U.S. Communist party. Elder Benson was wrong about it being part of a megaplot or even that MLK was an avid communist. MLK had a genius for melding disparate groups together to achieve the goals of the Civil Rights movement, communists included.

The other apostles were not happy with Benson's political fixation and he was sent to lead the European mission at least partially (according to then prophet Joseph Fielding Smith) to get these ideas kicked out of him as he was becoming something of a public embarrassment and was being rebuked regularly. When he came back from Europe his views had softened a little though he still spoke and wrote on the subject of the Communist threat.

When he was made prophet he never to my knowledge brought up communism again. I like to think the Savior and he had a little talk that that was completely inappropriate for the prophet to speak on absent direct revelation.

I do not believe he hated black people. I think he hated communists and was deceived by a heavy dose of Cold War paranoia he picked up from his years in politics surrounded by worry about the Red Menace. He was flawed but hatred was not his flaw.

Edited January 9, 2015 by The Nehor

[Stargazer]

Sigh.  We spent an entire year on the teachings of Brigham Young a number of years ago.  Perhaps you were not then a member of the Church.  Brother Brigham is an even better lightning rod on this subject. 
 
And then there's the John Birch Society, a political action and education organization that is ultra-Conservative and anti-Communist. Given this bent, it should be no surprise that the JBS is classified as a "hate group" by the extremely left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center.  Although it is true that JBS does espouse a certain form of hatred: hatred against Socialism and Communism.  It is also true that the JBS opposed the Civil Rights Movement -- but not because they were racist.  They believed strongly that the CRM was a stalking horse for Communism.  Rightly or wrongly.  John Welch, the founder of JBS had this to say:
 
"All we are interested in here is opposing the advance of the Communists, and eventually destroying the whole Communist conspiracy, so that Jews and Christians alike, and Mohammedans and Buddhists, can again have a decent world in which to live." -- excerpt from The Neutralizers, a book written by John Welch.
 
There is an interesting sentence in the Wikipedia article on the JBS, which reads:
 
"Antisemitic, racist, anti-Mormon, anti-Masonic, and various religious groups criticized the group's acceptance of Jews, non-whites, Masons, and Mormons."
 
I tried to follow up on the sources for this sentence (three were given) and found them hard to read, so I gave up.  But I did find the following on the Daily Kos:
 

The John Birch Society is a violent, racist, secret organization that has caused America much pain and misery. It's origins are shrouded in mystery and usually start in 1958 when Robert Welch held a meeting in Indianapolis with twelve influential men. This is absolutely wrong, and this diary will show the Society's actual origins and the Mormon leaders who were behind it.

This entire article is filled with anti-Mormon sentiment. But the very first sentence in the article is extremely telling when it states that the JBS is violent. OK, fine. What violence has it committed? I've never heard even an accusation of such. And racist? This article by the current President of JBS, John McManus, makes a particular point of the abortion of black babies in Missouri (which no-one protests, though they go nuts about Michael Brown).  Of course, a racist organization would definitely make a point of being opposed to the abortion of non-white babies, right?

Very instructively, that Daily Kos article is not so much anti-JBS as it is anti-Mormon. According to its claim, the LDS Church was the motivating force behind the founding of the JBS. With Church President David O. McKay especially involved.

So, according to this article anyway, if being a member of, or being favorably disposed towards the JBS is a red flag (sot to speak), then you're in the wrong Church.

Parenthetically I should like to point out that just because one opposes the Civil Rights Act does not necessarily make one opposed to civil rights. In the same vein as being opposed to a rise in property taxes to build a new school does not make one opposed to education.

Oh, and when it comes to names of bills, they do not necessarily reflect their actual intent or effect. Because of the Affordable Care Act, for instance, we were forced to drop insurance on our emotionally challenged adult son because the ACA mandated that the premium went up 150%. In other words, the Affordable Care Act made his medical insurance unaffordable. He's now on Medicaid -- and that means that the government is paying for it. Affordability has nothing to do with it. It's a stalking horse for a single-payer system, i.e. government-run health care. Of course, YOU will disagree.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Stargazer

[mormonnewb]

I know on more then one occassion he spoke of being worried for honest blacks "tricked" into supporting the civil rights movement which he believed was part of a larger communist plot against freedom. As an apostle he was regularly getting in trouble for his political speeches.

Here is what he said:

"First of all, we must not place blame on the Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder. Not one in a thousand Americans--black or white--really understands the full implications of today's civil-rights agitation. The planning, direction, and leadership come from the Communists, and most of those are white men who fully intend to destroy America by spilling Negro blood, rather than their own.

Next, we must not participate in any so-called 'blacklash' activity which might tend to further intensify inter-racial friction. Anti-Negro vigilante action, or mob action, of any kind fits perfectly into the Communist plan. This is one of the best ways to force the decent Negro into cooperating with militant Negro groups. The Communists are just as anxious to spearhead such anti-Negro actions as they are to organize demonstrations that are calculated to irritate white people.

We must insist that duly authorized legislative investigating committess launch an even more exhaustive study and expose the degree to which secret Communists have penetrated into the civil rights movement. The same needs to be done with militant anti-Negro groups. This is an effective way for the American people of both races to find out who are the false leaders among them."

He believed that both the civil rights movement and the black persecution movements like the KKK were pawns of communist forces.

To be fair some of the John Birch society allegations against Martin Luther King were correct. He was a philanderer and was associating with members and leaders of the U.S. Communist party. Elder Benson was wrong about it being part of a megaplot or even that MLK was an avid communist. MLK had a genius for melding disparate groups together to achieve the goals of the Civil Rights movement, communists included.

The other apostles were not happy with Benson's political fixation and he was sent to lead the European mission at least partially (according to then prophet Joseph Fielding Smith) to get these ideas kicked out of him as he was becoming something of a public embarrassment and was being rebuked regularly. When he came back from Europe his views had softened a little though he still spoke and wrote on the subject of the Communist threat.

When he was made prophet he never to my knowledge brought up communism again. I like to think the Savior and he had a little talk that that was completely inappropriate for the prophet to speak on absent direct revelation.

I do not believe he hated black people. I think he hated communists and was deceived by a heavy dose of Cold War paranoia he picked up from his years in politics surrounded by worry about the Red Menace. He was flawed but hatred was not his flaw.

No, I don't think that ETB hated black people. He just wasn't particularly concerned about us one way or another. After all, it's not like he was supporting OTHER civil rights legislation that would have secured is the right to vote, attend public schools, stay in hotels, eat in restaurants, etc. But indifference is not hatred.

But from an optics standpoint, I'm just surprised that it didn't give the Church pause to name him "Prophet of the Year." Nor did it cause anyone to say, "Hey, this doesn't look so good. Perhaps, we should write an essay to explain this to questioning members."

Or is it just assumed that black members won't have concerns?

[Bobbieaware]

Looks like the anti-Mormon phase is beginning to kick in. Of a truth, they can leave but they can't leave it alone.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Duncan]

What does this have to do with the CES? I for one am thankful, no offense, that they didn't really include his stuff about the US in the manual, as someone living in Honduras or Korea probably won't get much out of a lesson on the US Constipatution

Edited January 9, 2015 by Duncan

[guerreiro9]

I'm a big fan of hyperbole myself, but do you think that I'm really suggesting that we vilify everyone who got it wrong on civil rights? And do you not see a distinction between excommunication and deification?

I just wonder if anybody even thought, "Hey, given Pres. Taft's quite vocal opposition to civil rights and given our recent efforts to move away from past rationalizations and justifications for the priesthood ban, perhaps we might want to spend the next year lionizing one of our prophets who was not a booster for a hate group?"

And this isn't unreasonable. The Church seems to have given considerable thought to how women think about a number of issues over the last year or so. Do blacks need to start an OB (Omit Benson) movement for anyone to even consider that some of us might not want to spend the next year telling everyone in my quorum about ETB's holiness and righteousness?

Is support of the civil rights movement the litmus test you use to segregate people into categories? They're either good or evil based upon their stance? Everything else they did, everything else they were is meaningless compared with this one issue?

Have you studied the life of Ezra Taft Benson previously? Everyone becomes deminished when we reduce a person to the qualities we hate most about them.

I think you should enter into it with an open mind. We are only two weeks into January. Perhaps over the course of the year you can find something to admire about the man. Or if not admiration at least understanding where there is only distaste currently.

Perhaps that is why a book about Ezra Taft Benson was chosen.

-guerreiro9

Edited January 9, 2015 by guerreiro9

[BCSpace]

Looks like the anti-Mormon phase is beginning to kick in. Of a truth, they can leave but they can't leave it alone.

 

 

Some of us aren't giving them as much action as they'd like over on the Shady board.  Sorry about that.

[The Nehor]

No, I don't think that ETB hated black people. He just wasn't particularly concerned about us one way or another. After all, it's not like he was supporting OTHER civil rights legislation that would have secured is the right to vote, attend public schools, stay in hotels, eat in restaurants, etc. But indifference is not hatred.

But from an optics standpoint, I'm just surprised that it didn't give the Church pause to name him "Prophet of the Year." Nor did it cause anyone to say, "Hey, this doesn't look so good. Perhaps, we should write an essay to explain this to questioning members."

Or is it just assumed that black members won't have concerns?

We do not name prophets "Prophet of the Year". Unless prophets start having very short tenures we will soon have covered every prophet since the restoration. I really we are going to blacklist any of them as unpalatable. Is there something about this year that makes it particularly offensive to you or would it be okay next year? I really do not care much which prophet we cover but then I have made it clear that I am not a fan of these manuals in general. I think the format is terrible.

You want an essay on the Civil Rights movement and how it relates to one apostle? I do not think the essays are ever going to get that specific. I have also not heard a lot of clamor from Black (or White or any other race) Mormons demanding that this be addressed. Trying to make this into active ignoring of a portion of our membership makes it seem like you want to generalize your specific concerns in hopes of making them more of a problem then they are.

Do not get me wrong. Your concerns are important. So are mine. So are everyone's but the church as an institution should not be expected to address every one of them through their essays. They wouldn't be able to if they wanted to.

[VideoGameJunkie]

At least you don't have to do a lesson on Brigham Young. He said that the punishment for having an interracial child is death and always will be.

[Stargazer]

What does this have to do with the CES? I for one am thankful, no offense, that they didn't really include his stuff about the US in the manual, as someone living in Honduras or Korea probably won't get much out of a lesson on the US Constipatution

Yes, the Consumer Electronics Show started two days ago in Las Vegas, and I really don't know what it has to do with the subject at hand.

[Bobbieaware]

Is support of the civil rights movement the litmus test you use to segregate people into categories? They're either good or evil based upon their stance? Everything else they did, everything else they were is meaningless compared with this one issue?

Have you studied the life of Ezra Taft Benson previously? Everyone becomes deminished when we reduce a person to the qualities we hate most about them.

I think you should enter into it with an open mind. We are only two weeks into January. Perhaps over the course of the year you can find something to admire about the man. Or if not admiration at least understanding where there is only distaste currently.

Perhaps that is why a book about Ezra Taft Benson was chosen.

-guerreiro9

If a man is inclined toward communism and powerful centralized government, that man will despise Ezra Taft Benson.

[The Nehor]

If a man is inclined toward communism and powerful centralized government, that man will despise Ezra Taft Benson.

But Gadianton robbers love him because they so opposed central government that they killed the leader of the centralized government and succeeded in ending it? I think you are oversimplifying.

[rodheadlee]

You and Kanye? Is he your new Hero? Really, the filthy mouthed guy that grabbed the mic from  Taylor Swift and dissed her in front of the world? That Kanye West? Hey, it's ok with me if you don't come back.

[Stargazer]

But Gadianton robbers love him because they so opposed central government that they killed the leader of the centralized government and succeeded in ending it? I think you are oversimplifying.

How on earth do you know what Gadianton Robbers think? You know some? I'd a thought they died out some time back. And they killed the leader of the Government because they wanted to take over the government. They were Totalitarians, Nehor.

Good grief, man! Think!

[The Nehor]

How on earth do you know what Gadianton Robbers think? You know some? I'd a thought they died out some time back. And they killed the leader of the Government because they wanted to take over the government. They were Totalitarians, Nehor.Good grief, man! Think!

I suspect they wanted to destroy the central government thinking it would be easier to conquer disparate tribal groups once they had their king ready. They did not count on how much people would miss the central government and hate them for ending it.

[Duncan]

Yes, the Consumer Electronics Show started two days ago in Las Vegas, and I really don't know what it has to do with the subject at hand.

 

 

American Politics of the 1960's isn't a big seller in the world

[VideoGameJunkie]

Not only did Kanye steal the mic from Taylor Swift, but then he married the woman with a humongus butt and tiny brain Kim Kardashian.