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

[Mars]

General observation of the topic and conversation:

 

I try to not see it as my job to help members of the Church be aware of problematic or eyebrow raising items in Church history, or as they pertain to Church leaders.  It's common in my secular instruction of history to say "Oh, you think George Washington was a good guy?  Well, did you know he was a slave owner?!" or have someone say the same kinda thing to me, about any one who I hold in a positive light.

 

The thinking goes, I am guessing, that I'm basing my positive appraisal on incomplete information and someone else who 'knows better' sees it as their job to let me know the whole story so that I can change my mind and not see the historical thing in such a great light after all.

 

I think it's a bit different when you're having a Church meeting where the point is to redeem the dead, perfect the saints, or preach the Gospel.  It may be that a private discussion where you carefully elaborate your understanding of some shortcomings of a prophet, but not done out of spite for seeing someone praise a man you feel is unworthy of that praise, is appropriate. 

 

Again: Not your job to take the metaphorical pulpit at Church and help people know better.

 

imo

[Mars]

Ken has done it for white Utahns among others. He does it all the time for any reason he wants to convey a certain way to say something. Not saying it is particularly wise in this case as assumptions will be made like you have.

 

That's helpful to know.  Thank you for providing greater context.

[thesometimesaint]

I supported ETB as President and prophet of the Church. I have never supported his political idea's, about the John Birch Society.

The society opposed the 1960s civil rights movement and claimed the movement had communists in important positions. In the latter half of 1965, the JBS produced a flyer titled "What's Wrong With Civil Rights?", which was used as a newspaper advertisement.In the piece, one of the answers was: "For the civil rights movement in the United States, with all of its growing agitation and riots and bitterness, and insidious steps towards the appearance of a civil war, has not been infiltrated by the Communists, as you now frequently hear. It has been deliberately and almost wholly created by the Communists patiently building up to this present stage for more than forty years.The society opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

[Deborah]

ETB's biggest concern at that time was Communism. And the JBS wasn't the only group concerned about MLK's possible Communist affiliations. MLK was under surveillance by the FBI for this very issue, not so  much him personally but his associates who were members of the Communist party.

[stemelbow]

As the Christian apologist David Bentley Hart once remarked, after observing that Pope Gregory XIII had a commemorative medal struck to honor the slaughter of several thousand Huguenot Protestants in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, "human beings frequently disappoint."

 

But I take comfort in the fact that Ezra Taft Benson's extreme political views were off-putting even to many of his colleagues and that, here and there, and against the odds, a handful of prominent Mormons did speak up for civil rights. Hugh B. Brown and George Romney are two names that come to mind.

Would have been awesome of ETB apologized for his years of rhetoric on the topic, though.

[mormonnewb]

General observation of the topic and conversation:

I try to not see it as my job to help members of the Church be aware of problematic or eyebrow raising items in Church history, or as they pertain to Church leaders. It's common in my secular instruction of history to say "Oh, you think George Washington was a good guy? Well, did you know he was a slave owner?!" or have someone say the same kinda thing to me, about any one who I hold in a positive light.

The thinking goes, I am guessing, that I'm basing my positive appraisal on incomplete information and someone else who 'knows better' sees it as their job to let me know the whole story so that I can change my mind and not see the historical thing in such a great light after all.

I think it's a bit different when you're having a Church meeting where the point is to redeem the dead, perfect the saints, or preach the Gospel. It may be that a private discussion where you carefully elaborate your understanding of some shortcomings of a prophet, but not done out of spite for seeing someone praise a man you feel is unworthy of that praise, is appropriate.

Again: Not your job to take the metaphorical pulpit at Church and help people know better.

imo

Believe it or not, we agree. Not my job to play "Did you know?" in an EQ lesson. We'll stick to his teachings,

[ERayR]

General observation of the topic and conversation:

 

I try to not see it as my job to help members of the Church be aware of problematic or eyebrow raising items in Church history, or as they pertain to Church leaders.  It's common in my secular instruction of history to say "Oh, you think George Washington was a good guy?  Well, did you know he was a slave owner?!" or have someone say the same kinda thing to me, about any one who I hold in a positive light.

 

The thinking goes, I am guessing, that I'm basing my positive appraisal on incomplete information and someone else who 'knows better' sees it as their job to let me know the whole story so that I can change my mind and not see the historical thing in such a great light after all.

 

I think it's a bit different when you're having a Church meeting where the point is to redeem the dead, perfect the saints, or preach the Gospel.  It may be that a private discussion where you carefully elaborate your understanding of some shortcomings of a prophet, but not done out of spite for seeing someone praise a man you feel is unworthy of that praise, is appropriate. 

 

Again: Not your job to take the metaphorical pulpit at Church and help people know better.

 

imo

 

If ETB or JS or BY or any of the others had been perfect we would not have had the chance to partake of their wisdom and inspiration. They would have been translated long befor they were called to leadership positions. 

[BlueDreams]

I agree that many lifelong black saints probably wouldn't think of it at all. After all, they may have grown up listening to his conference talks. He may have even been the prophet of their youth. They have many other associations regarding the man.

And it certainly isn't something that young people are particularly sensitive to. For example, I will likely have to pull a gun on my 20 yo son to get him to see the movie Selma. And I'm barely kidding. I can hear him now. "You just want me to see the movie so that I will hate white people." I will then try to patiently explain to him that getting him to hate white people is only 80% of the reason that I'm making him see the movie.

 

 

That's funny, cuz a group of my friends wanted to go see it in the theaters ASAP. Of course we also took a civil rights class together and actually traveled to selma for their annual march, so that probably helps . (Psst, this was for BYU and I didn't have to pay for most of the trip....the group has been invited a number of time to then discuss this with various faculty and classes on issues dealing with race and education) 

 

Of course, blacks are a very tiny percentage of LDS in America and it's understandable that the Church wouldn't give careful consideration to the message it sends to black America. Yet, if this is ever to change (and I'm not holding my breath), then the Church is going to need to give some consideration to how welcoming it is to black Americans. At present, it says, "Come on in and enjoy some of this Restored Gospel. However, before you do, I need you to give up your cultural traditions (e.g., hand-clapping, call and response, good music, etc.) and sit down here for some good teachings from a man opposed to you living in this ward. Enjoy!"

And since I think that the majority of saints aren't willing to give up hymns and quiet reverence, then perhaps, we could skip Bensonpalooza as a sign of good faith.

 

 

First, don't underestimate how many of the saints wouldn't mind something more up beat and gospel-sounding to their sunday worship.

 

Slightly seriously. Bull Connor is definitely breaking the edges of hyperbole. The guy was a pompous a** who thought it a great idea to throw attack dogs and power-hoses at school-aged children. Pinpoint one thing Benson did that even comes close to that. 

 

Now definitely serious. You do realize that you're asking to literally erase history, right? I'm pretty sure the church has had enough criticism about not telling people about history. In short, that sounds like a fool-hardy proposal that's more reactionary than helpful. More helpful would be to hope for a line somewhere in the patriotism speal to note that just because the guy was adamently patriotic didn't mean that at time he was a) wrong and b) excessive in his views insomuch that the presidency had to try and curtail him....it'd be a great segue as to why we shouldn't confuse our political views with some sort of religious sanction. There you have realistic lessons that would actually have some benefits for the LDS population based on history of a man that in many ways was good.

 

In a same note, I don't think demonizing Benson is useful (trying out your hyperbole machine). You realize that these black saints will at some point run into someone like my grandmother (who would have just given birth to my mother in the 60's) who if I had to take a shot in the dark probably had similar sentiments to Benson. (This is a lady who had a picture of Bush on her fridge at the end of his 2nd term, you know when almost no one liked him). What will be more necessary is a capacity to perspective take. Both for white members and for the minority converts who may have some issue with the church's past. Having a black and white picture of the man isn't helpful because it doesn't heal. Benson politically fell on the side of the oppressor.....but I honestly don't think it was for the same reasons for the Bull Connors of the Civil Rights and those reasons are important. He found his way there because one political issue trumped all others in his mind: communism. Black issues did not have as major precedence to this for a number of reasons. The first simply being that he probably went decades before he even met a black person (not a lot of them running around rural ID in the 1940's), let alone talked with them on their life, needs, and social desires and constraints. So the issues were largely in the abstract and he was afforded the privilege of not having to think about the repercussions on a daily basis. Communism was a more predominant concern. Communism was the major oppressor in his head and it was hard for him to note the forms of oppression that were just as painful to people living in his own homeland. Black issues would have taken a massive back seat (excuse the pun) because they were literally not present for this man's life. This is important because it's still pertinent to members today and what you're likely to see as an unexpected blind spot to a zion society and the goals of having a more racially inclusive church.

 

The simple fact is that race remains an optional topic for most white saints, particularly in white majority nations like the US. At best having a multiethnic/racial body of believers and support is seen as a bonus and at worse an superflous distraction to "real" things. And it's not resigned for the grandma's of the world. I've seen this happen to the learned, the layman, and the radical. In order for things to change, IMO the church body will need to see that it is not only a positive accessory, but a vital entity for a zion people and that race/minority issues are a pertinent concern that will effect a brorther or sister's life in very meaningful way and also effects their own.   

 

To me throwing out Benson removes an important opportunity to learn from our past. not only for the above, but also how being wrong sometimes does not have to define you as one who is not worthwhile to learn from. There would me more power in noting his great attributes and also learning to be cautious that we might have blind spots if we hyper-focus on a single concern. In short, there is a potential lesson in both his strengths and weaknesses for all members: black, white, or in-between in Benson's life. finding that would be more valuable than scrapping him and labeling him as a racist nutwing.

 

With luv,

BD 

[Mars]

If ETB or JS or BY or any of the others had been perfect we would not have had the chance to partake of their wisdom and inspiration. They would have been translated long befor they were called to leadership positions. 

 

I know - I swear daily to keep myself here on Earth.

 

It's hard to fake being imperfect... 

 

[Bobbieaware]

ETB's biggest concern at that time was Communism. And the JBS wasn't the only group concerned about MLK's possible Communist affiliations. MLK was under surveillance by the FBI for this very issue, not so much him personally but his associates who were members of the Communist party.

In the age of Google, there's no excuse to remain pignorant about Martin Luther King's communist associates. Because his name has become so sacrosanct, most will discard the well-established fact of King's communist associations out of hand with a sneer, without doing the research to get the truth.

Whether for good or ill, King was advised by several communists. Now when skeptics on this point become reluctantly convinced they'll usually just say the fact that King had communist aides is irrelevant to his greatness, much in the same way Nelson Mandela's communist connections are usually considered irrelevant to his greatness. It was communism, not racism, that caused.ETB to be wary of the ultimate motives of the leaders of the civil rights movement.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[stemelbow]

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?

To answer your question, I think it's clear, and as you I'm sure know, we ain't black. my wife and I adopted a black son so we pretend to know. We've discussed this very thing a few times. We just decided not only with ETB, but all people in and out fo the Church--take the good stuff and forget and forgive on the other stuff. Not easy at all. We still feel a great deal of anxiety and hurt for some of the things taught and said in Church. But, it is what it is. And just as we as a whole are worse without you, we are also worse without plenty of other people who don't have the foggiest clue what it's like for you.

[thesometimesaint]

ETB's biggest concern at that time was Communism. And the JBS wasn't the only group concerned about MLK's possible Communist affiliations. MLK was under surveillance by the FBI for this very issue, not so  much him personally but his associates who were members of the Communist party.

 

MLK was under investigation by the FBI because of J. Edgar Hoover was a racist cross dressing homosexual(not that there is anything wrong with cross dressing homosexuals). He kept secret files on anyone he thought he might blackmail and/or intimidate.

SEE http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/us/fbi-and-mlk/

[The Nehor]

MLK was under investigation by the FBI because of J. Edgar Hoover was a racist cross dressing homosexual(not that there is anything wrong with cross dressing homosexuals). He kept secret files on anyone he thought he might blackmail and/or intimidate.

SEE http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/us/fbi-and-mlk/

This was also a factor. Hoover was a bit of a nut.

My favorite conspiracy nut was Nixon who had chats in the White House about the Jewish International conspiracy.

We flirted a lot with fascism during the Cold War.

[Deborah]

BlueDreams gave a wonderful summary of the issues.

[stemelbow]

To me throwing out Benson removes an important opportunity to learn from our past. not only for the above, but also how being wrong sometimes does not have to define you as one who is not worthwhile to learn from. There would me more power in noting his great attributes and also learning to be cautious that we might have blind spots if we hyper-focus on a single concern. In short, there is a potential lesson in both his strengths and weaknesses for all members: black, white, or in-between in Benson's life. finding that would be more valuable than scrapping him and labeling him as a racist nutwing.

 

With luv,

BD

I liked your response for the most part, but I struggle to understand this last basic point (the point I agree with but to argue it here is unexpected to me).

If I were to follow the above logic (not throwing out opportunities to learn from our past) through to it's end, I think we might have plenty of room to include far more from Benson, instead of just the stuff they like now, and far more of our actual history in our teaching material. For example, polygamy is used as a joke these days in Church, but as we've learned in recent years, it's not so much polygamy but the details of how it went down that has really caused people to go down that losing faith path. Instead of using the details as a means to learn from our past, we ignore them hoping most members don't look into them--which is for the most part working in terms of keeping people from questioning and leaving (even though large amounts are leaving because of tough historic issues, the problem isn't big enough because many chapels are still full). The narrative concerning the priesthood ban is it's behind us, and it was always going to be that they would receive the priesthood, forgetting the bigoted views held by prophets that the priesthood ban was instituted because blacks were less valiant, and are cursed as to the priesthood.

history can teach us a lot. I agree. But if we pretend that watered down history is all that is useful, then we pretty much belie the claim that we are learning from our past.

[Kenngo1969]

No, you are not ALL racists in my eyes.

 

Or perhaps, I shoulda typed it like dis, so you wood know where I was cumin from, Brutha.

 

P.S.  When you quote an Asian American or Latino, do you also account for their accents by misspelling the words (assuming, of course, that you'd ever find anything of value to quote from them)?  Or what about quoting, say, Einstein?  Do you misspell the words to account for his rather distinct accent?  As Brother West would say, "Prolly not!"  So when you do it when quoting a black person, SOME people might find that to be in poor taste.  Know wut I'm sayin?

 

 

I don't agree with mormonnewb at all with his OP, but I agree that you really should demonstrate sensitivity when quoting someone, Kenngo.  If black people who quoted me went out of their way to accentuate the nerdiness of my mannerisms, I'd be put off.

 

Just quote Kanye's words and be done with it.

 

Yes, I think Kanye West is an ignorant buffoon, not because he's black, but because of what he said, the circumstances under which he said it, and yes, how he said it.  Of all of the people you could possibly hold up as a standard bearer for your position, I think it's ironic and rather telling that you picked Mr. West.  Like I said earlier in the thread (and your silence on this score, too, is rather telling): "The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, and ... Kanye West?"

 

Don't deal with the substance of anything I've said; simply dismiss me by pigeonholing me as a racist and be done with it!  Bravo!

 

You wouldn't be the first person, here or elsewhere, to do that, let alone the best.  Don't expect me to lose any sleep over what some anonymous Internet posters think of me; there are some people in the world who don't have a very high opinion of me, and I feel rather bad about that; there are others who don't have such a high opinion of me, and, by contrast, I wear that as a badge of honor!  This may come as a shock to you, but I really am OK with putting you (and anyone else here, for that matter) in the second category, rather than the first!

 

P.S.: To be perfectly consistent, you'll have to admit that Vice President Joe Biden is racist for calling President (then-candidate) Obama, "Articulate and bright and clean!"  But don't worry; I won't hold my breath: I'm sure Ol' Joe gets a pass because of his party affiliation.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Jeanne]

you might want to talk about the gospel and forget ETB.  Concentrate on what he said, not his life.  It might be interesting to try to find the good in someone you see as an enemy.  But that's easy for me to say..

 

Hey- Straight up?  I can't stand singing "Hail to the prophet ascended to heaven...." but I do.  It forces me to see those who saw him that way in a new light.

 

It's kind of an interesting thought experiment that takes me out of myself to see the world entirely differently for a few minutes.

But is this "someone" believable when his core beliefs are a determining factor about how he feels about race?  What he says has nothing over what he feels and truly believes.  Pardon the pun..but all of this is so black and white.  For whatever human reasons, the song has changed and the melody does not harmonize with the past and present. 

[Kenngo1969]

I know - I swear daily to keep myself here on Earth.

 

It's hard to fake being imperfect... 

 

Nah!  Trust me!  You have far fewer worries on that score than you think you do!

[stemelbow]

Yes, I think Kanye West is an ignorant buffoon, not because he's black, but because of what he said, the circumstances under which he said it, and yes, how he said it.  Of all of the people you could possibly hold up as a standard bearer for your position, I think it's ironic and rather telling that you picked Mr. West.  Like I said earlier in the thread (and your silence on this score, too, is rather telling): "The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, and ... Kanye West?"

 

Don't deal with the substance of anything I've said; simply dismiss me by pigeonholing me as a racist and be done with it!  Bravo!

 

You wouldn't be the first person, here or elsewhere, to do that, let alone the best.  Don't expect me to lose any sleep over what some anonymous Internet posters think of me; there are some people in the world who don't have a very high opinion of me, and I feel rather bad about that; there are others who don't have such a high opinion of me, and, by contrast, I wear that as a badge of honor!  This may come as a shock to you, but I really am OK with putting you (and anyone else here, for that matter) in the second category, rather than the first!

wow. They were actually pretty nice to you considering what you said. This comes off as blatantly jerkish.

Calling someone an "ignorant buffoon...because of what he said, the circumstances under which he said it, and yes, how he said it" is a mistake. Everyone acts a buffoon at times, but no one is really an ignorant buffoon because they said something and did something stupid at one point in their life.

That you want to mock the way he talks is perhaps the racial concern that is discussed here. It's pretty off-putting.

[Kenngo1969]

wow. They were actually pretty nice to you considering what you said. This comes off as blatantly jerkish.

Calling someone an "ignorant buffoon...because of what he said, the circumstances under which he said it, and yes, how he said it" is a mistake. Everyone acts a buffoon at times, but no one is really an ignorant buffoon because they said something and did something stupid at one point in their life.

That you want to mock the way he talks is perhaps the racial concern that is discussed here. It's pretty off-putting.

Like I said, avoid focusing on substance at all costs!

 

And I wouldn't want to confuse you with more substance, so by all means, avoid clicking on any of the posts on the Board where I have posted links to anything else I've written.  You'd find yourself scratching your head and wondering how someone who is so obviously racist could have written such things!  (Big deal; the links are only to my blog, which most everyone ignores anyway!)  And, notwithstanding the fact that clicking on any link to my blog I've posted here would enable you to discover my real name, which you could then Google, and you would find some really puzzling stuff that I've written under my real name in highly public fora that would leave you even more confused about how such a racist could have written such things, DON'T DO IT!

 

You're right; it's much simpler and more convenient to dismiss me as a racist!

Edited January 9, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Mars]

I didn't think or say you were racist, kenngo.

[why me]

My advice to Mormonnewb was to join the genesis group so that he can ask some of his questions there. He would then receive the black experience from people who are active in the church and who have accepted the lds church as the true church regardless of some imperfections in the past.

 

What I see here is basically white people attempting to discuss these issues with a black man. And it seems that the white people are constantly on the defensive. However,  when mormonnewb discusses his issues with the genesis group, such misunderstandings of racism or defensiveness that could occur on this thread would not happen there.

 

It is easy as eating pie to pick out the past of any religious organization and cause its members to be on the defensive. Why? Because no history is ever perfect because humans were not made to be perfect. Here again is the genesis group website complete with contact information for mormonnewb:

 

http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.org/

 

I also enclosed this link with the full article on a previous page of this thread . I obtained it from the genesis group website.

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood

 

It seems that people on this thread are constantly attempting to explain, defend and commiserate with the OP. Hopefully, the OP will join the genesis group so that he can hear explanations from African Americans and Africans who are members of that site.

Edited January 9, 2015 by why me

[mfbukowski]

It wasn't at all crazy to worry about Communism in the 50's. After all, they had murdered and were in the process of murdering many millions of innocent people.. The communists had just finished brutally subjugating Eastern Europe and much of the Far East. The militant atheistic mindset of communism substituted all-powerful centralized government for God, and aggressively worked to propagate that anti-Christ philosophy around the world by hook or by crook. To say there was an irrational fear of Communism in the 1950's is tantamount to saying the Nephites had an overwrought fear of the Gadianton robbers. And as any reader of the Book of Mormon knows, it was the Gadianton robbers and political conspiracies (secret combinations) that ultimately brought the Nephites to total ruin and utter annihilation. Read Ether 8 to see if Moroni thought the Nephite fear of the Gadiantions and secret combinations was unreasonable and unjustified. When a godless cabal of militaristic conspirators has hundreds nuclear weapons trained on your country, ready to be released at a moments notice, I would hardly say that isn't something to be mighty worried about.

I agree- and you did not mention the atrocities of Stalin which were in process at the time.

 

"Communism" as it was then, is not the watered-down half capitalist half socialist stuff you see in China and Russia today.  The system obviously does not work as practiced then.  Today we see that kind of thing in North Korea, for the younger readers who have no frame of reference to understand it.

 

Imagine a much weaker US militarily, facing a "North Korea" like regime that stretched throughout Eastern Europe and China, and then in 1963, extending into Cuba, 90 odd miles off our shores, with nukes to back them up, and the delivery systems in place.  We worry about North Korea today, but they are far smaller and lack the real delivery systems to be significantly threatening.

 

I did not mean to minimize the real threat- just to point out that today that situation is almost unimaginable with what "Communism" has become.

 

Or imagine ISIS with nukes stretching from Europe to China, with a "civil rights" movement for Muslims in the US at the same time.  Scary stuff.  That is the way it was perceived to come up with a present day analogy.

[mfbukowski]

I completely agree and don't think we should judge or condemn ETB based on our current political and social climate.

 

Having said that, other members of the twelve weren't all that happy with ETB's political activism.  I think Quinn points out some diary entries from one of the Twelve stating this is one reason ETB was sent off on a mission.  

 

So while I'm certainly no advocate or judging or condemning ETB, I don't think he gets a free pass either.  Why?  Because other past leaders and contemporaries of ETB saw through the paranoia and flatly rejected the John Birch Society and conspiracy theories.  Let's not try and diminish what ETB was advocating when he preached in GC that members should read "None Dare Call it a Conspiracy."  That book is one step above claiming that the world is run by lizard people from outer space.  That's really the only thinking missing from this book as compared to a David Icke book today:  a group of shadowy elite run the world through manipulation of politics, business, the media, and the economy.  And of course, it doesn't help that a lot of the JB conspiracies seemed like they were inspired by ideas (certainly not the anti-semitism) in the "Protocols of Zion."  

 

There is a reason ETB is considered almost a demigod by those on the far-right or Mormon politics in the US.  Heck, even as a young man several people in my own Stake were excommunicated because they were part of small political "groups" who met to read JBS stuff as well as ETB.  

 

So again, there's not point in judging or condemning ETB.  But it would be equally unwise, I think, to wave our hands and say "well, that was just the culture of the day."  It may have been part of the culture but rejecting the paranoia was also a part of the culture.  Barry Goldwater is a perfect example.  Hated conspiracies and communist paranoia because he felt it took away from dealing with the real issues at hand.  Turns out Goldwater was right.

In more ways than one.

 

I agree.

[mormonnewb]

...

Or imagine ISIS with nukes stretching from Europe to China, with a "civil rights" movement for Muslims in the US at the same time. Scary stuff. That is the way it was perceived to come up with a present day analogy.

I was with you right up to the very end. I can see conflating ISIS with US Muslims (sort of), but how does one conflate the Soviets with a black girl wanting to go to public school in Arkansas?

Was the thought that Kruschev (sp?) had made a special deal with King? "Okay, Martin. We'll help you get that little girl into a 4th grade classroom, but in return, we want the overthrow of the American government."

And even assuming the King had made such a deal, why wouldn't the Birchers just approach King with a better deal. "Okay, Martin. We'll let TWO little black girls into the school, AND we'll throw in a big screen TV."

Seriously, I find it hard to believe that anyone truly thought denying little black kids a decent education was the answer to the Soviet menace. It seems more likely that fighting communism was just a much more palatable justification for resisting integration efforts than saying, "They have cooties!"