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

[why me]

You  had a choice!

True. However, my hometown near Newark had mainly irish, polish, scotish, and italian americans. Many were catholics who happened to be very racist. I never heard the priests speak out against racism from the pulpit. My town was mainly catholic. I think that the catholic church could have done more to educate the catholics about loving all people. Why didn't they? Different time, different history. The past is the past. That being the case, whites were called crackers by blacks. Not to mention other choice names. Such was life, magnified by the humor of don rickles. Do you remember the who will cast the first stone saying?

[ERayR]

True. However, my hometown near Newark had mainly irish, polish, scotish, and italian americans. Many were catholics who happened to be very racist. I never heard the priests speak out against racism from the pulpit. My town was mainly catholic. I think that the catholic church could have done more to educate the catholics about loving all people. Why didn't they? Different time, different history. The past is the past. That being the case, whites were called crackers by blacks. Not to mention other choice names. Such was life, magnified by the humor of don rickles. Do you remember the who will cast the first stone saying?

 

And most Protestant churches especially in the south. 

[saemo]

True. However, my hometown near Newark had mainly irish, polish, scotish, and italian americans. Many were catholics who happened to be very racist. I never heard the priests speak out against racism from the pulpit. My town was mainly catholic. I think that the catholic church could have done more to educate the catholics about loving all people. Why didn't they? Different time, different history. The past is the past. That being the case, whites were called crackers by blacks. Not to mention other choice names. Such was life, magnified by the humor of don rickles. Do you remember the who will cast the first stone saying?

 

Catholic teaching is clearly against racial discrimination. In 1958, American bishops declared racial segregation a moral wrong in conflict with the Catholic faith. Most notably, Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans, the archdiocese, with the largest population of black Catholics, asked followers, in 1951, to end segregation in the church. 

 

Catholics in the south were, and are an untrusted minority, and while the south was strictly segregated by law, Catholic parishes segregated to the law but all Catholics mingled in religious functions and parishes. It was the already mentioned march from Selma, which city had a strong Black Catholic subculture, that drew southern White Catholics out of tolerating segregation because of state laws, to join the CRM.

 

In Utah, there's never been segregation in Catholic parishes, and never a Catholic priest or bishop who advocated for racial discrimination in order to prevent something "worse".

Edited January 10, 2015 by saemo

[mormonnewb]

Let me tell you a little story (about the guy you're so convinced is a racist).  In 1988, my high school selected me to attend the Congressional Young Leaders Conference.  (I'm not trying to trumpet that as any sort of an achievement or anything; maybe those responsible for the selection were, for some reason, simply desperate.  I dunno.)  There were about 500 of us, who had come from one end of the country to the other to attend.  One night, we attended a dinner.  To the best of my knowledge, there was no assigned seating (or, if there was, I didn't get the memo).  When I went into the room, I simply selected the table closest to the entrance and sat down.  One or two of my fellow attendees, who happened to be black, sat down beside me.  (I didn't realize this at the time, but apparently, the gathering was supposed to be segregated ... de facto, if not de jure.)  Before I knew it, I was the only white person at that table.  

 

Was I uncomfortable?  Well, I've always believed that if you're comfortable in your own skin, there's no reason for you to give other people permission to make you feel otherwise.  Maybe I'm way off base, but given the way you sometimes bring up race (and the way you sometimes turn other threads to it) there are times when, to be perfectly honest, I wonder if you're comfortable in your own skin.  As for that dinner, was I uncomfortable?  Well, I did find the situation enlightening; It may have been an accident of seat selection more than than a conscious choice, but as near as I could tell, I was the only person in that room who bothered to integrate.  We can pass (and have passed, and I support them, if it really needs to be said) laws barring de jure segregation; but there's no law that can force "birds of one feather" to mingle with "birds of every other feather." 

 

I've dated, and had other social interactions with, girls of every racial and cultural stripe: Filipina, mixed-race, black, Chilena, Dominicana ...  If you want to pigeonhole me as a racist, that's your problem.  I stand by my statement that I suspect your reason for doing so is because you don't want to be bothered with having to deal with the substance of what I say.

 

Let me see if I understand the moral of your story.  You sat down at a table and were then joined by others, so that, by the time everyone was seated, you were the only non-black person at the table.  And because you didn't bolt from the table yelling and screaming, this makes you Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel (one of Dr. King's closest allies, and oh yeah, a white guy)?  How could I have been so wrong about you?

 

Unless, I'm reading your story incorrectly, you didn't see a group of black people at a table and say, "Hey, let me join them and meet some people not exactly like me."  They sat at a table where you were already seated.  Should I give you credit for "permitting" them to sit at your table?

 

You do realize that this is my reality for EVERY seating situation in our church, right?  And not just in the Church.  When I speak at your local bar meeting (and it will happen sooner or later), I will be seated at a table where I am the only black person.  Will you be impressed with my racial sensitivity for being able to "endure" the company of all white people for an hour?

 

Of course, I have failed to give you credit for being willing to date some of our women.  That is mighty delightsome of you.  Of course, by this standard, Thomas Jefferson would have been the greatest friend to black people in this nation's history.  It makes me wonder why we aren't celebrating HIS birthday next Monday.

 

In all seriousness, let me be clear.  I do NOT think you are a sheet-wearing, head-shaven hateful bigot.  Giving your professional achievements and Mormon upbringing, I would find it hard to believe that you harbor explicit racial animus towards others.  I would even go so far as to guess that you have never even uttered the N-word (or any other racial epithet).  Yet, the fact that you think you deserve an NAACP Image Award for not making an awkward departure from a table of black Congressional Young Leaders (after all, if it's any blacks you have to worry about, it's those CYL "thugs") does seem to indicate that Dr. King's dream might not have been fully realized with you ... yet.

 

Perhaps, that is why I'm here.  To "gently and lovingly" prod you to become your highest self.  And I'm only 80% kidding.  If I wasn't convinced that you are a fundamentally decent guy, I would just wipe "the Ken from my feet."  There are a few posters who I think are too far gone to even make the effort, but I see potential in you (after all, the people who choose CYLs can't be all wrong).  As a result, I offer my guidance and gentle correction (you're welcome).

 

Now, to get to the substance of your critique of my Church critique, why do YOU think that 2015 should be The Year of the Benson? And what should be done, if anything, for the Church to soothe the anxiety of those wacko black Church members (i.e., ME) who have trouble lionizing someone who opposed civil rights during their lifetimes?

[Kenngo1969]

I see any further dialogue with you is hopeless.

 

I tried.

 

Thanks.

[mormonnewb]

I agree but I don't think that he would be interested because he couldnt play the race card there as he does here. This thread has not been very fruitful because as is usual  lds members need to become defensive against attacks on  ETB and other issues of race. No discussion really happening on this thread or other race threads. Just a game of chess.

 

Lets see if he contacts them. I am sure that they are attempting to help th e black community too. I am tired of the race baiting on these type of threads.

 

This thread has not been fruitful because "lads members need to become defensive against attacks on ETB and other issues of race."  And this is somehow MY fault?  So I should just shuffle on over to Genesis where black folks can have this conversation amongst ourselves and not bother white people with these issues (white people being the ONLY people in this Church with the power to address them)?  Really?  Wouldn't that just be "useless griping and complaining against the Lord's anointed"?  I guess it's really true.  Benson if you do.  Benson if you don't.

 

Perhaps, the better question is why the saints get so defensive over such issues in the first place?  Why can't we own up to the past and (far more importantly) make a sincere effort to do better moving forward?  Because whatever it is that we think we are doing to erase the sins of the past (for the six of you who even think they were any sins) isn't working.

 

True story: One of the reasons that I'm responding so late to your comments is because I met with one of the pastors at my local Baptist Church this morning to discuss how I might lend my assistance in its current and future activism efforts.  Of course, before we could get to any of that, he wanted to talk about my "experience with the Mormons."  I started by asking, "What do you know about Mormonism?"  He said ... and no, I am not making this up ... "I know about Joseph Smith, the Doctrines & Covenants, and that black people couldn't join until 1978."  Once again, I am NOT making this up.

 

And yes, I corrected his SLIGHT misunderstanding of the priesthood ban.  But what I may not be able to correct is the general perception amongst black people (even amongst our most educated and learned brothers) that the LDS Church is racist.  This is largely a matter of perception as I have found the saints to be no more racist than other Christians.  Yet, unless this Church is particularly sensitive to how its actions will be viewed by blacks, that perception isn't going to change.  And, for the last time, making ETB the internal face of Mormonism for 2015 isn't helping.

[saemo]

And because you didn't bolt from the table yelling and screaming, this makes you Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel (one of Dr. King's closest allies, and oh yeah, a white guy)?

haha, a guy I work with has informed us that he is not white, but is "just a Jew".

[ERayR]

Let me see if I understand the moral of your story.  You sat down at a table and were then joined by others, so that, by the time everyone was seated, you were the only non-black person at the table.  And because you didn't bolt from the table yelling and screaming, this makes you Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel (one of Dr. King's closest allies, and oh yeah, a white guy)?  How could I have been so wrong about you?

 

Unless, I'm reading your story incorrectly, you didn't see a group of black people at a table and say, "Hey, let me join them and meet some people not exactly like me."  They sat at a table where you were already seated.  Should I give you credit for "permitting" them to sit at your table?

 

You do realize that this is my reality for EVERY seating situation in our church, right?  And not just in the Church.  When I speak at your local bar meeting (and it will happen sooner or later), I will be seated at a table where I am the only black person.  Will you be impressed with my racial sensitivity for being able to "endure" the company of all white people for an hour?

 

Of course, I have failed to give you credit for being willing to date some of our women.  That is mighty delightsome of you.  Of course, by this standard, Thomas Jefferson would have been the greatest friend to black people in this nation's history.  It makes me wonder why we aren't celebrating HIS birthday next Monday.

 

In all seriousness, let me be clear.  I do NOT think you are a sheet-wearing, head-shaven hateful bigot.  Giving your professional achievements and Mormon upbringing, I would find it hard to believe that you harbor explicit racial animus towards others.  I would even go so far as to guess that you have never even uttered the N-word (or any other racial epithet).  Yet, the fact that you think you deserve an NAACP Image Award for not making an awkward departure from a table of black Congressional Young Leaders (after all, if it's any blacks you have to worry about, it's those CYL "thugs") does seem to indicate that Dr. King's dream might not have been fully realized with you ... yet.

 

Perhaps, that is why I'm here.  To "gently and lovingly" prod you to become your highest self.  And I'm only 80% kidding.  If I wasn't convinced that you are a fundamentally decent guy, I would just wipe "the Ken from my feet."  There are a few posters who I think are too far gone to even make the effort, but I see potential in you (after all, the people who choose CYLs can't be all wrong).  As a result, I offer my guidance and gentle correction (you're welcome).

 

Now, to get to the substance of your critique of my Church critique, why do YOU think that 2015 should be The Year of the Benson? And what should be done, if anything, for the Church to soothe the anxiety of those wacko black Church members (i.e., ME) who have trouble lionizing someone who opposed civil rights during their lifetimes?

 

Let me offer another perspective.  I was born and raised in an area where there were no non-white residents.  The closest was a Basque family that ran one of the local businesses in town.  Consequently I did not come into contact with a black person until I was in my early twenties and went to Seattle Wash. to work for Boeing.  My experience was I met some black people I liked and I met some who I didn't like.  I also met whites and other races.  Some I liked and some I did not like.  Part of the experience was the newness of associating with those different than me. 

 

As for you mormonnewb I think were I get an opportunity to meet and associate with you I would find you to be a generally nice guy much as Kenngo.  However upon meeting you I would have to overcome the impression you give on the board as seeming to have a chip on your shoulder about being black.   I have no way of knowing but what your past experiences offers justification for your perceived attitude but unless you can come to terms with with it it will eat you up.  Speaking from experience bad things can happen in any setting (even an all white one) and it doesn't have to be racial.  I have some pretty bad experiences my self. 

 

All I can say is may his peace be with you.

[mormonnewb]

I see any further dialogue with you is hopeless.

 

I tried.

 

Thanks.

 

Don't go away mad.  I told you that I don't think you are a bigot.  I just wasn't that impressed with this particular example of your open-mindedness.  And come on.  Be honest with me.  After thinking about it, do you really think that being willing to sit at a table with the best and brightest black students shows some great level of racial tolerance on your part?

 

For the final time, I'm sure that you're a decent guy.  I'm just not sure that your example was evidence of that fundamental decency.  And no, I'm not asking for another example.  I SINCERELY take your word for it.

 

In fact, I'll go one step further and apologize for my mocking tone in prior posts.  While humor can help to ease tension, it can also do harm, particularly when employed in situations where someone is particularly tender.  I am guilty of doing the latter in regards to you in this thread, so please accept my SINCERE apology.

 

I'm not always as charming (and devilishly handsome) as people constantly tell me that I am.  Once again, I'm sorry!

[Coreyb]

Yes newb, you are quite right about how many black people view the LDS church. I served in several predominately black areas in Missouri and Oklahoma, and I often heard folks tell me that they wouldn't join a church that they weren't allowed in until '78. Saying, no no no, you just couldn't hold the priesthood until '78 never helped . As to your point about this years new curriculum possibly being passively offensive to some black saints, I highly doubt anyone in the curriculum department ever considered that possibility, and that may be your point, which is relevant. If they were worried about anything with president Benson's teachings it would probably have been for liberal Mormons or Mormons in other countries with different forms of government than America. Have you ever read this: http://bycommonconsent.com/2010/03/03/correlation-an-uncorrelated-history-part-1-the-mormon-underground/

It's long and has a few weak arguments, but if you read anything read the last post (#9) in the series. It will give you an idea of how our manuals are put together. The only reason we are studying the teachings of Ezra Taft Benson this year is because years ago someone had a great idea to do a series on the presidents of church for curriculum, and Ezra happened to be one of the presidents of the church. Just think, the order could have been different and we would be studying Brigham Young, or John Taylor, or heaven forbid Joseph Fielding Smith (wait, didn't we just...), all of whom had MUCH worse things to say about black folks than Ezra Benson ever did.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Coreyb

[Kenngo1969]

Don't go away mad.

 

 

Too late.  I think you're going to be the first person in the history of the Board that I'll put on Ignore.

 

And that's saying something.

 

I don't know where your passive aggressive streak comes from, or what to do about it.  I hope you get the help you need.

 

You seem determined to impute to me the least charitable reading possible of anything I write.

[mormonnewb]

Let me offer another perspective.  I was born and raised in an area where there were no non-white residents.  The closest was a Basque family that ran one of the local businesses in town.  Consequently I did not come into contact with a black person until I was in my early twenties and went to Seattle Wash. to work for Boeing.  My experience was I met some black people I liked and I met some who I didn't like.  I also met whites and other races.  Some I liked and some I did not like.  Part of the experience was the newness of associating with those different than me. 

 

As for you mormonnewb I think were I get an opportunity to meet and associate with you I would find you to be a generally nice guy much as Kenngo.  However upon meeting you I would have to overcome the impression you give on the board as seeming to have a chip on your shoulder about being black.   I have no way of knowing but what your past experiences offers justification for your perceived attitude but unless you can come to terms with with it it will eat you up.  Speaking from experience bad things can happen in any setting (even an all white one) and it doesn't have to be racial.  I have some pretty bad experiences my self. 

 

All I can say is may his peace be with you.

 

It may seem that I have a chip on my shoulder because I bring up race "so often."  However, I think I demonstrated in my reply to Why Me that it isn't that often.  It just seems that way because I'm the only one who brings up the issue AT ALL.  Perhaps, it's because I'm the only one who is ever confronted with the issue.  People probably don't ask the rest of you, "Why do you belong to such a racist church?"  However, I have to answer that question about once a month (even earlier TODAY).  And what I am DYING to say is, "No, you've got that wrong.  Sure, we were racist in the past.  Who wasn't?  But let me tell you how we are working to clear up that misperception ..."

 

And that's where my frustration lies.  We seem to have the attitude that, since we moved past our blatantly racist policies in 1978, that the world should just move.  "Priesthood ban removed.  Nothing to see here, folks!"  Well, it doesn't work that way.  We have to make SOME effort to indicate that this Church is now open to ALL.  And I was simply questioning whether Bensonmania was the right vehicle to get us where we need to be.  Or whether, as a Church, we were even TRYING to get there.

[mfbukowski]

Avatar4321:

 

 

 

I'll let Newb, his leaders, and the Savior determine whether (and, if so, how far) Newb has gone down the road to apostasy; I'll also leave it to them to determine what, if anything, should be done about it. All of his views relative to things related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may not be totally orthodox or mainstream, but if we were going to use that as an excuse to start throwing people out of the Church, 90% of Church members on this Board would find themselves in Church disciplinary proceedings this Sunday. If Newb did something to try to garner himself a following, rather than simply expressing his views here (and occasionally stirring the pot), that might be a different story, but even if that were so, it wouldn't be up to any of us to decide what to do about it. I've disagreed with Newb, slightly, a time or two , but I actually think we'd get along pretty well if he gave me a chance. He's probably worried about what having too close of an association with such an unhip white dude will do to his street cred, and I can't blame him.

 

And even if your assessment of what is happening to MormonNewb is correct, he may seem lost to you, or to me, or even to the Church and to its leaders, but even if so, he's still the Good Shepherd's Lamb, and the Good Shepherd always knows where he is, and often can have surprising ways of bringing wandering lambs back into the fold.

 

 

 

I don't think President Benson was racist, either, but it's not as though he's never said nor written anything which, considered in isolation and/or out of full context, could not be construed to leave someone with that impression. And the most effective antidote against any Gadiantons of our day, with all due respect, isn't someone who, lacking any authority to do so, does the rhetorical equivalent of climbing up on a Rameumptom, pointing a finger, and saying, “You know those Gadianton robbers the Book of Mormon warns us about? See that guy right there? He is one!” The most effective antidote to the modern equivalent of Gadianton robbers is someone who listens to the still, small voice of the Spirit, as well as to others whose duty it is to issue such warnings and who are also listening to the Spirit. See Doctrine and Covenants 45:57.

 

 

 

See my answers to your 1) and 2). Again, while you and I might not agree with such criticism of President Benson, it's not as though he's never said nor written anything that might, when viewed in a certain light, justify such criticism.

 

 

 

As much as I agree with your first and second sentences, I don't know where you're coming from with the third. And as much as I agree with much (most) of what President Benson wrote and what he said, I don't know anyone who's encouraging us to believe the words of traitors over those of President Benson.

Far from "finding a following" I think it is rare to have anyone even agree with him.

If he is looking to make changes in the church, I think the church has little to worry about. His tactics are far too acerbic.

Edited January 11, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mormonnewb]

Yes newb, you are quite right about how many black people view the LDS church. I served in several predominately black areas in Missouri and Oklahoma, and I often heard folks tell me that they wouldn't join a church that they weren't allowed in until '78. Saying, no no no, you just couldn't hold the priesthood until '78 never helped . As to your point about this years new curriculum possibly being passively offensive to some black saints, I highly doubt anyone in the curriculum department ever considered that possibility, and that may be your point, which is relevant.

 

Thank you, Brother!  Finally, someone gets my point.

 

And, by the way, I never expected everyone to AGREE with my point.  Perhaps, ETB has so much wisdom to share that we can't possibly skip his manual.  Or perhaps, the Church commissioned the Genesis folks to smooth out any rumpled feathers.  Either of which is something that black folks can look beyond and move forward with bringing our black friends and relatives into the Church.

 

However, if it is the case that the Church didn't think enough of us to even consider how we might view the situation, then we might as well go back to pre-1978 (at least, with respect to black Americans) and pick up some southern Baptist converts as an added bonus. 

[mfbukowski]

It may seem that I have a chip on my shoulder because I bring up race "so often."  However, I think I demonstrated in my reply to Why Me that it isn't that often.  It just seems that way because I'm the only one who brings up the issue AT ALL.  Perhaps, it's because I'm the only one who is ever confronted with the issue.  People probably don't ask the rest of you, "Why do you belong to such a racist church?"  However, I have to answer that question about once a month (even earlier TODAY).  And what I am DYING to say is, "No, you've got that wrong.  Sure, we were racist in the past.  Who wasn't?  But let me tell you how we are working to clear up that misperception ..."

 

And that's where my frustration lies.  We seem to have the attitude that, since we moved past our blatantly racist policies in 1978, that the world should just move.  "Priesthood ban removed.  Nothing to see here, folks!"  Well, it doesn't work that way.  We have to make SOME effort to indicate that this Church is now open to ALL.  And I was simply questioning whether Bensonmania was the right vehicle to get us where we need to be.  Or whether, as a Church, we were even TRYING to get there.

On second thought, I think you do need a good dose of Marvin Perkins. PM me an email address and I will send it to Marvin, or you can look him up yourself. There are hundreds of people Marvin has helped with similar concerns.

[Kenngo1969]

Far from "finding a following" I think it is rare to have anyone even agree with him.

If he is looking to make changes in the church, I think the church has little to worry about. His tactics are far too acerbic.

Damn!    I was going to edit my post to delete everything I said in Newb's defense ... before you quoted it and set it in stone for posterity!

 

 

[Stargazer]

... all of whom had MUCH worse things to say about black folks than Ezra Benson ever did.

But that's different! ETB was an outspoken conservative, that's why he's so problematic. Most or all of what he did and said was under the direction of David O. McKay, but McKay would get a pass because although he directed it, he was not in the public eye for it.

From chapter 18 of Sheri Dew's biography of President Benson:

 

...most importantly, Elder Benson knew he had a mandate from the prophet. On more than one occasion President McKay privately encouraged him to speak out on freedom. On August 30, 1963, for example, Elder Benson indicated in a personal memorandum that he had once again met with President McKay and indicated he would "never say another word on the subject [of freedom] if that was President McKay's wish. [President McKay] said he wanted me to continue to speak out with the assurance I had his support as I have had in the past." 21 Elder Benson's first priority was following the prophet, as a journal entry on October 2, 1963, indicates: "My one desire is to do what the Lord and His mouthpiece, President McKay, would have me do."

From chapter 18 and 19 of Sheri Dew's biography of President Benson:

 

...most importantly, Elder Benson knew he had a mandate from the prophet. On more than one occasion President McKay privately encouraged him to speak out on freedom. On August 30, 1963, for example, Elder Benson indicated in a personal memorandum that he had once again met with President McKay and indicated he would "never say another word on the subject [of freedom] if that was President McKay's wish. [President McKay] said he wanted me to continue to speak out with the assurance I had his support as I have had in the past." 21 Elder Benson's first priority was following the prophet, as a journal entry on October 2, 1963, indicates: "My one desire is to do what the Lord and His mouthpiece, President McKay, would have me do."

In fact, previous to this point in time, whenever President McKay spoke out about the US Constitution and the need to preserve freedom, he was echoed by Benson.

 

Elder Benson continued to meet frequently with President McKay. "If you feel at any time I am getting off the right track, please do as you promised and 'tap me on the shoulder,'" he told the prophet. On repeated occasions, he asked President McKay if he wished him to refrain from speaking on freedom, and in each case, Elder Benson was encouraged to continue.

In 1966 Benson learned that an organization called the 1976 committee had been formed, and this organization had decided that he, Benson, should be put forward (drafted) to run for President of the US in 1976. Benson did not know what to tell them, and he consulted with President McKay. McKay advised him to neither promote nor discourage his candidacy, but keep him informed. Later, President McKay issued the following written notice:

 

"I have been informed of the interest of many prominent Americans in a movement to draft Ezra Taft Benson for the Presidency. It appears that this is gaining momentum and is definitely crystalizing into a formal draft movement. Elder Benson has discussed this with me and to whatever extent he may wish to become receptive to this movement, his doing so has my full approval."

This draft attempt fizzled out, and a second one a few years later did so as well. From what I have read, although he would have been willing to tackle the job, he was was relieved that it didn't go anywhere.

Benson's political philosophy can be expressed as he did, as follows:

• "I am for freedom and against slavery.
• "I am for social progress and against socialism.
• "I am for a dynamic economy and against waste.
• "I am for the private competitive market and against unnecessary government intervention.
• "I am for national security and against appeasement and capitulation to an obvious enemy."

Edited January 11, 2015 by Stargazer

[strappinglad]

Every President of the Church is going to get a manual .That ETB happens to have his this year may be unacceptable to some but no President will be left out just to please the protestors. Even President Lee will have his day and he had a very short tenure. One could close one's eyes and stop one's ears and stamp one's feet for this year OR one could open one's soul to the message of Christ sent through Pres. Benson. Rest assured that every Prophet who ever lived has had his detractors .Many have paid with their life. Hence the security unit that accompanies the President and has done since O.P. Rockwell.

[Calm]

Thank you, Brother! Finally, someone gets my point.

And, by the way, I never expected everyone to AGREE with my point. Perhaps, ETB has so much wisdom to share that we can't possibly skip his manual. Or perhaps, the Church commissioned the Genesis folks to smooth out any rumpled feathers. Either of which is something that black folks can look beyond and move forward with bringing our black friends and relatives into the Church.

I would be amazed if given the relatively consistent criticisms I've seen across the various lds related Internet sites, if leadership weren't well aware that they would be frustrating some individuals by having a manual for ETB, among any group that identifies with the civil rights movement. I will also not be the least bit surprised to see some offended that his political commentary wasn't included. Edited January 11, 2015 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

I would be amazed if given the relatively consistent criticisms I've seen across the various lds related Internet sites, if leadership weren't well aware that they would be frustrating some individuals by having a manual for ETB, among any group that identifies with the civil rights movement. I will also not be the least bit surprised to see some offended that his political commentary wasn't included.

 

I agree but neither approach is appropriate.  He was a too gifted man and prophet to be left out and Church instruction at this point in time should be kept in line with the the mission of the Church.

[Calm]

The Nephites not only fought the secret combinations by preaching the Gospel -- they also fought them through the aggressive application of military power. I bring this undeniable fact into the discussion not because I desire to see the horrors of war proliferate in our day, but because it is quite simply the truth. Like it or not, agree with it or not, whether it be the Gadiantons, or Kingmen, or Nephite dissenters, or blood-oath bound conspirators, the Nephites employed aggressive military power to combat their treacherous enemies.

But was such military action ultimately successful in destroying the combinations or did they result in temporary suppression of them?

To me, reading the Book of Mormon it was only by changing people's hearts and minds that evil was successfully removed...unfortunately it reappeared when selfishness became a prime motivator again. The military actions didn't change the desire to rule in those who survive, they just bided their time till they saw a chance to manipulate or oppress again.

I am not suggesting military action is useless, just that it can only suppress or control at best. Which is why I agree with the Nehor that for the vast majority focusing on living the Gospel in love for our fellowmen will do much more than looking in fear for possible evil among them.

I also see supporting those with the experience and capability to deal successfully with evil men is wisdom as well, such as contributing to the efforts of Operation Underground Railroad.

[Coreyb]

But that's different! ETB was an outspoken conservative, that's why he's so problematic. Most or all of what he did and said was under the direction of David O. McKay, but McKay would get a pass because although he directed it, he was not in the public eye for it.

From chapter 18 of Sheri Dew's biography of President Benson:

 

From chapter 18 and 19 of Sheri Dew's biography of President Benson:

 

In fact, previous to this point in time, whenever President McKay spoke out about the US Constitution and the need to preserve freedom, he was echoed by Benson.

 

In 1966 Benson learned that an organization called the 1976 committee had been formed, and this organization had decided that he, Benson, should be put forward (drafted) to run for President of the US in 1976. Benson did not know what to tell them, and he consulted with President McKay. McKay advised him to neither promote nor discourage his candidacy, but keep him informed. Later, President McKay issued the following written notice:

 

This draft attempt fizzled out, and a second one a few years later did so as well. From what I have read, although he would have been willing to tackle the job, he was was relieved that it didn't go anywhere.

Benson's political philosophy can be expressed as he did, as follows:

• "I am for freedom and against slavery.
• "I am for social progress and against socialism.
• "I am for a dynamic economy and against waste.
• "I am for the private competitive market and against unnecessary government intervention.
• "I am for national security and against appeasement and capitulation to an obvious enemy."

I think if you are going to cite Sherri Dew on the subject of Benson and Mckays relationship in regards to his political activism you should refer to Quinn's work as well, in the name of balance and objectivity. Also I am not sure what this has to do with my last post that you quoted?

[Calm]

I agree but neither approach is appropriate.  He was a too gifted man and prophet to be left out and Church instruction at this point in time should be kept in line with the the mission of the Church.

I would agree.

[Calm]

There is always a risk when we band together to oppose injustice that bad feelings will come from those who advise us to let well enough alone, or the like.  Still, I think it well worth the risk to see heroes like Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center go into court like a fabled Perry Mason and obtain heavy judgments against the Klan and against various white supremicists.  The police, prosecutors, and legislators wouldn't do it.  So others who cared enough had to do it, to set things right.  They are the real heroes.  And they are a tremendous threat to the secret combinations out there.

I guess I don't really see the KKK as a secret combination as they seem to be quite public in their membership. I am thinking more of conspiracy theories that there is little proof of (this seemed to be the context of the Nehor's comments) and the guy sits at home searching the Internet for clues while actually accomplishing nothing.

There is plenty of obvious evil to occupy us in donating resources and attention. If we put effort into that, perhaps by removing one layer of evil, actual hidden scum will be exposed,so I just see it as a better investment.

[ERayR]

I guess I don't really see the KKK as a secret combination as they seem to be quite public in their membership. I am thinking more of conspiracy theories that there is little proof of (this seemed to be the context of the Nehor's comments) and the guy sits at home searching the Internet for clues while actually accomplishing nothing.

There is plenty of obvious evil to occupy us in donating resources and attention. If we put effort into that, perhaps by removing one layer of evil, actual hidden scum will be exposed,so I just see it as a better investment.

 

Secret refers to their oaths and the covenants they make to accomplish their purposes.