Elder Benson Conference Talk/Report (1967)

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

MLK was clearly the leader of the Civil Rights movements in the 1960's until his death.  Such statements by Benson, IMO, go against MLK's great cause.  

I am sure you are aware, but even the BoM, IMO, has some racist verses.  Those verses are still scripture, right?  

Have you read any of Mark Bukowski's posts? He notes that at one time he was a Communist himself, during the time and validated what Apostle Benson was saying, i.e. that the Civil Rights movement had been infiltrated by Communists in order to further the Communist agenda. (I believe that most Communists in the U.S. were idealists and believed in the ideals of Communism. There were very few, in my opinion, in the Trotsky, Stalin, Lenin mold.)

Martin Luther King was not a Communist. But some in his movement were. Martin Luther believed in peaceful means to make his protests heard, but there were some in the movement who were of a different mindset and did what they could to incite violence in the protests. If you will go back and read the Apostle Benson's talk with an air to understanding, it might help you. And maybe read something about President Benson during World War II. I would recommend "On Wings of Faith" by Frederick Babbel.

 

Glenn

Edited November 28, 2016 by Glenn101
Added a couple of things.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Just read this letter.  I think I am going to be sick.  How does one wrap their minds around this?

Did you not know anyone from that generation?

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, mnn727 said:

I lived through both movements - did you?

Yes.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You make it sound like no reasonable person could ever see racist ideas in the BoM. Can you explain why it is unreasonable to see racist ideology in this verse? I agree that it can be read as you're proposing but it requires a person to read between the lines to find a more palatable meaning than exists in the actual text.

I agree that the racist views do not hold up to scrutiny.

I only said such views don’t hold up to close scrutiny; nothing about the reasonableness of the people that hold them.

I would say that a racist reading requires reading between the lines: the actual text says nothing about a sore cursing is a black skin, and especially vice versa. The scriptures do not say things like, “The Lord did curse them with a black skin and thus they became an inferior race/people;” “The Lord curses races/people with a black skin when they are inferior to those with a white skin;” etc.

Jacob 5:3 says the cursing (being cast out) came upon their skins, not that they were cursed with a black skin.

Alma 3:6 says the dark skin was a mark set upon them, and this mark was the curse (the sign and means to facilitate the separation from their righteous brethren), not the dark skin itself.

3 Nephi 2:15 says the curse was taken from the descendants of Laman and Lemuel (they were readmitted into the covenant with their righteous brothers) and their skins became white (which was not the blessing itself).

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Jeanne said:

It just seems so fear motivated and I just don't think everything in the 60's was just promoted by communism.  I believe there were some real evolving and promising reasons for the good of the civil right movement.  Something that belongs to the progression of our US citizens and progress of our own.

No one thinks everything in the 60s (and 50s) was promoted by communism, but much evil was. Pres Benson oversaw war reconstruction in Europe and witnessed the communist takeover of all the eastern countries the Nazis had destroyed, including my grandparents' homeland Poland that they had been depopulating. The Russians were not liberators, but new oppressors who continued the rape but just wearing different uniforms. The Poles and many others paid dearly in the years to come. I hear him talking from a position of prudence and vigilance, not fear, though there was indeed plenty to fear.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Jeanne]

43 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Did you not know anyone from that generation?

of course...it was a rough time..civil rights had some awful and very real growing pains.

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, Marmonboy said:

If you're embarrassed for everything anyone ever did that was later thought to be wrong, you seriously have a problem. Now we know that what we thought back then was incorrect, but we need to get over it and move forward. Condemning the dead is unproductive.

"Later thought to be wrong?"   It was wrong then and it is wrong now.  And if you admit that they were wrong, then this brings up an interesting discussion, IMO, with regard to how we define "prophets, seers and revelators."  Condemning the dead is unproductive?  I don't agree -- I think it is, in fact, productive in that we can truly reconcile dark parts of our history.  

The problem is:

"I know that the history of the church is not to seek apologies or to give them," Oaks said in an interview Tuesday. "We sometimes look back on issues and say, 'Maybe that was counterproductive for what we wish to achieve,' but we look forward and not backward."

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2122123-155/no-apology-really-mormons-question-apostle

So, it's just this sweep-it-under-the-rug attitude -- move along/forward and disassociate yourself with anything that might cast the church in a dark light.  

[Marmonboy]

What are you saying...that today we are so morally superior to anyone who ever lived in the past, that we need to continually rehash whatever historical figures may have done that we, in our morally superior wisdom, don't personally approve of? It's not a "sweep-it-under-the-rug" attitude--everyone knows about that big lump under the carpet. It's a recognition that all this moral outrage doesn't change a thing in the past, so why keep bringing it up? A better approach might be to work to make sure it doesn't happen again, and save the outrage for things that are happening now, that we can actually do something about.

[Glenn101]

5 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

So, it's just this sweep-it-under-the-rug attitude -- move along/forward and disassociate yourself with anything that might cast the church in a dark light.  

No one is trying to sweep anything under a rug. There are many posters here who evidently have lived through that era as sentient observers from many walks of life and you do not appear to have read or heeded any of what they have said. Why would you expect them to give an ear to what you are saying? You are carping about something in a talk which was essentially correct.

Glenn

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

But that is not what the verse says, (nor the surrounding verses). While the Lord recognized that a “black skin” might not be enticing to His people, and thus serve as a prophylactic to intermingling corrupt beliefs and practices and getting cut off from Him, there is nowhere to be seen the equating of a sore cursing with a black skin. I think this was a parochial measure for a parochial people, suitable for their time and place and culture. I think they (both the Lamanites and the Nephites) were far more ethnocentric than they were racist. The Nephites always referred to the Lamanites as their brothers, and recognized their common parentage; it was their disparate attitude toward the covenants (and how that spilled into violence) that separated them.

 

I don’t see how the content of Elder Stapley’s personal letter has anything to do with the content of Elder Benson’s talk (my questions about which you’ve ignored). I can see that Elder Stapley doesn’t seem to type or spell very well – do you think that is a valid conclusion from reading this link?

 

But none of the views hold up to close scrutiny.

" 21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

"A sore cursing of black skin" is in now way, shape or form racist?  If that is your opinion, then you are entitled to it, but I think this scripture bleeds racism.  

Further, the connection is that two apostles during the Civil Rights period claimed:

1 Apostle claimed:  that the Civil Rights Movement is a communist plot and  

2nd apostle claimed that:

"I am not against a Civil Rights Bill if it conforms to the views of the Prophet Joseph Smith according to the references 
above given. I fully agree the Negro is entitled to considerations also stated above, but not full social benefits nor inter-marriage privileges with the Whites, nor should the Whites be forced to 
accept them into restricted White areas. In my judgment, the present proposed Bill of Rights is vicious legislation. There 
needs to be some modification. The position of the Church cannot change until the Lord changes it Himself. Certainly I am not for exploiting racial or religious prejudices, but it is the present 
play-up to the Negro voters which is unnecessarily creating problems that by a more firm, sensible approach can be avoided. There will be a few die-hard leaders, but then that has always 
been true with any debatable issue. Principle — religious or otherwise — cannot be abrogated for political expediency."  

Your emphasis of Elder Stapley's poor typing/spelling is a classic deflection in an attempt to beat around the bush and not admit that his ideas were not of God and absolutely abhorrent, as depicted in this letter.  Both were on the wrong side of history, IMO.  

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Perhaps the transcription is accurate, perhaps not.

Whoever typed it up could neither spell nor proof read so it has no credibility in my opinion.  It might as well not even exist in this form- there is absolutely no reason to even think it is genuine.

I am not saying Elder Stapley was not racist- I am saying that the letter has no credibility as presented.  

And the fact is MOST white Americans had these attitudes over 50 years ago.  You are very naive.  

No credibility because of spelling and poor proof reading?  What?  

If you admit that Elder Stanley was, in fact, racist (as I think he was), then we need to redefine "prophet, seer, and revelator," IMO. The fact that "most white "Americans" had such views as well is no defense...aren't these the Lord's representatives (special witnesses of Christ) for ALL humans on Earth?  If anything, you just proved part of my point -- church leaders can go against what God wants and lead us astray. 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Ouagadougou

[Ouagadougou]

20 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

No one is trying to sweep anything under a rug. There are many posters here who evidently have lived through that era as sentient observers from many walks of life and you do not appear to have read or heeded any of what they have said. Why would you expect them to give an ear to what you are saying? You are carping about something in a talk which was essentially correct.

Glenn

I have read their views and I respect their experiences.  I have many family members who also lived through this era (some were in favor of Civil Rights).  I do no think the talk is correct, IMO.  

[Ouagadougou]

29 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

What are you saying...that today we are so morally superior to anyone who ever lived in the past, that we need to continually rehash whatever historical figures may have done that we, in our morally superior wisdom, don't personally approve of? It's not a "sweep-it-under-the-rug" attitude--everyone knows about that big lump under the carpet. It's a recognition that all this moral outrage doesn't change a thing in the past, so why keep bringing it up? A better approach might be to work to make sure it doesn't happen again, and save the outrage for things that are happening now, that we can actually do something about.

I know a lot of members who know nothing about that big lump under the carpet.  Further, if apostles of the past can be racist, what is to say that current leaders couldn't possess ideas that are not in harmony with the Lord's teachings (I'm not implying that the leaders today are racist)?  

[Marmonboy]

21 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

No credibility because of spelling and poor proof reading?  What?  

If you admit that Elder Stanley was, in fact, racist (as I think he was), then we need to redefine "prophet, seer, and revelator," IMO. The fact that "most white "Americans" had such views as well is no defense...aren't these the Lord's representatives (special witnesses of Christ) for ALL humans on Earth?  If anything, you just proved part of my point -- church leaders can go against what God wants and lead us astray. 

And here we see inerrancy in full bloom. If these men are truly God's servants on earth, they must NEVER say anything which could be misconstrued by some segment of the populace as wrong, they must NEVER have a personal thought or idea, and they must be 100% accurate in everything they say, do, or think, or else they are not the servants of God, but lying charlatans. News flash--there has been only one perfect person on earth, and Delbert L. Stapley was not his name.

[mfbukowski]

43 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

No credibility because of spelling and poor proof reading?  What?  

If you admit that Elder Stanley was, in fact, racist (as I think he was), then we need to redefine "prophet, seer, and revelator," IMO. The fact that "most white "Americans" had such views as well is no defense...aren't these the Lord's representatives (special witnesses of Christ) for ALL humans on Earth?  If anything, you just proved part of my point -- church leaders can go against what God wants and lead us astray. 

I have explained this to you in earlier posts. Prophets are not infallible.

You do not understand Mormon Doctrine.

Either you are not reading well or ignoring the posts. There's no further reason to carry on the conversation if everything has to be repeated several times.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

of course...it was a rough time..civil rights had some awful and very real growing pains.

I'm thinking of my parents' and grandparents' generation. They were not prepared for the change. My generation was prepared. That's why I believe it came at just the right time. We should be slow to pass judgement on those who came before.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

" 21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

"A sore cursing of black skin" is in now way, shape or form racist?  If that is your opinion, then you are entitled to it, but I think this scripture bleeds racism.  

Further, the connection is that two apostles during the Civil Rights period claimed:

1 Apostle claimed:  that the Civil Rights Movement is a communist plot and  

2nd apostle claimed that:

"I am not against a Civil Rights Bill if it conforms to the views of the Prophet Joseph Smith according to the references 
above given. I fully agree the Negro is entitled to considerations also stated above, but not full social benefits nor inter-marriage privileges with the Whites, nor should the Whites be forced to 
accept them into restricted White areas. In my judgment, the present proposed Bill of Rights is vicious legislation. There 
needs to be some modification. The position of the Church cannot change until the Lord changes it Himself. Certainly I am not for exploiting racial or religious prejudices, but it is the present 
play-up to the Negro voters which is unnecessarily creating problems that by a more firm, sensible approach can be avoided. There will be a few die-hard leaders, but then that has always 
been true with any debatable issue. Principle — religious or otherwise — cannot be abrogated for political expediency."  

Your emphasis of Elder Stapley's poor typing/spelling is a classic deflection in an attempt to beat around the bush and not admit that his ideas were not of God and absolutely abhorrent, as depicted in this letter.  Both were on the wrong side of history, IMO.  

See Posted 14 hours ago in addition to my original explanation. There is no such phrasing as "A sore cursing of black skin," and therein lies your problem: you are reading text that is not there, and reading things into the text that is. Do you have specific questions about my two explanations?

I think you’re misrepresenting what “Apostle 1” said, even though it’s there in black and white.

My comment on “Apostle 2” was a joke: clearly I made up a stupid conclusion to show that it is the document itself that is unreliable.

[thesometimesaint]

Maybe it was the US Constitution that mandated Chattel Slavery.

Maybe it was the Dred Scott Decision of 1857

Sandford, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on March 6, 1857, ruled (7–2) that a slave (Dred Scott) who had resided in a free state and territory (where slavery was prohibited) was not thereby entitled to his freedom; that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States; and that ...Mar 25, 2014.That resulted in the death of only 600,000 to 700,000 dead Americans.

Followed by the decades of Plessy v Fergson

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537 was a landmark constitutional law case of the US Supreme Court. It upheld state racial segregation laws for public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal". With its De Jure Jim Crow in the South, and De Facto version in the North.

Followed by governors standing on the steps of the public schools, and blacks had to ride in the back of the bus. Maybe Selma; Alabama played its role.

Maybe the Happy Negro talk, and black people will forever be  "Servants" to their white betters. Or racists comments like ETB's blacks are too stupid to recognize Communism after they served courageously in the US Military.

I was very much born in 1951, and lived in Alabama in the early 1960's.

[Ouagadougou]

16 hours ago, Marmonboy said:

And here we see inerrancy in full bloom. If these men are truly God's servants on earth, they must NEVER say anything which could be misconstrued by some segment of the populace as wrong, they must NEVER have a personal thought or idea, and they must be 100% accurate in everything they say, do, or think, or else they are not the servants of God, but lying charlatans. News flash--there has been only one perfect person on earth, and Delbert L. Stapley was not his name.

I don't expect church leaders to be perfect...but I also expect them not to be racist.  

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

See Posted 14 hours ago in addition to my original explanation. There is no such phrasing as "A sore cursing of black skin," and therein lies your problem: you are reading text that is not there, and reading things into the text that is. Do you have specific questions about my two explanations?

I think you’re misrepresenting what “Apostle 1” said, even though it’s there in black and white.

 

My comment on “Apostle 2” was a joke: clearly I made up a stupid conclusion to show that it is the document itself that is unreliable.

 

How is the document unreliable?  Your belief that this document is unreliable can be summed up in two words: cognitive dissonance.  

"As the United States moved toward landmark civil rights legislation, top LDS authorities opposed interracial marriage and school integration, and required blacks in the church-owned Hotel Utah to use service elevators. Elder Ezra Taft Benson said the civil rights movement "is used as a Communist program for revolution in America." In 1964, Elder Delbert L. Stapley warned Michigan Gov. George Romney, a Mormon, that if Romney continued to support equal rights for blacks, God might soon put him to death. Romney not only ignored the warning, he stepped up his advocacy. (Romney died at 88; Stapley at 81.)"

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2007932-155/letter-lds-political-history-shows-plenty

 

 

[Marmonboy]

I expect them to be human, a product of the times they were raised in, just like us. I hope they exemplify the best of human nature, and they most often do, but they are human after all.

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I don't expect church leaders to be perfect...but I also expect them not to be racist.  

I think it's too much to expect that everyone should be able to avoid all of the prejudices they are raised with. Life happens.

By that same token, we can also see that it is extremely easy for such prejudices to leak into the teachings of any church, including our own. Every teaching therefore needs to be tried and examined. 

[Ouagadougou]

1 minute ago, Marmonboy said:

I expect them to be human, a product of the times they were raised in, just like us. I hope they exemplify the best of human nature, and they most often do, but they are human after all.

So why were some other humans (some members of the church and others not) at that time advocating for Civil Rights/equality (and on the right side of history); however, the one true church and its leaders missed the mark completely on race until 1978?  It means that church leaders can be wrong and lead people astray...  

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Ouagadougou said:

So why were some other humans (some members of the church and others not) at that time advocating for Civil Rights/equality (and on the right side of history)...  

Just because someone advocated for civil rights does not mean they were not racist.  It is an unfortunate result of our society, but racism was and likely still is pretty much ever present, though thankfully many are conscious aware of their gut assumptions to overcome them with reason and experience.

[Ouagadougou]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think it's too much to expect that everyone should be able to avoid all of the prejudices they are raised with. Life happens.

By that same token, we can also see that it is extremely easy for such prejudices to leak into the teachings of any church, including our own. Every teaching therefore needs to be tried and examined. 

It's too much to expect that an apostle of the Lord should not be racist just because ...life happens?  I disagree 100%.  Aren't apostles supposed to be special witnesses of Christ for ALL people?  

"We can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord, who declared: “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (D&C 1:38)"

https://www.lds.org/topics/prophets?lang=eng

"We can always trust the living prophets?"

How is that possible when they were clearly wrong as it pertains to race for so many years?