Elder Benson Conference Talk/Report (1967)

[Ouagadougou]

14 minutes ago, omni said:

Whether the Stapley letter is authentic or not (and I have seen no compelling evidence to believe it is not), can we all agree the Church was no champion of the civil rights movement, arguably the biggest moral issue of the time.

I agree that the church was not a champion of civil rights when it should have been.  

 

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Where do you see that he did not answer your question? 

I asked, "Whom did they lead astray?  Whose salvation was threatened?" [Emphasis mine.]

[waveslider]

10 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Both are related because you have two apostles at that time that were on the wrong side of history.  

I don't see it that way, as I stated on page 3, the fifth post down, which you never replied to, perhaps because it showed plainly that your interpretation of Elder Benson's talk was misconstrued. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68378-elder-benson-conference-talkreport-1967/?page=3#comment-1209678633

 

[Ouagadougou]

On 27.11.2016 at 3:44 PM, waveslider said:

The planning, direction, and leadership come from the Communists, and most of those are white men who fully intend to destroy America by spilling Negro blood, rather than their own."

Nothing misconstrued here: Elder Benson believed the "planning, direction and leadership" came from the communists.  Who was the leader of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's when this speech was given?  MLK

Was the aftermath of what MLK fought for a communist conspiracy?  Nope.  

You can try to dissect his talk over and over, but any way you try to slice it, Elder Benson, along with other church leaders, were wrong on their ideas and stance on civil rights, especially as it pertains to equality for African Americans.  It's a good thing MLK was inspired of God in order to help a generation of African Americans gain more equality, because the church was years behind -- it took them (church leaders) until 1978 to figure it out.  

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Nothing misconstrued here: Elder Benson believed the "planning, direction and leadership" came from the communists.  Who was the leader of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's when this speech was given?  MLK

Was the aftermath of what MLK fought for a communist conspiracy?  Nope.  

You can try to dissect his talk over and over, but any way you try to slice it, Elder Benson, along with other church leaders, were wrong on their ideas and stance on civil rights, especially as it pertains to equality for African Americans.  It's a good thing MLK was inspired of God in order to help a generation of African Americans gain more equality, because the church was years behind -- it took them (church leaders) until 1978 to figure it out.  

You forgot to put the rest of the quote in, from Elder Benson's talk: "

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

The planning, direction, and leadership come from the Communists, and most of those are white men who fully intend to destroy America by spilling Negro blood, rather than their own."

Since when was MLK white? Did you even look at the post I posted earler, on page 3:

On 11/27/2016 at 1:44 PM, waveslider said:

No I don't think this is even talking about MLK's movement in particular, but rather manipulations to control that movement:

"Now there is nothing wrong with civil rights; it is what's being done in the name of civil rights that is alarming."

In light of what Lynden B. Johnson said:

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference."

It is obvious that some manipulation was being planned for, especially after he said this:

"I'll have those n****** voting Democratic for 200 years."

And in our day and age it seems to have become a true statement.

I can't verify (so don't ask for a CFR), but I have no doubt that these manipulations included infiltration of followers of MLK's movement in order for it to be manipulated and used similarly to how agrarian reform was previously used. Just as now, groups like Black Lives Matter have been manipulated by leftist leaning people and companies, like George Soros' $30,000,000.00 in seed money to form the group, and Google's contribution of $2,350,000.00 as was exposed from The Washington Times, and Essence Magazine respectively.

I have seen BLM create hatred and trigger violence, although I haven't seen it overthrow the government yet.

This part below let's me know it isn't talking about MLK as being a Communist leader, but rather unseen participants manipulating the direction it was going:

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

It's a wake up call that we still need to this day. Not some accusation against MLK.

 

It is you who is dissecting this talk to change the meaning. I read the whole thing and got a very different message from it than you did. Yours is from only looking at the parts that you want to in order to think it is MLK that is specifically talked about here, when if you read all the words together, in their proper context you would see differently. This talk is actually very enlightening, especially in light of how far it has been taken now days as well. Perhaps if you read this talk without trying to look for what you think it says, instead of actually seeing what it truly says you would be able to understand how off your stance is concerning this talk. You have indeed misconstrued the proper meaning behind it. It is only a wake up call to something that you are obviously still blind to. The fact that there are enemies to the American way of life who manipulate things like MLK's civil rights movement, and similar movements today as well, no matter how pure the original motives were in creating these movements.

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The problem with this is that the tacit assumption here is that there is a knowable and objective "right and wrong" which, kind of knowing you, I think is incompatible with your overall view of the world.

Of course society influenced the church.  Of course you are right now being influenced by the society in which you live.   It is inescapable. Racism is horrible but yes it was part of society at the time

I am sure God sees one or two little problems with our value system in this our wonderfully evolved, and perfectly moral culture of today as well.

These are what is known as "the blood and sins of this generation" and it applies to all generations.

I wouldn't disagree with what you've said here.  Thanks.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Happy Jack Wagon,

Your indignation and umbrage are truly impressive, but you didn't answer my question.  And your non-response raises yet another one: Who's being rejected?  Indignation and umbrage do not an argument make.

Thanks,

-Ken

I didn't answer your questions?

You asked- Whom did they lead astray?

I answered- Everyone who was taught racist doctrines in an effort to defend the racist ban was led astray. (Can't be much clearer than that)

You asked- Whose salvation was threatened?

I answered- (a bit less directly) "It doesn't matter that black people were discriminated against. It doesn't matter that as a church we rejected them in this life because we'll make it up to them in the next life. Just baptize everyone and do their ordinances once they're dead. Same difference, right?" In anticipation of a typical response to the obvious answer about how black people's salvation is threatened, I addressed how baptizing for the dead does not mean that salvation isn't threatened.

On my mission we used to teach people the importance of baptism and receiving the gift of the holy ghost. We did our best to imbue a sense of urgency on investigators to get baptized and get the HG so that it could help them throughout their lives to live according to God's will as it is revealed to them. It was important (or so we taught) for investigators to get this gift before satan could lead them astray and fool them. It was important for investigators not to wait for these gifts BUT now we teach that for those children of gays waiting at least an extra ten years for baptism that there will be nothing lost. We suppose that baptizing blacks in the next life after having rejected them in this life is just as good as baptizing them in this life. I'm getting whiplash from the inconsistent teachings.

Either it matters that people are baptized and receive the GotHG in this life or it doesn't. The church seems to want it both ways. They want to be able to reject whomever they want and right it off as eternally insignificant while also teaching the importance of covenants and ordinances. It's ugly double speak.

You ask, "Who's being rejected?" I'll answer VERY clearly so you don't miss this answer; blacks were rejected during the ban and the racist effects still linger. Gays and their children are currently being rejected. All of this rejection is deemed as insignificant by those doing the rejecting. This kind of inconsistency and double speak is a big reason why many members are having a difficult time trusting the current leadership. The justifications for these rejections by the average member is a big reason why many members are less comfortable attending church.

 

[Gray]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, while not the original letter it's a good enough copy for me. And it is dubious to use this, a personal letter, to support charges of institutional opposition to the civil rights movement framed in terms of racism, when no such claim is made in the letter and no such opposition was otherwise established by any other source provided in this thread.

My only concern was demonstrating that the letter itself was authentic. 

Of course, the apostle in question seemed to think that his views were in harmony with the doctrine of the church. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Gray

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I didn't answer your questions?

You asked- Whom did they lead astray?

I answered- Everyone who was taught racist doctrines in an effort to defend the racist ban was led astray. (Can't be much clearer than that)

You asked- Whose salvation was threatened?

I answered- (a bit less directly) "It doesn't matter that black people were discriminated against. It doesn't matter that as a church we rejected them in this life because we'll make it up to them in the next life. Just baptize everyone and do their ordinances once they're dead. Same difference, right?" In anticipation of a typical response to the obvious answer about how black people's salvation is threatened, I addressed how baptizing for the dead does not mean that salvation isn't threatened.

On my mission we used to teach people the importance of baptism and receiving the gift of the holy ghost. We did our best to imbue a sense of urgency on investigators to get baptized and get the HG so that it could help them throughout their lives to live according to God's will as it is revealed to them. It was important (or so we taught) for investigators to get this gift before satan could lead them astray and fool them. It was important for investigators not to wait for these gifts BUT now we teach that for those children of gays waiting at least an extra ten years for baptism that there will be nothing lost. We suppose that baptizing blacks in the next life after having rejected them in this life is just as good as baptizing them in this life. I'm getting whiplash from the inconsistent teachings.

Either it matters that people are baptized and receive the GotHG in this life or it doesn't. The church seems to want it both ways. They want to be able to reject whomever they want and right it off as eternally insignificant while also teaching the importance of covenants and ordinances. It's ugly double speak.

You ask, "Who's being rejected?" I'll answer VERY clearly so you don't miss this answer; blacks were rejected during the ban and the racist effects still linger. Gays and their children are currently being rejected. All of this rejection is deemed as insignificant by those doing the rejecting. This kind of inconsistency and double speak is a big reason why many members are having a difficult time trusting the current leadership. The justifications for these rejections by the average member is a big reason why many members are less comfortable attending church.

 

The thing is, I, personally, would have been a better person..a better mormon (per Christ's teachings) had I not thought that my skin made me a choice and/or superior.  I am ashamed to say that I really believed that what I was taught...was a level of bigotry that cost me good friendships and an overall better picture of what it is to be a good human being in a diverse world. and now...with the essay..it is somewhat a different picture and all those things are for naught.   Had I have died, I would have to had to account for my actions that were taught by the church and the instructions of one parent and grandparents.  I would be accountable...and I hope so because I am deeply ashamed.  Perhaps...this..would have affected my salvation.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Jeanne

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

My only concern was demonstrating that the letter itself was authentic. 

Of course, the apostle in question seemed to think that his views were in harmony with the doctrine of the church. 

And it would be dubious to use this, a personal letter, to support charges of institutional opposition to the civil rights movement framed in terms of racism, when no such claim is made in the letter and no such opposition was otherwise established by any other source provided in this thread.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

***

You asked- Whom did they lead astray?

I answered- Everyone who was taught racist doctrines in an effort to defend the racist ban was led astray. (Can't be much clearer than that)

You asked- Whose salvation was threatened?

***

Either it matters that people are baptized and receive the GotHG in this life or it doesn't. The church seems to want it both ways. They want to be able to reject whomever they want and right it off as eternally insignificant while also teaching the importance of covenants and ordinances. It's ugly double speak.

I don’t think being taught racist doctrines by someone defending a racist ban constitutes being led astray. I think being so convincingly taught to hate people of another race and to break covenants in so doing, that you actually do, does. I don’t think the LDS leaders taught us to hate people of another race and to break covenants in so doing.

What really matters is doing your best with what you have to work with. That is how grace works.

“This life” includes the post-mortal spirit world, so no one is rejected. This is how 2 Nephi 26:33 is fulfilled, and why it can only be accomplished through a Savior and how no one’s salvation is ever threatened by forces outside the individual’s control: “[Jesus Christ] inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”

Edited December 1, 2016 by CV75

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Any black person before 1978.  Meaning they couldn't have the priesthood or go to the temple.  Can you go to heaven without going to the temple?  Nope...not the highest level...

That is not true. We've had vicarious Baptisms, Confirmations, and Sealings for about 180 years now.. There has never been any requirement of holding the Priesthood, or going to the Temple, in this life, to get into Heaven.

SEE Prior to 1847, black people who were members of the church included Elijah Abel, William McCary, and Walker Lewis.

[Gray]

38 minutes ago, CV75 said:

And it would be dubious to use this, a personal letter, to support charges of institutional opposition to the civil rights movement framed in terms of racism, when no such claim is made in the letter and no such opposition was otherwise established by any other source provided in this thread.

I suppose what it does demonstrate is that being called to be an apostle is by no means a guarantee against believing and teaching false doctrine, any more being called to be an EQ president or Bishop or chorister. 

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

I suppose what it does demonstrate is that being called to be an apostle is by no means a guarantee against believing and teaching false doctrine, any more being called to be an EQ president or Bishop or chorister. 

And here I thought your only concern was demonstrating that the letter itself was authentic... LOL

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

And here I thought your only concern was demonstrating that the letter itself was authentic... LOL

That was my initial concern, but after clearing up the matter I didn't shut my brain off. I considered the implications of a racist apostle who believed that his views were consistent with the doctrines of the church. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Gray

[thesometimesaint]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

That was my initial concern, but after clearing up the matter I didn't shut my brain off. I considered the implications of a racist apostle who believed that his views were consistent with the doctrines of the church. 

They are subject to all the same faults, foibles, mistakes, prejudices and sins that are common to man.

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

That was my initial concern, but after clearing up the matter I didn't shut my brain off. I considered the implications of a racist apostle who believed that his views were consistent with the doctrines of the church. 

Why not pick a current apostle who "believes and teaches false doctrine"? That would be be far more relatable and relevant. And having more than one apostle doing that would allow a more thorough analysis of any pattern.

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

They are subject to all the same faults, foibles, mistakes, prejudices and sins that are common to man.

Indeed

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Why not pick a current apostle who "believes and teaches false doctrine"? That would be be far more relatable and relevant. And having more than one apostle doing that would allow a more thorough analysis of any pattern.

It's clear now that Elder Stapely was teaching false doctrine, but it perhaps was not so clear at the time. I consider the church's anti-gay marriage teachings to be wrong, but of course they're consistent with doctrine as it exists today. Who knows what the doctrine will be tomorrow? It's pretty easy to find apostles and prophets who taught things in the past that are considered false doctrine today. The Journal of Discourses is full of such material. Most church leaders seem to teach things that are more or less consistent with church teachings at the time.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Gray

[thesometimesaint]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

Indeed

Yet God still talks to them and us when he so chooses.

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Yet God still talks to them and us when he so chooses.

All of us are capable of revelatory experiences, despite our imperfections.  

[thesometimesaint]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

All of us are capable of revelatory experiences, despite our imperfections.  

Yep, for which I'm eternally grateful. But alas I have no authority to speak for the Church. Only my acceptance or rejection of it.

[mnn727]

20 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Any black person before 1978.  Meaning they couldn't have the priesthood or go to the temple.  Can you go to heaven without going to the temple?  Nope...not the highest level...

"No blessing will be withheld from anyone due to circumstances beyond their control"  -- also Ezra Taft Benson

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

It's clear now that Elder Stapely was teaching false doctrine, but it perhaps was not so clear at the time. I consider the church's anti-gay marriage teachings to be wrong, but of course they're consistent with doctrine as it exists today. Who knows what the doctrine will be tomorrow? It's pretty easy to find apostles and prophets who taught things in the past that are considered false doctrine today. The Journal of Discourses is full of such material. Most church leaders seem to teach things that are more or less consistent with church teachings at the time.

When/how did Elder Stapley teach that which was consistent with Church teachings at the time (let's say from 1950-70)? The way I see the letter, he only expressed his personal position on a political matter based on his personal religious beliefs and understanding--perhaps thinking it was his civic duty as a citizen to persuade a politician. Do have other sources that show that the Church taught any of what he describes in his letter?

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

The thing is, I, personally, would have been a better person..a better mormon (per Christ's teachings) had I not thought that my skin made me a choice and/or superior. 

That is something that I never construed from the Priesthood ban, i.e. that I my skin color made me a superior person to anyone whose skin was a different color. It is something that I honestly never believed. May parents never taught me such. My life experiences never taught me such. And certainly not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

When I read the Bible, I read that I and all would be judged by our faith and works while here in this mortal frame and time.

Were you actually taught that, or is it something that you "picked up on?"

 

Glenn