Elder Benson Conference Talk/Report (1967)

[Jeanne]

26 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

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

Basically an assumption after being taught that I was a valiant spirit and those who were not...were cursed with dark skin.  That...the priesthood ban..and the Book of Mormon pretty much summed that up for me.  I was a "Saturday's Warrior"...brought up during this time because I was so-o-o special!

[Ouagadougou]

4 hours ago, mnn727 said:

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

Explain to me how somebody can still receive the blessings of the temple without going to the temple?  How can somebody receive the blessings of the priesthood without actually receiving the priesthood.  If blacks were not allowed both the priesthood and to visit the temple until 1978, critical blessings were withheld from them for so many years, regardless of it was outside of their control or not.  

[Ouagadougou]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The justifications for these rejections by the average member is a big reason why many members are less comfortable attending church

Amen.  

[Ouagadougou]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don’t think being taught racist doctrines by someone defending a racist ban constitutes being led astray.

Wow!  Really?  Unless you think God is racist or you personally feel certain racist ideologies are acceptable.  

[The Nehor]

51 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Basically an assumption after being taught that I was a valiant spirit and those who were not...were cursed with dark skin.  That...the priesthood ban..and the Book of Mormon pretty much summed that up for me.  I was a "Saturday's Warrior"...brought up during this time because I was so-o-o special!

An unscriptural conclusion. The usual justification for the ban was the Book of Abraham where pharoah was cursed in regards to the priesthood. Of course the racists ignored the rest of the blessing where he was promised the blessings of the earth and great wisdom. Hardly a reason for racism and definitely not a reason to keep them segregated. It is almost as if racists only selectively read the passage to see what they wanted to see.

[Jeanne]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

An unscriptural conclusion. The usual justification for the ban was the Book of Abraham where pharoah was cursed in regards to the priesthood. Of course the racists ignored the rest of the blessing where he was promised the blessings of the earth and great wisdom. Hardly a reason for racism and definitely not a reason to keep them segregated. It is almost as if racists only selectively read the passage to see what they wanted to see.

This may be true and well and fine..but this is not what you learn in primary or MIA...and grandma!!  Those fence sitters in the war in heaven...we knew who they were!

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Wow!  Really?  Unless you think God is racist or you personally feel certain racist ideologies are acceptable.  

It appears you didn't grasp what I posted (why didn't you include the whole quote?).

I think being so convincingly taught to hate people of another race and to break covenants in so doing that you actually do, constitutes being led astray. I don’t think the LDS leaders ever taught us to hate people of another race and to break commandments and covenants in so doing. Do you have any examples of that, especially during the Civil Rights time frame you're focusing on, say from 1950-70?

[mrmarklin]

Without perusing the entire thread I can say that I not only lived through the era but lived near Berkeley CA (still do, actually) and attended several rallies in the sixties. 

 

It it didn't get much press, but all the protests and rallies I went to were openly run by commies.  This applies to Vietnam rallies as well as civil rights events. 

I know from personal experience that Elder Benson was correct in every specific. 

 

BTW what do you think of Public Accomadation now?  Ask some bakery owners in Oregon.

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

This may be true and well and fine..but this is not what you learn in primary or MIA...and grandma!!  Those fence sitters in the war in heaven...we knew who they were!

I know. Mormon folklore has a life of its own. I had high hopes the internet would stomp it down a little but we seem to be entering more of a post-truth world and it seems that while good information is more readily available most would rather have static.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

Without perusing the entire thread I can say that I not only lived through the era but lived near Berkeley CA (still do, actually) and attended several rallies in the sixties. 

 

It it didn't get much press, but all the protests and rallies I went to were openly run by commies.  This applies to Vietnam rallies as well as civil rights events. 

I know from personal experience that Elder Benson was correct in every specific. 

 

BTW what do you think of Public Accomadation now?  Ask some bakery owners in Oregon.

 

I am for it.

[Ouagadougou]

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It appears you didn't grasp what I posted (why didn't you include the whole quote?).

I think being so convincingly taught to hate people of another race and to break covenants in so doing that you actually do, constitutes being led astray. I don’t think the LDS leaders ever taught us to hate people of another race and to break commandments and covenants in so doing. Do you have any examples of that, especially during the Civil Rights time frame you're focusing on, say from 1950-70?

Denying an entire group of people equality (the priesthood and access to the temple) because of the color of their skin is racist and a from of hate, IMO.   

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”
President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency

December 15, 1969

To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.

Dear Brethren:

In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.

First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by “wise men” whom God raised up for this “very purpose,” and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended “for the rights and protection” of all mankind.

In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is “not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.” These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church’s deep and historic concern with man’s free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.

It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.

However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.

This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to [p.223] join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.
A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.
Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….
“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”

President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”
Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.
We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.

We recognize that those who do not accept the principle of modern revelation may oppose our point of view. We repeat that such would not wish for membership in the Church, and therefore the question of priesthood should hold no interest for them. Without prejudice they should grant us the privilege afforded under the Constitution to exercise our [p.224]chosen form of religion just as we must grant all others a similar privilege. They must recognize that the question of bestowing or withholding priesthood in the Church is a matter of religion and not a matter of Constitutional right.

We extend the hand of friendship to men everywhere and the hand of fellowship to all who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein.
We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in His wisdom and in His tender mercy.

Meanwhile we must strive harder to emulate His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose new commandment it was that we should love one another. In developing that love and concern for one another, while awaiting revelations yet to come, let us hope that with respect to these religious differences, we may gain reinforcement for understanding and appreciation for such differences. They challenge our common similarities, as children of one Father, to enlarge the out-reachings of our divine souls.
Faithfully your brethren,

The First Presidency
By Hugh B. Brown
N. Eldon Tanner

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/neither-white-nor-black-appendix/

1951 Statement from the First Presidency

https://archive.org/stream/MormonismAndTheNegro#page/n73/mode/2up

1969 Letter of First Presidency 

http://archive.org/stream/improvementera7302unse#page/n71/mode/2up

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V08N01_13.pdf

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

This may be true and well and fine..but this is not what you learn in primary or MIA...and grandma!!  Those fence sitters in the war in heaven...we knew who they were!

I didn't learn fence sitters in Primary, Mia,or at home or Grandma's.  Instead I learned no fencesiiters, we all shouted for joy.

Not saying there weren't grandmas out there teaching that, but the use of "you" in your comment above implies that it was a universal experience when from what I have heard it wasn't even close to that.

[Kenngo1969]

Happy Jack Wagon,

Congratulations for exhibiting the truly impressive talent of piling condescension on top of all of the indignation and umbrage. Indignation and umbrage, by themselves, are impressive, but condescension on top of them makes for a truly impressive cocktail! I'm willing, for the most fleeting of nanoseconds, to account for the possibility, however remote, that the Lord might not see things exactly the way I see them, might not do things exactly the way I would do them, and that He might have a timetable and reasons for doing things that do not match my own.

Although I'm still single, and have been for quite some time now, on my mission, we used to teach people the importance of eternal marriage. We did our best to imbue a sense of urgency in investigators to earnestly seek and to pursue the goal of eternal marriage so that they wouldn't fall prey, e.g., to Satan leading them astray and fooling them into believing that that chastity before marriage and fidelity after marriage are unimportant. I'm sure that eternal marriage, chastity before marriage, and fidelity after marriage are important, BUT, for whatever reason, I simply have been unsuccessful in persuading anyone to engage (Hah-hah!) in a mutual pursuit of these goals with me. BUT we teach nothing will be lost that for those who do not have the opportunity of forming an eternal union in this life. We suppose that people having the opportunity to form such unions in the next life is just as good as forming them in this life. I don't have whiplash. Can't help you there.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Denying an entire group of people equality (the priesthood and access to the temple) because of the color of their skin is racist and a from of hate, IMO.   

REALLY? There's a shocker. I thought you were going to come down in favor of racism but you surprised us all. Well done sir!

[Ouagadougou]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

REALLY? There's a shocker. I thought you were going to come down in favor of racism but you surprised us all. Well done sir!

So I take it you agree the church was wrong with it's racist doctrine until 1978...

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Denying an entire group of people equality (the priesthood and access to the temple) because of the color of their skin is racist and a from of hate, IMO.  

***

What I asked for was examples of prophets leading the people astray (in line with the focus of this thread, in the context of racism, with an emphasis on the issue of American Civil Rights). To be led astray means to break covenants and apostatize. The criteria I am using for this discussion are: to be led (directed and encouraged) to hate people of another race; to break the covenants in expressing this hate; and, actually following through with it.

These are not examples of prophets leading, or their followers being led, astray in this matter. I’m sure you are familiar with this as well:

“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

As offended as anyone may wish to be over things past, there simply is nothing to show that the LDS Church led her members astray, and that is what I am talking about. It appears that Elder Stapley didn’t do it either!

10 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

So I take it you agree the church was wrong with it's racist doctrine until 1978...

As a Church, she would only be wrong if she led people astray (as I pointed out above), and she didn't.

[Marmonboy]

Here's another one of my world-famous analogies, for which I almost always get a lot of flak for:

Let's suppose I used to be an alcoholic. I haven't had a drink since, oh, let's say 1978. Before then, I said a lot of stupid things. I offended some people with my drunken explanations of my behavior. Many people hated me for my behavior. But in 1978, I saw the light. I've been stone cold sober ever since. Is it right for people to keep hating on me for something I stopped doing almost 40 years ago, and which I never do any more?

This is how I see this thread going. The Church has admitted, over the pulpit, that it was wrong in its thinking about the ban. Since then it has made strides in becoming more open and welcoming. But some people just can't get over those feelings that got hurt 40 years ago and move on. They still hold that against us, because God's true church would never ever do anything wrong. Tell that to Peter, who took a sword to a Passover seder and lopped off a guy's ear (in front of Jesus, no less.)

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

What I asked for was examples of prophets leading the people astray (in line with the focus of this thread, in the context of racism, with an emphasis on the issue of American Civil Rights). To be led astray means to break covenants and apostatize. The criteria I am using for this discussion are: to be led (directed and encouraged) to hate people of another race; to break the covenants in expressing this hate; and, actually following through with it.

 

These are not examples of prophets leading, or their followers being led, astray in this matter. I’m sure you are familiar with this as well:

 

“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

As offended as anyone may wish to be over things past, there simply is nothing to show that the LDS Church led her members astray, and that is what I am talking about. It appears that Elder Stapley didn’t do it either!

 

 

As a Church, she would only be wrong if she led people astray (as I pointed out above), and she didn't.

I provided copious amounts of quotes/sources and official statements from the church during this time period illustrating their racist policy/doctrine toward blacks.

Withholding the priesthood and access to the temple is, in fact, an actionable expression of discrimination/hate toward an entire group of people based solely on the color of their skin.  Telling members to  abstain from allowing blacks to enjoy certain gospel-essential ordinances and/or processes (temple and priesthood) is leading them astray, especially since the church admitted that they were wrong.  

Since your congestive dissonance isn't allowing you to understand this, look at it this way:

If the church admitted its doctrine/policy/theories were wrong, then that means what they told members for so many years was wrong.  And, what they told members was an actionable expression to NOT give blacks the priesthood and allow them to attend the temple.  If God was actually ok with blacks receiving both (for some many years until 1978) -- both the church and its leaders were wrong -- and this means that leaders lead people astray.  

 

 

[Ouagadougou]

22 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

Here's another one of my world-famous analogies, for which I almost always get a lot of flak for:

Let's suppose I used to be an alcoholic. I haven't had a drink since, oh, let's say 1978. Before then, I said a lot of stupid things. I offended some people with my drunken explanations of my behavior. Many people hated me for my behavior. But in 1978, I saw the light. I've been stone cold sober ever since. Is it right for people to keep hating on me for something I stopped doing almost 40 years ago, and which I never do any more?

This is how I see this thread going. The Church has admitted, over the pulpit, that it was wrong in its thinking about the ban. Since then it has made strides in becoming more open and welcoming. But some people just can't get over those feelings that got hurt 40 years ago and move on. They still hold that against us, because God's true church would never ever do anything wrong. Tell that to Peter, who took a sword to a Passover seder and lopped off a guy's ear (in front of Jesus, no less.)

What about this talk from 2000?

"How grateful I am that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has from its beginnings stood strongly against racism in any of its malignant manifestations."

Statements like this are misleading and couldn't be further from the truth.  Because the church finally "saw the light" in 1978.  Clearly even some in the 70 don't know the true history of the church with regard to how it treated and discriminated toward blacks.  

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/09/no-more-strangers?lang=eng

[HappyJackWagon]

36 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

Here's another one of my world-famous analogies, for which I almost always get a lot of flak for:

Let's suppose I used to be an alcoholic. I haven't had a drink since, oh, let's say 1978. Before then, I said a lot of stupid things. I offended some people with my drunken explanations of my behavior. Many people hated me for my behavior. But in 1978, I saw the light. I've been stone cold sober ever since. Is it right for people to keep hating on me for something I stopped doing almost 40 years ago, and which I never do any more?

This is how I see this thread going. The Church has admitted, over the pulpit, that it was wrong in its thinking about the ban. Since then it has made strides in becoming more open and welcoming. But some people just can't get over those feelings that got hurt 40 years ago and move on. They still hold that against us, because God's true church would never ever do anything wrong. Tell that to Peter, who took a sword to a Passover seder and lopped off a guy's ear (in front of Jesus, no less.)

But what if you stopped drinking and saying hateful things in 1978 after you became sober, BUT you also continued to justify your reasons for being an alcoholic  and the things you had said? Would people be more justified in being upset with you? The racial discrimination of the ban ended in 1978 but the racial discrimination in the doctrine justifying the ban did NOT end in 1978.

Keep in mind, the disavowal of the "theories" which were really "doctrines" only came recently in the Race and the Priesthood essay. When has the church admitted over the pulpit that the previous doctrines about the ban were incorrect? I haven't seen that. Is there a conference address? If there is I'd love to see it but my understanding is that they disavowed in the essay that many members still aren't aware of.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

So I take it you agree the church was wrong with it's racist doctrine until 1978...

I have no idea. While Inam under command not to be racist God has used his racial divisions in the past for various reasons. If God set it up then He knows best. If not, then someone screwed up and will answer for it.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Happy Jack Wagon,

Congratulations for exhibiting the truly impressive talent of piling condescension on top of all of the indignation and umbrage. Indignation and umbrage, by themselves, are impressive, but condescension on top of them makes for a truly impressive cocktail! I'm willing, for the most fleeting of nanoseconds, to account for the possibility, however remote, that the Lord might not see things exactly the way I see them, might not do things exactly the way I would do them, and that He might have a timetable and reasons for doing things that do not match my own.

 

You seem really upset with me. I don't think I've made any personal attacks against you but I'm sorry if I came off too strong. I truly find it hard to believe that you are unaware of the very basic answers to the questions you asked. Then you made a blatantly false statement that I hadn't answered your questions and you surmised it was because I wasn't able to. So I restated my answers so you wouldn't be confused.

I'm also surprised that you can only consider for a fleeting nanosecond that the Lord doesn't see or do things exactly the same way you would and that his time table may not be the same as yours. A nanosecond? You seem to be very confident that your will and actions and timetable are perfectly aligned with God's. I admit that I am not that certain regarding my own.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

23 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.”

I disagree...strongly. Surprise!

You have suggested your own definition of what it means to "lead people astray" and I can see where you're coming from with that, but in no way is if a definitive definition.

Racism isn't limited to teaching people to hate other people. I agree that leaders didn't teach us to "hate" blacks but there are many ways in which racism is manifest. Systematized discrimination is one such way. The church and its leaders definitely did that and justified it with "doctrines" which it now disavows.

Presumption that things will be made right in the next world is no justification for terrible things being done in this life.

 

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I provided copious amounts of quotes/sources and official statements from the church during this time period illustrating their racist policy/doctrine toward blacks.

Withholding the priesthood and access to the temple is, in fact, an actionable expression of discrimination/hate toward an entire group of people based solely on the color of their skin.  Telling members to  abstain from allowing blacks to enjoy certain gospel-essential ordinances and/or processes (temple and priesthood) is leading them astray, especially since the church admitted that they were wrong.  

Since your congestive dissonance isn't allowing you to understand this, look at it this way:

If the church admitted its doctrine/policy/theories were wrong, then that means what they told members for so many years was wrong.  And, what they told members was an actionable expression to NOT give blacks the priesthood and allow them to attend the temple.  If God was actually ok with blacks receiving both (for some many years until 1978) -- both the church and its leaders were wrong -- and this means that leaders lead people astray. 

Your references have nothing to do with the Church leading the saints astray. You seem to be suffering from cognitive dissonance. There are many ways to perceive “wrong” just as there are many ways to perceive “right,” but the bottom line you don’t seem to be facing is that nowhere are the saints told to break any of the restored covenants to express hatred toward any race. It seems you are missing that from your read of the references, Mr. Cognitive Dissonance!

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

What about this talk from 2000?

"How grateful I am that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has from its beginnings stood strongly against racism in any of its malignant manifestations."

Statements like this are misleading and couldn't be further from the truth.  Because the church finally "saw the light" in 1978.  Clearly even some in the 70 don't know the true history of the church with regard to how it treated and discriminated toward blacks.  

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/09/no-more-strangers?lang=eng

On the contrary, in many ways that statement is true (note the adverb and adjective), especially in context of the whole talk.