Elder Benson Conference Talk/Report (1967)

[mfbukowski]

22 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.

Sigh.

Doctrine changes and truth itself changes with the times. It was never false doctrine, the truth changed. Was Newtonian physics false physics?

Are there false rules for football?

Edited December 2, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Kenngo1969]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

... 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.

 

Here, let me help you out: It's called irony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony.  

You're welcome.  Have a lovely day!  

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sigh.

Doctrine changes and truth itself changes with the times. It was never false doctrine, the truth changed. Was Newtonian physics false physics?

I'm speaking Mormonese. 

[Gray]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

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?

Consistent with teachings is not the same thing as explicitly taught by the church. I'm not aware of anything in his letter that contradicts any of the church's messages about race at the time.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

I tend to be a monopoly apostate, I make up my own rules.

[thesometimesaint]

50 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

I was 20 years old, and knew all about it in 1971 when I joined. I strongly disagreed with the Ban. But realized that either this is the Lords church or it is not. I could be a part of his church or not. I chose to belong, and have been very blessed because of it.

[mfbukowski]

53 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

 

Ironic indeed.

Edited December 2, 2016 by mfbukowski
The comment is contradictory and shows its own irony

[Jeanne]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

I am surprised..truly!!  I learned this mostly as a teen that those who were born with dark skin were fence sitters in the pre-existence...the rest of us shouted for joy!!

[Marmonboy]

42 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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 "doctrinal" reasons were supposed to have been repudiated in 1978--that was the point of the whole proclamation thingy. And Bruce R, McConkie, over the pulpit in General Conference, stated that whatever we thought about why the ban was in place was wrong, and that we should fall in line with the prophet, or words to that effect. As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up."

If members of the Church continue to hold views that became obsolete in 1978, that is on them, not the Church as a whole.

[Rock_N_Roll]

18 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am surprised..truly!!  I learned this mostly as a teen that those who were born with dark skin were fence sitters in the pre-existence...the rest of us shouted for joy!!

I grew up in Utah in the 60’s and 70’s and was taught the same, Jeanne.  I’m afraid many on this board suffer with “selective memory”.

[Jeanne]

11 minutes ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

I grew up in Utah in the 60’s and 70’s and was taught the same, Jeanne.  I’m afraid many on this board suffer with “selective memory”.

 

Yeah...all the heavy stuff quoted on this thread is beyond me...it was simple...the color of skin, the curse and the reasons for it combined with the Book of Mormon scriptures made it rather clear to me.  I am so glad I am not in the twilight zone here.  Thought I was crazy!!

[Johnnie Cake]

The answer to the Benson conundrum is really quite simple...Benson was a man of his time...a time when racism in America was beginning to wane but the the church was still clinging to its racist apologetic scaffolding that had been built over the years to justify the policy that was born in the bigotry and the racism of its past leaders like Brigham Young whom the church threw under the bus and blamed on Brigham's racism in its essay on the Priesthood Ban.  Just like Brigham before him, Benson was merely holding to his firmly held belief that members of the African American community were not on an equal footing with the White Majority.  The churches policy to ban Blacks stemmed from this racist belief.  Fortunately the church has begun to walk back from its racist apologetics of decades past and has admitted that it was born out of the racism of the day in which it was born and perpetuated.

[thesometimesaint]

Thank God my Testimony isn't based on Brigham Young or Ezra Taft Benson.

[Jeanne]

23 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The answer to the Benson conundrum is really quite simple...Benson was a man of his time...a time when racism in America was beginning to wane but the the church was still clinging to its racist apologetic scaffolding that had been built over the years to justify the policy that was born in the bigotry and the racism of its past leaders like Brigham Young whom the church threw under the bus and blamed on Brigham's racism in its essay on the Priesthood Ban.  Just like Brigham before him, Benson was merely holding to his firmly held belief that members of the African American community were not on an equal footing with the White Majority.  The churches policy to ban Blacks stemmed from this racist belief.  Fortunately the church has begun to walk back from its racist apologetics of decades past and has admitted that it was born out of the racism of the day in which it was born and perpetuated.

I agree...but where has the church admitted anything?  The essay doesn't cut it.

[The Nehor]

37 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The answer to the Benson conundrum is really quite simple...Benson was a man of his time...a time when racism in America was beginning to wane but the the church was still clinging to its racist apologetic scaffolding that had been built over the years to justify the policy that was born in the bigotry and the racism of its past leaders like Brigham Young whom the church threw under the bus and blamed on Brigham's racism in its essay on the Priesthood Ban.  Just like Brigham before him, Benson was merely holding to his firmly held belief that members of the African American community were not on an equal footing with the White Majority.  The churches policy to ban Blacks stemmed from this racist belief.  Fortunately the church has begun to walk back from its racist apologetics of decades past and has admitted that it was born out of the racism of the day in which it was born and perpetuated.

Finally someone with first hand knowledge of what Brigham Young and Ezra Taft Benson were thinking shows up to explain it all. Thank you for your special and unique information on this topic. We are all blessed to bask in your wisdom.

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

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!

 

All the references show that it was doctrine of the church to not allow blacks the priesthood and temple access.  You can call them theories/policies, but it was racism within the church.  The church was wrong for over 100 years as it pertains to race...

[thesometimesaint]

Black Polynesians in LDS church

The Pacific islands were one of the first areas to be evangelised after Europe and North America, notably Hawaii, which fell under American influence and was annexed by the USA quite early on.

On November 27, 1919 Laie Hawaii Temple was the first temple outside continental United States, and thus also arguably first outside North America and first in Polynesia.

In 1955, the church began ordaining Melanesians to the Priesthood, and on September 26, Church College of Hawaii established.

The church had always allowed Pacific Islanders to hold the priesthood, and President McKay clarified that black Fijians and Australian Aborigines could also be ordained to the priesthood.

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The answer to the Benson conundrum is really quite simple...Benson was a man of his time...a time when racism in America was beginning to wane but the the church was still clinging to its racist apologetic scaffolding that had been built over the years to justify the policy that was born in the bigotry and the racism of its past leaders like Brigham Young whom the church threw under the bus and blamed on Brigham's racism in its essay on the Priesthood Ban.  Just like Brigham before him, Benson was merely holding to his firmly held belief that members of the African American community were not on an equal footing with the White Majority.  The churches policy to ban Blacks stemmed from this racist belief.  Fortunately the church has begun to walk back from its racist apologetics of decades past and has admitted that it was born out of the racism of the day in which it was born and perpetuated.

I guess asking those ordained of God as "prophets, seers and revelators," to rise above the hate and smoke of their time (and to have the power of discernment) is too much to ask of them.  If Benson was a "man of his time," then how was he, in any way, an actual prophet/apostle if he couldn't discern the hate/racism that existed during his time?  Perhaps prophets are fallible and just men like the rest of us ...with no special powers/ability to perceive truth; perhaps being an apostle is just a position that any person could fill (if this is your interpretation).  

Edited December 2, 2016 by Ouagadougou

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Calling it a "theory" is like the alcoholic who says he doesn't/didn't have a drinking problem; it was clearly doctrine.  

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The answer to the Benson conundrum is really quite simple...Benson was a man of his time...a time when racism in America was beginning to wane but the the church was still clinging to its racist apologetic scaffolding that had been built over the years to justify the policy that was born in the bigotry and the racism of its past leaders like Brigham Young whom the church threw under the bus and blamed on Brigham's racism in its essay on the Priesthood Ban.  Just like Brigham before him, Benson was merely holding to his firmly held belief that members of the African American community were not on an equal footing with the White Majority.  The churches policy to ban Blacks stemmed from this racist belief.  Fortunately the church has begun to walk back from its racist apologetics of decades past and has admitted that it was born out of the racism of the day in which it was born and perpetuated.

Reading that talk from Elder Benson didn't point towards racism at all. There is no Benson conundrum with racism. He was only talking about how the Civil rights movement was being manipulated to try and empower communism within the U.S.. I suggest reading the whole talk if anyone thinks Benson was being racist in this talk, because he wasn't.

[thesometimesaint]

29 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I guess asking those ordained of God as "prophets, seers and revelators," to rise above the hate and smoke of their time (and to have the power of discernment) is too much to ask of them.  If Benson was a "man of his time," then how was he, in any way, an actual prophet/apostle if he couldn't discern the hate/racism that existed during his time?  Perhaps prophets are fallible and just men like the rest of us ...with no special powers/ability to perceive truth; perhaps being an apostle is just a position that any person could fill (if this is your interpretation).  

Yes it is too much. They are men of their own times. Just  like the rest of us. None of us can escape that fact. We sustain them as Prophets, Seers, and Revalators not because they are a breed apart, but because God chose to speak for his Church through them.

[stemelbow]

42 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I guess asking those ordained of God as "prophets, seers and revelators," to rise above the hate and smoke of their time (and to have the power of discernment) is too much to ask of them.  If Benson was a "man of his time," then how was he, in any way, an actual prophet/apostle if he couldn't discern the hate/racism that existed during his time?  Perhaps prophets are fallible and just men like the rest of us ...with no special powers/ability to perceive truth; perhaps being an apostle is just a position that any person could fill (if this is your interpretation).  

Largely true.  We shouldn't expect the leaders to be better than anyone else. 

[The Nehor]

49 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I guess asking those ordained of God as "prophets, seers and revelators," to rise above the hate and smoke of their time (and to have the power of discernment) is too much to ask of them.  If Benson was a "man of his time," then how was he, in any way, an actual prophet/apostle if he couldn't discern the hate/racism that existed during his time?  Perhaps prophets are fallible and just men like the rest of us ...with no special powers/ability to perceive truth; perhaps being an apostle is just a position that any person could fill (if this is your interpretation).  

I disagree. For example, you could never be an apostle.

[waveslider]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I disagree. For example, you could never be an apostle.

Why not? Saul/Paul became one after persecuting the saints. Ouagadougou could be visited by the Resurrected Savior and be called as a special witness. That's the beauty of the gospel... people often times do a complete 180 turn around in their lives when they receive such a strong witness of the truth, even if they were against that truth previously. Repentance and forgiveness are what the Gospel is all about.

[thesometimesaint]

26 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Reading that talk from Elder Benson didn't point towards racism at all. There is no Benson conundrum with racism. He was only talking about how the Civil rights movement was being manipulated to try and empower communism within the U.S.. I suggest reading the whole talk if anyone thinks Benson was being racist in this talk, because he wasn't.