Elder Benson Conference Talk/Report (1967)

[waveslider]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

 

What does this have to do with Elder Benson's talk. Was the John Birch society founded upon that talk or something?

[Ouagadougou]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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

And why is that?  I'm glad you are the voice of God 😀

 

[Ouagadougou]

9 minutes ago, waveslider said:

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.

I guess I am a modern-day Saul because I don't agree with racist church doctrine the church taught its members for so many years 😀

[thesometimesaint]

The Ban was never Church doctrine. Just widely assumed that is was.

[waveslider]

8 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I guess I am a modern-day Saul because I don't agree with racist church doctrine the church taught its members for so many years 😀

I don't think you are a modern day Saul. I was just giving an extreme example of someone who has done worse than what I have seen of you on this board, who became an apostle, I am not saying you will be one, most people won't become one, but stranger things have happened so I wouldn't state as The Nehor did, that you will never be one.

[thesometimesaint]

31 minutes ago, waveslider said:

What does this have to do with Elder Benson's talk. Was the John Birch society founded upon that talk or something?

Ezra Taft Benson was a big promoter of the JBS.

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Ban was never Church doctrine. Just widely assumed that is was.

Ugh! Did you read the quotes supplied earlier in the thread. 2 separate First Presidencies stated the "Doctrines" responsible for the ban. Other sources were cited to show where individual apostles stated the doctrines responsible for the ban. Blaming members for assuming racist teachings were doctrine is either uninformed or disingenuous. The evidence has been supplied. Top church leadership stated the teachings were "doctrine". Please look back at those sources and explain to me why those teachings were not doctrine. Should the First Presidency and Q12 members not be believed when they claim something is doctrine.

OR are you just playing an old semantic game, arguing that the "ban" was never doctrinal because there was never a revelation associated with it? If this is what you're doing, you're being disingenuous and you're attempting to move the goal posts for what this discussion is about.

Willfully gaslighting members for "assuming" racist doctrine after it has been shown that leaders taught it as doctrine, is offensive.

[waveslider]

9 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Ezra Taft Benson was a big promoter of the JBS.

So where in his talk did he mention anything at all about JBS?

[CV75]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

It’s a perfectly good definition. I think you just used it in the wrong way. In the scriptures, “astray” is used to describe the covenant people going after idols, not keeping the priestly charge, forgetting and disobeying commandments, not keeping God’s word, lying, refusing divine instruction, going after iniquity, transgressing, following Balaam, following their own way, living contrary to the commandments, waxing strong in iniquity and wickedness, denying God, seeking their own counsels in the dark, devising murder. I got this from a simple word search on lds.org.

I don’t see the LDS Church doing any of this. But perhaps in your individual case, your racism is leading you astray!

4 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

In other words, you really can’t tell whether or not Elder Stapley taught that which was consistent with Church teachings at the time, or that the Church taught any of what he describes in his letter. Perhaps your own racism keeps you from not being able to tell. Such is the nature of visceral reactions.

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

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...

The bottom line you don’t seem to be facing is that nowhere in your references are the saints told to express hatred or to break any of the restored covenants to express hatred toward any race. Yet you keep yammering on and on about how the Church was wrong about race, but where people weren’t led astray by her teachings, perhaps it is your own racism that causes you to see things that aren’t there.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, waveslider said:

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.

I see him more as potential 2nd Counselor in the ward Sunday School Presidency.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

I guess I am a modern-day Saul because I don't agree with racist church doctrine the church taught its members for so many years 😀

And Saul was going around supporting killers. Is that your hobby?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

And why is that?  I'm glad you are the voice of God 😀

 

I am also glad to hold this role. Thank you for your support.

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In other words, you really can’t tell whether or not Elder Stapley taught that which was consistent with Church teachings at the time, or that the Church taught any of what he describes in his letter.

I can't identify anything in church doctrine before 1978 to contradict Elder Stapley. Can you? If not, his opinion is consistent with church doctrine (not the same as saying it WAS doctrinal). And of course as an apostle he was more privy to doctrinal discussions among the 12 at the time.

Of course there is plenty in the scriptures against racism, but that's not the same as doctrine. 

 

Quote

 

Perhaps your own racism keeps you from not being able to tell. Such is the nature of visceral reactions.

 

You're awfully quick to call me a racist. Have I said anything on this board remotely deserving of that appellation? 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Gray

[CV75]

@Ouagadougou @HappyJackWagon @Gray :

Another way of looking at this is, at what point does a racist lose his salvation? At what point is he still redeemable?

Or, if being led astray is instead a matter of committing a societal or civil offense, do you really think the Church's teachings made the nonracists less tolerant and the racists more extreme, thus leading them astray that way? Or, does teaching a religious principle you don't agree with constitute leading the saints astray?

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

I can't identify anything in church doctrine before 1978 to contradict Elder Stapley. Can you? If not, his opinion is consistent with church doctrine (not the same as saying it WAS doctrinal). And of course as an apostle he was more privy to doctrinal discussions among the 12 at the time.

I can't find anything from the Church that discourages support for Civil Rights, which is what Elder Stapley was doing with his personal letter to a friend.

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Of course there is plenty in the scriptures against racism, but that's not the same as doctrine.

Where the term didn't come about until 1870 or so (in the form of "racialist") and the 1930s (in the form of racism), we would have to rely on the Sermon on the Mount and similar teachings on love to counter whatever could be conceptualized as racism by the audiences so addressed.

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

You're awfully quick to call me a racist. Have I said anything on this board remotely deserving of that appellation? 

Now, now I didn't call you a racist; I referred to your racism in terms of "perhaps" -- a thought experiment perhaps -- but wouldn't you agree that you harbor some traces of racism, however great or small, within your psyche?

 

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

@Ouagadougou @HappyJackWagon @Gray :

Another way of looking at this is, at what point does a racist lose his salvation? At what point is he still redeemable?

 

Or, if being led astray is instead a matter of committing a societal or civil offense, do you really think the Church's teachings made the nonracists less tolerant and the racists more extreme, thus leading them astray that way? Or, does teaching a religious principle you don't agree with constitute leading the saints astray?

I can't possibly guess who might have lost their salvation. But I do believe that the policy fostered and encouraged racist ideas in the church. We got all kinds of racist sermons, speeches and books given and written by general authorities - I have to think the same was true at ward levels as well. I don't think we would be looking at half the amount of racist material had members of the church not grown up under the idea that black people were "cursed". 

I'm not really interested in blaming anyone though. The past is the past. More important, I think, is to learn the lessons from the past so that we make fewer similar mistakes in the future. 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

@Ouagadougou @HappyJackWagon @Gray :

Another way of looking at this is, at what point does a racist lose his salvation? At what point is he still redeemable?

 

Or, if being led astray is instead a matter of committing a societal or civil offense, do you really think the Church's teachings made the nonracists less tolerant and the racists more extreme, thus leading them astray that way? Or, does teaching a religious principle you don't agree with constitute leading the saints astray?

You don't expect much of a prophet if you believe the promise that he will not lead us astray only means that he will not lead us to commit unredeemable sin. That's a remarkably low expectation. I'd also be interested in your doctrinal analysis of unredeemable sin. I suspect it looks something like...1- thou shalt not become a son of perdition by denying the holy ghost and 2- thou shalt not shed innocent blood.

I think the racist teachings led to institutionalized racism in the church. So at the very least, institutional racism required less tolerance from people who otherwise would not be racist. I think institutional racism hurt a lot of people, primarily black people. I believe it also led white people to be prideful as it was taught they were more righteous in the pre-mortal world and were chosen to hold God's priesthood while others were unworthy. I believe that racism is incompatible with baptismal and temple covenants.

Yes- I believe if the prophet/apostles teach doctrines as the word of God, and they are incorrect doctrines, then they have led the church astray. If a prophet teaches false doctrines and cannot accurately inform the people about God's will, then that prophet isn't worth much.

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I can't find anything from the Church that discourages support for Civil Rights, which is what Elder Stapley was doing with his personal letter to a friend.

Officially the church didn't offer an opinion. But whenever church leaders spoke about it the movement, it seems to have been negatively. 

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Where the term didn't come about until 1870 or so (in the form of "racialist") and the 1930s (in the form of racism), we would have to rely on the Sermon on the Mount and similar teachings on love to counter whatever could be conceptualized as racism by the audiences so addressed.

Yes, the term is relatively new. The concept is older than that, but still not that old. 

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Now, now I didn't call you a racist; I referred to your racism in terms of "perhaps" -- a thought experiment perhaps -- but wouldn't you agree that you harbor some traces of racism, however great or small, within your psyche?

 

I'll just let this sit here and hope it sinks in how inappropriate this is. 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I can't find anything from the Church that discourages support for Civil Rights, which is what Elder Stapley was doing with his personal letter to a friend.

Here are a few quotes that deal with civil rights era issues by civil rights era apostles. A lot about intermarriage.

Quote

What are we doing to fight it? Before I left for Europe I warned how the communists were using the civil rights movement to promote revolution and eventual takeover of this country.

Ezra Taft Benson, 135th Annual Conference

 

What do you know about the dangerous civil rights agitation in Mississippi! do you fear the destruction of all vestiges of state government?

Ezra Taft Benson, 135th Annual Conference

 

In a broad general sense, caste systems have their origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry.

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1958 edition, pages 107‑108

 

The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse ‑‑ as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there.

Mark E. Petersen, Race Problems ‑ As They Affect The Church, Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954

 

Now let's talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation.

Mark E. Petersen, Race Problems ‑ As They Affect The Church, Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954

 

I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace'.

Mark E. Petersen, Race Problems ‑ As They Affect The Church, Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, August 27, 1954

 

Now what is our policy in regard to intermarriage? As to the Negro, of course, there is only one possible answer. We must not intermarry with the Negro...

Mark E. Petersen, 'Race Problems As They Affect The Church', August 27th, 1954

 

When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation.

Mark E. Petersen, Race Problems ‑ As They Affect The Church, Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954

 

Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, 'what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.' Only here we have the reverse of the thing ‑ what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.

Mark E. Petersen, Race Problems ‑ As They Affect The Church, Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954

 

What is our advice with respect to intermarriage with Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiians and so on? I will tell you what advice I give personally. If a boy or girl comes to me claiming to be in love with a Chinese or Japanese or a Hawaiian or a person of any other dark race, I do my best to talk them out of it... I teach against inter‑marriage of all kinds.

Mark E. Petersen, 'Race Problems As They Affect The Church', August 27th, 1954

 

The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth. We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not to be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject.

Mark E. Petersen, Race Problems ‑ As They Affect The Church, Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, August 27, 1954

 

From this and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. This is his objective and we must face it.

Mark E. Petersen, 'Race Problems As They Affect The Church', August 27th, 1954

 

Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them.

Mark E. Petersen, Race Problems ‑ As They Affect The Church, Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954

 

We mustn't intermarry with the Negro. Why? If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would all be cursed as to the priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn't any argument, therefore, as to inter‑marriage with the Negro, is there?

Mark E. Petersen, "Race problems as they affect the church"

 

We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that, we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that they used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace."

Mark E. Petersen, 'Race Problems as they Affect the Church'

 

Your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and white races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal‑minded people from the ancient patriarchs until now.... there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.

First Presidency, First Presidency (George Albert Smith) letter to Virgil Sponberg (critic of the priesthood ban), May 5, 1947, quoted in Mormonism's Negro Doctrine, p. 42

 

[Calm]

4 hours 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”.

 

Not everyone in the Church grew up in Utah.  I for one didn't.  I suspect with Utah having many more members around, there is a much higher chance of encountering those who promote false doctrine or folklore or trendy ideas (this has in fact been my personal experience over the last 35 years where about a third or so has been in Utah).  If one in ten, for example, held this belief, someone who interacts regularly with 10 members will encounter 1 person who on occasion might say something while someone who engages regularly with a couple of hundred members will have 20 or more with off the rail pet theories and thus is much more likely to be around when someone starts spouting off on one of these.

The only members I registered talking racist ideas growing up were my grandparents.  I heard plenty of racist ideas, but they were from those among my hundreds (maybe thousands by the time we stopped moving) nonmember acquaintances (my family were the only members in my elementary school and junior high save for a few months in 6th grade which was so stressful at home the rest of life at the time was a blur, so I don't discount the possibility of hearing something and just not registering it being so wrapped up in misery at the time).  I had no LDS friends for most of my childhood that I have memories of.  With my family we didn't talk religion, so if my grandparents held the fencesitter belief (which is quite possible) they never mentioned it.  I knew they were racist from the comments they made about changing demographics, jokes on TV (Archie Bunker was a favorite) or condescending remarks about people who were providing services for them (nurses, doctors, and repairmen for example) or their friends (one comment about a cleaning lady---very positive from their POV---sticks out in my mind).  They were never nasty or unkind, just horribly patronizing or rarely fearful).  

I would also not be surprised if it is the more drastic ideas that stick in our heads while the more balanced, neutral, nuanced ones have a harder time grabbing our attention (think political campaigns or advertising for blatant examples of this happening, it makes sense that this also happens for religious perceptions just like the rest of our perceptions as there is no reason to suppose there is something unique about religious experiences that protects us from less productive ways of thinking).

There was no reason to debate the Priesthood ban at church as no one I was exposed there to was up on the controversies; my teachers were generally little old ladies who were quite kind, but uneducated in the depths of church history or doctrinal development, returned missionaries that were quite kind, but clueless in how to teach teenagers, or young mothers who were quite kind, but also uneducated in church history etc.. They were great at teaching me how to be a Christian by their example, but (thankfully) they were as far as I know all quite evenkeeled with no Church hobbies to promote.

It isn't selective memory if you didn't have the chance or reason to be exposed to the ideas in the first place.  Assuming that everyone has the experience of small town Utah of the 50s, 60s and early 70s (which Provo and Orem certainly appeared to me when visiting, later 70s is when growth and change really started to show IMO, I specifically noticed when BYU started to have more sophisticated landscaping and the rest of Utah Valley started to imitate them...suddenly not everything was flat and masses of petunias and marigolds, but hills and color coordinated and multiple heights and cluster plantings, homes were no longer just the brick bungalows like the one my husband grew up in).

[Marmonboy]

55 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

I'm not really interested in blaming anyone though. The past is the past. More important, I think, is to learn the lessons from the past so that we make fewer similar mistakes in the future. 

And this is the whole point of this discussion. The past is the past. Let it go. (And no, I haven't seen that cheesy movie.) There is no point in flogging that poor, dead horse, it still won't get up. Time to move on. Or not, and keep finding excuses to be a hater.

[Marmonboy]

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Here are a few quotes that deal with civil rights era issues by civil rights era apostles. A lot about intermarriage.

 

It's interesting to note that almost  all of your quotes come from one talk, given by one man, on one occasion.

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

And this is the whole point of this discussion. The past is the past. Let it go. (And no, I haven't seen that cheesy movie.) There is no point in flogging that poor, dead horse, it still won't get up. Time to move on. Or not, and keep finding excuses to be a hater.

Well, I don't think that means we stop talking about what happened. But we can be compassionate and try to learn lessons rather than condemn people. 

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

It's interesting to note that almost  all of your quotes come from one talk, given by one man, on one occasion.

Well yeah, it's what I had access to on the spot. But not ALL from one man on one occasion.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Here are a few quotes that deal with civil rights era issues by civil rights era apostles. A lot about intermarriage.

Still way too much of a stretch to conclude the Church was against the Civil Rights Act. Whenever “civil rights” is used in these quotes, it is to discourage the same sorts of things that were discouraged in the Elder Benson talk of the OP.