Elder Benson Conference Talk/Report (1967)

[The Nehor]

It is also worth noting that then-Elder Benson was constantly being chastised for going out of political spiels all the time. One of the reasons he was sent to Europe was to calm him down on that front.

[The Nehor]

A fun anecdote from an older friend of mine. He was a teenager and went to a meeting where Elder Benson advocated strong political views and even extolled membership in some fringe groups. On the way home he asked his dad why they were not members of those groups. His dad responded that if he became prophet and gave that same talk he would be the first to sign up. Thankfully whatever happened in the upper rooms when he was made the prophet, seer, and revelator he seemed to chill out on the issue.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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. 

In other words, as far as you can tell, neither nonracists nor racists changed their inclinations one way or another as a result of the Church teachings that you find offensive. I think carping on the past is far from learning from it, and even further from learning from what transpired since.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I didn't say "unredeemable" sin, just being led astray. I don't think any of what I found in the scriptures is necessary irredeemable, but it is being led away from God.

Institutionalized racism is no reason to label its members racist. In that sense, you are racist because racism is still prevalent in the community and society in which you belong--guilt by association--as well as having some racist attitudes of your own which you may not recognize or consider as bad as the Church's.

I don't think the prophet and apostles taught anything in these references that moved His covenant people en masse away from Him like say, Aaron did in the Old Testament. And even if you feel they did, they like Aaron, can be set back on course--do you suppose they have, or that they haven't been?

[mfbukowski]

7 hours 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

And guess what?   This talk was given in September 2000.  In October 2000, this brother became a "general authority emeritus"

I wonder why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_B._Morrison

No one has said that GA's or apostles are infallible.  Have you ever heard that before?   Exactly how many times to you need to hear it?  I will be glad to cut and past it that many times if it will help.

Edited December 2, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

6 hours 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.

+1 if possible.  Right!

[mfbukowski]

5 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...

Prophets are not infallible

[mfbukowski]

4 hours 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).  

Prophets are not infallible

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

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

Prophets are not infallible

[mfbukowski]

3 hours 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 😀

Prophets are not infallible

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

 

Prophets are not infallible

[theplains]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Prophets are not infallible

That's why you must evaluate everything they say as either true or false. LDS prophets can lead
people astray after all.

Jim

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, theplains said:

That's why you must evaluate everything they say as either true or false. LDS prophets can lead
people astray after all.

Jim

Every doctrine must be confirmed by our own testimony, as everyone knows

Even the doctrine that the prophets will not lead us astray needs to be confirmed by the Holy Ghost- and for me, it never has been.  Only God will never lead me astray.

Whether or not to join the church OR stay in the church needs to be confirmed by the Holy Ghost.  The statement that the prophets will never lead us astray was made by a prophet who .......  (wait for it)........ was not infallible.

The idea that "prophets will not lead us astray" while simultaneously affirming Moroni 10:4-5 AND Alma 32 is self contradictory.

The scriptural statements that God will teach us the truth of all things by what fruits become spirituall "sweet" to us does NOT say that prophets will teach us the truth of all things.

What God tells me always takes precedent over what a man tells me.  Were that not so, no one could have a testimony- all we would have is blind obedience.   That is Jim Jones stuff.  http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/drinking-the-kool-aid-a-survivor-remembers-jim-jones/248723/

That is just common sense.

Edited December 3, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Ouagadougou]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Once again, saying it isn't doctrine is like the alcoholic who says he doesn't have (didn't have) a drinking problem.  It's pure denial and a way to deflect that false doctrine was taught and practiced.  

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Prophets are not infallible

Infallible:

- absolutely trustworthy or sure:

- unfailing in effectiveness or operation; certain

So why trust them or have faith in their words if they were wrong on such an important issue for over 100 years?  If they are men like everybody else, why not seek revelation/guidance from another source (that is not behind the power curve)?  

 

 

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And guess what?   This talk was given in September 2000.  In October 2000, this brother became a "general authority emeritus"

I wonder why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_B._Morrison

No one has said that GA's or apostles are infallible.  Have you ever heard that before?   Exactly how many times to you need to hear it?  I will be glad to cut and past it that many times if it will help.

I totally forgot that those called in the 70 are done so my revelation from God...wait....maybe it's not from God if Prophets are fallible...

[Ouagadougou]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

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

"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the church, never questioned by Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." 

https://archive.org/stream/MormonismAndTheNegro#page/n47/mode/1up

[Ouagadougou]

4 hours 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?

Treating blacks differently because of the color of their skin and denying them the same rights to receive the blessings of attending the temple is leading people astray (unless you believe the temple and the priesthood are not important).  This was both taught and practiced as church doctrine.  

To answer your questions:

- I am not concerned with the salvation of other people -- only God can judge.

- Any way you try to slice it, the church's teachings on race forced members to accept and practice racist doctrine.  Meaning - even if some members wanted to give blacks the priesthood and allow them to enter the temple, they were not allowed to because of the church's doctrine.  Excluding an entire race of people from the same blessings whites (and others) enjoyed is more than a theory!  It's not like prophets said a few words over the pulpit on race and that was it.  No, blacks were not allowed to receive actionable ordinances/blessings by not physically being allowed the priesthood (by the laying on of hands); and they were not physically allowed to enter the temple.  That is much more than a theory...that is doctrine!  But somehow the most inspired men on Earth (special witnesses of Christ), who receive direct revelation from God, failed to understand (for over 100 years) that God loves all people, regardless of race, and wants all people to all enjoy the fruits of the gospel, equally!  

The church's teachings did not contribute to equality in any way; rather, it only contributed to the belief that blacks were cursed and inferior to whites.  The fact that the church admits it is wrong now (only as a theory though) means that for over 100 years it practiced false teachings, doctrines, practices, etc.  

To make matters worse, many apolgists and others (just like you) try to downplay the way the church treated blacks and call it a "theory."  What is even worse, is the church has in no way, in my opinion, reconciled the years and years of racist doctrine it preached and practiced throughout the world.  One essay calling it a "theory" is far from how an honest organization (ran by Christ himself) should reconcile the way it treated blacks.  But I forgot, the church doesn't owe apologies and prophets are not infallible, so just sweep it all under the rug...

Edited December 3, 2016 by Ouagadougou

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Infallible:

- absolutely trustworthy or sure:

- unfailing in effectiveness or operation; certain

So why trust them or have faith in their words if they were wrong on such an important issue for over 100 years?  If they are men like everybody else, why not seek revelation/guidance from another source (that is not behind the power curve)?  

Exactly.

Go to God- listen to the prophets and pray about what they have said.

NOW do you get it?

I doubt it.

Do yoiu listen to your Doctor who is a man and not infallible?  Do you listen to your mechanic who is a man and not infallible?  Do you listen to your boss who is a man and not infallible?  How about those who tell you not to touch downed power lines, or not to start your house on fire, or to be aware of various other dangers- none of whom are infallible?

And do you always believe them?  Or do you think about their advice to have surgery or not, or where to invest or not?  And do you possibly pray about their advice or do you just do whatever anyone tells you??

If you do, I have a few deals for you to look at.......  just do what I tell you, I will never lead you astray

USE YOUR HEAD and HEART!   That's why God gave you both!!

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Treating blacks differently because of the color of their skin and denying them the same rights to receive the blessings of attending the temple is leading people astray (unless you believe the temple and the priesthood are not important).  This was both taught and practiced as church doctrine.  

To answer your questions:

- I am not concerned with the salvation of other people -- only God can judge.

- Any way you try to slice it, the church's teachings on race forced members to accept and practice racist doctrine.  Meaning - even if some members wanted to give blacks the priesthood and allow them to enter the temple, they were not allowed to because of the church's doctrine.  Excluding an entire race of people from the same blessings whites (and others) enjoyed is more than a theory!  It's not like prophets said a few words over the pulpit on race and that was it.  No, blacks were not allowed to receive actionable ordinances/blessings by not physically being allowed the priesthood (by the laying on of hands); and they were not physically allowed to enter the temple.  That is much more than a theory...that is doctrine!  But somehow the most inspired men on Earth (special witnesses of Christ), who receive direct revelation from God, failed to understand (for over 100 years) that God loves all people, regardless of race, and wants all people to all enjoy the fruits of the gospel, equally!  

The church's teachings did not contribute to equality in any way; rather, it only contributed to the belief that blacks were cursed and inferior to whites.  The fact that the church admits it is wrong now (only as a theory though) means that for over 100 years it practiced false teachings, doctrines, practices, etc.  

To make matters worse, many apolgists and others (just like you) try to downplay the way the church treated blacks and call it a "theory."  What is even worse, is the church has in no way, in my opinion, reconciled the years and years of racist doctrine it preached and practiced throughout the world.  One essay calling it a "theory" is far from how an honest organization (ran by Christ himself) should reconcile the way it treated blacks.  But I forgot, the church doesn't owe apologies and prophets are not infallible, so just sweep it all under the rug...

Prophets are not infallible.

[Ouagadougou]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Exactly.

Go to God- listen to the prophets and pray about what they have said.

NOW do you get it?

I doubt it.

Do yoiu listen to your Doctor who is a man and not infallible?  Do you listen to your mechanic who is a man and not infallible?  Do you listen to your boss who is a man and not infallible?  How about those who tell you not to touch downed power lines, or not to start your house on fire, or to be aware of various other dangers- none of whom are infallible?

And do you always believe them?  Or do you think about their advice to have surgery or not, or where to invest or not?  And do you possibly pray about their advice or do you just do whatever anyone tells you??

If you do, I have a few deals for you to look at.......  just do what I tell you, I will never lead you astray

USE YOUR HEAD and HEART!   That's why God gave you both!!

The problem is, if my ideas on certain subjects, following prayer and reflection, do not align with what the church and brethren want, then I am the one who lacks faith and needs to get in line.  There isn't much room for free thought within the church, IMO.  If I voice my opinion about a particular revelation I don't agree with, then I am automatically labeled an anti or one who is struggling.  It's ok for the leaders to be fallible; however, the members must blindly follow and simply bow their head and accept whatever they (leaders) say.  

[mfbukowski]

46 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

The problem is, if my ideas on certain subjects, following prayer and reflection, do not align with what the church and brethren want, then I am the one who lacks faith and needs to get in line.  There isn't much room for free thought within the church, IMO.  If I voice my opinion about a particular revelation I don't agree with, then I am automatically labeled an anti or one who is struggling.  It's ok for the leaders to be fallible; however, the members must blindly follow and simply bow their head and accept whatever they (leaders) say.  

In any group in society there is no requirement to spout off on everything you disagree about with any given group.

This is commonly understood adult behavior.   You need not start a family fight every Thanksgiving and Christmas, nor do you need to start a fight in Sunday School.

Quite bluntly, if being in the church caused me such discomfort, I would have left long ago.  Either you believe what the church teaches and can deal with the dissonance or perhaps it is time to seek peace elsewhere.  Handcuffing people to the pews is frowned upon. 

Adults make decisions and act on them.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

The problem is, if my ideas on certain subjects, following prayer and reflection, do not align with what the church and brethren want, then I am the one who lacks faith and needs to get in line.  There isn't much room for free thought within the church, IMO.  If I voice my opinion about a particular revelation I don't agree with, then I am automatically labeled an anti or one who is struggling.  It's ok for the leaders to be fallible; however, the members must blindly follow and simply bow their head and accept whatever they (leaders) say.  

If you voice your opinion about a particular revelation you don't agree with, then you are justifiably labeled an anti or one who is struggling.

Clearly you at least ARE struggling, and if you teach your opinions which are against the church, you will by definition be an "Anti".  Not much anyone can do about that if it is the truth.

Edited December 3, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Ouagadougou]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If you voice your opinion about a particular revelation you don't agree with, then you are justifiably labeled an anti or one who is struggling.

Clearly you at least ARE struggling, and if you teach your opinions which are against the church, you will by definition be an "Anti".  Not much anyone can do about that if it is the truth.

Just like those who were against the priesthood ban on blacks were somehow "anti," however, they were right all along? I am not struggling at all -- some of my ideas do not align with what the church wants -- but I have never felt better spiritually.  

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Once again, saying it isn't doctrine is like the alcoholic who says he doesn't have (didn't have) a drinking problem.  It's pure denial and a way to deflect that false doctrine was taught and practiced.  

So you are arguing that we are all racists in denial? Like an alcoholic in denial?

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

The problem is, if my ideas on certain subjects, following prayer and reflection, do not align with what the church and brethren want, then I am the one who lacks faith and needs to get in line.  There isn't much room for free thought within the church, IMO.  If I voice my opinion about a particular revelation I don't agree with, then I am automatically labeled an anti or one who is struggling.  It's ok for the leaders to be fallible; however, the members must blindly follow and simply bow their head and accept whatever they (leaders) say.  

You could always start your own church. And no, there are limits on "free thought" in the Church by which I assume you mean expression of some thoughts is discouraged in the Church and it is. We are not an intellectual society coming together to reason things out. We are seeking communion with the divine.

47 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Just like those who were against the priesthood ban on blacks were somehow "anti," however, they were right all along? I am not struggling at all -- some of my ideas do not align with what the church wants -- but I have never felt better spiritually.  

What does it even mean to feel "better spiritually"?