Elder Benson Conference Talk/Report (1967)

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

You've given examples of other things considered policy, but did not address the question.  How do you know that the priesthood ban was policy?  In this thread there have been plenty of bare assertions that it was policy, but not a lot of evidence has been given to support that conclusion.

I gave my reasons. I think they are valid. If you do not agree, then we just will disagree.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

9 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Some quotes from Elder Peterson's talk in 1954 titled "Race Problems -- As They Affect the Church.  Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah."  

Being in favor of segregation, in case you didn't know, goes against the civil rights movements during that time.  Elder Peterson clearly wanted to keep segregation and didn't want whites intermarrying with blacks.  

So here is yet another talk from an apostle at that time filled with racist ideology.  

A few quotes from his talk:

"We must not inter-marry with the Negro. Why? If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would oil 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?”

"I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation."

"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 intermarry with the negro."   

Still do not understand why you are pressing this issue. Some former leaders made statements that appeared to be racist. They were based upon policies that were current at the time. But 1978 is thirty-eight years in the past.

After all of that, did you know that Elder Mark E. Peterson was the person who pointed out an article to President Kimball promoting the idea that the original ban probably had come from Brigham Young and not Joseph Smith?

Can you tell me what was Elder Petersen's response when President Kimball called and informed him of the revelation? Was he upset? Angry? Happy?

Glenn

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Still do not understand why you are pressing this issue. Some former leaders made statements that appeared to be racist. They were based upon policies that were current at the time. But 1978 is thirty-eight years in the past.

After all of that, did you know that Elder Mark E. Peterson was the person who pointed out an article to President Kimball promoting the idea that the original ban probably had come from Brigham Young and not Joseph Smith?

Can you tell me what was Elder Petersen's response when President Kimball called and informed him of the revelation? Was he upset? Angry? Happy?

Glenn

"Statements that appeared to be racist?"  No, they were 100% racist.  

I'm sure Peterson was just jumping for joy...

Edit:  The fact that you and others (and the church) can't admit that it was, in fact, racist is what bothers many people (me included). 

Edited December 4, 2016 by Ouagadougou

[Glenn101]

39 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

"Statements that appeared to be racist?"  No, they were 100% racist.  

I'm sure Peterson was just jumping for joy...

Edit:  The fact that you and others (and the church) can't admit that it was, in fact, racist is what bothers many people (me included). 

Was God a racist?

But do you know what he said? DO you know how he responded, in his own words?

Glenn

Edited December 4, 2016 by Glenn101
Added another question?

[Oliver_Cowdery]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I gave my reasons. I think they are valid. If you do not agree, then we just will disagree.

Glenn

I don't really have a firm position on the policy vs doctrine thing one way or the other.  So I can't really disagree with you.  I just wonder if there is a reason behind your position beyond just an assertion.

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I gave my reasons. I think they are valid. If you do not agree, then we just will disagree.

Glenn

Quote

Been away, haven't seen you in a while
How've you been, have you changed your style?
And do you think that we've grown up differently?
Don't seem the same, seems you've lost your feel for me

So let's leave it alone, 'cause we can't see eye to eye
There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy
There's only you and me and we just disagree
Ooh-hoo-hoo, oh-oh-ho

I'm going back to a place that's far away
How bout you, have you got a place to stay?
Why should I care when I'm just trying to get along?
We were friends, but now it's the end of our love song

So let's leave it alone, 'cause we can't see eye to eye
There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy
There's only you and me and we just disagree
Ooh-hoo-hoo, oh-oh-ho

So let's leave it alone, 'cause we can't see eye to eye
There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy
There's only you and me and we just disagree
Ooh-hoo-hoo, oh, oh-oh-ho

 

[Marmonboy]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

 

The fact that you and others (and the church) can't admit that it was, in fact, racist is what bothers many people (me included). 

OK, it was racist. But the policy, or whatever, changed in 1978. Isn't that what you wanted?  Can you accept that, or are you going to continue beating this dead horse?

[thesometimesaint]

4 hours ago, Marmonboy said:

OK, it was racist. But the policy, or whatever, changed in 1978. Isn't that what you wanted?  Can you accept that, or are you going to continue beating this dead horse?

Agreed.

[Glenn101]

16 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I don't really have a firm position on the policy vs doctrine thing one way or the other.  So I can't really disagree with you.  I just wonder if there is a reason behind your position beyond just an assertion.

As I said, I gave my reasons. Cited examples of policies, which change, and doctrines, which do not. I do understand that many members, even members of the First Presidency and Wuorum of the Twelve accepted it, unquestioning, for a long time that it was a doctrine. Questions began to be asked though long before 1978. Spencer W. Kimball was one that believed it to be a policy and thus subject to change but he also felt that it required a revelation to change it. That is what I base my assertion on. If requested I will dig up the reference to Spencer W. Kimball. I think it was in the book written by his son Edward.

Glenn

Edited December 4, 2016 by Glenn101
spelling

[The Nehor]

On 12/3/2016 at 0:43 AM, Ouagadougou said:

I am not saying anybody here is racist.  Those who say that it was not doctrine are in major denial, IMO.  

Feelling better spiritually for me is the understanding that I don't have to accept the correlated narrative the church and others want me to believe.  I am at peace more spiritually by accepting that certain aspects of the church are not correct and I can be a member on my own terms.  It might surprise you but I used to be a checklist Mormon, but I am so much happier now when I focus on charity (helping others) and not trying to earn my way into heaven.   

Scripturally can you establish where the Savior suggested you could follow him on your own terms?

[Jeanne]

16 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

I love that song!!!!

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

As I said, I gave my reasons. Cited examples of policies, which change, and doctrines, which do not. I do understand that many members, even members of the First Presidency and Wuorum of the Twelve accepted it, unquestioning, for a long time that it was a doctrine. Questions began to be asked though long before 1978. Spencer W. Kimball was one that believed it to be a policy and thus subject to change but he also felt that it required a revelation to change it. That is what I base my assertion on. If requested I will dig up the reference to Spencer W. Kimball. I think it was in the book written by his son Edward.

Glenn

I thought that was Pres. McKay.

[CV75]

20 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Edit:  The fact that you and others (and the church) can't admit that it was, in fact, racist is what bothers many people (me included). 

A fuller understanding is so much broader than that; “truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come”. Take note that the frame of reference begins with the present reality.

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Scripturally can you establish where the Savior suggested you could follow him on your own terms?

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-4-freedom-to-choose?lang=eng

Pleanty of scriptures referenced here.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/agency?lang=eng

 

 

[CV75]

22 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

In this thread there have been plenty of bare assertions that it was policy, but not a lot of evidence has been given to support that conclusion.

I think there is a hierarchy where doctrine drives religious practice and practical policy supports religious practice. For example, baptism in and of itself is not a doctrine. It is only part of the broader doctrine of Christ (the other practices being faith, repentance an confirmation) and entails multiple other doctrines such as atonement, accountability, etc. It is in turn supported by various policies such as parental consent, attending Church twice, wearing white clothing, etc. Faith and repentance are practices supported by interviews and recommends (policies).

If a doctrine, the ban was one without a corresponding practice or a supporting policy. Can anyone identify a similar doctrine where practice and policy constitute the doctrine?

[Ouagadougou]

19 hours ago, Marmonboy said:

OK, it was racist. But the policy, or whatever, changed in 1978. Isn't that what you wanted?  Can you accept that, or are you going to continue beating this dead horse?

Yes.  You might admit that it was racist doctrine; however, the church and many others I know refuse to to do and just call it a theory.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-4-freedom-to-choose?lang=eng

Pleanty of scriptures referenced here.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/agency?lang=eng

 

 

Since when did agency mean we can ignore or rewrite God's commandments?

Agency means we can choose to follow his laws or not, not that we can choose what those laws are or what the consequences will be if we don't obey them.

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I thought that was Pres. McKay.

President Mackay did question that policy, but the details are sketchy.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-4-freedom-to-choose?lang=eng

Pleanty of scriptures referenced here.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/agency?lang=eng

 

 

So because agency exists God's narrow path back to God and his strict commands in many areas are merely suggestions and you can make up your own way to eternal life? Methinks you have no idea what agency is and is not.

Nice try though. B- for effort.

[Gray]

On 12/2/2016 at 4:54 PM, CV75 said:

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.

No, we got some very specific racist justifications for the ban that would not have needed to have been given had the ban never existed.

On 12/2/2016 at 4:54 PM, CV75 said:

I think carping on the past is far from learning from it, and even further from learning from what transpired since.

I'm not sure ignoring the past is a great way to learn from it. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

No, we got some very specific racist justifications for the ban that would not have needed to have been given had the ban never existed.

I'm not sure ignoring the past is a great way to learn from it. 

I'm sure there would have still been racists and nonracists around without the ban, and the Race and Priesthood article says so much (see the sections on American history and its society in the 18th century onward). No one said to ignore the past, I was adding the need to not ignore what has transpired since for a fuller understanding. “And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come”. The frame of reference in this teaching begins with acknowledging the present reality.

[Gray]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm sure there would have still been racists and nonracists around without the ban, and the Race and Priesthood article says so much (see the sections on American history and its society in the 18th century onward). No one said to ignore the past, I was adding the need to not ignore what has transpired since for a fuller understanding. “And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come”. The frame of reference in this teaching begins with acknowledging the present reality.

I don't think I disagree with any of that. But I do think the ban encouraged and exacerbated existing racism. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't think I disagree with any of that. But I do think the ban encouraged and exacerbated existing racism. 

Only in the same way that it encouraged and enhanced existing non-racism.

[Gray]

37 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Only in the same way that it encouraged and enhanced existing non-racism.

No, a racist policy doesn't further the cause of equality and fairness. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

No, a racist policy doesn't further the cause of equality and fairness. 

It depends on the policy. Which one are you referring to here?

You had been talking about racist interpretations of doctrine and racist theories to justify the ban, and these had nothing to do with discouraging Civil Rights. The three examples we've been looking at (Benson's talk, Stapley's personal letter, and Peterson's speech) had distinct purposes one from another, and none of them were to teach the Church's stance on Civil Rights.

If you're now talking about the ban itself, you're back to to square one: the ban had nothing to do with discouraging Civil Rights. It was a religious practice within the LDS community.