Elder Benson Conference Talk/Report (1967)

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Yes, you're reiterating what I said - the ban inspired new and more creative racism (the attempts to justify it). 

In the tenets of LDS faith? It's unclear exactly what the boundaries are there. It's a porous wall. But my argument isn't about "official doctrine" (whatever that might mean). The ban inspired new and additional racism. That is clear.

LOL, no, I said “The disavowed theories listed in the Race and Priesthood article did not arise because of the ban; they (and misunderstood doctrines) were only brought up in attempts to justify it.” Pre-existing theories and doctrines do not “new and more creative racism” make. But if some new theory or misapplied arose from the ban, what exactly was it, and what are you using as proof of that?

As I said, I am talking about LDS doctrine, so please frame your remarks in terms of “official doctrine,” whatever that means to you. If it is so clear, please address the question above.

If the tenets of LDS faith are unclear to you, your remarks about them can't be very credible, so you might want to rethink that. People who do not understand LDS doctrine are vulnerable to misinterpreting it.

Edited December 7, 2016 by CV75

[CV75]

21 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Darwin's reference to races is in fact species. The Highland Gorilla is dying out.

Actually, I think what you are referring to is his use of the term sub-species, which I think only exacerbates the problem of his differentiating between the evolution of civilised and savage races.

You might like the book, “Guns, Germs and Steel,” which puts forth the idea that geography – for a religious bent, I’ll use the term “promised land(s)” -- impacts the development of societies and cultures rather than their populations’ genetics  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

It would seem that from one pool of spirit children, each nation of men dwells in times and habitations before appointed, irrespective of their being made in the flesh of one blood (Acts 17:26-27).

[Gray]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

LOL, no, I said “The disavowed theories listed in the Race and Priesthood article did not arise because of the ban; they (and misunderstood doctrines) were only brought up in attempts to justify it.”

That's self-contradictory. You don't need to try to justify a ban that doesn't exist. The theories are a direct result of the ban. 

 

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

 

Pre-existing theories and doctrines do not “new and more creative racism” make.

While theories like black people being the cursed decedents of Cain or Ham are older than Mormonism, the fence sitters theory is a unique piece of Mormon racism. 

 

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

 

But if some new theory or misapplied arose from the ban, what exactly was it, and what are you using as proof of that?

As I said, I am talking about LDS doctrine, so please frame your remarks in terms of “official doctrine,” whatever that means to you. If it is so clear, please address the question above.

If the tenets of LDS faith are unclear to you, your remarks about them can't be very credible, so you might want to rethink that. People who do not understand LDS doctrine are vulnerable to misinterpreting it.

I have never been talking about "official doctrine" - if you wish to sidetrack the discussion that way, feel free to involve someone else. There is no such thing as "official doctrine" anyway. 

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's self-contradictory. You don't need to try to justify a ban that doesn't exist. The theories are a direct result of the ban.

While theories like black people being the cursed decedents of Cain or Ham are older than Mormonism, the fence sitters theory is a unique piece of Mormon racism.

I have never been talking about "official doctrine" - if you wish to sidetrack the discussion that way, feel free to involve someone else. There is no such thing as "official doctrine" anyway. 

You brought up “official doctrine” and I was willing to accommodate that for the sake of discussion. The OP about prophetic fallibility, and as clarified in the immediate posts following, with regards to the expression of racism through the Church’s purported position ("doctrine") on Civil Rights, so I'm not side-tracking at all. The fence-sitter idea comes from a millennia-old (well, maybe only medieval; see Dante's Inferno, but I'm sure the ancient Greeks got there first, and for sure John the Revelator) concept of the tortured condition of spiritually neutral souls, existing well before the ban. Such ideas, if not justifying a non-existent ban, would have justified other things, both socially acceptable and not.

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You brought up “official doctrine” and I was willing to accommodate that for the sake of discussion. The OP about prophetic fallibility, and as clarified in the immediate posts following, with regards to the expression of racism through the Church’s purported position ("doctrine") on Civil Rights, so I'm not side-tracking at all.

Actually you brought up doctrine, I've never focused on that. I'm just talking about racism in Mormon thought. I don't think I've commented about any official position on civil rights. You're free of course to discuss that with someone else, but that hasn't been the thrust of our conversation.

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The fence-sitter idea comes from a millennia-old (well, maybe only medieval; see Dante's Inferno, but I'm sure the ancient Greeks got there first, and for sure John the Revelator) concept of the tortured condition of spiritually neutral souls, existing well before the ban. Such ideas, if not justifying a non-existent ban, would have justified other things, both socially acceptable and not.

 

That's a vague parallel, the idea that people were born black because they were fence sitters in heaven is a Mormon innovation. 

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Actually, I think what you are referring to is his use of the term sub-species, which I think only exacerbates the problem of his differentiating between the evolution of civilised and savage races.

 

You might like the book, “Guns, Germs and Steel,” which puts forth the idea that geography – for a religious bent, I’ll use the term “promised land(s)” -- impacts the development of societies and cultures rather than their populations’ genetics  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

 

It would seem that from one pool of spirit children, each nation of men dwells in times and habitations before appointed, irrespective of their being made in the flesh of one blood (Acts 17:26-27).

 

We're all of the same blood line, Adam and Eve. Now how all that works out with it being our species is out of Africa is a different question.

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

We're all of the same blood line, Adam and Eve. Now how all that works out with it being our species is out of Africa is a different question.

I think you'd like the book.

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

Actually you brought up doctrine, I've never focused on that. I'm just talking about racism in Mormon thought. I don't think I've commented about any official position on civil rights. You're free of course to discuss that with someone else, but that hasn't been the thrust of our conversation.

That's a vague parallel, the idea that people were born black because they were fence sitters in heaven is a Mormon innovation. 

You started talking about doctrine way back here: Posted November 29

And in our conversation, here: Posted December 1

and here: Posted December 1

and here: Posted December 1

and here: Posted December 1

...and most probably elsewhere! LOL

If you don't want to discuss it further, just don't!

You keep saying that, but just because an idea is a Mormon innovation doesn't man it was inspired by the ban. This idea had opportunity to take root without the ban.

[thesometimesaint]

52 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think you'd like the book.

Which book?

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Which book?

The one I said you might like.

[Gray]

CV75 - having trouble with the quote function. 

 

Just looking at the first link - I was talking about the teachings of churches. It was a generalized statement, you're reading way too much into it. 

Second link "I suppose what it does demonstrate is that being called to be an apostle is by no means a guarantee against believing and teaching false doctrine, any more being called to be an EQ president or Bishop or chorister. " Again, nothing about "official doctrine" here. Bruce R. taught racism" in his book, whether you think it's official or not. The ban was racist. We have a racist FP letter. We have racist apostolic speeches and talks. You may decide for yourself which you consider to be "official" - I find the distinction meaningless. 

Of course the ban inspired the racist theory. The theory was invented to explain why black people had a lesser status in the church. In this universe, time runs forward. Effect is followed by cause, not the other way around.

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

CV75 - having trouble with the quote function. 

 

Just looking at the first link - I was talking about the teachings of churches. It was a generalized statement, you're reading way too much into it. 

Second link "I suppose what it does demonstrate is that being called to be an apostle is by no means a guarantee against believing and teaching false doctrine, any more being called to be an EQ president or Bishop or chorister. " Again, nothing about "official doctrine" here. Bruce R. taught racism" in his book, whether you think it's official or not. The ban was racist. We have a racist FP letter. We have racist apostolic speeches and talks. You may decide for yourself which you consider to be "official" - I find the distinction meaningless. 

Of course the ban inspired the racist theory. The theory was invented to explain why black people had a lesser status in the church. In this universe, time runs forward. Effect is followed by cause, not the other way around.

Here is where you brought up "official doctrine," which is why I accommodated the term: Posted 22 hours ago

You keep applying the label "racist" and pointing out an exclusive, direct relationship between the ban and disavowed theories without actually responding to my posts (how interesting is that?)... And now you say that "Effect is followed by cause" -- how much sense does that make? Like I've said before, I think you keep losing track of yourself on this topic.

[Gray]

43 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Here is where you brought up "official doctrine," which is why I accommodated the term: Posted 22 hours ago

LOL, only in response to you bringing up "tenets of the faith" which I understood to mean "official doctrine"! And around and around we go. I said that the ban begat more racism, and you started talking about the tenets of the faith!

 

43 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You keep applying the label "racist" and pointing out an exclusive, direct relationship between the ban and disavowed theories without actually responding to my posts (how interesting is that?)... And now you say that "Effect is followed by cause" -- how much sense does that make? Like I've said before, I think you keep losing track of yourself on this topic.

This isn't complicated. The theory created to explain the existence of the ban owes its existence to the ban itself. No ban, no theory. 

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, Gray said:

LOL, only in response to you bringing up "tenets of the faith" which I understood to mean "official doctrine"! And around and around we go. I said that the ban begat more racism, and you started talking about the tenets of the faith!

This isn't complicated. The theory created to explain the existence of the ban owes its existence to the ban itself. No ban, no theory. 

No, the theories that were used to explain the ban pre-existed the ban, and because of that I bet they were used to justify other practices as well... and had there been no ban, here would have been something else to apply them to.

I'm not sure how you would get "official" out of  statement like mine, but *whatever*

[Ouagadougou]

On 04.12.2016 at 3:32 PM, CV75 said:

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.

 

As they were:  the church taught false doctrine

as they are:  the church calls it just a theory

as they are to come:  only time can tell 

[Gray]

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

No, the theories that were used to explain the ban pre-existed the ban,

 

CFR. Specifically, regarding the "blacks were less valiant in the war between Jesus and Satan in the pre-existence, and therefore were born with a curse" theory. 

 

Edited December 9, 2016 by Gray

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

CFR. Specifically, regarding the "blacks were less valiant in the war between Jesus and Satan in the pre-existence, and therefore were born with a curse" theory. 

 

The Christian doctrine that moral or spiritual neutrality is bad pre-existed the ban:

“O master! what is this I hear? what race      

Are these, who seem so overcome with woe?”         

  He thus to me: “This miserable fate 

Suffer the wretched souls of those, who lived          

Without or praise or blame, with that ill band

Of angels mix’d, who nor rebellious proved,

Nor yet were true to God, but for themselves           

Were only. From his bounds Heaven drove them forth        

Not to impair his lustre; nor the depth           

Of Hell receives them, lest the accursed tribe           

Should glory thence with exultation vain.”

http://www.bartleby.com/20/103.html

The Divine Comedy (Dante), Inferno, Canto III, lines 30-40, 1320 A.D.

Revelation 3: 15-16, “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” Before 1320 A.D.

Some LDS appropriated and applied this doctrine to justify the ban. It wasn’t new. They combined it with the doctrines of the pre-existence, the differences between intelligences (Abraham), the curse of Cain/Ham, and other pre-existing doctrines (as noted in the essay) as apologists, but this same idea could have been used by some as a doctrinal explanation of any aspect of black civilization and society.

Edited December 9, 2016 by CV75

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The Christian doctrine that moral or spiritual neutrality is bad pre-existed the ban:

“O master! what is this I hear? what race      

 

Are these, who seem so overcome with woe?”         

 

  He thus to me: “This miserable fate 

 

Suffer the wretched souls of those, who lived          

 

Without or praise or blame, with that ill band

 

Of angels mix’d, who nor rebellious proved,

 

Nor yet were true to God, but for themselves           

 

Were only. From his bounds Heaven drove them forth        

 

Not to impair his lustre; nor the depth           

 

Of Hell receives them, lest the accursed tribe           

 

Should glory thence with exultation vain.”

 

http://www.bartleby.com/20/103.html

The Divine Comedy (Dante), Inferno, Canto III, lines 30-40, 1320 A.D.

Revelation 3: 15-16, “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” Before 1320 A.D.

Some LDS appropriated and applied this doctrine to justify the ban. It wasn’t new. They combined it with the doctrines of the pre-existence, the differences between intelligences (Abraham), the curse of Cain/Ham, and other pre-existing doctrines (as noted in the essay) as apologists, but this same idea could have been used by some as a doctrinal explanation of any aspect of black civilization and society.

This is the vaguest possible parallel. Nothing in there about race either. CFR not met, then. The specific theory I was referring to did not exist before the ban. 

Not to say your idea isn't interesting. But all new doctrines have echoes in the past. Every new piece of artwork or music is influenced by others. That doesn't mean they're not also new. 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

This is the vaguest possible parallel. Nothing in there about race either. CFR not met, then. The specific theory I was referring to did not exist before the ban. 

Not to say your idea isn't interesting. But all new doctrines have echoes in the past. Every new piece of artwork or music is influenced by others. That doesn't mean they're not also new.

Well I expect that reaction LOL. The ban was not implemented in concert with this specific amalgamation of doctrines in mind (some echoing the past, some unique to the restoration, and some incorporating new terms: e.g. “fence-sitter” is of early 20th-century origin), and the same amalgamation would have come about to explain other observations about black civilization and society, and certainly the same people of the same mind would be drawing the same conclusions about these observations.

I officially declare: CFR met!

If I'm not mistaken, it seems the discussion at this point isn't about the Church's position on Civil Rights (which has not been established as far as I can tell, especially with the faulty evidences presented) as a measure of her racism, but that the ban itself was a racist act or position. As to that question, I think it is a matter of broad or narrow perspective. The responses in this article about Darwin could easily be applied to the Church relative to judgements about the ban: http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Darwin_himself_was_racist Which ones do you relate to (rhetorical question)?

[Gray]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Well I expect that reaction LOL. The ban was not implemented in concert with this specific amalgamation of doctrines in mind (some echoing the past, some unique to the restoration, and some incorporating new terms: e.g. “fence-sitter” is of early 20th-century origin), and the same amalgamation would have come about to explain other observations about black civilization and society, and certainly the same people of the same mind would be drawing the same conclusions about these observations.

I officially declare: CFR met!

Given this kind of reasoning, the Book of Mormon is identical with the King James Bible and Solomon Spaulding, as themes from both find their way into the text. Or we might say that the Sword of Shannara actually dates back to the 30s, since it borrows so many themes from Lord of the Rings. Your position is simply not coherent.

 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

If I'm not mistaken, it seems the discussion at this point isn't about the Church's position on Civil Rights (which has not been established as far as I can tell, especially with the faulty evidences presented) as a measure of her racism, but that the ban itself was a racist act or position. As to that question, I think it is a matter of broad or narrow perspective. The responses in this article about Darwin could easily be applied to the Church relative to judgements about the ban: http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Darwin_himself_was_racist Which ones do you relate to (rhetorical question)?

And here you're going back to "official doctrine" (ie "the Church's position). It's a red herring.