Elder Benson Conference Talk/Report (1967)

[ERayR]

26 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I don't expect church leaders to be perfect...but I also expect them not to be racist.  

I am offended at your bigotry.  Oh such harsh judgement you mete out to anyone who you even think disagrees with you.

[ERayR]

19 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

How is the document unreliable?  Your belief that this document is unreliable can be summed up in two words: cognitive dissonance.  

"As the United States moved toward landmark civil rights legislation, top LDS authorities opposed interracial marriage and school integration, and required blacks in the church-owned Hotel Utah to use service elevators. Elder Ezra Taft Benson said the civil rights movement "is used as a Communist program for revolution in America." In 1964, Elder Delbert L. Stapley warned Michigan Gov. George Romney, a Mormon, that if Romney continued to support equal rights for blacks, God might soon put him to death. Romney not only ignored the warning, he stepped up his advocacy. (Romney died at 88; Stapley at 81.)"

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2007932-155/letter-lds-political-history-shows-plenty

 

 

It is as unreliable as your interpretation of it.

[Ouagadougou]

2 minutes ago, ERayR said:

I am offended at your bigotry.  Oh such harsh judgement you mete out to anyone who you even think disagrees with you.

So...because I expect apostles of the Lord to NOT be racist...that makes my stance bigotry?  

[ERayR]

1 minute ago, Ouagadougou said:

So...because I expect apostles of the Lord to NOT be racist...that makes my stance bigotry?  

No, it is because you assume your interpretations of their words is the only one possible.

[Ouagadougou]

5 minutes ago, ERayR said:

It is as unreliable as your interpretation of it.

And what should a reasonable person interpret from the following in his letter?

"I am not against a Civil Rights Bill if it conforms to the views of the Prophet Joseph Smith according to the references 
above given. I fully agree the Negro is entitled to considerations also stated above, but not full social benefits nor inter-marriage privileges with the Whites, nor should the Whites be forced to 
accept them into restricted White areas. In my judgment, the present proposed Bill of Rights is vicious legislation. There 
needs to be some modification. The position of the Church cannot change until the Lord changes it Himself. Certainly I am not for exploiting racial or religious prejudices, but it is the present 
play-up to the Negro voters which is unnecessarily creating problems that by a more firm, sensible approach can be avoided. There will be a few die-hard leaders, but then that has always 
been true with any debatable issue. Principle — religious or otherwise — cannot be abrogated for political expediency."  

https://archive.org/stream/DelbertStapleyLetter/delbert_stapley_Letter_djvu.txt

His words/ideas are extremely racist and disturbing.  Yes, I openly disagree that any Apostle of the Lord should have such ideas/beliefs.  

 

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

It's too much to expect that an apostle of the Lord should not be racist just because ...life happens?  I disagree 100%.  Aren't apostles supposed to be special witnesses of Christ for ALL people?  

"We can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord, who declared: “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (D&C 1:38)"

https://www.lds.org/topics/prophets?lang=eng

"We can always trust the living prophets?"

How is that possible when they were clearly wrong as it pertains to race for so many years?  

 

That's the fundamentalist notion of what prophets and apostles do and are. And yes, according to the fundamentalist assumptions about these things, prophets should be immune from such prejudices when they are teaching doctrine.

The question is, will the dominant fundamentalist paradigm continue to dominate, or will a new paradigm take its place?

[Ouagadougou]

Just now, Gray said:

That's the fundamentalist notion of what prophets and apostles do and are. And yes, according to the fundamentalist assumptions about these things, prophets should be immune from such prejudices when they are teaching doctrine.

The question is, will the dominant fundamentalist paradigm continue to dominate, or will a new paradigm take its place?

That is one of my questions:  perhaps we change the definition of "prophets and apostles?"  

[ERayR]

5 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

And what should a reasonable person interpret from the following in his letter?

"I am not against a Civil Rights Bill if it conforms to the views of the Prophet Joseph Smith according to the references 
above given. I fully agree the Negro is entitled to considerations also stated above, but not full social benefits nor inter-marriage privileges with the Whites, nor should the Whites be forced to 
accept them into restricted White areas. In my judgment, the present proposed Bill of Rights is vicious legislation. There 
needs to be some modification. The position of the Church cannot change until the Lord changes it Himself. Certainly I am not for exploiting racial or religious prejudices, but it is the present 
play-up to the Negro voters which is unnecessarily creating problems that by a more firm, sensible approach can be avoided. There will be a few die-hard leaders, but then that has always 
been true with any debatable issue. Principle — religious or otherwise — cannot be abrogated for political expediency."  

https://archive.org/stream/DelbertStapleyLetter/delbert_stapley_Letter_djvu.txt

His words/ideas are extremely racist and disturbing.  Yes, I openly disagree that any Apostle of the Lord should have such ideas/beliefs.  

 

Principle — religious or otherwise — cannot be abrogated for political expediency."  

[waveslider]

7 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

And what should a reasonable person interpret from the following in his letter?

"I am not against a Civil Rights Bill if it conforms to the views of the Prophet Joseph Smith according to the references 
above given. I fully agree the Negro is entitled to considerations also stated above, but not full social benefits nor inter-marriage privileges with the Whites, nor should the Whites be forced to 
accept them into restricted White areas. In my judgment, the present proposed Bill of Rights is vicious legislation. There 
needs to be some modification. The position of the Church cannot change until the Lord changes it Himself. Certainly I am not for exploiting racial or religious prejudices, but it is the present 
play-up to the Negro voters which is unnecessarily creating problems that by a more firm, sensible approach can be avoided. There will be a few die-hard leaders, but then that has always 
been true with any debatable issue. Principle — religious or otherwise — cannot be abrogated for political expediency."  

https://archive.org/stream/DelbertStapleyLetter/delbert_stapley_Letter_djvu.txt

His words/ideas are extremely racist and disturbing.  Yes, I openly disagree that any Apostle of the Lord should have such ideas/beliefs.  

 

That letter was a personal letter, not a church teaching, besides your OP wasn't about this letter but it was about your wrong interpretation of what Elder Benson stated in General Conference:

On 11/26/2016 at 1:19 PM, Ouagadougou said:

Hello all!

I just read the conference talk titled "Trust Not in the Arm of Flesh" given by Elder Benson (apostle at the time) in Oct 1967.  Having read this conference talk/report, I'm shocked that some of these words came from an apostle who was supposed to be the Lord's mouthpiece at that time.  For example:

http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1569&era=yes

"There is no doubt that the so-called civil rights movement as it exists today is used as a Communist program for revolution in America just as agrarian reform was used by the Communists to take over China and Cuba."

There are other parts of this talk that I find extremely disturbing, but, even if Elder Benson was just speaking as a man (during a general conference talk), then surely his talk was still vetted/reviewed by the 1st Presidency/prophet, correct?  

Also, if prophets/apostles/leaders are fallible, then how can one truly be sure that their words/guidance (at the time it is given) is, in fact, from God?  Is this done just by the spirit?  

IMO, Elder Benson's words/guidance in this talk were disturbing and in no way from God.  As a less-active member, should I just sweep talks like this under the rug and pretend like it never happened?  

I don't mean to offend anyone here, but I'm generally curious how you reconcile and/or work through such conflicting talks/guidance.  

 

 

 

[ERayR]

13 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

And what should a reasonable person interpret from the following in his letter?

"I am not against a Civil Rights Bill if it conforms to the views of the Prophet Joseph Smith according to the references 
above given. I fully agree the Negro is entitled to considerations also stated above, but not full social benefits nor inter-marriage privileges with the Whites, nor should the Whites be forced to 
accept them into restricted White areas. In my judgment, the present proposed Bill of Rights is vicious legislation. There 
needs to be some modification. The position of the Church cannot change until the Lord changes it Himself. Certainly I am not for exploiting racial or religious prejudices, but it is the present 
play-up to the Negro voters which is unnecessarily creating problems that by a more firm, sensible approach can be avoided. There will be a few die-hard leaders, but then that has always 
been true with any debatable issue. Principle — religious or otherwise — cannot be abrogated for political expediency."  

https://archive.org/stream/DelbertStapleyLetter/delbert_stapley_Letter_djvu.txt

His words/ideas are extremely racist and disturbing.  Yes, I openly disagree that any Apostle of the Lord should have such ideas/beliefs.  

 

Maybe he was pointing out what could and eventually was the outcome of government intervention. 

[Marmonboy]

Maybe Elder Stapley's concerns were not so much with giving civil rights to blacks, but with that slippery slope we stood at the top of. Now, anyone who screams loud enough gets all kinds of, not just equal rights, but preferential treatment. The pedulum is swinging the other way.Perhaps that's what he saw, but he worded it in the vocabulary of the day.

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm thinking of my parents' and grandparents' generation. They were not prepared for the change. My generation was prepared. That's why I believe it came at just the right time. We should be slow to pass judgement on those who came before.

Just "tellin' it like it was":

I was born in a Northeastern city in the late 1940's and had never even seen a black person until I was probably 5 or 6 years old, and I thought they must be dirty because their skin was dark and mine only got that way when I was dirty and playing in the mud.  I was not particularly taught anything about them at home, because they were irrelevant to our lives, or so was the feeling.  They lived over there where we never went, and we lived over here.

There were neighborhoods we would not go through because they were "dangerous" simply because they were black neighborhoods. You would make sure the doors of the car were firmly locked because they might attack you.   You were supposed to try to be kind to these "poor unfortunates" but of course you would never mix with them or have them over to your home.  They kind of looked like us, but were not fully human, they did not love each other as my family loved each other.  Their speech was barely understandable and was drawn out, missing syllables, and just plain "lazy".  I asked an adult how they knew their hands were clean when they washed, since their skin was always dirty looking and she said they just washed until the rinse water ran clean.

Such was the horrible state of racial relations as seen by a young child in the early 1950's, it was ignorance beyond ignorance, hatred beyond hatred, and virtually universal as I knew no one who would disagree with such notions.

If you did not live it, you would not believe it.

When I was old enough to understand the injustice, it was enough to cause me to rage against the system and was instrumental into turning me into a revolutionary communist.

But even at that stage, I was out to prove that "some of my best friends were black".  I was going through the typical liberal racism of pretending I was not racist.

Now at last I think I am pretty color blind- my kids are-  but I still scan the congregation looking for black folks and not seeing enough.   Is that in itself racist?  To be an American is to be aware of race.  Even this thread shows we are not over it.   It is a horrible part of our past.

But thank God it IS better than it was.  We are not there yet, but are on the right road.

Edited November 29, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

45 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

That is one of my questions:  perhaps we change the definition of "prophets and apostles?"  

I think the fundamentalists' definition doesn't work at all. There are other definitions that do work!

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

And what should a reasonable person interpret from the following in his letter?

Quote

 

"I am not against a Civil Rights Bill if it conforms to the views of the Prophet Joseph Smith according to the references 
above given.....
there needs to be some modification. The position of the Church cannot change until the Lord changes it Himself. "

https://archive.org/stream/DelbertStapleyLetter/delbert_stapley_Letter_djvu.txt

 

 

....Yes, I openly disagree that any Apostle of the Lord should have such ideas/beliefs.  

 

Beliefs that only the Lord could change the situation and now has?

An apostle of the Lord should not believe that only God can change the position of the church?

As Bruce R said, yes the time had come and the church was wrong.   Now it's fixed.

Why keep beating a dead horse?  You want us to go back in a time machine and take away all the ridiculous things people said in the past?  What's the point?  Do you want to leave the church over this?  

The past is not going to go away, you either go on and live for the future or you mire yourself in dead history for no reason.  It is not worth anyone's energy to waste time on what cannot be changed.   We acknowledge mistakes and move on, staying or leaving according to our own feelings and testimony.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Just "tellin' it like it was":

I was born in a Northeastern city in the late 1940's and had never even seen a black person until I was probably 5 or 6 years old, and I thought they must be dirty because their skin was dark and mine only got that way when I was dirty and playing in the mud.  I was not particularly taught anything about them at home, because they were irrelevant to our lives, or so was the feeling.  They lived over there where we never went, and we lived over here.

There were neighborhoods we would not go through because they were "dangerous" simply because they were black neighborhoods. You would make sure the doors of the car were firmly locked because they might attack you.   You were supposed to try to be kind to these "poor unfortunates" but of course you would never mix with them or have them over to your home.  They kind of looked like us, but were not fully human, they did not love each other as my family loved each other.  Their speech was barely understandable and was drawn out, missing syllables, and just plain "lazy".  I asked an adult how they knew their hands were clean when they washed, since their skin was always dirty looking and she said they just washed until the rinse water ran clean.

Such was the horrible state of racial relations as seen by a young child in the early 1950's, it was ignorance beyond ignorance, hatred beyond hatred, and virtually universal as I knew no one who would disagree with such notions.

If you did not live it, you would not believe it.

When I was old enough to understand the injustice, it was enough to cause me to rage against the system and was instrumental into turning me into a revolutionary communist.

But even at that stage, I was out to prove that "some of my best friends were black".  I was going through the typical liberal racism of pretending I was not racist.

Now at last I think I am pretty color blind- my kids are-  but I still scan the congregation looking for black folks and not seeing enough.   Is that in itself racist?  To be an American is to be aware of race.  Even this thread shows we are not over it.   It is a horrible part of our past.

But thank God it IS better than it was.  We are not there yet, but are on the right road.

I grew up in New Mexico in the 40s and 50s. I refuse to pass judgment on my parents and grandparents, but while they were decent and compassionate people their relatively benign racial attitudes towards Native Americans and Latinos would be found offensive today. 

Growing up with good friends in both those ethnic groups, I ended up not sharing those attitudes. My sister married a Latino. Both his and our families were not happy with that, but we all made it work. Instead of differentiating family by race, their kids called my mom "skinny grandma" and his mother "fat grandma." They are all blue eyed with light brown hair, but they sincerely identify with both cultures and don't shy away from getting benefits from their Spanish last name  

My folks were not prepared for lifting the priesthood ban, but I was. I welcomed it as did Sister Gui as we cried for joy on learning of it on a newscast on the car radio.

I suspect that is true of many members in my senior age group. From what I can tell, lifting the ban was neither divisive nor disruptive in the Church. Ten years or a hundred earlier.....not so good. 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

That is one of my questions:  perhaps we change the definition of "prophets and apostles?"  

In process

Patrick Mason at Fairmormon

Quote

This is a hard one for many people, but I am seeing us begin to courageously explore what it really means to sustain fallible prophets and apostles, and to develop a robust theology that sustains our sustaining. The chapter in Planted that I get the most comments on is chapter 6, “In All Patience and Faith,” which addresses prophetic fallibility while maintaining the conviction that God does reach down and call a few mortals among us to dedicate their lives and best efforts to proclaiming the gospel, leading the church, and calling us to repentance. One of our community’s gifts, as Latter-day Saint Christians, is that we declare that God points us to prophets, apostles, and the church—not because they can save or redeem us, but because they are the temporal means by which he orients us to our Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/courage-convictions

His book:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B019NTSTC4/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Buy it, read it please. $11 bucks with free kindle reading software.  Skip a trip to Mc Donald's and get educated about this stuff.

[stemelbow]

33 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I grew up in New Mexico in the 40s and 50s. I refuse to pass judgment on my parents and grandparents, but while they were decent and compassionate people their relatively benign racial attitudes towards Native Americans and Latinos would be found offensive today. 

Growing up with good friends in both those ethnic groups, I ended up not sharing those attitudes. My sister married a Latino. Both his and our families were not happy with that, but we all made it work. Instead of differentiating family by race, their kids called my mom "skinny grandma" and his mother "fat grandma." They are all blue eyed with light brown hair, but they sincerely identify with both cultures and don't shy away from getting benefits from their Spanish last name  

My folks were not prepared for lifting the priesthood ban, but I was. I welcomed it as did Sister Gui as we cried for joy on learning of it on a newscast on the car radio.

I suspect that is true of many members in my senior age group. From what I can tell, it was not divisive or disruptive in the Church. Ten years or a hundred earlier.....not so good. 

I'm most unimpressed with the notion that the timing was inspired on the grounds explained above. 

The notion that God supported bigotry because the whites couldn't handle not being bigoted is just silly.  God surely loved your grandma much like he loved the Latino down the street.  He loved your grandma just as He loved the man born at the same time in Ouagadougou.  This amounts to thinking God actually thought, "Well I'll allow the other races to be downtrodden, I'll even allow one race be restricted from using my priesthood, because these white folks feel superior and I can't make them feel differently.  It'll be too hard for them". 

Nah....the church was wrong.  Society influenced the Church greatly and did so so much to make the members think there was a revelation supporting their bigotry. 

[mnn727]

Apostle Bruce R McConkie

Quote

 

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whosoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more.

It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978). It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them.

 

 

[mnn727]

Gee, was God a Bigot because only Israel was His chosen people?

Was God a bigot because only those of the tribe of Levi could be Priests?

Was Jesus a bigot for not taking the Gospel to the Gentiles?

Edited November 29, 2016 by mnn727

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Gee, was God a Bigot because only Israel was His chosen people?

If God really felt that way, yes.

 

6 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Was God a bigot because only those of the tribe of Levi could be Priests?

If God really felt that way, yes. 

 

6 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Was Jesus a bigot for not taking the Gospel to the Gentiles?

If Jesus really felt that way, yes. 

 

But I wouldn't ascribe any of those attitudes to God. Just typical human myopia. 

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

How is the document unreliable?  Your belief that this document is unreliable can be summed up in two words: cognitive dissonance.  

"As the United States moved toward landmark civil rights legislation, top LDS authorities opposed interracial marriage and school integration, and required blacks in the church-owned Hotel Utah to use service elevators. Elder Ezra Taft Benson said the civil rights movement "is used as a Communist program for revolution in America." In 1964, Elder Delbert L. Stapley warned Michigan Gov. George Romney, a Mormon, that if Romney continued to support equal rights for blacks, God might soon put him to death. Romney not only ignored the warning, he stepped up his advocacy. (Romney died at 88; Stapley at 81.)"

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2007932-155/letter-lds-political-history-shows-plenty

I think mfb pointed out the problems with the letter more directly.

I would expect someone to have stronger support for such an observation as yours about Church attitudes toward Civil Rights than a talk by Elder Benson that doesn’t say what you say it does (just like the scriptures you brought up) and a dubious “copy” of a purported letter (certainly nothing that would remotely qualify as a primary source document). But such attitudes are more often than not visceral anyway.

…and now a 2-year old Op Ed piece?

You’ve got to come up with something better if I’m going to remain interested in what you have to say about the subject.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

That is one of my questions:  perhaps we change the definition of "prophets and apostles?"  

 

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In process

Patrick Mason at Fairmormon

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/courage-convictions

His book:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B019NTSTC4/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Buy it, read it please. $11 bucks with free kindle reading software.  Skip a trip to Mc Donald's and get educated about this stuff.

From this year's study guide (President Hinckley):

“I got along wonderfully well with those great men, who were very kind to me. But I learned that they were human. They had weaknesses and problems, but that didn’t bother me. In fact, it enhanced my estimation of them because I saw rising above their mortality an element of the divine, or at the very least an element of consecration to a tremendous cause that came first in their lives. I saw the inspiration that was at work in their lives. I had no doubt concerning their prophetic callings or of the fact that the Lord spoke and acted through them. I saw their human side, their foibles—and they all had a few. But I also saw the great overriding strength of their faith and love for the Lord, and their absolute loyalty to the work and to the trust that was placed in them.”

That is what make them true prophets and apostles--ever since I joined the Church in 1975, people have had similar things to say. Maybe changed the ways they said and presented them, but nothing really new here.

BUT Ouag, you gotta STEAL THIS BOOK!

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Gee, was God a Bigot because only Israel was His chosen people?

Was God a bigot because only those of the tribe of Levi could be Priests?

Was Jesus a bigot for not taking the Gospel to the Gentiles?

Good point

Jesus called Canaanites dogs!

Matt 15

Quote

 

²² And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

²³ But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

²⁴ But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

²⁵ Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

²⁶ But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

 

 

[Glenn101]

22 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I have read their views and I respect their experiences.  I have many family members who also lived through this era (some were in favor of Civil Rights).  I do no think the talk is correct, IMO

I do not think any poster on this board are or were against Civil Rights. There may have been some heartburn about some of the tactics, though.

  What part specifically about the Civil Rights movement comments do you believe are incorrect?

Glenn

[JarMan]

The problem with the civil rights movement was never that the cause wasn't just…it was just. The problem is that we got federal civil rights legislation that allows the federal government to dictate who private citizens must interact with. Now that idea is being taken to its logical extreme to force religious people to engage in business transactions they find morally reprehensible. It will continue to be pushed to try and limit what religions can teach and how churches can operate. It was the civil rights legislation of the 60's that opened this door. It sounds like ETB was prophetic to me.