Elder Benson Conference Talk/Report (1967)

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

I'm not impressed by your not being impressed. It's not my concern to please or impress you. This was my experience and I have checked and verified it with many folks my age. God's house is a house of order, not chaos. God speaks to his children in the language they understand and he does temper his words and his commandments to our circumstances, our surrounding culture, and our ability to receive them. If you believe scripture...I don't know if you do....then you know that this is true to the record. He is compassionate and patient with all of us. He sees the big picture. We see only a snapshot. It has nothing to do with love, but with purposeful planning and timing. It's not clear what you are implying, but on the surface your comments about that are distasteful. Considering the history of the United States, slavery, racism, civil rights, the foundation and spread of the Church, and all that go with these, the timing of this was perfect for the kingdom to progress unhindered by disunity, dissension, and division. If you don't see it that way, that's ok with me. 

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Apostle Bruce R McConkie....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.

 

Well, there's a person who put it behind him, and he had a lot to put behind. We should go and do likewise.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

9 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?

Well, if some of us are to be consistent, yes. And then we can prove he changes his mind because now there are other chosen people, all Mormon boys can be priests, and the gospel has been taken to the Gentiles, but not yet to Near Eastern countries. At a time in the past if you had told me my son Crespitino would serve a mission in Poland, I would have said you were nuts. Perhaps He even loves the Poles, because they finally received the gospel. Timing is important. And from time to time, God ceases striving with his children because they will not listen. Perhaps the time of the Gentile is passing.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm not impressed by your not being impressed. It's not my concern to please or impress you. This was my experience and I have checked and verified it with many folks my age. God's house is a house of order, not chaos. God speaks to his children in the language they understand and he does temper his words and his commandments to our circumstances, our surrounding culture, and our ability to receive them. If you believe scripture...I don't know if you do....then you know that this is true to the record. He is compassionate and patient with all of us. He sees the big picture. We see only a snapshot. It has nothing to do with love, but with purposeful planning and timing. It's not clear what you are implying, but on the surface your comments about that are distasteful. Considering the history of the United States, slavery, racism, civil rights, the foundation and spread of the Church, and all that go with these, the timing of this was perfect for the kingdom to progress unhindered by disunity, dissension, and division. If you don't see it that way, that's ok with me. 

Disagree.  The Church would be at least twice it is now if there was no racist explanation for the ban and no ban itself.  We would all be better off and those who have passed both in and out of the Church would be better off too. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Disagree.  The Church would be at least twice it is now if there was no racist explanation for the ban and no ban itself.  We would all be better off and those who have passed both in and out of the Church would be better off too. 

We have no way of knowing that so we will have to disagree. I believe the Restoration has unfolded exactly as God wills it.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We have no way of knowing that so we will have to disagree. I believe the Restoration has unfolded exactly as God wills it.

Sounds similar to the view of a traditional Christian that God would not give up on the Church and thus no apostasy.  Ah well..I'll leave it at that. 

[Ouagadougou]

On 29.11.2016 at 11:05 AM, waveslider said:

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:

 

Both are related because you have two apostles at that time that were on the wrong side of history.  

[Ouagadougou]

23 hours ago, Marmonboy said:

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.

Read his words -- it is pretty clear he had racist ideas...

[Ouagadougou]

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

And this leads back to my original question:  

"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?"

If you admit that the church and its leaders were wrong (for so many years) on a particular issue, then how can you trust that the current leaders are not wrong on some other issue/policy/doctrine?  

If they were wrong...then it means leaders lead members astray.  

[Ouagadougou]

22 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Apostle Bruce R McConkie

 

So...they were wrong and lead members astray by their policies/ideas/doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

I really don't understand your point. Were/are some members of the Church racist? You Bet Ya. Some were even member of high Callings. We don't expect infallibility from mortals. What we do expect is that God chooses to talk to them/us at his choosing, and we do our mortal best to understand what he is saying.  Mortals often fail at doing that.

[Ouagadougou]

22 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

Great point.  MLK was more inspired from God, IMO, as it relates to race and equality, than any church leader during the 1960's.  

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

So...they were wrong and lead members astray by their policies/ideas/doctrine.

I became a member in 1971. I wasn't lead astray.

[Ouagadougou]

19 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

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

IMO, the church was off the mark completely as it pertains to civil rights and equality...it took them until 1978 to figure it out -- when God supposedly changed his mind on race.  Trying to defend church leaders who did nothing to support civil rights (who actually opposed it or called it a communist conspiracy) is incorrect, IMO.  

[Ouagadougou]

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

If your cognitive dissonance keeps you from remaining interested, then there is nothing I can do to assist...

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Great point.  MLK was more inspired from God, IMO, as it relates to race and equality, than any church leader during the 1960's.  

President David O. McKay changed the Church in the 1050's on matters of race and equality more than MLK did in the 1960's.

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Great point.  MLK was more inspired from God, IMO, as it relates to race and equality, than any church leader during the 1960's.  

I would agree with that. In my view Martin Luther King Jr. was a prophet in every sense of the word. 

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

And this leads back to my original question:  

"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?"

If you admit that the church and its leaders were wrong (for so many years) on a particular issue, then how can you trust that the current leaders are not wrong on some other issue/policy/doctrine?  

If they were wrong...then it means leaders lead members astray.  

The promise is that God will not allow his prophets to lead anyone to hell not that they will be factually right about all things. So CFR that anyone went to hell because of what was taught.

I am late to the conversation but on a side note the idea of you sitting down one fine evening in your chair wearing a smoking jacket and perusing old conference reports seems a little silly. Even more silly is the idea that you read it expecting enlightenment and were shocked by it.

Tell the story the way it happened. You found it on an anti site or from a Google search and chuckled heartily that you could run on over here and score some points on those stupid Mormons while acting like a flustered innocent "just trying to understand". You critics need fewer idiots amongst your ranks so you can get some new ideas. You are all becoming tired cliches.

[cinepro]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

I would agree with that. In my view Martin Luther King Jr. was a prophet in every sense of the word. 

About the only "sense of the word" that LDS still believe in is Priesthood Authority, which according to LDS policy would have been impossible for Dr. King to have in the 1960s.

[Ouagadougou]

17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

President David O. McKay changed the Church in the 1050's on matters of race and equality more than MLK did in the 1960's.

I disagree 100%.  If he truly changed matters of race and equality in the 1950's, then why was the priesthood ban lifted not until 1978?  MLK, IMO, do more for civil rights and equality than any church leader during that time...by far!

[Ouagadougou]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The promise is that God will not allow his prophets to lead anyone to hell not that they will be factually right about all things. So CFR that anyone went to hell because of what was taught.

I am late to the conversation but on a side note the idea of you sitting down one fine evening in your chair wearing a smoking jacket and perusing old conference reports seems a little silly. Even more silly is the idea that you read it expecting enlightenment and were shocked by it.

Tell the story the way it happened. You found it on an anti site or from a Google search and chuckled heartily that you could run on over here and score some points on those stupid Mormons while acting like a flustered innocent "just trying to understand". You critics need fewer idiots amongst your ranks so you can get some new ideas. You are all becoming tired cliches.

I am not the judge of men/women so only God can provide that CFR. However, if the leaders were wrong on race, and the result was that blacks could not enjoy the fruits of the priesthood (for so many years), then that is very damaging/problematic, IMO.   

My cousin, who is a member, actually sent me this talk and asked:  "have you ever read this?"

The website is:

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

If BYU.edu is somehow an "anti" site, please enlighten us all.  

Also, how is a conference talk considered anti? And shouldn't we expect enlightenment from a conference talk?  But I guess you suggest otherwise....

Labeling me an "idiot?"  You are the only one who seems flustered here 😀

 

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

If your cognitive dissonance keeps you from remaining interested, then there is nothing I can do to assist...

I'm actually looking for sound support for your claims. I expect there are some out there (though I haven't found them) The three items you traipsed out like a turd collection, simply don't qualify. You've gotta have something better!

[Gray]

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

a dubious “copy” of a purported letter (certainly nothing that would remotely qualify as a primary source document).

What makes you think there is something dubious about the letter? I know of nothing to indicate that it isn't authentic. 

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I am not the judge of men/women so only God can provide that CFR. However, if the leaders were wrong on race, and the result was that blacks could not enjoy the fruits of the priesthood (for so many years), then that is very damaging/problematic, IMO.   

My cousin, who is a member, actually sent me this talk and asked:  "have you ever read this?"

The website is:

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

If BYU.edu is somehow an "anti" site, please enlighten us all.  

Also, how is a conference talk considered anti? And shouldn't we expect enlightenment from a conference talk?  But I guess you suggest otherwise....

Labeling me an "idiot?"  You are the only one who seems flustered here 😀

 

I said you got it from an anti-Mormon source and you did (your cousin). Of course we also have it but you were not randomly reading conference talks pursuing the sanctity of your own soul.

And yes, idiot is fair assessment. You proved it by using the word 'problematic' in a non-ironic sense. A defining trait of idiocy.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

IMO, the church was off the mark completely as it pertains to civil rights and equality...it took them until 1978 to figure it out -- when God supposedly changed his mind on race.  Trying to defend church leaders who did nothing to support civil rights (who actually opposed it or called it a communist conspiracy) is incorrect, IMO.  

I do not believe that you are interpreting Apostle Benson's comments correctly. He did not say that the Civil Rights movement was a Communist conspiracy. He said that the Communists were co-ting the movement to advance their own agenda, which is something that has been confirmed by a former communist right here on the board.

Glenn