NorthboundZax wrote:I think you are missing the point, too. There is a lot more to this letter than simply the fact that many in church leadership espoused racist philosophies. Here is an apostle trying to influence the policies of a sitting governor (even containing veiled threats that God would strike him down if he continued supporting the cause) and we only hear about it 40 years later - even though Gov. Romney didn't abide by it. I'm sure we would never seen the letter if George had decided to go where Stapley intended. How can we be sure that Harry Reid didn't get a similar letter when the constitutional ban on gay marriage was gaining traction?
You are also being a bit harsh on George. There is no reason to believe that George didn't actually transcend the inbred racism and was sincere in his efforts for civil rights. Being a TBM and still dissing direct advice from an apostle because it is nonsense should be applauded. Would Mitt would have the testicular fortitude to ignore such a letter?
To be fair, it should be noted that the Apostle made it quite clear that it was not a command and that he was not speaking for the Church but was instead offering advice to a politician based on what I believe is an incorrect application of Joseph Smith's words.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:To be fair, it should be noted that the Apostle made it quite clear that it was not a command and that he was not speaking for the Church but was instead offering advice to a politician based on what I believe is an incorrect application of Joseph Smith's words.
Yep, just another misinformed apostle of the Lord. Is his application of Joseph Smith's words incorrect due to your present day understanding of the civil rights issue? Again, he was an apostle. Why is your interpretation of Joseph Smith's words any more accurate than his?
The Nehor wrote:To be fair, it should be noted that the Apostle made it quite clear that it was not a command and that he was not speaking for the Church but was instead offering advice to a politician based on what I believe is an incorrect application of Joseph Smith's words.
Who didn't see this coming?
Disclaimer notwithstanding, Stapley was an apostle ordained by the church/Lord and spoke for the church/Lord. When you are called as an apostle maybe your opinion will be worth something. This is what the church was all about. Accept it. You can't just make it all okay on your little say-so.
Stapley was just another product of his own times, like BY, way behind the 8-ball when it came to social reform, but taken as God's own truth by his Mormon followers. It's a lily that can't be gilded. They were just wrong, they had no inspiration, they are not prophets, quit making excuses for them.
Lucretia MacEvil wrote:Who didn't see this coming?
Disclaimer notwithstanding, Stapley was an apostle ordained by the church/Lord and spoke for the church/Lord. When you are called as an apostle maybe your opinion will be worth something. This is what the church was all about. Accept it. You can't just make it all okay on your little say-so.
Stapley was just another product of his own times, like BY, way behind the 8-ball when it came to social reform, but taken as God's own truth by his Mormon followers. It's a lily that can't be gilded. They were just wrong, they had no inspiration, they are not prophets, quit making excuses for them.
Are we talking about Stapley, or the apostle Peter?
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
The Nehor wrote:To be fair, it should be noted that the Apostle made it quite clear that it was not a command and that he was not speaking for the Church but was instead offering advice to a politician based on what I believe is an incorrect application of Joseph Smith's words.
Yep, just another misinformed apostle of the Lord. Is his application of Joseph Smith's words incorrect due to your present day understanding of the civil rights issue? Again, he was an apostle. Why is your interpretation of Joseph Smith's words any more accurate than his?
It might not be. He could be right and I could be wrong. I personally haven't received any real revelation on the topic of race relations.
A lot of Apostles are misinformed. I know of 3 right now that hold beliefs I think are wrong. 2 of them I'm sure they're wrong. If Peter can be wrong about the Law of Moses while Paul is right despite Peter outranking him anything is possible. I'm a little leery of anyone who wants to treat Apostles and Prophets as demigods or as if they always have a clear, uninterrupted channel to God with every thought. They're working out their salvation just like everyone else. Reading the LDS standard works as written you can see flaws in virtually every prophet in history. Joseph was rebuked several times and the Apostles of that time got the same treatment. If I thought infallibility was a precept of the Gospel I had to accept I would have left the Gospel long ago.
President Hinckley has said that he realizes he is a very ordinary man who has had the witness necessary to be an Apostle. I do not think this is some kind of false piety. It is true. The calling may give them power and insight to lead the Church but it's not a free ticket into exaltation. They are NOT responsible for my salvation. I am. If they screw up I can't point to them on the Day of Judgment as an excuse. I have the scriptures and can consult heaven myself. If anything I feel kinda sorry for them. I would never want such a position and when I can I aid my leaders while hoping never to be in their shoes.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote: To be fair, it should be noted that the Apostle made it quite clear that it was not a command and that he was not speaking for the Church but was instead offering advice to a politician based on what I believe is an incorrect application of Joseph Smith's words.
Who didn't see this coming?
Disclaimer notwithstanding, Stapley was an apostle ordained by the church/Lord and spoke for the church/Lord. When you are called as an apostle maybe your opinion will be worth something. This is what the church was all about. Accept it. You can't just make it all okay on your little say-so.
Stapley was just another product of his own times, like BY, way behind the 8-ball when it came to social reform, but taken as God's own truth by his Mormon followers. It's a lily that can't be gilded. They were just wrong, they had no inspiration, they are not prophets, quit making excuses for them.
I don't really see that Nehor is making excuses for anyone here. Stapley clearly stated in the document in question that this was NOT official counsel from the Church, but that it was his opinion.
Nehor also stated that he felt that Stapley was utilizing an incorrect application of Joseph Smith's words to further his stance, and I agree.
Judy Dushku: In the early 90s, our feminist newspaper Exponent II, did a theme issue about Mormonism and abortion. X said she’d like to write a piece describing her experience. We agreed to publish her story anonymously because we knew her and knew about the ordeal.
Then in 1994, when Romney was running for the Senate, he came out in favor of choice for women -- which was surprising to me. I was pleased and called, asking to see him. I told him I suspected that we had our differences, but that maybe I could work with him if he’d come to a really good position on women and childbirth.
And he said – Yes, come to my office.
I went to his office and I congratulated him on taking a pro-choice position. And his response was – Well they told me in Salt Lake City I could take this position, and in fact I probably had to in order to win in a liberal state like Massachusetts.
Suzan Mazur: Who’s “THEY”?
Judy Dushku: I asked him the same question. And he said “the Brethren” in Salt Lake City.
And I said, Mitt, it doesn’t make me happy to hear that. What you’re suggesting is that you’re not genuinely pro-choice. It’s a position of convenience.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
liz3564 wrote:Nehor also stated that he felt that Stapley was utilizing an incorrect application of Joseph Smith's words to further his stance, and I agree.
Stapley was obviously a racist nut job.
Although Stapley appears to defer to David McKay's judgment in deciding for the Church, there is evidence that McKay felt similarly at that time about the pending Civil Rights Act (eventually signed into law by LBJ in 1964). In June 1963, McKay turned down John F. Kennedy’s invitation to attend a White House meeting of religious leaders to discuss the pending civil rights legislation. Instead, McKay spoke to James Faust (now FP 2nd counselor, then president of the Utah State Bar Association), who was going to attend a related meeting at the White House. McKay wrote in his diary of his instructions to Faust:
“[H]e should go and find out what President Kennedy is trying to do. I said that I did not like to see a law passed which will make Hotel men violators of the law if they refuse to provide accommodations for a negro when their hotels are filled with white people, or restaurant men made violators when they decline to serve colored people.” Gregory Prince, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, p. 68 (U. of U. Press 2005).
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Beastie wrote:Why did Mitt ever run as "pro-choice"? He knew it was the only way he'd be elected, and "the brethren" gave him permission to do so.
That's why I don't have much respect for Mitt. He is now "flip-flopping" on this issue to pander to the more conservative base.
Your quote here resounds loud and clear:
Judy Dushku: I asked him the same question. And he said “the Brethren” in Salt Lake City.
And I said, Mitt, it doesn’t make me happy to hear that. What you’re suggesting is that you’re not genuinely pro-choice. It’s a position of convenience.
At least Giuliani has the guts to run on his principles.
liz3564 wrote:I don't really see that Nehor is making excuses for anyone here. Stapley clearly stated in the document in question that this was NOT official counsel from the Church, but that it was his opinion.
Nehor also stated that he felt that Stapley was utilizing an incorrect application of Joseph Smith's words to further his stance, and I agree.
Stapley was obviously a racist nut job.
What was a racist nut job doing as an apostle? Was Mark E. Peterson a racist nut job too? Brigham Young?
Why should any Mormon, anytime, every "follow the prophet" when this is the quality they can expect? If Stapley or Peterson or Joseph Smith were wrong, there was never any correction to what they said, only a new "revelation" in 1978 and then a bunch of "that was just opinion," or "they never said that" or "wrong interpretation" -- CYA, in other words. What Stapley wrote Romney in 1964 was what the church taught in those days. If any Nehor or Liz put up an opposition then, it would have been apostasy.
Whether Joseph Smith would have agreed or disagreed with Stapley is moot, as far as I'm concerned. It's easy enough to spin Joseph Smith' words however you want now, but the church's racist past is hanging out there and can't be glossed over so easily to people who don't have personal investment in following the prophets.