Elder Stapley Letter To Gov. George Romney

[_silentkid]

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.

I understand your position and your claim. It is a healthy, liberal way to look at this issue. I felt the same way. I wish my sister would view it as you do. I'm not claiming that prophets/apostles be infallible. I just wonder why they are so often misinformed. What is the point of the apostolic/prophetic calling if not to enlighten the flock on serious issues? Do they ever speak the will and mind of God outside of making official church policy? The early prophets and apostles did, and we see how history has treated them (this Stapley letter being a great example). I see the prophet and apostles today as men who ensure that their organization runs smoothly. That's all. They should change their titles--prophet=president, apostles=board of directors, 70's=regional managers. That makes more sense. It wouldn't lead so many members into accepting their words as God's words.

[_Yoda]

The church's racist past is hanging out there and can't be glossed over..

Agreed. It can't....and shouldn't be glossed over.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

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.

So do you believe you should follow them even though they are wrong, or are you entitled to pick cafeteria style and still receive all the blessings?

[_beastie]

At least Giuliani has the guts to run on his principles.

As does apparently Bloomberg, who, while changing parties, hasn't changed his stand on gun control and abortion.

And Dennis Kucinich has equally been true to his principles, even when the rest of his party mocked him.

I really don't mind people sincerely thinking about and changing their positions due to reflection, in fact, that's how we learn and grow - but most of the time, the flip-flopping stinks of political convenience.

Of course, when our country runs its elections like a whorehouse, we shouldn't be surprised when it's mainly prostitutes who want to run. We're getting what we deserve, which is part of the poignancy.

[_The Nehor]

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.

Not following Stapley's advice was not apostasy as laid out in the letter.

I expect the Prophets and Apostles to be correct generally when they're teaching me the Plan of Salvation. The craziness is always found when they veer off from that. Stapley also shows in his letter what I would consider an unhealthy veneration of Joseph's words. He was drawing as I understand it from Joseph's political platform which even if it were inspired by God was over a century old and some comments Joseph made in casual discussion with others. I would call it straining at gnats.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

From the letter: "I am sending you a copy of the book 'Mormonism and the Negro'"

So even apostles read that book? I had a friend who served a mission in the South in the early 70s, and he had a copy of the book. After getting over the initial shock of it all, and checking to make sure it really isn't a KKK book, it's actually quite funny, one of the most unintentially hilarious things I've ever read. The only thing funnier than that book is the fact that people bought it with their hard earned money.

[_The Nehor]

So do you believe you should follow them even though they are wrong, or are you entitled to pick cafeteria style and still receive all the blessings?

That's a tricky but good question. I dislike the cafeteria metaphor in this case because it usually applies to a different situation. If God is the one directly providing the food then the answer is an emphatic no. God has asked me to do things and taught me things that seemed strange, illogical, and once even abhorrent to me. I don't have an option there. If an Apostle or a Prophet presents information to me that I feel can't help me or doesn't apply, I ignore it. If they teach something I think is wrong, I appeal to higher authority. Sometimes I find out I was wrong, sometimes that they were wrong and most often that I misunderstood what they were saying and there was no disagreement. As for being blessed for following someone who is wrong I have little to say. I imagine that if you follow in honest ignorance you might be blessed. Someone who has cultivated spiritual and intellectual laziness and just rides on the coattails of the leaders of the Church are in my opinion not innocent.

The normal "Cafeteria Mormon" is one that throws out anything that at first glance they don't like and keeps what they like. If God isn't in the equation I see trouble as God's truths are eventually remade in their image instead of vice-versa.

[_The Nehor]

I understand your position and your claim. It is a healthy, liberal way to look at this issue. I felt the same way. I wish my sister would view it as you do. I'm not claiming that prophets/apostles be infallible. I just wonder why they are so often misinformed. What is the point of the apostolic/prophetic calling if not to enlighten the flock on serious issues? Do they ever speak the will and mind of God outside of making official church policy? The early prophets and apostles did, and we see how history has treated them (this Stapley letter being a great example). I see the prophet and apostles today as men who ensure that their organization runs smoothly. That's all. They should change their titles--prophet=president, apostles=board of directors, 70's=regional managers. That makes more sense. It wouldn't lead so many members into accepting their words as God's words.

I think that's going too far in the other direction, making calling and stewardship mean far too little. It is the GA's job to provide the basic teachings of the Gospel and provide for the welfare of the Church and it's people as a whole. Everything they say should not be thrown out just because it seems a little distasteful. Nor should it be accepted as the collated and stamped word of God.

My father went to a meeting headed by one of the then-Regional Representatives of the area and told us that the guy had with a straight face and utter seriousness asked the people in the meeting to pray for BYU to win their next football game (it was key for some reason, I don't watch football so I had no idea how). I remember as a little kid thinking it over and deciding that God probably wouldn't cheat for me to win at soccer so why would he cheat for BYU. I went to bed that night and prayed for him not to intervene in the game at all. An example of bad, personalized counsel.

About a year ago I was in sacrament meeting and a member of the High Council gave a talk to us that I thought was the most anecdotal, personalized, and useless counsel I had ever received. It was basically a list of things that had worked for him in life and therefore were part of the Gospel and failing in them was an affront to God despite all scriptural evidence to the contrary. It did work for him but I firmly believe to this day it wouldn't work for me and most of the people in the ward. Discussing it later with other ward members we all agreed there was no Spirit there.

I don't envy people who don't believe in or use the Spirit the task of discerning truth in any Prophet's words, let alone what Sister Jane Doe says in Testimony meeting.

[_Seven]

There is a thread on MAD right now on this topic. Here are some of the responses: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=25796

QUOTE(Garden Girl @ Jun 30 2007, 12:51 PM)

In any of these types of posts regarding blacks and Mormonism, the thing I find wearisome is the hypocracy of pointing a finger at the Mormons because of the priesthood ban (not membership ban, and there were black Church members in that era) as opposed to the various denominations and individuals who did not allow blacks to join their congregations... who would attend their segregated church on Sundays preaching brotherly love, and then the rest of the week still require blacks to drink from different water fountains...
The Garden Girl


Katherine the Great responds:
I think that the problem most people have with it (and I admit that I struggle with it as well) is that we do claim to be the one true church and our prophets claim to be God's mouthpiece on earth. From that perspective, we would expect our church to lead the world when truth is manifest, not be among the last to jump on the bandwagon. Yes, our leaders are human and subject to very human flaws, but I don't think it unreasonable to have the basic expectation that an apostle of God would be somewhat more inspired and in tune with God's will than the average, everyday person. Those are my thoughts anyway.

Deborah writes:
Unbelievable! Not the letter itself, as that was pretty much standard thinking among many people of the day (in and out of the church), but that someone would dredge up a 40 year old letter that has no relevance today and try to use it to disparage a man and a church.

QUOTE
Might I remind you, MC, that this was the prevailing attitude of many otherwise good people in this period of time? I consider my own father, for example, who is in many respects a wonderful, loving, and honest man but also sincere in his beliefs about the "mixing of the races" being a bad thing. These were men who were born and raised in an era when such thinking was the norm. They were "horrible" by the standards of our time. Those of us raised in the Baby Boom era and beyond have very different realities. Do not blame our parents' generation for not being able to entirely rise above their time.

Mighty Curelom responds:
Yet there were plenty of people who didn't espouse such disgusting views. There have always been people who have risen above the stupidity and ignorance of their era; people on the "cutting edge" of societal progress. LDS church leadership is and has always been devoid of such people. Instead of being the instigator of progress, they have always been dragged behind, kicking and screaming the whole way.


QUOTE
In 40 years time, it may be that someone will judge you harshly for a point of view that has changed for the better.

Mighty Curelom:
Possibly. But it's a dead certainty that LDS church leaders will have plenty to be ashamed of.

TBMs always seem to fall back on the excuse that "everybody else was racist too." Why don't they expect their own apostles/mouthpieces for God to at minimum have the insight and inspiration of the good people that fought for equality of our African brothers and sisters? A "good" person can't espouse such racist views, no matter how poplular those beliefs may have been at the time. As MC pointed out, there have always been plenty of good people who didn't hold those abominable views. Sadly (and not surprisingly) , the LDS leaders are not among the ones who fought for equal rights for women and those of color, but instead supported and commanded through doctrine racism and subordiantion of women.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I expect the Prophets and Apostles to be correct generally when they're teaching me the Plan of Salvation. The craziness is always found when they veer off from that. Stapley also shows in his letter what I would consider an unhealthy veneration of Joseph's words. He was drawing as I understand it from Joseph's political platform which even if it were inspired by God was over a century old and some comments Joseph made in casual discussion with others. I would call it straining at gnats.

Why would you expect them to be correct on one issue when they go crazy when they veer off it? Stapley may have overly venerated Joseph's words, but he's also got biblical support, you know, the same verses that were used to justify slavery in southern churches. I hate to tell you this, but Stapley wasn't the onion in the petunia patch. It was just all one big onion patch.

Furthermore, just because it had nothing to do with your salvation, white and delightsome as you are, it had everything to do with other people's salvation.