Delbert L. Stapley Letter

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

As I have been reading and thinking about the plight of the Palestinians, this same letter came back to my mind.

As I think of those Israelis who are intensely discomfited by the actions of their state, who feel those actions have been immoral, but who are savaged by their own and called traitors.

Romney was one of those. And Stapely was part of the old guard who couldn't stand that liberal position. Blacks with civil rights???

Now in 2008, Palestinians with civil rights???

"Romney was one of those?" You are basing this on what? A Wikipedia article stating that after he received the Stapely letter he stepped up his support for the Civil Rights Act? I ventur that Wiki article was probably a Mitt Romney campaign plant. The assertion is as a practical matter unprovable. Do you regard the Stapely letter as a savaging of George Romney?

The Romneys were not courageouse on this issue. There is no evidence that they opposed the priesthood ban. None. The Stapely letter only addresses Romney's support for the 1964 Civil Rights ACt. Why didn't he release the Stapely letter in 1964? The letter got released recently by the Mitt Romney campaign as an indirect effort to quell controversy over this issue. Mitt never publically addressed the ban even though called upon to do so. If his father in fact did oppose the priesthood ban in secret (again, no evidence of that), and never announced his views, what good was it, and what was so courageoud about it? He was cowardly on the issue. I bet he supported the 1964 Act because he had to to be politically viable just like his son took liberal positions as governor of Massachusettes that he later repudiated.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

"Romney was one of those?" You are basing this on what? A Wikipedia article stating that after he received the Stapely letter he stepped up his support for the Civil Rights Act? I ventur that Wiki article was probably a Mitt Romney campaign plant. The assertion is as a practical matter unprovable. Do you regard the Stapely letter as a savaging of George Romney?

The Romneys were not courageouse on this issue. There is no evidence that they opposed the priesthood ban. None. The Stapely letter only addresses Romney's support for the 1964 Civil Rights ACt. Why didn't he release the Stapely letter in 1964? The letter got released recently by the Mitt Romney campaign as an indirect effort to quell controversy over this issue. Mitt never publically addressed the ban even though called upon to do so. If his father in fact did oppose the priesthood ban in secret (again, no evidence of that), and never announced their views, what good was it, and what was so courageoud about it? He was cowardly on the issue. I bet he supported the 1964 Act because he had to to be politically viable just like his son took liberal positions as governor of Massachusettes that he later repudiated.

I didn't read this. Please let me know if there is a point I need to respond to.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

2) I don't agree that JS was racist. The one actual citation (courtesy Lebowski, I think) actually seems pretty progressive for 1850. No response to this, SU?

If he was a prophet of God why are we apologizing for his racism in this manner? A contemporary of his, Henry David Thoreau, was a slavery abolitionist, favored full equality of women including women's suffrage, and in every way spoke of these issues consistent with our current public virtue in 2008. He was the father of the modern environmental movement, and he could write well. This is what I would expect from a 19th Century prophet of God.

In any event, JS created the Book of Abraham, the source of the Priesthood ban.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The Romneys were not courageouse on this issue. There is no evidence that they opposed the priesthood ban. None.

My granny was 1/2 Romney (George Romney's first cousin), and she opposed the priesthood ban. She was also President Kimball's sister-in-law, and she told Kimball she opposed the priesthood ban at family gatherings. Kimball responded by saying that he prayed about it every day.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

If he was a prophet of God why are we apologizing for his racism in this manner? A contemporary of his, Henry David Thoreau, was a slavery abolitionist, favored full equality of women including women's suffrage, and in every way spoke of these issues consistent with our current public virtue in 2008. He was the father of the modern environmental movement, and he could write well. This is what I would expect from a 19th Century prophet of God.

In any event, JS created the Book of Abraham, the source of the Priesthood ban.

racist? They could still join the church. BTW......are Catholics bigoted since they don't allow female priests?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

As I have been reading and thinking about the plight of the Palestinians, this same letter came back to my mind.

As I think of those Israelis who are intensely discomfited by the actions of their state, who feel those actions have been immoral, but who are savaged by their own and called traitors.

Romney was one of those. And Stapely was part of the old guard who couldn't stand that liberal position. Blacks with civil rights???

Now in 2008, Palestinians with civil rights???

That analogy is strained beyond all reason. Try again.

[MikeWaters]

the plight of African-Americans and the plight of Palestinians is so dissimilar?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by exUte

racist? They could still join the church. BTW......are Catholics bigoted since they don't allow female priests?

This is the worst post ever written.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Solon

This is the worst post ever written.

You must have a problem with long-term memory, not that I'm agreeing with exUte.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

the plight of African-Americans and the plight of Palestinians is so dissimilar?

Yes, the plight is completely different, other than in the very broad sense that both are or were oppressed.