Delbert L. Stapley Letter

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by grapevine

If you believe that the church is run by revelation than you trust it is the lord's priesthood and he gives it to whoever he wishes. If you don't believe we have that authority anyway why worry about something you don't really think we have in the first place.

I think he sincerely likes a lot of members. He would like to see them as enlightened as he is. Kind of like what missionaries do.

Maybe he would like to see things become more democratic and open and then he could run for President of the church.

I wouldn't vote for him though. He probably would do away with BYU athletics.

[SeattleUte]

This letter confirms much of what we knew, but there are two revelations to be gleaned from it. First, the purveyors of the priesthood ban including BY took their lead and instruction from Joseph Smith's sayings. This was not evil introduced by Smith's successors after his demise.

Second, Delbert Stapely was not a stupid man, at least in terms of education and IQ. The letter is well written, and evinces an understanding of the nuanced issues surrounding the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Though today we take for granted that the government can prohibit discrimination by private individuals in private property, in truth it was to some a radical idea in 1964, and there was a lot of associated controversy. (The Bill of Rights does not apply to private conduct, which is regulated by the states, generally, unless the Constitution makes an exception.) You may recall that Robert Bork opposed the Act on essentially strict construction and libertarian principles. Indeed, Congress had to strain to find a basis in the Constitution for the federal government banning segregation by private persons in private property. Ultimately, the whole basis for the Civil Rights Act was the Constitution's grant to Congress of the power to regulate "interstate commerce."

Really these two facts--that Joseph's utterances led to the ban, and Delbert Stapely was an educated, intelligent man--are pretty chilling. The second fact demonstrates religion at its worst. People believe what they want to believe regardless of intelligence and education.

Clearly there was much for LDS racists such as Stapely to fear from the ban. The next step would be denying tax exempt status to the LDS church or similar punitive measure because of the ban. Today it's illegal for a religion to smoke marijuana as a sacrament despite the First Amendment.

[il Padrino Ute]

I personally believe that there were racist reasons for the Priesthood ban. Of course, I also believe that one would be hard pressed to find anyone in the US who wasn't a racist in the 1830s. People today tend to make the mistake that abolitionists were not racists.

[Frank Ryan]

Originally Posted by grapevine

Not too many but a few.

probably a good thing

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Adam

He was an ugly racist. Interesting he was in the hospital and not a participant in the revelation that confirmed the decision to extend the Priesthood/Temple blessings to the Blacks.

Damnit don't call it a revelation.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This letter confirms much of what we knew, but there are two revelations to be gleaned from it. First, the purveyors of the priesthood ban including BY took their lead and instruction from Joseph Smith's sayings. This was not evil introduced by Smith's successors after his demise.

Oops. Or maybe it was.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Second, Delbert Stapely was not a stupid man, at least in terms of education and IQ. The letter is well written, and evinces an understanding of the nuanced issues surrounding the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Though today we take for granted that the government can prohibit discrimination by private individuals in private property, in truth it was to some a radical idea in 1964, and there was a lot of associated controversy. (The Bill of Rights does not apply to private conduct, which is regulated by the states, generally, unless the Constitution makes an exception.) You may recall that Robert Bork opposed the Act on essentially strict construction and libertarian principles. Indeed, Congress had to strain to find a basis in the Constitution for the federal government banning segregation by private persons in private property. Ultimately, the whole basis for the Civil Rights Act was the Constitution's grant to Congress of the power to regulate "interstate commerce."

Really these two facts--that Joseph's utterances led to the ban, and Delbert Stapely was an educated, intelligent man--are pretty chilling. The second fact demonstrates religion at its worst. People believe what they want to believe regardless of intelligence and education.

Clearly there was much for LDS racists such as Stapely to fear from the ban. The next step would be denying tax exempt status to the LDS church or similar punitive measure because of the ban. Today it's illegal for a religion to smoke marijuana as a sacrament despite the First Amendment.

SU, old buddy, sometimes less is more. This letter speaks for itself. You don't need to editorialize or elucidate in order to make a case here. Further, your claim that the letter is evidence of Stapley's intellect really has me scratching my head. Wow.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Oops. Or maybe it was.

What do you think? It looks to me like Apostle Stapely is citing Joseph Smith's sayings as his authority. Contending that all black slaves should be sent back to their ancestral aboriginal villages wasn't exactly the enlightened view leading up to the Civil War, now was it. Moreover, what a curious position for the self-proclaimed prophet of the only true church to take, that all these people should be put our of reach of said church. Face it, JS was a racist as well as a philanderer and molester of under-aged girls.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

SU, old buddy, sometimes less is more. This letter speaks for itself. You don't need to editorialize or elucidate in order to make a case here. Further, your claim that the letter is evidence of Stapley's intellect really has me scratching my head. Wow.

I agree the letter speaks for itself. I'm not editorializing or elucidating. I have a simple desire: That the LDS Church forthrightly address this issue, and express genuine regret. Until it does, it hasn't put its racist past behind it. Until it does, it will have no moral authority as far as I'm concerned. Pretending to the rank and file of Mormons that this was a policy maintained by God's elect that was ended by God through a revelation is reprehensible and an outlandish way to avoid moral responsiblity. It's cowardly. They are evincing they lack the courage of their convictions. Do you disagree with me that a forthright acknowledgement such as I have suggested would do wonders in terms of maturing the Church and enlightening its rank and file? But their evasion is worse than if they just made some bald assertion that God was behind the whole thing. Their silence speaks volumes. They're cowards.

As for my saying that Stapely was not a stupid man, bear in mind that my standard was very low. I said his letter was reasonably well written and he understood the arguments pro and con the 1964 Civil Rights Act. What I meant, implicitly, is that the kind of blind faith and crude racism he was expressing, includng stating that the civil rights proponent he knew was drowned by God, was the kind of drivel one would expect from an illiterate hunter gatherer in the bayous. Except for the racist content of his letter, his letter did not seem to be written by an uneducated or uninformed man.

He's your apostle. Why does it make you feel better to dismiss him as an ignoramus? Fawn Brody comments on this. The curious propensity of Mormons to excuse their leaders' bad behavior, particularly Joseph Smith's, or to try to exaggerate their achievements such as writing the Book of Mormon, by highlighting their purported lack of education or intelligence.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

What do you think? It looks to me like Apostle Stapely is citing Joseph Smith's sayings as his authority. Contending that all black slaves should be sent back to their ancestral aboriginal villages wasn't exactly the enlightened view leading up to the Civil War, now was it. Moreover, what a curious position for the self-proclaimed prophet of the only true church to take, that all these people should be put our of reach of said church. Face it, JS was a racist as well as a philanderer and molester of under-aged girls.

I don't believe JS ever advocated sending slaves back to their aboriginal lands, though at one point he did forward the idea of giving freed slaves the option of taking land in Mexico. If you have a source for the aboriginal land statement I'd be interested in reading it.

From a pamphlet promoting his run for President:

Petition, also, ye goodly inhabitants of the slave states, your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850, or now, and save the abolitionist from reproach and ruin, infamy and shame. Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands, and from the deduction of pay from the members of Congress. Break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire him to labor like other human beings; for "an hour of virtuous liberty on earth, is worth a whole eternity of bondage!"

http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1...4Smit.htm#pg01

[exUte]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Are you with me and find it more disturbing than Hall's F bomb or the scandals under Crowton.

Have the Hall bomb and the BYU football scandals printed in the NYTimes and then have the words of the Apostle in the NYTimes.

Which do you think non-members would find more troubling.

Keep in mind during the DOM presidency, there was a strong push to get the Church to announce public support for the John Birch society. Thank goodness, DOM knew better. He WAS inspired but he had lots of people around him that kept the pressure on for the status quo re: blacks and the priesthood.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by YOhio

I don't believe JS ever advocated sending slaves back to their aboriginal lands, though at one point he did forward the idea of giving freed slaves the option of taking land in Mexico. If you have a source for the aboriginal land statement I'd be interested in reading it.

From a pamphlet promoting his run for President:


http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1...4Smit.htm#pg01

I refer you to the Stapely letter and the works he very precisely cited. Joseph did propose sending them back to Africa at one time and I have read those words. I'm sure Stapely's paraphrase is correct. Really, JS was all over the map on slavery. He criticized abolitionists while residing in Missouri, apparently at least partly for political reasons.