Mormon apostle's racist letter to George Romney

[christianley]

This is an interesting view into Mormon ideas about race in the 1960’s:

boston.com/news/daily/24/delbert_stapley.pdf

 

[twopekinguys]

Wow, very enlightening.

While he does state he is not speaking officially for the lds church, you have to wonder how that thinking impacted his duties/service to them. You also have to wonder why a letter supposedly reporting “personal” views was written on church letterhead.

I also notice that Mr. Romney provided a hand written response to the letter. I would have loved to have read that as well.

Thanks for the very informative post. To me, it reinforces the fact that the priesthood ban for blacks was more politically motivated then spiritual, since this letter dates well into the civil rights period.

 

[Marie5890]

I read it and wanted to throw up…

 

[SteveVH]

This is an interesting view into Mormon ideas about race in the 1960’s:

boston.com/news/daily/24/delbert_stapley.pdf

Well, all I can say is that this made me sick to my stomach. Other than that I am without words.

 

[Publisher]

The letter seems to sum up the views of many…if not most…“white” people pre-civil rights movement. This man was a product of his time…he expressed view that a great many of “Christians”…both Protestant and Catholics held concerning our African American brothers and sisters.

It was not until 1967 that “Loving vs Virginia” allowed non caucasians to marry caucasians…from Maine to California inter-racial marriage was restricted in one way or another until this hallmark law suit.

Racism is and never was only a Mormon issue.

 

[christianley]

The letter seems to sum up the views of many…if not most…“white” people pre-civil rights movement. This man was a product of his time…he expressed view that a great many of “Christians”…both Protestant and Catholics held concerning our African American brothers and sisters.

It was not until 1967 that “Loving vs Virginia” allowed non caucasians to marry caucasians…from Maine to California inter-racial marriage was restricted in one way or another until this hallmark law suit.

Racism is and never was only a Mormon issue.

I agree that many white people held this view in the early 60s – my non-Mormon father was among them. But they weren’t claiming to be apostles of Jesus Christ.

 

[Publisher]

I agree that many white people held this view in the early 60s – my non-Mormon father was among them. But they weren’t claiming to be apostles of Jesus Christ.

I’m not sure that claiming to be an apostle frees one from prejudice and bigotry…no more than being a Catholic or Protestant does. George Romeny appeared to warrant a letter from a GC to “correct” his “liberal” views. I wonder how many of our “befores” at this time in history would fare as well if their racial beliefs were brought to light? Being an apostle doesn’t free one from 'racist" views…even Peter wouldn’t eat with Gentiles…so much so that Paul “withstood him face to face” for such views.

Even James and John were rebuked for wanting to call down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritans from what I remember…being an apostle doesn’t free one from such beliefs it would seem

 

[Ahimsa]

I agree that many white people held this view in the early 60s – my non-Mormon father was among them. But they weren’t claiming to be apostles of Jesus Christ.

I can show you Baptists today who believe that their particular church (in some particular town, in a particular state, even) is the only true church in the world. There are many ways that one can “claim to be an apostle of Christ”.

 

[Telstar]

I’m not really surprised by the letter, nor by the sentiments of the author of it. Racism existed as much, if not more, back then as it does now, and sadly, it wasn’t just coming from Mormons. But, it was clearly taught by their church that blacks were considered to be far ‘inferior’ to whites. The thing that bothered me most was that he portrayed God as being the promoter of that kind of thought by claiming that it was inspired by Him in a ‘revelation’ to Joseph Smith. That in itself would certainly be enough to give me pause to question if any of his ‘revelations’ were coming from his own personal prejudices, rather than from God.

If I were a Mormon, I might want to at least reassess my beliefs in the founder of the church, if not in the entire religion. It certainly makes it more clear to me that Joseph Smith was the one that created the church from his own delusions and twisted ideas about God, including the promotion of his own personal prejudices in his ‘doctrines’, as if God would ever approve of such prejudices.

Early Christians certainly didn’t hold onto any such prejudice when they were spreading the Gospel, as their examples of preaching to every kind of people in that area of the world, including to those in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa, shows. They also established churches there, with their own Priests and Bishops that were Baptized and ordained for that purpose. How does the Mormon faith explain those facts, clearly established in the Bible?

God is colorblind when it comes to His children. He created them all. He doesn’t separate them by their outward appearances that are a result of their ecological area and climate, but by what’s hidden in their hearts. This letter clearly shows a completely different view of God’s love than what the Bible teaches.

JMHO

 

[Ahimsa]

It certainly makes it more clear to me that Joseph Smith was the one that created the church from his own delusions and twisted ideas about God, including the promotion of his own personal prejudices in his ‘doctrines’, as if God would ever approve of such prejudices.

Actually, Joseph ordained one or two African-Americans as priests, and, as far as I know, the pervasive idea of scripturally based African inferiority developed during the Brigham Young years, years which, of course, the Southern Baptists (among others) were saying the same things about African-Americans. I haven’t seen any evidence that Smith himself supported such notions.

 

[twopekinguys]

It was Elija Abel that Joseph gave the priesthood too, and that Brigham Young took away. Elijah was also sealed to Joseph as a servant.

If you read the mormon history of the church, you will find that JS actually wanted to buy up slaves, “free them”, and force them to fight in the civil war. It is in volume 5 or 6, I can’t remember which.

Some kind of forward thinker there, wasn’t he!!

 

[Ahimsa]

If you read the mormon history of the church, you will find that JS actually wanted to buy up slaves, “free them”…

This was what some anti-slavery proponents wanted to do, in order to end slavery: purchase the slaves from the slavemasters, and then simply free them. But many other abolitionists objected, since purchasing slaves would be tantamount to agreeing to the morality of slaveholding.

 

[Ahimsa]

…and force them to fight in the civil war.

No need to force. Many would have gladly fought in the Civil War – for the Union, of course. (Though some few Blacks did wear Confederate uniforms.)

 

[Georgia]

Give thanks to God that we have grown and moved away from such terrible racist thoughts!

 

[Lefty0908]

Give thanks to God that we have grown and moved away from such terrible racist thoughts!

Amen to that, Georgia.

I do agree that we make a mistake when, with the advantage of hindsight, we attempt to impose our 2011 societal standards on events in the past without attempting to at least understand (though not necessarily sympathize with) what went on.

For example, would we apply the same “racist standards” to Peter in the 11th chapter of Acts? I doubt it.

But I, for one, am glad that’s behind us. My own opinion is that white people weren’t ready for Blacks to have the priesthood, and that until we, as a people, softened our hearts, the Lord wasn’t going to allow it to happen.

I’m a “Bible Belt Mormon” and had a very dear friend who was Black and of the same opinion. He was an older man who would have been a teen-ager in the 1930’s. He once told me that had he been a Mormon missionary back then going door-to-door like our missionaries do, and told white people that he was preaching the truth, that he would have been lynched. Pretty sobering.

For a very good perspective on all this, I’d suggest the fine biography Lengthen Your Stride, The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball, p.195-245. The implications and results of the revelation lifting this ban on my church’s membership in Africa have been astonishing.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Amen to that, Georgia.

I do agree that we make a mistake when, with the advantage of hindsight, we attempt to impose our 2011 societal standards on events in the past without attempting to at least understand (though not necessarily sympathize with) what went on.

For example, would we apply the same “racist standards” to Peter in the 11th chapter of Acts? I doubt it.

But I, for one, am glad that’s behind us. My own opinion is that white people weren’t ready for Blacks to have the priesthood, and that until we, as a people, softened our hearts, the Lord wasn’t going to allow it to happen.

I’m a “Bible Belt Mormon” and had a very dear friend who was Black and of the same opinion. He was an older man who would have been a teen-ager in the 1930’s. He once told me that had he been a Mormon missionary back then going door-to-door like our missionaries do, and told white people that he was preaching the truth, that he would have been lynched. Pretty sobering.

For a very good perspective on all this, I’d suggest the fine biography Lengthen Your Stride, The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball, p.195-245. The implications and results of the revelation lifting this ban on my church’s membership in Africa have been astonishing.

Was going to let this go,but…

The issue with the LDS priesthood ban is that it was claimed to have come from divine authority. To this day, the LDS Church maintains this stance. No apology has ever been given for a mistake caused by human fallibility.

Comparing to Acts, yes, that is good, let’s look at it and see the outcome. Something 180 degree of the Mormon priesthood ban. Why? Because the Council of Jerusalem had the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Also, circumcision was a sign of the Jewish covenant with God, which was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. So, if a comparison is going to be made, what is the sign of a priesthood ban based on race?

 

[Telstar]

Amen to that, Georgia.

I do agree that we make a mistake when, with the advantage of hindsight, we attempt to impose our 2011 societal standards on events in the past without attempting to at least understand (though not necessarily sympathize with) what went on.

For example, would we apply the same “racist standards” to Peter in the 11th chapter of Acts? I doubt it.

But I, for one, am glad that’s behind us. My own opinion is that white people weren’t ready for Blacks to have the priesthood, and that until we, as a people, softened our hearts, the Lord wasn’t going to allow it to happen.

I’m a “Bible Belt Mormon” and had a very dear friend who was Black and of the same opinion. He was an older man who would have been a teen-ager in the 1930’s. He once told me that had he been a Mormon missionary back then going door-to-door like our missionaries do, and told white people that he was preaching the truth, that he would have been lynched. Pretty sobering.

For a very good perspective on all this, I’d suggest the fine biography Lengthen Your Stride, The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball, p.195-245. The implications and results of the revelation lifting this ban on my church’s membership in Africa have been astonishing.

I’m sorry, but I just can’t let that subtle slam against Peter’s character go unanswered. Peter was not being racist when he had those visions. He was being stubborn in following Jesus’ early instructions to the Apostles to preach the Word, only to the Jews.

Matthew 10 [5] These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not. [6] But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [7] And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

He was doing exactly as he had been told because he didn’t know any different. At that time, he also thought that the Old Law was still to be observed by all, including converts. The visions were to show him that, now, the Gentiles were also to be welcomed into the fold, and observing the Old Law was no longer necessary, because Jesus had fulfilled all of those obligations and had established His New Covenant, to continue from that point on in the Breaking of the Bread. Peter was previously unaware that the inheritance of Israel had been ‘passed over’ to the followers of Jesus, including the Gentiles, by the Jews rejection of the Messiah that had come to save them, as God had promised.

I don’t think Peter’s misunderstanding was motivated by racism in the least. He was being a good Jew, and still trying to follow the Law as he had always known it to be. The New Testament is the Testament of the love and mercy of God. All of the old ways, that had been further embellished upon by the Jews, were to be transformed into the New Law. After his visions, Peter realized his error and humbly corrected it, immediately. If he was truly racist in the least, he still would have objected to allowing Gentiles to be converted. Please, don’t try to compare Peter’s faithfulness to the instructions Jesus had given him, to JS or BY’s real prejudice against the ‘dark and loathsome’. There is absolutely no comparison between their actions, at all.

Brigham Young, really was a racist, and I’m not so sure that Joseph Smith wasn’t racist, either. He wrote the BoM, PoGP and D&C, all of which contained many racist references (most of which have been expunged from public records).

The First Book of Nephi: 23 And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.

I really don’t think it was all BY’s doing at all. He and JS were clearly on the same page with most of their ideas and beliefs. They both wanted there to be a separation of races because they considered whites to be superior to all, including the American Indians. They may have treated them well, but that was mostly so they could exploit them for whatever they needed, and to avoid having to fight with them over the land that they wanted to keep for themselves. They merely tolerated them because they knew the Indians could wipe them all out if they didn’t. They were afraid of them because they outnumbered them, but they still treated them as inferiors.

God never would have given any of them instructions that were racist in the first place. God is not racist. He separates people by what’s in their hearts, not by the color of their skin. Those that follow Jesus should only have love in their hearts, for Him, and for all of their neighbors, without exception. A hateful or vengeful heart that seeks to curse others, instead of blessing them, run the risk that they will never get to see God in Heaven.

**Matthew 25:**40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

 

[SteveVH]

But I, for one, am glad that’s behind us. My own opinion is that white people weren’t ready for Blacks to have the priesthood…

There were certainly blacks in the Catholic priesthood at this time, although Catholics were placed pretty much in the same category as blacks in this country during that period.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Let’s not forget about their feelings about the Jews either!

I know that many people hold a high regard for the Jews and consider their way of life worthy of respect at the present time. This is why I am hurrying to pull up this fatal notion by the roots …] the synagogue is not only a whorehouse and a theatre: it is also a den of thieves and a haunt of wild animals …] not the cave of a wild animal merely, but of an unclean wild animal.

When Jews are admitted out of pity into familiar intercourse with Christians, they repay their hosts, according to the popular proverb, after the fashion of the rat hidden in the sack, or the snake in the bosom, or of the burning brand in one’s lap.

The Jewish people fell from the heights because of their faithlessness and condemned their Redeemer to a shameful death. Their godlessness has assumed such forms that, for the salvation of our own people, it becomes necessary to prevent their disease. Besides usury, through which Jews everywhere have sucked dry the property of impoverished people, they are accomplices of thieves and robbers; and the most damaging aspect of the matter is that they allure the unsuspecting through magical incantations, superstition, and witchcraft to the Synagogue of Satan and boast of being able to predict the future. We have carefully investigated how this revolting sect abuses the name of Christ and how harmful they are to those whose life is threatened by their deceit. On account of these and other serious matters, and because of the gravity of their crimes which increase day to day more and more, We order that, within 90 days, all Jews in our entire earthly realm must depart these regions.

The Jews are cruel taskmasters, not only working the farmers harshly and forcing them to carry excessive loads, but also whipping them for punishment. So it has come about that those poor farmers are the subjects of the Jews, submissive to their will and power. Furthermore, although the power to punish lies with the Christian official, he must comply with the commands of the Jews and inflict the punishments they desire. If he doesn’t, he would lose his post. Therefore the tyrannical orders of the Jews have to be carried out … some households of the great have employed a Jew as ‘Superintendent of the Household’; in this capacity, they not only administer domestic and economic matters, but they also ceaselessly exhibit and flaunt authority over the Christians they are living with. It is now even commonplace for Christians and Jews to intermingle anywhere.

Concerning the prohibition of usury and base gain by the clergy; and concerning the prohibition against conversing or eating with the Jews. No priest shall set money out at interest or take unfair profit or be friendly or sociable with Jews; nor should anyone take food or drink with the Jews; for if this was decreed by the holy apostles, it is incumbent upon the faithful to obey their command; and the synod shall excommunicate any one who does not comply with this order.

For God ordained ‘two peoples and two nations’. Beyond doubt, through the edict of the divine utterance, the prior and ‘older’ people - that is, the Jewish - must necessarily serve the ‘younger’; and the ‘younger’ people - that is, the Christian - overcome the ‘older’. For thus has the ‘younger’ - that is, posterior - people overcome the ‘older people’, while it attains the grace of divine favour, from which Israel has been divorced.

The Jew will live under the yoke of slavery without end. God hates the Jews.

Ungrateful for favors and forgetful of benefits, the Jews return insult for kindness and impious contempt for goodness. They ought to know the yoke of perpetual enslavement because of their guilt. See to it that the perfidious Jews never in the future grow insolent, but that they always suffer publicly the shame of their sin in servile fear.

We declare that the evidence of Christians is to be accepted against Jews in every case, since Jews employ their own witnesses against Christians - and that those who prefer Jews to Christians in this matter are to lie under anathema, since Jews ought to be slaves to Christians and to be supported by them on the grounds of humanity alone.

 

[Outspoken]

Let’s not forget about their feelings about the Jews either!

It would be nice if there were sources posted for those quotes so people can see where they come from, and read them in context.

I wonder if a certain ‘celebrity’ has ever read any of that? It does give one pause as to why he’s going to Israel, if he has. :ehh: