Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bernard Gui

A Coming Out Party in Provo

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We were aware of Marchant and Wallace. As I said, they were widely thought of as looks and anomalies, noisy but harmless. 

By contrast, the protests against BYU athletic teams in those days of widespread militancy on college campuses were scary. If the Brethren were disposed to cave in to social pressure, they would have done it then. 

USU78 has given the most intelligent and informed  contribution to this discussion in linking the advent of the 1978 revelation to the temple construction in Brazil. Determining lineage there would have been extremely difficult and would have brought big problems in staffing the temple with local workers. 

Doesn't that assume that top leadership was identical in the late 60's and late 70's. Same ultimate decision makers.

Also, it doesn't seem to take into account the cumulative effect of protests over time, even on the same individuals.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Doesn't that assume that top leadership was identical in the late 60's and late 70's. Same ultimate decision makers.

Also, it doesn't seem to take into account the cumulative effect of protests over time, even on the same individuals.

Not identical, no, but largely the same. Turnover in the Quorum of the Twelve is not that rapid. And institutional memory is a strong thing. 

Cumulative effect is totally speculative. One could as easily assume that weathering the crises of the radical chic era gave the Brethren confidence that it could be done again later, and so on indefinitely. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Wade Englund said:

Having listened to the speech, I applaud it as well.  I am all for encouraging people to rise above their challenges, become a better version of themselves, and continue on the Savior's path to exaltation. And, in today's climate, I particularly hope this for homosexuals.

Too many homosexuals and seemingly well intended supporters of homosexuality,  are following the destructive path of pop culture. It is refreshing to hear one of their own choose a different path.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I’ve not heard or read the speech. I assume from your comment that the speaker expressed or at least implied his determination to continue to live the law of God with regard to chastity despite the difficulty of the burden he bears in so doing by reason of his orientation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We were aware of Marchant and Wallace. As I said, they were widely thought of as kooks and anomalies, noisy but harmless. 

By contrast, the protests against BYU athletic teams in those days of widespread militancy on college campuses were scary. If the Brethren were disposed to cave in to social pressure, they would have done it then. 

USU78 has given the most intelligent and informed  contribution to this discussion in linking the advent of the 1978 revelation to the temple construction in Brazil. Determining lineage there would have been extremely difficult and would have brought big problems in staffing the temple with local workers. 

I can respect that, Scott.  My responses were mainly regarding the protests that most definitely were still taking place and that were receiving national attention (responding to Kenngo's initial post about how they'd peaked before the late 1970's).

Like I stated earlier, I believe there were several contributing factors.  I believe the situation in Brazil was definitely one of those.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Doesn't that assume that top leadership was identical in the late 60's and late 70's. Same ultimate decision makers.

Also, it doesn't seem to take into account the cumulative effect of protests over time, even on the same individuals.

Exactly.  But some really have a problem seeing how the members or the public have an affect on change and only want to believe it comes from revelation.  I don't understand why it can't be both and I believe they can work as combined factors for change.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Here are just a few of the protests taking place in the 1970's regarding the Priesthood ban:

 

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/4237266/lds_scoutmaster_byron_marchant/

 

NY Times Article:  https://www.nytimes.com/1976/10/05/archives/morman-who-ordained-black-man-is-barred-from-church-conference.html

BYU protest:  http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/BSU_BYU.htm

Other protests: https://www.coloradoan.com/media/cinematic/gallery/23309601/1970-csu-students-protest-lds-church/

More here:  https://mormonheretic.org/2011/07/10/events-leading-up-to-the-1978-revelation/

 

I'm sure that not all members were even aware of them (as Scott has stated).  But they were taking place.  So the question really isn't whether or not there were public protests receiving national attention....IMO, the question is how much did those influence the decision to do away with the ban?  I believe there were most likely many reasons the ban was finally removed and that the bad PR and protests were contributing factors.  That's just my opinion and I know others will disagree.

And, after swimming through these, I come back to the actual participants in that there room where the OD2 proposal was considered in 1978,  Of the participants who actually spoke publicly or semi-publicly about the issue, who mentioned protests as being the proximate cause (as you imply) or even a contributing cause?

That's an official CFR.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 11:36 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Here's what gets me about this whole thing.  There was no need to come out.  I've never come out as a heterosexual. 

If a person is living within the laws of the Lord, of course he/she will be in favor with God.  I don't need to know that either.

I live and work in the San Francisco bay area.  I know many gay people, some are clients.  None go around telling the world about their sexuality.  No need.  People aren't stupid, they know. 

I really don't get the compulsion to tell everyone about one's sexuality.  Any one important in this person's life already knew.

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Doesn't that assume that top leadership was identical in the late 60's and late 70's. Same ultimate decision makers.

Also, it doesn't seem to take into account the cumulative effect of protests over time, even on the same individuals.

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Exactly.  But some really have a problem seeing how the members or the public have an affect on change and only want to believe it comes from revelation.  I don't understand why it can't be both and I believe they can work as combined factors for change.

If the mix of susceptibility to popular pressure, human fallibility and divine revelation among the protesters generally matches that of the Brethren, protesting wouldn’t make any difference toward change. The field of ideas is much broader than the protesters and the "eldership"; it includes the general membership and the world at large who are also susceptible to popular pressure, suffer human fallibility and experience divine revelation. Each one chooses which, and which balance, of these three things he spends his time cultivating given his covenants and calling, and that is between him and the Lord.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

Here's what gets me about this whole thing.  There was no need to come out.  I've never come out as a heterosexual. 

If a person is living within the laws of the Lord, of course he/she will be in favor with God.  I don't need to know that either.

I live and work in the San Francisco bay area.  I know many gay people, some are clients.  None go around telling the world about their sexuality.  No need.  People aren't stupid, they know. 

I really don't get the compulsion to tell everyone about one's sexuality.  Any one important in this person's life already knew.

Haven't read it yet, but given the summaries it sounds like he used his own life's biggest struggle to show he could relate to others who experienced difficulties in their lives.

It would be like me using my health issues as an example when the majority of people never feel the need to bring up their health because it isn't seen as a major struggle for them.

Now if I went around introducing myself as Cal R with the major sleep disorder without regard to where and to whom I was talking...that would be weird (I have known people who do that, one person would inform total strangers after Church in the lobby or parking lot she had been abused as a child and her family had rejected her, etc).

Edited by Calm
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Of the participants who actually spoke publicly or semi-publicly about the issue, who mentioned protests as being the proximate cause (as you imply) or even a contributing cause?

That's an official CFR.

You are issuing a CFR for something I never stated.  I have not claimed that "the participants who actually spoke publicly or semi-publicly about the issue" "mentioned protests as being the proximate cause" "or even a contributing cause".  Those are your words.

I've only stated that I believe (or IMO) the protests were one of the contributing factors.  I've also stated that I respect other's opinions who believe they were not.

Quote

I believe there were most likely many reasons the ban was finally removed and that the bad PR and protests were contributing factors.  That's just my opinion and I know others will disagree.

 

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Exactly.  But some really have a problem seeing how the members or the public have an affect on change and only want to believe it comes from revelation.  I don't understand why it can't be both and I believe they can work as combined factors for change.

This is how I feel too.  I think many things influence change and progress within the church.  I hope the members (and public issues) have a voice and affect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You are issuing a CFR for something I never stated.  I have not claimed that "the participants who actually spoke publicly or semi-publicly about the issue" "mentioned protests as being the proximate cause" "or even a contributing cause".  Those are your words.

I've only stated that I believe (or IMO) the protests were one of the contributing factors.  I've also stated that I respect other's opinions who believe they were not.

 

Is your belief predicated on the fundamental unreliability of the ones who spoke to the issue that were actually in the room then?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I do hope that in 40 years (or less), members will be discussing a change in regards to SSM and temple sealings for gay couples as a positive thing just like we’re discussing the lifting of the priesthood ban.

Now that would be awesome, imo

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

You can believe this if I helps you sleep at night ... 

This is your idea of good-faith dialogue?  "Anyone who believes what you believe should have trouble sleeping at night"?  You can't simply be mistaken; you can't simply see things differently than I do; you should have trouble sleeping at night.  OK.  I'm out.  Ya'all have fun.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, JulieM said:

I do hope that in 40 years (or less), members will be discussing a change in regards to SSM and temple sealings for gay couples as a positive thing just like we’re discussing the lifting of the priesthood ban.

Now that would be awesome, imo

Hopefully polygamy will be back and a whole lot of other things will be taken off the sin list.  I would like all my sins to be taken off the list.  That would make my life a whole lot easier and its only fair. 

Edited by carbon dioxide

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Hopefully polygamy will be back and a whole lot of other things will be taken off the sin list.  I would like all my sins to be taken off the list.  That would make my life a whole lot easier and its only fair. 

Do you think polygamy is a sin?

Or only not if God or the Prophet says it’s not?

 

Edited by JulieM

Share this post


Link to post

I hope I can be sealed to multiple husbands. 

;) 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I hope I can be sealed to multiple husbands. 

;) 

Are you taking volunteers? :D:rofl:  :D 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Are you taking volunteers? :D:rofl:  :D 

Lol! Applications are handed out on Fridays.  Must watch little house reruns and clean catbox(es) willingly.   My husband gets selection rights. 😂

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Lol! Applications are handed out on Fridays.  Must watch little house reruns and clean catbox(es) willingly.   My husband gets selection rights. 😂

My wife says she has 3 cats.

When folks ask:  How many cats do you have?  I say:  3 too many. 

But guess who feeds, waters, and cleans-up after them? 

Guess who has to take time off work to take them to the vet?

Guess who worries when one of them acts a little "off"?

Apparently, "Guess Who" loves them as much (or more) than his wife...

How in the world did this happen...?!!!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Apparently it was 15 minutes of fame that you remember 40 years later

It was the horrendous cost (in my estimation) of the brief moment of fame, and not the fame itself, that made it memorable 40 years later--that and a chance meeting where I got to take my picture with her..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, JulieM said:

Wade, that’s interesting (I mean that).  But what’s being discussed from what I’ve seen on this thread are the specific protests against the priesthood ban and if they helped get rid of the ban.  Comparisons have been made to whether the same public pressures are causing changes with our leaders about the gay issue and SSM.  

I think it does contribute but I also believe the leaders pray about any changes especially on this topic!  But they do listen to the members.

What you are intimating makes sense. on one level. 

However, my comment was not only in support of the notion that the civil rights issues (including Blacks and the priesthood) were on the wane, rather than at their peak, being eclipsed and displaced by the women's movement, and was thus less likely to have brought pressure to bear than when things were at their peak,;but it also underscored how even more pressure was being brought at the time regarding women's issues (including women and the priesthood), and yet the policy about women and the priesthood has remained unchanged, thus strongly suggesting that changes in the priesthood weren't the result of public pressure, but rather the will of God in His due time.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve not heard or read the speech. I assume from your comment that the speaker expressed or at least implied his determination to continue to live the law of God with regard to chastity despite the difficulty of the burden he bears in so doing by reason of his orientation. 

It wasn't spelled out, but indirectly implied through a charitable reading.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, JulieM said:

I do hope that in 40 years (or less), members will be discussing a change in regards to SSM and temple sealings for gay couples as a positive thing just like we’re discussing the lifting of the priesthood ban.

Now that would be awesome, imo

I honor your desire for all people to be blessed and happy.

When Blacks gained their civil rights and later the priesthood, they have progressed spectacularly, not just in the U.S., but throughout the world, most particularly through the spreading of the Church in Africa.

However, as homosexuals have received state sanction for their relationships (first through domestic partnerships and later through radically redefining "marriage"),, thus effectively normalizing them,  and saw a remarkable increase in public acceptance (now the majority opinion), and celebration of their orientation, they have seen a marked increase in STD's,  AIDS, gay-related illnesses and general physical unwellness, suicides, gay-on-gay violence (which far surpasses hate crime statistics), gay teen pregnancies (I know, it doesn't make sense, but there it is),  gay mental illness, broken relationships, increased infidelity, etc. The better things seemed to be made for them, they became worse off. (I can provide statistics if you would like)

What do you suppose is the difference between the two groups. (Hint: the one has nothing to do with sin, and the other has everything to do with sin)

The point being, people have assumed that they are making homosexuals happier by indulging their sexual proclivities, but in the end they are making them more miserable. 

This being the case, if people really want to see homosexuals happy, the last thing they would be clamoring for in relation to the Church,  is the very thing that increased their misery through the state.

Not so awesome, IMO.

Thanks -Wade Englund-

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...