Only For Those Who Were 30 Years Old And Up

[mormonnewb]

All in good time, first bishops,SPs,area Seventy, then apostle. I'm guessing another couple of decades. Us old guys remember what happens if the process moves too rapidly.

What does happen if the process moves too fast?

[mormonnewb]

I am glad you are here to tell us what our attitudes really are, and what we really think.

I am too because SOMEBODY has to tell the TRUTH. Perhaps the only thing more insulting than the priesthood ban is constantly hearing how all the saints cried tears of joy when it was lifted. Most saints didn't say a mumbling word about the ban (despite tons of outside resistance to bolster them) and then all of the sudden, everyone was "overjoyed" when it was lifted? This strains all logic and credulity.

Now, don't get me wrong. I know that each of you is an honorable person and is telling the truth as you remember it. But is it POSSIBLE that these beautiful memories from over 35 years ago might be somewhat different than the ugly realities of that time?

As I've gotten older, I've found that to be true for just about every aspect of my childhood. I remember almost everything better than it really was. In fact, just last night, I noticed that my 10-year-old had a pack of Pez candy in his room. I remembered how delicious this candy was as a kid, so I excited unwrapped the package and popped one into my mouth. It was FAR more distasteful than even the priesthood ban. Perhaps that explains why I hadn't lifted a finger to find this candy over the last 35 years. It was horrible then too, but I had fond memories of childhood in general and the two became blurred?

Is it POSSIBLE that some of your memories of that "joyous" time are similarly not nearly as delightful as you remember them to be?

[thesometimesaint]

Thanks for "keeping it real"', Brother!

As a "young buck," I have never met a person who has admitted to being opposed to the civil rights movement. Yet, the majority of white citizens were indeed opposed to civil rights (at least, until the early 1960s). How is it possible that I've never met one of these people? Did they all die out like the dinosaurs? Or are all people over the age of 60 liars? Or perhaps, it's because people tend to see the past through rose-colored glasses.

Now, I believe all of you about your recollections of the time, but I find it very hard to believe that MOST (or even very many) saints were awaiting blacks in the priesthood like Christmas. Most were probably indifferent (as was the case with civil rights). Given that most saints lived in all-white areas, it simply wouldn't be an issue that they thought about it.

Of course, some saints rejoiced at the news, but they would have rejoiced at ANY revelation from the prophet. For example, when the missionary age was reduced to 18, many saints rejoiced. However, it wasn't something that they had anxiously awaited. I certainly never heard anyone looking forward to "that long promised day."

Likewise, when OD3 allows for SSM in the Church, most saints will claim to be "overjoyed" by the revelation. Unfortunately, for us, we're not going to have the same luxury as our parents and grandparents to feign excitement, because there will be an Internet trail from FB, Twitter and message boards to record just how we felt about SSM. It's going to make for some interesting reading.

 

That's a mighty BIG BRUSH you are painting with there. I almost did not join the Church BECAUSE OF the race issue.

 

In fact it was accepted and implemented without so much as a hiccup.

 

PS; Don't hold your breath waiting for that OD3.

Edited March 2, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[CMZ]

Wow. Almost nobody really understands the topic. "Was it racist? Was it not racist?" That's a decent question, but it's not the best question. Racism is never good, but when people look at this issue through that lens only it distorts the true understanding of what happened.

[Coreyb]

Mormonweb, i think you underestimate the culture of loyalty to the brethren within mormonism. I see it as being very likely that many were waiting for and overjoyed when the ban was lifted, without openly voicing their discomfort with it prior to the fact.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Coreyb

[Calm]

I am too because SOMEBODY has to tell the TRUTH. Perhaps the only thing more insulting than the priesthood ban is constantly hearing how all the saints cried tears of joy when it was lifted. Most saints didn't say a mumbling word about the ban (despite tons of outside resistance to bolster them) and then all of the sudden, everyone was "overjoyed" when it was lifted? This strains all logic and credulity.

I don't think you understand the attitude of most of the Saints at the time.  It was more like opening up a new mission so that a group of people who had not had the opportunity to be baptized before were allowed to be baptized.  I have never heard someone complain because another got the opportunity to be baptized though I have no doubt there are a few out there who are disappointed when a specific person they don't like gets baptized and they protest in their heart if not out loud.

 

If there was someone who thought of the curse as applying to the individual and not the individual's distant ancestors (which was how it was always talked about around me which never made sense to me given the article of faith 2 and even if one accepted the contradiction, there was that apparent limit set on curses unto the fourth generation in the Bible, but then I didn't understand the context of those curses at that time), then even there it was seen as in the past, the previous life (the whole less valiant claim) and it was not about how that person lived their life in mortality…which is significantly different than how the issue of same sex attraction is seen since that is behaviour that is being chosen by the individual in the here and now.

 

Even if one was a racist and thought of blacks as less able, etc., would that prevent one from wanting to see them live a better, happier life?  I am undoubtedly prejudiced against someone out there but I don't know of anyone I don't want to be happier or to have the chance to live a better life.  It makes no sense to me to rejoice in someone being limited even if I were to accept it as part of the price of mortality.  So why wouldn't I rejoice if a limitation was removed?

 

If it was taught from the pulpit that the blessings that are promised women in the temple for the future are to be given to them in the here and now from now on and this was to be done through giving them the priesthood, I suspect many would be surprised, but most would still rejoice as that would be seen as a possible interpretation of doctrine even if unsuspected one.

 

Giving the priesthood to all worthy members would be much more likely to be comparable to giving the priesthood to all worthy males in the Church, shifting the view of same sex attraction to being acceptable would be closer to the idea of plural marriage becoming acceptable where there was quite a bit of disagreement and many saw polygyny as adultery which is of course a sin, but even there one had the history of polygyny in the Bible one could point to and the BoM teaching that if God commanded it, it was allowed so there was a way to argue based on past behaviour of those considered as having the teaching of prophets, etc…there is nothing comparable to that for same sex attraction in my opinion at this point.  This is not to say there will never be such possible 'hints' in the future, I just find it unlikely.

[Calm]

Mormonweb, i think you underestimate the culture of loyalty to the brethren within mormonism. I see it as being very likely that many were waiting for and overjoyed when the ban was lifted, without openly voicing their discomfort with it prior to the fact.

We are also taught that we are sent to mortality to have weaknesses, bear burdens, etc. and many interpreted limitation as a handicap which they saw as something that was given to an individual in order to learn some lesson in mortality, either for himself or for others to learn (just read stories in the Ensign about parents of disabled children, individuals growing up in harsh conditions, etc.)  While some may have seen the limitation of the priesthood as an appropriate burden to be borne because they assumed it was the Will of God, that would not prevent them from rejoicing when it was lifted just as they would rejoice when a blind man was given sight or a man who was paralyzed was able to walk again.

 

My experience was that the civil rights movement was seen as significantly different than the priesthood ban so one shouldn't assume that rejection or acceptance of the one meant for rejection or acceptance of the other.  People expect different things from the government than they do from their church and most Saints I talked to about civil rights at the time who were active against it verbalized it as government interference and I wouldn't be surprised to have heard the discussion in the decades prior to that time as phrased as more governmental context, only this time seeing it as individuals trying to pressure the government into doing something that was outside its dominion.

[Thinking]

Wow. Almost nobody really understands the topic. "Was it racist? Was it not racist?" That's a decent question, but it's not the best question. Racism is never good, but when people look at this issue through that lens only it distorts the true understanding of what happened.

 

Apparently there's another lens that will clear up what really happened. Where is that lens?

[wenglund]

Now, I believe all of you about your recollections of the time, but I find it very hard to believe that MOST (or even very many) saints were awaiting blacks in the priesthood like Christmas. Most were probably indifferent (as was the case with civil rights). Given that most saints lived in all-white areas, it simply wouldn't be an issue that they thought about it.

 

Having been an LDS growing up in all-white areas (in the North and Northwest U.S.) at the time in question, I can tell you that, as expected, you couldn't be more wrong.

 

During my childhood and youth, the airwaves were filled with racial striff and earnest public dialogue working towrds solutions.

 

There were also not a few movies that raised sensitivity for the black cause, like "To Sir with Love" and "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" and my favorite, "To Kill a Mocking Bird."

 

As best I could tell, the general mood was empathetic to civil rights and appauled by racists actions like those committed by the KKK.

 

For example, the all-white high school I attended in Bellevue, Wa., organized several exchange assemblies with all-black schools from the inner city of Seattle, with the intent of cross-sharing cultures and reducing racial tensions and inequality,

 

During that time, I had a job working for the amusement park at the Seattle Center along with several African-American acquaintences, and it just so happened that the 60's race-riots started at the bumper cars where I typically worked (I was off that day because it was Sunday), and spread back into black communitee, where they burned their own houses. This hit rather close to home for me, and lunch hour discussions with fellow employees for months thereafter tended to center on race relations, with unanimous sympathy for the plight of blacks. 

 

Then, during my freshmen year at Ricks College in 1970-71, I happened to become acquainted with the sole black student and football play, Paul (I forget his last name), and he and I used to sit together during assemblies. On one occassion, a female guest lecturor spoke about diversity, and began asking people to stand up who fit respective racial or ethnic demographics. When she finally asked for all the black students to rise, I saw Paul begrudgingly lift to his feet alone, and the audience spontaneously gave him a standing ovation--except for me. I didn't stand up because I knew Paul was uncomfortable being celebrated for the color of his skin, and preferred instead to be accepted like everyone else for who and what he was as a person. I recall having looked at each other during the applause and rolling our eyes, in a way acknowledging not only the sincere intent on the part of the studentbody in show of support and desire for racial equality, but their also not realizing that such racial equality would only occur if Paul wouldn't be singled out for his skin color, but treated the same as everyone else, and where the color of anyone's skin became virtually irrelevant.

 

For the most part, I beleive this has happened--except, that is, where the Civil Rights movement has morphed into the Uncivil Wrong movement, and where race-baiting and racial divisiveness still have some sway,

 

Anyway, I could go on and on with like examples, but I shant, except to mention that my older brother served a three-year mission in Brazil during the late 60's, where he came into frequent contact with blacks and people of mixed race, and upon returning he expressed a shared hope with other missionaries that the ban would one day be lifted.

 

I, on the other hand, served in South Texas, and was shocked at the overt racism on a few occasion sexhibited by several members (one in particular). The startling contrast between how I was raised--i.e. to respect people of all races, and what I observed in isolated pockets in the South (I served for a time just outside of Vidor Texas, where the last reported lynchings took place only a couple of years prior to my arrival, and even during my mission there was yet a billboard sign on the outskirts of that town which said "The Sun Never Sets on a N____R in Vidor"), was very off-putting, which tells me that the sentiment in the all-white communitees where I grews up wasn't racially indifferent, as claimed.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 3, 2014 by wenglund

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I was raised in a family that taught that the Priesthood would eventually be given to blacks; we just didn't know when, but looked forward to the day..

 

I was inactive at the time... 1978... but when the announcement came I thought...  well, at last, and viewed it as a welcome and joyous event.  Being inactive, I wasn't aware of the general reaction among members, but it was welcomed by my folks. 

 

GG

The odd thing for me is I remember it, even though not a member. I was living in Germany and it was in the "Stars and Strips" (the only newspaper in English)...a few months later I met some members and then the Elders.

[mormonnewb]

Having been an LDS growing up in all-white areas (in the North and Northwest U.S.), I can tell you that, as expected, you couldn't be more wrong.

During my childhood and yout, the airwaves were filled with racial striff and earnest public dialogue working towrds solutions. There were also not a few movies that raised sensitivity for the black cause, like "To Sir with Love" and "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" and my favorite, "To Kill a Mocking Bird."

As best I could tell, the general mood was empathetic to civil rights and appauled by racists actions like those committed by the KKK.

For example, the all-white high school I attended in Bellevue, Wa., organized several exchange assemblies with all-black schools from the inner city of Seattle, with the intent of cross-sharing cultures and reducing racial tensions and inequality,

Duringuring that time, I had a job working for the amusement park at the Seattle Center along with several African-American azquaintences, and it just so happened that the race-riots started at the bumper cars where I typically worked (I was off that day because it was Sunday), and spread back into black communitee. This hit rather close to home, and lunch hour discussions with fellow employees for months thereafter tended to center on race relations, with unanimous sympathy for the plight of blacks.

Then, during my freshmen year at Ricks College in 1970-71, I happened to become acquainted with the sole black student and football play, Paul (I forget his last name), and he and I used to sit together during assemblies. On one occassion, a female guest lecture spoke about diversity, and began asking people to stand up who fit respective racial or ethnic demographics. When she finally asked for all the black students to rise, I saw Paul begrudgingly rise alone, and the audience spontaneously gave him a standing ovation--except for me. I didn't stand up because I knew Paul was uncomfortable being celebrated for the color of his skin, and preferred instead to be accepted like everyone else for who and what he was as a person. I recall have looked at each other during the applause and rolling our eyes, in a way acknowledging not only the sincere intent on the part of the studentbody to show support and desire for racial equality, but whole also not realizing that such racial equality would only occur if Paul wouldn't be singled out for his skin color, but treated the same as everyone else and where the color of his skin became virtually irrelevant.

For the most part, I beleive this has happened--except, that is, where the Civil Rights movement has morphed into the Uncivil Wrong movement, and where race-baiting and racial divisiveness still have some sway,

Anyway, I could go on and on with like examples, but I shant, except to mention that my older brother served a three-year mission in Brazil during the late 60's, where he came into frequent contact with blacks and people of mixed race, and upon returning he expressed a shared hope with other missionaries that the ban would be lifted.

I, on the other hand, served in South Texas, and was shocked on only a few occasions at the overt racism exhibited by several members (one in particular). The startling contrast between how I was raised--i.e. to respect people of all races, and what I observed in isolated pockets in the South (I served for a time just outside of Vidor Texas, where the last reported lynchings took place only a couple of years prior to my arrival, and even during my mission there was yet a billboard sign on the outskirts of that town which said "The Sun Never Sets on a N____R in Vidor"), was very off-putting, which tells me that the sentiment in the all-white communitees where I grews up wasn't racially indifferent, as claimed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks for this guided tour of the fascinating (but irrelevant to this conversation) life of Wade Englund, as usual. I was questioning whether the saints really cried tears of joy after the announcement of the lifting of the ban.

What in the world did your race riot amusement park, only black guy in assembly or N-word billboard have to do with my rejection of the "post-announcement blubbering saint" phenomenon? If you were attempting to demonstrate that whites knew that there were blacks and that discrimination existed towards them, then yes, I will agree that whites were not completely ignorant of the world around them.

However, white saints living in all-white communities probably didn't give much consideration to the issue of blacks and priesthood. Why would they? If there were no blacks in the ward, the ban would be a non-issue on the ward level (and probably on the stake level as well). Why would they spend a great deal of time thinking about an issue that would have NO practical effect on their lives?

Edited March 3, 2014 by mormonnewb

[thesometimesaint]

Thanks for this guided tour of the fascinating (but irrelevant to this conversation) life of Wade Englund, as usual. I was questioning whether the saints really cried tears of joy after the announcement of the lifting of the ban.

What in the world did your race riot amusement park, only black guy in assembly or N-word billboard have to do with my rejection of the "post-announcement blubbering saint" phenomenon?

 

I and every member that I knew did.

 

What else would you expect after 36 years other than what people remember?

 

I've disagreed with Wade on any number of points, but it is not fair to claim he, or anyone else, never had feelings of great happiness with the lifting of the Ban.

[Flyonthewall]

I am too because SOMEBODY has to tell the TRUTH. Perhaps the only thing more insulting than the priesthood ban is constantly hearing how all the saints cried tears of joy when it was lifted. Most saints didn't say a mumbling word about the ban (despite tons of outside resistance to bolster them) and then all of the sudden, everyone was "overjoyed" when it was lifted? This strains all logic and credulity.

We are a peculiar people, aren't we...to strain all logic and credulity.

In my community, it simply was not an issue. As I mentioned before, it just did not come up as a topic of conversation or for lessons. I think this was because racial harmony was not a problem in the community. I lived near a military base so there was a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there was absolutely no racial tension between anyone, but if there was, it was definitely the exception to the rule.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I know that each of you is an honorable person and is telling the truth as you remember it. But is it POSSIBLE that these beautiful memories from over 35 years ago might be somewhat different than the ugly realities of that time?

As I've gotten older, I've found that to be true for just about every aspect of my childhood. I remember almost everything better than it really was. In fact, just last night, I noticed that my 10-year-old had a pack of Pez candy in his room. I remembered how delicious this candy was as a kid, so I excited unwrapped the package and popped one into my mouth. It was FAR more distasteful than even the priesthood ban. Perhaps that explains why I hadn't lifted a finger to find this candy over the last 35 years. It was horrible then too, but I had fond memories of childhood in general and the two became blurred?

Is it POSSIBLE that some of your memories of that "joyous" time are similarly not nearly as delightful as you remember them to be?

Possible, not probable. It was happy news to all, even though we weren't protesting for it. Edited March 3, 2014 by Flyonthewall

[mormonnewb]

I and every member that I knew did.

What else would you expect after 36 years other than what people remember?

I've disagreed with Wade on any number of points, but it is not fair to claim he, or anyone else, never had feelings of great happiness with the lifting of the Ban.

Let me be clear. I don't doubt that you THINK there was great rejoicing at the news. I'm simply doubting whether MOST saints had any great feelings about the lifting of the ban one way or another.

For example, if the Brethen announce the construction of a new temple in, say, Belgium, I would not be especially "jubilant." Sure, I'd be happy for the Belgians as I harbor no ill-will towards them. In fact, I think they make a great waffle, but I'm not anxiously awaiting the announcement as if it were a present on Christmas morning (to paraphrase a previous poster).

So why were most white Mormons supportive of the ban as being ordained by God but then so miraculously "relieved" and "overjoyed" when it was repealed? This just doesn't make sense to me.

For those of you who believe that the Church's CURRENT stance on SSM is ordained by God, will you weep tears of joy upon the release of OD3? Or will you simply shrug your shoulders and say, "Oops, missed another one" and move on to being wrong about something else?

Yes, I'm just kidding but hopefully, you get my point and why I'm a little skeptical at all of the "jubilation" that supposedly attended OD2.

[mfbukowski]

Let me be clear. I don't doubt that you THINK there was great rejoicing at the news. I'm simply doubting whether MOST saints had any great feelings about the lifting of the ban one way or another.

For example, if the Brethen announce the construction of a new temple in, say, Belgium, I would not be especially "jubilant." Sure, I'd be happy for the Belgians as I harbor no ill-will towards them. In fact, I think they make a great waffle, but I'm not anxiously awaiting the announcement as if it were a present on Christmas morning (to paraphrase a previous poster).

So why were most white Mormons supportive of the ban as being ordained by God but then so miraculously "relieved" and "overjoyed" when it was repealed? This just doesn't make sense to me.

For those of you who believe that the Church's CURRENT stance on SSM is ordained by God, will you weep tears of joy upon the release of OD3? Or will you simply shrug your shoulders and say, "Oops, missed another one" and move on to being wrong about something else?

Yes, I'm just kidding but hopefully, you get my point and why I'm a little skeptical at all of the "jubilation" that supposedly attended OD2.

You're wrong.

 

It was huge.  What evidence can I provide it was "huge"?

 

Doubt your doubts all you like.

[Kenngo1969]

Will there ever be a black apostle?

God willing.

[wenglund]

Thanks for this guided tour of the fascinating (but irrelevant to this conversation) life of Wade Englund, as usual. I was questioning whether the saints really cried tears of joy after the announcement of the lifting of the ban.

What in the world did your race riot amusement park, only black guy in assembly or N-word billboard have to do with my rejection of the "post-announcement blubbering saint" phenomenon? If you were attempting to demonstrate that whites knew that there were blacks and that discrimination existed towards them, then yes, I will agree that whites were not completely ignorant of the world around them.

However, white saints living in all-white communities probably didn't give much consideration to the issue of blacks and priesthood. Why would they? If there were no blacks in the ward, the ban would be a non-issue on the ward level (and probably on the stake level as well). Why would they spend a great deal of time thinking about an issue that would have NO practical effect on their lives?

 

Perhaps, in your haste to stir racial strife and unwarrantably dissmiss opposing views, you forgot that YOU drew the comparison between the priesthood and civil rights, and thus expanded the scope of the issue under question.

 

Even though it was specifically quoted in my last post to which you responded, let me refresh your memory. YOU said, "Most were probably indifferent (as was the case with civil rights [bolded for your benefit]). Given that most saints lived in all-white areas, it simply wouldn't be an issue that they thought about it." (If I recall correctly, this statement followed an entire paragraph where you spoke of civil rights)

 

Also, in case you may be comprehension-challenged, context is key. In other words, sentiments on specific racial issues for a given community are oft better understood within the broader context of general racial sentiment for the same community.

 

With this having been said, hopefully I won't have to connect the obvious dots between your wild conjecture in doubt of LDS joy when the ban was lifted, and the personal experience-based general race sentiments of all-white communities in which this LDS lived.

 

However, if you need some assistance in getting real and fathoing the truth, have one of your grade school aged grand children give you a helping hand.

 

[Lest anyone mistake the edgy banter between me and Mormonnewb as indicative of genuine hostility, It is not. I love the man. Rather, it is playful "trash talk", or as we called it way back in the day: "jive talk"--for all of my fellow Soul Train lovers. LOL]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 3, 2014 by wenglund

[CMZ]

Apparently there's another lens that will clear up what really happened. Where is that lens?

 

Studying the whole gospel. When that is done then at a certain point in that endeavor one will see what really happened and will then also see why forcing it be a question of whether it was racist or not only distorts things.Yes, I am aware that some of the Brethren have or may have said racist things in relation to it. That's still not the whole issue.

[CMZ]

I can concur that my all-white family was very excited about the announcement.

[mormonnewb]

Perhaps, in your haste to stir racial strife and unwarrantably dissmiss opposing views, you forgot that YOU drew the comparison between the priesthood and civil rights, and thus expanded the scope of the issue under question.

Even though it was specifically quoted in my last post to which you responded, let me refresh your memory. YOU said, "Most were probably indifferent (as was the case with civil rights [bolded for your benefit]). Given that most saints lived in all-white areas, it simply wouldn't be an issue that they thought about it." (If I recall correctly, this statement followed an entire paragraph where you spoke of civil rights)

So you were actually trying to argue that most whites were NOT indifferent to the cause of civil rights? Oh, then I certainly must apologize ... For giving you WAY too much credit. I didn't think anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of American history would attempt to argue that the majority of Americans were involved in the civil rights movement.

Or is your point that because SOME Americans had passing thoughts of "Hey, equality for blacks might not be all that bad" made them more than indifferent towards the prospect. And certainly, NOTHING in your walk down memory lane indicated a passion for civil rights on your part. Nor did you indicate that you "wept tears of joy" upon hearing that the ban had been lifted.

So, come on, Wade, tell me the story of how you caused a 22-car pileup when you threw your hands in the air yelling "Hosanna" upon hearing the news.

Edited March 3, 2014 by mormonnewb

[CMZ]

I was questioning whether the saints really cried tears of joy after the announcement of the lifting of the ban.

 

I've already stated my experience. We didn't cry tears of joy but my white family was excited about it and made sure to pay special attention when President Tanner read the announcement in General Conference and to sustain it from our family room in Southern California. Years later when I read my father's journal entry on the subject from 1978 I could tell that his view (as a 39 yr. old adult, in contrast with my then 8 yr. old viewpoint) at the time was unmistakably one of elation. That little excerpt from his journal is practically personal scripture to me. So any intimation that people in 2014 are reading "elation" into their memories of 1978 doesn't hold any weight in my mind.

[Calm]

However, white saints living in all-white communities probably didn't give much consideration to the issue of blacks and priesthood. Why would they?

I think you are neglecting the obsessiveness that many whites had and have with the issue of race, whether it is because of their support for civil rights, white guilt or something else. Moved around a bit in my youth and even in those communities where busing wasn't an issue, there was a very consistent frequent discussion going on even when there wasn't some racially tied news item in the papers. In the schools you had teachers who in general tended to be liberal ensuring the kids were taught about the problem. I remember seeing movies in class and having discussions and papers and debates about racial inequality over the death penalty and such things. In the communities where there was busing as in my high school, race relations was a daily conversation. If anyone learned I was Mormon, they would be requiring a defence of the ban from me.

Lifting the ban didn't change that dramatically, but it was so very nice to be able to say it wasn't practiced anymore.

Why wouldn't LDS be talking about it like the rest of the community we were part of?

Edited March 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

So you were actually trying to argue that most whites were NOT indifferent to the cause of civil rights?

 

Not exactly. I was speaking to what I was personally aware of in the all-white communities I grew up in, and how it was reflected in the joyful reaction by LDS in those same communities when the ban was lifted. This should have been obvious since I said almost exactly that.

 

Oh, then I certainly must apologize ... For giving you WAY too much credit. I didn't think anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of American history would attempt to argue that the majority of Americans were involved in the civil rights movement.

 

I was speaking to general sentiments, and not to "involved in," as would be obvious to anyone with 5th-grade comprehension skills, though of course you are right to decredit me. Everyone knows that when the Civil Rights bill passed, the overwhelming majority in Congress and the districts they represented, were certainly black. 

 

 

Or is your point that because SOME Americans had passing thoughts of "Hey, equality for blacks might not be all that bad" made them more than indifferent towards the prospect.

 

You are getting warmer.

 

 

And certainly, NOTHING in your walk down memory lane indicated a passion for civil rights on your part. Nor did you indicate that you "wept tears of joy" upon hearing that the ban had been lifted.

 

People who aren't nuanced-challenged or overly-narrow minded will have easily picked up on my explicitly stated desire and gratitude for civil rights as well as the lifted ban. I am not sure there is any way you will see it even if it is capitalized and bolded. Oh well....

 

 

So, come on, Wade, tell me the story of how you caused a 22-car pileup when you threw your hands in the air yelling "Hosanna" upon hearing the news.

 

Here is the problem with your latest wild and bald conjecture: when I threw my arms in the air while driving a semi with double trailers at the time, no crash occured on acount of my ability to steer with my legs. LOL Hosanna for that!!!

 

And, I need to beg your forgiveness as well for spoiling all your race-baiting fun.

 

[Again, lest anyone reading this thread mistakes the edgy banter between me and Mormonnewb as indicative of genuine hostility, It is not. I love the man. Rather, it is playful "trash talk", or as we called it way back in the day: "jive talk"--for all of my fellow Soul Train lovers. LOL]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 3, 2014 by wenglund

[mormonnewb]

[Lest anyone mistake the edgy banter between me and Mormonnewb as indicative of genuine hostility, It is not. I love the man. Rather, it is playful "trash talk", or as we called it way back in the day: "jive talk"--for all the my fellow Soul Train lovers. LOL]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Word up!

Or better yet, right on!

Edited March 3, 2014 by mormonnewb

[rpn]

I agree there was widespread expressions of approval in SLC where I was, and from family in other areas of the West.    But I saw lots and lots of discrimination as the spouse of a black person when I lived there both before and after the ban in SLC.   Sometimes whole groups of people would leave a restaurant because we were served.   When we'd be in a store and separate, dh would often be followed.   When I sidled up to the person doing it and ask what was happening, they would tell me that he was likely a thief and they were protecting the store.  My step children were not invited to neighborhood parties.  Dh had a business.  Customers who wrote his boss to say how good he was, would cancel the contract upon learning he owned it.   Drs would make him wait longer in the waiting room than me.   Store clerks would wait on white people who came later before dh.   All of this was quite puzzling for me as I had genuinely not seen any of this as a white person before this.    (It was interesting to me that racism against me came from the black community in just as hateful forms, though typically without the economic clout component.) 

 

And in the 2000's in the south, my hispanic children never dated, were rarely asked to dance by members, and it was openly about their ethnicity.   Parents simply didn't want their children dating people of other "races"  (I know hispanic isn't a race, but those were the words used). 

 

So my take is that even with the 1978 revelation that did not heal the cultural wounds of inequality among the saints (or anyone else, I didn't check to confirm who did or didn't have a TR)  and many of them would not even recognize their own racism in their actions.