Only For Those Who Were 30 Years Old And Up

[Calm]

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.

It is sad but not surprising that people are better at talking about equality than they are acting it, even among Saints. I know my grandparents didn't see themselves as racist, just saw their own attitude as one developed by experience and wisdom even as they sat and chuckled at the obvious racism of good hearted Archie Bunker (I forgot to mention how TV and movies ensured the topic was never far from notice at the time, one didn't have to be in a mixed community when all one had to do was turn on the box to encounter the discussion) It would also not surprise me that there were some who rejoiced as a way to justify themselves...they could feel better about themselves because they wanted good things for blacks in general while treating individual blacks poorly. Hopefully this was a small minority, but only God can know for sure. Edited March 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

Word up!

Or better yet, right on!

 

Tell your brother, your sister, and your mama too...

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

I was 27 in 1978. I was well aware of the subject of race in the US. I was in High School when Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated by a racist bigot. NO ONE was indifferent. You might have thought beating people, turning fire hoses, and attack dogs on them was great clean fun. That the murder of Civil Rights workers was all good. But NO ONE was indifferent. No one here has said that the majority was involved. However the majority was disgusted, appalled, and embarrassed by the actions of people like "Bull" Conner in Birmingham; Alabama.

 

"passing thought" ; Your an idiot if you believe that, and I don't call names lightly. The entire country was literally being torn apart by the issue. It had racked the Church for generations. Here is the response of just some members to the announcement http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008_06_08_archive.html

[cdowis]

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.

 

 

I feel a deep sense of pity for you.  Somehow we "white people" were indifferent whether a group of people were now able to freely =join the church and participate fully in temple blessings.

 

I am a "whitey" from the South, I was at BYU when the announcement was made, and I was overjoyed and relieved when the announcement was made and so were my friends.  

 

You are truly pathetic to think that we were so callous and indifferent to our brothers and sisters both inside and outside the Gospel.

Edited March 3, 2014 by cdowis

[Bernard Gui]

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?

You could not be farther out in the wrong field.

[slamarwi]

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?

I was 18 at the time the ban was lifted. I remember the 60's as a child and I remember the 70's well (class of '79) I think the thing that one must remember is that Utah was a very different place 40 years ago than it is today. There were no students of African or African/American descent in any of my school years - grade school through High School. The Indian exchange program was in full operation (oh the days of Tom Trails and Lily). The civil rights movement was something that we watched Walter Cronkite talk about on the 5 o'clock news and happened in distant States, far away from Utah Valley.

 

Most Saints of my acquaintance didn't say a mumbling word prior to the announcement because it didn't affect them or the  majority of the church at that time. If you look at the demographics of the church from that era it will make more sense.

 

When it was made I thought that it was exciting but wouldn't have any immediate effect on my life. I was great to see the church was progressing and this was an indication of the last days. I don't personally recall anyone shedding tears of joy or hearing any words of discontent.

[mormonnewb]

You are truly pathetic to think that we were so callous and indifferent to our brothers and sisters both inside and outside the Gospel.

BUT YOU WERE CALLOUS! The day before God "changed his mind about black people," every "good" saint would have barred the doors to the temple to ANY black member who wanted to enter. That doesn't demonstrate some great "compassion" to me. The people who cared faced down attack dogs, water hoses, angry club-wielding mobs and assassins' bullets to allow black people to get a lousy cup of coffee at a lunch counter. And yet, the saints weren't willing to risk their TRs to even suggest to their leaders that blacks be allowed into the House of The Lord. And so forgive me if I'm too pathetic or idiotic to see how the saints demonstrated their great concern for their "bruthas and sistas." I just don't see it.

[Calm]

Unfortunately compassion and joy don't always equate to understanding or knowing the right thing to do. Something that is obvious as a parent to me (as well as the child of my parents) and definitely even more applicable outside of the family where we are less familiar with those in need.

[CMZ]

You are truly pathetic to think that we were so callous and indifferent to our brothers and sisters both inside and outside the Gospel.

 

That's the thing about racism: it's one of the easiest accusations to sling at people. And once you've been accused of it it's hard to live it down.

[CMZ]

And yet, the saints weren't willing to risk their TRs to even suggest to their leaders that blacks be allowed into the House of The Lord.

 

Not exactly true. Leading up to the 1978 revelation President Kimball would talk informally with Church members and ask them their attitude on the issue and was finding that a lot of them were open to blacks receiving the Priesthood and the blessings of the temple. I could speak more to this point. But it's late. And this is one of those issues some people will just argue about forever and cry "Racism!" no matter what.

[mormonnewb]

Not exactly true. Leading up to the 1978 revelation President Kimball would talk informally with Church members and ask them their attitude on the issue and was finding that a lot of them were open to blacks receiving the Priesthood and the blessings of the temple. I could speak more to this point. But it's late. And this is one of those issues some people will just argue about forever and cry "Racism!" no matter what.

Please understand that I'm not claiming racism. I'm simply pushing back against our current remembrance of Utah highways being parking lots of cars filled with saints weeping uncontrollably. I simply claim that the saints' actions leading up to OD2 indicated indifference, which would be the normal reaction.

When a ceasefire is announced in the Ukraine, I won't shed tears of joy, Why? Because I'm not Ukrainian. I don't even know any Ukrainians. I don't think that makes me a "Ukrainist" or a " Ukrainophobe". I sincerely hope for the best for them but that's about as far as it goes. However, if I had friends and family there, I might be writing letters and making phone calls to politicians and diplomats. In that case, one might suspect that I'd be moved to tears upon a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

As most saints took no action to get the ban lifted, is it plausible that they would have reacted as people who did once it was lifted?

[mfbukowski]

[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-

Golly willakers that was swell!  I didn't know you were such a hep cat!

[Calm]

I think if there is one thing that might be a negative about our teachings is the confidence with which we accept the implications of two points of doctrine; the first being that the Lord can turn anything to our good and the second being that if a blessing is withheld in this lifetime due to something not in a person's control, it will be more than made up for in the next life, especially if there has been great sacrifice because of it.

 

We get taught of the great fortitude of Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail, how he was humbled by the Lord chiding him for complaining about his lot.  We don't get taught too often of the vigorous efforts of his friends to get him out of that horrid place.  This and other stories of the great sacrifices people made and handicaps they have overcome tend in my opinion for many Saints to see things as the Will of God and not as things for us to actively work against to prevent…at least not in ways that seem extreme to us.  We give generously by all accounts in fast offerings and welfare projects and tithing, but we don't give to the point were we are not able to enjoy our TVs and computers, our fast foods and nights out at the movies, the extra car, etc.  We don't have a culture that promotes the existence of too many Mother Teresas though I hear of many a family who uses their vacation time to gather clothing for orphanages or to go and teach.  We have a culture that promotes seniors who can afford it to go spend significant time helping those in need, but we don't have a culture that has seniors selling their family home and moving permanently to these places.  We have a culture that is currently very law abiding, we wait for our leaders to work behind the scenes until the Spirit moves a country's leaders to open the doors rather than promoting smuggling in of Bibles and BoMs as well as proselyting in secret as many other Christian communities are willing to do.  Even now when it would be so easy, I never hear of some letter writing campaign or protest in front of an embassy urging a government to free a convert who has been jailed because of religious beliefs (just heard a story of a gentleman imprisoned for 10 years at least because he converted from Islam).

 

Whether this is because so many of us are smugly content with our lives and not willing to move out of our comfort zone for someone else or because we feel helpless and are not confident that our choices would be the right thing to do so end up doing nothing or because we have a tendency to be willing to put off blessings for ourselves as well as others because of an assurance they will come and be glorious as well or a combination of the three plus an infinite number of other factors, I don't know.

 

I think with the internet and the Church's increasing visibility of humanitarian projects through lds.org and even local humanitarian specialists that we will see more and more involvement and more and more sacrifice in that way as we get to know the greater world community with better communication technology and increased ease of travel and a greater connection can be established between those Saints who have and those Saints and others who haven't, especially as our older single population grows and don't have families that take up all their free time and resources.  It will be interesting to see if we will ever become a culture again who agitates with more than just talk against the government…any government, I doubt it will happen unless our leaders direct us to as we have heard too much about how it aids missionary work and expansion of the Church in the long run for governments to trust us to abide by their laws even if we don't agree with them.

Edited March 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Please understand that I'm not claiming racism. I'm simply pushing back against our current remembrance of Utah highways being parking lots of cars filled with saints weeping uncontrollably. 

You do know that a lot of us responding were not in Utah at the time?  I was in California myself.  I have no clue about what Utah was like firsthand.

Edited March 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

BUT YOU WERE CALLOUS! The day before God "changed his mind about black people," every "good" saint would have barred the doors to the temple to ANY black member who wanted to enter. That doesn't demonstrate some great "compassion" to me. The people who cared faced down attack dogs, water hoses, angry club-wielding mobs and assassins' bullets to allow black people to get a lousy cup of coffee at a lunch counter. And yet, the saints weren't willing to risk their TRs to even suggest to their leaders that blacks be allowed into the House of The Lord. And so forgive me if I'm too pathetic or idiotic to see how the saints demonstrated their great concern for their "bruthas and sistas." I just don't see it.

I would not be in the church if I believed this.

 

This race baiting is getting old and does not belong on this board.  Why are you not on a plane right now to the Ukraine?  Are you callous about white people?

[Calm]

As most saints took no action to get the ban lifted, is it plausible that they would have reacted as people who did once it was lifted?

People were pretty excited about the Berlin Wall coming down and I highly doubt that they wrote many letters to the Soviets protesting it.

[mfbukowski]

You do know that a lot of us responding were not in Utah at the time?  I was in California myself.  I have no clue about what Utah was like firsthand.

No, we all live in Utah and hate blacks.  You should know that.  There will never be anything we can do to overcome what happened years and years ago.

 

We can never atone for the sins of our fathers.

[CMZ]

Please understand that I'm not claiming racism. I'm simply pushing back against our current remembrance of Utah highways being parking lots of cars filled with saints weeping uncontrollably. I simply claim that the saints' actions leading up to OD2 indicated indifference, which would be the normal reaction.

As most saints took no action to get the ban lifted, is it plausible that they would have reacted as people who did once it was lifted?

 

I know what I experienced and it didn't involve people weeping uncontrollably. But it did involve people being glad that the ban was lifted; partly so they wouldn't have to explain it anymore (although it still needs explaining, apparently) but more so for the blessings that it would bring to more of God's children.

 

People can harp on whatever they want but I'm not sure how wise it is to hold this over peoples' heads 36 years later. I remember things well from when I was 14 months old. I remember even better from when I was almost 9 and can tell you that where I grew up in California that Church members by and large wanted to see the ban lifted. I'm not entirely sure picketing Temple Square would have sped things up. Maybe it would have. Maybe it would have and you can berate all white members alive back then for not doing so. I'll grant you that. These same members who wanted to see the ban lifted by and large also believed that it could only come through revelation to the prophet. So, if somebody sincerely wants to they can berate all the members who didn't force a revelation to come to the prophet sooner. That would be like how we could berate John Wesley for not forcing the First Vision to occur in his time ("I'm sure, Wesley! How wrong of you to not have forced the Restoration of the Gospel to occur sooner than the Lord had planned!!"). It's certainly something one could do if they wanted.

 

I will say that back around the time of 1978 that my father told of going to a stake priesthood meeting and that one of the speakers there mentioned that blacks would eventually receive the priesthood but in the next life. After this speaker finished our Stake Patriarch (the one I received my patriarchal blessing from 9-10 years later) got up unannounced and went to the pulpit and said, "Actually, they may very well end up receiving it in this life." My father loved to tell that story of a stake patriarch who appeared to have been receiving hints from the Spirit about what the larger Church was soon to find out about, and also because of knowing faithful black members who were, for a time (but not all time), having certain blessings of the Gospel withheld.

 

I also had an Institute teacher who talked about the period leading up to the 1978 revelation and said that in his elders quorum he had a faithful black man attend (although not being ordained an elder yet) and would always have a vial of consecrated oil with him in case an elder needed to use it, and was in other ways faithful that the white elders of that ward didn't seem to be. This Institute teacher I believe may have been the president of that elders quorum and would tell this faithful black brother to keep doing all he could and that no blessing would be withheld. Watching this Institute teacher talk about this sometime around the mid-1990's he had practically a giddy look on his face from being able to report a positive outcome for all.

 

I had as a different Institute teacher a guy who had written a book which in part talked about how the blacks could receive the Priesthood but only in the next life. He told our Institute class that once the revelation came that, much like Elder McConkie, he freely and gladly told people to forget everything he had said on the subject before. He didn't mind one single bit that there was better news to report. This same teacher also seemed practically giddy in being able to report all this and felt zero embarrassment over what some may have interpreted as sticking his foot in his mouth earlier. His love of the Latter-day work was greater than his personal pride.

 

Yes, I think there may very well have been some indifference on the part of many members. A sister of mine who lived in Florida told me that a member woman there told her about a brother of hers who went inactive over "the blacks and the priesthood issue." When the 1978 revelation came she excitedly told him about it and said, "Now you can come back to church!" To which he blithely replied, "Then I'll find something else to keep me from going." Yeah, of course there were people like that. There's a lot of Aints among the Saints. What else is new? None of that erases things I personally experienced and also had related to me. But I allow anyone who wants to to keep protesting about how some didn't try hard enough to get the ban removed. I wouldn't want to take anyone's free agency away.

Edited March 3, 2014 by CMZ

[CMZ]

Slightly off-topic, but not entirely, the same Institute teacher who talked about the faithful black brother in his elders quorum pre-OD2 also said one time in an Institute class that there were a lot of things occurring in the Church that were common practices that were not necessarily rooted in doctrine. He then said, "In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Church did away with missionary farewells where the departing missionary and their family take over the whole sacrament meeting." I think it was at the very next General Conference that President Hinckley announced that they were going to do away with missionary farewells where the departing missionary and their family take over the whole sacrament meeting.

 

One can, amidst all the imperfections that exist within the membership of the Church, still see the Spirit moving within the Church. Or... one can grind axes forever.

 

 

To carnal men, and even to those among us whose souls are not attuned to the Infinite, these promises may seem as the gibberish of alien tongues, but to those whose souls are afire with the light of heaven they will be as a bush that burns and is not consumed. As Paul, our fellow apostle and witness of that same Lord whose servants we are, expressed it: “The things of God knoweth no man, except he has the Spirit of God” (JST, 1 Cor. 2:11).

 

Now may I bear a solemn witness, one borne of the Spirit, that these doctrines are true, that the Lord God is raining down righteousness upon his people, and that he will continue to do so until that perfect day when they know all things and become as he is.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1978/10/thou-shalt-receive-revelation?lang=eng

Edited March 3, 2014 by CMZ

[california boy]

I guess my experience is somewhere in the middle of most of these posts.  I grew up in the San Francisco area, served my mission and attended BYU in the early 70's.  I never once heard anyone state that maybe the blacks would hold the priesthood in this life.  When one would ask when blacks will be given the priesthood, I was ALWAYS told that according to Brigham Young, it would be after every single other child of God had the opportunity.  That met after the millennium.  That was church doctrine and was taught as such.  To think the priesthood would come to blacks sooner than that was against the revealed word of God no matter how much we might want things to be different.

 

While on my mission this issue would come up.  We would explain that it is not our idea, but God's.  We were just doing what God revealed to modern prophets.  And this was not the first time God withheld the priesthood from some groups of people.  I regularly heard that blacks sat on the fence in the war in heaven and that is why they are now cursed.  Though I honestly don't remember whether this was taught as doctrine or just as a reasonable reason why God would withhold the priesthood from them.

 

I was at BYU when there was the beginnings of the boycotts and the church's position became increasingly well known through the media.  There was a lot of negative feelings towards the church about this doctrine.  And there was starting to be a lot of pressure for the church to back down.  Outsiders didn't seem to understand that we sincerely believed that this doctrine came from God.  There was nothing we could do about the situation.  It just met that members were going to have to go through rough times and the "world" would scorn and hate us for being righteous and doing what God wanted.  We would be tested for our beliefs.  But if you believed in the divinity of the church, it would all be worth it no matter how much hatred would be leveled against us.

 

I was in SLC on business, walking down the street when I read the headline in the paper from a vending machine.  I was shocked and excited.  Shocked because this revelation went against the revelation given to Brigham Young.  Excited because we didn't have to continue on this test of our faithfulness  Like a lot of members I was increasingly uneasy being identified with a racist church.  I was tired of explaining that it was God's will and certainly not something we made up.  It met that the church could move on and we would no longer be a racist church.  A great burden was lifted from us.  That was most of what the excitement was about.  And yes, members were also glad that the blacks could now hold the priesthood.   I never thought it would continue to be a problem for the church for the next 36 years.  

 

I am still a little unclear about something.  Did Brigham Young make this revelation up?  Was he just a product of his time?  Or does the church still believe that Brigham Young received a revelation from God on this issue.  And if we do still believe this was a revelation from God, then was the second part of the revelation that said they would have to wait until all the other children of Adam had to first have the opportunity to hold the priesthood not a real part of the revelation that Brigham Young received?  Did Brigham Young make up that half of the revelation?  Or did God change his mind on the curse lasting so long.

[CMZ]

 

I am still a little unclear about something.  Did Brigham Young make this revelation up?  Was he just a product of his time?  Or does the church still believe that Brigham Young received a revelation from God on this issue.  And if we do still believe this was a revelation from God, then was the second part of the revelation that said they would have to wait until all the other children of Adam had to first have the opportunity to hold the priesthood not a real part of the revelation that Brigham Young received?  Did Brigham Young make up that half of the revelation?  Or did God change his mind on the curse lasting so long.

 

I like to say that the ban began in vagary (at least as far as our current historical knowledge goes) and ended in clarity. I don't know how much of it was a revelation to Brigham Young. But when subsequent prophets tried to rescind the ban and felt, against their own desires, that it was not the time to do so then I think there was more to the ban than just some impetuous "policy change" on Brigham Young's part.

[Calm]

I guess my experience is somewhere in the middle of most of these posts.  I grew up in the San Francisco area, served my mission and attended BYU in the early 70's.  I never once heard anyone state that maybe the blacks would hold the priesthood in this life.  When one would ask when blacks will be given the priesthood, I was ALWAYS told that according to Brigham Young, it would be after every single other child of God had the opportunity.  That met after the millennium.  That was church doctrine and was taught as such.  To think the priesthood would come to blacks sooner than that was against the revealed word of God no matter how much we might want things to be different.

It wasn't that way in my area of San Fran five years or so later (I went to BYU in 76), but that might have been in part due to my dad being a frequent teacher of adults and youth and there was nothing he enjoyed at church so much as poking people to get them thinking outside the box.

[mormonnewb]

I was at BYU when there was the beginnings of the boycotts and the church's position became increasingly well known through the media.  There was a lot of negative feelings towards the church about this doctrine.  And there was starting to be a lot of pressure for the church to back down.  Outsiders didn't seem to understand that we sincerely believed that this doctrine came from God.  There was nothing we could do about the situation.  It just met that members were going to have to go through rough times and the "world" would scorn and hate us for being righteous and doing what God wanted.  We would be tested for our beliefs.  But if you believed in the divinity of the church, it would all be worth it no matter how much hatred would be leveled against us.

Are you talking about the priesthood ban or our stance on SSM? Because this is exactly what I hear some members saying today about SSM. I wonder if they see the irony.

I was in SLC on business, walking down the street when I read the headline in the paper from a vending machine.  I was shocked and excited.  Shocked because this revelation went against the revelation given to Brigham Young.  Excited because we didn't have to continue on this test of our faithfulness  Like a lot of members I was increasingly uneasy being identified with a racist church.  I was tired of explaining that it was God's will and certainly not something we made up.  It met that the church could move on and we would no longer be a racist church.  A great burden was lifted from us.  That was most of what the excitement was about.  And yes, members were also glad that the blacks could now hold the priesthood.   I never thought it would continue to be a problem for the church for the next 36 years.

It could have stopped being a problem a long time ago if we had just admitted that we were WRONG. However, so long as we contend that HF was the racist and that we were the "righteous ones" who patently waited for The Lord to "get with it," we'll continue wearing the Scarlet R. The good news is that we'll very soon have an "H" to go with that "R" since we're following down the same path with gays and lesbians.

[CV75]

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?

Not from where I come from, and according to my journal.

[CV75]

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?

For those of us whose formative years were in places such as lower east side Manahattan during the civil rights movement and assassination of Dr. King and the Bobby Kennedy and still celebrated President Lincoln and Washingtom (and what we were taught they stood for)  on separate birthdays, and took pride in our community as a melting pot, it was a big deal, inclusive of the assumption (right or wrong) that it signalled a massive advance in bringing the Gospel to all the world.

 

I don't know how I will react with the next revelation of any kind--I will say that I am less tolerant of homosexual behavior and never had any qualms about race.