Only For Those Who Were 30 Years Old And Up

[mormonnewb]

I am afraid you don't get my good man, Mormonnewb. Evidence is not what is of value to him. Rather, it is "feelings". As long as he "feels bad," the harsh and sweeping accusations stand undetered. You can compile tons of evidence to the contrary (as we have been doing here in this thread), and point out the rank hypocrisy of negative stereotyping and the sort, but it is no match for the liberal heart.

But, I appreciate you trying. What you said will definately resinate with those of us who use our minds as well as our hearts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Please point to a SINGLE post in which I made ANY reference to "feelings."

As for "evidence," some posts have claimed that some saints were elated. Others have claimed that some saints were not. The question now is "Which posts are more reflective of the attitudes amongst MOST saints?"

Edited March 3, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Calm]

.

By analogy, this would mean that those scientists who argued that a moon launch was impossible and staked their professional reputation on its impossibility were the first to shed tears of joy when it happened. Does this seem logical?

.

Your analogy doesn't work because you misunderstand what people were invested in.

They would have supported the ban because they believed it was God's Will. They supported the removal of the ban because they believed it was God's Will.

It was a demonstration that God was speaking to His people. For that alone there would have been much joy.

Edited March 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

Despite my limited reading comprehension skills, let me see if I understand you. For MANY faithful Mormons learning that blacks would receive the priesthood was treated with elation despite the fact that THE DAY BEFORE they would have vehemently argued that it was against God's will.

 

I'm saying that most faithful Mormons longed for the day when the revelation would come, as promised, and they were more than ready to accept it with gratitude and joy when it did come. And that is, in fact, what happened.

 

By analogy, this would mean that those scientists who argued that a moon launch was impossible and staked their professional reputation on its impossibility were the first to shed tears of joy when it happened. Does this seem logical?

 

This contrived analogy does not apply here because of what I have expressed above.

 

Because, by that logic, Mitt Romney would still be crying tears of joy for the re-election of Barak Obama, despite spending two years arguing against it.

 

This doesn't apply either. Faithful Church members, such as I, hoped for the day when all men would have the priesthood, but we wanted it to be God who made that call.

 

 

So perhaps if you can point to any other time in human history where people have fought for one position and then rejoiced upon realizing their error, I might be willing to believe that the saints were among this most rare breed of humans.

 

 

The position that I and most other faithful Church members of the day had was quite consistent: We accepted that the time was not yet for the priesthood to be granted to all worthy males, but we clung to the promises and hoped and longed for the day when it would come. Honestly, I don't  understand why this is so difficult for you to grasp.

 

And I will add that for those of us who lived through that time and experience, the memory is as clear as though it were yesterday. It was such a communal experience for the global Church membership that it strikes us as more than outrageously false when someone insinuates, as you have done here, that we really didn't have that global and communal experience. It is like the wacky notion that the moon landings did not really happen but were faked in a TV studio. (That's one reason why the comparison I drew is so apt.)

Edited March 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[saemo]

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.

 

The country was changing, and not everyone who was changing was a civil rights activist. Have you EVER seen a Mormon demonstrate prior to the year 2000? I haven't. I don't see Mormons as being the type of people who rally for demonstrations and sit-ins, but rather, work to change things behind the scenes via influence. Maybe you've never noticed Mormons don't like contention?

 

As a Catholic, I get emails to demonstrate for the right to life, but I've never known a LDS member to participate, and I'm in Utah. I don't see this as Mormons not caring, not all. I understand that there are different ways to support the same thing.

 

People I know, passively resisted. For example, my mother was an usher at a theatre when she was a teenager. Blacks were supposed to sit in the balcony only, so she would escort all black people to the balcony as she was instructed by her manager. She says, once the lights went of for the movie to begin, people in the balcony would move to closer seats on the floor. She saw them, never said a word, and neither did any of her coworkers or the other theatre attendees.

 

By letting things happen, that shouldn't happen, IT HAPPENS. 

Edited March 3, 2014 by saemo

[mfbukowski]

You think that is bad? Within the last decade I have been refused service on multiple discussion boards on numerous occasions simply because I am a believing and practicing member of the Church.

 

In the 90's, I was refused advancement and leadership positions at work because of my age and because I was a man.

 

I could go on, and I can certainly play the victim card for whatever purpose, and focus on the alarming exceptions, but to what good?

 

Again, I pray for the balm of Christ to heal the hearts of those whose heads are twisted backwards and still decades later are stuck in the receding past and who are intent on picking old wounds rather than help to heal.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have lost clients when they found out I was LDS because they did not want to indirectly contribute to the church through my tithing

 

It's tough to be missionary minded when one has to make a living.  Does one connect on facebook where clients may see posts from church members?  If other members whom one has "friended"  post politically incorrect opinions, - will that cost me a client?  Social networking can become very tricky indeed.  If one goes fully "transparent" one may be restricted to only doing business with church members.

 

It's just plain sad that people are stuck in the past, but it is not as if discrimination has gone away.   There is still plenty of racism but political correctness is rapidly becoming the greatest barrier to freedom of speech and association.  People recognize racism as "bad" but political correctness seems to be largely invisible.

[stemelbow]

I said "nearly universal." Meaning that the exceptions were so rare and anomalous that they would have been viewed as odd by the general membership of the Church.

 

Of course, anti-Mormons are accustomed to seizing upon the anomalous. Anything to discredit the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

(Not saying you are anti-Mormon, though in this, you may or may not have been influenced by what they say.)

 

Near universal seems like a pretty big deal anyway.  I would be interested to get a good taste such church-wide acclaim. 

[juliann]

Despite my limited reading comprehension skills, let me see if I understand you. For MANY faithful Mormons learning that blacks would receive the priesthood was treated with elation despite the fact that THE DAY BEFORE they would have vehemently argued that it was against God's will.

By analogy, this would mean that those scientists who argued that a moon launch was impossible and staked their professional reputation on its impossibility were the first to shed tears of joy when it happened. Does this seem logical?

Because, by that logic, Mitt Romney would still be crying tears of joy for the re-election of Barak Obama, despite spending two years arguing against it.

So perhaps if you can point to any other time in human history where people have fought for one position and then rejoiced upon realizing their error, I might be willing to believe that the saints were among this most rare breed of humans.

Now you are just being insulting. You are not interested in dialogue.

 

Next to no one was arguing for the ban. There are fascinating back stories by Armand Mauss who was involved in trying to get it overturned. Have you made any attempt at all to become informed about this era and the lack of technology that makes speaking out today so easy?  The turning point was Civil Rights, the horrors of which we watched on the few available TV channels. Do you have any concept of that?

[mfbukowski]

In my case that had nothing to do with it. As a youth growing up in the Church, I detested the hippie counterculture. That's pretty much how it was in my circle of friends.

I don't think you would have liked me much at all.

 

UCLA student protester, philosophy student with hair to my waist, a communist student of Angela Davis.

 

I got better. 

 

When government interference in your life becomes pronounced enough, any good commie can become a Republican. 

[mfbukowski]

In my newfound respect for your intellect, I assume that you realize that my concern is TOTALLY about the future. However, let me spell it out for those who are not so "hip to the jive."

Our ship has sailed with regards to American blacks and there's probably nothing we can do about that. And if we keep on our current course, our ship will sail with gays (and their growing allies). And in 36 years, our kids and grandkids will be online trying to convince the son or daughter of gay parents that we were all ecstatic when OD3 was "revealed." And they will even be less convinced than I am.

Just a thought ....

Very true, but the Proclamation is already out.  There will be no OD3- there is no need for one.

 

We have to face the fact that the world is headed one way and we are headed the other.  In a hundred years we may be the Amish of the future.

 

Now is the time to pick.  Our kids will most likely end up going the direction we pick now.  It's too late to turn back.  The Proclamation is being more strongly affirmed every day.  The brethren I think have passed the point of no return on gender issues.

[Scott Lloyd]

Near universal seems like a pretty big deal anyway.  I would be interested to get a good taste such church-wide acclaim. 

It was indeed a big deal. Very much a communal experience for the global Church membership, as I said a moment ago.

 

I wish I could take you back in time.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think you would have liked me much at all.

 

UCLA student protester, philosophy student with hair to my waist, a communist student of Angela Davis.

 

I got better. 

 

When government interference in your life becomes pronounced enough, any good commie can become a Republican. 

You and Michael Medved. (Although I don't think he was as extreme as you describe yourself.)

 

I might have liked you in spite of everything.

[phaedrus ut]

I was primary age in June 1978 and there are a few things I remember about the priesthood ban.  I recall a story about a member who ordained a black man to the priesthood and was excommunicated, I remember someone voting against Spencer Kimball in conference because of it, and I remember some stories about the protests on the news.  I don't recall the Wyoming, Stanford, UTEP, Washington college protests with BYU at all.  For many family members of my parents generation the racial ban in the church was a major reason for their leaving the religion. 

 

I specifically remember hearing the news about the priesthood ban lifting and shortly there after a whole family jumped off a SLC hotel to their death and I mistakenly assumed the two events were connected.  We also had a back family who had been living in the neighborhood for years join the church after the lifting of the ban but strangely they started receiving racist hate mail and threats but only after joining the church.  They moved away shortly there after. 

 

More memorable for me was Elvis' death, Star Wars, and the Gary Gilmore execution.

[Scott Lloyd]

I was primary age in June 1978 and there are a few things I remember about the priesthood ban.  I recall a story about a member who ordained a black man to the priesthood and was excommunicated, ...

As well he should have been. He was a well-known apostate, this was before June 1978, and he did it as a public protest.

 

I remember someone voting against Spencer Kimball in conference because of it, ...

 

If that happened, I seriously doubt it was visible enough to have made news. I certainly don't recall it, and I have been paying close attention to general conference since long before then.

 

 

and I remember some stories about the protests on the news.  I don't recall the Wyoming, Stanford, UTEP, Washington college protests with BYU at all. 

 

But all of this had subsided years before the 1978 revelation.

 

 

I specifically remember hearing the news about the priesthood ban lifting and shortly there after a whole family jumped off a SLC hotel to their death and I mistakenly assumed the two events were connected.

 

I clearly recall both events, and you're right, there was not even the remotest connection.

 

 

 

We also had a back family who had been living in the neighborhood for years join the church after the lifting of the ban but strangely they started receiving racist hate mail and threats but only after joining the church.  They moved away shortly there after. 

 

 

You didn't indicate whether the racist hate mail was purportedly from Church members. I hope not.

 

More memorable for me was Elvis' death, Star Wars, and the Gary Gilmore execution.

 

I can only conclude that you weren't too interested in what was going on in the Church at the time.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

Again, Church members fully expected that blacks one day would receive the priesthood. (And I will reiterate what I have said and what Wade has said about the joy with which the Church members at large received the news. You weren't there at the time and have absolutely no standing to doubt our recollection.)

 

On the other hand, the notion of the Church one day accepting gay marriage is totally alien to me and, I suppose, to most believing and faithful Church members.

It is fundamental to church doctrine.

 

We have a heavenly father and mother, and they are not the same sex.  The notion of unity in opposites- opposition in all things- is a fundamental underlying cosmic reality reflected all the way through church doctrine,  Adam and Eve, Priesthood and Motherhood, it is fundamental all the way down.

 

The temple blessings are different for each sex and are complimentary blessings. Even if a same sex couple received those blessings they would not make sense- the difference is fundamental.

 

It is not some silly policy dreamed up because of social pressure as the policy for black brethren was.

 

We all knew about the Latter Days and the Millenium when we became members.  If some haven't figured out that we will be isolated more and more, they better figure it out.

[Calm]

. Have you EVER seen a Mormon demonstrate prior to the year 2000? I haven't. I don't see Mormons as being the type of people who rally for demonstrations and sit-ins, but rather, work to change things behind the scenes via influence. Maybe you've never noticed Mormons don't like contention?

 

As a Catholic, I get emails to demonstrate for the right to life, but I've never known a LDS member to participate, and I'm in Utah. I don't see this as Mormons not caring, not all. I understand that there are different ways to support the same thing.

 

People I know, passively resisted. For example, my mother was an usher at a theatre when she was a teenager. Blacks were supposed to sit in the balcony only, so she would escort all black people to the balcony as she was instructed by her manager. She says, once the lights went of for the movie to begin, people in the balcony would move to closer seats on the floor. She saw them, never said a word, and neither did any of her coworkers or the other theatre attendees.

 

By letting things happen, that shouldn't happen, IT HAPPENS.

This is very consistent with how I see LDS reacting to almost all issues.

Great story about your mom.

 

[mfbukowski]

OD2 was the Mormon equivalent of a man walking on the moon?

Okay, Moderator, go ahead and close the thread. NOBODY is going to top this one!

You really don't know what you are talking about.

 

You ask a question and then don't accept the answer.  We have seen that before.  Sorry for the bluntness, but someone has to say it.  Tough love can hard but necessary.

 

It was a huge deal.

[mfbukowski]

Instead of calling everyone here deluded or liars, why don't you provide evidence that people weren't ecstatic or elated. Maybe you can find evidence of members being reluctant or complaining about it, then you can provide us with evidence those members represented the the saints at the time.

 

Then we can evaluate your evidence against other evidence that has been presented here.

His mind is already made up.  Don't bother him with the facts.  Clearly we are all racists to him and could not have possibly rejoiced at the revelation.

[mfbukowski]

You and Michael Medved. (Although I don't think he was as extreme as you describe yourself.)

 

I might have liked you in spite of everything.

Could be that I would have liked you as well

 

I love Michael Medved- I knew there was a reason!  But yes, in the olden days I was pretty darn radical.  The problem with that point of view is that you really have to trust that the government can change the poor stupid masses who cannot take care of themselves.  That's great as long as you are the politically correct elite who makes the decisions to define what is right and wrong.

 

But when you get a taste of what it means to be on the "wrong side" of the elite, everything changes.  I think liberals are just conservatives who just have not yet had to take on "the authorities".

 

So I guess on a deep level, I am still taking on "the establishment".  What has changed is that I no longer think I have all the answers for other people, so I want to leave them alone and be left alone. 

[saemo]

This is very consistent with how I see LDS reacting to almost all issues.

Great story about your mom.

 

Thanks. American Mormons are, if anything, politically democratic. Totalitarianism is en vogue these days, which was never the view of the Civil Rights Movement. This is why I don't see the SSM activism as the same, as I see it is totalitarian in nature. 

Edited March 3, 2014 by saemo

[mormonnewb]

His mind is already made up.  Don't bother him with the facts.  Clearly we are all racists to him and could not have possibly rejoiced at the revelation.

You've pegged me so exactly! However, just to remind me, please point to a SINGLE post in this thread where I called ANY saint a "racist." In fact, I'll even accept a post in which I intimated as much. I simply stated that most saints were indifferent to the plight of blacks (as evidenced by their lack of action on their behalf).

And in TWO separate posts, I explained quite clearly that Indifference is not the same as animus. My indifference to the Belgians and Ukrainians does not mean that I hate them in the least. I generally wish the well but don't know any personally and therefore, have no particular interest in their well-being. Therefore, it is not likely that I will have a "moon landing" moment when say, Belgian Waffles become the official food of the 2016 Olympics.

Why is this such a patently unreasonable position to take?

[Calm]

But we all were personally acquainted with the ban itself. It wasn't something that we would say has nothing to do with us, like the constitution or laws of another country. It was the law of our country and many of us worked to understand it, some thought they could, others it never made sense to and most supported the leadership in following and defending it.

Even if we didn't have much or any interaction with blacks ourselves, the ban being part of our faith experience made it personal.

[Danzo]

Why is this such a patently unreasonable position to take?

 

Because you haven't demonstrated a reason for your belief that the saints were indifferent when the priesthood ban was removed.

 

Others have shown you reasons to believe that people were happy and excited that the ban was removed.

 

Since you lack a reason for your belief, your belief is unreasonable (other than you inability to believe the testimony of witnesses to the event, even then you haven't really shown us a reason you think their testimony is not valid)

[Scott Lloyd]

But we all were personally acquainted with the ban itself. It wasn't something that we would say has nothing to do with us, like the constitution or laws of another country. It was the law of our country and many of us worked to understand it, some thought they could, others it never made sense to and most supported the leadership in following and defending it.

Even if we didn't have much or any interaction with blacks ourselves, the ban being part of our faith experience made it personal.

This recollection of Elder Dallin H. Oaks when he got word of the 1978 revelation resonates with me, partly because he was president of BYU when I was enrolled as a student there. He was anything but indifferent about the matter, and I believe that reflects the feelings of the majority of the faithful membership at the time. It does us a disservice -- and it is quite contrary to fact -- to say that we were indifferent about it.

 

Dallin H. Oaks: I can’t remember any time in my life when I felt greater joy and relief than when I learned that the priesthood was going to be available to all worthy males, whatever their ancestry. I had been troubled by this subject through college and my graduate school, at the University of Chicago where I went to law school. I had many black acquaintances when I lived in Chicago, the years ’54 through ’71. I had many times that my heart ached for that, and it ached for my Church, which I knew to be true and yet blessings of that Church were not available to a significant segment of our Heavenly Father’s children. And I didn’t understand why; I couldn’t identify with any of the explanations that were given. Yet I sustained the action; I was confident that in the time of the Lord I would know more about it, so I went along on faith. 

Nobody was more relieved or more pleased when the word came. I remember where I was when I learned that the priesthood would be available to all worthy males, whatever their ancestry. I was at a mountain home that our family had purchased to have a place of refuge. I had my sons up there, and we were digging something. We had a big pile of dirt there. I’ve forgotten what it was now, but the phone rang in the house. I went inside, and it was Elder Boyd K. Packer. He said: “I have been appointed to advise you as a representative of the academic people, many of whom have been troubled by the ban on the priesthood, professors, and students, and so on. As president of Brigham Young University and as their representative [Elder Oaks was president of BYU at this time], I’ve been appointed to advise you that the revelation has been received that all worthy male members will be eligible to receive the priesthood, whatever their ancestry.” I thanked him, and I went outside and I told my boys, and I sat down [voice cracks with emotion] on that pile of dirt and cried. And I still feel emotion for that moment. I cried for joy and relief that the Lord had spoken through His prophet, that His blessings were now available to all: the blessings of the priesthood, the blessings of the temple, and the blessings of eternity. That’s what we desired. I praise God for it.

 

Edited March 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mormonnewb]

Because you haven't demonstrated a reason for your belief that the saints were indifferent when the priesthood ban was removed.

 

The saints' indifference was patently demonstrated by their willing acceptance of the ban.

People who were NOT indifferent to Jim Crow laws protested, marched and died to force their removal. The vast majority of faithful saints did NONE of these things (inside or outside of the Church).

So what possible EVIDENCE is there that the saints had a problem with the ban? They didn't speak out against it. They didn't leave the Church in protest. So what would make me think that they didn't SUPPORT the ban? Or at the very least, were indifferent to its existence?

[wenglund]

Please point to a SINGLE post in which I made ANY reference to "feelings."

 

Since your comments weren't evidence-based, and even counter evidential, I gave you enough credit to suppose that they were at least based on emotions rather than nothing. And, given that your comments honed in on the "feelings" of LDS and their alleged "feigned excitement", and given your use of emotional words like "sorry" and "glad" and "insulting" and "ugly" and "distasteful," etc., as well as the way you emotionally exaggerated what others had said (like characterizing the general reaction as "weep tears of joy" and "blubbering saint," etc.), which spells emotionally charged reaction on your part, my supposition seemed perfectly logical, though I can accept, on your word, that it wasn't based on emotion, but completely baseless. In which case, I apologize for believing you at least used your heart in the absence of your mind.

 

I also thought you deserving of having your own chain yanked the way you have been yanking people's chain here. You doubted the LDS hearts, and so I doubted your feigned mind. Turn-about is fair play. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-