Only For Those Who Were 30 Years Old And Up

[Calm]

Again you are assuming that just because someone didn't have a problem with the ban they wouldn't rejoice when it was removed.

I didn't have a problem with my son going to college while living at home. It was a limitation on what he was able to do at the time though. I rejoiced when he graduated from school and was able to fully support his own family. He was able to now progress in a way he hadn't been able to while being in school.

[california boy]

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)

Honestly, I think MW has a valid point.  Not every Mormon was tooting their horns and dancing in the street in celebration.  In fact, I didn't see a single Mormon react that way and I was visiting SLC at the time of the announcement.  What I observed is more relief than anything.  Members were glad that the very public anti-black stance of the church was going to go away.  It met that they no longer had to defend a doctrine that many did not support, but were obedient to following.  

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

What you don't get is that people can have such strong faith and total reliance on the Lord that they are willing to wait on Him to say when it is time for change, even though the present condition might be very grievous or heart-wrenching to them. Please consider the quote I posted above from Dallin H. Oaks before you continue to push this supposition about our being "indifferent" on this matter.

[Scott Lloyd]

Honestly, I think MW has a valid point.  Not every Mormon was tooting their horns and dancing in the street in celebration.  In fact, I didn't see a single Mormon react that way and I was visiting SLC at the time of the announcement.  What I observed is more relief than anything.  Members were glad that the very public anti-black stance of the church was going to go away.  It met that they no longer had to defend a doctrine that many did not support, but were obedient to following.  

And that doesn't strike you as significant?

 

Also, if you weren't aware of great joy being expressed, you had to have been oblivious to television, radio, newspapers and whatever other mass media were around at the time.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[saemo]

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?

I'm not Mormon, so maybe I've got it wrong, but my understanding is that your perceived indifference wasn't there. What Mormon members have is a trust that God will right what is wrong...and they patiently wait. Mormons don't tend towards self immolation, but prayer.  Mormons do not speak out against the direction of their leaders, but pray that they will have God's guidance. They see in the lifting of the ban, just that. So the joy is, having a difficult teaching removed, but more importantly to a Mormon, seeing God's guiding hand.

 

That's my . Whether or not you share the LDS POV, is of course, irrelevant to LDS members. 

 

Personally, I think there are more significant questions to the particular topic, but those questions tend to get people riled up, and I've asked them for long enough and I already know there isn't an LDS answer. So, no point asking just to get the usual non-answers!

Edited March 4, 2014 by saemo

[california boy]

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.

 

Your post certainly reinforces what I observed and experienced  Three times President Oaks refers to being relieved.

 

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.

 

[california boy]

And that doesn't strike you as significant?

 

Also, if you weren't aware of great joy being expressed, you had to have been oblivious to television, radio, newspapers and whatever other mass media were around at the time.

I didn't say there wasn't great joy.  I said there was much relief.  People we very joyous over the fact that they no longer had to defend the churches position.

[Scott Lloyd]

Your post certainly reinforces what I observed and experienced  Three times President Oaks refers to being relieved.

When did I deny there was relief?

 

I in fact asserted that there was relief, along with the joy. It was all part of the euphoria.

[mormonnewb]

What you don't get is that people can have such strong faith and total reliance on the Lord that they are willing to wait on Him to say when it is time for change, even though the present condition might be very grievous or heart-wrenching to them. Please consider the quote I posted above from Dallin H. Oaks before you continue to push this supposition about our being "indifferent" on this matter.

 

I actually did read the Oaks quote and did see it from a different perspective.  I can appreciate the conflict he must have experienced between what he thought was right and what he was being told by Church leaders.  And while I have to respect his patience on waiting on HF to make things right, I must point out that it's a lot easier to be patient with other people's time.  It wasn't his wife and kids that were being denied the blessings of a priesthood holder in the home.  It wasn't his family that was being denied the blessings of eternal sealings.

 

So, yes, perhaps many saints did actually cry tears of joy in relief that the ban had finally been lifted.  However, it would have been much better had they instead done some actual "lifting." 

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't say there wasn't great joy.  I said there was much relief.  People we very joyous over the fact that they no longer had to defend the churches position.

Right. I haven't denied this.

 

Whom or what are you trying to contradict with this?

 

Or are you claiming that was the only thing they were joyous about? If so, you are being unfair, to say the least.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

Why is this such a patently unreasonable position to take?

Because you retain your prejudice regardless of the number of times you have been told you are wrong.  You really should read this thread and just count how many times you have been told you are wrong.  Read it as someone who had just found the thread would read it, knowing nothing about it.

 

In my opinion, in reading the thread, you come off as quite obstinate and unreasonable.  I have done that myself enough to know it when I see it.

 

Because you are indifferent to the plight of others, that does not mean that others were indifferent to the plight of black people.  I seem to recall something about some white civil rights workers who lost their lives in the south.  How foolish of them! 

 

I suppose they should have also been indifferent as well

[CV75]

So, yes, perhaps many saints did actually cry tears of joy in relief that the ban had finally been lifted.  However, it would have been much better had they instead done some actual "lifting." 

This reminds of the man dying of thirst in the desert who was rescued, re-hydrated, reunited with his loved ones, given all the medical and rehabilitative resources and time off he needed, and all he did was whine about how thirsty he was.

[Tacenda]

I actually did read the Oaks quote and did see it from a different perspective. I can appreciate the conflict he must have experienced between what he thought was right and what he was being told by Church leaders. And while I have to respect his patience on waiting on HF to make things right, I must point out that it's a lot easier to be patient with other people's time. It wasn't his wife and kids that were being denied the blessings of a priesthood holder in the home. It wasn't his family that was being denied the blessings of eternal sealings.

So, yes, perhaps many saints did actually cry tears of joy in relief that the ban had finally been lifted. However, it would have been much better had they instead done some actual "lifting."

They were afraid to protest or cause a fuss. Just like the SSM supporters, many stay silent. It could mean their TR not being renewed, or back lash from family, friends, and ward members.

[wenglund]

Three times President Oaks refers to being relieved.

 

And, in none of those three times was his relief in response to no longer having to defend the church's position, as you assert. Rather, it was relief from the heart ache in response to the full blessings of eternity and the gospel not available to all men.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 4, 2014 by wenglund

[Calm]

They were afraid to protest or cause a fuss. Just like the SSM supporters, many stay silent. It could mean their TR not being renewed, or back lash from family, friends, and ward members.

It may have been fear that keeps you quiet. I wouldn't assume that was the reason for everyone else or even most everyone else.

[Scott Lloyd]

I actually did read the Oaks quote and did see it from a different perspective.  I can appreciate the conflict he must have experienced between what he thought was right and what he was being told by Church leaders.  And while I have to respect his patience on waiting on HF to make things right, I must point out that it's a lot easier to be patient with other people's time.  It wasn't his wife and kids that were being denied the blessings of a priesthood holder in the home.  It wasn't his family that was being denied the blessings of eternal sealings.

 

So, yes, perhaps many saints did actually cry tears of joy in relief that the ban had finally been lifted.  However, it would have been much better had they instead done some actual "lifting." 

(Bold emphasis mine for reference)

 

I really don't see much respect of that sort displayed in your posts here, including this one.

 

If you look into the personal circumstances of people who exercise such patience (i.e. waiting on the Lord), I daresay you find that it is a quality they exhibit even when they themselves are more directly affected by the matter. Meanwhile, it is not fair to dismiss empathy they may feel for others, even as they cope with their own trials.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

They were afraid to protest or cause a fuss. Just like the SSM supporters, many stay silent. It could mean their TR not being renewed, or back lash from family, friends, and ward members.

 

This seems oddly distorted given that in many SSM threads over the last year or so, particularly those I start, the LDS and former LDS supporters of gay marriage usually outnumber the challengers three to one..What an imagination you have.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 4, 2014 by wenglund

[mormonnewb]

This reminds of the man dying of thirst in the desert who was rescued, re-hydrated, reunited with his loved ones, given all the medical and rehabilitative resources and time off he needed, and all he did was whine about how thirsty he was.

That's interesting. And how did that man get in the desert in your analogy? Did he wonder out there by himself or was he stranded in the desert by his "rescuers" who then seem to want to be THANKED for their efforts in "saving" him?

[mfbukowski]

 

So, yes, perhaps many saints did actually cry tears of joy in relief that the ban had finally been lifted.  However, it would have been much better had they instead done some actual "lifting." 

We are a quaint and ignorant people who actually believe that the prophet receives revelation from God and that it should be obeyed, regardless of how we feel about it.

 

We think that protesting against the prophet would not please God, because the prophet knows God's will, and we do not, and that ultimately there is wisdom in following the prophet.  We may not see it now, but we will see it in the long run.

 

This is not "blind obedience" as much as it is an opportunity to ask God ourselves if we should continue the prophet or vote with our feet and leave the church.

 

Those are really the options.  Follow the prophet or leave the church.  Protesting on temple square and assaulting the sanctity of the temple is not an option for faithful saints, ignorant and quaint as we are.

 

The options are get a testimony of the principle, or leave the church.  We converts have done it before and can do it again if we find it necessary.  Protesting is not on the list.

 

The brethren believe they are to follow God, not the mob outside.  They also are quaint and ignorant people that way.

[Calm]

Mormon newb,

Perhaps it is impossible, but until you understand how LDS at the time actually felt about and understood the ban, I don't think you will understand the reaction to its removal.

Perhaps it is like observing a marriage and being part of one. Even after having relatively intimate knowledge of a loving faithful marriage (my parents), I was still totally unaware of how I myself would experience it. Perhaps the experience of the ban is another 'you just had to be there' moment.

Edited March 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

They were afraid to protest or cause a fuss. Just like the SSM supporters, many stay silent. It could mean their TR not being renewed, or back lash from family, friends, and ward members.

Or perhaps they think they should follow the prophet, silly folks that they are.

[Danzo]

Honestly, I think MW has a valid point.  Not every Mormon was tooting their horns and dancing in the street in celebration.  In fact, I didn't see a single Mormon react that way and I was visiting SLC at the time of the announcement.  What I observed is more relief than anything.  Members were glad that the very public anti-black stance of the church was going to go away.  It met that they no longer had to defend a doctrine that many did not support, but were obedient to following.  

This is what I mean by evidence!  MW wasn't providing any. 

Now we have evidence, by some people, that not everyone was ecstatic about the priesthood ban being lifted.

We have evidence provided by others that people were ecstatic.

 

Could you elaborate on your experience?  Were many people telling you that they "were glad that the very public anti black stance of the church was going to go away?" or was that your interpretation.

Did you talk to a lot of people or was it a few?

Were these people active Mormons?

[Tacenda]

Or perhaps they think they should follow the prophet, silly folks that they are.

Yes, just as those that may have wanted to speak out against the ban, but didn't because they wanted to follow the prophet.

[Calm]

Yes, just as those that may have wanted to speak out against the ban, but didn't because they wanted to follow the prophet.

Which isn't fear based, but trust or love or both.

[mormonnewb]

Mormon newb,

Perhaps it is impossible, but until you understand how LDS at the time actually felt about and understood the ban, I don't think you will understand the reaction to its removal.

Perhaps it is like observing a marriage and being part of one. Even after having relatively intimate knowledge of a loving faithful marriage (my parents), I was still totally unaware of how I myself would experience it. Perhaps the experience of the ban is another 'you just had to be there' moment.

I think I understand a little better than before. You mentioned in an earlier post that you think the saints are more willing to accept what might be deemed a "temporary injustice" (my term) because of the overriding belief that HF will make all things right in the fullness of time. That could explain why many saints were comfortable with the Church's pre-1978 stance because it was just a "temporary injustice." And then when the ban was lifted, they were genuinely happy/relieved that blacks could receive the priesthood.

That being said, you have to understand how that might not be apparently obvious to most observers. When people are either silent or even openly support a policy, it seems counter-intuitive that they would rejoice in its repeal.

And while I have been a harsh critic of the saints in this thread, I am a "softie" in comparison to most non-Mormons. Remember, I love me some saints, enough so that I was willing to forego many of my religious traditions in an effort to be more like this "peculiar" people.

So I will take each of you at your word that you are remembering these things correctly. I will also believe each of those who reported a less than enthusiastic reaction.

But looking forward to the future, when we cry tears of joy upon the lifting of the SSM ban, it will help our cause quite a bit if we have established SOME record of misgiving and dissent in the interim ... just saying.

(And no, I am not setting myself up as a prophet, seer or revelator by predicting OD3; at least, no more than by predicting that the next Baptist church I visit will pass around a collection plate. It's just what they do. And receiving new revelation to fit a changing political landscape is something we do ... sooner or later).

Edited March 4, 2014 by mormonnewb