Only For Those Who Were 30 Years Old And Up

[wenglund]

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.

 

As decent a man as you evidently are, and as much as I love you, I don't think you are in a good position to speak for "most observers" since, in large part, you weren't directly an "observer."

 

Besides, I would hope that most observers aren't so fallacious in their thinking as to illogically suppose that the presumed absence of overt evidence, is evidence of absence, particularly in a nuanced world.

 

But, hang in there. Who can doubt that there is always a much better chance that the people who were present and partiy to the events will be convinced that they don't know what they are talking about, by people who weren't present, and not party, and who really don't know what they are talking about. Stranger things have happened.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 4, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

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.

 

If, prior to 1978, you were to poll church member whether they anticipated and would welcome a revelatory lifting of the priesthood ban or not, I think you would find the vast majority answering in the affirmative.

 

However, it today you were to poll church members whether they anticipate and would welcome a revelatory lifting of the SSM ban or not, I think you would find the vast majority answering in the negative.

 

This is because members of the church tend overwhelmingly to grasp the critical difference between skin color and sexual perversion.

 

So, there is little chance that church members will be inclined to establish a record that defies their generally held expectation and their correct grasp of the gospel. But, you are welcome to your wild imaginings.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mormonnewb]

If, prior to 1978, you were to poll church member whether they anticipated and would welcome a revelatory lifting of the priesthood ban or not, I think you would find the vast majority answering in the affirmative.

However, it today you were to poll church members whether they anticipate and would welcome a revelatory lifting of the SSM ban or not, I think you would find the vast majority answering in the negative.

This is because members of the church tend overwhelmingly to grasp the critical difference between skin color and sexual perversion.

So, there is little chance that church members will be inclined to establish a record that defies their generally held expectation and their correct grasp of the gospel. But, you are welcome to your wild imaginings.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And if you were to have polled the saints in 1960, the number of saints favoring the ban would be higher than in 1978. And the same poll in 1950 would have even had higher numbers seeing the ban as in the line with "a correct grasp of the gospel."

As a previous poster noted, we are a "quaint" people so give us time

[Traela]

And if you were to have polled the saints in 1960, the number of saints favoring the ban would be higher than in 1978. And the same poll in 1950 would have even had higher numbers seeing the ban as in the line with "a correct grasp of the gospel."

As a previous poster noted, we are a "quaint" people so give us time

And if you polled the members, most, if not all, knew that the ban would be lifted at some point. The same cannot be said of SSM, in fact the opposite.

[Mystery Meat]

Elder Bednar is 61 years old. He is the youngest apostle. If the Church changes its stance on SSM I think it will only do so to conform to changing societal norms and not because of an official declaration or revelation from above. The Church never makes decisions unless all 15 of the first presidency and quorum of the 12 are in agreement. Does anyone actually believe that the policy will be changed in his lifetime? He could live for another 20-40 years.

 

I don't see it happening at all because I think we have heard the Lord's will on the matter (despite numerous circular conversations and threads debating this point). And I know that the leaders of the Church feel the same way. I think the Church is past the point of no return. If they were going to change they would have done it 5 years ago. Having fought at multiple times at the SCOTUS level...not a chance.  

[wenglund]

And if you were to have polled the saints in 1960, the number of saints favoring the ban would be higher than in 1978. And the same poll in 1950 would have even had higher numbers seeing the ban as in the line with "a correct grasp of the gospel."

As a previous poster noted, we are a "quaint" people so give us time

 

Even in the 60's, the numbers not anticipating and favoring the ban would have been in the minority.

 

Granted, gay activist have been very active since the mid 60's attempting to normalize homosexuality, and while they have been increasingly successful within pop culture over the last half century (particularly the last 10 years), they haven't been as successful among religionists--in large part because religionists grasp the critical difference between skin color and sexual perversion.

 

Besides, God is not as vulnerable to gay propaganda as young and impressionable youth, or even "hip" adults, so there is little chance that God's mind will changed from abhorring homosexual behavior to embracing and celebrating it in the future. Again, God is about progress and holiness, not digression and profanation.

 

But, good luck with that..

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 4, 2014 by wenglund

[california boy]

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?

 

 

Well of course I talked to a lot of active members.  I think most members I talked to was glad that the ban had been lifted.  Some older members, maybe not so happy.  The church had given them a clear idea where God viewed the blacks station in life.  All were quite surprised and I would say even stunned that the ban was lifted, since the doctrine was that this ban would not be lifted until after the millennium.  

 

I feel that most were relieved that the policy would stop all of the racist bigoted remarks being hurled at the church.  I think most members in California where I lived that were my age were not prejudice against blacks.  Yet they belonged to a church that held prejudice beliefs against blacks.  It doesn't take much imagination to understand the relief to have this doctrine changed.  It was difficult being in California and being scorned and ridiculed for your racist religious beliefs.  But members were more than willing to take that kind of abuse because they faithfully followed the prophet.  People talked about this doctrine as being a tool of God to weed out the wheat from the tare.  Those that supported the ban would be blessed even if the world turned away from them. The church was never suppose to be popular.

 

Unfortunately even though 38 years have passed since that event, people in California have never forgotten and still view the church as being a racist church.  Sadly the church now has the additional reputation for being bigoted against gays because of Prop 8.  So the church members are once again put in a position of supporting a policy that makes them look like they support prejudice against gays even if no such prejudice exists.  People didn't really buy the belief that you were not prejudice against blacks but supported the ban on the priesthood.  People don't really buy the belief that you are not prejudice against gays but supported Prop 8.  Maybe it is unfair, but it is very real and very sad.

Edited March 4, 2014 by california boy

[california boy]

And if you polled the members, most, if not all, knew that the ban would be lifted at some point. The same cannot be said of SSM, in fact the opposite.

Yes, the ban would be lifted after the millennium.  That was an integral part of the doctrine revealed to Brigham Young.  No one expected God to change hHs mind no matter how much the members wanted that doctrine to change.  It is a false belief that members thought the ban would be lifted any time soon.  Since the lifting of the ban, it seems that many are rewriting history to suggest that the church expected the ban to be lifted soon and we just had to be patient.  When did that start?

[Calm]

But, hang in there. Who can doubt that there is always a much better chance that the people who were present and partiy to the events will be convinced that they don't know what they are talking about, by people who weren't present, and not party, and who really don't know what they are talking about. Stranger things have happened.

 

I would not be surprised if what newb meant was that without hearing the stories, this is what is assumed about our reaction.  Hardly surprising if they don't know the context or the LDS culture.

 

And unfortunately given human nature, once that assumption is in place, that impression tends to stick even if the presence of counter evidence.  Studies have shown that even demonstrating a belief is false can end up strengthening it.

 

OTOH, if mormonnewb is able to see past his own assumptions whatever they were to accepting the faith we now share, then there should be hope imo for others doing so as well.

[Calm]

 It is a false belief that members thought the ban would be lifted any time soon.  Since the lifting of the ban, it seems that many are rewriting history to suggest that the church expected the ban to be lifted soon and we just had to be patient.  When did that start?

That is not how I am reading it.  Instead we were rejoicing because of the unexpected nature of it, as in we and especially they weren't going to have to wait until the Millennium or the next life for the promised blessings but they were getting them in the here and now.  Things had quieted down and the pressure had let up.  There was no outside reason to change it seemed. I was not aware at the time of the issues in Central and South America.  It was to me almost miraculous.

 

OTOH, there would have been many who were aware of the new temple and the implications for that if the local population who could participate were limited by the ban so perhaps there were some who were anticipating a sooner date.  I will have to ask my husband who served a mission a year before the ban was lifted in South America if he had a clue.  He was one of those who could not hold back the tears because of a faithful family he had worked with and grown close to whose father was of black ancestry and could not hold the Priesthood and yet was active and engaged in the work of the Lord.

Edited March 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[california boy]

Granted, gay activist have been very active since the mid 60's attempting to normalize homosexuality, and while they have been increasingly successful within pop culture over the last half century (particularly the last 10 years), they haven't been as successful among religionists--in large part because religionist grasp the critical difference between skin color and sexual perversion.

 

I would strongly disagree with this statement.  There have been quite a few large Christian religions that have significantly changed their position on SSA and ordaining gay clergy.  Anglican church, Evangelical Lutheran Church, Evangelic Lutheran Church of Canada, Unitarian church, some Baptist churches, Swiss Reform Church, Moravian Church, some Quakers, The United Church of Canada, (Canada's largest protestant denomination) The United Church of Christ, some Pentecostal, United Church of Australia, New Apostolic Church, Protestant churches in Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Iceland, Danish National Church, Community of Christ, some Jewish sects, have started to perform gay marriages and/or ordaining gay clergy to name a few.  

[thesometimesaint]

Alright.  It'd be fascinating to be able to get such a view of the whole Church, for sure.  I didn't know anyone would have that perspective, except perhaps God.  YOu had used "universal" before to describe it.  From what's been reported that just doesn't seem to have been the case.  But the previous personal reports I've heard could have been wrong.  I grant that.  So I'm open to the possibility. 

 

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. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:George_W._Romney_-_NCAA_antisegregation_march.jpeg

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, the ban would be lifted after the millennium.  That was an integral part of the doctrine revealed to Brigham Young.  No one expected God to change hHs mind no matter how much the members wanted that doctrine to change.  It is a false belief that members thought the ban would be lifted any time soon.  Since the lifting of the ban, it seems that many are rewriting history to suggest that the church expected the ban to be lifted soon and we just had to be patient.  When did that start?

 

I don't know when it started but it was alive and well in 1971 when I joined.

[CMZ]

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." 

 

I feel confident, with all respect, at this point that we can view your efforts as going back in time and trying to tell people how much better they should have been doing. I don't know what good it possibly does to just harp on this over and over and over in 2014 except that maybe you just want something to hang over peoples' heads, and nothing they can say can get them out from under it in your mind.

Edited March 4, 2014 by CMZ

[california boy]

I don't know when it started but it was alive and well in 1971 when I joined.

Really........Do you have any kind of official statement back in 1971 that the church had officially abandoned the last half of Brigham Youngs statement about when blacks would receive the priesthood?  And if they easily dismissed the second half of Brigham Young's statement on blacks prior to 1971, why did it take 7 years to abandon the first half of Brigham Young's statement??

[thesometimesaint]

Really........Do you have any kind of official statement back in 1971 that the church had officially abandoned the last half of Brigham Youngs statement about when blacks would receive the priesthood?  And if they easily dismissed the second half of Brigham Young's statement on blacks prior to 1971, why did it take 7 years to abandon the first half of Brigham Young's statement??

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[CV75]

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?

The analogy doesn't require how the man got into the desert. And it is not about giving thanks (even to God) or assigning blame (to anyone) but about the character of the man--not of the desert or his rescuers.

[bcuzbcuz]

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

You say you got better? Well, I still listen to Angela Davis and she still makes sense. I took my social awareness and political activevism (although I attended Bekeley.....) and made it several degrees better.. I have worked for social improvements to those less fortunate and I just don't see any of that in the Republican party or platform. But then, I'm not an American and only look at it from the outside.

Maybe a good commie becomes a good Republican when they get older and forget that government interference has various levels of "pronouncement" and several layers of discernment are needed to sift between the good and the bad. I support the government involvement that creates programs like "Headstart" and still fight against the government involvement that created the mess in Iraq. (Iraq, and the mess it made, reach far beyond the borders of the US)

Edited March 4, 2014 by bcuzbcuz

[california boy]

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

I have read the article.  Was there something in the article that tells when the church abandoned the part of the revelation by Brigham Young that the blacks would not receive the priesthood until the Millennium??  

[thesometimesaint]

I have read the article.  Was there something in the article that tells when the church abandoned the part of the revelation by Brigham Young that the blacks would not receive the priesthood until the Millennium?? 

Joseph Smith ordained blacks.

 

David O. McKay removed the ban of non African blacks in the 1950's

 

Sure it happened in 1978. We didn't wait until the return of Christ in glory and power.

[Rock_N_Roll]

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.

As a fellow Utah County, 'Class of '79' graduate, I concur with most every sentiment you listed here.  My parents were slightly racist, and my grand-parents extremely racist, so I did hear some grumblings on their part. But they kept it quiet for the most part and believed that if the Prophet said it was a revelation, they needed to learn how to deal with it.  No, I don't remember anyone shedding tears of joy or making a big deal out of it at church. It was discussed quite a bit for a while though. My High School had zero black students and my town had a total of one black family at the time.  

[mfbukowski]

Maybe a good commie becomes a good Republican when they get older and forget that government interference has various levels of "pronouncement" and several layers of discernment are needed to sift between the good and the bad. I support the government involvement that creates programs like "Headstart" and still fight against the government involvement that created the mess in Iraq. (Iraq, and the mess it made, reach far beyond the borders of the US)

Well all that is pretty spiffy- actually I am a realistic libertarian and it's not because I am old. I did the old switcheroo right after college when I bumped headlong into a massive nameless bureaucracy who decided to make my life miserable. Not fun.

I got to ask myself if I really wanted these people in charge of every aspect of my life, and the answer was clear. I wanted them OUT of it completely.

The problem is who is in charge of your "several layers of discernment" and who is doing the discernment. As long as it ain't me, I am not going to trust them. I'm just not gullible enough to believe they have my good at heart, for some silly reason.

When I thought I was theorizing for the masses and planning for the revolution, I was on top and it was fine.

But then again I have never had a job either. I have always been self-employed and never had a boss- except myself.

I guess I really need some re-education to get politically correct. Where was that gulag you were pointing to?

Edited March 4, 2014 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

Well all that is pretty spiffy- actually I am a realistic libertarian and it's not because I am old. I did the old switcheroo right after college when I bumped headlong into a massive nameless bureaucracy who decided to make my life miserable. Not fun.

I got to ask myself if I really wanted these people in charge of every aspect of my life, and the answer was clear. I wanted them OUT of it completely.

The problem is who is in charge of your "several layers of discernment" and who is doing the discernment. As long as it ain't me, I am not going to trust them. I'm just not gullible enough to believe they have my good at heart, for some silly reason.

When I thought I was theorizing for the masses and planning for the revolution, I was on top and it was fine.

But then again I have never had a job either. I have always been self-employed and never had a boss- except myself.

I guess I really need some re-education to get politically correct. Where was that gulag you were pointing to?

 

That's fine as long as you live on an island by yourself. The minute you interact with others, government becomes the issue. "More perfect union", and all that.

[wenglund]

I would strongly disagree with this statement.  There have been quite a few large Christian religions that have significantly changed their position on SSA and ordaining gay clergy.  Anglican church, Evangelical Lutheran Church, Evangelic Lutheran Church of Canada, Unitarian church, some Baptist churches, Swiss Reform Church, Moravian Church, some Quakers, The United Church of Canada, (Canada's largest protestant denomination) The United Church of Christ, some Pentecostal, United Church of Australia, New Apostolic Church, Protestant churches in Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Iceland, Danish National Church, Community of Christ, some Jewish sects, have started to perform gay marriages and/or ordaining gay clergy to name a few.  

 

And, what percent do the religions you listed represent in terms of the entire religious population of the world? When you figure out that number, then you may just see that your list doesn't negate what I said, but instead confirms it--i.e. the exceptions proving the rule.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

And, what percent do the religions you listed represent in terms of the entire religious population of the world? When you figure out that number, then you may just see that your list doesn't negate what I said, but instead confirms it--i.e. the exceptions proving the rule.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That is an Ad Populum argument. The LDS are a tiny fraction of the population of the world. Do you really want the rest of the world determining what you believe?