A New Mormon [Double] Standard?

[why me]

Also, what is the relationship between african immigrants and african americans? Not good.

 

https://neoafricanamericans.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/on-the-relationship-between-african-americans-and-black-immigrants/

 

Notice the comment section.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/07/14/africans.in.america/

 

What can be concluded by such articles? Certainly african immigrants do not identify themselves as african americans and certainly these immigrant populations are doing better than the african american community. Thus, race baiting does a disservice to the african american community. Likewise for the constant disparaging of the white population as being inherently racist.

 

Again, I encourage mormonnewb to do missionary work among the black american community. And black american america can learn much from african immigrants. I think that it time to have an acadamic dialogue with mormonnewb. Up until this time he has given emotional responses and feelings. But absent from all this has been facts and data that shows just how africans immigrants are succeeding and progressing in the usa through hard work and good family values.

Edited January 30, 2015 by why me

[Tacenda]

My husband served his mission in Jackson, Mississippi and the surrounding areas.  I'll ask him how that was in the years 1979-1981.  And how the members there reacted or were affected.  Me myself and I?  I don't remember much about it.  I remember it being announced and I think the death of Elvis was the same time, could be wrong I'll check.  But it was a very memorable day and know exactly what I was doing at the time, I was coming back from a lunch break from work and heard it on the radio.  I grew up where there was maybe one or two families that were black in my high school.  Very little exposure to blacks.  I was never racist or a bigot, but picked up racist phrases and didn't realize what I was saying.  I'm wondering if that may happen oft times.  Just like with gays and how they were treated until you got to know them.  My first time really getting to know a black woman was at a job I had.  And I'm so glad I did, she was so awesome!  I think there is a lot of ignorance out there, and I admit in my youth I was ignorant, and didn't know what I didn't know.  Therefore I think that was the case when the announcement was read, in my circle I didn't really hear much about it, because people didn't have access to blacks and didn't make a lot of connections.  They didn't know of a black member personally to know the significance, but should speak for myself.  So at least in my family I don't even remember any conversation about it.  But I was only 16 or so and probably really self centered and didn't want to be around family too much.     

[Calm]

From the Ensign one month later:

 

 

Warm Responses to Priesthood Announcement

By Janet Brigham

News Editor

On a quiet Friday in June, the announcement came: “… every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood.”

The reaction? For Church members, joyous surprise, a warm witness that a living prophet receives revelation, and increased understanding. For nonmembers, praise mingled with curiosity.

Church members throughout the world say they will always remember what they were doing when they heard the announcement, which was made June 9 from Salt Lake City. The official notification of the revelation was sent in a letter to Church leaders throughout the world. The news media carried the news in front-page headlines.

Newspapers across the United States delayed editions to include the news; two news magazines, Time and Newsweek, stopped the presses on their weekend editions to get the story in. The news made the front page of The New York Times. Newspapers that previously had been neutral or negative on Church-related issues carried laudatory editorials. U.S. President Jimmy Carter commended President Spencer W. Kimball for “compassionate prayerfulness and courage.”

Yet the real news was in the lives that the revelation affects.

Brother Mel Stricklin of the North Branch Ward, East Brunswick New Jersey Stake, a postal worker, was at work when his wife called him to relay the news. The Stricklins, who are black, joined the Church seven years ago.

“I was so overwhelmed that I just got warm all over. I couldn’t sit down, I couldn’t stand up. I had to go outside and thank God that now my family and I can be sealed together,” Brother Stricklin says. “It was such a wonderful feeling that I can’t put it into words. I think it was the most important announcement of my life. It means so much to us, after waiting so long.”

Brother Stricklin was interviewed by his bishop that Sunday and was ordained a priest in the Aaronic Priesthood a week later. He will be presented at stake conference in August to be ordained an elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood. After that ordination, the Stricklins plan to be sealed.

“I feel it’s an awesome responsibility to act in the name of God. I’m praying to the Lord every day that I can be worthy to receive his Spirit and authority.”

The Stricklins are thankful that Brother Stricklin’s life has been spared twice by priesthood blessings. And they are thankful for the support of their ward. On the day of the announcement, the Stricklins’ telephone rang continuously from 3 P.M. to 11 P.M. The last call was from a man in Salt Lake City—the former missionary who baptized them.

Throughout the Church, steps were taken to ordain worthy men such as Brother Stricklin. A brief telegram, received at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City a few days after the announcement, stated that an ordination had taken place in Bangkok, Thailand, on what would have been Saturday in the United States. (Thailand is a day ahead of the United States.)

In the Plainview Long Island Stake, the opportunity for one such member of the Church came soon after the announcement of the revelation. He was presented for a sustaining vote in a stake conference June 11. Stake President Charles Neaman relates: “We had sustained one other man, and this man was next. He stood up and held his little son. We asked for a sustaining vote on his behalf. The hands just shot up. To me, that was just like sustaining the prophet.”

The announcement also had an impact on those whose lives were not directly affected. Stake President Conrad Caldwell of the Houston Texas Stake says he is excited—and sobered—about the implications of the revelation. “The way is now open for more missionary work,” he says. “And it certainly is indicative of the times in which we live, and the need for things to be done.”

Stake President Richard L. Chapple of the Tallahassee Florida Stake recounts what he has learned from the revelation: “I now understand more fully the concept that there really is a prophet, and the process followed to receive the revelation. It’s a great lesson—what have I really prayed that long and hard for?

“Now we’re so excited. We can really see the Church going forth. It’s great to be alive and part of it. It’s as right as it can be.”

https://www.lds.org/ensign/print/1978/08/news-of-the-church?lang=eng&clang=eng

[stemelbow]

From the Ensign one month later:

 

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/print/1978/08/news-of-the-church?lang=eng&clang=eng

Makes ya wonder what Elder McConkie got all huffy about when he said people need to get in line with the announcement and forget past statements. It also makes ya wonder when others who were around back then reported upset attitudes from some members. At least it'd sound more accurate if it was reported as receiving a bit of a mixed message. Some members must have been thinking that official statements from the leaders and First presidency still carried weight since none of them were ever disavowed.

[Robert F. Smith]

.............................................   

What changed from 1949-1978 (I realize there were great movements socially in terms of equal rights, but I mean in the Church) among the general membership which caused members to deny the previously typical LDS thinking--"blacks won't receive the priesthood until all other children of God receive its blessings"?

A new generation of General Authorities came along, as did a new generation of Mormons.  You answer your own question in observing the "great movements socially," and the LDS "general membership" was not isolated from those changes.  It was a long tortuous process, largely begun by President McKay and completed by Pres. Kimball, requiring much fasting and prayer.

 

The other official pronouncement from the Church did not contradict, correct, nor deny the claims made in the '49 statement. Thus it was possible for members to cling to the notion that blacks won't receive the priesthood until all others were blessed.. they could have clung to it as doctrinal, the will of God, as direct revelation from heaven. But somehow, some here are suggesting that the majority of LDS did not accept the statements in '49. How so? Why?

I don't know of anyone on this board suggesting that a majority of LDS did not accept the 1949 statement.  Clearly the LDS majority was just as racially insensitive as the rest of the USA generally (excluding the South, where lynchings were a regular practice then).

.............................................

Who was Elder McConkie thinking of when he made his correction and told people they need to forget the things said in the past on the topic and accept modern day revelation on the matter? Who was holding on to the errant statements in the past? Who needed correcting?

Elder McConkie was speaking for himself and some other members of the Twelve, and some of their predecessors, who had unknowingly made false statements.

 

The gist of all this is that, as of 1978, we were finally getting back to the Restoration of a non-racist Church by Joseph Smith.  Lesser lights had abandoned part of that program during the Pioneer and Accommodations phases of LDS history.  God has always had to deal with errant humans.  You can read about it in the Bible, in the Book of Mormon, and in LDS history.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[stemelbow]

A new generation of General Authorities came along, as did a new generation of Mormons.  You answer your own question in observing the "great movements socially," and the LDS "general membership" was not isolated from those changes.  It was a long tortuous process, largely begun by President McKay and completed by Pres. Kimball, requiring much fasting and prayer.

 

I don't know of anyone on this board suggesting that a majority of LDS did not accept the 1949 statement.  Clearly the LDS majority was just as racially insensitive as the rest of the USA generally (excluding the South, where lynchings were a regular practice then).

Elder McConkie was speaking for himself and some other members of the Twelve, and some of their predecessors, who had unknowingly made false statements.

 

The gist of all this is that, as of 1978, we were finally getting back to the Restoration of a non-racist Church by Joseph Smith.  Lesser lights had abandoned part of that program during the Pioneer and Accommodations phases of LDS history.  God has always had to deal with errant humans.  You can read about it in the Bible, in the Book of Mormon, and in LDS history.

Awesome response, thanks.

It makes ya wonder what a new generation of leaders will end up doing as it pertains to the issues raised in this thread.

[KevinG]

So wait?  You want to define the standards for affiliation and support of my paid employees, but you insist that my company must provide services in conflict with my values, simply because someone else demands them?

 

So I can insist the NAACP hire at least one Klansman for their staff, while requiring them to provide scholarships to white supremacists?

 

I'm not tracking here...

 

Why not let any old idiot affiliate and do business with whomever they want, and if they are stupid, bigoted and cruel enough to alienate their customers, they can go out of business without the help of the government enforcers?  I like that idea better.

Edited January 30, 2015 by KevinG

[DBMormon]

Maybe, but I think it is a very weak argument that amounts to little more than wishful thinking. If we follow this argument further it ends up obliterating much of the roles of prophets and apostles. In this particular case we have scriptural evidence that such actions have been a sin through out every dispensation (before the law of Moses, during the law of Moses, after the law of Moses and today). I think the likelihood that all of these prophets got it wrong is minuscule at best.

Lots of prophets have gotten things wrong. we have changed views on each of the following issues to one degree or another Blacks less valiant, interracial marriage as sin,  cremation is wrong, birth control is evil, women praying in sacrament and conference, use and disuse of the cross, white shirts are the uniform of the priesthood, tithing is gross, Jesus was born on april 6th, etc......  LVJD, Unless I can hold onto that miniscule chance, I and many in my position feel the space for them to remain is getting smaller.  

[KevinG]

There are no Prophetic statements declaring white shirts as a requirement of the doctrines of the church.  It is, was and always will be (as long as we require it) a practice not a doctrine.

 

A lot of misunderstandings about how prophets and presidents are, or are not, inspired would clear up as soon as the Saints and Saint watchers learned the difference between doctrine, practice, culture and policy.

[DBMormon]

There are no Prophetic statements declaring white shirts as a requirement of the doctrines of the church.  It is, was and always will be (as long as we require it) a practice not a doctrine.

 

A lot of misunderstandings about how prophets and presidents are, or are not, inspired would clear up as soon as the Saints and Saint watchers learned the difference between doctrine, practice, culture and policy.

Agreed, I was on a roll..... White shirts should not have been included.

[DBMormon]

There are no Prophetic statements declaring white shirts as a requirement of the doctrines of the church.  It is, was and always will be (as long as we require it) a practice not a doctrine.

 

A lot of misunderstandings about how prophets and presidents are, or are not, inspired would clear up as soon as the Saints and Saint watchers learned the difference between doctrine, practice, culture and policy.

 

Doctrine is such a small bucket in my mind... much less defined that most members think.  That said many top leaders impose policy as the mind and will of God when it is not that clear and absolute.  Do you agree Kevin?

[mfbukowski]

There are no Prophetic statements declaring white shirts as a requirement of the doctrines of the church.  It is, was and always will be (as long as we require it) a practice not a doctrine.

 

A lot of misunderstandings about how prophets and presidents are, or are not, inspired would clear up as soon as the Saints and Saint watchers learned the difference between doctrine, practice, culture and policy.

This is meant to be a general response about this whole train of thought-

 

There is no difference. It's all "just somebody talking".

 

If you can pass a temple recommend interview in all honesty in your heart, you are a member in good standing.  Believe what you will other than your honest interpretation of what those questions mean, pray about them and receive a testimony of their interpretation and act accordingly.

 

We believe in orthopraxis.  This is a church of action, not vague doctrine.  We just need to get this whole literalism thing out of our minds once and for all.  That is what causes all the problems, parsing words and running off with our own silly little interpretations being "correct" doctrine for everyone.

 

We believe in an open canon.  That means personal revelation.  In order to even KNOW whatever the brethren say is "correct" we have to pray about it anyway.

 

If we can't pass a recommend interview in good conscience, walk.  Why not?   I am NOT a Baptist or a Catholic or a Buddhist because I do not believe those principles. 

 

I do not argue about what Catholics or Presbyterians "should" believe or what their leaders teach, because what they teach is irrelevant in my life.

 

If what our leaders teach becomes irrelevant in my life, I would walk away as fast as I walked in the door.  No grief, no tears, just "oops- sorry- I changed my mind" and that's it.  But for me, that will never happen because THIS church describes my beliefs the best of any I can imagine, in all areas, even politics.  I think they are doing well and going in a good direction and I support them completely.

 

Believe what God tells you to believe, and grow the way he teaches you.  That's the only way you can be true to yourself

Edited January 30, 2015 by mfbukowski

[KevinG]

Doctrine is such a small bucket in my mind... much less defined that most members think.  That said many top leaders impose policy as the mind and will of God when it is not that clear and absolute.  Do you agree Kevin?

 

As Church membership is totally voluntary- and I have not been chased by Danites despite my terrible attendance record...  I think imposed is a strong term.

 

However God seems to validate your concerns:   D&C 121:39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

[why me]

Doctrine is such a small bucket in my mind... much less defined that most members think.  That said many top leaders impose policy as the mind and will of God when it is not that clear and absolute.  Do you agree Kevin?

Nothing is clear and absolute except death. All else is unclear. However, the lds church seems to be leading people well. I can't see any life direction that has been a mistake. If more people lived the lds lifestyle the world would certainly be a better place. And what is an imposed policy? We all have choice in any 'imposed' policy. Was christ clear in his parables. He could have spoken in a more simple manner considering that he was basically speaking to the uneducated. And clearity would have helped.

[mormonnewb]

A friend who not only wrote in his journal that day but kept it around and even has access to it:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/06/14/a-missionarys-view-of-the-1978-revelation/

Thank you for all of your efforts to help me getting a more historically accurate understanding of the mood in the Church around OD2. I can't wait for Stevenson's book to arrive. I have his first book (about Elijah Abel) and have heard him on a number of podcasts. Smart guy!

[Calm]

Nice guy too.

 

And he comes across as very grounded in reality to me, as willing to deal with negatives as he is with positives and not to get carried away by either pet peeves or gospel hobbies.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if he would be willing to talk to you if you felt more comfortable with that then Darius or Marvin Perkins.

Edited January 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[mormonnewb]

Quite right, and most of the states which have much vaunted gay rights have gotten them relatively recently and usually under Federal Court rulings. The real victor in these cases has been the 14th Amendment's equal protection of the law. These are mostly Constitutional victories, which I fully support.

Too bad that all the smug civil rights activists out there now were not around over a century ago when the Mormons were being severely persecuted for their non-traditional marriages.

Here's where us smug folks have our beef -- "when the Mormons were being persecuted for THEIR non-traditional marriages." You don't earn a lot of smug cred when you only protect your own rights, especially when you actively try to stop other people's non-traditional marriages.

Even the Church's enlightened view on women's suffrage is tainted by the obvious political advantage that polygamists gained by empowering their WIVES to vote. Now, in fairness, the Church's support of women in education indicates a sincere belief in the empowerment of women. However, coupled with the restrictions on ordination, I imagine that you can see how the smug folks might HALLUCINATE that the Church isn't completely "down" with the progressive movement.

Edited January 30, 2015 by mormonnewb

[KevinG]

Here's where us smug folks have our beef -- "when the Mormons were being persecuted for THEIR non-traditional marriages." You don't earn a lot of smug cred when you only protect your own rights, especially when you actively try to stop other people's non-traditional marriages.

Tell that to the atheists trying to shut down the Boy Scouts. The issues where the views of two groups overlap and are not compatible in the public arena are much more complex than "you are wrong so I can impose my morals on your organization". As elder Christiansen pleaded, we ned sensitive discussion of these issues. I am wearied by the number of people on both sides of many issues that think taking the rights of free association away from some, is somehow protecting the civil rights of anyone.

Edited January 30, 2015 by KevinG

[mormonnewb]

From the Ensign one month later:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/print/1978/08/news-of-the-church?lang=eng&clang=eng

This article points out precisely the case I was trying to make:

The black member had a "pull over and cry my eyes out" moment. The white member appreciated the revelation and the members of the ward supported it wholeheartedly (eg, the enthusiastic sustaining vote).

Now, four DECADES later, people are remembering MASS jubilation. I submit that the acts of uncontrollable weeping were probably few and far between.

[mormonnewb]

Nice guy too.

And he comes across as very grounded in reality to me, as willing to deal with negatives as he is with positives and not to get carried away by either pet peeves or gospel hobbies.

I wouldn't be surprised if he would be willing to talk to you if you felt more comfortable with that then Darius or Marvin Perkins.

I've drawn the same impression about him. He seems very even-handed and willing to be fair to both sides on an issue (just like me ... hehe).

[Calm]

This article points out precisely the case I was trying to make:

The black member had a "pull over and cry my eyes out" moment. The white member appreciated the revelation and the members of the ward supported it wholeheartedly (eg, the enthusiastic sustaining vote).

Now, four DECADES later, people are remembering MASS jubilation. I submit that the acts of uncontrollable weeping were probably few and far between.

Scott's article back in 1999 has Darius Gray saying he cried with his white friend, Heber Wolsey:

 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19991218&id=_8kpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8ewDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4892,4281127

[mfbukowski]

Here's where us smug folks have our beef -- "when the Mormons were being persecuted for THEIR non-traditional marriages." You don't earn a lot of smug cred when you only protect your own rights, especially when you actively try to stop other people's non-traditional marriages.

Even the Church's enlightened view on women's suffrage is tainted by the obvious political advantage that polygamists gained by empowering their WIVES to vote. Now, in fairness, the Church's support of women in education indicates a sincere belief in the empowerment of women. However, coupled with the restrictions on ordination, I imagine that you can see how the smug folks might HALLUCINATE that the Church isn't completely "down" with the progressive movement.

Uh, your dates are a little off, but hey who cares about facts

[Robert F. Smith]

Lots of prophets have gotten things wrong. we have changed views on each of the following issues to one degree or another Blacks less valiant, interracial marriage as sin,  cremation is wrong, birth control is evil, women praying in sacrament and conference, use and disuse of the cross, white shirts are the uniform of the priesthood, tithing is gross, Jesus was born on april 6th, etc......  LVJD, Unless I can hold onto that miniscule chance, I and many in my position feel the space for them to remain is getting smaller.  

You forgot that caffeine is no longer prohibited.

 

As for tithing on the gross, do you mean that some Mormons are tithing on the net, or on their annual increase?  What if you have an annual decrease?  You know, in the hole.  Why does everyone refuse to discuss that subject?

[KevinG]

You forgot that caffeine is no longer prohibited.

 

As for tithing on the gross, do you mean that some Mormons are tithing on the net, or on their annual increase?  What if you have an annual decrease?  You know, in the hole.  Why does everyone refuse to discuss that subject?

Because receiving help from the Bishop is private.

[Robert F. Smith]

....................................................   

Now, four DECADES later, people are remembering MASS jubilation. I submit that the acts of uncontrollable weeping were probably few and far between.

I know white folk who wept (some of my friends and colleagues who had worked hard to bring that day on), and I heard of one Apostle who cried when he first heard about it out of country (he was flying back from South America).  I can't recall what I did at all.

 

I do recall flying back to the USA from the middle east in 1968, the day that Dr. King was assassinated.  I cried all the way home to L.A.  I recall the pilot having us look out the window on the right to see the fires burning in Chi-Town as we flew over.  Till then I hadn't been aware of the response of the Black community. I didn't realize until later the power of his martyrdom.  I cried again two weeks ago on King Day while listening to his "Mountaintop" speech.  I always recommend that people celebrate King Day by listening to that full speech and to his "I Have a Dream" speech (Mahalia Jackson got him to speak extemporaneously at that point by saying, "Tell them about your dream, Martin!").  I have Black friends in L.A. who told me that they cry whenever they hear those speeches.  How about you, Newby?  Does it ever get old for you?