A New Mormon [Double] Standard?

[Scott Lloyd]

You are so wrapped up in your idiotic stereotypes that you can't even get your dates right.

The revelation on the Priesthood was announced in June of 1978.

And the rest of the above is wrong as well. I think you completely made it up. I was a serving missionary in 1978. I have never, even once in my life, met a Latter-day Saint who thought the former Priesthood ban would never be lifted. It was always expected to end someday; we just didn't know when.

 

I will corroborate this.

 

In 1978, I was a returned missionary attending university. I, likewise, have never met a Latter-day Saint who thought the priesthood restriction would never be lifted. On the contrary, what is indelibly impressed in my memory is the universal or near-universal acclaim among Church members as the 1978 revelation was announced.

 

They say that truth is the first casualty of war. I would add that it is the first casualty of historical revisionism among those who are both too young and too ignorant to know how things really were.

[stemelbow]

And the rest of the above is wrong as well. I think you completely made it up. I was a serving missionary in 1978. I have never, even once in my life, met a Latter-day Saint who thought the former Priesthood ban would never be lifted. It was always expected to end someday; we just didn't know when.

 

That's wishful thinking at best.

And utter nonsense to boot.

Regards,

Pahoran

But the prevailing attitude must have been "And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.""

But no one really thinks all the rest of the children had received their blessings in the priesthood in 1978, right?

I was speaking to my mother-in-law the other day and after the ban was lifted she had some of her old friends from BYU call crying, upset the ban was lifted, throwing them for a loop because not all whites had received the blessings of the priesthood.

[Rock_N_Roll]

And the rest of the above is wrong as well. I think you completely made it up. I was a serving missionary in 1978. I have never, even once in my life, met a Latter-day Saint who thought the former Priesthood ban would never be lifted. It was always expected to end someday; we just didn't know when.

 

That's wishful thinking at best.

And utter nonsense to boot.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

You've never met my brother then. 

[stemelbow]

I will corroborate this.

 

In 1978, I was a returned missionary attending university. I, likewise, have never met a Latter-day Saint who thought the priesthood restriction would never be lifted. On the contrary, what is indelibly impressed in my memory is the universal or near-universal acclaim among Church members as the 1978 revelation was announced.

 

They say that truth is the first casualty of war. I would add that it is the first casualty of historical revisionism among those who are both too young and too ignorant to know how things really were.

But did you not believe what the Church had said about the ban being lifted? It would not be lifted until all other children would receive the blessings of the priesthood?

[Scott Lloyd]

But the prevailing attitude must have been "And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.""

 

 

No, that was not "the prevailing attitude."

 

I was speaking to my mother-in-law the other day and after the ban was lifted she had some of her old friends from BYU call crying, upset the ban was lifted, throwing them for a loop because not all whites had received the blessings of the priesthood.

 

 

Such individuals were very much outside the norm and were largely regarded with either contempt, disappointment or sadness.

[mormonnewb]

I am dumber for having read this thread.

Not possible.

[stemelbow]

No, that was not "the prevailing attitude."

Why not? It's what the Church taught, no? I just quoted this particular line from the 1949 statement from the First Presidency. Was that rescinded after 1949 and before 1978?

 

Such individuals were very much outside the norm and were largely regarded with either contempt, disappointment or sadness.

I'll let my mother-in-law know. I don't think she feels that way.

[Scott Lloyd]

But did you not believe what the Church had said about the ban being lifted? It would not be lifted until all other children would receive the blessings of the priesthood?

That was not universally or even widely accepted.

 

If it had been, President Kimball would not have been praying so fervently about it for so long in the Salt Lake Temple.

 

Please read and consider OD 2 in the Doctrine and Covenants.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why not? It's what the Church taught, no? I just quoted this particular line from the 1949 statement from the First Presidency. Was that rescinded after 1949 and before 1978?

 

There were a number of speculative statements that have since been disavowed.

 

I was born in 1954, and I don't remember that being the prevailing attitude among Church members.

 

What year were you born?

 

 

I'll let my mother-in-law know. I don't think she feels that way.

 

I don't control your mother-in-law's attitude. But neither do I accept it as typical.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not possible.

Trying to get your own thread shut down?

[stemelbow]

That was not universally or even widely accepted.

It'd be nice to have a poll from the membership pre-1978 on this. It seems likely people read the First Presidency statement and were settled, the ban will be lifted but not until after all other children of God have received the blessings of the priesthood. In 1978, going by such standards, would suggest to the average person that the ban would not be lifted.

But we all know after this lifting McConkie told us to forget these silly theories from BY, and others that people were unwilling to let go.

 

If it had been, President Kimball would not have been praying so fervently about it for so long in the Salt Lake Temple.

Not sure that's true. If they started to realize, much like we generally accept today, that the prophets and apostles in the past were wrong about why the priesthood ban, then he very well could have realized, "oops...maybe what we've been saying and thinking all these years was wrong...I better start praying fervently over the matter."

Seems very likely to me. And is probably what had happened.

[Ahab]

But the prevailing attitude must have been "And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.""

But no one really thinks all the rest of the children had received their blessings in the priesthood in 1978, right?

I was speaking to my mother-in-law the other day and after the ban was lifted she had some of her old friends from BYU call crying, upset the ban was lifted, throwing them for a loop because not all whites had received the blessings of the priesthood.

There are always lots of people don't correctly understand what our Lord meant when speaking through his prophets, even many Church members, so yeah there were lots of people back then who didn't correctly understand what that meant. Think of people as descendenta of certain other people, with different heads of particular peoples. The descendenta of one of the sons of Noah were the last people to receive the priesthood. Our Lord was talking about groups of people rather than individuals. And still we didn't know when until it happened.

[stemelbow]

There were a number of speculative statements that have since been disavowed.

 

I was born in 1954, and I don't remember that being the prevailing attitude among Church members.

 

What year were you born?

1999. Just kidding. I was born in 1976 and I can assure you, the prevailing attitude of the black man receiving the priesthood was exactly as defined by the leaders of the Church in their official pronouncements. Just kidding. Can't assure you anything. I was just barely 2 when it was first announced.

 

 

I don't control your mother-in-law's attitude. But neither do I accept it as typical.

I typically don't either.

[bluebell]

I wouldn't go that far, surely. Let the individual man think and feel as he must. I shouldn't speak for their reasoning though. Maybe they have reason to believe that God has spoken to them. I leave them that possibility.

If they have reason to believe God has revealed something to them then they aren't who I'm talking about.

I'm talking about those people who use "I think it's ok and God hasn't said its a sin" as their evidence that their opinion is correct.

Like I said earlier, Gid hasn't said torturing puppies is a sin either but no one is lining up to torture puppies based on that criteria. That's because we all know that God's silence on that issue isn't validly or reasonably interpreted to mean He condones it. We would argue with anyone using that criteria to support puppy torture as having faulty reasoning skills.

The same judgment applies to any issue when it's main support is "God didn't say not to."

[stemelbow]

If they have reason to believe God has revealed something to them then they aren't who I'm talking about.

I'm talking about those people who use "I think it's ok and God hasn't said its a sin" as their evidence that their opinion is correct.

Like I said earlier, Gid hasn't said torturing puppies is a sin either but no one is lining up to torture puppies based on that criteria. That's because we all know that God's silence on that issue isn't validly or reasonably interpreted to mean He condones it. We would argue with anyone using that criteria to support puppy torture as having faulty reasoning skills.

The same judgment applies to any issue when it's main support is "God didn't say not to."

I don't see the comparison. Gay feelings are inherent, it seems in people. Killing puppies is violent and ugly. Ah well... but I am curious who you are quoting. Who says its ok and God doesn't say it's a sin? And in so doing are saying they haven't received personal inspiration on the matter?

[Scott Lloyd]

It'd be nice to have a poll from the membership pre-1978 on this. It seems likely people read the First Presidency statement and were settled, the ban will be lifted but not until after all other children of God have received the blessings of the priesthood. In 1978, going by such standards, would suggest to the average person that the ban would not be lifted.

 

 

What "seems likely" to you is quite different from reality. There are a lot of years between 1949 and 1978. I've told you when I was born, and I've given you my very clear memory.

 

Are you going to ignore my question, then, about what year you were born?

 

But we all know after this lifting McConkie told us to forget these silly theories from BY, and others that people were unwilling to let go.

 

I find this snarky and disrespectful comment offensive. Just so you know.

 

 

Not sure that's true. If they started to realize, much like we generally accept today, that the prophets and apostles in the past were wrong about why the priesthood ban, then he very well could have realized, "oops...maybe what we've been saying and thinking all these years was wrong...I better start praying fervently over the matter."

Seems very likely to me. And is probably what had happened.

To me, on the other hand, it seems like your fanciful notion.

 

Again, what year were you born?

 

Edited to add:

 

Never mind. You've answered that.

 

For someone who was 2 years old at the time, you seem very opinionated on the matter.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

What "seems likely" to you is quite different from reality. There are a lot of years between 1949 and 1978. I'm told you when I was born, and I've given you my very clear memory.

 

Are you going to ignore my question, then, about what year you were born?

29 years, in fact. But what changed in that time among the attitude of the ban being lifted to give the impression to members that 1978 works? You can't just say it's not reality that members read and accepted the statement by the first presidency. As it is, it still seems likely.

What question of yours did I ignore? Sorry about that. I already told you when I was born.

 

I find this snarky and disrespectful comment offensive. Just so you know.

how so? Was it not true that people held on to past statements to question the lifting of the ban and Elder McConkie had to tell everyone "And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet"?

 

 

 

To me, on the other hand, it seems like your fanciful notion.

 

Again, what year were you born?

 

Edited to add"

 

Never mind. You've answered that.

 

For someone who was 2 years old at the time, you seem very opinionated on the matter.

I ain't. I'm just going by the evidence. I get your experience differed from the printed material and the concerns addressed by Elder McConkie, but your experience was yours. It couldn't have extended as far as McConkie's.

[why me]

That was not universally or even widely accepted.

 

If it had been, President Kimball would not have been praying so fervently about it for so long in the Salt Lake Temple.

 

Please read and consider OD 2 in the Doctrine and Covenants.

But it wasn't just him. The issue was often discussed even before he became prophet. It was assumed that the african americans would receive the priesthood sooner than later. This was one reason why it wasn't a shock to most of the members at that time when the ban was lifted. I remember it quite well. It is ashame that mormonnewb just cant get it. But here we go again about the priesthood ban. From gay rights to priesthood ban thanks to our friend.  Just can't stay away from it.

Edited January 28, 2015 by why me

[bluebell]

I don't see the comparison. Gay feelings are inherent, it seems in people. Killing puppies is violent and ugly.

 

Feelings of violence can be inherent as well.  We can't rely on that qualifier (whether or not someone is 'born that way') to judge whether or not something is condoned of God because clearly, some inborn feelings are condoned by Him and some aren't.

 

Ah well... but I am curious who you are quoting. Who says its ok and God doesn't say it's a sin? And in so doing are saying they haven't received personal inspiration on the matter?

 

I don't remember ever hearing anyone from this forum try to make this argument.  I have heard it used a lot in the comments sections of different articles and blog posts.  Usually by people who haven't ever actually read the scriptures so they wouldn't have a clue what God has said or hasn't said anyway.    

 

Rockpond responded to one of my posts by saying "I don't see God ever saying that it is a sin." which is what lead to my response to him on why that doesn't really mean anything because it's a poor way to judge such things.

 

But I don't believe he said that because he personally thinks that anything goes if God doesn't specifically say it's bad.  

[rockpond]

What I can do it teach them to truth and if they choose to depart from it that is their choice. I can just say with confidence between my children and my nieces and nephews that they are 100% with the view that SSM is eternally wrong. I doubt that many will change their view over the next 40 years. Perhaps the Lord will be merciful and allow a nuclear war to occur before that would happen. Better for the world to be destroyed than have generations of people raised is wickedness. Hopefully this global warming stuff is real and disasters will occur to keep the people repenting and not accepting of the filth that continues to rain down on the people.

Right... Because nobody changes their views or beliefs over the course of four decades. Especially not children who will mature into adulthood during that time. Your certainty is laughable.

As an alternative to your view, consider that maybe the Lord is patiently waiting on His people to prepare themselves to receive the truth in the same way He apparently had to wait to end the practice of keeping black people out of the temple.

[stemelbow]

For someone who was 2 years old at the time, you seem very opinionated on the matter.

Let me try to describe the interest. It goes like this.

Today we are facing questions about LGTB issues. Those who say support SSM are being told it is wrong by their fellow Church goers because the brethren say so. But this all has familiarity to the issue of race and priesthood just a few decades ago. The comparison is interesting.

You say the attitude among the general membership was not that the ban would stay in place until after all other children received the benefits of the priesthood. But such an attitude among the membership was neglecting the official pronouncement from the First Presidency on the subject. There was no rescinding of the official statement from '49, at least that we know. But the membership either rejected it, forgot it, or weren't aware of it. So what we have here is the general membership was far more in line with God's will on the subject then the latest official pronouncement on the topic from the First presidency--or the 1st Presidency of '49.

That's almost unheard of in the world of Mormonism, really. How often do we develop attitudes among the majority of us, that differs from the official pronouncements from the First Presidency? We dont' do that, unless of course, the official pronouncement has been thrown out by the modern leaders. The Proclamation was 20 years ago. Is it time for us to ignore that or forget that too?

Edited January 28, 2015 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

Feelings of violence can be inherent as well.  We can't rely on that qualifier (whether or not someone is 'born that way') to judge whether or not something is condoned of God because clearly, some inborn feelings are condoned by Him and some aren't.

 

 

I don't remember ever hearing anyone from this forum try to make this argument.  I have heard it used a lot in the comments sections of different articles and blog posts.  Usually by people who haven't ever actually read the scriptures so they wouldn't have a clue what God has said or hasn't said anyway.    

 

Rockpond responded to one of my posts by saying "I don't see God ever saying that it is a sin." which is what lead to my response to him on why that doesn't really mean anything because it's a poor way to judge such things.

 

But I don't believe he said that because he personally thinks that anything goes if God doesn't specifically say it's bad.  

Gotcha. I thought you were addressing someone's attitude or statements here, but you were not. Sorry for the confusion.

[rockpond]

There is a difference, however, between me saying the church is wrong on an issue and the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve saying the church is changing a position. The First Presidency has the authority to make changes to church doctrine and policy when inspired by God to do so. While I, on the other hand, have the authority to shoot my mouth off whenever I please.

But that doesn't change the fact that they taught false doctrine for over a century.

[ksfisher]

But that doesn't change the fact that they taught false doctrine for over a century.

The policy of withholding priesthood from Africans was official church doctrine until 1978. The church has not disavowed that. What the church has clarified is that the reasons given for that policy in the past may not be correct. In other words, the doctrine was correct, but the explanation for why that policy was in place was flawed.

[Scott Lloyd]

The policy of withholding priesthood from Africans was official church doctrine until 1978. The church has not disavowed that. What the church has clarified is that the reasons given for that policy in the past may not be correct. In other words, the doctrine was correct, but the explanation for why that policy was in place was flawed.

Amen.

 

And for some reason, this essential fact keeps getting lost in the ongoing public dialogue.