A New Mormon [Double] Standard?

[carbon dioxide]

Well, let me put it this way:

 

I have a very clear pre-1978 memory. During that time, I hoped, even prayed, for the day when the privilege to hold the priesthood would be granted to all of the worthy sons of God. In that hope and dream, never once did I ever feel or have good reason to feel that I was out of harmony with the position of the Church or with the teachings of the prophets and apostles as I understood them.

 

I contrast that with the attitude of those who hold out the vain hope that God or His servants will one day declare what has always been regarded as egregious sin as not being sinful, and beyond that, will sanctify it in the temples. Such an attitude is very much out of harmony with the position of the Church and with the unified declarations and teachings of the apostles and prophets. I have pity for such individuals; surely they must feel considerable discomfort to be in that position.

Perhaps we can pray that the Church will get a revelation allowing each member to designate one or two of their favorite sins and they can be exempt from repenting of that or the Lord will look the other way when we commit those sins.  That would be revolutionary and might draw a lot of people to the church.

Edited January 29, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Pahoran]

So did most whites in the south pull their cars to the side of the road and weep tears of joy upon the passage of the Civil Rights Act?

Pardon me for interrupting your signature "Great and Spacious Building" mockery, but the overwhelmingly positive reaction to the 1978 revelation has been documented by eyewitnesses close to the time, including Black Latter-day Saints.

But hey; what could they possibly know, compared to your jaundiced "wisdom?"

Regards,

Pahoran

[carbon dioxide]

I would have said this same thing 30 years ago.  If only I had known then what I know now.  Life has a way changing people over time. 

I see a vast difference between ordination of worthy black MALES and granting SSM.  I think the Church making SSM allowable is on the same level of it making prostitution allowable.  There are some things that are just so far out there that the Church would become a complete joke if it was to allow it. 

[mormonnewb]

Not on this. It was one of the four or five single  historic events I have witnessed in my lifetime.

 

If you're determined not to understand, there's nothing I can do about that, but it doesn't change the truth.

 

By the way, did you notice the image I added to my post? I was able to find it immediately with a Google search.

 

Even I am not skeptical enough to think that the event went unnoticed in Mormondom.  I imagine that OD1 was big news as well, but you'll have to concede that not all saints were delighted with the news.

 

However, since you were around and in the media at the time, please point me to one of the many stories about Mormons celebrating the announcement at the time.  Certainly, someone would have reported on all of the traffic jams on I-15.

 

Seriously, there should be some CONTEMPORANEOUS stories somewhere about Mormons rejoicing at the news.  I've only heard stories from decades after the event where people recall hysterical weeping and flights of ecstasy.  Surely, on that momentous day, someone took a picture of at least one of these celebrations.

 

For example, if you ask me about the mood in the black community on the night of Obama's election, I can show you THOUSANDS of pictures of people crying their eyes out.  Certainly, someone had a camera in 1978 and ONE such picture has survived.

 

(I just checked and I found hundreds of pictures of Americans celebrating the end of WWII.  So the lack of priesthood celebrations isn't just an issue of timing)

Edited January 29, 2015 by mormonnewb

[mormonnewb]

DUPLICATE 

Edited January 29, 2015 by mormonnewb

[mormonnewb]

Pardon me for interrupting your signature "Great and Spacious Building" mockery, but the overwhelmingly positive reaction to the 1978 revelation has been documented by eyewitnesses close to the time, including Black Latter-day Saints.

But hey; what could they possibly know, compared to your jaundiced "wisdom?"

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Then certainly you can show me a CONTEMPORANEOUS account of someone other than a black Latter-day saint in the throes of celebration.  I've read dozens of reports from, say, the 2012 campaign trail, in which saints have recounted their sheer joy and ecstasy.  How is it possible that none of these made it into the press?

[mormonnewb]

Just a little note for you:

This constantly reiterated theme of yours, that Mormons are unthinking sheep who simply swallow whatever the suits in Salt Lake say, is not only boilerplate anti-Mormon propaganda; it's also the way people talk when they're trying to demonise an "other" they despise and wish others to despise as well.

At very least, it's a group with which they do not identify.

 

So I don't want you to worry about the fact that it's a spiteful falsehood; why start worrying about that now? But perhaps you should worry about the fact that it calls into question your painstakingly cultivated Mormon veneer.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

I've painstakingly cultivated a Mormon veneer?  Really?  I'm better at this than I thought.

 

Most people would attempt to cultivate a Mormon veneer by feigning unquestioned loyalty to the Brethren and the institution.  But I'm much smarter than that.  I knew that the way to deceive each of you into thinking that I was active Mormon was to question the Church at every turn.  After all, nothing says Mormon like constant criticism.

 

Now, as for my love for Mormons, it is a love that is based on what I think of as maturity.  Rather than a romanticized view that every Mormon is Mary Poppins-like (practically perfect in every way), I recognize that there are some aspects to Mormon culture that are problematic.  I also recognize that, as Mormon as someone might be, he/she is still a product of their larger culture (which also has problematic aspects).  Yet, despite these things, I still contend that, on the whole, Mormons are the best Christians that I've ever met and that there is SOMETHING God-ordained about an institution that can create, on a fairly consistent basis, kind and loving individuals.

 

Now, if that makes me anti-Mormon, then so be it.  But given that my love for Mormons extends beyond just the "good Mormons" but also to those "horrible" folks like Kate Kelly and John Dehlin, I could make a case that I love Mormons more than some of you.

[mormonnewb]

Well, I was on the staff of the university newspaper on that day in June 1978. As many of us as could be found went back into the newsroom that day and produced one of the very few "extra" editions in the newspaper's history, proclaiming the revelation, covering some of the instant outpouring of nearly universal joy and euphoria that came from Church members worldwide.

 

I still have a copy of that newspaper at home in my files.

 

Yeah, my memory is pretty darn clear on this matter. It was one of those events that are so fixed in memory you remember precisely where you were and what you were doing when it happened.

 

I had you in mind when I made the statement a few posts back about truth being the first casualty of historical revisionism by those who are both too young and too ignorant to know what they're talking about.

 

Edited to add:

 

How I love Google! Here is an image of the front page of that "extra" edition we produced that day.

 

 

 

Scott, is this article archived online anywhere?  Certainly on page 3 there has to be some mention as to how the announcement was received.  You'll find this hard to believe but I would LOVE to be proven wrong on this point.  To know that the older brothers and sisters in my ward were truly happy to receive blacks into their holy priesthood would make me happier than you could ever know.

 

So please don't confuse my skepticism with a desire to think the worse.  Without evidence to the contrary, it just seems more probable than not that most saints greeted the news with ambivalence (or perhaps relief that they didn't have to keep answering questions about the policy).  And the fact that people now remember such positive feelings about the event is not the most reliable evidence (for reasons stated above).  So if there were reports of people applauding the news at the time, I would very much like to see them.

 

Like most people, I really like to be right.  But I would LOVE to be wrong here.

[mormonnewb]

I'm sure you photo-shopped the subhead, Scott.  I'll bet it originally read, "Majority of Church members outraged."

 

You can block the Newb, but you can't leave him alone.

[Pahoran]

I've painstakingly cultivated a Mormon veneer?  Really?  I'm better at this than I thought.

 

Most people would attempt to cultivate a Mormon veneer by feigning unquestioned loyalty to the Brethren and the institution.  But I'm much smarter than that.  I knew that the way to deceive each of you into thinking that I was active Mormon was to question the Church at every turn.  After all, nothing says Mormon like constant criticism.

 

Now, as for my love for Mormons, it is a love that is based on what I think of as maturity.  Rather than a romanticized view that every Mormon is Mary Poppins-like (practically perfect in every way), I recognize that there are some aspects to Mormon culture that are problematic.  I also recognize that, as Mormon as someone might be, he/she is still a product of their larger culture (which also has problematic aspects).  Yet, despite these things, I still contend that, on the whole, Mormons are the best Christians that I've ever met and that there is SOMETHING God-ordained about an institution that can create, on a fairly consistent basis, kind and loving individuals.

 

Now, if that makes me anti-Mormon, then so be it.  But given that my love for Mormons extends beyond just the "good Mormons" but also to those "horrible" folks like Kate Kelly and John Dehlin, I could make a case that I love Mormons more than some of you.

Actually, as far as I or anyone else around here can tell, apostates like Ms Kelly and Mister Dehlin are about the ONLY Mormons you lurve. Anyone who agrees with the Brethren can, in your mind, only do so by being unable to think about anything.

Which is, as I already mentioned, a nasty, spiteful falsehood.

It also closely resembles the sorts of things racists used to say about Black people.

Given that for you, the default position is that the Church is always wrong, evidently you suppose that reflexively saying "No" requires vastly more independent thought than a considered "Yes."

In the which, you would be mistaken.

The notion that homosexual acts can be sanctified by a marriage ceremony is, to anyone who understands LDS doctrine, simply preposterous. Homosexual acts are sinful in themselves, and pollute whatever they touch.

Furthermore, the idea that the Church has so little backbone that it will someday collapse into the idiotic notion that God approves of same sex "marriage" is unavailable to any informed Latter-day Saint.

It is possible for a believing Latter-day Saint to support the notion of civil same sex "marriage." This is done by regarding the state as essentially amoral and supposing that making everyone feel comfortable is the highest civic good.

But it is not possible for a believing Latter-day Saint to contemplate same sex "marriage" as any kind of religious observance, compatible with LDS doctrine.

And any who claim to think so are simply deluded.

Oh, and just BTW: the ridiculous comparison with the former Priesthood ban is likewise unsustainable, and only makes you look even more idiotic every time you try to draw it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Stone holm]

So in California, there are a lot of hard feelings towards Mormons. I take it that you would not have a problem if every major business in California decided that all Mormons are bigots and have no place in their companies. Simply by being a Mormon, you would get fired from your job. It would effectively prevent you from working for any major company in the state. And what if they all decided to put this practice in place throughout the United States? No problem????

The church could be setting up it's members for a world of hurt if it continues to push the idea that it is ok to discriminate on religious grounds. Many religions don't believe or support bigots. And whether they are or not, many people think Mormons are bigots. You do the math.

This is a self created problem, when we drew the political sword and inter meddled politically in the Prop 8 fight we drew a huge target on the Church and tainted every Mormon. Plenty of Christian denominations do not condone SSM, but they do not try to force their standards on others. We did, we lost, and now we are screaming for protection from the consequences. If we truly believe that as a group we deserve protection, then we should have thought about that before we launched the crusade against gays getting married, rather than afterwards. What is it to us if Bill and Harry want to get married, we may not approve and I certainly don't , but I am not the one getting married and if they decide to do it, then they certainly won't be Mormons long. Elder Oaks is just wrong. This is a secular country which believes that the best way to protect religious freedom is to keep Church and State separate. Too much mischief has already been done in the name of religion. If you are going to argue for or against a law, then use reason, not religion as your basis. Otherwise, you merely spread strife because mortals can only use reason because it is their only common ground, there is too much divergence in religious belief for it to be the basis of common rational discussion between mortals.

[teddyaware]

Reading this thread is akin to slowly driving by an horrific multi-car accident and feeling an intense self-loathing because I couldn't resist gawking at the carnage out of morbid curiosity. 

[Robert F. Smith]

In yesterday's press conference, Elder Oaks said:

 

"When religious people are publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election, our democracy is the loser."

 

Preach, Elder!  Preach!  Believe it or not, I agree 100% with Elder Oaks.  And I hope it now means that Mormons won't be forced from their Church employment or made to suffer personal loss because they raise their voice in opposition to the Church or lend their support to groups like OW.  Because, if not, it seems like the Church wants to have its cake and eat it too.  Mormons with the "correct" views should be shielded from the consequences of holding those views, but the Church is perfectly free to impose whatever consequences it likes on those with the "wrong" views.  So much for religious "freedom."

 

And I know that some of you will say, "The Church is a private entity and can do whatever it pleases."  And, of course, you're right.  But Elder Oaks seeks to protects opponents of SSM from the actions of their private employers.  For instance, Elder Oaks specifically mentioned the Mozilla CEO who was forced to resign because he had donated money to support the passage of Prop 8.  This man was not forced to step down by the government, but by private actors (e.g., shareholders, customers, LGBT activities).  So why should those private actors respect the Mozilla CEO's opposing viewpoint and allow him to keep his position in their organization, but the Church can continue to fire employees or discipline members for expressing an opposing viewpoint on the same question?

 

It would seem to me that what's good for the gay should be good for the salamander.  If the Church wants other private actors to respect its dissenting views, then it should start respecting dissenting views within its own ranks.  And if you say that the Church can not possibly continue to function with so much dissension in the ranks, then why do you think a corporation can operate under the same conditions?  If people who have the light of Christ and are operating under the power of the priesthood can not exercise grace towards those with dissenting viewpoints, then how can we expect those "heathens" to extend us a grace that we can't even muster for our own brothers and sisters?

Your fundamental error here, Newby, is to confuse the rights of religious organizations with the rights of providers of public accommodations.  The LDS Church has argued now for years on behalf of housing and employment rights of gays -- unlike the right-wing evangelical churches, including the Southern Baptist Convention.

 

A religious organization is protected by the Constitution for the reason that it would not be able to survive as a religious organization if it were not so protected (against taxation, and against dictation by the state of its rules of association).  

 

As non-Mormon professor Jan Shipps has pointed out, the LDS Church has no choice but to practice boundary maintenance, which means keeping the faith:  The ethical and moral rules -- including liturgical and theological rules which make it the organization it is, and would cease to be if not for the boundary maintenance.

 

Take a look at the epistles of St Paul in the NT.  They are all about boundary maintenance.  Was Paul off base and out of line?

Edited January 29, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

This is a self created problem, when we drew the political sword and inter meddled politically in the Prop 8 fight we drew a huge target on the Church and tainted every Mormon. Plenty of Christian denominations do not condone SSM, but they do not try to force their standards on others. We did, we lost, and now we are screaming for protection from the consequences. ............................................. 

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

False.

Many LDS members in California, along with the Black Churches, Evangelicals, and Roman Catholics there exercised their political rights in arguing on behalf of Prop. 8.  They won a fair election.  Then the Prop. was overturned at Court.  All part of the democratic process.  Perhaps you adhere to the notion that the only time the democratic process has meaning is when you get your way.  Most of the rest of us accept the Constitutional process and try not to scapegoat our opponents, regardless of who wins.

 

Perhaps you enjoy seeing people get bullied for exercising their political rights.  I consider it cowardly.

[tonie]

I am unwilling to read all the post, hitherto.

 

However, I have read the first post, and I do not see a legitimate claim for "double standard".  As acknowledge in the OP the Church is essentially a private entity. The modern Church (Joseph Smith to now), as best as I can discern, has always maintained that a religion should be permitted to deal with its members as it pleases.  I don't see this as an offensive double-standard.

 

The Civil Rights Act permits religious entities, to discriminate, this was codified by Congress. SCOTUS, in CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS ET AL. v. AMOS ET AL upheld this section of the Civil Rights Act which allows for religions to discriminate.

[readstoomuch]

Scott, is this article archived online anywhere?  Certainly on page 3 there has to be some mention as to how the announcement was received.  You'll find this hard to believe but I would LOVE to be proven wrong on this point.  To know that the older brothers and sisters in my ward were truly happy to receive blacks into their holy priesthood would make me happier than you could ever know.

 

So please don't confuse my skepticism with a desire to think the worse.  Without evidence to the contrary, it just seems more probable than not that most saints greeted the news with ambivalence (or perhaps relief that they didn't have to keep answering questions about the policy).  And the fact that people now remember such positive feelings about the event is not the most reliable evidence (for reasons stated above).  So if there were reports of people applauding the news at the time, I would very much like to see them.

 

Like most people, I really like to be right.  But I would LOVE to be wrong here.

The day of the announcement I was standing at work and there was a big announcement on the radio. It was at a mall and it was like there was an earthquake. There was this huge reaction and people were hugging and the guy standing next to me decided to go back to church because the blacks received the priesthood and he did. There was a big reaction at church the next Sunday (if I remember it was two days later) and they mentioned in the prayers how grateful the church was for the change in the policy. When I went on a mission to the South two years later, there was nothing but positive things said about the policy. Every ward I served in had black members and investigators. I lived in the south for six years after my mission. I can`t even tell you how well we were integrated in my last ward. In my present ward there are several whites married to blacks, hawaiians to blacks, asian to blacks. There is about every interracial combination you can think of and from what I can see in the Church we are all grateful that it is that way. I don`t have some clipping from a newspaper to prove my point, but I was there. I am glad that blacks are in the priesthood, I think we (the Church) are better for it, the members are grateful for it. One of my best friends drove to church with us, I went fishing with him and I helped him get back on the path when he got mixed up with cocaine again. I had to pull him out of this horrible crack house and take him back to his wife (who wasn`t a member) and go with him and sign him into rehab.

I feel like we Mormons and our society have come so far until I hear you on this board or Al Sharpton going on about things on MSNBC. I`m not black and I won`t presume to know what it is like to be you, but I am me. I was eight years old when my dad brought a black man home to eat dinner with us. He was in the military with him. It became very clear to me that day, that blacks were important people to my dad.

[tonie]

False.

Many LDS members in California, along with the Black Churches, Evangelicals, and Roman Catholics there exercised their political rights in arguing on behalf of Prop. 8.  They won a fair election.  Then the Prop. was overturned at Court.  All part of the democratic process.  Perhaps you adhere to the notion that the only time the democratic process has meaning is when you get your way.  Most of the rest of us accept the Constitutional process and try not to scapegoat our opponents, regardless of who wins.

 

Perhaps you enjoy seeing people get bullied for exercising their political rights.  I consider it cowardly.

 

You didn't address which part of his statement was false. Would you please point out the alleged falsehood(s)?

[Rob Osborn]

Reading this thread is akin to slowly driving by an horrific multi-car accident and feeling an intense self-loathing because I couldn't resist gawking at the carnage out of morbid curiosity.

More like driving by the circus and they have all the freak shows out and about.

[tonie]

The LDS people individually and the LDS Church Officially, along with many other individuals and churches, sought deny same-sex marriage. The election was won. However, the democratic process does not end with an election. Those negatively affected by the election sought redress with the Courts, which overturned Prop 8.  Since Prop 8 the Church has issued many statements about respectfull dialogue, religious freedom and such.

 

The Church, got a bruised eye for its involvment in Prop 8; the bruise does not matter, because the individual members of the Church (opposed or for prop exercised their rights. Whether Churches had the "right" to engage in the promotion of prop 8 is an academic discussion, to date I am unaware that any investigation has been done concerning the propriety of any particular Church involvment with the promotion or objection of Prop 8; thus it is an academic debate

[california boy]

Outside of mentioning an LDS mission or a BYU graduate. how would a company know if somebody is LDS unless the volunteered that information?

 

Maybe it would become a question in the interview process.  How does someone decide they don't want to rent to a gay person?

[california boy]

Even I am not skeptical enough to think that the event went unnoticed in Mormondom.  I imagine that OD1 was big news as well, but you'll have to concede that not all saints were delighted with the news.

 

However, since you were around and in the media at the time, please point me to one of the many stories about Mormons celebrating the announcement at the time.  Certainly, someone would have reported on all of the traffic jams on I-15.

 

Seriously, there should be some CONTEMPORANEOUS stories somewhere about Mormons rejoicing at the news.  I've only heard stories from decades after the event where people recall hysterical weeping and flights of ecstasy.  Surely, on that momentous day, someone took a picture of at least one of these celebrations.

 

For example, if you ask me about the mood in the black community on the night of Obama's election, I can show you THOUSANDS of pictures of people crying their eyes out.  Certainly, someone had a camera in 1978 and ONE such picture has survived.

 

(I just checked and I found hundreds of pictures of Americans celebrating the end of WWII.  So the lack of priesthood celebrations isn't just an issue of timing)

 

I read the announcement from a news stand newspaper while in downtown Salt Lake City on a business trip.  There was nothing happening on the streets. I can tell you that.  I don't know what was happening behind closed doors.

[Stone holm]

False.

Many LDS members in California, along with the Black Churches, Evangelicals, and Roman Catholics there exercised their political rights in arguing on behalf of Prop. 8.  They won a fair election.  Then the Prop. was overturned at Court.  All part of the democratic process.  Perhaps you adhere to the notion that the only time the democratic process has meaning is when you get your way.  Most of the rest of us accept the Constitutional process and try not to scapegoat our opponents, regardless of who wins.

 

Perhaps you enjoy seeing people get bullied for exercising their political rights.  I consider it cowardly.

Oh yes, we won that battle. But, I believe most analysts agree that Prop 8 was the game changer, it was after Prop 8 that the tide changed and there isn't much doubt at this point that we lost the war. And there is truth in what was said if one group wants its rights protected, then it needs to stand up against discrimination against other groups. We forgot that truth, and now we are paying the piper for it.

[carbon dioxide]

Maybe it would become a question in the interview process.  How does someone decide they don't want to rent to a gay person?

Do employers usually ask people in an interview what their religion is? 

[carbon dioxide]

Oh yes, we won that battle. But, I believe most analysts agree that Prop 8 was the game changer, it was after Prop 8 that the tide changed and there isn't much doubt at this point that we lost the war. And there is truth in what was said if one group wants its rights protected, then it needs to stand up against discrimination against other groups. We forgot that truth, and now we are paying the piper for it.

Standing as a witness for Christ at all times and places sometimes puts a person in a difficult spot but it had to be done.  Better to offend man than to offend God who controls our eternal destination. 

[california boy]

The LDS people individually and the LDS Church Officially, along with many other individuals and churches, sought deny same-sex marriage. The election was won. However, the democratic process does not end with an election. Those negatively affected by the election sought redress with the Courts, which overturned Prop 8.  Since Prop 8 the Church has issued many statements about respectfull dialogue, religious freedom and such.

 

The Church, got a bruised eye for its involvment in Prop 8; the bruise does not matter, because the individual members of the Church (opposed or for prop exercised their rights. Whether Churches had the "right" to engage in the promotion of prop 8 is an academic discussion, to date I am unaware that any investigation has been done concerning the propriety of any particular Church involvment with the promotion or objection of Prop 8; thus it is an academic debate

 

I don't think anyone is saying that the church did not have a right to get politically involved in Prop 8.  I certainly have never made such a statement.  Is all I and others are saying is that the church clearly fought to take away the civil rights of gays to marry by becoming the major financial and manpower for Prop 8.  It is largely through those efforts that most people believe that Prop 8 passed.  

 

So the church is now looked upon as a church that believes in taking away the civil rights of gays.  That is the reality of the political involvement of the church.  Now the church has to live with the reputation it created.  Some want to pretend the church members did nothing but cast their vote just like everyone else.  I think most reasonably informed people know the church did a whole lot more than just cast their vote on Prop 8.  If that were the case, it wouldn't have become known as "The Mormon Proposition"