rodheadlee Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) Oh cool a trip down memory lane. I was 24 my wife was 22, we had been married for 5 years. We bought our second house, had no children, went water skiing as much as possible and had exactly one contact with any member of the Church between the 2 of us in our whole lives. It would be another 4 years before we heard the gospel joined the church. Edited July 21, 2015 by rodheadlee
Kenngo1969 Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 It was one of those days when you remember exactly what you were doing the day it happened; like the Kennedy assasination, landing on the moon, your first kiss. Everyone knew the day would come sometime and it was exciting to be a part of that historical event. I don't remember anyone who wash unhappy about it. If they were they kept it to themselves.Speaking of which, happy Moon landing day, everyone.
Tacenda Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 I was 16 when it happened, heard it on the radio at work. Honestly, I don't remember much hoopla over it. Maybe you have a point newb, or it affected more people in different areas. I lived in a mostly white neighborhood, in a very LDS area of Utah. I wish there had been more celebrating over it in my inner circle. Maybe there was much celebrating over the ban being lifted, I was just your typical teen who worried more about what teens worry about at that age. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 Who has asserted anything about "traffic jams of joy"?CFRThere is a CFR on the table. Has anyone noticed an attempt to answer it?
mormonnewb Posted July 21, 2015 Author Posted July 21, 2015 There is a CFR on the table. Has anyone noticed an attempt to answer it? In this very thread, we have two documented cases of people who pulled over their cars to celebrate the announcement with tears of joy. (See posts #17 and #33) How many more do I need to show that there is a common Mormon narrative? As for the actual traffic jams of joy, I was not attempting to be literal in that description. Apparently, it was not clear from the context (and the hundreds of my prior posts), so in the future, I will conform my posts to the official Scott and White stylebook. For example, when I use an idiom like "on the other hand," I will be sure to notate that my actual hands are not involved, but rather that I am transitioning to an alternative viewpoint (and for the record, a viewpoint need not be visual in the sense of involving optical processing between the eye and brain, but can apply to opinions or theories as well).
mormonnewb Posted July 21, 2015 Author Posted July 21, 2015 I don't know why the "brothers" do not frequent Ketchum/Sun Valley. The atmosphere is certainly Calif. and The "brothers" live there. However, I have no idea and did not know your observation was the norm as I rarely visit the area(and it is only 70 miles from me). I haven't been there in more than five years. You didn't know that Ketchum, Idaho was almost all white? Really? Just so you don't think that I'm making things up. Here are the cities demographics from the 2010 census (which, by the way, is the last time you were there). "The racial makeup of the city was 90.9% White, 0.1% African American, 0.1% Native American, 1.3% Asian, 6.5% from other races, and 1.0% from two or more races." (Ketchum, Idaho Wikipedia entry) Is 0.1% small enough of a percentage for you? I hope so because I don't think that the census people never go below 0.1% in their listings (just in case, they missed someone). And just so we're clear, I'm not complaining or in any way criticizing Ketchum for its demographics. I was simply trying to come up with an example of a place that wouldn't have a large black population in my previous post to make a point.
busybee Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) This is an issue that I'd really like to get behind us once and for all. To be clear, I am NOT interested in discussing the rationale/righteousness/justice of the racial priesthood/temple ban. I simply want to get clear on FACTS surrounding the announcement of the ban's end on June 8, 1978. The common lore is that there was great celebration resulting in, among other things, traffic jams of joy as motorists pulled over to the side of the road and wept uncontrollably. That reaction seems completely illogical, given that on June 7, 1978, most Mormons were perfectly fine with the ban. Why would the reversal of a policy that most people supported 24 hours earlier result in such unmitigated joy? Did Utah erupt in traffic jams of joy when Mitt Romney LOST the 2012 Presidential election? Of course not. They wanted him to WIN, so when that didn't happen, people celebrated. On June 7, 1978, most Mormons would have voted to sustain the priesthood/temple ban (at least, the REAL Mormons would have voted that way). So why was their unrestrained celebration the day after they would have LOST in the June 7 mock election? Perhaps, a more pertinent example is last month's historic Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality. Most REAL Mormons do not support gay marriage. So if someone told you in 2053 that Mormons weeped tears of joy on "that long-awaited day" wouldn't you be just a little suspicious? So can you understand my suspicion? However, my suspicion can be overcome. If someone ... anyone ... Bueller ... can point me to a single source from June of 1978 that mentions just a fender bender of joy, I will reconsider my position. And by "from June of 1978," I'm NOT talking about someone writing in 2004 about what they remember from June of 1978. I am already convinced that many people REMEMBER these spontaneous parties that broke out all over Utah. It would just be nice to read ONE report of someone reporting it as it ACTUALLY happened.I was a teenager in South Africa at the time. SOUTH AFRICA!!! I felt joy when the ban was lifted. My family felt joy when the ban was lifted. Did we have a party? No. We were too poor. But we did feel joy. I think you are presumptuous to say that most Mormons would have voted to sustain the ban. Not that that was ever going to happen. The Church is not and never has been a democracy where the members get to vote on policy. Why can't you just accept that people were happy that all worthy male members would be able to receive the Priesthood and the Temple blessings that would accompany that? That chip you're carrying must get awfully heavy!! Edited July 21, 2015 by busybee 2
ERayR Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) You didn't know that Ketchum, Idaho was almost all white? Really? Just so you don't think that I'm making things up. Here are the cities demographics from the 2010 census (which, by the way, is the last time you were there). "The racial makeup of the city was 90.9% White, 0.1% African American, 0.1% Native American, 1.3% Asian, 6.5% from other races, and 1.0% from two or more races." (Ketchum, Idaho Wikipedia entry) Is 0.1% small enough of a percentage for you? I hope so because I don't think that the census people never go below 0.1% in their listings (just in case, they missed someone). And just so we're clear, I'm not complaining or in any way criticizing Ketchum for its demographics. I was simply trying to come up with an example of a place that wouldn't have a large black population in my previous post to make a point. Typical newb, Ignoring and misrepresenting what I posted to make a point. Your 'points' are not worth much, based as they are on misrepresentations and hyperbole. The day you don't complain will be an event in itself. Edited July 21, 2015 by ERayR 4
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 I don't know why the "brothers" do not frequent Ketchum/Sun Valley. The atmosphere is certainly Calif. and The "brothers" live there. However, I have no idea and did not know your observation was the norm as I rarely visit the area(and it is only 70 miles from me). I haven't been there in more than five years.Sometimes that really bothers me. But not so much as to ruin my experience there. And that Pioneer Saloon, dang there is not prime rib that taste better than there.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 The day you don't complain will be an event in itself.Amen.
Kenngo1969 Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 ... Why can't you just accept that people were happy that all worthy male members would be able to receive the Priesthood and the Temple blessings that would accompany that? ... Because it doesn't fit his narrative that we're all racists. You're welcome. Glad I could clear that up for you. Have a nice day. 4
Gray Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 "Traffic Jams of Joy" sounds like a 90's stoner jam band 2
Avatar4321 Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 I'm not sure I understand the point of this thread.Are we not supposed to have been happy about the ban.being removed? Perhaps we shouldn't have rejoiced at the gentiles getting the gospel as well. But I am glad we did. 1
Bernard Gui Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) To be clear, I stated that I believed your account ... TWICE. I went further to validate your story as very likely given the circumstances. In that validation, I made the assumption that you had fervently prayed for the end of the ban (an enlightened perspective indeed). And yet, YOU feel that I cheapened your experience, cast doubts on your sincerity and cast a dark net on you. For once, I am going to be serious. How could I have possibly responded that would have been validating and affirming to your experience You might think about how you responded for a few minutes. I'm sure you will come up with something. The dark net you cast is not on me, but as I said, the members of the Church at that time, because they were supposedly indifferent to the announcement or would have openly or secretly opposed it. That was not the case. Edited July 21, 2015 by Bernard Gui 2
Skylla Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 Thread closed. It's nothing more than pot stirring and it's grown tiresome. Skylla
Recommended Posts