A Coming Out Party in Provo

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't think BYU is a place that should encourage that - it is a religiously affiliated institution that should uphold their own beliefs and feel good about it. However, in the public square, I see no reason not for individuals who want to be presented or accompanied with their spouse to do so. 

I guess I am looking for just a bit more decorum out of public speakers. I don't want to know your sexual proclivities regardless of what they are. It is a push for common decency in public speaking. It is absolutely not and does not have anything to do with one's sexual preference. 

I certainly get your point.  And, a couple doing as I described would not have to announce their sexual proclivities any more than a heterosexual couple who stood together hand in hand as one was introduced as the other's spouse.  Nothing more would need to be said.

Edited May 1, 2019 by ALarson

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, member10_1 said:

Is this the highbrow way of telling me my post was the bomb?

No, it was a low-brow way of telling you off, but perhaps I overestimated your intelligence and/or your reading comprehension.  I will factor that into our interactions going forward.

[MustardSeed]

Respectfully, the repetitive literal insulting of each others intelligence here on this site is transparent and immature.  

[Kenngo1969]

30 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Respectfully, the repetitive literal insulting of each others intelligence here on this site is transparent and immature.  

For the record, I didn't fire the first shot, but I will let that be the last.  (Board-nannying also is against the rules, by the way.  Just sayin'!   Cheers!)

P.S.: I noticed, also, that you gave "member10_1" a rep point for his salvo.  Perhaps I should turn a more jaundiced eye to your posts henceforth.  I'll take that under advisement.

Edited May 1, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[MustardSeed]

10 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

literal insulting of each others intelligence

 

[MustardSeed]

11 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

  (Board-nannying also is against the rules, by the way.  Just sayin'!   Cheers!)

 

Right you are.  My bad, I apologize 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

That's not true.  This has been discussed here before and I'll post the link for you to read it to avoid there being a derail on this thread:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71033-sam-young-is-excommunicated/?do=findComment&comment=1209854789

 

How old were you in the 1970s (assuming you had been born by then)?

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

We're not there yet, but hopefully that will be acceptable and applauded at BYU in the future just as was done for what this young man stood up and stated.  Many will rejoice for them just as many do for this graduate.  To see them standing up together hand in hand proudly introducing their spouse would be wonderful to see....especially if they were met with cheers and applause.

Great post.  I look forward to the day when this will happen!!!

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How old were you in the 1970s (assuming you had been born by then)?

We've had this discussion (follow the link).  There were public protests and it was national news.  If some members were not aware of that at the time, then they weren't following it or reading the news (I don't dispute that some didn't know about them at the time).  So yes, it was still taking place (contrary to what Kenngo posted and that's why I responded).  IMO, there's no doubt the protests would have continued and become even louder and more frequent.  One can only imagine how many would be speaking out today if the ban was still in place.

Edited May 1, 2019 by ALarson

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

We've had this discussion (follow the link).  There were public protests and it was national news.  If some members were not aware of that at the time, then they weren't following it or reading the news (I don't dispute that some didn't know about them at the time).  So yes, it was still taking place (contrary to what Kenngo posted and that's why I responded).  IMO, there's no doubt the protests would have continued and become even louder and more frequent.  One can only imagine how many would be speaking out today if the ban was still in place.

"At the time"?  What "time" are we talking about?  Late '60s?  Early '70s?  Mid-'70s?  Late-'70s but before OD-2?  I'll give you the first three of those eras as possibilities, and there may have even been some isolated, scattered, and rather disorganized protests in the months leading up to June 8, 1978, but I don't think there was anything on the order of what happened in the late '60s or early '70s (boycotts of BYU, black players of opposing teams planning to wear black armbands (and, by the way, being dismissed from the team as a result, though I doubt Lloyd Eaton was much of a fan of the policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)).

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

"At the time"?  What "time" are we talking about?  Late '60s?  Early '70s?  Mid-'70s?  

You are the one who stated the date (which is what I responded to with my post). 

Here's what you stated:

Quote

The peak of the public pressure regarding the Priesthood ban occurred well before 1978.

 

[Kenngo1969]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You are the one who stated the date (which is what I responded to with my post). 

Here's what you stated:

 

What does "peak" mean?  Does "peak" mean that, thereafter, the pressure ceased entirely?  (To you, it may: if that's the case, we'll simply have to agree to disagree; to me, it doesn't.)

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

What does "peak" mean?  Does "peak" mean that, thereafter, the pressure ceased entirely?  (To you, it may: if that's the case, we'll simply have to agree to disagree; to me, it doesn't.)

When you used it in this sentence:

Quote

The peak of the public pressure regarding the Priesthood ban occurred well before 1978.

I interpreted it as you saying it had reached it's highest point "well before 1978".

Quote

 

peak

 

reach a highest point, either of a specified value or at a specified time.

"its popularity peaked in the 1940s"

synonyms:reach its highest point, reach the high point; More

adjective

1.

greatest; maximum.

 

 

Did you intend for it to have a different meaning?  If so, I'm opening to having you clarify of course.

[Wade Englund]

Having listened to the speech, I applaud it as well.  I am all for encouraging people to rise above their challenges, become a better version of themselves, and continue on the Savior's path to exaltation. And, in today's climate, I particularly hope this for homosexuals.

Too many homosexuals and seemingly well intended supporters of homosexuality,  are following the destructive path of pop culture. It is refreshing to hear one of their own choose a different path.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How old were you in the 1970s (assuming you had been born by then)?

 

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

We've had this discussion (follow the link).  There were public protests and it was national news.  If some members were not aware of that at the time, then they weren't following it or reading the news (I don't dispute that some didn't know about them at the time).  So yes, it was still taking place (contrary to what Kenngo posted and that's why I responded).  IMO, there's no doubt the protests would have continued and become even louder and more frequent.  One can only imagine how many would be speaking out today if the ban was still in place.

It was a simple question. Your failure to respond makes me think you weren’t alive then, or if you were, not old enough to remember. I was. Ken is quite right. The height of the public pressure was during the radical chic era of the late sixties and early seventies. It had mostly died down by 1978. Those still protesting then were largely looked upon as kooks. 

If it were social pressure driving the change, it would have happened during the black-armband, Molotov cocktail days. 

Edited May 1, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was a simple question. Your failure to respond makes me think you weren’t alive then, or if you were, not old enough to remember. I was. Ken is quite right. The height of the public pressure was during the radical chic era of the late sixties and early seventies. It had mostly died down by 1978.

No, I was alive and remember it well.  I remember the protests at General Conference, people having to be removed, protests at BYU games and other incidents that made national news.  If you weren't aware of them, then we had a different experience and I understand that.  But it does not mean that the protests had reached their peak well before the late 1970's (regarding the priesthood ban).  I saw that they were just increasing in frequency and were receiving more national publicity as time went on.   I firmly believe they would have just continued as well and I cannot imagine how it would be today if we still had the ban in place.

Edited May 1, 2019 by ALarson

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it was social pressure driving the change, it would have happened during the black-armband, Molotov cocktail days. 

Rhodesia/Zimbabwe was the last African nation to be granted home rule by Britain in 1980.  The next prior African nation was Djibouti (France) in 1977.  In the context of world events,  OD2 seems a product of its time, yet those sitting in that room when the proposal was put to the Twelve who have spoken to it never once said anything about civil rights or anticolonialism or anything similar.  It was about how to go about harmonizing the Priesthood Ban and the direction to build a major temple in Brazil, where racial mixing was so common that unraveling who was and who wasn't melanin rich by inheritance was impossible.  G-d plainly meant what He said when He directed BY and others to predict that the Ban would be lifted at some point, and He plainly meant that the blessings of the temple in Brazil was for all Brazilians.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

For the record, I didn't fire the first shot, but I will let that be the last.  (Board-nannying also is against the rules, by the way.  Just sayin'!   Cheers!)

P.S.: I noticed, also, that you gave "member10_1" a rep point for his salvo.  Perhaps I should turn a more jaundiced eye to your posts henceforth.  I'll take that under advisement.

Dude, I think you just board-nannied.   

 

[ALarson]

Here are just a few of the protests taking place in the 1970's regarding the Priesthood ban:

Quote

"Bryon Marchant was the scoutmaster of the Mormon Boy Scout troop that was the focal point of the 1974 NAACP controversy over the eligibility of blacks for leadership positions in Mormon-sponsored troops. Even though this issue was settled, Marchant continued to express his opposition to the general practice of Mormon priesthood denial ... by casting a dissenting vote against sustaining Spencer W. Kimball as church president during the Mormon General Conference in October 1977. A few days later Marchant was excommunicated from the church for his conference behavior and open opposition to Mormon racial practices. ... Marchant staged another protest on Temple Square during the Mormon General Conference in April 1978. Even though Marchant was arrested for trespassing on church property, he filed a civil suit against Spencer W. Kimball and promised to organize and stage a protest march on Temple Square during the next Mormon General Conference in October 1978."

 

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/4237266/lds_scoutmaster_byron_marchant/

 

Quote

"Douglas A. Wallace, a Mormon High Priest and Vancouver, Washington, attorney was one such individual.  In April 1976, Wallace, acting on his own, ordained a black man, Larry Lester, to the Mormon priesthood.  While Wallace conceded that he was “stepping outside the bounds of the church” in his action, he said that he hoped that it would “force the issue” of black priesthood denial before the Mormon General Conference meeting in Salt Lake City the following week.40 At the conference Wallace tried to confront Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball with his complaints.  However, Wallace and his two companions were swiftly ejected from the Tabernacle.41 A few days later, Wallace was excommunicated from the church for “open and deliberate disobedience of the rules and regulations of the church in violation of the outlines of the church.”42 As for the ordination of Larry Lester, it was declared null and void by church officials in Salt Lake City.43 That did not stop Wallace’s actions against the church.   Immediately following his excommunication, Wallace sought a rehearing on his ouster, and in October he tried once more to bring the black issue before Mormon General Conference.  Wallace’s latter action was deferred by a court order prohibiting him from attending Mormon church conferences.  Undaunted, Wallace then filed a counterclaim against the church asking for $200,000 in damages.44 In April 1977, Wallace made a third attempt to appear at the Mormon General Conference in order to protest Mormon antiblack practices. Against, attorneys for the church obtained a temporary restraining order.45 Wallace promised further protests and legal actions against the Mormon church.46

NY Times Article:  https://www.nytimes.com/1976/10/05/archives/morman-who-ordained-black-man-is-barred-from-church-conference.html

BYU protest:  http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/BSU_BYU.htm

Other protests: https://www.coloradoan.com/media/cinematic/gallery/23309601/1970-csu-students-protest-lds-church/

Quote

 

Events leading up to the revelation

In the decades leading up to the 1978 revelation, it became increasingly difficult for the church to maintain its policy on Africans and the priesthood. The difficulties arose both from outside protests and internal challenges encountered as the membership grew in far away areas of the world outside of the predominantly white Utah. Internal challenges in administering the priesthood ban were mainly due to the difficulty in determining which peoples were of African ancestry in areas such as Brazil, the Philippines and Caribbean and Polynesian Islands as well as shortages of available people for local church leadership positions in areas with a predominantly black population such as Nigeria or the Dominican Republic.

 

More here:  https://mormonheretic.org/2011/07/10/events-leading-up-to-the-1978-revelation/

 

I'm sure that not all members were even aware of them (as Scott has stated).  But they were taking place.  So the question really isn't whether or not there were public protests receiving national attention....IMO, the question is how much did those influence the decision to do away with the ban?  I believe there were most likely many reasons the ban was finally removed and that the bad PR and protests were contributing factors.  That's just my opinion and I know others will disagree.

Edited May 1, 2019 by ALarson

[MustardSeed]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Dude, I think you just board-nannied.   

 

It’s ok, I’m fine owning my mistake.  

[Wade Englund]

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, I was alive and remember it well.  I remember the protests at General Conference, people having to be removed, protests at BYU games and other incidents that made national news.  If you weren't aware of them, then we had a different experience and I understand that.  But it does not mean that the protests had reached their peak well before the late 1970's (regarding the priesthood ban).  I saw that they were just increasing in frequency and were receiving more national publicity as time went on.   I firmly believe they would have just continued as well and I cannot imagine how it would be today if we still had the ban in place.

There were protests in the late 70's.

However, by that time, civil rights issues were being eclipsed by women's rights  issues (second wave feminism) with the push for state ratification of the ERA and a flourish of Title IX court cases. Sonia Johnson was just coming into her own....that is until her 15 minutes of fame ended.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

There were protests in the late 70's.

However, by that time, civil rights issues were being eclipsed by women's rights  issues (second wave feminism) with the push for state ratification of the ERA and a flourish of Title IX court cases. Sonia Johnson was just coming into her own....that is until her 15 minutes of fame ended.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-.

Apparently it was 15 minutes of fame that you remember 40 years later

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

There were protests in the late 70's.

However, by that time, civil rights issues were being eclipsed by women's rights  issues (second wave feminism) with the push for state ratification of the ERA and a flourish of Title IX court cases. Sonia Johnson was just coming into her own....that is until her 15 minutes of fame ended.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-.

Wade, that’s interesting (I mean that).  But what’s being discussed from what I’ve seen on this thread are the specific protests against the priesthood ban and if they helped get rid of the ban.  Comparisons have been made to whether the same public pressures are causing changes with our leaders about the gay issue and SSM.  

I think it does contribute but I also believe the leaders pray about any changes especially on this topic!  But they do listen to the members.

Edited May 1, 2019 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here are just a few of the protests taking place in the 1970's regarding the Priesthood ban:

 

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/4237266/lds_scoutmaster_byron_marchant/

 

NY Times Article:  https://www.nytimes.com/1976/10/05/archives/morman-who-ordained-black-man-is-barred-from-church-conference.html

BYU protest:  http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/BSU_BYU.htm

Other protests: https://www.coloradoan.com/media/cinematic/gallery/23309601/1970-csu-students-protest-lds-church/

More here:  https://mormonheretic.org/2011/07/10/events-leading-up-to-the-1978-revelation/

 

I'm sure that not all members were even aware of them (as Scott has stated).  But they were taking place.  So the question really isn't whether or not there were public protests receiving national attention....IMO, the question is how much did those influence the decision to do away with the ban?  I believe there were most likely many reasons the ban was finally removed and that the bad PR and protests were contributing factors.  That's just my opinion and I know others will disagree.

We were aware of Marchant and Wallace. As I said, they were widely thought of as kooks and anomalies, noisy but harmless. 

By contrast, the protests against BYU athletic teams in those days of widespread militancy on college campuses were scary. If the Brethren were disposed to cave in to social pressure, they would have done it then. 

USU78 has given the most intelligent and informed  contribution to this discussion in linking the advent of the 1978 revelation to the temple construction in Brazil. Determining lineage there would have been extremely difficult and would have brought big problems in staffing the temple with local workers. 

Edited May 1, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Apparently it was 15 minutes of fame that you remember 40 years later

Oh, I remember it very well too. Her fame was raucous but short-lived. Wade’s summation of events is spot on, precisely as I remember it.