Members attended endowment sessions in foreign language. They could not understand…

[Diamondhands69]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No, actually I said I did not want to discuss the endowment, but gladly, goodbye. If anyone actually cares the discussion speaks for itself. 

Why are u trying to justify yourself to me?  
 

Start posting whatever it is you want and see if anyone wants to engage.  

Edited October 26, 2023 by Diamondhands69

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Why are u trying to justify yourself to me?  
 

Start posting whatever it is you want and see if anyone wants to engage.  

This is such a "Sara H" thing to do with the thread derailment accusations, and then to downvote other posts in retaliation when someone downvotes a bad post from you?   

Edited October 26, 2023 by InCognitus

[ksfisher]

On 10/23/2023 at 11:42 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

whole thing sounds a bit racist and I’m usually very reluctant to throw that out there, but there is no other explanation.

If the church was exhibiting institutional racism against the Japanese why was it sending missionaries there? 

[Pyreaux]

Might there be another way to read this Diamondhand? You presume that they must not have understood the ceremonies because they didn't feel the spirit "as" they did when hearing it in their own language. That is most likely not the case. I might say having to read the Latin Mass from an English pamphlet may remove me from feeling the spirit in the moment too, it wouldn't stop me from understanding it or feeling the spirit at all. You presume that feeling the spirit as they did later, meant they never felt the spirit during the ceremonies even a little. I don't believe that is what they are saying. Unlike you they must have felt the spirit however weak, or at some point prior, as they were far more tolerant of an American grown religion that received its revelations in English than you are of your experience in your native language, which you still didn't understand, which clouds your opinion of it to this day. They at least feel strongly about it today, so if they'd be angry with anyone, it'd be more likely you, for your presumptions about how they must feel, having not asked them. Accusing their faith of hating them, when they actually said they felt loved and accepted at the Temple.

Edited October 26, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Diamondhands69]

18 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

If the church was exhibiting institutional racism against the Japanese why was it sending missionaries there? 

We sent missionaries to Brazil but withheld the priesthood from any blacks who joined  there up until 1978. That isn’t racist? The church had no problem being racist, they just can’t admit it and neither can many of its members. Don’t know why it is so hard to admit… it was policy err doctrine for so long. Published everywhere. 

Also:

1949 Official Mormon Statement on Blacks and the Priesthood

Post date: 

March 6, 2014

First Presidency Statement (17 August 1949)¹

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. 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.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

1. Published in many places, e.g., in Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church, ed. Lester E. Bush Jr. and Armand L. Mauss (Midvale, UT: Signature Books, 1984), 221.

[Diamondhands69]

36 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

This is such a "Sara H" thing to do with the thread derailment accusations, and then to downvote other posts in retaliation when someone downvotes a bad post from you?   

Ur gonna have to explain to be reference to “Sara h” whatever that means. 
 

oh no you are watching me. Enjoy wasting your time. 

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

We sent missionaries to Brazil but withheld the priesthood from any blacks who joined  there up until 1978. That isn’t racist? The church had no problem being racist, they just can’t admit it and neither can many of its members. Don’t know why it is so hard to admit… it was policy err doctrine for so long. Published everywhere. 

Also:

1949 Official Mormon Statement on Blacks and the Priesthood

Post date: 

March 6, 2014

First Presidency Statement (17 August 1949)¹

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. 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.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

1. Published in many places, e.g., in Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church, ed. Lester E. Bush Jr. and Armand L. Mauss (Midvale, UT: Signature Books, 1984), 221.

You didn't answer the question.  If the church was institutionally racist towards the Japanese why send missionaries there?

[mfbukowski]

Why isn't the popcorn ready yet?

Whose fault was THAT ???? 😡

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

We sent missionaries to Brazil but withheld the priesthood from any blacks who joined  there up until 1978. That isn’t racist? The church had no problem being racist, they just can’t admit it and neither can many of its members. Don’t know why it is so hard to admit… it was policy err doctrine for so long. Published everywhere. 

Also:

1949 Official Mormon Statement on Blacks and the Priesthood

Post date: 

March 6, 2014

First Presidency Statement (17 August 1949)¹

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. 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.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

1. Published in many places, e.g., in Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church, ed. Lester E. Bush Jr. and Armand L. Mauss (Midvale, UT: Signature Books, 1984), 221.

No one is denying that the church has a past with racism. What is being discussed Is whether or not the timing of the translation of the endowment into Japanese is a symptom of racism.

Given all of the evidence presented in this thread, clearly it isn’t. 

[Diamondhands69]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

You didn't answer the question.  If the church was institutionally racist towards the Japanese why send missionaries there?

Already did. Scroll up

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Already did. Scroll up

You didn't.  You wrote about the church in Brazil and quoted a statement about blacks and the priesthood.  Nothing about Japan.

I'll ask a third time: if the church was exhibiting institutional racism against the Japanese why send missionaries to Japan?  Why?

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You didn't.  You wrote about the church in Brazil and quoted a statement about blacks and the priesthood.  Nothing about Japan.

I'll ask a third time: if the church was exhibiting institutional racism against the Japanese why send missionaries to Japan?  Why?

Baptize and then not treat them the same as others?

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Baptize and then not treat them the same as others?

Why baptize them in the first place then?

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Why baptize them in the first place then?

Why baptize blacks before the 1978 change? 

[webbles]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why baptize blacks before the 1978 change? 

Who not?  If they wanted to be baptized, why prevent them?  And I think it was a good thing because I personally feel it helped bring about the 1978 revelation.  If the church didn't baptize any blacks at all, then it would not have had the internal issues with how to handle Brazilian members and the Sao Paulo temple.

[Pyreaux]

"I looked out of the airplane and saw Pearl Harbor, and remembered what our country had done to these people on December 7, 1941, I feared in my heart. Will they accept us? But to my surprise they showed greater love and kindness than I had ever seen in my life.”

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, webbles said:

Who not?  If they wanted to be baptized, why prevent them?  And I think it was a good thing because I personally feel it helped bring about the 1978 revelation.  If the church didn't baptize any blacks at all, then it would not have had the internal issues with how to handle Brazilian members and the Sao Paulo temple.

For a little context, kfisher said to Diamondhands69: "I'll ask a third time: if the church was exhibiting institutional racism against the Japanese why send missionaries to Japan?  Why?"

That is why I asked, "Why baptize blacks before the 1978 change? "

[ksfisher]

23 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why baptize blacks before the 1978 change? 

Does answering that question also answer the question of why the church was allegedly exhibiting institutional racism against the Japanese saints?  I see them as two different questions.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Why baptize blacks before the 1978 change? 

Women also did not have the priesthood in those days, but obviously were baptized  anyway, as were blacks

It's not the same issue.

This is about a TRANSLATION issue, the other is about the priesthood and doctrines.

Yet again, comparing them is a category mistake.

It had nothing to do with Doctrine or policy, not solving a translation issue administratively says nothing about Doctrine .

Why they didn't they have temples all over the world had nothing to do with thinking no one but Americans were eligible for baptism.

It was a growth problem- it was logistics

Explanation of category errors, a logical fallacy:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake#:~:text=A category mistake (or category,could not possibly have that

Edited October 27, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Maestrophil]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Women also did not have the priesthood in those days, but obviously were baptized  anyway.  It's not the same issue.

This is about a TRANSLATION issue, the other is about the priesthood and doctrines.

Yet again, comparing them is a category mistake.

It had nothing to do with Doctrine or policy, not solving a translation issue administratively says nothing about Doctrine .

Why they didn't they have temples all over the world had nothing to do with thinking no one but Americans were eligible for baptism.

It was a growth problem- it was logistics

Exactly - my poor French mom experienced it, as I am sure MANY different language speakers did - we were not ready to grow everything fast enough for our expansion rate.  I don't see any exclusion - other than an American/English-centric church having growing pains.

Edited October 26, 2023 by Maestrophil

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Does answering that question also answer the question of why the church was allegedly exhibiting institutional racism against the Japanese saints?  I see them as two different questions.

 

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Women also did not have the priesthood in those days, but obviously were baptized  anyway, as were blacks

It's not the same issue.

This is about a TRANSLATION issue, the other is about the priesthood and doctrines.

Yet again, comparing them is a category mistake.

It had nothing to do with Doctrine or policy, not solving a translation issue administratively says nothing about Doctrine .

Why they didn't they have temples all over the world had nothing to do with thinking no one but Americans were eligible for baptism.

It was a growth problem- it was logistics

👍

[Stargazer]

On 10/25/2023 at 12:54 AM, Diamondhands69 said:

Yea I see your point . I guess the endowment isn’t really all that important for anyone to understand or get right. 

You are coming through loud and clear.

In your original post, you jumped to racism too quickly for me to believe you're reluctant. 

You also seem to be steeped in presentism. The church has enormous language resources now, but in the days when I was baptized (1966) not even the Book of Mormon had been translated into more than several European languages. Because surprisingly, there weren't 15 million of us then, and almost all of us lived in the US and Canada. How many temples were there back then? And how many received patrons from the Far East, and from a country that had only recently been in a brutal war with us?

Lack of desire? You're got to be fricking kidding me. From practically Day One the church was sending missionaries to American Indians, Hawaiians (even before the whites took over), the Maoris, and all kinds of non-white peoples. The desire was there in spades, but the resources were stretched very thin. And still they sent them. And as soon as the priesthood was available to all without reference to ancestry, missionaries were sent out to those countries. And baptized thousands in just a few months.

Yeah, you go on about your racism. It's the default criticism to be leveled at anyone or anything one opposes. Regardless of evidence. Are there racist LDS? Of course there are. There are racists everywhere, among all races. But when the 1978 revelation was announced in Salt Lake City, it electrified the majority there, and not with horror. 

And since you're yammering on about the temple, let's just consider those for whom the work is done. The vast majority of endowments are performed for the dead, by proxy. They aren't even there in person to hear the words of the endowment -- and yet the ordinance is of benefit to them! Even if they did not speak the language their proxy ordinance is conducted in! So, for a person who cannot understand the language, but who has already been in the church long enough to understand what is expected of them as a member, there is nothing in the endowment that differs from the expectations that are already understood. 

You seem to want the church to have translated the temple ceremonies into every language on earth, decades before the church even has members that speak those languages. Good luck with that.

 

[InCognitus]

9 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

And since you're yammering on about the temple, let's just consider those for whom the work is done. The vast majority of endowments are performed for the dead, by proxy. They aren't even there in person to hear the words of the endowment -- and yet the ordinance is of benefit to them! Even if they did not speak the language their proxy ordinance is conducted in!

This part reminds me of an experience earlier this week.  After doing proxy initiatory work for several individuals with hard (for English speaking persons) to pronounce names (some of them were Asian names, and there was at least one Russian name), one of the ordinance workers remarked, "I hope they are forgiving on our mispronunciation of their names".  There is a sincere desire and intent to communicate the ordinance faithfully and with respect to the individuals for whom the work is being performed.

[Stargazer]

21 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

This part reminds me of an experience earlier this week.  After doing proxy initiatory work for several individuals with hard (for English speaking persons) to pronounce names (some of them were Asian names, and there was at least one Russian name), one of the ordinance workers remarked, "I hope they are forgiving on our mispronunciation of their names".  There is a sincere desire and intent to communicate the ordinance faithfully and with respect to the individuals for whom the work is being performed.

I once had an experience I am hesitant to recount here because of the risk of casting pearls. But I feel I have permission.

It was in the Seattle temple. I was there without any family names, so I took a slip from the temple file. It was some man whose information indicated he lived in France during the 1600s or 1700s. In light of what happened I tried to remember his name for the future, but after all these years I've forgotten. Perhaps we will meet again later.

As soon as I said his name for the ordinance worker, it felt like he was there. And he was very happy. And as soon as I finished at the veil, the feeling left. But not completely. I sat for some time in the celestial room basking in the Spirit of the Lord, and marveling over the experience. Nothing like that had ever happened to me before, nor since. Not even when dealing with family names of relatives I had known and loved. It was a most singular experience. 

And I'd be willing to bet that his native language was not English.

[JAHS]

On 10/23/2023 at 10:42 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

Ok what the heck is this about? Conference talk posted below for reference.  Here is a quote:

”The other challenge for members was that the temple presentation was not available in Japanese. Church leaders called a Japanese brother to travel to the Hawaiian temple to translate the endowment ceremony. He was the first Japanese convert after the war, having been taught and baptized by faithful American soldiers.

When the endowed Japanese members living in Hawaii first heard the translation, they wept. One member recorded: “We’ve been to the temple many, many times. We’ve heard the ceremonies in English. [But] we have never felt the spirit of … temple work as we feel it now [hearing it] in our own native tongue.”

What the flippin fetch?! So the church had Japanese people attending the temple and making covenants and in a foreign language. So they had no clue what was going on or what they were covenanting to do I assume. I recall how lost I was during my first time through I had no idea what was going on. Can’t imagine what it would have been like if it was in Japanese. 
 

what a mess. I cannot believe our church let this happen to people. It isn’t like Japanese was some obscure language back then. If the church wanted, those sessions could have been in Japanese long before Pearl Harbor was attacked much less long after the war was over. 
 

this is disgusting. How can it be justified to do this to people? Oh the first language it was translated into was Spanish in 1945?? 
 

how long had Mexican converts been around?  Long before that. We had polygamist colonies in Mexico in the 1800s. 
 

whole thing sounds a bit racist and I’m usually very reluctant to throw that out there, but there is no other explanation. There is no way the church didn’t have the resources to translate. Lack of desire?? More than likely. Talk amongst yourselves. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/10/55esplin?lang=eng

 

https://www.deseret.com/2013/6/26/20521654/history-behind-the-first-non-english-temple-ceremony-translation#:~:text='” And in 1944%2C the,in the Salt Lake Temple.

 

English is compulsory in Japanese schools from the third grade up until the end of high school, and then again through university. So I am sure they were able to understand enough English to make the covenants and understand generally what was being taught.