The purpose of Blacks and the Priesthood ban
 

must have been that in the latter-days, God wanted to make sure that those people that believed in racial equality would have a negative impression of the church and be less receptive to its message, making the bar for them that much higher.

Very inspired.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-j...i_b_76475.html

The El Jefes of the world have been trying so hard for so long to suppress any conversation about this. And now a tidal wave of negativity may engulf the church.

We have only ourselves to blame.

I am seeing a new wrinkle to your persona....melodrama!

I dub this thread..."A Very Special Episode of mikewaters"....

Considering that most Mormons can't tell you much about racism in the church, or Joseph Smith's wives, I think I can safely say that within a matter of months there will be more Mormons and more non-Mormons aware of these issues at least in the form of soundbytes and innuendo, than ever before in history by orders of magnitude.

Ah, the value of innoculation.

You know your shtick was a lot more funny on CB. Too bad it didn't translate very well to this site.

C'mon Mike. Lighten up. that was really pretty good.

Would you rather he just come out and call you a dumb ass.

Was the ban of non-Levitical priesthood holders policy or doctrine?

were they black?

The tidal wave will engulf because a mormon is in the spotlight for something very important. Therefor comments from dopes like O'Donnell and this Davis jackass get picked up. They have felt that way for a long time, but Mitt running provides them the opportunity to spew their garbage. Yes, it is garbage because of the way they go about spewing it.

You want to make a strong accusation against the church and our beliefs and former beliefs, I have no problem with that. However, do it in a controlled manner or even a humorous manner like they did on South Park.

Filled with anger and hate their opinions are worthless to me. It is emotional speak.

I will agree with you that the church members who love to shut down discussion and put their heads in the sand do us no real favor, but I wouldn't use O'Donell and the Huffington report as evidence of how closure of thought hurts us. They themselves represent closure of thought the other way.

Does it matter? They were being discriminated against.

That article you posted says nothing, absolutely nothing, that hasn't been said countless times elsewhere.

If you have noticed, attacks on the Church do not really find much success. The Church just keeps growing. So your claims are overblown....as usual. We only have ourselves to blame? What does that mean? Blame for what?

Weren't you one of the people on CB predicting doom when all the MMM stuff was coming to light as a result of that recent movie? So much for that.

I would agree that my stuff on CB is better, because there are more easy targets there. Here, there are really only or two easy targets, so it makes my work tougher. By the way, which IP address are you posting from today?

The two most tawdry elements, arguably, of Mormon history are 1) racism and 2) Joseph Smith's polygamous marriages.

The latter is especially not well known even among members.

In fact, I predict you will have many members announcing that true facts are actually lies. Imagine the confusion that will result, when they realize that they themselves have lied. Will they feel lied to, or deceived?

Such a process is not innoculation. It is full blown disease.

Better get the cure ready.

I would be happy to answer these questions if it were someone else asking.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are the loud obnoxious guy who walks up and butts in on a conversation, makes a lame joke, and the place kind of gets quiet, waiting for you to shut up or leave.

People who are unaware of the Church's pecadilloes are the rank and file who never question. These same people, when they finally are told by a Church authority that, yes, Joseph had many wives, will simply accept whatever explanation they are given by their Church leader and continue being rank and file. Pretty simple.

If not, then what you are suggesting is that there will be a grassroots revolution from Nephi to Layton when housewives and handymen find out online that Joseph had wives and men in the 1800s were somewhat racist. Yawn.

I listened to Lawrence O' Donnell on Hugh Hewitt's show, and Hewitt took him apart. The man had had one too many drinks. I don't know who this "Ryan Davis" character is, but if he's posting on the Huffington Post, there's not a lot of reason to take him seriously.

Why is this a big deal again?

If you read Cougarboard much you actually see how members will deal with it.

Some will accept the fact they have been fed some stuff that just really wasn't true. They will take it like they took Paul Dunn's book and move on. Those will be primarily members who don't hang on every word a general authority says and then run out and tell everyone they had better obey.

Then there will be those who will call it all lies and fabrications. They will start saying it is the "end of times" because the evil forces of Satan are gathering against us. They will hunker down and wonder why we can't make Utah a big Colorado City.

Sadly, there will be some that will feel they were deceived and lose their testimony. That is what I see is the problem of throwing out to the world we are more holy, more moral, more bright than everyone else and using BYU as evidence of such. People who don't take all that with a grain of salt can get disillusioned.

Most of my jokes are funny. What's your beef, miguel? out with it.

I admit I pick on you quite a bit. If you would prefer me to stop, I will. You seem pretty rattled this morning.

This is correct. It isnt any different than anything else about the Church that has come out in the past. Life will go on.

All of this "we only have ourselves to blame" stuff is melodrama. It is true, but it is grossly overblown.

The question I would ask Mike, whom I also beat up on occasion but he knows I do it out of love and a desire to help him, is who is "we". By that do you mean the church leadership. By we do you mean the leadership at BYU and on Cougarboard.

You have to realize Mike the bulk of the church is not like that. The bulk of the church is not as the perception goes out or is put out by the zealots. I think the church leaders are reasonable men and say reasonable things, it is the zealots that then enhance their words and as most zealots do, get heard the most.

Does anyone really think most kids at BYU are like what is the perception. Probably closer now under the current restrictions, but still not an accurate portrayal.

It's not the ice floating in the water that you worry about. It's the massive chunk of ice it is attached to that is below water that you can't see.

Opinion leaders who know very little about Mormon doctrine are going to be exposed to little known facts about Mormonism.

It's sort of like Mormonism in the black community. Many blacks will tell you that they have heard that Mormonism isn't friendly to blacks, but they can't tell you exactly why, or what led to that.

Right now we have a situation where it is actually non general authorities who are informing members about the truth regarding these events, with not that much cooperation from general authorities. For example the Kimball biography with some of the juicier elements cut out and only on the CD. Now we know the history of the lifting of the ban was very much more complicated than simply a prayer in the temple.

Transparency cures many ills.

Transparency cures some ills, not many. The masses are followers, not leaders. Give them too much information and they get confused and short circuit. Cover ups are human nature and contrary to some beliefs, the church is run by humans who get occasional directives from the almighty.

You and I would both want to convince the masses those directives come often and regularly or you would lose them. My personal belief is God realizes it and is OK with it. I doubt that Moses gave the Israelites much information as to why they were wandering 40 years.

That's why it took 40 years.

Once again, correct. recently on CB, there was an informal poll taken before the statewide vote on vouchers, just to see how closely the CB opinion mirrored the general Utah opinion. Turns out that it wasnt even close....the two are not aligned.

CB is populated with several extremists who are protected by a set of rules that allows them to run and post amok while dissenters are identified as rabble-rousers. I would even venture to guess that CB, if left completely unfettered, would actually be comprised of fewer mullahs than people here may believe.

So a prediction of mass apostasy when truth is finally revealed is nonsense...since many, or most, are already aware to one degree or another.

mike is not talking to me right now. Please pass him a note that says that I love him and want to help him, just as you do. mike uses the socratic method (poorly), overly dramatic hypotheticals, and multiple logins posing as different personalities to spur thought and to point out erroneous thinking. I simply use sarcasm.

Mike, you kill me sometimes. As one who had reached the age of majoirty (at least as far as the military was concerned) in 1978 when the ban was lifted, I can tell you that the negative press was very significant. You talk as though no one noticed the priesthood ban until now. Not so, my young friend. This new scrutiny may result in a wave of negativity, but it will also generate a wave of support and genuine inquiry. I am not opposed to your concept of innoculation, although I would probabyl differ in approach to implementing same. To think, however, that becaseu a few pundits trumpet their disagreement with the church that the churhc will suffer dramtacially is simply wrong. As long as they spell our name correctly, we'll be fine. Besides, if you believe there is truth, as in eternal truth, in the gospel, then how can you contend otherwise?

Either your sense of humor is back or you are losing it completely.

Gains that have been made are reduced in value and perception by the inability and unwillingness to be forthright and open.

In other words, like many things in life, it is not about what is good. It is about what is better. Is not what one has gained, but what one would have gained if one had been wiser.

Sorry Mike. But I got a chuckle out of that one.

I laugh when I think back to my mission -- if someone we tracked into would have ever told me things like Joseph Smith had plural wives or that he translated the BOM by putting his face into a hat, I would have "testified" that those things were not true, and thought that the person was of the Devil.

The culture of not embracing our Mormon history has created the point that Mike's trying to make, I think. Saying "not embracing" is maybe sugar coating it too. All just my opinion, of course.

LOL, nice to see the humor gene didn't dissapear.

If you believe that, then you are backward looking and of no value to thos who want to move forward. I don't beleive that you mean that.

You are not my age. You wouldn't believe the stuff we taught or were taught. That is what has given me one of my obsessions. Everything said by the brethern is not doctrine. Counsel is not commandment.

Some people just don't want to hear that. They don't want to be alone. They want someone to lead them and it is very comforting for them to think the person leading them has a direct link to God. How much better can it get.

I have no problem actually with those people feeling that way. To each their own. I only have a problem when they try to tell me I am an apostate or leading people astray if I don't agree with them. Don't laugh. I have gotten such board-mails. Even over the stinking honor code as if that is something equivalent to the ten commandments.

I am saying there is more to be gained by honestly addressing racism that there is in being silent.

Act now. Your gains in the future will be greater. Don't act, you limit your gains.

I'm looking into the future.

Ditto. Mike may be discovering the 1978 ban for the first time, but the rest of America isn't. Sure, if Romney gets the nomination, we may see a 60 Minutes spot or a few 20/20 reports on the ban. Big deal.

A bunch of "opinion leaders" get their panties in a wad and start accusing broad swaths of individuals of being racists. What else is new. Happens everyday on CG, why not elsewhere?

OK, so you think the church should simply announce that all those old guys with beards werre a bunch of rascists and we're very sorry about that but, hey, we're on board now so what the heck. WHat effect in the future will that have on the church and its position in the world? Personally, I think a more prudent approach, especially becasue of the current situation, is important.

What would be honestly addressing racism as you see it.

The religion was started in an era where prejudice against blacks wasn't considered racism by everyone. The people who were in or joined the religion think that what their leaders do comes from God. So if I was a member in good standing, I would have to think God was a racist following your logic and that currently he is anti women and a homo-phobe. I didn't, I like other members and leaders groped for reasons for this situation. I never heard anyone tell me I should hate blacks, never. My father as a matter of fact was very pro the civil rights movements. He was a democrat. My grandfather loved the Indians and was always very positive in his conversation about black people.

Why fight an old battle. If you are truly upset about this, do something about a current descriminatory practice. Lobby for women and practicing gays to get the Priesthood.

The church is a political beast. And they don't want to appear to be helping Romney. So they won't make any major moves that would appear to be trying to appease the public in order to help Romney.

Official and specific repudiation of racists doctrines therefore won't occur until at least the Romney thing has played out, just as it was with his father (see DoM biography).

ETB preached against the Civil Rights movement in General Conference.

I'm happy about your father, but I'm sure he didn't have nearly the influence of ETB.

WHat doctrines are you talking about? The doctrine/policy of the priesthood ban has been specifically rescinded. So if you mean that doctrine/policy, then you must be tlakign about a speciric acknowledgement of a rascist basis for the doctrine/policy? Even if true, I am not sure this would serve the church's or the gospel's interest.

Not that a prophet has to be popular, but a lot of people ignored things he said. My dad thought too many of his ideas came from John Birchers. How many members do you think heeded the counsel, no woman in the work place.

Do you want a list?

1. comments from prophet(s) over the pulpit that were overtly racists
2. comments from prophet not over pulpit but publicy made overtly racist
3. doctrines espoused with no basis in reality, overtly racist (multitude of shifting doctrines used to justify denying blacks the priesthood)

"that's in the past" just doesn't cut it.

Sure it does. Maybe not for the press, or for you, but it should be for the believers.

One of the best things the man ever said.

Give me one quote that at the time the prophet made the quote would have been considered overtly racist.

Remember, I don't buy the argument that everyone who opposed the civil rights bill was a racist. Some people thought it could be done a different way.