New to newsgroup: Explain The Mormon View on Race
Michael Jordan
subject of race relations. It's like he has no access to newspapers, no
awareness of social issues whatsoever. The man has all the personality of
a beaker of tap water. He is the classic Mormon robot but telling him so
would be useless and rude, so I don't.
We got into a rare conversation that wandered into a great many things and
on the topic of race he all but flat out said that Whites are the only true
members of the Church. He apologizes, wishes it weren't so, but the Truth
cannot be denied. He quoted some verse in the Book of Mormon that said
something about God cursing the evil by darkening their skin. He personally
wishes it weren't so. He is sure there are "many fine black people" but the
Truth is unavoidable.
Now I'm told by other Mormons that "oh, don't worry about him. the Prophet
was told in 1970 that Black could be full members of the Church"
Prophecy that coincides with the post-civil rights Era. Oh, how convenient!
What a wonderful thing it must be to have a prophet make these little
mid-course corrections to keep your church from looking like a flock of
total biogts.
By this time I was to flabbergasted to pay attention.
C&C
news:mP%w4.3417$Aj1....@news2.atl...
> I work in an office and I have a co-worker who is oddly nervous on the
> subject of race relations. It's like he has no access to newspapers, no
> awareness of social issues whatsoever. The man has all the personality
of
> a beaker of tap water. He is the classic Mormon robot but telling him so
> would be useless and rude
<snip>
So is judging an entire religion by one experience.
Try increasing the sample size of your study.
Chuck
Bill Williams
Michael Jordan <mjo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:mP%w4.3417$Aj1....@news2.atl...
> I work in an office and I have a co-worker who is oddly nervous on the
> subject of race relations. It's like he has no access to newspapers, no
> awareness of social issues whatsoever. The man has all the personality
of
> a beaker of tap water. He is the classic Mormon robot but telling him so
>
> We got into a rare conversation that wandered into a great many things
and
> on the topic of race he all but flat out said that Whites are the only
true
> members of the Church. He apologizes, wishes it weren't so, but the Truth
> cannot be denied. He quoted some verse in the Book of Mormon that said
> something about God cursing the evil by darkening their skin. He
personally
> wishes it weren't so. He is sure there are "many fine black people" but
the
> Truth is unavoidable.
>
> Now I'm told by other Mormons that "oh, don't worry about him. the Prophet
> was told in 1970 that Black could be full members of the Church"
>
> Prophecy that coincides with the post-civil rights Era. Oh, how
convenient!
> What a wonderful thing it must be to have a prophet make these little
> mid-course corrections to keep your church from looking like a flock of
> total biogts.
Especially since Bob Jones University was in the process of losing its
tax-exempt status because of its racial policies at the time. Could the Lord
have been worried about the financial status of the church without its tax
exemption?
Bill Williams
FAWNSCRIBE
flashlight shone on their activities and racist remarks and run like
cockroaches under the scrutiny.
See this stuff is always done in RESPONSE to outside pressure Never BECAuse the
cup is cleaned in thier hearts from the inside quietly when NO one looks
deeply.
Same with the outreach to brazil with the LDS.When the push was made to go
there..then ALL of a sudden, the revelation came down like Holy Writ ( that has
been explained and taught CORRECTLY 2000 years before).
The outside cleaned the inside of the cup, and thats what is so sickening.SO
many people went along with it at BobJones AND in Salt lake thinking..THIS is
from the LORD!
YOWZA! BTW it was 1978 NOt 1970:) for the LDS...
Fawn
Fawn
Ryan H. Turner
>subject of race relations.
I work in a dispatch center where more than one of my fellow 911 dispatchers
are completely and utterly bigoted against blacks and hispanics. They aren't
Mormon. Hmmmmmm.....balance my friend, balance.
>It's like he has no access to newspapers, no
>awareness of social issues whatsoever.
It's more likely he doesn't care...which is his perogative.
>The man has all the personality of
>a beaker of tap water.
And you, I assume, are as lively as a bowl of hot and steamy soup in
comparison? What's your point? Maybe he just doesn't like you. I'm extremely
vivacious and outgoing, except with people I don't particularly care for.
Especially those that think I have the personality of a beaker of water.
>He is the classic Mormon robot but telling him so
>would be useless and rude, so I don't.
Sure would be rude to tell HIM that, but don't worry, it's ok to come up here
and transmit it to the world. You speak of "odd"...you are right. You ARE
odd...I don't get what you mean.
>We got into a rare conversation that wandered into a great many things and
>on the topic of race he all but flat out said that Whites are the only true
>members of the Church.
I'll take your word for it...I guess. Strange how a beaker of water can all of
a sudden expound on things seemingly out of the blue.
>He apologizes, wishes it weren't so, but the Truth
>cannot be denied. He quoted some verse in the Book of Mormon that said
>something about God cursing the evil by darkening their skin.
OK....and?
>He personally
>wishes it weren't so. He is sure there are "many fine black people" but the
>Truth is unavoidable.
Oh sheesh...either you were talking to a complete idiot (oh wait...you've
already pretty much called them that anyway), or, you are making a gigantic
leap into thinking that ALL Mormons "feel" the same way. Well my friend, we
DON'T all feel the same way. If some of my fellow members are short sighted,
bigoted, ignorant, and have personalities of beakers of water, which MANY do,
than that's THERE problem. My deal is to maybe be a catalyst for change to
help them see better. Like me being the best man at a black man's
wedding...GASP!!! I was, I did...and I'm Mormon.
>Now I'm told by other Mormons that "oh, don't worry about him. the Prophet
>was told in 1970 that Black could be full members of the Church"
Wrong date...so you're either talking out of your butt or you are talking to
some really less informed members.
>Prophecy that coincides with the post-civil rights Era. Oh, how convenient!
>What a wonderful thing it must be to have a prophet make these little
>mid-course corrections to keep your church from looking like a flock of
>total biogts.
Sure...you could look at it that way of course. I'll give you
that...grudgingly. However, stop and think for a moment. Do you think God,
possibly, would have a greater wisdom than you and I, and maybe by changing the
course of things "mid-course" that possibly something was put into effect that
you and I can't possibly understand?? Isn't that possible? Isn't that
possible that there are some decisions made in the company whose office you
occupy that are done without full explanations to you that fulfill something
that you may not be aware of?
I think I've made my point...
Ryan H. Turner--Orange County, CA
**My testimony of the Gospel and Church is not based on intellectual prowess on
my part, but on the faith that I work on everyday, as well as the DIRECT answer
to my prayers I receive and from the Scriptures I study!**
FAWNSCRIBE
>I work in an office and I have a co-worker who is oddly nervous on the
>subject of race relations.
I work in a dispatch center where more than one of my fellow 911 dispatchers
are completely and utterly bigoted against blacks and hispanics. They aren't
Mormon. Hmmmmmm.....balance my friend, balance.
>>>>>>>>
Nahhh..you DO?..Sheesh and golly gee whiz!!!!!..I wonder if their feelings are
based on a biblical directive from their religious organization??? .
Especially since not too many years ago..MOST of those folks wouldn't be able
to GET a job competing based only on skill but based on the *kindness* of the
managers.
Tsk tsk tsk
Fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
>What a wonderful thing it must be to have a prophet make these little
>mid-course corrections to keep your church from looking like a flock of
>total biogts.
Sure...you could look at it that way of course. I'll give you
that...grudgingly. However, stop and think for a moment. Do you think God,
possibly, would have a greater wisdom than you and I, and maybe by changing the
course of things "mid-course" that possibly something was put into effect that
you and I can't possibly understand?? Isn't that possible? Isn't that
possible that there are some decisions made in the company whose office you
occupy that are done without full explanations to you that fulfill something
that you may not be aware of?
I think I've made my point...
Ryan H. Turner--Orange County, CA
**My testimony of the Gospel and Church is not based on intellectual prowess on
my part, but on the faith that I work on everyday, as well as the DIRECT answer
to my prayers I receive and from the Scriptures I study!**
>>>>>>>>
Could be that elephants are also really orange and polka dotted too I
suppose..but when you hear hoofbeats think horses not zebras unless you live in
Africa.
Hon..you made valid points on only that no one should blight all
members..HOWEVER dpn't go breaking your arm patting yourself on the back
because GASP you were a BEST man at a BLACK mans WEDDING!!!
Whoope DEE DOO!!!!!! Ain't that special!!:)))
Now if you had MARRIED a black woman yourself and the BLACK guy could be a
priest pre 1978 THEN you'd have something to crow about ESPECIALLY if you did
it KNOWING full well that preists were banned by the leadership who were black
but CHRIST talked of overcoming THAT crapola 2000 years ago, and THEN took a
stand for righteousness sake.
Capice?
One could look at it *grudgingly*?..ROFL.ahem as *grudgingly* as that Bozo
college of Bob Jones Univeristy *grudgingly* overturned interacial dating
..ahem..just coincidentally after the BUSH visit?
Get REAL man..the push to Brazil was going to HANG you and you KNOW it.
The membership may have squirmed over the ban but few ever SAID anything
vocally or squawked.
NOW..you act as if all those folks who were alive in pre 1978 and REMEMEBER
that suff might be dead maybe?
Or have amnesia?
Maybe its possible that some decisions are made without ones knowledge on
matters NOT covered by Christ..but on matters where they ARE already a few
thousand years ago?
No go Sherlock.
It stunk..and a MAJOR apology is in order BY your leaders for a MISTAKE or else
they have to let it stand as it was supposed to be.." a revelation" from
God..you cant spin the wheel both ways.
Fawn
Clifford Statum
<20000307122745...@ng-ci1.aol.com>...
>>I work in an office and I have a co-worker who is oddly >>nervous on the
subject of race relations.
>I work in a dispatch center where more than one of my
>fellow 911 dispatchers are completely and utterly bigoted >against blacks
and hispanics. They aren't Mormon. >Hmmmmmm.....balance my friend,
balance.
>>>>>>>>>
>Nahhh..you DO?..Sheesh and golly gee whiz!!!!!..I wonder
>if their feelings are based on a biblical directive from their >religious
organization??? .
Who knows, Fawniekins ? They might be Southern (White)
Baptists. I don't know what the one are like up in de Burg,
but the ones here in Mississippi are a riot.
>Especially since not too many years ago..MOST of those
>folks wouldn't be able to GET a job competing based only
>on skill but based on the *kindness* of the managers.
Thank goodness for Affirmative Action...............................
Not.
>Tsk tsk tsk
You finally got one right, Fawn.
FAWNSCRIBE
From: "Clifford Statum" clif...@netdoor.com
Date: 3/7/2000 11:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <Ccdx4.4216$yV1.1...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
Not.
>Tsk tsk tsk
I think the ONLY denomination you are familiar with in even a TEENSY way is
SWB..ROFL..Cliff you are a HOOT:))
Affirmative action? Had its place and I think should soon be phased out..but
then again? Out there in some states where I have been where blacks are as rare
as hens teeth..we might be BACK stuck with the good Ole Boys with the mirrored
sunglasses swinging folks from tress again.
Not to mention the white militia nuts in Idaho
Fawn
Russell McGregor
"Bill Williams" <will...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> Michael Jordan <mjo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:mP%w4.3417$Aj1....@news2.atl...
the
newspapers, no
> > awareness of social issues whatsoever. The man has all the
personality
> of
> > a beaker of tap water. He is the classic Mormon robot but telling
him so
> > would be useless and rude, so I don't.
> >
things
> and
> > on the topic of race he all but flat out said that Whites are the
only
> true
Truth
> > cannot be denied. He quoted some verse in the Book of Mormon that
said
> personally
> > wishes it weren't so. He is sure there are "many fine black people"
but
> the
> > Truth is unavoidable.
> >
Prophet
> > was told in 1970 that Black could be full members of the Church"
> >
> convenient!
> > What a wonderful thing it must be to have a prophet make these
little
> > mid-course corrections to keep your church from looking like a flock
of
> > total biogts.
>
> tax-exempt status because of its racial policies at the time. Could
the Lord
> have been worried about the financial status of the church without its
tax
> exemption?
The Bob Jones situation was a completely different case. The difference
between segregated dating policies and religious privileges is not
exactly subtle, Bill. Of course, if you are (a) exceedingly
dull-witted, or (b) recklessly intent on making a meaningless connection
simply so that you can indulge your penchant for "damnation by
association," then that difference might just elude you.
There are certain people on this newsgroup, present company not
excluded, who are willing to make any accusation against the Church of
Jesus Christ, no matter how flimsy the evidence. The only factor that
seems to matter is whether the accusation is nasty enough.
> Bill Williams
Snip
Russell C. McGregor
--
"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
(Brigham Young)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Clifford Statum
<20000307151456...@ng-ft1.aol.com>...
>Subject: Re: New to newsgroup: Explain The Mormon View on Race
>From: "Clifford Statum" clif...@netdoor.com
>Date: 3/7/2000 11:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Ccdx4.4216$yV1.1...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
>FAWNSCRIBE wrote in message
><20000307122745...@ng-ci1.aol.com>...
[[snip]]
>I think the ONLY denomination you are familiar with in
>even a TEENSY way is SWB..
A little history might be in order, Fawnster. I was born
raised, and married in California. If you haven't lived
there before, I'll just say that most folks don't really care
where you go to church, or even if you do go to church.
We moved to Mississippi ten years ago in order to
get a promotion. Down here the dominant religious
culture is Southern (White) Baptist. People down here
like to wear their beliefs on their sleeves. I say SWB,
as there have been several franchises (read First
Baptist Church of _________) that have turned Blacks
away from their doors. Simpson County has been
particularly bad about this.
I recall an article in the Mississippi State Baptist
Association newspaper in which it was announced
that a couple had been called to the Home Mission
Board. The only 'problem' was that it was a salt-n-pepper
couple. The next issue a reader had written in to complain
that the newspaper had finally achieved it's hidden
agenda of promoting interracial marriage. The reader
went on to say that he knew that God loved everyone,
but that He did not intend for the races to 'mix'.
The letter was followed by a terse statement from the
editor. He went on to say that it was a news story, and
that he had a responsibility to print it. He said, though,
that in no way did he (the editor) endorse or promote
interracial marriage. Nice guys, huh ?
These are also the guys that torment my kids at school.
>ROFL..Cliff you are a HOOT:))
Hey, I try, fawnster.
>Affirmative action? Had its place and I think should
>soon be phased out..but then again?
I have no problem with someone who is qualified
for a job getting it, regardless of race or sex.
Unfortunately, as a federal employee, too often
those who are less qualified get the jobs in order
to satisfy an affirmative action 'goal'.
>Out there in some states where I have been where
>blacks are as rare as hens teeth..
I take it you haven't been to Mississippi.
>we might be BACK stuck with the good Ole Boys
>with the mirrored sunglasses swinging folks from
>tress again.
Billie Holliday sang about this in 'Strange Fruit'.
I don't think lynchings will ever resume, at least here
in Mississippi. We have had some high-profile race
crimes here, in which blacks killed/raped whites. In
every case the perp was brought in alive and unharmed.
All things considered, Mississippi has come a long way.
>Not to mention the white militia nuts in Idaho
I am not a fan of fascism, whether it be militia nuts
or PC nuts.
>Fawn
Cliff
Michael Jordan
whatchamacallit Mormon-in-Chief???? Now, this I will NOT believe. God is
not racist. God is not unloving. God would not have cared whether the flock
was "ready" or not. God would told you a loooooong time ago the simple
truth the he loves us all. Were the Mormons-Running-The-Show listening to
God or to Ronald Reagan?
PS. I love the flashlight and cockroach analogy
FAWNSCRIBE <fawns...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000307065041...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
> Bob Jones Univeristy is a CLASSIC example of religious institutions who
get the
> flashlight shone on their activities and racist remarks and run like
> cockroaches under the scrutiny.
> See this stuff is always done in RESPONSE to outside pressure Never
BECAuse the
> cup is cleaned in thier hearts from the inside quietly when NO one looks
> deeply.
> Same with the outreach to brazil with the LDS.When the push was made to go
> there..then ALL of a sudden, the revelation came down like Holy Writ
Michael Jordan
> >Prophecy that coincides with the post-civil rights Era. Oh, how
convenient!
> >What a wonderful thing it must be to have a prophet make these little
> >mid-course corrections to keep your church from looking like a flock of
> >total biogts.
>
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!! I don't bear a racial animous against
Mormons, it's a theological one. Bob Jones himself came on Larry King and
just shrugged off the interracial dating ban saying "it was insignificant to
us, so we removed it as an issue". Nothing about how misguided it was to
interfere in the social lives of their students on something so
"insignificant".
Mormons, I'm finding out, do a similar song and dance step. They just call
it Divine Revelation. I now understand why blind obedience is required. If
the flock were permitted to THINK... oh my.
Michael Jordan
Russell McGregor <russe...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8a4567$gjq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <mP%w4.3417$Aj1....@news2.atl>,> Congratulations.
>
> > and I have a co-worker who is oddly nervous on the
> > subject of race relations. It's like he has no access to newspapers,
> no
> > awareness of social issues whatsoever. The man has all the
> personality of
> > a beaker of tap water.
>
>
> > He is the classic Mormon robot but telling him so
> > would be useless and rude, so I don't.
>
> you're talking about someone behind his back.
>
> Nevertheless, although you've only told us your *opinion* of this
> person, and not any *facts*, you've still managed to tell us a great
> deal.
>
> That little phrase, "classic Mormon robot," tells us exactly where you
> are coming from. Your truly vast ignorance of Latter-day Saint life and
> teaching is no impediment to you; you simply assume that for one of us
> to be a "robot" is a "classic" or typical situation.
>
> There is a word for that kind of mindset. You misspelled it already,
> below.
>
> > We got into a rare conversation that wandered into a great many
> things and
> > on the topic of race he all but flat out said that Whites are the only
> true
> > members of the Church.
>
>
> Then he's wrong.
>
> > He apologizes, wishes it weren't so, but the Truth
> > cannot be denied. He quoted some verse in the Book of Mormon that said
> > something about God cursing the evil by darkening their skin.
>
>
> > He personally
> > wishes it weren't so. He is sure there are "many fine black people"
> but the
> > Truth is unavoidable.
>
>
> > Now I'm told by other Mormons that "oh, don't worry about him. the
> Prophet
> > was told in 1970 that Black could be full members of the Church"
>
>
> 1) It was 1978, not 1970.
>
> 2) They were always "full members of the Church." Full membership is
> obtained through baptism and confirmation. What Black people could not
> do, prior to 1978, was hold any priesthood office.
>
> > Prophecy that coincides with the post-civil rights Era. Oh, how
> convenient!
> > What a wonderful thing it must be to have a prophet make these little
> > mid-course corrections to keep your church from looking like a flock
> of
> > total biogts.
>
>
> You?
>
> I don't think so.
>
> > By this time I was to flabbergasted to pay attention.
>
>
> Russell C. McGregor
> --
Now that's funny. A Mormon using a phrase like "I don't think so" as if on
the subject of the Church LDS he actually had a choice to think rather than
simply repeat dogma.
You've decide to play with semantics instead of addressing the point. I
can understand if your upbringing doesn't permit leeway for argument so I'll
spell it out bluntly:
To suddenly have a "revelation" that blacks can be in the leadership of your
precious church in 1978 is an insult . 1978 is not ancient history. I
fault not only the Mormon church but any black person so lacking in
self-esteem to accept a leadership position in a church that can so easily
dismissed them for so long. Any observer of the modern political scene has
seen this sort of social cover-my-ass manuever before. Case in point Bob
Jones Repeals Interracial Dating Ban. Yah, right after Bush takes heat for
it and not a minute before.
Shall I put it more bluntly? Revelation my foot. Perhap it's more
plausible you just couldn't effectively defend discrimination any longer
so -- tada! -- let's have some kind of divine revelation. It's either that
or own up to discrimination. Hell, even the Baptist Convention finally had
the integrity to admit to bigotry and resolve to rid it from their lives I
at least respect their frank honest.
While you were waiting for your pious revelation, the Baptists, the
Presbyterians, the Catholics, the Espicopalians, the Methodist--- we ALL got
it waaaaaayy before you did. How did the Mormons miss it? Why would God not
tell you what he told everyone else? Answer: he DID tell everyone. Anyone
who wanted to LISTEN that is. Now crank up your Mormon Answer to
Everything program and have at it. .
Russell McGregor
Congratulations.
Did he?
Then he's wrong.
Waffle on.
Two things:
You?
Russell C. McGregor
--
Russell McGregor
fawns...@aol.com (FAWNSCRIBE) wrote:
Snip
> Affirmative action? Had its place and I think should soon be phased
out..but
> then again? Out there in some states where I have been where blacks
are as rare
> as hens teeth..we might be BACK stuck with the good Ole Boys with the
mirrored
> sunglasses swinging folks from tress again.
Fawn, you are the undisputed mistress of woolly thinking. How on earth
do you make a connection between "affirmative action" and lynchings? Do
you imagine to yourself that your co-religionists say to each other,
"that Black guy has a job, so we'd better not lynch him," put their
mirrored sunglasses back into their pockets, climb back into their
pickup trucks and drive off?
> Not to mention the white militia nuts in Idaho
> Fawn
Idaho. Oh yes, isn't that the state that contains Bear River? You
know, the place where some Indians were massacred by a *non-Mormon*
(actually federal) military force, and you keep trying to blame us for
it?
Bill Williams
> In article <nR0x4.333$I25....@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>,
> "Bill Williams" <will...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > Michael Jordan <mjo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:mP%w4.3417$Aj1....@news2.atl...
> the
> > > subject of race relations. It's like he has no access to
> newspapers, no
> > > awareness of social issues whatsoever. The man has all the
> personality
> > of
> him so
> > > would be useless and rude, so I don't.
> > >
> things
> > and
> > > on the topic of race he all but flat out said that Whites are the
> only
> > true
> Truth
> > > cannot be denied. He quoted some verse in the Book of Mormon that
> said
> > personally
> > > wishes it weren't so. He is sure there are "many fine black people"
> but
> > the
> > > Truth is unavoidable.
> > >
> Prophet
> > > was told in 1970 that Black could be full members of the Church"
> > >
> > convenient!
> > > What a wonderful thing it must be to have a prophet make these
> little
> > > mid-course corrections to keep your church from looking like a flock
> of
> > > total biogts.
> >
> > tax-exempt status because of its racial policies at the time. Could
> the Lord
> > have been worried about the financial status of the church without its
> tax
> > exemption?
>
> The Bob Jones situation was a completely different case. The difference
> between segregated dating policies and religious privileges is not
> exactly subtle, Bill. Of course, if you are (a) exceedingly
> dull-witted, or (b) recklessly intent on making a meaningless connection
> simply so that you can indulge your penchant for "damnation by
> association," then that difference might just elude you.
So do you think that inter-racial dating would not be discouraged in the
pre-1978 LDS church, when Blacks couldn't hold the priesthood or go to the
temple. At least BJU didn't say that God restricted Blacks in their
salvation.
> There are certain people on this newsgroup, present company not
> excluded, who are willing to make any accusation against the Church of
> Jesus Christ, no matter how flimsy the evidence. The only factor that
> seems to matter is whether the accusation is nasty enough.
Is it an accusation to suggest that LDS church leaders may have worried
about the tax-exempt status of the church? Is that 'nasty'?
The church also had a major problem in Brazil with members who had already
been given the priesthood, and had "Black blood".
This 'dull-witted' and 'reckless' fello has a question for you, Russell. Do
you really think that there was no 'outside pressure' reasons that the
church changed its racial policy in 1978?
Bill Williams
> > Bill Williams
>
> Snip
Russell McGregor
"Bill Williams" <will...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> Russell McGregor <russe...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8a43ti$fmb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <nR0x4.333$I25....@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>,
> > "Bill Williams" <will...@mediaone.net> wrote:
Snip
> > > Especially since Bob Jones University was in the process of losing
its
> > > tax-exempt status because of its racial policies at the time.
Could
> > the Lord
> > > have been worried about the financial status of the church without
its
> > tax
> > > exemption?
> >
> > The Bob Jones situation was a completely different case. The
difference
> > between segregated dating policies and religious privileges is not
> > exactly subtle, Bill. Of course, if you are (a) exceedingly
> > dull-witted, or (b) recklessly intent on making a meaningless
connection
> > simply so that you can indulge your penchant for "damnation by
> > association," then that difference might just elude you.
>
> So do you think that inter-racial dating would not be discouraged in
the
> pre-1978 LDS church, when Blacks couldn't hold the priesthood or go to
the
> temple.
Whether or not it was "discouraged," it was certainly not *prohibited*.
Is that another difference that is too subtle for you?
Or was your government so censorious and paternalistic at that time that
it would penalise anyone who said that interracial dating was not the
most flash idea?
We still get an awful lot of American TV shows here. Most couples shown
there are monochrome.
> At least BJU didn't say that God restricted Blacks in their
> salvation.
Neither did we.
And even if we had, was your government so censorious and paternalistic
at that time that it would penalise people for holding to non-trendy
soteriological views?
> > There are certain people on this newsgroup, present company not
> > excluded, who are willing to make any accusation against the Church
of
> > Jesus Christ, no matter how flimsy the evidence. The only factor
that
> > seems to matter is whether the accusation is nasty enough.
>
> Is it an accusation to suggest that LDS church leaders may have
worried
> about the tax-exempt status of the church?
The implied accusation was that they cynically made a change to a
long-standing policy just to protect the Church's balance sheet.
> Is that 'nasty'?
Do you have to ask?
> The church also had a major problem in Brazil with members who had
already
> been given the priesthood, and had "Black blood".
Yes, I've seen the exaggerated reports on that score.
> This 'dull-witted' and 'reckless' fello has a question for you,
Russell. Do
> you really think that there was no 'outside pressure' reasons that the
> church changed its racial policy in 1978?
>
> Bill Williams
Given that nobody put a gun to our heads to force us to go into Brazil
in the first place, and given that the racial status of Church members
in that or any other country is an "inside" rather than an "outside"
concern;
AND given that the famous NAACP lawsuit had been amicably settled four
years earlier;
AND given that the notoriously childish "we don't like you so we're not
going to play with you" Californian college "protests" had been disposed
of at least five years before;
I would say, all in all, that the 1978 Official Declaration was made in
very calm waters.
Russell McGregor
"Michael Jordan" <mjo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Russell McGregor <russe...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > > and I have a co-worker who is oddly nervous on the
> > > subject of race relations. It's like he has no access to
newspapers,
> > no
> > > awareness of social issues whatsoever. The man has all the
> > personality of
> > > a beaker of tap water.
> >
> >
> > > would be useless and rude, so I don't.
> >
since
> > you're talking about someone behind his back.
> >
> > Nevertheless, although you've only told us your *opinion* of this
> > person, and not any *facts*, you've still managed to tell us a great
> > deal.
> >
> > That little phrase, "classic Mormon robot," tells us exactly where
you
> > are coming from. Your truly vast ignorance of Latter-day Saint life
and
> > teaching is no impediment to you; you simply assume that for one of
us
> > to be a "robot" is a "classic" or typical situation.
> >
> > There is a word for that kind of mindset. You misspelled it
already,
> > below.
> >
> > things and
> > > on the topic of race he all but flat out said that Whites are the
only
> > true
> > > members of the Church.
> >
> >
> > Then he's wrong.
> >
> > > cannot be denied. He quoted some verse in the Book of Mormon that
said
> > > something about God cursing the evil by darkening their skin.
> >
> >
> > > wishes it weren't so. He is sure there are "many fine black
people"
> > but the
> > > Truth is unavoidable.
> >
> >
> > > Now I'm told by other Mormons that "oh, don't worry about him. the
> > Prophet
> > > was told in 1970 that Black could be full members of the Church"
> >
> >
> > 1) It was 1978, not 1970.
> >
> > 2) They were always "full members of the Church." Full membership
is
> > obtained through baptism and confirmation. What Black people could
not
> > do, prior to 1978, was hold any priesthood office.
> >
> > convenient!
> > > What a wonderful thing it must be to have a prophet make these
little
> > > mid-course corrections to keep your church from looking like a
flock
> > of
> > > total biogts.
> >
> >
> > You?
> >
> > I don't think so.
> >
> > > By this time I was to flabbergasted to pay attention.
> >
> > You weren't doing so well before this time, either.
> >
> > Russell C. McGregor
> > --
if on
> the subject of the Church LDS he actually had a choice to think rather
than
> simply repeat dogma.
Actually I do have a "choice to think rather than simply repeat dogma,"
so your amusement is misplaced.
> You've decide to play with semantics instead of addressing the point.
Really? I wasn't playing when I pointed out what "classic Mormon robot"
tells us about the dipstick who says such things. And that, in my view,
*is* the point.
> I
> can understand if your upbringing doesn't permit leeway for argument
And I can already see that your prejudices don't permit leeway for any
change in your poorly-informed opinions.
> so I'll spell it out bluntly:
>
> To suddenly have a "revelation" that blacks can be in the leadership
of your
> precious church in 1978 is an insult.
Really? To whom? And why?
> 1978 is not ancient history.
By a conservative calculation, two-thirds of the present membership of
the Church were either not alive or not members then.
It is irretrievably slipping into the unrecoverable past. Make the most
of it while you still have a chance. Demagoguery dies without easy
accusations.
> I
> fault not only the Mormon church but any black person so lacking in
> self-esteem to accept a leadership position in a church that can so
easily
> dismissed them for so long.
So, to extend your reasoning to its logical conclusion, no Black person
should accept a leadership position anywhere in the U.S. government
either, should they?
> Any observer of the modern political scene has
> seen this sort of social cover-my-ass manuever before. Case in point
Bob
> Jones Repeals Interracial Dating Ban. Yah, right after Bush takes
heat for
> it and not a minute before.
If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest man on the 'net. Bush
took "heat" over BJU's anti-Catholic views, not their dating policies.
Keep it up, Mike. Never let any inconvenient facts get in the way of a
good story.
> Shall I put it more bluntly?
Can you?
> Revelation my foot.
And you know this -- how, exactly?
> Perhap it's more
> plausible you just couldn't effectively defend discrimination any
longer
> so -- tada! -- let's have some kind of divine revelation.
Now for another inconvenient fact: by 1978, nobody of importance was
making any fuss about it any more. People had just come to accept that
that's how it was. So you see, we really didn't have to work very hard
to "defend" what wasn't being attacked.
> It's either that
> or own up to discrimination. Hell, even the Baptist Convention
finally had
> the integrity to admit to bigotry and resolve to rid it from their
lives I
> at least respect their frank honest.
And has their "frank honest" (sic) gone as far as desegregating all of
their congregations?
Do you even know?
> While you were waiting for your pious revelation, the Baptists, the
> Presbyterians, the Catholics, the Espicopalians, the Methodist--- we
ALL got
> it waaaaaayy before you did. How did the Mormons miss it?
And how did all those Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Espicopalians
and Methodists south of the Mason-Dixon line miss the bit about slavery?
Or are you going to defend the proposition that slavery is not
discriminatory?
Please inform us, from your fact-free zone, how many "main-stream"
congregations in the U.S. were racially integrated prior to 1978.
Because I'll tell you this free of charge: *all* of ours were.
The only exceptions were where we had (and still have) some
language-specific wards and/or branches -- e.g. Spanish, Tongan,
Vietnamese. But there were no colour-specific ones.
> Why would God not
> tell you what he told everyone else? Answer: he DID tell everyone.
Anyone
> who wanted to LISTEN that is. Now crank up your Mormon Answer to
> Everything program and have at it. .
Here's a suggestion for you: how about you take your surfeit of
religious hatred to the gym and take it out on a punching bag.
You'll undoubtedly feel better.
Clifford Statum
>Russell McGregor <russe...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8a4567$gjq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <mP%w4.3417$Aj1....@news2.atl>,
>> "Michael Jordan" <mjo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[[snip]]
>................ Hell, even the Baptist Convention finally had
>the integrity to admit to bigotry and resolve to rid it from
>their lives I at least respect their frank honest.
Well, sort of. When the SBC came out with that
pronouncement, there were a fair number of franchises
down here in Mississippi that took offense to it. Their
position was that they had come to grips with it (the SBC
affiliation with white supremacy, Jim Crow laws, the KKK,
lynchings, segregation, et cetera) years ago, and didn't
see the need to go through it again (evidently there is
an innate ability of some to forgive themselves. Bill
Clinton comes to mind).
Then too, it is worth noting that the SBC is not a
monolithic organization. Individual franchises jump
ship when they find something unpalatable coming
from the convention.
Several years ago Bailey Smith, then president of the
SBC, made the statement that 'God does not hear the
prayers of a Jew.' When I took a SBCer to task for this,
his comment was that Smith was speaking only for
himself, and not the Convention.
And 11AM Sunday morning is still the most segregated
hour in Mississippi (unless you come to an LDS chapel).
>While you were waiting for your pious revelation, the
>Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Catholics, the
>Espicopalians, the Methodist--- we ALL got
>it waaaaaayy before you did.
When was this ? It must have been after the Civil
Rights movement, right ?
>How did the Mormons miss it?
How did y'all miss it ?
>Why would God not tell you what he told everyone else? >Answer: he DID
tell everyone. Anyone who wanted to
>LISTEN that is.
There must have been an epidemic of deafness here
in Mississippi, then. I pass by an abandoned service
station on my way to work. If you look closely you can still
see a faded 'Colored Entrance' sign on a side door.
Obviously the owner was LDS......................................
>Now crank up your Mormon Answer to
>Everything program and have at it. .
You need to crank up yours, bub.
FAWNSCRIBE
1) It was 1978, not 1970.
2) They were always "full members of the Church." Full membership is
obtained through baptism and confirmation. What Black people could not
do, prior to 1978, was hold any priesthood office.
Russ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hmmmm..the time period was worse then..8 years longer than claimed by the other
gentleman..thats nothing to crow about..and secondly..you know as well as
anyone HERE that for a male to be a full member and not be able to perform any
priestly duties WITHIN the temple is akin to a person with a license to
practice surgery but forbidden to hold a scalpel .
Get off the apologist orse and tell it like it is.
A LOUSY practice
UNSCRIPTURAL
and with 20/20 hindsight EMBARRASSING as all get out
Fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
And how did all those Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Espicopalians
and Methodists south of the Mason-Dixon line miss the bit about slavery?
Or are you going to defend the proposition that slavery is not
discriminatory?
>>>>>>>>
only TRUE chruch..dont you start picking on those little abominable whore of
babylon churches who didnt have the insight and great spiritual fruits of Gods
spirit when YOUR leaders said blacks could drive cadillacs and were wanting to
hook up with white women..be good now
Fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
Snip
> Affirmative action? Had its place and I think should soon be phased
out..but
> then again? Out there in some states where I have been where blacks
are as rare
> as hens teeth..we might be BACK stuck with the good Ole Boys with the
mirrored
> sunglasses swinging folks from tress again.
Fawn, you are the undisputed mistress of woolly thinking. How on earth
do you make a connection between "affirmative action" and lynchings? Do
you imagine to yourself that your co-religionists say to each other,
"that Black guy has a job, so we'd better not lynch him," put their
mirrored sunglasses back into their pockets, climb back into their
pickup trucks and drive off?
> Not to mention the white militia nuts in Idaho
> Fawn
Idaho. Oh yes, isn't that the state that contains Bear River? You
know, the place where some Indians were massacred by a *non-Mormon*
(actually federal) military force, and you keep trying to blame us for
it?
Russell C. McGregor
--
"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
(Brigham Young)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
>>>>>>>
My thinking is not wooly and as straight as my hair...No mans opinion IS worth
a straw Russy including YOURS on this stuff..
Affirmative action to me was only laws put into place simply because one could
not count on many to hire , allow to live and go to school in areas based on
skill and opportunity but simply on race.
One basically could not count on the kindnesses of strangers ( rental agents,
managers of companies and school officials) to ALLOW the rights as any decent
person should be allowed to have ACCESS to.
It was condemnation of that person BEFORE they had the chance to prove if they
could do the job, excel in the school or keep the grass cut in the front yard.
Today we have made great strides in that area but lets not fool ourselves..it
is ONLY because people had to claw, march, write and VOTE those laws in .
The lynchings that happened in days gone by were a by product of racist
attitudes ( and limited gene pools I think..) andthey spilled OVER into the
educational , employment and housings arenas.
The racism was the cancer ..the people with the attitudes were the malignancy
that had to be excised by the law, NOT kindness.
Today its far better..BUT again if the laws were NOT in place to SOME extent
then we might be right back where the Southern sheriff could do as he wished
AND his cronies running around in white sheets (Emmett Till for
example)..people could say "I aint selling MY house to no Nigras!"..A kid with
impeccable grades and character could be bypassed AGAIN to get INTO a school
more less the one he wanted (Little Rock).
The rise of supremism in ANY degree by ANY race is frightening.
Unfortunaely many didnt give a rats tail until THEIR own eyeball was touched.
They didnt moan ONE bit till THEY were hit in the wallet.
Till THEIR son had to be put on a waiting list and being white and bright
wasn't enough to get into the unions etc.
Its all shameful because its all Unchristian behavior.
Do I like it ? Nope..but I can SEE why it happned and in some instances? Its a
case of "take your place at the plow" until the pendulum swings back to center.
Fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
know, the place where some Indians were massacred by a *non-Mormon*
(actually federal) military force, and you keep trying to blame us for
it?
Russell C. McGregor
--
"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
(Brigham Young)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are a bold faced liar sir on this point.
I can go toe to toe with you on bear River.
I do not blame Mrmons for the Massacre..I blame Patrick Connor and thAT
regiment for the massacre.
I DO understand how BOTH sides felt and for every one who helped those Shoshone
( In Mormon territory BTW )..there were those in Logan who were PRAISINg the
God Almighty they were murdered.
If you cant discuss at least THIS topic intelligently I suggest you be
quiet..you have enough hassle with that OTHER Massacre..the MMM
Fawn
Russell McGregor
fawns...@aol.com (FAWNSCRIBE) wrote:
(Actually I wrote the first bit, but Fawn *still* doesn't know how to
attribute.)
> Idaho. Oh yes, isn't that the state that contains Bear River? You
> know, the place where some Indians were massacred by a *non-Mormon*
> (actually federal) military force, and you keep trying to blame us for
> it?
>
> Russell C. McGregor
> --
> "Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
> (Brigham Young)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> You are a bold faced liar sir on this point.
Really?
> I can go toe to toe with you on bear River.
Glad to hear it. Marquess of Queensberry rules?
> I do not blame Mrmons for the Massacre..I blame Patrick Connor and
thAT
> regiment for the massacre.
Thank you. Then we are agreed. So why would we need to go "toe to
toe?"
> I DO understand how BOTH sides felt and for every one who helped those
Shoshone
> ( In Mormon territory BTW )..there were those in Logan who were
PRAISINg the
> God Almighty they were murdered.
And then there was the Deseret News, which agreed that the action was
militarily necessary, but deplored the hard-handed way in which it was
carried out. It pointed out that if the victims had been white,
everyone would have called it a massacre.
> If you cant discuss at least THIS topic intelligently I suggest you be
> quiet..you have enough hassle with that OTHER Massacre..the MMM
> Fawn
Oh no I don't. I repudiate that crime, and know who was responsible. I
also laugh at the pathetic efforts to pin the blame on those who were
blameless. That's no hassle.
Russell C. McGregor
--
"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
(Brigham Young)
Russell McGregor
fawns...@aol.com (FAWNSCRIBE) wrote:
Not to mention the bit I wrote. (Sigh.)
> In article <20000307151456...@ng-ft1.aol.com>,
> fawns...@aol.com (FAWNSCRIBE) wrote:
>
> Snip
>
> > Affirmative action? Had its place and I think should soon be phased
> out..but
> > then again? Out there in some states where I have been where blacks
> are as rare
> > as hens teeth..we might be BACK stuck with the good Ole Boys with
the
> mirrored
> > sunglasses swinging folks from tress again.
Then I responded:
> Fawn, you are the undisputed mistress of woolly thinking. How on
earth
> do you make a connection between "affirmative action" and lynchings?
Do
> you imagine to yourself that your co-religionists say to each other,
> "that Black guy has a job, so we'd better not lynch him," put their
> mirrored sunglasses back into their pockets, climb back into their
> pickup trucks and drive off?
Snip
> >>>>>>>
> My thinking is not wooly and as straight as my hair...No mans opinion
IS worth
> a straw Russy including YOURS on this stuff..
So? Neither is yours. So let's get on with the discussion.
> Affirmative action to me was only laws put into place simply because
one could
> not count on many to hire , allow to live and go to school in areas
based on
> skill and opportunity but simply on race.
Yes, but what has this to do with lynchings?
> One basically could not count on the kindnesses of strangers ( rental
agents,
> managers of companies and school officials) to ALLOW the rights as any
decent
> person should be allowed to have ACCESS to.
> It was condemnation of that person BEFORE they had the chance to prove
if they
> could do the job, excel in the school or keep the grass cut in the
front yard.
Yes, but what has this to do with lynchings?
> Today we have made great strides in that area but lets not fool
ourselves..it
> is ONLY because people had to claw, march, write and VOTE those laws
in .
Yes, but what has this to do with lynchings?
> The lynchings that happened in days gone by were a by product of
racist
> attitudes ( and limited gene pools I think..) andthey spilled OVER
into the
> educational , employment and housings arenas.
And high-handed "affirmative action," a.k.a institutionalised
discrimination in favour of minorities, addressed *only* the issues of
education, employment, housing, etc., and *not* lynchings.
Or am I wrong? Were laws enacted requiring communities to lynch a
proportionate number of white people?
> The racism was the cancer ..the people with the attitudes were the
malignancy
> that had to be excised by the law, NOT kindness.
But "affirmative action" laws did *not* address attitudes and opinions
of people, and indeed could not address them.
> Today its far better..BUT again if the laws were NOT in place to SOME
extent
> then we might be right back where the Southern sheriff could do as he
wished
> AND his cronies running around in white sheets (Emmett Till for
> example)..
But lynching people has always been illegal; "affirmative action," so
called, has nothing to do with it. You simply reiterate your "if-then"
construct without making any substantive connection. This kind of
argument by mere assertion might pass muster in the kind of journalism
you evidently practice, but you'll have to do better than that here.
> people could say "I aint selling MY house to no Nigras!"..A kid with
> impeccable grades and character could be bypassed AGAIN to get INTO a
school
> more less the one he wanted (Little Rock).
> The rise of supremism in ANY degree by ANY race is frightening.
True.
> Unfortunaely many didnt give a rats tail until THEIR own eyeball was
touched.
> They didnt moan ONE bit till THEY were hit in the wallet.
> Till THEIR son had to be put on a waiting list and being white and
bright
> wasn't enough to get into the unions etc.
Indeed. Fawn, your talent for not seeing what is right in front of your
nose is nothing less than prodigious. Don't you get it? The only
impact the "affirmative action" laws had upon the whites against whom
they discriminated was to create *more* resentment.
Please explain how increased white resentment leads to fewer lynchings
of blacks.
> Its all shameful because its all Unchristian behavior.
Yes, although plenty of Christians are doing it.
> Do I like it ? Nope..but I can SEE why it happned and in some
instances? Its a
> case of "take your place at the plow" until the pendulum swings back
to center.
> Fawn
Yes, well-meaning governments trying to legislate niceness. It can't be
done.
Now Fawn, somewhere in that irreparably vague mind of yours there
evidently exists some connection between "affirmative action" laws and
the decline in racially motivated murders. I don't see it, and you've
failed to elucidate it -- if indeed you even tried. Would you like to
make another attempt?
Vincent H.
you guess the percentage of them would be LDS? Whose orders were
followed and was he LDS? What man was at the head of the chain of
command and was he LDS?
This isn't a troll, I'm serious. I have not studied this for a while
and am a bit rusty on the subject.
Vincent H.
Russell McGregor wrote:
>
> In article <20000308091903...@ng-ca1.aol.com>,
> fawns...@aol.com (FAWNSCRIBE) wrote:
>
> (Actually I wrote the first bit, but Fawn *still* doesn't know how to
> attribute.)
>
> > Idaho. Oh yes, isn't that the state that contains Bear River? You
> > know, the place where some Indians were massacred by a *non-Mormon*
> > (actually federal) military force, and you keep trying to blame us for
> > it?
> >
> > Russell C. McGregor
> > --
> > "Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
> > (Brigham Young)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > You are a bold faced liar sir on this point.
>
> Really?
>
> > I can go toe to toe with you on bear River.
>
> Glad to hear it. Marquess of Queensberry rules?
>
> > I do not blame Mrmons for the Massacre..I blame Patrick Connor and
> thAT
> > regiment for the massacre.
>
> Thank you. Then we are agreed. So why would we need to go "toe to
> toe?"
>
> > I DO understand how BOTH sides felt and for every one who helped those
> Shoshone
> > ( In Mormon territory BTW )..there were those in Logan who were
> PRAISINg the
> > God Almighty they were murdered.
>
> And then there was the Deseret News, which agreed that the action was
> militarily necessary, but deplored the hard-handed way in which it was
> carried out. It pointed out that if the victims had been white,
> everyone would have called it a massacre.
>
> > If you cant discuss at least THIS topic intelligently I suggest you be
> > quiet..you have enough hassle with that OTHER Massacre..the MMM
> > Fawn
>
> Oh no I don't. I repudiate that crime, and know who was responsible. I
> also laugh at the pathetic efforts to pin the blame on those who were
> blameless. That's no hassle.
>
Michael Jordan
I said:
> > 1978 is not ancient history.
>
> By a conservative calculation, two-thirds of the present membership of
> the Church were either not alive or not members then.
> It is irretrievably slipping into the unrecoverable past. Make the most
> of it while you still have a chance. Demagoguery dies without easy
> accusations.
1978 will "slip irretrievably into the unrecoverable past? In a pig's eye!
A pivotal moment in your doctorine and you want to tell me that moment is
"irretrievable"? Don't even try that. Maybe if you move to Mars and
quarentine the planet.
> > I
> > fault not only the Mormon church but any black person so lacking in
> > self-esteem to accept a leadership position in a church that can so
> easily
> > dismissed them for so long.
>
> So, to extend your reasoning to its logical conclusion, no Black person
> should accept a leadership position anywhere in the U.S. government
> either, should they?
No, that's your "logical" conclusion not mine. The federal government
became the earliest routes for blacks to acheive upward mobility and
professional positions comparable to those in the private sector. My
family owes their middle class economic status to my father's 25 years of
military service and retirement with a pension, followed by managerial level
government employment and I'm not ashamed to say so. In the 1950's and
1960's the private sector didn't offer him or many other black men anything
comparable.
Yes the government had discrimination too but it pioneered integration and
equal opportunity long before it was practice at large in the private
sector. Fortunately the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, et al is not as open to intepretation as the Book of Mormon.
But you do have those pretty pictures to "prove" everything, right?
> > Any observer of the modern political scene has
> > seen this sort of social cover-my-ass manuever before. Case in point
> Bob
> > Jones Repeals Interracial Dating Ban. Yah, right after Bush takes
> heat for
> > it and not a minute before.
>
> If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest man on the 'net. Bush
> took "heat" over BJU's anti-Catholic views, not their dating policies.
>
No, I disagree. The anti-Catholic aspects we in the fore because 1) the
primaries were moving into states with large blocks of Catholic votes. 2)
McCain picked this fight and highlight the Catholic spin because Republicans
can't challenge each other about race when neither has any hope of getting
the much of the black vote anyway.
However, I think I am still on mark because eventually the BJU visit would
have returned as a racial issue in the general campaign against the
Democratic candidate -- presuming Bush gets the Republican nomination..
BJU's repeal of interracial dating is to keep it from coming back to haunt
Bush in the last summer campaign not because they were suddenly so socially
enlightened.
> Keep it up, Mike. Never let any inconvenient facts get in the way of a
> good story.
And never let your lack of depth on the black point of view get in the your
way when you analyze the news, my friend.
>
> > Shall I put it more bluntly?
> Can you?
> > Revelation my foot.
> And you know this -- how, exactly?
The same way you do. Faith. You have faith that it happened. I have faith
that it didn't. A lifetime of witnessing human nature, experiencing
discrimination one day and insincere political expedience the next day,
teaches me my assumption this is just more political cover is more likely.
I don't believe God ponders race. He has already told us how we are to
treat one another and what we are worth to Him. If you didn't get it, you
probably didn't want it.
.> > Perhap it's more
> > plausible you just couldn't effectively defend discrimination any
> longer
> > so -- tada! -- let's have some kind of divine revelation.
>
> Now for another inconvenient fact: by 1978, nobody of importance was
> making any fuss about it any more. People had just come to accept that
That just means the Church did it when it was less likely to look like a
surrender to outside pressure. Come on, Russ! Haven't you ever heard the
saying "Timing is everything". That's a pretty standard political tactic.
> > It's either that
> > or own up to discrimination. Hell, even the Baptist Convention
> finally had
> > the integrity to admit to bigotry and resolve to rid it from their
> lives I
> > at least respect their frank honest.
>
> And has their "frank honest" (sic) gone as far as desegregating all of
> their congregations?
They did very little to desegrate their congregations. They did virtually
nothing. But their past opposition to integration is at the heart of their
own admission and owning up to that fact. I said I respect their act of
contrition not the bigotry itself. Sheeesh!
>
> Do you even know?
>
> > While you were waiting for your pious revelation, the Baptists, the
> > Presbyterians, the Catholics, the Espicopalians, the Methodist--- we
> >ALL got
> > it waaaaaayy before you did. How did the Mormons miss it?
>
> And how did all those Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Espicopalians
> and Methodists south of the Mason-Dixon line miss the bit about slavery?
> Or are you going to defend the proposition that slavery is not
> discriminatory?
We're not talking about slavery. You're pulling other broader issues into
the mix hoping I'll chase that rabbit instead of your cotton tail. But just
to straighten out your semantics, you cannot have "discrimination" in the
context of slavery. Slaves were property. How does one discriminate against
"a bright monkey plucked from the jungle" who can be bought and sold like a
plowhorse? Now back on topic, please.
>
> Please inform us, from your fact-free zone, how many "main-stream"
> congregations in the U.S. were racially integrated prior to 1978.
I have no idea. Why should I care? What does it represent?
> Because I'll tell you this free of charge: *all* of ours were.
>
I'm glad it's free of charge because it's worthless extraneous information.
I was talking about leadership of the church but you changed the subject to
something you could once again congratulate yourself on. (like being best
man at a black wedding.) It probably didn't occur to you that even if the
Mormons never bestowed membership to blacks it wouldn't have made a bit of
difference to us because we would have still had a rich spiritual life
without you. Jesus saved us, not the Mormons.
But since you did invite us, why couldn't we have a leadership role in this
church we of which were supposedly "full" members? That's where your
self-congratulations about your pre-1978 Church end abruptly, my friend.
Now I suppose this is the part where we have to yield to the "mysterious
ways" God works through your prophet. I shudder to think where Civil
Rights would be if Martin Luther King Jr. became a Mormon and therefore
wouldn't have had a pulpit to speak from. He died BEFORE 1978.in case the
point eludes you . That's another post in itself..
>
> > Why would God not
> > tell you what he told everyone else? Answer: he DID tell everyone.
> Anyone
> > who wanted to LISTEN that is. Now crank up your Mormon Answer to
> > Everything program and have at it. .
>
> Here's a suggestion for you: how about you take your surfeit of
> religious hatred to the gym and take it out on a punching bag.
>
I don't "hate Mormons" if that's what you're implying. Would it matter
anyway? I'm an outsdier. . It's the ex-Mormons and dissenters who so
thoroughly dislike the Church that worry the devout faithful. Isn't that
apparent by this newsgroup? Is it true the Church has some of its members
under surveillance? And don't change the subject by talking about somebody
else.
> You'll undoubtedly feel better.
I already do. I'm picturing you on a bike that just got puddle-splashed by
a Ford Expedtion with a "whitewashed" 1978 license plate on the front.
Russell McGregor
"Vincent H." <vince...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Of all the men who were involved in the MMM as "attackers", what would
> you guess the percentage of them would be LDS?
Of the Indians, I can't say; of the white men, all of them, or nearly
all, were LDS.
> Whose orders were followed and was he LDS?
The orders of the officers on the scene, including John D. Lee, and yes
he was LDS.
> What man was at the head of the chain of
> command and was he LDS?
Brigham Young was at the head of the chain of command, I think he was
LDS, but his orders to let the train through unmolested didn't arrive in
time.
> This isn't a troll, I'm serious. I have not studied this for a while
> and am a bit rusty on the subject.
>
> Vincent H.
Snip to end
FAWNSCRIBE
ANY of this ties in to attitudes of people and how so EASILY we slip FROM A to
Z?
I'd bet a weeks pay of Patent Worms paycheck that you only cared when perhaps
you or YOURS were told to have to wait..and didn't open YOUR yappola a bit when
it was others. Now its OH so bad..then it was OH so okay..
Talking with you on this is like trying to take a photograph of a person
through linoleum.Case closed on any of it with ya big guy.
Fawn
Russell McGregor
"Michael Jordan" <mjo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> I said:
> > > 1978 is not ancient history.
> >
> You said:
> > By a conservative calculation, two-thirds of the present membership
of
> > the Church were either not alive or not members then.
> > It is irretrievably slipping into the unrecoverable past. Make the
most
> > of it while you still have a chance. Demagoguery dies without easy
> > accusations.
>
> 1978 will "slip irretrievably into the unrecoverable past? In a
pig's eye!
No, it has *already* done so, and is slipping further away every day.
The past is *immediately and forever* unrecoverable. Yesterday already
is. Five minutes ago is.
> A pivotal moment in your doctorine and you want to tell me that
moment is
> "irretrievable"? Don't even try that. Maybe if you move to Mars and
> quarentine the planet.
It's unrecoverable. I can't go back there, and neither can you.
I don't even want to. Even though I was better-looking then.
> > > I
> > > fault not only the Mormon church but any black person so lacking
in
> > > self-esteem to accept a leadership position in a church that can
so
> > easily
> > > dismissed them for so long.
> >
> > So, to extend your reasoning to its logical conclusion, no Black
person
> > should accept a leadership position anywhere in the U.S. government
> > either, should they?
>
> No, that's your "logical" conclusion not mine. The federal government
> became the earliest routes for blacks to acheive upward mobility and
> professional positions comparable to those in the private sector.
So it only shows a lack of "self-esteem to accept a leadership position
in" an organisation that didn't get there *first*; is that it?
You seem to be assuming that there exists some unspecified (and probably
arbitrary) point in time, before which any perceived or actual
discrimination can be discounted, but after which all perceived or
actual discrimination abides forever. Is that the case?
> My
> family owes their middle class economic status to my father's 25 years
of
> military service and retirement with a pension, followed by managerial
level
> government employment and I'm not ashamed to say so. In the 1950's
and
> 1960's the private sector didn't offer him or many other black men
anything
> comparable.
Ah, so you are black. This is most interesting.
Would you be surprised to learn that, in three years of debating this
issue on this NG, you are the first I have encountered?
> Yes the government had discrimination too but it pioneered integration
and
> equal opportunity long before it was practice at large in the private
> sector. Fortunately the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Civil
Rights
> Act of 1964, et al is not as open to intepretation as the Book of
Mormon.
> But you do have those pretty pictures to "prove" everything, right?
To what "pretty pictures" do you refer?
> > > Any observer of the modern political scene has
> > > seen this sort of social cover-my-ass manuever before. Case in
point
> > Bob
> > > Jones Repeals Interracial Dating Ban. Yah, right after Bush takes
> > heat for
> > > it and not a minute before.
> >
> > If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest man on the 'net.
Bush
> > took "heat" over BJU's anti-Catholic views, not their dating
policies.
> >
> No, I disagree. The anti-Catholic aspects we in the fore because 1)
the
> primaries were moving into states with large blocks of Catholic votes.
2)
> McCain picked this fight and highlight the Catholic spin because
Republicans
> can't challenge each other about race when neither has any hope of
getting
> the much of the black vote anyway.
So tell me again: on what basis do you disagree?
Bush took "heat" over the anti-Catholic issue: true or false?
> However, I think I am still on mark because eventually the BJU visit
would
> have returned as a racial issue in the general campaign against the
> Democratic candidate -- presuming Bush gets the Republican
nomination..
Ah, so the "heat" he took was *potential* heat that *might have* shown
up in the future. Got it.
> BJU's repeal of interracial dating is to keep it from coming back to
haunt
> Bush in the last summer campaign not because they were suddenly so
socially
> enlightened.
Except you said that BJU changed their dating rules "right *after* Bush
takes heat for it and *not a minute before*" (emphasis added.) Now you
are admitting that it was in fact *well* before any such heat -- which
hasn't yet eventuated, and might never do so -- but you are "still on
mark" anyway.
Riiiight.
> > Keep it up, Mike. Never let any inconvenient facts get in the way
of a
> > good story.
>
> And never let your lack of depth on the black point of view get in the
your
> way when you analyze the news, my friend.
I don't claim to understand "the black point of view," whatever that may
be. (Is there *really* only one?) I only claim to know the difference
between a university's interracial dating rules and its anti-Catholic
views. I fail to see what any other POV, black, green or purple, might
possibly have to do with it. Last time I looked, the equivocation
fallacy was not something different for black Americans than it is for
white non-Americans; and even if there should be some "affirmative
action" law to that effect, it probably has no jurisdiction where I
live.
> > > Shall I put it more bluntly?
> > Can you?
>
> > > Revelation my foot.
> > And you know this -- how, exactly?
>
> The same way you do. Faith. You have faith that it happened. I have
faith
> that it didn't.
And that "faith," unsupported by any evidence, qualifies you to make
groundless accusations against people you've never met.
I read you loud and clear. (And I do mean loud.)
> A lifetime of witnessing human nature, experiencing
> discrimination one day and insincere political expedience the next
day,
> teaches me my assumption this is just more political cover is more
likely.
While *my* lifetime of personal experience in the Church of Jesus
Christ, and my knowledge of the character and spirituality of President
Spencer W. Kimball, leads me to accept his *informed* account of the
events, and not your *uninformed* speculations.
> I don't believe God ponders race. He has already told us how we are
to
> treat one another and what we are worth to Him. If you didn't get it,
you
> probably didn't want it.
Hey, I got it. But did you?
Here is a hint: go to www.deja.com and do a power search on my surname
in the alt.religion hierarchy -- or any other you prefer. See how many
posts I make attacking the Catholic or Baptist churches, or the Muslims,
or Jews or any other religion.
You'll find none.
You see Mike, race really isn't all there is. Part of how we are
supposed to treat each other has to do with the respect we show to those
whose beliefs diverge from ours.
Like I try to do.
And you don't.
> .> > Perhap it's more
> > > plausible you just couldn't effectively defend discrimination any
> > longer
> > > so -- tada! -- let's have some kind of divine revelation.
> >
> > Now for another inconvenient fact: by 1978, nobody of importance was
> > making any fuss about it any more. People had just come to accept
that
>
> That just means the Church did it when it was less likely to look like
a
> surrender to outside pressure. Come on, Russ! Haven't you ever heard
the
> saying "Timing is everything". That's a pretty standard political
tactic.
Thank you for admitting that there is no substantive evidence to support
your accusation. I simply point out that lack of evidence cannot itself
be taken as evidence. That is the mentality of the witch hunt. "We
can't prove the conspiracy because them commies are so good at covering
their tracks. Doesn't that show how dangerous they are?"
> > > It's either that
> > > or own up to discrimination. Hell, even the Baptist Convention
> > finally had
> > > the integrity to admit to bigotry and resolve to rid it from their
> > lives I
> > > at least respect their frank honest.
> >
> > And has their "frank honest" (sic) gone as far as desegregating all
of
> > their congregations?
>
> They did very little to desegrate their congregations. They did
virtually
> nothing. But their past opposition to integration is at the heart of
their
> own admission and owning up to that fact. I said I respect their act
of
> contrition not the bigotry itself. Sheeesh!
But have you never heard the adage, "actions speak louder than words?"
> > Do you even know?
> >
> > > While you were waiting for your pious revelation, the Baptists,
the
> > > Presbyterians, the Catholics, the Espicopalians, the Methodist---
we
> > >ALL got
> > > it waaaaaayy before you did. How did the Mormons miss it?
> >
> > And how did all those Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics,
Espicopalians
> > and Methodists south of the Mason-Dixon line miss the bit about
slavery?
> > Or are you going to defend the proposition that slavery is not
> > discriminatory?
>
> We're not talking about slavery. You're pulling other broader issues
into
> the mix hoping I'll chase that rabbit instead of your cotton tail.
Well pardon me, your eminence. (Or should that be, your arrogance?) I
didn't know that you had sole authority to define the scope of the
discussion.
Of course, that would be most convenient for you. By confining the
discussion exclusively to *our* perceived sins, you have us at the
disadvantage you need, because you can't possibly win your argument
without it.
Except it was **you** who chose to compare our performance with other
churches; you opened this avenue of enquiry, not me, and I am fully
entitled to explore it.
Your lame and arrogant attempt to slam it shut in my face is too late.
> But just
> to straighten out your semantics, you cannot have "discrimination" in
the
> context of slavery. Slaves were property. How does one discriminate
against
> "a bright monkey plucked from the jungle" who can be bought and sold
like a
> plowhorse?
Ha!
Slaves were designated as such on the basis of race. That's not
discrimination?
> Now back on topic, please.
We are. Please explain on what basis, *other than* timing, can the main
stream churches you evidently prefer *possibly* be seen to outperform us
in questions of race relations?
> > Please inform us, from your fact-free zone, how many "main-stream"
> > congregations in the U.S. were racially integrated prior to 1978.
>
> I have no idea. Why should I care? What does it represent?
A *meaningful* look at the comparison *you* introduced. That's what.
> > Because I'll tell you this free of charge: *all* of ours were.
> >
> I'm glad it's free of charge because it's worthless extraneous
information.
In your rather uninformed opinion.
> I was talking about leadership of the church but you changed the
subject to
> something you could once again congratulate yourself on. (like being
best
> man at a black wedding.)
Not at all; as I pointed out above, I was simply making the comparison
*you* introduced somewhat more balanced, and therefore, more meaningful.
> It probably didn't occur to you that even
if the
> Mormons never bestowed membership to blacks it wouldn't have made a
bit of
> difference to us because we would have still had a rich spiritual life
> without you. Jesus saved us, not the Mormons.
So what are you making such a fuss about?
If *you* don't believe that membership in the Church of Jesus Christ is
of any benefit, then you can't *possibly* claim that it matters one iota
whether anyone holds the Priesthood or not, can you?
> But since you did invite us, why couldn't we have a leadership role
in this
> church we of which were supposedly "full" members? That's where your
> self-congratulations about your pre-1978 Church end abruptly, my
friend.
Once again, it wasn't a question of "self-congratulations," but of
meaningful comparisons.
> Now I suppose this is the part where we have to yield to the
"mysterious
> ways" God works through your prophet. I shudder to think where Civil
> Rights would be if Martin Luther King Jr. became a Mormon and
therefore
> wouldn't have had a pulpit to speak from. He died BEFORE 1978.in case
the
> point eludes you . That's another post in itself..
Well, while MLK was having his dream about black children and white
children playing together and so forth, I was *living* something pretty
close to it.
I am from New Zealand, you see. We don't have very many people here of
sub-Saharan African ancestry; but we have quite enough Maori and Pacific
Islanders to make up for it.
> > > Why would God not
> > > tell you what he told everyone else? Answer: he DID tell
everyone.
> > Anyone
> > > who wanted to LISTEN that is. Now crank up your Mormon Answer to
> > > Everything program and have at it. .
> >
> > Here's a suggestion for you: how about you take your surfeit of
> > religious hatred to the gym and take it out on a punching bag.
> >
> I don't "hate Mormons" if that's what you're implying.
Really?
Do you, perhaps, make a habit of attacking the beliefs, and making
gratuitous accusations against, people you *like*?
> Would it matter anyway?
Hatred always matters.
> I'm an outsdier. . It's the ex-Mormons and dissenters who so
> thoroughly dislike the Church that worry the devout faithful. Isn't
that
> apparent by this newsgroup?
Not really. They do their best to annoy us, but they hardly worry us,
except for the reason cited above: hatred always matters.
And if you look closely enough, you'll realise that more than a few of
those who *claim* to be ex or ex'ed or dissenting members are nothing of
the sort.
> Is it true the Church has some of its members
> under surveillance?
I very much doubt it. The Church is not a "surveillance" organisation.
> And don't change the subject by talking about somebody
> else.
Who, for instance?
> > You'll undoubtedly feel better.
>
> I already do. I'm picturing you on a bike that just got
puddle-splashed by
> a Ford Expedtion with a "whitewashed" 1978 license plate on the front.
Whatever works for you.
TheJordan6
>Given that nobody put a gun to our heads to force us to go into Brazil
>in the first place, and given that the racial status of Church members
>in that or any other country is an "inside" rather than an "outside"
>concern;
It may have been an "inside" concern, but it would have created a massive PR
problem in all of South America, once the temple was opened, and Mormon leaders
began what would have surely been a hopeless and embarrassing procedure of
trying to distinguish "worthy" from "unworthy" (non-Negro versus Negro.)
"A major problem the church has faced with its policy regarding blacks was in
Brazil, where the church is building a temple. Many people there are mixed
racially, and it is often impossible to determine whether church members have
black ancestry."
(Deseret News, June 10, 1978.)
If the church had not ended the ban, its efforts to proselyte in mixed-race or
predominantly Negro areas would have been about as popular as apartheid in
South Africa. It would have created a dual-class system in Mormon
congregations, based solely on race.
>AND given that the famous NAACP lawsuit had been amicably settled four
>years earlier;
>
>AND given that the notoriously childish "we don't like you so we're not
>going to play with you" Californian college "protests" had been disposed
>of at least five years before;
>
>I would say, all in all, that the 1978 Official Declaration was made in
>very calm waters.
>
>Snip
>
>Russell C. McGregor
And, as usual, you'd be wrong. There were other incidents closer to the time
of the change that played out as proximate causes to force the change. The
incident where a Mormon man, Douglas Wallace, ordained a black man in Oregon,
occurred in the spring of 1976. He was excommunicated, and the news made it
all the way to Australia, where I was on a mission at the time. It was
obviously bad PR. It was later discovered that Mormon leaders had asked Salt
Lake police to "stake out" Wallace while he visited friends in SLC in 1977,
which caused further embarrassment to Mormon leaders.
The church had also received a recommendation from one of its paid PR firms to
drop the Negro ban, as I've documented from "The Mormon Corporate Empire."
And the crowning incident was probably Byron Marchant's public negative vote to
sustain church leaders at General Conference in October 1977. Marchant
announced that he was organizing a protest of the policy to take place at the
General Conference of October 1978; Kimball conveniently had his 'revelation'
four months before the protest could occur.
Randy J.
Russell McGregor
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> Russell wrote:
>
> >Given that nobody put a gun to our heads to force us to go into
Brazil
> >in the first place, and given that the racial status of Church
members
> >in that or any other country is an "inside" rather than an "outside"
> >concern;
>
> It may have been an "inside" concern, but it would have created a
massive PR
> problem in all of South America, once the temple was opened, and
Mormon leaders
> began what would have surely been a hopeless and embarrassing
procedure of
> trying to distinguish "worthy" from "unworthy" (non-Negro versus
Negro.)
Actually the Priesthood ban took effect at an earlier stage, of people's
lives, i.e. at ordination rather than temple attendance.
And the problem would have primarily been administrative rather than
"PR," something you seem obsessed with.
> "A major problem the church has faced with its policy regarding blacks
was in
> Brazil, where the church is building a temple. Many people there are
mixed
> racially, and it is often impossible to determine whether church
members have
> black ancestry."
> (Deseret News, June 10, 1978.)
Yes, I remember seeing that at the time. It was syndicated to a number
of places.
The leaders of the Church were very frank about all of that. But my
point was that nobody forced the Church to either proselyte or build a
temple in Brazil.
> If the church had not ended the ban, its efforts to proselyte in
mixed-race or
> predominantly Negro areas would have been about as popular as
apartheid in
> South Africa. It would have created a dual-class system in Mormon
> congregations, based solely on race.
Very likely. Good thing the ban was ended, isn't it?
> >AND given that the famous NAACP lawsuit had been amicably settled
four
> >years earlier;
> >
> >AND given that the notoriously childish "we don't like you so we're
not
> >going to play with you" Californian college "protests" had been
disposed
> >of at least five years before;
> >
> >I would say, all in all, that the 1978 Official Declaration was made
in
> >very calm waters.
> >
> >Snip
> >
> >Russell C. McGregor
>
> And, as usual, you'd be wrong. There were other incidents closer to
the time
> of the change that played out as proximate causes to force the change.
The
> incident where a Mormon man, Douglas Wallace, ordained a black man in
Oregon,
> occurred in the spring of 1976. He was excommunicated, and the news
made it
> all the way to Australia, where I was on a mission at the time.
Yes, we heard about it in New Zealand. Got a laugh out of it, too.
> It was obviously bad PR.
Was it? That's not obvious to me. What was obvious was that the
"ordination" was a publicity stunt -- the black participant wasn't even
a member of the Church; Wallace persuaded him to go along with it,
baptised him (in a hotel swimming pool?) just so that he would be
"eligible." It is significant to me that Wallace couldn't find a black
member of the Church who would go along with such a stunt.
> It was later discovered
No, it was later *claimed*
> that Mormon leaders had asked Salt
> Lake police to "stake out" Wallace while he visited friends in SLC in
1977,
> which caused further embarrassment to Mormon leaders.
How do you know? Did you see them blush?
The Salt Lake police said that they were watching Wallace because *they*
thought he was a security risk. Some threats had been received, and
Wallace showed up around conference time, IIRC.
> The church had also received a recommendation from one of its paid PR
firms to
> drop the Negro ban, as I've documented from "The Mormon Corporate
Empire."
Oh yes, that's an oh so valuable primary source -- NOT!
> And the crowning incident was probably Byron Marchant's public
negative vote to
> sustain church leaders at General Conference in October 1977.
Yes, I remember that. It was a bit of a joke.
> Marchant
> announced that he was organizing a protest of the policy to take place
at the
> General Conference of October 1978; Kimball conveniently had his
'revelation'
> four months before the protest could occur.
Sure, Randy; President Kimball must have been scared out of his wits by
that retired janitor.
Incidentally, Marchant had claimed in his announcement that if the
policy was changed, the protest would still go ahead as a celebration,
so the policy change wouldn't have forestalled the demonstration
*anyway*.
So tell me again why that "crowning incident" exerted such a rush of
pressure?
Incidentally, a couple of conferences later, a half-dozen people showed
up an cast negative votes. How did the Church respond to *that*
"crowning incident?"
> Randy J.
Bill Williams
> In article <7jhx4.404$I25....@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>,
> "Bill Williams" <will...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
The endless bickering about words!
> Or was your government so censorious and paternalistic at that time that
> it would penalise anyone who said that interracial dating was not the
> most flash idea?
What does the U. S. government have to do with any of this?
> We still get an awful lot of American TV shows here. Most couples shown
> there are monochrome.
So what ?
> > At least BJU didn't say that God restricted Blacks in their
> > salvation.
>
> Neither did we.
Of course not. Why should not receiving the priesthood or going to the
temple make any difference in spiritual growth and 'exaltation'?
> And even if we had, was your government so censorious and paternalistic
> at that time that it would penalise people for holding to non-trendy
> soteriological views?
>
> > > There are certain people on this newsgroup, present company not
> > > excluded, who are willing to make any accusation against the Church
> of
> > > Jesus Christ, no matter how flimsy the evidence. The only factor
> that
> > > seems to matter is whether the accusation is nasty enough.
> >
> > Is it an accusation to suggest that LDS church leaders may have
> worried
> > about the tax-exempt status of the church?
>
> The implied accusation was that they cynically made a change to a
> long-standing policy just to protect the Church's balance sheet.
>
> > Is that 'nasty'?
>
> Do you have to ask?
I believe that preserving tax-exempt status would be a top priority of the
church.
> > The church also had a major problem in Brazil with members who had
> already
> > been given the priesthood, and had "Black blood".
>
> Yes, I've seen the exaggerated reports on that score.
Yes, like Brigham Young's.
Bill Williams
> > This 'dull-witted' and 'reckless' fello has a question for you,
> Russell. Do
> > you really think that there was no 'outside pressure' reasons that the
> > church changed its racial policy in 1978?
> >
> > Bill Williams
>
> Given that nobody put a gun to our heads to force us to go into Brazil
> in the first place, and given that the racial status of Church members
> in that or any other country is an "inside" rather than an "outside"
> concern;
>
> AND given that the famous NAACP lawsuit had been amicably settled four
> years earlier;
>
> AND given that the notoriously childish "we don't like you so we're not
> going to play with you" Californian college "protests" had been disposed
> of at least five years before;
>
> I would say, all in all, that the 1978 Official Declaration was made in
> very calm waters.
>
> Snip
>
> Russell C. McGregor
Russell McGregor
"Bill Williams" <will...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> Russell McGregor <russe...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8a4ceu$lig$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <7jhx4.404$I25....@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>,
> > "Bill Williams" <will...@mediaone.net> wrote:
Snip
> > > So do you think that inter-racial dating would not be discouraged
in
> > the
> > > pre-1978 LDS church, when Blacks couldn't hold the priesthood or
go to
> > the
> > > temple.
> >
> > Whether or not it was "discouraged," it was certainly not
*prohibited*.
> > Is that another difference that is too subtle for you?
>
> The endless bickering about words!
Whatever. The Church had no "rules" against interracial dating, only
counsel of the avuncular variety.
> > Or was your government so censorious and paternalistic at that time
that
> > it would penalise anyone who said that interracial dating was not
the
> > most flash idea?
>
> What does the U. S. government have to do with any of this?
Duh, doesn't the U.S. government determine the tax exempt status of
institutions?
Have you forgotten that the Church was supposed to be paralysed with
fear that it might lose its tax exempt status, like Bob Jones U.?
> > We still get an awful lot of American TV shows here. Most couples
shown
> > there are monochrome.
>
> So what ?
Duh, so maybe interracial dating isn't all that usual over there?
> > > At least BJU didn't say that God restricted Blacks in their
> > > salvation.
> >
> > Neither did we.
>
> Of course not. Why should not receiving the priesthood or going to the
> temple make any difference in spiritual growth and 'exaltation'?
Why indeed? Everyone always knew that these things would be made
available to Blacks eventually. Even Brigham.
Snip
> > > Is it an accusation to suggest that LDS church leaders may have
> > worried
> > > about the tax-exempt status of the church?
> >
> > The implied accusation was that they cynically made a change to a
> > long-standing policy just to protect the Church's balance sheet.
> >
> > > Is that 'nasty'?
> >
> > Do you have to ask?
>
> I believe that preserving tax-exempt status would be a top priority
of the
> church.
To the extent of changing a long-standing policy for no other reason
than that?
> > > The church also had a major problem in Brazil with members who had
> > already
> > > been given the priesthood, and had "Black blood".
> >
> > Yes, I've seen the exaggerated reports on that score.
>
> Yes, like Brigham Young's.
I'm sorry, you'll have to enlighten me. Just what was it that Brigham
Young said about the situation in Brazil in the 1970's?
> Bill Williams
Snip to end
Bill Williams
Perhaps not 'paralysed with fear'. But concerned, yes, I think so.
> > > We still get an awful lot of American TV shows here. Most couples
> shown
> > > there are monochrome.
> >
> > So what ?
>
> Duh, so maybe interracial dating isn't all that usual over there?
Again, so what?
> > > > At least BJU didn't say that God restricted Blacks in their
> > > > salvation.
> > >
> > > Neither did we.
> >
> > Of course not. Why should not receiving the priesthood or going to the
> > temple make any difference in spiritual growth and 'exaltation'?
>
> Why indeed? Everyone always knew that these things would be made
> available to Blacks eventually. Even Brigham.
Brigham Young taught that Blacks wouldn't have the opportunity until AFTER
everyone else did, that is, after the Second Coming. Hardly the same thing.
> Snip
>
> > > > Is it an accusation to suggest that LDS church leaders may have
> > > worried
> > > > about the tax-exempt status of the church?
> > >
> > > The implied accusation was that they cynically made a change to a
> > > long-standing policy just to protect the Church's balance sheet.
> > >
> > > > Is that 'nasty'?
> > >
> > > Do you have to ask?
> >
> > I believe that preserving tax-exempt status would be a top priority
> of the
> > church.
>
> To the extent of changing a long-standing policy for no other reason
> than that?
Who said 'no other reason'? There was also the Brazil situation, the
demonstrations, and in general the inhumane image the church wanted to avoid
in light of liberalization of society's views about race.
> > > > The church also had a major problem in Brazil with members who had
> > > already
> > > > been given the priesthood, and had "Black blood".
> > >
> > > Yes, I've seen the exaggerated reports on that score.
> >
> > Yes, like Brigham Young's.
>
> I'm sorry, you'll have to enlighten me. Just what was it that Brigham
> Young said about the situation in Brazil in the 1970's?
Don't be facetious. I was talking about BY's "one drop of blood" and "death
on the spot" statements.
Bill Williams
Russell McGregor
"Bill Williams" <will...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> Russell McGregor <russe...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8aifdf$gpt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <MJ_y4.1220$I25....@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>,
> > "Bill Williams" <will...@mediaone.net> wrote:
Snip
> > > What does the U. S. government have to do with any of this?
> >
> > Duh, doesn't the U.S. government determine the tax exempt status of
> > institutions?
> >
> > Have you forgotten that the Church was supposed to be paralysed with
> > fear that it might lose its tax exempt status, like Bob Jones U.?
>
> Perhaps not 'paralysed with fear'. But concerned, yes, I think so.
In which case the U.S. government might have something to do with this,
yes?
> > > > We still get an awful lot of American TV shows here. Most
couples
> > shown
> > > > there are monochrome.
> > >
> > > So what ?
> >
> > Duh, so maybe interracial dating isn't all that usual over there?
>
> Again, so what?
So maybe it's not such a big deal if we don't do it all that much?
Snip
> > > Of course not. Why should not receiving the priesthood or going to
the
> > > temple make any difference in spiritual growth and 'exaltation'?
> >
> > Why indeed? Everyone always knew that these things would be made
> > available to Blacks eventually. Even Brigham.
>
> Brigham Young taught that Blacks wouldn't have the opportunity until
AFTER
> everyone else did, that is, after the Second Coming. Hardly the same
thing.
It is certainly the same thing. Salvation/exaltation is eternal. We
are talking about a temporal delay in receiving eternal blessings. Next
week or next century, it's all the same.
Snip
> > > I believe that preserving tax-exempt status would be a top
priority
> > of the
> > > church.
> >
> > To the extent of changing a long-standing policy for no other reason
> > than that?
>
> Who said 'no other reason'? There was also the Brazil situation, the
> demonstrations, and in general the inhumane image the church wanted to
avoid
> in light of liberalization of society's views about race.
And in the entire lack of any inside information, you consider yourself
free to speculate however you want to about the influence of these
various factors. Got it.
> > > > > The church also had a major problem in Brazil with members who
had
> > > > already
> > > > > been given the priesthood, and had "Black blood".
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I've seen the exaggerated reports on that score.
> > >
> > > Yes, like Brigham Young's.
> >
> > I'm sorry, you'll have to enlighten me. Just what was it that
Brigham
> > Young said about the situation in Brazil in the 1970's?
>
> Don't be facetious. I was talking about BY's "one drop of blood" and
"death
> on the spot" statements.
No doubt, but you chose to introduce them into a discussion of the
situation in Brazil, and the exaggerated reports into the difficulties
that was supposed to engender. How do Brigham's statements relate?
And if you don't want *me* to be facetious, why were you?
> Bill Williams
Snip
Guy R. Briggs
> russe...@my-deja.com (Russell McGregor) wrote:
>> will...@mediaone.net wrote:
>>> russe...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>> will...@mediaone.net wrote:
<snip>
>>>>> At least BJU didn't say that God restricted Blacks in
>>>>> their salvation.
>>>>
>>>> Neither did we.
>>>
>>> Of course not. Why should not receiving the priesthood or
>>> going to the temple make any difference in spiritual growth
>>> and 'exaltation'?
>>
>> Why indeed? Everyone always knew that these things would be
>> made available to Blacks eventually. Even Brigham.
>
> Brigham Young taught that Blacks wouldn't have the opportunity
> until AFTER everyone else did, that is, after the Second Coming.
> Hardly the same thing.
>
ITMSOT, it is exactly the same thing. I would venture to guess that
the mast majority of mainland Chinese will not have the opportunity to
participate in LDS priesthood and temple blessings until after the
Second Coming. Ditto most folks in India. Ditto (for a long time,
anyway) most of the Soviet Union.
The only difference is that Chinese, Indians and Soviets were
prevented by circumstance, a specific subset of Blacks were prohibited
by policy. Either way, God is ultimately responsible (if you're a TBM)
to insure that all have an adequate opportunity.
If you're not a TBM, why complain because /any/ of those groups were
prohibited from being "unwitting dupes of Satan?"
<reminder snipped>
bestRegards,
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guy R. "BrickWall" Briggs, MCSE* - net...@GeoCities.com
Used cars - Land - Whiskey - Manure - Nails
Fly Swatters - Racing Forms - Bongos
Wars Fought - Tires Balanced - Assassinations Plotted
Revolutions Started - Governments Run - Uprisings Quelled
Tigers Tamed - Bars Emptied - Orgies Planned
*Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
I also program computers
YouKnowWho
>Russell wrote:
>
>>Given that nobody put a gun to our heads to force us to go into Brazil
>>in the first place, and given that the racial status of Church members
>>in that or any other country is an "inside" rather than an "outside"
>>concern;
>
>It may have been an "inside" concern, but it would have created a massive PR
>problem in all of South America, once the temple was opened, and Mormon leaders
>began what would have surely been a hopeless and embarrassing procedure of
>trying to distinguish "worthy" from "unworthy" (non-Negro versus Negro.)
>
>"A major problem the church has faced with its policy regarding blacks was in
>Brazil, where the church is building a temple. Many people there are mixed
>racially, and it is often impossible to determine whether church members have
>black ancestry."
>(Deseret News, June 10, 1978.)
>
>If the church had not ended the ban, its efforts to proselyte in mixed-race or
>predominantly Negro areas would have been about as popular as apartheid in
>South Africa. It would have created a dual-class system in Mormon
>congregations, based solely on race.
>
>>AND given that the famous NAACP lawsuit had been amicably settled four
>>years earlier;
>>
>>AND given that the notoriously childish "we don't like you so we're not
>>going to play with you" Californian college "protests" had been disposed
>>of at least five years before;
>>
>>I would say, all in all, that the 1978 Official Declaration was made in
>>very calm waters.
>>
>>Snip
>>
>>Russell C. McGregor
>
>And, as usual, you'd be wrong. There were other incidents closer to the time
>of the change that played out as proximate causes to force the change. The
>incident where a Mormon man, Douglas Wallace, ordained a black man in Oregon,
>occurred in the spring of 1976. He was excommunicated, and the news made it
>all the way to Australia, where I was on a mission at the time. It was
>obviously bad PR. It was later discovered that Mormon leaders had asked Salt
>Lake police to "stake out" Wallace while he visited friends in SLC in 1977,
>which caused further embarrassment to Mormon leaders.
>
>The church had also received a recommendation from one of its paid PR firms to
>drop the Negro ban, as I've documented from "The Mormon Corporate Empire."
>
>And the crowning incident was probably Byron Marchant's public negative vote to
>sustain church leaders at General Conference in October 1977. Marchant
>announced that he was organizing a protest of the policy to take place at the
>General Conference of October 1978; Kimball conveniently had his 'revelation'
>four months before the protest could occur.
>
>Randy J.
>
FAWNSCRIBE
America or many other countries if one had to do a blood fraction analysis
before opening any scripturs there..what were ya gonna do?
Hang out and preach only in Norway forever?
Fawn
TheJordan6
>>
>> >Given that nobody put a gun to our heads to force us to go into
>Brazil
>> >in the first place, and given that the racial status of Church
>members
>> >in that or any other country is an "inside" rather than an "outside"
>> >concern;
>>
>> It may have been an "inside" concern, but it would have created a
>massive PR
>> problem in all of South America, once the temple was opened, and
>Mormon leaders
>> began what would have surely been a hopeless and embarrassing
>procedure of
>> trying to distinguish "worthy" from "unworthy" (non-Negro versus
>Negro.)
>
>lives, i.e. at ordination rather than temple attendance.
No excrement, Einstein. Since Negroes couldn't attend the temple without
having the priesthood, the church would have faced the problem of thousands of
mixed-race Brazilian Mormons feeling like second-class citizens when the temple
was opened.
>And the problem would have primarily been administrative rather than
>"PR," something you seem obsessed with.
It was obviously both. You would have be blind, deaf, dumb, and retarded to
fail to perceive the obsession the LDS church has with its public image, and
the millions of your tithing dollars spent to establish and preserve it.
>> "A major problem the church has faced with its policy regarding blacks
>was in
>> Brazil, where the church is building a temple. Many people there are
>mixed
>> racially, and it is often impossible to determine whether church
>members have
>> black ancestry."
>> (Deseret News, June 10, 1978.)
>
>Yes, I remember seeing that at the time. It was syndicated to a number
>of places.
>The leaders of the Church were very frank about all of that. But my
>point was that nobody forced the Church to either proselyte or build a
>temple in Brazil.
Your point which I addressed was that the 1978 change occurred in "very calm
waters." The fact that the church-owned Deseret News admitted in June of 1978
that the church would have faced a race issue over the opening of the new
temple refutes your assertion. It's not a question of whether or not the
church was 'forced' to build a temple in Brazil. It's a question of you being
wrong in your assertion about recent external factors forcing the change.
>> If the church had not ended the ban, its efforts to proselyte in
>mixed-race or
>> predominantly Negro areas would have been about as popular as
>apartheid in
>> South Africa. It would have created a dual-class system in Mormon
>> congregations, based solely on race.
>
>Very likely. Good thing the ban was ended, isn't it?
Bad thing the ban was ever enacted. It will continue to embarrass the LDS
church until its arrogant leaders publicly repudiate the teachings that
'inspired' it. And your comment didn't refute my statement.
>> >AND given that the famous NAACP lawsuit had been amicably settled
>four
>> >years earlier;
>> >
>> >AND given that the notoriously childish "we don't like you so we're
>not
>> >going to play with you" Californian college "protests" had been
>disposed
>> >of at least five years before;
>> >
>> >I would say, all in all, that the 1978 Official Declaration was made
>in
>> >very calm waters.
>> >
>> >Snip
>> >
>> >Russell C. McGregor
>>
>> And, as usual, you'd be wrong. There were other incidents closer to
>the time
>> of the change that played out as proximate causes to force the change.
> The
>> incident where a Mormon man, Douglas Wallace, ordained a black man in
>Oregon,
>> occurred in the spring of 1976. He was excommunicated, and the news
>made it
>> all the way to Australia, where I was on a mission at the time.
>
>Yes, we heard about it in New Zealand. Got a laugh out of it, too.
The fact that the story traveled around the world means that it exposed the LDS
discriminatory policy to a worldwide audience. The possibility that you 'got a
laugh out of it' does not negate the fact that the incident accomplished its
purpose, and that it was an embarrassing incident that helped to force the
change two years later.
>> It was obviously bad PR.
>
>Was it? That's not obvious to me.
"That is because you are stupid."----
("The Mask of Zorro")
> What was obvious was that the
>"ordination" was a publicity stunt -- the black participant wasn't even
>a member of the Church; Wallace persuaded him to go along with it,
>baptised him (in a hotel swimming pool?) just so that he would be
>"eligible." It is significant to me that Wallace couldn't find a black
>member of the Church who would go along with such a stunt.
All of those points are irrelevant. The stunt made worldwide headlines, and
accomplished its purpose. We know that Wallace was performing an
'unauthorized' ordinance on an 'unworthy' candidate; he did so to illustrate
the silliness of the ban, and the LDS church's lack of moral authority.
>> It was later discovered
>
>No, it was later *claimed*
The Salt Lake PD admitted that their officers were staking out Wallace. They
were forced to do so because one of the officers accidentally shot himself
while playing with his gun in the car. He was paralyzed, and later committed
suicide.
>> that Mormon leaders had asked Salt
>> Lake police to "stake out" Wallace while he visited friends in SLC in
>1977,
>> which caused further embarrassment to Mormon leaders.
>How do you know? Did you see them blush?
Spencer W. Kimball issued a press release stating that the church had not asked
SLPD to stake out Wallace. The injured officer, David Olson, wrote the SL
"Tribune" attacking Kimball's "incorrect press release concerning the police
involvement combined with the LDS Church's effort to restrict Douglas A.
Wallace from the temple grounds, specifically the Tabernacle, on April 3, 1977.
His denial of these actions is wrong. Any man who can take such actions and
still call himself a prophet deserves more than I to be confined to this
wheelchair." (Jan. 18, 1978.)
I think most folks would say that was embarrassing to the LDS church, Russell.
Olson's letter was published five months before the convenient 'revelation.'
>The Salt Lake police said that they were watching Wallace because *they*
>thought he was a security risk. Some threats had been received, and
>Wallace showed up around conference time, IIRC.
Obviously, his threats helped to end the ban. Some day, in a more enlightened
age of Mormon culture, Wallace might be viewed as a hero to millions. Of
course, you won't be one of them.
>> The church had also received a recommendation from one of its paid PR
>firms to
>> drop the Negro ban, as I've documented from "The Mormon Corporate
>Empire."
>
>Oh yes, that's an oh so valuable primary source -- NOT!
Russell, your opinion of the validity of a source is irrelevant if you have
nothing with which to refute it. Have you perchance read "The Mormon Corporate
Empire," written by two sociologists, one of them a Mormon? Or are you as
usual, talking out of your ass?
>> And the crowning incident was probably Byron Marchant's public
>negative vote to
>> sustain church leaders at General Conference in October 1977.
>Yes, I remember that. It was a bit of a joke.
Once again, you attempt to downplay another incident as being a 'joke.' The
issue here is not your opinion of those incidents, Russell, but the fact that
they occurred shortly before the convenient 'revelation,' and received
high-profile media coverage. That refutes your assertion that the 1978
'revelation' occurred in 'calm waters,' which is my point.
>> Marchant
>> announced that he was organizing a protest of the policy to take place
>at the
>> General Conference of October 1978; Kimball conveniently had his
>'revelation'
>> four months before the protest could occur.
>Sure, Randy; President Kimball must have been scared out of his wits by
>that retired janitor.
Actually, documentation exists that Kimball had been in favor of ending the ban
since at least 1971, when JFS was still in power. Since his successor HB Lee
was not in favor of ending the ban, Kimball had to wait for them to die to take
power and summon the wherewithal to end the ban. The mounting protests helped
him out.
SWK may not have been 'scared' of Marchant, but Marchant had filed a civil
rights suit against him over the issue. When SWK rescinded the ban, Marchant
dropped his lawsuit.
"The last three years have also seen repeated attempts by church dissidents to
subpoena Mormon leaders into court proceedings, with the central issue often
related to the church's beliefs about blacks."
(Salt Lake Tribune, June 10, 1978)
>Incidentally, Marchant had claimed in his announcement that if the
>policy was changed, the protest would still go ahead as a celebration,
>so the policy change wouldn't have forestalled the demonstration
>*anyway*.
>So tell me again why that "crowning incident" exerted such a rush of
>pressure?
The chain of events speaks for itself.
>Incidentally, a couple of conferences later, a half-dozen people showed
>up and cast negative votes. How did the Church respond to *that*
>"crowning incident?"
I don't know. I'm not familiar with that incident. But if the church treated
them as they did Marchant, they excommunicated them for expressing their
opinions. Mormons aren't allowed to do that, you know.
>> Randy J.
>
>Russell C. McGregor
>--
>"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
>(Brigham Young)
With each passing day, you seem to agree with fewer and fewer of Brigham
Young's opinions.
Randy J.
Russell McGregor
Not as great an "obsession" as that which obviously drives some to try
and attack that public image.
> >> "A major problem the church has faced with its policy regarding
blacks
> >was in
> >> Brazil, where the church is building a temple. Many people there
are
> >mixed
> >> racially, and it is often impossible to determine whether church
> >members have
> >> black ancestry."
> >> (Deseret News, June 10, 1978.)
> >
> >Yes, I remember seeing that at the time. It was syndicated to a
number
> >of places.
> >The leaders of the Church were very frank about all of that. But my
> >point was that nobody forced the Church to either proselyte or build
a
> >temple in Brazil.
>
> Your point which I addressed was that the 1978 change occurred in
"very calm
> waters." The fact that the church-owned Deseret News admitted in June
of 1978
> that the church would have faced a race issue over the opening of the
new
> temple refutes your assertion.
No it doesn't. "Calm waters" is, of course, a relative concept, and
all the more interesting stuff was by then a thing of the past.
I saw the long version of the film made of the opening of the
Washington, D.C. Temple. Right near the end of that film, a black lady
was interviewed. She was very happy that the Temple was being opened,
even though she knew she couldn't attend.
Anticipation of a potential future problem is not very significant
pressure.
> It's not a question of whether or not the
> church was 'forced' to build a temple in Brazil. It's a question of
you being
> wrong in your assertion about recent external factors forcing the
change.
You keep reciting this mantra about events "forcing the change."
Exactly how a freely taken decision can be seen to be "forced" in any
way is not entirely clear, but we shall come back to it.
What "external factors?" The building of the Sao Paolo Temple was an
*internal* decision, as was sending missionaries to Brazil in the first
place.
Anticipation of a potential future problem arising from internal
decisions, freely made, is not an "external factor."
You do understand the difference between "internal" and "external,"
don't you, Randy?
> >> If the church had not ended the ban, its efforts to proselyte in
> >mixed-race or
> >> predominantly Negro areas would have been about as popular as
> >apartheid in
> >> South Africa. It would have created a dual-class system in Mormon
> >> congregations, based solely on race.
> >
> >Very likely. Good thing the ban was ended, isn't it?
>
> Bad thing the ban was ever enacted. It will continue to embarrass the
LDS
> church
Translation: people of ill-will will continue to try and embarrass the
Church over this issue...
> until its arrogant leaders publicly repudiate the teachings that
> 'inspired' it.
And which "teachings" were those?
Hint: to have "inspired" the ban, a "teaching" would have to pre-date
it.
Snip
> >> And, as usual, you'd be wrong. There were other incidents closer to
> >the time
> >> of the change that played out as proximate causes to force the
change.
> > The
> >> incident where a Mormon man, Douglas Wallace, ordained a black man
in
> >Oregon,
> >> occurred in the spring of 1976. He was excommunicated, and the news
> >made it
> >> all the way to Australia, where I was on a mission at the time.
> >
> >Yes, we heard about it in New Zealand. Got a laugh out of it, too.
>
> The fact that the story traveled around the world means that it
exposed the LDS
> discriminatory policy to a worldwide audience. The possibility that
you 'got a
> laugh out of it' does not negate the fact that the incident
accomplished its
> purpose, and that it was an embarrassing incident that helped to force
the
> change two years later.
I have a theory, Randy. I think you keep burying that little "force the
change" mantra near the ends of your sentences because (a) you hope it
will be accepted without being challenged, or even noticed -- a bit of
subliminal manipulation -- and because (b) you want to diminish, as much
as possible, any credit due to the Church for making the change.
The change in question was *freely* made. It was not "forced." That is
a clear fact.
Now a *reasonable* person might suppose that if the ban is to be seen as
a bad thing, then the lifting of the ban must be a correspondingly good
thing. That seems entirely logical to me.
However, you seem to want to have it both ways. Sorry, but you can't.
So I suggest that you pick one or the other and stick with it. Take
whichever one you see as having the maximum hate-generation value and
exploit it to the hilt.
> >> It was obviously bad PR.
> >
> >Was it? That's not obvious to me.
>
> "That is because you are stupid."----
> ("The Mask of Zorro")
"He who insults another without provocation is a slave." (Taylor
Caldwell, _Pillar of Iron_.)
It is *not* stupid for someone to have a different perspective than you
do.
It *is* stupid to assume that I am supposed to have the same perspective
as you do.
And it is also stupid to make gratuitous insults in what is supposed to
pass for a civilised discussion.
> > What was obvious was that the
> >"ordination" was a publicity stunt -- the black participant wasn't
even
> >a member of the Church; Wallace persuaded him to go along with it,
> >baptised him (in a hotel swimming pool?) just so that he would be
> >"eligible." It is significant to me that Wallace couldn't find a
black
> >member of the Church who would go along with such a stunt.
>
> All of those points are irrelevant.
No they are not.
> The stunt made worldwide headlines, and accomplished its purpose.
Yes, Wallace got his five minutes of fame. I hope he enjoyed it.
> We know that Wallace was performing an
> 'unauthorized' ordinance on an 'unworthy' candidate; he did so to
illustrate
> the silliness of the ban, and the LDS church's lack of moral
authority.
In that case, he failed.
But if he did it to get notoriety, then he succeeded.
> >> It was later discovered
> >
> >No, it was later *claimed*
>
> The Salt Lake PD admitted that their officers were staking out
Wallace. They
> were forced to do so because one of the officers accidentally shot
himself
> while playing with his gun in the car. He was paralyzed, and later
committed
> suicide.
I did not deny that they had him under surveillance. Merely proving
that they did does not refute my statement, since that is not in dispute
-- see below.
> >> that Mormon leaders had asked Salt
> >> Lake police to "stake out" Wallace while he visited friends in SLC
in
> >1977,
> >> which caused further embarrassment to Mormon leaders.
>
> >How do you know? Did you see them blush?
>
> Spencer W. Kimball issued a press release stating that the church had
not asked
> SLPD to stake out Wallace. The injured officer, David Olson, wrote the
SL
> "Tribune" attacking Kimball's "incorrect press release concerning the
police
> involvement combined with the LDS Church's effort to restrict Douglas
A.
> Wallace from the temple grounds, specifically the Tabernacle, on April
3, 1977.
> His denial of these actions is wrong. Any man who can take such
actions and
> still call himself a prophet deserves more than I to be confined to
this
> wheelchair." (Jan. 18, 1978.)
Yes, I've read this. The Tanners have it on one of their websites.
> I think most folks would say that was embarrassing to the LDS church,
Russell.
I think people who think things through might suppose that someone who
had suffered such an injury might be somewhat overwrought about it;
after all, suicide is not the usual action of someone who is content
with his lot. And overwrought people are not noted for the moderation
of their self-expression.
He was worked up, so he lashed out. We can forgive him for that;
there's nothing to get embarrassed about.
> Olson's letter was published five months before the convenient
'revelation.'
That "convenient" is an indication of your own malice. The timing of
the revelation was not at all "convenient" for that particular incident,
was it?
BTW, were Olson's allegations ever tested in court? If so, what was the
outcome?
Is it likely that a "beat cop" would have been present when the
decision to watch Wallace was taken? Or is it more likely that he
received his instructions from further down the chain of command?
Isn't it probable -- if not downright certain -- that Olson's belief in
Church involvement in a police operation, if it came from anywhere other
than his own overwrought imagination, was fuelled by nothing more
substantial than barrack-room gossip?
Did any of Olson's superiors ever comment on his allegations? If so,
what did they say?
> >The Salt Lake police said that they were watching Wallace because
*they*
> >thought he was a security risk. Some threats had been received, and
> >Wallace showed up around conference time, IIRC.
>
> Obviously, his threats helped to end the ban.
I put it to you, Randy, that it is only "obvious" to you because you
*NEED* to view the ending of the ban in the most hostile light possible.
> Some day, in a more enlightened
> age of Mormon culture, Wallace might be viewed as a hero to millions.
Of
> course, you won't be one of them.
Ah. Another gratuitous snipe. How unsurprising.
Snip more typical ad hominem.
> >> And the crowning incident was probably Byron Marchant's public
> >negative vote to
> >> sustain church leaders at General Conference in October 1977.
>
> >Yes, I remember that. It was a bit of a joke.
>
> Once again, you attempt to downplay another incident as being a
'joke.' The
> issue here is not your opinion of those incidents, Russell, but the
fact that
> they occurred shortly before the convenient 'revelation,' and received
> high-profile media coverage. That refutes your assertion that the 1978
> 'revelation' occurred in 'calm waters,' which is my point.
These incidents were flea-bites on the flank of an elephant. They were
entirely trivial. No meaningful lawsuit, no threats of government
intervention, not even any major colleges refusing to play ball; just a
couple of isolated cranks playing pranks. Big deal.
> >> Marchant
> >> announced that he was organizing a protest of the policy to take
place
> >at the
> >> General Conference of October 1978; Kimball conveniently had his
> >'revelation'
> >> four months before the protest could occur.
>
> >Sure, Randy; President Kimball must have been scared out of his wits
by
> >that retired janitor.
>
> Actually, documentation exists that Kimball had been in favor of
ending the ban
> since at least 1971, when JFS was still in power. Since his successor
HB Lee
> was not in favor of ending the ban, Kimball had to wait for them to
die to take
> power and summon the wherewithal to end the ban. The mounting protests
helped
> him out.
You've just undermined your whole argument. Still, if your theory is
true, I have to wonder why President Kimball waited five years.
> SWK may not have been 'scared' of Marchant, but Marchant had filed a
civil
> rights suit against him over the issue. When SWK rescinded the ban,
Marchant
> dropped his lawsuit.
So President Kimball ended the ban to get rid of a lawsuit for
non-compliance with a quashed subpoena?
Oh.
> "The last three years have also seen repeated attempts by church
dissidents to
> subpoena Mormon leaders into court proceedings, with the central issue
often
> related to the church's beliefs about blacks."
> (Salt Lake Tribune, June 10, 1978)
Yes, it's called "abuse of process" or "judicial harassment."
> >Incidentally, Marchant had claimed in his announcement that if the
> >policy was changed, the protest would still go ahead as a
celebration,
> >so the policy change wouldn't have forestalled the demonstration
> >*anyway*.
> >So tell me again why that "crowning incident" exerted such a rush of
> >pressure?
>
> The chain of events speaks for itself.
Rubbish. Nothing ever *really* speaks for itself, and if it did, it
certainly wouldn't need you be its spokesman. Your intervention is
necessary to make these trivial little events seem portentious, and to
arrange them in such a way as to turn a few isolated and laughable
incidents into a pattern of irresistible pressure.
Because here's the rub, Randy: the only way for these incidents to have
really "forced the change," was if their effect really was nothing less
than irresistible.
> >Incidentally, a couple of conferences later, a half-dozen people
showed
> >up and cast negative votes. How did the Church respond to *that*
> >"crowning incident?"
>
> I don't know. I'm not familiar with that incident. But if the church
treated
> them as they did Marchant, they excommunicated them for expressing
their
> opinions. Mormons aren't allowed to do that, you know.
You duck the issue. Did this "crowning incident" embarrass the Church
into making some other change?
You see, Randy, your theory that "embarrassment" somehow "forced the
change" can be easily tested, because other, similar incidents have
occurred. Here are two more examples:
1) At the last conference, a number of enlightened, liberal souls who
evidently believe that Latter-day Saints don't deserve to attend Church
meetings unmolested, decided to demonstrate loudly outside Temple Square
over the Church's support of Prop. 22 in California. What change did
this "force?"
2) Every time the Church opens a new temple, there is an open house
before the dedication. These events are always picketed by groups of
teeth-gnashing religious haters. Has the Church been "forced" to stop
having temple open houses?
Snip to end
Russell C. McGregor
--
"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
(Brigham Young)
TheJordan6
You would have be blind, deaf, dumb, and
>retarded to
>> fail to perceive the obsession the LDS church has with its public
>image, and
>> the millions of your tithing dollars spent to establish and preserve
>it.
Russell answered:
>Not as great an "obsession" as that which obviously drives some to try
>and attack that public image.
I'll go out on a limb and opine that the combined annual budget of all
"anti-Mormon" efforts would not equal ten percent of what the LDS Church spends
promoting its own image. Hint: In 1975, GA David B. Haight informed us in a
mission conference that the LDS church spent $20,000 for each convert baptism.
I don't "attack" the LDS church's image: I expose it for what it is: sales
propaganda.
>> Your point which I addressed was that the 1978 change occurred in
>"very calm
>> waters." The fact that the church-owned Deseret News admitted in June
>of 1978
>> that the church would have faced a race issue over the opening of the
>new
>> temple refutes your assertion.
>No it doesn't. "Calm waters" is, of course, a relative concept,
You are the one who made the assertion that the 1978 change was "made in very
calm waters." Now that I have documented the embarrassing public incidents
leading up to the very time of the ban, you are trying to re-define the terms
of your own assertion. You would save lots of time, and save a little face, if
you would just admit that you're wrong, rather than having to re-define the
assertion that you yourself made. If you have to backpedal, at least do it
like a man.
and
>all the more interesting stuff was by then a thing of the past.
That's strictly your opinion, which I have refuted by the documented, published
facts.
>I saw the long version of the film made of the opening of the
>Washington, D.C. Temple. Right near the end of that film, a black lady
>was interviewed. She was very happy that the Temple was being opened,
>even though she knew she couldn't attend.
Perhaps someone should have enlightened her to the reasons, as given by persons
such as Brigham Young, Mark E. Petersen, and Bruce R. McConkie. Her
'happiness' might have dimmed somewhat.
>Anticipation of a potential future problem is not very significant
>pressure.
This line is a good example of why I call you a raving lunatic. Forrest Gump
couldn't conjure up a stupider statement.
Seeing as how the ban was lifted just before the Brazil temple opened, it's
obvious that the pressure existed.
A rhetorical question for you, Russell: let's say that the Brazil temple
opened without rescinding the ban. Let's say that there was a ward in San
Paolo that had ten boys ages 12-13, five being Caucasian, and five being mixed
race including Negro blood. The mixed-race boys couldn't actually be
'deacons'; where would those boys go on Sunday mornings during Priesthood
class? While their white peers were passing the sacrament, what would those
'accursed' boys be thinking and feeling? Let's say that the ward planned a
youth temple trip for the kids to do baptisms for the room-temped. Would the
mixed-race 'accursed' teens be told to stay home? That their 'services' were
not desired?
If you cannot recognize those and similar embarrassing scenarios as being
pressures, then you are intellectually beyond hope.
>> It's not a question of whether or not the
>> church was 'forced' to build a temple in Brazil. It's a question of
>you being
>> wrong in your assertion about recent external factors forcing the
>change.
>You keep reciting this mantra about events "forcing the change."
>Exactly how a freely taken decision can be seen to be "forced" in any
>way is not entirely clear, but we shall come back to it.
It was "freely taken" in the same way the the 1890 Manifesto was "freely
taken."
>What "external factors?"
I've already documented them.
>The building of the Sao Paolo Temple was >an
>*internal* decision, as was sending missionaries to Brazil in the first
>place.
>Anticipation of a potential future problem arising from internal
>decisions, freely made, is not an "external factor."
>You do understand the difference between "internal" and "external,"
>don't you, Randy?
Yes. You do understand the difference between "sane" and "insane," don't you,
Russell?
The LDS church does target market research, and builds its temples in areas
that research indicates will have potential future growth and resultant
revenues, just as any other sales corporation does. The LDS church knows that
opening temples results in increased convert baptisms in the area. If the ban
had not been lifted, the LDS church in a highly mixed-race area like Brazil
would have been perceived as strictly a "white man's church", as it still is
among many black people to this day. The pressure of potential negative
publicity, which surely would have made news throughout South America, was an
EXTERNAL factor in ending the ban.
>> Bad thing the ban was ever enacted. It will continue to embarrass the
>LDS
>> church
>Translation: people of ill-will will continue to try and embarrass the
>Church over this issue...
Not people of ill-will, but people who are interested in truth and fairness. I
find it amusing that you try to spin the LDS church's racist policies into
another of your rants about 'persecution.'
If you, and the LDS church don't want to be embarrassed over this issue,
perhaps you, or the LDS church should disavow the teachings and apologize for
them. Until that happens, you can look forward to a lifetime of embarrassment.
>> until its arrogant leaders publicly repudiate the teachings that
>> 'inspired' it.
>And which "teachings" were those?
The ones which have been documented and discussed here many times. Don't be
coy, Russell, it only makes you look worse.
>Hint: to have "inspired" the ban, a "teaching" would have to pre-date
>it.
I've already explained to you that 1) Joseph Smith ordained Negro Elijah Abel
in the 1840's, 2) Brigham Young made all of his repugnant statements before his
death in 1877, and 3) the ban was not officially enacted or adhered to until
1879.
You cannot separate the repugnant, racist teachings from the ban; they were
both issued by the same group of 'inspired' men.
>I have a theory, Randy. I think you keep burying that little "force the
>change" mantra near the ends of your sentences because (a) you hope it
>will be accepted without being challenged, or even noticed -- a bit of
>subliminal manipulation -- and because (b) you want to diminish, as much
>as possible, any credit due to the Church for making the change.
I DO credit the church for making the change. But that does not simply wash
away the tremendous social, legal, and political pressures that spurred the
change.
>The change in question was *freely* made. It was not "forced." That is
>a clear fact.
Yes, it was 'freely made' just as the 1890 Manifesto was 'freely made.'
>Now a *reasonable* person might suppose that if the ban is to be seen as
>a bad thing, then the lifting of the ban must be a correspondingly good
>thing. That seems entirely logical to me.
The lifting of the ban was good. But the casting of it as a 'revelation from
God' is embarrassing to reasonable people. The entire outside world knows that
the ban was a product of 19th-century racism, and that the rescission of the
ban was made because of contemporary pressures. LDS leaders' verbiage
surrounding the rescission was made purely to blame the ban on "God," making
"God" look like the racist, instead of the men who enacted the ban and taught
the repugnant doctrines.
>> >> It was obviously bad PR.
>> >Was it? That's not obvious to me.
>> "That is because you are stupid."----
>> ("The Mask of Zorro")
>"He who insults another without provocation is a slave." (Taylor
>Caldwell, _Pillar of Iron_.)
"Stupid is as stupid does."---Forrest Gump.
>It is *not* stupid for someone to have a different perspective than you
>do.
It is if the perspective is stupid.
>It *is* stupid to assume that I am supposed to have the same perspective
>as you do.
I don't expect you to have the same perspective as I do. If you did, you
wouldn't be stupid.
>And it is also stupid to make gratuitous insults in what is supposed to
>pass for a civilised discussion.
It is difficult to avoid insulting someone who is so stupid, especially when
they are trying to pass themselves off as being intelligent.
And since when have you ever been 'civil?'
Have you had a recent conversion?
>> [Douglas Wallace's] stunt made worldwide headlines, and accomplished its
purpose.
>Yes, Wallace got his five minutes of fame. I hope he enjoyed it.
Again, you attempt to minimize the effect of an embarrassing,
worldwide-reported incident, by making an unwarranted, inappropriate jab at the
man who did it.
>> We know that Wallace was performing an
>> 'unauthorized' ordinance on an 'unworthy' candidate; he did so to
>illustrate
>> the silliness of the ban, and the LDS church's lack of moral
>authority.
>In that case, he failed.
Seeing as how the LDS church ended its ban only two years after Wallace's
stunt, that is for intelligent, rational people to decide for themselves.
>But if he did it to get notoriety, then he succeeded.
He drew more attention to the LDS church's anti-Negro teachings and policies
than he did to himself. I daresay that few people remember his name, but many
remember the incident. To repeat---100 years from now, Wallace may be viewed
by Mormons as a reformer as much as Luther is to Protestants.
>> Spencer W. Kimball issued a press release stating that the church had
>not asked
>> SLPD to stake out Wallace. The injured officer, David Olson, wrote the
>SL
>> "Tribune" attacking Kimball's "incorrect press release concerning the
>police
>> involvement combined with the LDS Church's effort to restrict Douglas
>A.
>> Wallace from the temple grounds, specifically the Tabernacle, on April
>3, 1977.
>> His denial of these actions is wrong. Any man who can take such
>actions and
>> still call himself a prophet deserves more than I to be confined to
>this
>> wheelchair." (Jan. 18, 1978.)
>Yes, I've read this. The Tanners have it on one of their websites.
Is this supposed to be some kind of refutation?
>> I think most folks would say that was embarrassing to the LDS church,
>Russell.
>I think people who think things through might suppose that someone who
>had suffered such an injury might be somewhat overwrought about it;
>after all, suicide is not the usual action of someone who is content
>with his lot. And overwrought people are not noted for the moderation
>of their self-expression.
>He was worked up, so he lashed out. We can forgive him for that;
>there's nothing to get embarrassed about.
That's certainly your opinion. Olson's letter was published in Salt Lake
newspapers; it revealed that SWK had lied about not asking SL police to stake
out Wallace. If you don't believe that Olson's letter was embarrassing to LDS
leaders, then, well---that goes back to that 'raving lunatic' thing.
>> Olson's letter was published five months before the convenient
>'revelation.'
>That "convenient" is an indication of your own malice. The timing of
>the revelation was not at all "convenient" for that particular incident, was
it?
It was one of several recent embarrassing incidents, which I've already
documented.
Russell, the publication of such events may not have made an impact on your
life in New Zealand; but these events were occurring in SLC and making
headlines. If you wish to believe that they didn't speed SWK on his
rescission, you're certainly entitled to that opinion. However, rational
people have the right to disagree with you.
>BTW, were Olson's allegations ever tested in court?
I have no idea. I find it intriguing that you try to cast aspersions on the
published story of a man who was so negatively affected by the incident, and
the LDS church's attempt to absolve itself of responsibility, that he committed
suicide over it.
>If so, what was the
>outcome?
Dunno.
>Is it likely that a "beat cop" would have been present when the
>decision to watch Wallace was taken? Or is it more likely that he
>received his instructions from further down the chain of command?
I don't know everything, Russell. I only know what was published in the
papers.
>Isn't it probable -- if not downright certain -- that Olson's belief in
>Church involvement in a police operation, if it came from anywhere other
>than his own overwrought imagination, was fuelled by nothing more
>substantial than barrack-room gossip?
>Did any of Olson's superiors ever comment on his allegations? If so,
>what did they say?
The SL Tribune reported that "Salt Lake police officers admitted that the
accidental wounding of an undercover officer occurred during surveillance of
MORMON DISSIDENT Douglas A. Wallace."
(April 8, 1977.)
If you wish to know more of the incident, I suggest that you contact someone at
the Tribune, rather than just spouting unfounded speculations.
>> >> And the crowning incident was probably Byron Marchant's public
>> >negative vote to
>> >> sustain church leaders at General Conference in October 1977.
>> >Yes, I remember that. It was a bit of a joke.
>> Once again, you attempt to downplay another incident as being a
>'joke.' The
>> issue here is not your opinion of those incidents, Russell, but the
>fact that
>> they occurred shortly before the convenient 'revelation,' and received
>> high-profile media coverage. That refutes your assertion that the 1978
>> 'revelation' occurred in 'calm waters,' which is my point.
>These incidents were flea-bites on the flank of an elephant. They were
>entirely trivial. No meaningful lawsuit, no threats of government
>intervention, not even any major colleges refusing to play ball; just a
>couple of isolated cranks playing pranks. Big deal.
Those remarks are strictly your opinions, and do not support your assertion
that the 1978 rescission was made in "very calm waters." Your opinions are not
what is under discussion here; the FACTS are.
>documentation exists that Kimball had been in favor of
>ending the ban
>> since at least 1971, when JFS was still in power. Since his successor
>HB Lee
>> was not in favor of ending the ban, Kimball had to wait for them to
>die to take
>> power and summon the wherewithal to end the ban. The mounting protests
>helped
>> him out.
>You've just undermined your whole argument.
The fact that LDS leaders had discussed ending the ban years before dismisses
the idea that SWK received a spontaneous "revelation" to do so in 1978. As
LeGrand Richards told a reporter when the change was made, it wasn't a
"revelation," but a "policy decision." The idea to cast it as a "revelation"
was made purely because of the LDS church's contention that decisions are made
by "revelation."
Still, if your theory is
>true, I have to wonder why President Kimball waited five years.
Because the mounting combined pressures of the incidents which I've documented
had not occurred yet.
>> SWK may not have been 'scared' of Marchant, but Marchant had filed a
>civil
>> rights suit against him over the issue. When SWK rescinded the ban,
>Marchant dropped his lawsuit.
>So President Kimball ended the ban to get rid of a lawsuit for
>non-compliance with a quashed subpoena?
>Oh.
No, Kimball ended the ban because published reports of the president of the LDS
church being sued over the race issue, along with other recent events, made it
a wise decision to do so.
>> "The last three years have also seen repeated attempts by church
>dissidents to
>> subpoena Mormon leaders into court proceedings, with the central issue
>often
>> related to the church's beliefs about blacks."
>> (Salt Lake Tribune, June 10, 1978)
>Yes, it's called "abuse of process" or "judicial harassment."
Whatever you wish to call it, it worked.
>> >Incidentally, Marchant had claimed in his announcement that if the
>> >policy was changed, the protest would still go ahead as a
>celebration,
>> >so the policy change wouldn't have forestalled the demonstration
>> >*anyway*.
>> >So tell me again why that "crowning incident" exerted such a rush of
>> >pressure?
>> The chain of events speaks for itself.
>Rubbish. Nothing ever *really* speaks for itself,
You're certainly entitled to your opinion.
and if it did, it
>certainly wouldn't need you be its spokesman. Your intervention is
>necessary to make these trivial little events seem portentious, and to
>arrange them in such a way as to turn a few isolated and laughable
>incidents into a pattern of irresistible pressure.
That is for students of the events and issues to decide for themselves.
You asserted that the 1978 change was made in "very calm waters"; I pointed out
incidents which were occurring within the recent time frame of the rescission,
which any thinking person can decide for themselves whether or not they
influenced the decision.
Your attempts to minimize or downplay the incidents are strictly your opinion,
and does not refute the fact that those incidents were widely published and
commented on. You've not made a solitary statement to support your assertion
that the 1978 change was made in "very calm waters."
>Because here's the rub, Randy: the only way for these incidents to have
>really "forced the change," was if their effect really was nothing less
>than irresistible.
Students of the events and issues can decide for themselves if the combined
weight of those embarrassing, widely reported, recent events helped Kimball to
issue his rescission.
>> >Incidentally, a couple of conferences later, a half-dozen people
>showed
>> >up and cast negative votes. How did the Church respond to *that*
>> >"crowning incident?"
>> I don't know. I'm not familiar with that incident. But if the church
>treated
>> them as they did Marchant, they excommunicated them for expressing
>their
>> opinions. Mormons aren't allowed to do that, you know.
>You duck the issue.
How can I "duck the issue" if I haven't even heard of it?
Did this "crowning incident" embarrass the Church
>into making some other change?
Not being familiar with it, I have no idea. But I'll give you a hint: Larry
King asked GBH about the black/phd issue, and then he asked GBH if Mormon women
were ever going to get the phd. GBH's reply was (paraphrased) "There'd have to
be another revelation, and there's been no AGITATION for that happening."
In saying that, GBH, although he probably didn't realize it, admitted that
changes come in LDS policy when there's been "agitation" for it---IOW, protest,
or voluminous discussion and desire for change. The 1990 temple ceremony
changes are another excellent example of such changes---the temple changes were
made not because of "revelation", but because of both internal and external
pressures to make changes; and the changes that were made matched right down
the line with offensive portions of the ceremony which had been criticized.
>You see, Randy, your theory that "embarrassment" somehow "forced the
>change" can be easily tested, because other, similar incidents have
>occurred. Here are two more examples:
>1) At the last conference, a number of enlightened, liberal souls who
>evidently believe that Latter-day Saints don't deserve to attend Church
>meetings unmolested, decided to demonstrate loudly outside Temple Square
>over the Church's support of Prop. 22 in California. What change did
>this "force?"
Time will tell. I give it 10 years before the LDS church embraces gay
marriages. The protests have not yet been loud enough, nor have enough Mormons
voiced their opposition to the 'prophet' over the issue. But, like the 1890
Manifesto, the 1978 rescission, and the 1990 temple changes, you can bet your
bottom dollar that it's going to happen.
There's nothing as sure as change in the 'eternal, unchanging' church.
>2) Every time the Church opens a new temple, there is an open house
>before the dedication. These events are always picketed by groups of
>teeth-gnashing religious haters. Has the Church been "forced" to stop
>having temple open houses?
Noting your humorous characterization of "teeth-gnashing religious haters", in
spite of your claim to dislike such verbiage directed at yourself, I don't
endorse such action, but here's my take on it: The LDS church spends millions
of dollars on new temples and publicity associated with them, all designed to
attract potential converts. AFAIK, the protestors are exercising their free
speech rights to provide a responsible opposing viewpoint to Mormon claims and
conversion efforts. Since you and I know that the LDS church isn't going to
tell potential converts the truth about its dubious past and teachings, those
protestors feel that they have the right to do so---just as I have here on ARM.
IOW the protestors aren't there to "force the LDS church to stop having temple
open houses," they are there to let people know what they are getting into.
Apparently it works, because I regularly hear from people who have turned away
from Mormonism at least partly because of material they received and studied
from such protestors.
Of course, such protests have worked in the past; let's not forget about those
1990 temple ceremony changes.
>Snip to end
>
>Russell C. McGregor
Aw, you snipped out the part where I discussed "The Mormon Corporate Empire's"
documentation that the LDS church's paid PR reps advised them to end the black
ban. I was looking forward to quoting it again. Oh, well, maybe someone else
will ask for it.
Randy J.