Bill Maher's MAD brouhaha

[_Seven]

Take a look at the first section I bolded. It seems to me that the slavery Brigham Young is referring to here is not slavery in heaven, but the slavery which was existing during that particular time.

Also...take a look at the second bolded section. He is still being consistent about black people receiving the fullness of the blessings of the Priesthood, but it would happen after all of the descendents of Adam received their blessings.

I still think that Brigham Young was racist to a large degree...but I think this bigotry was a bi-product of the times. I'm not saying it was right. I'm just making an observation.

I don't, however, see anything here which indicates that Brigham Young actively taught that the only way a black person could enter heaven was as a servant. It looks like he was misquoted, or misunderstood.

Therefore, yes, I would have to respectfully disagree with your position on this one.

Brigham Young may not have been responsible for the actual quote, but my understanding is that Mark E. Peterson is:

If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.

This was from an address at BYU in 1954 (I watched the clip a little bit ago, but I thought Maher said this was a church teaching from 50 years ago, so maybe this is what he was referring to?). So yeah, they can go to heaven, but only as servants.

I listened to the clip yesterday and I bet that is the quote he is referring to. "Slave" or "servant" is the same thing when talking about a person not achieving exaltation and ministering to the more faithful for eternity. This was pointed out on the MAD thread by somebody.

I didn't hear anything from Bill Maher that was incorrect on Mormonism in that segment. He was bashing all religion. I usually don't care for the man, but he makes good points about religion in general. He does not support good morals and values, and this is why I don't watch his show. I could care less if he believes in Jesus or God, but when he rips apart values like fidelity, chastity, etc. I stop listening to him.

[_why me]

I think it’s a good thing I left MAD when I did. Obviously the blowback from the latest episode of hysteria and bad behavior, largely on the part of believers, is to crack down on critics. As a mod just stated on zak’s thread that continued the one I was reading with much amusement, when a poster pointed out the biased moderating on the thread:

Why me takes the hilarity to a new level, by actually suggesting (wait for it…) that the removal of the priesthood ban CAUSED an improvement in race relations in the US.

why me

When I look at the African issue and the church I can come to a couple of conclusions. First, when the brethern spoke on this issue, and related their opinion or doctrine about the plight of the african in american society and in the world it seems that they were trying to make sense of it all. And they gave it a good attempt at doing so. Second, their attempt was well formulated and well thought out when one considers the curse of cain and being less valiant in the preexistence understandings. Third, when the african did receive the priesthood blessings, there seemed to be shift in just how americans and the world began to see the african. And I find that quite a coincidence. And african americans have come a long way from slavery but much still needs to be improved.

It is easy now to see the former church leaders world from our times but their world was different from ours. And yet, can anyone deny that when the church gave the african the priesthood and granted him the blessings of the priesthood, the world began to see the african differently? I think so, especially in America.

Also, although the brethern's views would not be popular today, can I claim that they were wrong with their interpretation? I can't say so. But then I can't say that I agree with them either. But I do know that they tried to make sense of it. They saw the plight of the african and put it to doctine or to opinion and it was a noble attempt. But were they right or were they wrong?

I am just questioning here and nothing more and I make no statement of belief.

why me

The problem is as I see it, is that critics will pull something out of hat and suddenly the LDS need to feel sorrow or shame. But I don't see it that way. One can never convince a person deep in secularism or with a closed heart. But the church at that time made an interpretation about why the african were experiencing problems in societies. And it was a bold interpretation. And at that time, it did make sense to many people. Were they wrong with the cain doctrine or with less valiant theory. Perhaps...but perhaps not. I have no idea. But at least the LDS church made an attempt at interpretation for the times it found itself in.

Easy to judge from the standpoint of years ahead. But...it doesn't get to the heart of the issue. And when the ban was lifted, it does seem that the situation of american blacks began to improve in american society and also in south african society...the two most prejudiced societies on earth at that time.

I am glad that you found amusement in my MAD posts but if you would notice the thread, no critic actually refuted my argument. A couple made a good attempt but they did not succeed. I held my own. Considering that slavery began in America in 1619 and continued into the early 1970's, at least in bigotry and prejudice, I can say that after the lifting of the ban, the movement of african-americans into the mainstream of american society moved at a quick pace. A coincidence? Perhaps, but who knows? And the movement to free the south african gained momentum and until finally liberation was achieved. Coincidence? Perhaps. But again who knows?

[_Runtu]

I am glad that you found amusement in my MAD posts but if you would notice the thread, no critic actually refuted my argument. A couple made a good attempt but they did not succeed. I held my own. Considering that slavery began in America in 1619 and continued into the early 1970's, at least in bigotry and prejudice, I can say that after the lifting of the ban, the movement of african-americans into the mainstream of american society moved at a quick pace. A coincidence? Perhaps, but who knows? And the movement to free the south african gained momentum and until finally liberation was achieved. Coincidence? Perhaps. But again who knows?

No offense, but I'm not sure how the church's moving toward more racial tolerance after most of the rest of the world had done so was any kind of causative influence. That would be like saying that the adoption of the halogen headlight in the 1990s was influential in Edison's invention of the incandescent bulb.

[_Yoda]

Also, although the brethern's views would not be popular today, can I claim that they were wrong with their interpretation? I can't say so. But then I can't say that I agree with them either. But I do know that they tried to make sense of it. They saw the plight of the african and put it to doctine or to opinion and it was a noble attempt. But were they right or were they wrong?

Actually, Why Me, your statement here follows along the lines of the discussion Jersey Girl and I were having last night. Scroll back a couple of pages, and you'll see the references to quotes from Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses on the Redemption of Cain.

My view is that yes, Brigham Young, and other early Church leaders were racist. However, I think that their racism was born out of ignorance due to the culture of the times they lived in rather than true mean-spiritedness.

And yes, a lot of their theories about the African American race in general were way out in left field. However, as you said, I think this was their attempt at trying to make sense out of all of it.

One thing which critics of the Church seem to forget is that the Journal of Discourses is NOT LDS canon. It is NOT considered doctrine. And, frankly, it's not considered doctrine for good reason. There's a lot of whacky stuff in there. There is also a tendancey to pull quotes from the JOD out of context.

[_harmony]

Considering that slavery began in America in 1619 and continued into the early 1970's, at least in bigotry and prejudice, I can say that after the lifting of the ban, the movement of african-americans into the mainstream of american society moved at a quick pace. A coincidence? Perhaps, but who knows? And the movement to free the south african gained momentum and until finally liberation was achieved. Coincidence? Perhaps. But again who knows?

#1. Slavery ended at the end of the Civil War. After that, no one legally owned another human being. Labeling prejudice and bigotry as slavery is a slap to those who really were slaves, and to those who gave their lives in order to be free. Call it what is it, not what it is not.

#2. The movement occured prior to 1978. The LDS church was a johnny-come-lately to the movement. No LDS prophet marched with Dr King. No LDS apostle stood shoulder to shoulder with those who stood up for those who could not. No LDS prophet or leader spoke publically in support of Rosa Parks. Our conspicuous absence was uncomfortable for many of us, and should be a source of shame for us all still today.

#3. We as LDS people and leaders had so little to do with the lifting of Apartheid as to be a non-starter. We simply had nothing to do with it. Claiming responsibility for something we had nothing to do with is the sign of a pretender.

[_why me]

Considering that slavery began in America in 1619 and continued into the early 1970's, at least in bigotry and prejudice, I can say that after the lifting of the ban, the movement of african-americans into the mainstream of american society moved at a quick pace. A coincidence? Perhaps, but who knows? And the movement to free the south african gained momentum and until finally liberation was achieved. Coincidence? Perhaps. But again who knows?

#1. Slavery ended at the end of the Civil War. After that, no one legally owned another human being. Labeling prejudice and bigotry as slavery is a slap to those who really were slaves, and to those who gave their lives in order to be free. Call it what is it, not what it is not.

#2. The movement occured prior to 1978. The LDS church was a johnny-come-lately to the movement. No LDS prophet marched with Dr King. No LDS apostle stood shoulder to shoulder with those who stood up for those who could not. No LDS prophet or leader spoke publically in support of Rosa Parks. Our conspicuous absence was uncomfortable for many of us, and should be a source of shame for us all still today.

#3. We as LDS people and leaders had so little to do with the lifting of Apartheid as to be a non-starter. We simply had nothing to do with it. Claiming responsibility for something we had nothing to do with is the sign of a pretender.

Technically slavery ended after the civil war, however, in the south, slavery still continued in the form of sharecropping and jim crow laws. I tried to imply in my last post that slavery was not actual but implied after the official ending of slavery. And I can't say that the LDS were johnny come latelys to it all since many words by the GA's also had wonderful words for the african.

But I do know that the pace picked up speed after the lifting of the ban and race relations began to improve greatly. No I can't say that the LDS church had an effect on south africa, however, the lifting of the ban included various blessings that the african would receive and that could tie in to apatheid and the fast pace of change in that area as well. Yes, you are right about civil rights marches but that wasn't my point either. I am referring to the blessings that the african would receive with the lifting of the ban and blessings certainly came. In other words, god had everything to do with it.

[_why me]

Also, although the brethern's views would not be popular today, can I claim that they were wrong with their interpretation? I can't say so. But then I can't say that I agree with them either. But I do know that they tried to make sense of it. They saw the plight of the african and put it to doctine or to opinion and it was a noble attempt. But were they right or were they wrong?

Actually, Why Me, your statement here follows along the lines of the discussion Jersey Girl and I were having last night. Scroll back a couple of pages, and you'll see the references to quotes from Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses on the Redemption of Cain.

My view is that yes, Brigham Young, and other early Church leaders were racist. However, I think that their racism was born out of ignorance due to the culture of the times they lived in rather than true mean-spiritedness.

And yes, a lot of their theories about the African American race in general were way out in left field. However, as you said, I think this was their attempt at trying to make sense out of all of it.

One thing which critics of the Church seem to forget is that the Journal of Discourses is NOT LDS canon. It is NOT considered doctrine. And, frankly, it's not considered doctrine for good reason. There's a lot of whacky stuff in there. There is also a tendancey to pull quotes from the JOD out of context.

The problem Liz is that the critics pick and chose their apples very carefully when it comes to quoting the former and present GA's. And this is why their argument does not go very far with the MAD people. Of course, one can find this statement and that statement but I have to say, that I have found the LDS people to be the least racist of the people that I have met in the 1970's. I never heard a racist comment from one of them. But that doesn't mean that there are no prejudiced people in the LDS church before and now. But still, during my YA days in NYC in the 1970's, I never heard a prejudiced comment and all were hoping for the lifting of the ban. And tears were shed when the ban was lifted.

And we must remember that the LDS church is now growing in africa, perhaps not that fast but there are african members who have accepted the LDS church as the true church and needless to say Gladys Knight is also a member. For many of these african members the spirit has been felt and everything else just falls into place.

But the critic cannot pick those apples....it would tarnish their understandings. But LDS people can and LDS people can also come to grips with the wordings of speeches from the past as you have done. The point: the LDS church always meant well about the african and in practice they were accepted as members and sat with other LDS members in the same chapel and in the same pews. They were brothers and sisters.

[_harmony]

Technically slavery ended after the civil war, however, in the south, slavery still continued in the form of sharecropping and jim crow laws. I tried to imply in my last post that slavery was not actual but implied after the official ending of slavery. And I can't say that the LDS were johnny come latelys to it all since many words by the GA's also had wonderful words for the african.

Then call it what it was: sharecropping and jim crow laws. It wasn't slavery. I'm not sure I'm communicating what I'm getting at very well: prior to the Civil War, a man could legally own another man. That legal action was slavery. After the Civil War, a man could no longer own another man, so... no slavery. Sharecropping, jim crow laws, prejudice, discrimination... all the aftermath of slavery were not slavery. To say they were is to lightly treat of what slavery really was and is. It's trying to make slavery less than what it really was.

But I do know that the pace picked up speed after the lifting of the ban and race relations began to improve greatly. No I can't say that the LDS church had an effect on south africa, however, the lifting of the ban included various blessings that the african would receive and that could tie in to apatheid and the fast pace of change in that area as well. Yes, you are right about civil rights marches but that wasn't my point either. I am referring to the blessings that the african would receive with the lifting of the ban and blessings certainly came. In other words, god had everything to do with it.

God, yes. The LDS church, no. Try to not confuse the two.

[_beastie]

Why Me,

How old are you? I know that, according to the MADders, this is an extraordinarily offensive question that is designed for ad hom purposes only, so I will explain why I ask.

Also, what region of the US do you live in, if you live in the US?

I am old enough (almost 50) to remember the revocation of the priesthood ban very well, and the climate that preceded that action in the US. I also live in the south, with a front row seat to much of this particular action. I attended high school in a school that had only been desegregated within the previous decade.

I'm going to guess two things - anyone who imagines that the LDS revocation of the priesthood ban was some sort of "trend setter" that helped heal the racial divide in this country is either far too young to fully appreciate what was going on, or lives in a part of the country that wasn't directly involved in much of this action.

The LDS church was behind the trend, why me, not in the front. The LDS church was being protested due to the fact that they were BEHIND the trend, clinging to a past tradition that most of the rest of the country now found offensive. Any healing that happened in the US most assuredly had NOTHING to do with an uber conservative white church finally getting a little clue, and EVERYTHING to do with all the events that long preceded the LDS church's late clue.

[_Mister Scratch]

Why Me,

How old are you? I know that, according to the MADders, this is an extraordinarily offensive question that is designed for ad hom purposes only, so I will explain why I ask.

Also, what region of the US do you live in, if you live in the US?

I am old enough (almost 50) to remember the revocation of the priesthood ban very well, and the climate that preceded that action in the US. I also live in the south, with a front row seat to much of this particular action. I attended high school in a school that had only been desegregated within the previous decade.

I'm going to guess two things - anyone who imagines that the LDS revocation of the priesthood ban was some sort of "trend setter" that helped heal the racial divide in this country is either far too young to fully appreciate what was going on, or lives in a part of the country that wasn't directly involved in much of this action.

The LDS church was behind the trend, why me, not in the front. The LDS church was being protested due to the fact that they were BEHIND the trend, clinging to a past tradition that most of the rest of the country now found offensive. Any healing that happened in the US most assuredly had NOTHING to do with an uber conservative white church finally getting a little clue, and EVERYTHING to do with all the events that long preceded the LDS church's late clue.

I think one of the problems with the stereotypical (and grossly under-informed) TBM view on the lifting of the ban has to do with the naïve belief that the lifting arose merely out of "revelation," which simply doesn't fit the historical facts. The real truth of the matter is that the ban was lifted at least partially due to historical circumstance---lawsuits, social pressure, incursions of the Church into areas with significant African-derived populations. In fact, I recall reading a post by Rollo in which he noted that he'd read an anecdote in the Church News telling how Pres. Kimball actually requested that HF lift the ban. The bottom line, I think, is that the continual insistence within the Church that the lifting came from "revelation" helps to obscure the historical facts.