14 who bucked "the Cowboy Way"
October 15, 2009 11:31 PM Subscribe
The airing of the upcoming PBS documentary Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons, will bring new attention to a protest event against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that raised important questions about free speech, the rights of student athletes, and the state of the Civil Rights Movement in the Mormon Church.
On October 17, 1969, 14 football players at the University of Wyoming were suspended for threatening to wear black armbands onto the field in an upcoming game against Brigham Young University. The squad members, who were known as the "Black 14," were protesting the the Mormon Church's exclusion of people of African descent from the priesthood.
Other student athletes whose teams were members of the Western Athletic Conference had refused to compete against Brigham Young that year, including eight Black track team members at the University of Texas, El Paso. Others, including athletes at San Jose State, would protest in support of the Black 14; protest later extended to the University of Washington.
This was not the earliest anti-LDS student-athlete protest, nor were athlete boycotts a totally new general protest tactic; in 1968, Black student athletes participated in 130 protest actions. But this case was one of the best-known, in part because of the civil lawsuit Williams v. Eaton, which alleged an infringement of the students' First Amendment Rights.
At Wyoming, the Black Student Alliance first publicized the idea of a boycott and protest of BYU on October 15; the group urged students and players to protest a matchup scheduled for three days later. Despite the warning of Coach Lloyd Eaton to each of the 14 that team rules prohibited participating in demonstrations or protests, they together decided to wear armbands as a sign of protests. In a meeting with Eaton on October 17, the day before the game, the coach berated them publicly, revoking their scholarships and suspending them. Eaton remembered the event as "simply a matter of discipline. Black or white, it didn't matter to me. They broke the rule and I told them they were no longer members of the team."
Yet Eaton, almost in the same breath, evoked conspiracy theory: "Why haven't we had a demonstration before? . . . we've had Negro players here since 1960. I'll tell you why. This is the first year the Black Student Alliance has been on campus. Now they're organized and ready to act. The WAC was picked because of Brigham Young. And we were picked as the trigger because of our rule against demonstrations. It all fits." And other accounts allege that Eaton told them to "shut up," and that without his team "they would be out on the streets hustling."
Game-day student protests (archival footage), a 17-1 vote in the student senate to support the players, and faculty support, which extended as far as 7 faculty members threatening resignation, were not strong enough to drown out Eaton's supporters, which included the University trustees and leadership. The 14, with the help of the NAACP, became plaintiffs in Williams v Eaton, a $1.1. million civil suit filed on October 29, 1969. The Federal District court, upheld on appeal, ruled against the players, arguing in support of Eaton's no-protest policy. A subsequent appeals decision, in 1972, ruled that their free speech rights had not been violated when Eaton and the University Trustees forbade armbands.
Eaton resigned in 1971, after the protests were accompanied by a wave of losses (and a worse season the following year). Ten of the 14 players graduated from college, and players Tony McGee was the best known of the four who went on to play football professionally.
The LDS Church would not allow blacks to ascend to priesthood until a 1978 Revelation received by President Kimball Spencer Kimball apparently extended the office through God's providence.
Other student athletes whose teams were members of the Western Athletic Conference had refused to compete against Brigham Young that year, including eight Black track team members at the University of Texas, El Paso. Others, including athletes at San Jose State, would protest in support of the Black 14; protest later extended to the University of Washington.
This was not the earliest anti-LDS student-athlete protest, nor were athlete boycotts a totally new general protest tactic; in 1968, Black student athletes participated in 130 protest actions. But this case was one of the best-known, in part because of the civil lawsuit Williams v. Eaton, which alleged an infringement of the students' First Amendment Rights.
At Wyoming, the Black Student Alliance first publicized the idea of a boycott and protest of BYU on October 15; the group urged students and players to protest a matchup scheduled for three days later. Despite the warning of Coach Lloyd Eaton to each of the 14 that team rules prohibited participating in demonstrations or protests, they together decided to wear armbands as a sign of protests. In a meeting with Eaton on October 17, the day before the game, the coach berated them publicly, revoking their scholarships and suspending them. Eaton remembered the event as "simply a matter of discipline. Black or white, it didn't matter to me. They broke the rule and I told them they were no longer members of the team."
Yet Eaton, almost in the same breath, evoked conspiracy theory: "Why haven't we had a demonstration before? . . . we've had Negro players here since 1960. I'll tell you why. This is the first year the Black Student Alliance has been on campus. Now they're organized and ready to act. The WAC was picked because of Brigham Young. And we were picked as the trigger because of our rule against demonstrations. It all fits." And other accounts allege that Eaton told them to "shut up," and that without his team "they would be out on the streets hustling."
Game-day student protests (archival footage), a 17-1 vote in the student senate to support the players, and faculty support, which extended as far as 7 faculty members threatening resignation, were not strong enough to drown out Eaton's supporters, which included the University trustees and leadership. The 14, with the help of the NAACP, became plaintiffs in Williams v Eaton, a $1.1. million civil suit filed on October 29, 1969. The Federal District court, upheld on appeal, ruled against the players, arguing in support of Eaton's no-protest policy. A subsequent appeals decision, in 1972, ruled that their free speech rights had not been violated when Eaton and the University Trustees forbade armbands.
Eaton resigned in 1971, after the protests were accompanied by a wave of losses (and a worse season the following year). Ten of the 14 players graduated from college, and players Tony McGee was the best known of the four who went on to play football professionally.
The LDS Church would not allow blacks to ascend to priesthood until a 1978 Revelation received by President Kimball Spencer Kimball apparently extended the office through God's providence.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- frimble
I would respect the LDS (or Roman Catholic Church, for that matter) more if they didn't receive revelations when it was socially propitious.
posted by phrontist at 12:27 AM on October 16, 2009 [12 favorites]
posted by phrontist at 12:27 AM on October 16, 2009 [12 favorites]
I've always maintained that the surest sign Mormonism is bullshit is how many times God's law has changed for the convenience of Salt Lake City.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:35 AM on October 16, 2009 [8 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:35 AM on October 16, 2009 [8 favorites]
Or yeah, what phrontist said.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:39 AM on October 16, 2009
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:39 AM on October 16, 2009
Better they receive them then, rather than not at all.
posted by ryanrs at 12:55 AM on October 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by ryanrs at 12:55 AM on October 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
College football is as reputable an industry as waste disposal. It's a fucking JOKE that the NFL gets to use the NCAA as a free farm league. I don't know anything about race and the LDS. But I'd LOVE to hear the stories of black guys who chose to play for BYU.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 1:27 AM on October 16, 2009
posted by BitterOldPunk at 1:27 AM on October 16, 2009
If I had to fight for the right to sit at the front of the bus, if I had to fight for the right to vote, or fight for equal employment or treatment under the law... the last thing I'd want to fight about would be the right to be Mormon.
posted by twoleftfeet at 1:56 AM on October 16, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by twoleftfeet at 1:56 AM on October 16, 2009 [5 favorites]
I would respect the LDS (or Roman Catholic Church, for that matter) more if they didn't receive revelations when it was socially propitious.
I've always maintained that the surest sign Mormonism is bullshit is how many times God's law has changed for the convenience of Salt Lake City.
What's interesting about Mormonism is that they believe that prophets are only human and can make mistakes in transcribing things from god. Which is convenient but at the same probably a lot more reasonable then religions that have fixed, ridged ideology. That's what I'd heard anyway, I don't know all the details.
The idea of having a flexible revelation has always been a part of Mormonism, as far as I know.
posted by delmoi at 3:43 AM on October 16, 2009
I've always maintained that the surest sign Mormonism is bullshit is how many times God's law has changed for the convenience of Salt Lake City.
What's interesting about Mormonism is that they believe that prophets are only human and can make mistakes in transcribing things from god. Which is convenient but at the same probably a lot more reasonable then religions that have fixed, ridged ideology. That's what I'd heard anyway, I don't know all the details.
The idea of having a flexible revelation has always been a part of Mormonism, as far as I know.
posted by delmoi at 3:43 AM on October 16, 2009
What's interesting about Mormonism is that they believe in the preachings of a huckster well after the advent of the age of Reason. There is at least something to be said for traditions passed down for thousands of years, but the founding of Mormonism sounds like a Scientology beta version, minus the IRS infiltration.
Actually, now that I remember the big kerfluffle they raised when Big Love revealed "temple secrets" earlier this year, the analogy seems to fit pretty well. They're not as litigious as Scientology, but religion and "secrets from the public" go like oil and water. I'm pretty sure most religions put everything up front and accessible to even non-believers.
posted by explosion at 4:05 AM on October 16, 2009 [4 favorites]
Actually, now that I remember the big kerfluffle they raised when Big Love revealed "temple secrets" earlier this year, the analogy seems to fit pretty well. They're not as litigious as Scientology, but religion and "secrets from the public" go like oil and water. I'm pretty sure most religions put everything up front and accessible to even non-believers.
posted by explosion at 4:05 AM on October 16, 2009 [4 favorites]
Seconding Wow. Thanks for your work liketitanic.
And for the record when I was volunteering in NO the Mormons showed up, a lot of them. Strangers taking their vacation to help and they didn't care what you believed. They just fixed things. I like people that practice what they preach.
posted by vapidave at 4:34 AM on October 16, 2009 [3 favorites]
And for the record when I was volunteering in NO the Mormons showed up, a lot of them. Strangers taking their vacation to help and they didn't care what you believed. They just fixed things. I like people that practice what they preach.
posted by vapidave at 4:34 AM on October 16, 2009 [3 favorites]
Yeah, they practice what they preach, all right. Especially in California.
posted by blucevalo at 5:06 AM on October 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by blucevalo at 5:06 AM on October 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've always maintained that the surest sign Mormonism is bullshit is
The magic underwear? The "God lives on planet Kolob" weirdness?
posted by DU at 5:26 AM on October 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
The magic underwear? The "God lives on planet Kolob" weirdness?
posted by DU at 5:26 AM on October 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
But I'd LOVE to hear the stories of black guys who chose to play for BYU.
Have you seen BYU's team? You may not have many opportunities.
posted by Atreides at 5:35 AM on October 16, 2009
Have you seen BYU's team? You may not have many opportunities.
posted by Atreides at 5:35 AM on October 16, 2009
"It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. The message was that the time had now..." to blah blah blah.
Right, so where are the unicorns?
posted by scottatdrake at 5:57 AM on October 16, 2009
Right, so where are the unicorns?
posted by scottatdrake at 5:57 AM on October 16, 2009
phrontist: I would respect the ... Roman Catholic Church ... more if they didn't receive revelations when it was socially propitious.
Example please.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 6:16 AM on October 16, 2009
Example please.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 6:16 AM on October 16, 2009
Odd, in 1969 the Texas Longhorns football team was the last year they were all white (I believe there was one black student on the team, but he didn't play the entire season). The were the last all-white team to win a championship (and probably one of the last all white teams in the nation). It sucks to be at a place that was so behind the times.
posted by djduckie at 6:23 AM on October 16, 2009
posted by djduckie at 6:23 AM on October 16, 2009
Yeah, they practice what they preach, all right. Especially in California.
I remember the Mormons getting most of the public hit when the vote came down, although it was the future Catholic Bishop of Oakland who was the main douchebag behind Prop 8.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 6:52 AM on October 16, 2009
I remember the Mormons getting most of the public hit when the vote came down, although it was the future Catholic Bishop of Oakland who was the main douchebag behind Prop 8.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 6:52 AM on October 16, 2009
I remember the Mormons getting most of the public hit when the vote came down, although it was the future Catholic Bishop of Oakland who was the main douchebag behind Prop 8.
I was just commenting on the proposition that Mormons "practice what they preach," but of course there's plenty of blame to go around. That Catholic bishops would be one of the main engines behind Prop 8 in a state where almost 30% of the population is Catholic comes as no surprise.
posted by blucevalo at 7:21 AM on October 16, 2009
I was just commenting on the proposition that Mormons "practice what they preach," but of course there's plenty of blame to go around. That Catholic bishops would be one of the main engines behind Prop 8 in a state where almost 30% of the population is Catholic comes as no surprise.
posted by blucevalo at 7:21 AM on October 16, 2009
"The idea of having a flexible revelation has always been a part of Mormonism, as far as I know."
Why does this sound the same as the all-powerful Wizard Oz?
posted by y6y6y6 at 7:59 AM on October 16, 2009
Why does this sound the same as the all-powerful Wizard Oz?
posted by y6y6y6 at 7:59 AM on October 16, 2009
What I've always failed to understand is why somebody would even want to be part of a church that told you you're less than human, let alone be a priest in it. It's the same with some of the christian denominations here in NL that still say women can't have any role in the church (or any form of management outside the church for that matter). But perhaps that's just me, I've never been part of a church, so I guess I just don't know what I'm missing..
posted by DreamerFi at 8:33 AM on October 16, 2009
posted by DreamerFi at 8:33 AM on October 16, 2009
I don't comment much, but this subject is very near and dear to my heart.
I get really annoyed with the changing revelations thing. To me, it's so sickening that people can't see how much bullshit that really is.
Yes, I said bullshit. I personally find it to be utter and total bullshit. I've studied it extensively, been baptized in an LDS church, my brother is a hardcore Mormon, his wife is a tenth generation Mormon. I've been a Mormon. (Full disclosure: Haven't been in a Mormon church in many years, occasionally will watch a General Conference out of fascination).
Polygamy is ordered straight from God~ until the government stepped in. (But it will be reinstated in the afterlife because it's an eternal principle, ha!)
Black people are cursed and can't hold the priesthood~ until...
and the list goes on and on and on.
I risk being branded an asshole, shit-stirrer, and a religious bigot to even say "X religion is bullshit". But I'm really not any of those things. I am painfully aware of how believing in a God and having a church can be a source of strength and comfort. When I lost my faith, it hurt me so deeply, I cried for months, and I'm still a little melancholy about it.
For me to come out of lurkerdom to say something that I know comes across to members of the LDS faith as a complete insult to their intelligence goes completely against my grain, but I have to say this:
Changing revelation is a total crock of bubbling shit.
I could link a thousand pages. Any cursory -objective- Googling of Joseph Smith and the LDS church makes the whole house of cards fall. I hate to be lied to. I hate it when other people are lied to. To be lied to is a breach of trust. People are putting their trust into something that isn't trustworthy. That bothers me.
To be slightly more on topic, my husband is African American and both my parents were not allowed to be at my only brother's wedding~because they did not hold a Temple Recommend.
Bullshit heaped upon bullshit, all in the name of a peculiar brand of religion.
I sincerely apologize to those Mefites who are Mormons. It's not you I have a bone to pick with, it's Joseph Smith. But I can't dig him up out of the grave, much as I'd like to.
posted by Grlnxtdr at 8:48 AM on October 16, 2009 [8 favorites]
I get really annoyed with the changing revelations thing. To me, it's so sickening that people can't see how much bullshit that really is.
Yes, I said bullshit. I personally find it to be utter and total bullshit. I've studied it extensively, been baptized in an LDS church, my brother is a hardcore Mormon, his wife is a tenth generation Mormon. I've been a Mormon. (Full disclosure: Haven't been in a Mormon church in many years, occasionally will watch a General Conference out of fascination).
Polygamy is ordered straight from God~ until the government stepped in. (But it will be reinstated in the afterlife because it's an eternal principle, ha!)
Black people are cursed and can't hold the priesthood~ until...
and the list goes on and on and on.
I risk being branded an asshole, shit-stirrer, and a religious bigot to even say "X religion is bullshit". But I'm really not any of those things. I am painfully aware of how believing in a God and having a church can be a source of strength and comfort. When I lost my faith, it hurt me so deeply, I cried for months, and I'm still a little melancholy about it.
For me to come out of lurkerdom to say something that I know comes across to members of the LDS faith as a complete insult to their intelligence goes completely against my grain, but I have to say this:
Changing revelation is a total crock of bubbling shit.
I could link a thousand pages. Any cursory -objective- Googling of Joseph Smith and the LDS church makes the whole house of cards fall. I hate to be lied to. I hate it when other people are lied to. To be lied to is a breach of trust. People are putting their trust into something that isn't trustworthy. That bothers me.
To be slightly more on topic, my husband is African American and both my parents were not allowed to be at my only brother's wedding~because they did not hold a Temple Recommend.
Bullshit heaped upon bullshit, all in the name of a peculiar brand of religion.
I sincerely apologize to those Mefites who are Mormons. It's not you I have a bone to pick with, it's Joseph Smith. But I can't dig him up out of the grave, much as I'd like to.
posted by Grlnxtdr at 8:48 AM on October 16, 2009 [8 favorites]
Again, I am so sorry to those who I know would be offended by my little tirade. My family has been affected by these arbitrary revelations.
posted by Grlnxtdr at 9:07 AM on October 16, 2009
posted by Grlnxtdr at 9:07 AM on October 16, 2009
I've always maintained that the surest sign Mormonism is bullshit is how many times God's law has changed for the convenience of Salt Lake City.
The LDS Church is at such a marketing disadvantage when it comes to this type of thing. Whereas Protestants can simply slip in an alternative interpretation of scripture almost under the radar, and fight it out among their own ranks ("This interpretation is correct."/"No, that interpretation is correct."), Mormon leadership must characterize rule changes as new revelation from directly God.
posted by Meg_Murry at 9:10 AM on October 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
The LDS Church is at such a marketing disadvantage when it comes to this type of thing. Whereas Protestants can simply slip in an alternative interpretation of scripture almost under the radar, and fight it out among their own ranks ("This interpretation is correct."/"No, that interpretation is correct."), Mormon leadership must characterize rule changes as new revelation from directly God.
posted by Meg_Murry at 9:10 AM on October 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
From my experience talking to Mormons, most of them seem to know it's a crock of shit and mostly appreciate the community.
posted by empath at 10:53 AM on October 16, 2009
posted by empath at 10:53 AM on October 16, 2009
I would respect the LDS (or Roman Catholic Church, for that matter) more if they didn't receive revelations when it was socially propitious.
One of the important (though there are many) differences between the LDS Church and the Roman Catholic Church (and between the LDS and the rest of what is called historic Christian orthodoxy) is precisely that the Catholics hold that no new universally binding revelation has been received since the death of the last Apostle.
posted by Jahaza at 11:17 AM on October 16, 2009
One of the important (though there are many) differences between the LDS Church and the Roman Catholic Church (and between the LDS and the rest of what is called historic Christian orthodoxy) is precisely that the Catholics hold that no new universally binding revelation has been received since the death of the last Apostle.
posted by Jahaza at 11:17 AM on October 16, 2009
Empath: I think your experiences have been with very atypical Mormons. Most people wouldn't follow rules like "no drinking," "no coffee," "no facial hair," "no homo," "spend one/two years of your life preaching in a foreign country," "have tons of babies," etc just for the community.
posted by arcticwoman at 11:21 AM on October 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by arcticwoman at 11:21 AM on October 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
prophets are only human and can make mistakes in transcribing things from god
Why would an omnipotent and omniscient deity choose to make its wishes known through such fallible means?
posted by minimii at 5:44 PM on October 16, 2009
Why would an omnipotent and omniscient deity choose to make its wishes known through such fallible means?
posted by minimii at 5:44 PM on October 16, 2009
just for the community.
I think you'd be surprised -- by 'crock of shit', i mean I think they know that the history is phony, but that the lifestyle works for them. Though the folks that I know that are mormons are converts and weren't raised in it.
posted by empath at 6:52 PM on October 16, 2009
I think you'd be surprised -- by 'crock of shit', i mean I think they know that the history is phony, but that the lifestyle works for them. Though the folks that I know that are mormons are converts and weren't raised in it.
posted by empath at 6:52 PM on October 16, 2009
(well, plus my dad's side of the family, but they actually left the church when they moved away from utah)
posted by empath at 6:52 PM on October 16, 2009
posted by empath at 6:52 PM on October 16, 2009
Most people wouldn't follow rules like "no drinking," "no coffee," "no facial hair," "no homo," "spend one/two years of your life preaching in a foreign country," "have tons of babies," etc just for the community.
I'm not Mormon, but I married an ex-Mormon, and live in Mormon country so bitching about Mormonism is one of my hobbies. I also have passel of Mormon in-laws, some of whom have become good friends.
it is pretty damn demanding community, with very narrow definitions of proper behavior (just how narrow varies a bit geographically) and lots of rules. But there are high stakes for rejection. Openly leaving "the Church" risks alienating your family and friends. It's also piled onto you pretty fast, with a foreign mission after high school as a rite of passage for men and early marriage the norm. If you follow the program, and there is very strong pressure to do so, you're married and have multiple kids by the time you're 25. Leaving at this point means risking your marriage and your relationship with your children. So I think some people do conform, even if they don't believe every crazy thing the heirarchy throws at them.
posted by gamera at 7:04 PM on October 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm not Mormon, but I married an ex-Mormon, and live in Mormon country so bitching about Mormonism is one of my hobbies. I also have passel of Mormon in-laws, some of whom have become good friends.
it is pretty damn demanding community, with very narrow definitions of proper behavior (just how narrow varies a bit geographically) and lots of rules. But there are high stakes for rejection. Openly leaving "the Church" risks alienating your family and friends. It's also piled onto you pretty fast, with a foreign mission after high school as a rite of passage for men and early marriage the norm. If you follow the program, and there is very strong pressure to do so, you're married and have multiple kids by the time you're 25. Leaving at this point means risking your marriage and your relationship with your children. So I think some people do conform, even if they don't believe every crazy thing the heirarchy throws at them.
posted by gamera at 7:04 PM on October 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
l33tpolicywonk: It is apparently a more contentious issue than I realized, but the catholic church didn't have a such a great record on slavery for much of it's history. More clear cut, and I'm sure you weren't expecting this, there was the matter of the Spanish Inquisition and other anti-jewish activities. Less seriously there was the church's defense of Aristotlean metaphysics, of which the whole galileo thing can be seen as a manifestation.
posted by phrontist at 10:38 PM on October 16, 2009
posted by phrontist at 10:38 PM on October 16, 2009
prophets are only human and can make mistakes in transcribing things from god
Why would an omnipotent and omniscient deity choose to make its wishes known through such fallible means?
Comes way down the list from such hoary old chestnuts as "Why would a just and loving deity allow $INSERT_EVIL_HERE?"
posted by rodgerd at 12:30 AM on October 17, 2009 [1 favorite]
Why would an omnipotent and omniscient deity choose to make its wishes known through such fallible means?
Comes way down the list from such hoary old chestnuts as "Why would a just and loving deity allow $INSERT_EVIL_HERE?"
posted by rodgerd at 12:30 AM on October 17, 2009 [1 favorite]
phrontist: pretty sure that none of those issues were based upon revelations, nor were they replaced by alternative, socially convenient revelations.
In fact, to quote one of the links that you cite in your own support:
"The Church is not anti-scientific. It has supported scientific endeavors for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding."
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:36 AM on October 17, 2009
In fact, to quote one of the links that you cite in your own support:
"The Church is not anti-scientific. It has supported scientific endeavors for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding."
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:36 AM on October 17, 2009
Well hell, that makes it so.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:37 AM on October 17, 2009
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:37 AM on October 17, 2009
No, really rodgerd, if you know, please tell me why.
Why would a loving and just God allow a 5 year old child to be raped and tortured by some disgusting monster, but if he repents and asks Jesus (with sincerity and gusto) for forgiveness, everything is just hunky dory?
How can God intervene for some (in the form of answered prayers) but not others?
Never mind, I know the answer.
Mormon Church (and you too, God), be sure not to send any missionaries to my door, because your religion will be put on blast.
posted by Grlnxtdr at 6:39 AM on October 17, 2009
Why would a loving and just God allow a 5 year old child to be raped and tortured by some disgusting monster, but if he repents and asks Jesus (with sincerity and gusto) for forgiveness, everything is just hunky dory?
How can God intervene for some (in the form of answered prayers) but not others?
Never mind, I know the answer.
Mormon Church (and you too, God), be sure not to send any missionaries to my door, because your religion will be put on blast.
posted by Grlnxtdr at 6:39 AM on October 17, 2009
Read further Peter:
Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other documents, Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the "sensible demonstrations" needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully.
Justifying the church's opposition to Galileo's theory on the grounds that it wasn't in keeping with the church's favored Aristotlean tradition is bizzare. It amounts to little more than "Galileo disagreed with the church on one matter, and he was wrong to do so because he did not operate within the wrongly adopted framework of the church for these matters".
You're right in that these religious groups didn't always explictly appeal to revelations. But on what other grounds would their authority be justified than privileged access to the divine? When the church takes a stand as radical as systematically persecuting Jews, they weren't doing it on a lark - they were on a mission from God.
posted by phrontist at 12:05 AM on October 18, 2009
Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other documents, Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the "sensible demonstrations" needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully.
Justifying the church's opposition to Galileo's theory on the grounds that it wasn't in keeping with the church's favored Aristotlean tradition is bizzare. It amounts to little more than "Galileo disagreed with the church on one matter, and he was wrong to do so because he did not operate within the wrongly adopted framework of the church for these matters".
You're right in that these religious groups didn't always explictly appeal to revelations. But on what other grounds would their authority be justified than privileged access to the divine? When the church takes a stand as radical as systematically persecuting Jews, they weren't doing it on a lark - they were on a mission from God.
posted by phrontist at 12:05 AM on October 18, 2009
Grlnxtdr, I've come to the conclusion the prayer can't matter to an omnipotent god -- if he knows what you want and need, you don't need to ask for it first for him to help you out. I think it may be helpful for the person praying, but I don't think it makes sense that prayer is necessary for god's intercession.
posted by garlic at 1:49 PM on November 5, 2009
posted by garlic at 1:49 PM on November 5, 2009
« Older Scream Dracula Scream | Diplomacy by brooch Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Also: DVR set.
posted by Artw at 12:06 AM on October 16, 2009