Comments on: BYU Religion Made Me Puke

By: Juvenile Instructor » Revisiting: “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview”

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:10:33 +0000

[...] ban. Despite succeeding in pushing the ban’s dating back two years, Esplin also discovered a crucial 1847 letter (see comment 16) that revealed that Young did not consider Blacks ineligible for the priesthood. [...]

By: Juvenile Instructor » Teaching About the Priesthood Ban and Official Declaration 2 in Sunday School

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 01:43:36 +0000

[...] BYU Religion Made Me Puke [BTW, has BYU-TV indeed gotten rid of that episode?? Some follow up?] [...]

By: Juvenile Instructor » From the Archives: Posts You Might Have Missed, June-August 2008

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:25:58 +0000

[...] BYU Religion Made Me Puke (With an astounding 290 comments) [...]

By: Juvenile Instructor » The Juvenile Instructor Turns 1

Juvenile Instructor » The Juvenile Instructor Turns 1 — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 02:25:11 +0000

[...] the last year, we have (thanks to J. Stapley) updated the blog’s layout, generated some mild controversy, been the object of criticism from more “orthodox and mainstream” bloggers, and even [...]

By: David G.

David G. — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:01:32 +0000

Ardis, I agree that it’s been a fun thread. Although most have been calm and courteous, we have had to ban at least one commenter because of statements made here. I’m glad that we were able to get (maybe) a statement from Millet that essentially confirms our suspicions. For now, I’ll be closing the comments again so as not to attract new flies.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:19:58 +0000

You know, usually when a thread goes over 100 comments and people start reinterpreting what was said earlier, discussion degenerates to “But you said!” and “No, I didn’t!” and gets nasty fast. May I just say what a pleasure most of this discussion has been — maybe it’s an unpleasant topic, but people have been remarkably calm and courteous. Thanks for your share in that, Randy B.

By: Randy B.

Randy B. — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:04:19 +0000

That’s actually quite helpful, Ardis. In that light, my comment in #174 more properly addresses not your ultimate conclusion but instead one of the conflicting beliefs you’ve identified, namely that the priesthood ban could not have been a “simple ‘mistake’” as God would have intervened if that were the case. While we (it would appear) have different views on that more narrow issue, SC is plainly right that none of us is in a position to authoritatively declare that we “know” the answer to this puzzle.

By: SC Taysom

SC Taysom — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:12:54 +0000

Ardis wrote

I don’t know the origin or reason for the ban

In my humble opinion, everyone who has a view on this subject may be divided into one of two groups: those who don’t know the origin of and reason for the ban and those who refuse to admit that they don’t know.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:40:44 +0000

What you’re missing is that I’m struggling to reconcile conflicting beliefs. I reject the facile dismissal of Brigham Young as a racist as adequately explaining anything, but I don’t have a better explanation to offer. I have outlined some of the conflicting beliefs which I’m trying to reconcile — please don’t extrapolate from that outline anything so solid as “therefore, you are claiming that …” because I’m not claiming anything! That’s pretty much my entire point: I don’t know the origin or reason for the ban, and nothing that scholarship has suggested is satisfactory to me because no piece of scholarship has addressed all of my objections.

By: Randy B.

Randy B. — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:06:39 +0000

Looking back, you are right to object to my use of the word “proves”. You certainly did not make that bold of a statement.

Beyond that, having re-read #135 and 283 several times now, I can only conclude that I must be missing your intent somehow. Though I’m still curious, I won’t press further. Another time, perhaps.