Mark Maguire?

Rocker launched a 'Speak English' campaign, t shirts included. He said a trip to Miami frustrated him. "I went to a Starbucks, tried to simply order coffee. The person was literally insisting I order my coffee in spanish. I was like 'I could do it', but I'm not going to."

Setting aside the bizarre way that Starbucks likes to use an imprecise measure of height for its 'small', the Italian/French/Spanish/etc word for 'large' for its medium, and the Italian for '20' for it's large...

Stupid people endlessly amuse me...

And the Cecil -- McLain -- Rocker trifecta is complete.

Mark Maguire?

Presumably the fault of the transcriber -- not that I'm betting any money that Rocker would spell it correctly either.

Stupid people endlessly amuse me...

I've never been to a Starbucks anywhere in Miami where the people behind the counter didn't speak English. Not that I'd spend too much time at a Starbucks down there, since ordering anything other than a proper Cafe Cubano in Miami seems like a waste of time to me.

It's the last sentence of the bit zonk quoted that makes me smile. It's not actually all that ridiculous to assume that Rocker knows enough Spanish to order a cup of coffee; he played with a lot of Hispanic teammates over the years, and it's not like "Small black coffee" is a terribly complicated phrase. But I get a kick out of the idea of "John Rocker, World Traveler." Like, he's fluent in over a dozen languages, but out of sheer principle he refuses to speak them save in their country of origin. And he only speaks Latin when he communes at night with Cicero.

Setting aside the bizarre way that Starbucks likes to use an imprecise measure of height for its 'small', the Italian/French/Spanish/etc word for 'large' for its medium, and the Italian for '20' for it's large...

That always threw me off as well. Where I used to work we had a little Starbucks shop and every so often it would get really slammed and I would lend a hand. Apparently Starbuck customers have been well-trained because most of them do not order "large" "medium" "small" they use Starbucks' words for large, medium, small and I could never get it through my head that their small was meant large in Italian/Spanish.

If you want a freakin small cup of coffee then ask for a small cup of coffee. A large cup of coffee doesn't taste better because you called it "vente".

I never put two and two together until just now, but it's funny that Pearlman is the guy who wrote the article that portrayed Rocker as a homophobe. Pearlman spent about three pages of his book about the Dallas Cowboys on a bizarre non sequitur ramble about how some people thought maybe Troy Aikman was gay.

Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

I've spent a lot of time in Miami in my lifetime. It certainly is beneficial if you can speak Spanish but like Yankee Redneck I have never encountered someone who wouldn't speak English.

I've never been to a Starbucks anywhere in Miami where the people behind the counter didn't speak English. Not that I'd spend too much time at a Starbucks down there, since ordering anything other than a proper Cafe Cubano in Miami seems like a waste of time to me.

Just to clarify --

My suspicion was that Rocker objects to being forced to respond to "Grande" and "Venti" -- which is more about Starbucks' branding than it is "insisting I order in Spanish". I have very little doubt that the barista (oh noes!) probably said "grande or venti" back to him, and thus annoyed him... but really, it all goes back to the fact if you order a "large coffee" -- the 'large' is technically the 'grande', which is in fact Starbuck's middle size. Hence, as someone who frequents the place -- I know for a fact that ordinarily, they'll usually try to pin you into using their lingo... but again, it's all about 'branding'--- and not actually giving you a 'grande(/large)' then have you ask why yours is middle size, not some cabal against Rocker's provincialism.

I long ago gave up the S/M/L ordering paradigm because no such scale exists anywhere any more... It's no different than any fastfood drive through - where one can say "large" and then be informed that "large" really means medium and having to the dance of "do you mean extra large, super really extra large, or the Big Gulp/whatever".

If Rocker wants to start a movement whereby the government mandates that all establishments use a standardized system of "Small/Medium/Large", with perhaps an optional "Extra large" -- I might well be down with that...

Rocker launched a 'Speak English' campaign, t shirts included.

I completely agree with Rocker on this one as I do with the Texas Governor who opposed bilingual education and was supposed to have said:

“If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for Texas.”

Pretty sure grande/venti/trenta is faux-Italian, not faux-Spanish.

Also, Texas should change its official language to Aramaic.

Setting aside the bizarre way that Starbucks likes to use an imprecise measure of height for its 'small', the Italian/French/Spanish/etc word for 'large' for its medium, and the Italian for '20' for it's large...

IIRC, when Starbucks first started out, their sizes were "Short", "Tall", and "Grande". At some point, they ditched the short, and created a size larger than grande. It's not like they started out making tall the smallest, and Grande the medium, it just sort of evolved that way, sort of how the Los Angeles basketball team is the Lakers and the Salt Lake City one is the Jazz.

edit: and the two sizes larger than Grande, Venti and Tentra, Italian for 20 and 30, are 20 and 30 ounces respectively.

it just sort of evolved that way, sort of how the Los Angeles basketball team is the Lakers and the Salt Lake City one is the Jazz.

The Grizzlies keeping their namesake when they moved from Vancouver to Memphis is another. Yet, of all the sports names that make no sense in a regional connection sort of way (in all sports, not just the NBA), the Utah Jazz is the only one that seems to offend people for some reason. I don't know how many times I've heard people say that they should be forced by the NBA to give the name back to New Orleans. As a lifelong Utahn and diehard Jazz fan, this annoys and confuses me.

Any ideas why this is? Just wondering...

I still think they missed a great marketing opportunity with the Utah Polygamists. They could have 7 cheerleaders in wedding dresses and one male cheerleader in a tuxedo. Ignoring the potential of bold new ideas like that I'd the reason the NBA has languished in recent years.

I still think they missed a great marketing opportunity with the Utah Polygamists.

I love it! I always feared that maybe it confirmed I was insensitive or something, but I thought all the negative stereotype team names in BASEketball were hilarious (Milwaukee Beers, Dallas Felons, Miami Dealers, etc). But I think I was like 17 or 18 when that movie came out, so if my sense of humor was insensitive, it was understandable and forgivable, right? :)

I was a little disappointed it never showed the Beers play against a Utah team, cuz I was curious to see what Parker and Stone would've come up with for a team name, especially considering their obvious obsession with Mormons (Southpark episodes, Orgasmo, Book of Mormon Broadway musical).


Edit: Just realized that Orgasmo and the Book of Mormon musical hadn't happened yet when BASEketball came out. Still, I remember hoping they played a Utah team to hear the team name. Didn't happen, but still one of the great underrated sports movies of all time IMHO.

Any ideas why this is? Just wondering...

Probably because Salt Lake City seems the least jazzy city to most Americans (even if, like me, they've never actually been to SLC to know if that impression is true). Lakers and Grizzlies are out of place in Los Angeles and Memphis, but no moreso than they'd be in Phoenix or Dallas.

Pretty sure grande/venti/trenta is faux-Italian, not faux-Spanish.

As everyone knows, it's Fritalian.

Probably because Salt Lake City seems the least jazzy city to most Americans

Yeah, I agree that's probably the reason, but I think that impression is inaccurate. I doubt it's any harder to find some live Jazz music playing in SLC than it would be in most other comparably sized cities (outside of say, New Orleans or Memphis, of course).

If you're thinking Jazz music, of course you'd think of Nawlins. But if you're thinking Jazz basketball, I can't imagine anyone that would still think of NO rather than SLC. The Stockton/Malone/Sloan era easily outweighs anything that happened in the Pistol Pete era as far as success, historical importance, number of years with the team nickname, etc.

Also, while jazz is a celebration of the richness of black culture, the LDS stance on blacks has traditionally been...not so good, shall we say. It strikes one as distasteful for Utah to capitalize on that.

What? Did the LDS slaughter a wagon train full of blacks?

Most people of African-American descent were barred from the LDS Priesthood ordination and from participation in temple ceremonies. The ban was ended when there was a "revelation" in 1978.

It was another such "revelation" in 1890 that ended the practice of plural marriage.

I've never been to a Starbucks anywhere in Miami where the people behind the counter didn't speak English.

Surely that is because they don't exist. If Rocker's story wasn't just completely made up, and that is fairly likely, it can probably be explained by what zonk says in #2: that Rocker thought the Italian size names were Spanish. Which is hilarious.

But like Rocker, I refuse to use the cutesy size names at Starbucks -- there is no reason I should have to play along with their marketing pretense. I am not looking for an authentic Italian caffetteria experience, I just want coffee. I have had a barista correct me/ask for clarification (do you mean Venti?) but it's been years.

And sure, using "tall" for their smallest size makes some sense, since I suppose it corresponds to the "tall" size as sold in other countries. But still, I am not going along with this -- I refer to them as small, medium and large.

I refer to them as small, medium and large.

I hate the "we don't have medium. Just small, large and extra large."

Medium's not a universal size dammit. It's the one in the middle.

The main movie theater franchise in Hawaii offers popcorn in Medium, Large and Extra Large. No "small."

Also, while jazz is a celebration of the richness of black culture, the LDS stance on blacks has traditionally been...not so good, shall we say. It strikes one as distasteful for Utah to capitalize on that.

I haven't heard anyone make that connection before.

And the LDS stance on blacks basically mirrors the United States stance at the same time (or just slightly afterwards). The "no priesthood for blacks" until 1978 seems a little disturbing, but civil rights in the USA were only fully realized, what, 10-15 years earlier? It's not like the '60's were the dark ages when people shouldn't have known better.

I don't want to get into a big debate about this or anything, I just always thought that it seemed a bit unfair for people to criticize the LDS church for this specifically while ignoring that the entire country did it just a decade earlier. Selective memories, I guess.

booey

Black people were most certainly NOT banned from joining any other religion in america. just from eating at the same table, drinking from the same fountain, playing in the same parks, sitting in the same seats, living in the same housing, voting in the same booths and shopping at the same stores because back in those days, the color on the skin used to rub off and what if They touched you and you didn't want no people running around with Black marks, you know.

i've always wondered if BITGOD heaven was segregated too seeing as how ANY soul of ANY color could be saved...

I don't want to get into a big debate about this or anything, I just always thought that it seemed a bit unfair for people to criticize the LDS church for this specifically while ignoring that the entire country did it just a decade earlier.

But a church represents The Almighty, everyone knows the earthly world is fallen and drenched in sin.

Black people were most certainly NOT banned from joining any other religion in america

They weren't banned from the LDS religion either. Just from receiving the priesthood. Not that it makes it much better, of course, but this seems like a small reason for someone to dislike a large group of people for compared with some much more horrible examples of discrimination that were going on around the country just a decade earlier (and I'm not accusing you or anyone else on this site of doing that - I've just heard this argument to justify prejudice against Mormons for my entire life and always thought it was bogus).

Back to my original question, part of me has always thought the real reason the name "Utah Jazz" offends people is mirrored in some of the posts above - UTAH ITSELF seems to offend people. People can't even hear the name of my beloved state without immediately thinking of some of our more negative history. Ah, well.

I still like it here. :)

The main movie theater franchise in Hawaii offers popcorn in Medium, Large and Extra Large. No "small."

Stone crab claws in Florida are sold as medium, large, jumbo, and colossal.

They weren't banned from the LDS religion either. Just from receiving the priesthood.

Everything I know about the LDS church I learned from Big Love, but I thought that every adult male in the church held a priesthood. I thought receiving the priesthood was analogous to Catholic Confirmation.

Everything I know about the LDS church I learned from Big Love, but I thought that every adult male in the church held a priesthood. I thought receiving the priesthood was analogous to Catholic Confirmation.

Well, most of them do, but just like any religion there are the half-hearted fair weather members that only show up sporadically or when it's convenient and never bother getting ordained into the priesthood or getting a calling or a temple recommend. You're not required to have one to enter the church or attend a meeting or anything.

Well, most of them do, but just like any religion there are the half-hearted fair weather members that only show up sporadically or when it's convenient and never bother getting ordained into the priesthood or getting a calling or a temple recommend. You're not required to have one to enter the church or attend a meeting or anything.

Well then that's a pretty freakin' big restriction. "You can join, but you can't be full members." That's pretty much banning by another name.

Baseketball was a David Zucker movie, not Parker/Stone (though they acted in it) - hence the leads playing for a team from Milwaukee (as well as lots of other differences creatively).

"You can join, but you can't be full members." That's pretty much banning by another name

I guess you could look at it that way.

I just never understood the mindset that: prejudice in the 1970's = wrong, prejudice in the 1960's = forgivable. It was ALL horribly wrong. I don't see why one group should be singled out for a nationwide (and beyond) problem. If the LDS church should still be criticized for some bigoted policies 35 years ago, then America itself should still be criticized for similar policies 45 years ago. That extra decade of "fairness" doesn't seem like it should make all the difference in my opinion.

Baseketball was a David Zucker movie, not Parker/Stone (though they acted in it) - hence the leads playing for a team from Milwaukee (as well as lots of other differences creatively).

Meh. Sure seemed like Parker/Stone style of humor to me. It was awesome either way. :)

then America itself should still be criticized for similar policies 45 years ago.

It isn't?

Medium's not a universal size dammit. It's the one in the middle.

I ordered a large hash browns at Burger King once and was informed they only had small and medium.

then America itself should still be criticized for similar policies 45 years ago.

It isn't?


Depends upon the conversation. It's not by a lot of the same people that criticize the LDS church for their part in the 19th and 20th century discrimination problems.

then America itself should still be criticized for similar policies 45 years ago.

Maybe America gets a pass because it doesn't wear magic underwear (which practice, let's face it, is sort of code for "Hey, I'm hopelessly insane!")?

Maybe America gets a pass because it doesn't wear magic underwear (which practice, let's face it, is sort of code for "Hey, I'm hopelessly insane!")?


Hey now. That's your next president you're talking about. Show a little respect. :)

Back to my original question, part of me has always thought the real reason the name "Utah Jazz" offends people is mirrored in some of the posts above - UTAH ITSELF seems to offend people. People can't even hear the name of my beloved state without immediately thinking of some of our more negative history. Ah, well.

I still like it here. :)

You have awesome canyons. And camping in Utah in October approaches the heavenly.

You have awesome canyons. And camping in Utah in October approaches the heavenly.


For an outdoor enthusiast like me, the National Parks (Arches, Zion, Bryce, etc) are just divine.

The only things I seriously dislike about living in Utah are the weather and the fact that I'm not within 500 miles of an MLB stadium.

SLC needs a major league team! They could even call them the "Utah Polygamists" or the "Utah Magic Undies-Wearing Crazies" for all I care. As long as we got one, I wouldn't complain!

SLC needs a major league team! They could even call them the "Utah Polygamists" or the "Utah Magic Undies-Wearing Crazies" for

Or the SLC Punks!

Or the SLC Punks!

HA! I like it! (and I never even saw the movie)

I never put two and two together until just now, but it's funny that Pearlman is the guy who wrote the article that portrayed Rocker as a homophobe. Pearlman spent about three pages of his book about the Dallas Cowboys on a bizarre non sequitur ramble about how some people thought maybe Troy Aikman was gay.

I'm not saying his article on Rocker was inaccurate. But Jeff Pearlman seems to me to be one of the biggest dicks in America.

If forced to have dinner and go to a ball game with either Rocker or Pearlman, it's Rocker and it's not close.

I'm not saying his article on Rocker was inaccurate. But Jeff Pearlman seems to me to be one of the biggest dicks in America.

I know some people who know John Rocker, and I have no desire to have dinner with the man in any circumstance. But his point about Pearlman is dead on. The guy made his name writing hackeneyed hatched jobs in the guise of sports profiles. He's worthless as a writer and as a journalist.

booey

when i think about utah i think about a giant supersalty lake and a lot of mountains and snow and a lot of White people. and karl malone. we all kind of guess what places we haven't never been to are like. lots of people think that texas is all cattle ranches and awl wells.

as for your religion, well, all i know is that like a bunch of other religions, females are not allowed to be in the church as ministers or other authorities. so like a lot of other religions, it's not one i would want. the only religions i object to are the ones that say i have no right to exist.

i know that modern LDS no longer have polygamy as part of the religion, just like modern Jews. i know that there are men who have/keep more than 1 woman. i know there are rich guys besides hugh hefner who live with more than 1 female sexual partner. if the women are over 18 and are not sex slaves, like whatever

Yeah, Sam, I'm not saying either is at the top of my rolodex, but at least Rocker seems to like baseball. And sport. And at least SOME people (hey, I'm a white guy from rural America, my guess is I'd pass muster for an evening). But Pearlman? Hates sports. Hates baseball. And seems to hate everyone. Hard to get past that gauntlet.

Like I said, who knows? Maybe Pearlman is a swell guy. And I'd rather share a box with Kristi Chenowith than either of them.

when i think about utah i think about a giant supersalty lake and a lot of mountains and snow and a lot of White people

Well, we don't have a lot of black people, I'll give you that. But we're not as white as people think, either. Like all southwestern states, we have a large Mexican population. And we also have the 3rd largest Polynesian population in the country, behind only Hawaii and California.

lots of people think that texas is all cattle ranches and awl wells.

That's exactly what I think of when I hear the word "Texas." :) j/k And of course that Walker show with Chuck Norris!

as for your religion

I actually haven't been active in the LDS church or any other since I was a teenager. But I do consider it sort of a heritage as much as a faith, sort of like being Jewish. I'll probably never go back to being active, but I'll never be ashamed of where I came from either. I defend the church cuz half the people I know are members are most of them are great people.

i know that there are men who have/keep more than 1 woman.

Yeah, but the fundamentalists that still practice polygamy are a pretty secretive bunch. Most of them live in their own communities out in the desert near the Arizona border. While there are still polygamists hiding their lifestyle in SLC (like on Big Love), there's either not very many of them or they're very good at hiding it, since I've lived in Salt Lake my whole life and can't remember ever knowing a practicing polygamist (though I have met several people who were raised in polygamist homes as kids). Polygamist compounds aren't just a Utah thing, either. I've read about them existing, for example, in at least Arizona, Colorado, California, and even Texas. Wasn't there a well publicized polygamist raid/crackdown in your state back in, what, 2008?

Personally, I think I've got the perfect number of wives - none! :)

I lived in Utah for 19 years. Mostly I agree with Booey, but I would come down a bit harder on the LDS church for its racist history.

i know that there are men who have/keep more than 1 woman.

Yeah, but the fundamentalists that still practice polygamy are a pretty secretive bunch.

I think it's fair to say (and I think this was the point bbc was also making, though I could be wrong) that the over-whelming majority of men in the U.S. who have/keep more than 1 woman also have absolutely nothing at all to do with either the Church of LDS or Utah.

DB

For an outdoor enthusiast like me, the National Parks (Arches, Zion, Bryce, etc) are just divine.

Highly recommend Edward Abbey's book, Desert Solitaire. I've never been to the Arches, but this (one of my favorite books) very much makes me want to.

Hmmm... I wonder if this article comes back to haunt Chipper in the 2018 (or thereabouts) HOF vote...?

I will say I was pleasantly surprised by Salt Lake City. I flew in sort of terrified of LDS wall-to-wall crazy, but aside from the fact that they won't let you buy real beer and measure your drinks with a kindergarten cup, it's not that bad. There are a *lot* of blond-haired, blue-eyed families of 400 in the airport, though.

Good Mexican food, though.

I spent around 18-19 months in Utah on a case, just before moving to Hawaii (and right after spending a few months in India). It was from late October 1987 to June 1989. I was with a large group of NY lawyers, litigating a case against 3 of the largest banks in Utah -- First Security, Zions and First Interstate.

I was working most of the time, but I still got out to Bryce, Zion, Arches and Canyonlands, and Timpanogos cave. I loved dining at La Caille, and down at Sundance (even had a Redford sighting). I also enjoyed the Jazz games at the old Salt Palace, across the street from where I worked. I also liked the Christmas Lights at Temple Square.

But this was during or right after the Utah Thrift Crisis (thrifts are like S&Ls;), and there was a lot of boarded up windows in SLC. Not a good time. And SLC really did not do anything for me.

As for the LDS religion -- well, I read up quite a bit on it when I was there, and as a Jew, I have to tell you, if I didn't find it quite so humorous, I would have found it offensive.

I mean, the way the story goes is that Jesus, after being crucified and resurrected, visited the New World. Now me, after an experience like that, I would have been thinking about the Riviera or Tahiti, but that's just me.

So who do you think he finds when he gets there -- Aztecs? Mayans? No, he finds Jews. After the way they just treated him -- all that "Give us Barabbas" crap, you would think he would be tired of that kind of mishigoss.

And what were the Jews doing there? They had sailed there. Well, to begin with we're a desert folk, not exactly known for long ocean voyages (regardless of what they may tell you about Columbus). I think the last one to build a good boat was Noah. And as for finding our way to the New World, hell, it took us 40 years to find our way out of the Sinai, and the damn thing is only 130 miles from Egypt to Israel.

What was the logic here? The only thing I can only figure is that Joseph Smith heard about the pyramids in Mexico and figured it must have been the Jews who built them because, hey, who else had the experience?

As for all of the various beliefs, doctrines, practices, etc. -- who really cares. If you don't believe in it, then how is wearing funny underwear any different than wearing a beanie, and how is baptism for the dead any stranger than eating the body and drinking the blood of your savior every week?

But if you have to create a mythos and liturgy, you could maybe please leave us out of it next time?

Now I want to make up a mythos and liturgy based on silly ideas about what Bronze Age Jews could have done when Moses wasn't looking.

I don't care at all so much about the religion or people in Utah, but let me tell you that the natural beauty of Utah makes other states - MANY other states, nearly all of them - weep from inadequacy.


If forced to have dinner and go to a ball game with either Rocker or Pearlman, it's Rocker and it's not close.

This is the part of the game where I vote "fork in the eye".

I would come down a bit harder on the LDS church for its racist history.


Would you do the same for America in general? I don't want to keep harping on this point in what's been (for me anyway) a pretty fun thread, but if we're judging groups of people based on past history, I honestly don't see the difference. I especially don't think it's fair that people of my generation (who weren't even born when these racist practices were going on) should have to constantly answer for their parents and grandparent (and beyond)'s mistakes.

If people are really interesting in continuing to talk about this, can someone please give me an explanation about the difference between America's racist history and the LDS church's racist history? I'm not being snarky; I'm genuinely curious (or we can just talk about more pleasant things. That's just as well)

America has an atrocious history of racism that it was slow to acknowledge and attempt to rectify. But by the 1960s, most official institutions--businesses, the government, the schools, etc.--publicly embraced the idea of civil rights. The LDS church was a good bit slower to do so. They're the Yawkey Red Sox of churches.

How's that?

Well, to begin with we're a desert folk, not exactly known for long ocean voyages

We all know this because, hell, you were stymied by the Red Sea until...you know...

The LDS church was a good bit slower to do so. They're the Yawkey Red Sox of churches.

Yeah but I'm not sure that explains it. I mean they were slower but but does that mean in 10 years everyone will be cool with it?

I always thought the issue with the Jazz name is that it's so strongly affiliated with New Orleans that people felt New Orleans should be able to have the name. I take is about how well it fits New Orleans, not that Utah is some how undeserving.

bunyon Posted: February 06, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4054993)

If forced to have dinner and go to a ball game with either Rocker or Pearlman, it's Rocker and it's not close.

- agreed. and it's not close.


booey,

polynesians? learn something new EVERY day

as for polygamists
yeah they arrested this perv in texas who was "marrying" girls as soon as they were physically able to breed

i really can't imagine how any female who has grown up here in this country who went to regular schools and had TV would ever EVER agreee to put up with someone other woman in her house having sex with her man.

I flew in sort of terrified of LDS wall-to-wall crazy

I'm kinda surprised these kinds of fears still exist. People seem to base their opinions on some of the weird quirks in the theology itself, but even ignoring the fact that you could find almost equally weird doctrines and mythos in most other religions if you dug deep enough, none of that really seems to affect how the people themselves act in their daily lives. Mormons don't act any "weirder" than anyone else, and like Srul said in post#55, things like the "magic underwear" aren't really much different than the symbolic dress of other faiths, like the "beanies" Jews wear. It's certainly not a valid reason for someone to genuinely think an individual Mormon was "hopelessly insane", to quote post 39 (I know that post was joking, but I also know plenty of people who actually think that for that very reason. There are plenty of legitimate reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney for example, but what kind of underwear he sports sure isn't one of them).

Do famous Mormon athletes like say, Dale Murphy or Harmon Killebrew come across as crazy to anyone here? I've actually heard nothing but good things about either of them. Based on the law of averages, I'd guess that everyone here has met a lot more Mormons than they realize. In my opinion, the fact that they don't know who they are pretty much kills the stereotype I hear sometimes of them being crazy nutjobs that basically aren't functional in normal society. They're just people; no stranger on average than Catholics or Jews or anyone else.

i really can't imagine how any female who has grown up here in this country who went to regular schools and had TV would ever EVER agreee to put up with someone other woman in her house having sex with her man.

Well, from what I understand, most of these girls were raised in secluded polygamist compounds, so this lifestyle is all they've ever known.

And I don't understand how any guy could want more than one wife. One was too much for me, and I'm much happier now that I don't have any. :)

Yeah but I'm not sure that explains it. I mean they were slower but but does that mean in 10 years everyone will be cool with it?

Honest question because I'm not sure --

I know the root of the LDS issues with race was based on Smith's 'mark of Cain' - it was a 'revelation' in 1978 that ended the LDS exclusion of AA's... now - obviously - ministers/priests/individuals in other denominations of Catholicism/Protestant/Orthodox Christianity had twisted plenty of biblical verses towards racist ends when it suited them, but did any of them ever bless the idea from the seat of the sect's power?

I'm not sure that makes it better or worse for the LDS - and again, I'm not even sure if the LDS is alone in that, ummm, type of thing... but for the LDS, I know it wasn't any sort of 'good old boy' wink and nod, it was baked into the church's tenets...

polynesians? learn something new EVERY day

Lots of missionaries in the South Seas doing the conversion thing. The converted come to Utah to attend BYU and other schools, and for other reasons.

Hawaii has a large LDS community up in Laie on the North Shore, with its own Temple and its own university (Brigham Young University-Hawaii) and a well known tourist trap, the "Polynesian Cultural Center", which attempts to recreate the various Polynesian Cultures, and which is manned largely by BYU-H students from those islands. Closed Sundays, of course

Our immediate prior Mayor was Mufi Hanneman, an LDS of Samoan descent.

Most people of African-American descent were barred from the LDS Priesthood ordination and from participation in temple ceremonies. The ban was ended when there was a "revelation" in 1978.

Sort of like Romney's revelation about government mandates to buy health insurance, which came to him at about the time he figured out his party's base didn't like it.

-----------------------------------

I don't care at all so much about the religion or people in Utah, but let me tell you that the natural beauty of Utah makes other states - MANY other states, nearly all of them - weep from inadequacy.

Hard to argue with that, and I've traveled in every state but Alaska**, Nebraska and Hawaii**. And the Mormon Tabernacle Choir makes a Finnish patriot out of me every time I hear this sublime recording.

**Both of which may alter the ranking somewhat.....

Based on the law of averages, I'd guess that everyone here has met a lot more Mormons than they realize.

I know enough Mormons that it would take a while for me to think of them all. They're not all great people, but there's no question that the average Mormon I've met is a nicer person than the average non-Mormon I've met. However, as an institution they were clearly racist until very recently, and they are still quite sexist. Of course so is the Catholic church (though to a lesser extent in my opinion) but this is a fundamental problem when you allow some authoritarian to determine your morality for you.

For me, Booey, the difference is that the LDS stance came straight from the first prophet, bearing in mind that prophet means "speaker for God." So God Almighty in Heaven himself flat out told Joseph Smith how the Negro was inferior for excellent reasons; reasons, by the way, that needed only to be vaguely assumed and not in the least demonstrated. So for me, in the context of the nickname for a sports team, "Utah Jazz" is a kissing cousin of the reprehensible Chief Wahoo. I don't care enough to go carrying a placard, and it's accepted enough I'm resigned to it personally, not that anybody cares anyway. In the bigger picture, let's just all hope Al Sharpton and his bottom-feeding ilk doesn't get their teeth into the religion after Romney wins the GOP nomination.

booey

i wasn't talking about the young teen females who have grown up with no school or anything else, and are told they have to marry this Old Guy as soon as they have a period. because he is god and god wants it that way.

i was talking about ordinary females who, for some reason i do NOT get, agree to live in the same house with another woman who has sex with her man.

i don't understand how any guy could possibly want that neither. lots of other sexual partners, yes. but in the same house???? i can't believe that these women are any different than any other women and i can't understand how one man could want to LIVE - note i said LIVE - with more than 1 woman

I've been to Alaska and live in Hawaii, and neither of them take a back seat to anyone regarding natural beauty.

The LDS church was a good bit slower to do so. They're the Yawkey Red Sox of churches.

I don't know. I kinda doubt the extra 10 years it took the church to catch up to the rest of the nation is the real reason why. Here in Utah a lot of the non Mormons seem to dislike the Mormons just because they're supposedly such an overwhelming majority (I say supposedly cuz I doubt that even half of Utah's population are practicing Mormons anymore, and I doubt it's anywhere near half in SLC) and they have too strong of a hold in local politics (k, there's some truth to that). And I've met lots of traditional Christians that are offended that Mormons call themselves Christians despite some major theological differences. I could list a bunch of other reasons why I suspect some people don't like them, but while many of these groups will use the racist history as their excuse, I honestly think it's just that for most of them - an excuse. It seems to be the most socially acceptable answer. Most the harshest anti-Mormons I've met couldn't even tell you the details of the church's racist history - they're just repeating what they've heard and using it as an excuse to justify their own prejudice.

So for me, in the context of the nickname for a sports team, "Utah Jazz" is a kissing cousin of the reprehensible Chief Wahoo.

Wow. I've honestly never heard anyone make that connection before, and it surprises me a little. Do people really think of Utah as being on par with say, the southern slave states as far as racist history goes? I certainly don't think we have the same history of race related hate crimes that a lot of other states do.

And the team name is the "Utah Jazz", not the "Mormon Jazz". Despite what a lot of people think, "Utah" and "Mormon" aren't synonyms. I've never heard any African American Utahns (yes, there are some) or any of the black players the Jazz have had over the years imply in any way that they thought the team name had any sort of racist connections.

You really think it's racist for a state like Utah to celebrate black culture in any way? Really? Even if it's just giving a nod to the roots and origins of it's basketball team?

I know the root of the LDS issues with race was based on Smith's 'mark of Cain' - it was a 'revelation' in 1978 that ended the LDS exclusion of AA's... now - obviously - ministers/priests/individuals in other denominations of Catholicism/Protestant/Orthodox Christianity had twisted plenty of biblical verses towards racist ends when it suited them, but did any of them ever bless the idea from the seat of the sect's power?

I honestly don't know. But shouldn't say, an individual Mormon, be judged on his individual character rather than an outdated passage from 170 or whatever years ago? "Mark of Cain" nonsense or not, Joseph Smith was openly against slavery when he ran for president in the 1800's. And Mitt's father, George Romney, was very openly supportive of the civil rights movement in the 1960's when he was making his name in politics. People don't need to understand (or even agree with) every line in the history of their faiths theology. If they choose to practice, it just means they think their life is better with it than without it, and if it helps them become a better person (even if they have to ignore some outdated passage from a century earlier) then more power to them. I really hope voters will judge Mitt's candidacy based on his (ever changing) politics and not on his religion. The first point is entirely significant; the second should be completely irrelevant, and it's just sad if it's not for some people in this day and age.

booey

about 72 - i would guess that the, um, suspiscion of the mormon church us because of the polygamy history - people prolly still think that most guys out there have more than 1 female partner living with them. you can't legally call them wives i know. and the no birth control/large families.

also because of the secret ceremonies thingy - people wonder what is going on

gives it kind of this cult-like feeling. and then women writing books about how they "escaped" from the church and well, there you go

I kinda doubt the extra 10 years it took the church to catch up to the rest of the nation is the real reason why.

In my decades living in the state, I had Mormon professors, bosses, friends, teammmates, colleagues, rivals, landlords, doctors, and girlfriends. I like and respect the people of Utah, not just the landscape. But we are talking about an official church policy that persisted for fourteen years after the rest of the country awakened. Many churches led the way, but this one spent almost a decade-and-a-half saying "we're not so sure about this". It's just a poor record.

That being said, I don't feel that the basketball team's name is a big deal, and in my opinion the Wahoo comparison is off base. The term can also mean 'excitement' or 'liveliness', which is how it is used with the franchise. They rarely play up any musical connection.

P.S. Go Jazz!

If they choose to practice, it just means they think their life is better with it than without it, and if it helps them become a better person (even if they have to ignore some outdated passage from a century earlier) then more power to them.

I don't think making your life better is sufficient reason to associate with an organization that is racist by creed. Furthermore, it wasn't an outdated passage - it was official church policy until the 70's, when it became politically untenable to maintain the position while expanding the church to other countries. And while the official racism of the LDS church is no more, the sexism and homophobia live on. If Mormons in the sixties weren't either leaving the church or actively trying to change things, that's something to be ashamed of, not hand-waved away. The same goes for anyone else making excuses for the mistakes of an institution they support.

All that being said, I agree with part of what you're saying - that's not the whole reason the public dislikes/distrusts Mormons. bbc noted the other part - some parts of the church are exclusionary (both in the religious aspect and socially) and that has two effects. First, it just rubs people the wrong way, and second, it leads to a lot of misconceptions - the general public just doesn't know that much about what Mormons do or believe.

The LDS real problem is that they don't have antiquity on their side to fall back on. Their revelations did not come out of the desert hundreds or thousands of years ago. They came out of upstate New York in the 1830's.

I mean, it is just damn hard to take seriously any religion whose supposed birthplace is a "sacred grove" in Palmyra, New York.

And if you want to be taken seriously, would you really call the heralding angel of your faith -- Moroni? Really, is that the best you can do?

I am sorry, but I find it very hard to accept that the people who chose to believe all the things that Joseph Smith was selling were the sharpest knives in the drawer. I have to think that plural marriage was about the only way he could get enough Alpha Males to buy in.

no birth control/large families.

They tend to have lots of kids, that's for sure. But as far as I know, they don't have any actual policy against birth control like the Catholics do (and I could be wrong; I haven't paid much attention to any changes in the last 15 years or so).

also because of the secret ceremonies thingy - people wonder what is going on

My favorite theory was one from the 1800's - early 1900's that claimed they were sacrificing virgins. :)

women writing books about how they "escaped" from the church and well, there you go

I think most those "escaped from the church" stories are written about the fundamentalist polygamist church (FLDS) and not the mainstream LDS church. But yeah, I think you're right, as it definitely seems that a lot of people don't know the difference.

Their revelations did not come out of the desert hundreds or thousands of years ago. They came out of upstate New York in the 1830's.

I mean, it is just damn hard to take seriously any religion whose supposed birthplace is a "sacred grove" in Palmyra, New York.


Just more proof that people should blame/mistrust New Yorkers, not Utahns! :)

My favorite theory was one from the 1800's - early 1900's that claimed they were sacrificing virgins.

Do you remember U. Utah Philips? "I live in Utah, where the only virgin wool comes from the sheep that can outrun the Mormons and the Republicans.”

I mean, it is just damn hard to take seriously any religion whose supposed birthplace is a "sacred grove" in Palmyra, New York.

And if you want to be taken seriously, would you really call the heralding angel of your faith -- Moroni? Really, is that the best you can do?

You don't need to take a person's religion seriously to respect and/or trust them and their choice of lifestyle. Is saying someone must not be too bright because of their choice of religion really much different than if one of them said you must not be too moral because of your lack of one? (hypothetically, I don't know if you do or not)

The LDS real problem is that they don't have antiquity on their side to fall back on. Their revelations did not come out of the desert hundreds or thousands of years ago. They came out of upstate New York in the 1830's.

I mean, it is just damn hard to take seriously any religion whose supposed birthplace is a "sacred grove" in Palmyra, New York.

Now, had it come out of Cooperstown....

DB

The LDS real problem is that they don't have antiquity on their side to fall back on.

It's an issue, but not entirely unique. It is more antiquitous than the story of St. Bernadette, but great masses of people head to Lourdes each year.

On your larger point about Smith...I can't disagree.

You don't need to take a person's religion seriously to respect and/or trust them and their choice of lifestyle.

Of course not, Mormons are no different than any other cultists. I had neighbors in South Florida who were devout practitioners of Santaria, they were nice enough folks even if I thought animal sacrifice and praying to idols was preposterous. I lived in Tampa for a year and probably knew some Scientologists too, whatever silly #### keeps you happy. Magic undies, intergalactic Thetan attacks, let your freak flag fly man!

Of course not, Mormons are no different than any other cultists. I had neighbors in South Florida who were devout practitioners of Santaria, they were nice enough folks even if I thought animal sacrifice and praying to idols was preposterous. I lived in Tampa for a year and probably knew some Scientologists too, whatever silly #### keeps you happy. Magic undies, intergalactic Thetan attacks, let your freak flag fly man!


Um...I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks...I guess. Lol. :)

I don't think making your life better is sufficient reason to associate with an organization that is racist by creed.

But it isn't, and hasn't been for 3 and a half decades. You make it sound like the pre 1978 Mormons were associating with an organization that existed for the SOLE PURPOSE of promoting racism and prejudice, like the KKK or the Neo Nazi's.

I wasn't around in this time period, but I'd be a bit surprised if the majority of the church goers at this time even knew about the "no priesthood for blacks" creed. It's not like Utah has a huge African American population and there were lots of blacks fighting to get high up positions in the church and being denied.

Maybe my history is way off here, but wasn't that Mormon extermination law that helped drive the Mormons out of Missouri still in the books for something like 100 years later? Just because a law/creed/whatever was never removed from the books doesn't necessarily mean it's being actively followed either. I'd guess a lot of Mormons didn't leave the church or fight to change the policy simply because they didn't know about it or think about it. Still not "right" perhaps, but it's a lot different than signing on with an organization that was very openly promoting racism.

And what were the Jews doing there? They had sailed there.

It was a cruise ship that docked in Miami. Not so unusual really.

What was the logic here?

The lost tribes of Israel had to be somewhere.

I was reading Sherlock Holmes the other day and for some reason the entire story was about Mormons in the US. Very strange. Somehow I don't think A&E is going to be doing on a show on that story.

Thanks for your contributions and very good-natured defense, Booey! I've known a lot of mormons in my time, and have found them nearly universally to be nice, intelligent people, who actually do believe in the "judge not, lest you be judged" credo. That doesn't mean they don't hold strong beliefs about how a person should behave, mind, just that they don't go around telling people they are going to hell in the way a lot of, say, Southern Baptists will do.

I find it a little bit distateful when people go around applying the morality of today to the past. I'll give a lot of credit to someone in 1960 or 1970 who stood up for racial equality or someone in 1990 who was supportive of gay marriage. If someone didn't, I'll take it in the context of their time.

I find the Utah Jazz nickname to be a bit silly, but no more silly than Los Angeles Lakers or whatever. Minnesota Senators would've been worse, though

You don't need to take a person's religion seriously to respect and/or trust them and their choice of lifestyle.

Good. Because I have a hard time taking religious seriously. My own included. I just don't have the White Queen's constitutional makeup.

I'll give a lot of credit to someone in 1960 or 1970 who stood up for racial equality

1960, maybe. You were a person of your times.

By 1970, if you were still fighting that battle, you were a racist. Period.

1960, maybe. You were a person of your times.

By 1970, if you were still fighting that battle, you were a racist. Period.

Sorry, but I think there are a lot more shades of grey than that, particularly in the context of this discussion. I don't think I can declare someone a racist on the sole basis of the fact that they failed to decry the faith of their fathers and grandfathers.

The fact that the church did change means obviously many of them were working to change it.

whatever silly #### keeps you happy.

So BBTF is a religion now?

1960, maybe. You were a person of your times.

By 1970, if you were still fighting that battle, you were a racist. Period.

Why do people always write "Period." when they mean "Exclamation mark."?

wrong thread

Do famous Mormon athletes like say, Dale Murphy or Harmon Killebrew come across as crazy to anyone here?

Yes. Crazy but harmless. (Killebrew was my first favorite ballplayer when I was a kid, as it happens.)

No biggie. I mean, my favorite author is Phil Dick; in any number of ways, he was as crazy as they come. And I'm not so sure about myself, for that matter.

Now I want to make up a mythos and liturgy based on silly ideas about what Bronze Age Jews could have done when Moses wasn't looking.

The first step is to accept Howard Chaykin as your personal savior.

To clarify, I'm not saying Mormons now are racist. They're sexist and homophobic, but that doesn't set them apart from Catholics, for instance. What I am saying is that we have incontrovertible evidence that the Mormons in power up through the 70's were racist. If you exclude a race from being able to do things that another race can, you're racist. Saying "well my parents did it that way" or pointing out that it would be harder to not be racist isn't really an excuse. Of course we can cut people some slack for the times they lived in (and give correspondingly extra credit for people who fought against their times) but the Mormons don't come out good on that either - they were slow to repeal their official racism, and it seems likely that they only did for selfish reasons - they were trying to expand to other countries.

they were slow to repeal their official racism, and it seems likely that they only did for selfish reasons - they were trying to expand to other countries.

I could be completely misremembering this, &/or the source could be completely wrong, but I seem to recall reading fairly recently -- almost certainly in Under the Banner of Heaven, but possibly in The Mormon Murders -- that the possibility the NCAA would withdraw certification (or something) from BYU's hoops program played a role as well.