The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

I was saying Boo-ooks.



Also I don't let my glasses stay empty for twenty minutes, but hey, if that's the way you roll then who am I to stand in the way of your effeminate ass? Maybe you should be drinking wine coolers.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Black coffee isn't sweet. That's a terrible analogy. Terrible. Terrible. Boo. Books.

But seriously, when I say bourbon I just mean Southern whiskey, so I mentally include Jack and Jim and all the the other ones. But you're right, there's a difference. I like Southern whiskey because the sweeter flavor is good on my palette. It's not super sweet, just slightly sweet to the taste. And if you finish a glass of neat whiskey (any type) and set the empty glass out for twenty minutes or so, you can smell the sweet notes or smokey notes. A good Woodford Reserve smells like vanilla.

Slightly oaky doesn't bother me at all. In fact, it gives whiskey a certain charm. I don't care for Scotch, because it's way too smokey. Though if I'm in Vegas and being a douche with a cigar, I'm drinking Scotch because it just works together.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I know bourbon is sweeter than scotch, but then a cup of black coffee is sweeter than scotch too. However, all bourbon is aged in charred oak barrels, and that does give it a hint of smoky flavor, which my sensitive palate can detect. That's why if I have to drink an American whiskey made mostly from corn I'll drink Tennessee whiskey, like Jack Daniels, because it's charcoal filtered. That helps remove a little more of the smoky flavor.

Fuck Kentucky and their fucking bourbon - unless I'm on a jag and there's nothing else around. I'll drink girly peppermint schnapps before bourbon, and that sweet, syrupy shit is pretty damn low on my list.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Now I know you're a Yankee. Bourbon isn't typically smokey. What bourbon are you drinking? It's typically made from mash and is sweeter.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Really? I kid about Canadian whiskey - Crown Royal, Pendleton, and Tangle Ridge are all great tasting, and even regular old Canadian Club and VO are pleasing to my palate. I know there are a few people out there who dismiss Canadian whiskey because they claim it's too 'light' in flavor, and for the cheap shit that's true. But a glass of good Canadian hooch, especially the higher end stuff like Gibson's and Wiser's, can stand toe to toe with whiskey made anywhere else on Earth, IMHO.

Scotch and bourbon both taste too smoky to me, but they'll do if there's nothing else around.
In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
Lol, I've only had bourbon once and it didn't really impress me. I still haven't had any Canadian whiskey. Weird, eh?

Black coffee isn't sweet. That's a terrible analogy. Terrible. Terrible. Boo. Books.

But seriously, when I say bourbon I just mean Southern whiskey, so I mentally include Jack and Jim and all the the other ones. But you're right, there's a difference. I like Southern whiskey because the sweeter flavor is good on my palette. It's not super sweet, just slightly sweet to the taste. And if you finish a glass of neat whiskey (any type) and set the empty glass out for twenty minutes or so, you can smell the sweet notes or smokey notes. A good Woodford Reserve smells like vanilla.

Slightly oaky doesn't bother me at all. In fact, it gives whiskey a certain charm. I don't care for Scotch, because it's way too smokey. Though if I'm in Vegas and being a douche with a cigar, I'm drinking Scotch because it just works together.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I know bourbon is sweeter than scotch, but then a cup of black coffee is sweeter than scotch too. However, all bourbon is aged in charred oak barrels, and that does give it a hint of smoky flavor, which my sensitive palate can detect. That's why if I have to drink an American whiskey made mostly from corn I'll drink Tennessee whiskey, like Jack Daniels, because it's charcoal filtered. That helps remove a little more of the smoky flavor.

Fuck Kentucky and their fucking bourbon - unless I'm on a jag and there's nothing else around. I'll drink girly peppermint schnapps before bourbon, and that sweet, syrupy shit is pretty damn low on my list.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Now I know you're a Yankee. Bourbon isn't typically smokey. What bourbon are you drinking? It's typically made from mash and is sweeter.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Really? I kid about Canadian whiskey - Crown Royal, Pendleton, and Tangle Ridge are all great tasting, and even regular old Canadian Club and VO are pleasing to my palate. I know there are a few people out there who dismiss Canadian whiskey because they claim it's too 'light' in flavor, and for the cheap shit that's true. But a glass of good Canadian hooch, especially the higher end stuff like Gibson's and Wiser's, can stand toe to toe with whiskey made anywhere else on Earth, IMHO.

Scotch and bourbon both taste too smoky to me, but they'll do if there's nothing else around.
In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
Lol, I've only had bourbon once and it didn't really impress me. I still haven't had any Canadian whiskey. Weird, eh?

I know bourbon is sweeter than scotch, but then a cup of black coffee is sweeter than scotch too. However, all bourbon is aged in charred oak barrels, and that does give it a hint of smoky flavor, which my sensitive palate can detect. That's why if I have to drink an American whiskey made mostly from corn I'll drink Tennessee whiskey, like Jack Daniels, because it's charcoal filtered. That helps remove a little more of the smoky flavor.

Fuck Kentucky and their fucking bourbon - unless I'm on a jag and there's nothing else around. I'll drink girly peppermint schnapps before bourbon, and that sweet, syrupy shit is pretty damn low on my list.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Now I know you're a Yankee. Bourbon isn't typically smokey. What bourbon are you drinking? It's typically made from mash and is sweeter.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Really? I kid about Canadian whiskey - Crown Royal, Pendleton, and Tangle Ridge are all great tasting, and even regular old Canadian Club and VO are pleasing to my palate. I know there are a few people out there who dismiss Canadian whiskey because they claim it's too 'light' in flavor, and for the cheap shit that's true. But a glass of good Canadian hooch, especially the higher end stuff like Gibson's and Wiser's, can stand toe to toe with whiskey made anywhere else on Earth, IMHO.

Scotch and bourbon both taste too smoky to me, but they'll do if there's nothing else around.
In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
Lol, I've only had bourbon once and it didn't really impress me. I still haven't had any Canadian whiskey. Weird, eh?

A few years ago, when I was working in Northern Ontario, planting trees, we came to work on a clear-cut that had been left for several years without being re-planted. (In Canada, it is required by law that companies plant two saplings for every tree harvested.)

This clear-cut had been sprayed with a herbicide (which I am confident was Round-Up) that killed all broadleaf plants in the area to make it easier for re-planting, and give the conifers and advantage amongst the broad-leaf "weeds." Small stands of full grown oak and maple trees among the harvested stumps stood without a single green leaf. It was beautiful--like the middle of winter in June. But what I remember is the burning itch that started shortly we began work that day.

>> ^RhesusMonk:

Oh yeah. Two blocks away, an oak I'd guess was about forty feet tall was ripped out of the ground and fell across the street and onto a poor Subaru. Aside from that, there were a lot of limbs ripped off the trees all the way up and down State Street. Kinda looked like a scene in <ahref="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113497/">Jumanji.
>> ^ant
Any damages in your area?



Dang. No damages for your stuff I assume?

Oh yeah. Two blocks away, an oak I'd guess was about forty feet tall was ripped out of the ground and fell across the street and onto a poor Subaru. Aside from that, there were a lot of limbs ripped off the trees all the way up and down State Street. Kinda looked like a scene in <ahref="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113497/">Jumanji.
>> ^ant

Any damages in your area?

A lot of "cheaper" furniture is also made of MDF, which can weigh considerably more than solid wood. Know what you buy, and consider what it will take to move it, should you ever have to. Solid oak tables are beautiful, but if you move it once, you'll never want to again.

^Of course I could. These quotes and records of church history are available all over the internet. But blacklds.org is a convenient source. I did in fact find some of those sources elsewhere, but I ultimately chose blacklds.org as a source because they had the most complete quotes, without portions paraphrased or left out.

I really was not trying to persuade anyone that Joseph Smith was a saint. I simply wished to explain that racism is not a doctrine of the church, as many have said. Smith did not organize a racist religion, but he did organize a tolerant religion in a racist country. When Mormons were baptizing blacks, other religions were preaching that they don't have souls. Of course that doesn't make up for all of the later intolerance and racism, but it is a cheap shot to single out Mormonism as an exceptionally racist or intolerant faith. Both religious and secular groups have the same kind of history in this country. It is unfortunate that the ban on blacks in the priesthood lasted as long as it did. I have no explanation for this. In fact, it especially perplexes me in view of how inclusive church members were toward blacks far before the ban was lifted.

Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that this guy's argument about the connection between Mormon racism and gay rights is flawed. Dallin Oaks has every right to cite the Civil Rights movement as an example without being called a hypocrite. He isn't racist, and neither is his church.

Don't talk about how "spot on" something is if you have no idea about it. If you really want to know something about the church's history regarding blacks, study this web site: http://www.blacklds.org/history

The government of the United States also has a history of racism and discrimination toward black people, but current members of government aren't accused of being racist just because their organization has a history of racist members. Members of U.S. government are welcome to cite examples from the Civil Rights movement in discussions of civil liberties, although they are part of the very entity that opposed that movement in the past. I don't see this as hypocrisy. I see this as progression.

I do not seek to justify the racist statements made by leaders of the church, but to explain that neither Joseph Smith nor the doctrines of the church were racist in any way, and that the church has long since left behind those policies. There is here an important distinction between policy and doctrine.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was one of the first religions to baptize and ordain black people. Joseph Smith himself ordained Elijah Abel, a black man, who later became a member of the Quorum of the Seventy, a leadership position holding the High Priesthood, in 1936. Joseph Smith opposed slavery, but is often misunderstood on this subject. Like many religionists of his day, in 1936 he believed that slavery was a curse upon the seed of Canaan, but he did not use this as a justification for slavery. He stated that God would abolish slavery in his own time. In 1944, he ran for president on an anti-slavery platform. http://www.blacklds.org/Aprilma

In March 1842, Joseph Smith wrote the following in a letter on the subject of slavery, "I have just been perusing your correspondence with Doctor Dyer, on the subject of American slavery, and the students of the Quincy Mission Institute, and it makes my blood boil within me to reflect upon the injustice, cruelty, and oppression of the rulers of the people. When will these things cease to be, and the Constitution and the laws again bear rule? I fear for my beloved country mob violence, injustice and cruelty appear to be the darling attributes of Missouri, and no man taketh it to heart! O tempora! O mores! What think you should be done?"

In January 1843, on the "situation of the negro," Joseph Smith said:

"They came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine of many of those they brush and wait on." http://www.blacklds.org/quotes#boil

While Joseph Smith was acting as mayor, "a colored man named Anthony was arrested for selling liquor on Sunday, contrary to law. He pleased that the reason he had done so was that he might raise the money to purchase the liberty of a dear child held as a slave in a Southern State. He had been able to purchase the liberty of himself and his wife and now wished to bring his little child to their new home. Joseph said, ‘I am sorry, Anthony, but the law must be observed and we will have to impose a fine.’ The next day Brother Joseph presented Anthony with a fine horse, directing him to sell it, and use the money obtained for the purchase of the child."

"The horse was Joseph’s prized white stallion, and was worth about $500; a huge sum at the time. With the money from the sale, Anthony was able to purchase his child out of slavery."

Concerning the ban on blacks from the priesthood, it would appear that following Joseph Smith's martyrdom, certain members claimed that Smith believed that blacks were not entitled to the priesthood, although the overwhelming flood of evidence suggests that Joseph Smith was not racist, that he was anti-slavery, and that he believed that blacks were entitled to all of the same blessings of the church as other members.

An account of how the priesthood ban on blacks falsely came into being:

1879, Abraham Smoot (the owner of 2 slaves) and Zebedee Coltrin claim Joseph Smith instituted the Priesthood ban in the 1830s (L. John Nuttal diary, May 31, 1879, pg. 170, Special Collections, BYU). The Smoot affidavit, attested to by L. John Nuttall, appears to refer only to a policy concerning slaves, rather than to all Blacks, since it deals with the question of baptism and ordination of Blacks who had "masters". This affidavit says that Smoot, "W.W. Patten, Warren Parish and Tomas B. Marsh were laboring in the Southern States in 1835 and 1836. There were Negroes who made application for baptism. And the question arose with them whether Negroes were entitled to hold the Priesthood. And…it was decided they would not confer the Priesthood until they had consulted with the Prophet Joseph; and subsequently they communicated with him. His decision was they were not entitled to the Priesthood, nor yet to be baptized without the consent of their Masters. In after years when I became acquainted with Joseph myself in Far West, about the year 1838, I received from Brother Joseph substantially the same instructions. It was on my application to him, what should be done with the Negro in the South, as I was preaching to them. He said I could baptize them by consent of their masters, but not to confer the Priesthood upon them" (quoted in Wm. E. Berret, Historian, BYU VP of CES, The Church and the Negroid People).

But Coltrin says the ban was to be universally applied to all blacks. In L. John Nuttal’s Journal (pages 290-293) we find, "Saturday, May 31st, 1879, at the house of President Abraham O. Smoot, Provo City, Utah, Utah County, at 5 O’Clock p.m. President John Taylor, Elders Brigham Young, Abraham O. Smoot, Zebedee Coltrin and L. John Nuttall met. Coltrin: I have heard him [Joseph Smith] say in public that no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood." According to Coltrin, "…Brother Joseph kind of dropped his head and rested it on his hand for a minute, and then said, ‘Brother Zebedee is right, for the spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood.’… Brother Coltrin further said: ‘Brother (Elijah) Abel was ordained a Seventy because he had labored on the Temple…and when the Prophet Joseph learned of his lineage he was dropped from the Quorum, and another was put in his place. I was one of the 1st Seven Presidents of the Quorum of Seventy at the time he was dropped.’" Coltrin claims that Abel was dropped from the quorum of Seventy sometime before or during 1837 when Joseph Smith Jr. learned that Abel was Black. Apostle Joseph F. Smith successfully argues against this point on the grounds of Abel’s two additional certificates of ordination to the office of Seventy, one dated 1841 and the other from some time in the 1850s after Abel arrived in Salt Lake City. Coltrin’s memory is shown to be unreliable in at least two specifics: His claimed date (1834) for Joseph Smith’s announcing the alleged ban is impossible, since Coltrin himself ordained Abel a Seventy in 1836. Also, he incorrectly identifies which of the quorums of Seventy Abel was ordained to. Abel, on the other hand, claims that "the prophet Joseph told him he was entitled to the priesthood." President John Taylor, on the other hand, said that Abel’s ordination as a Seventy "was allowed to remain". The other element that makes Coltrin’s story suspect is the claim that Joseph didn’t know Abel was black. Anyone who has looked at a picture of Abel has easily identified him as a black man.

From the Council meeting minutes of 4 June 1879 (Bennion papers as quoted in Neither White nor Black, Bush and Maas, Signature Books, pg. 101, note 29.)

Five days after Coltrin related his account: "Brother Joseph F. Smith said he thought brother Coltrin’s memory was incorrect as to Brother Abel being dropped from the quorum of the Seventies, to which he belonged, as brother Abel had in his possession, (which also he had shown brother J. F. S.) his certificate as a Seventy, given to him in 1841, and signed by Elder Joseph Young,Sen., and A.P. Rockwood, and a still a later one given in this city. Brother Abel’s account of the persons who washed and anointed him in the Kirtland Temple also disagreed with the statement of Brother Coltrin, whilst he stated that brother Coltrin ordained him a Seventy. Brother Abel also states that the Prophet Joseph told him that he was entitled to the priesthood."

Because this policy was never explained, many members of the church sought to explain the ban, and they turned out to be very misguided.

President David O. Mckay said in 1954 that “There is no doctrine in this church and there never was a doctrine in this church to the effect that the Negroes are under any kind of a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the Negro...it is a practice, not a doctrine, and the doctrine some day will be changed."

In 1988, Elder Dallin Oaks, the man originally quoted in this rant, said "It is not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons...some people put reasons to [the ban], and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that...I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and elaborated on by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to be uneccessary risk-taking...The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent."

In 1981, Elder Bruce R Mckonkie said, "Forget everything I have said, or what … Brigham Young … or whomsoever has said … that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

I admire anyone who got through all of that. The same kind of misunderstandings occur on the topic of Native Americans.

I think that the church's past of racism is shameful and sad, but I feel strongly that it has no bearing on the current state of affairs. Many individual members of the church may be racist, but it is not a racist church.

I love how people like Olbermann can't mention the complete name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (listen to the beginning of this video) If you would like to read Elder Oaks speech to the students at Brigham Young University you can go here: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/religious-freedom

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There was trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

>> ^deathcow:
Reminds me of my years in Australia. I spent quite a few years there before Dag you know. Looks like somewhere from Kintore East or Yuendemu. I'll never forget the bloodwood and the desert oak, the holden wrecks and boiling diesels, steaming 45 degrees even when it was like darktime out.


Wow, how could you sleep while your bed was burning?

Reminds me of my years in Australia. I spent quite a few years there before Dag you know. Looks like somewhere from Kintore East or Yuendemu. I'll never forget the bloodwood and the desert oak, the holden wrecks and boiling diesels, steaming 45 degrees even when it was like darktime out.

2 More:
Song title: Seduce Me Tonight (Flashdance OST) - My mom thought it was: "So Juicy Tonight"
Song Title: Elvira (Oak Ridge Boys) - My sister thought it was: "I'll Fire Up"

>> ^dag:
It's similar to the thing with song lyrics - it doesn't have to make a lot of sense for your brain to accept it. - For years, I thought the chorus to the B-52s song "Roam if you Want To" was "♪♪ Roll Misty Wattoo ♪♪"