Another Gauntlet Hits the Ground

[Daniel Peterson]

I attended a luncheon today at which Elder Dallin H. Oaks spoke for about thirty minutes or so. He alluded in passing to his remarks at BYU-Idaho, acknowledging that many have been critical of what he said. He was in good humor, and doesn't seem particularly concerned about the negative attention, let alone inclined to take back what he said, which he continues to stand by. Just for the record.

[jwhitlock]

I attended a luncheon today at which Elder Dallin H. Oaks spoke for about thirty minutes or so. He alluded in passing to his remarks at BYU-Idaho, acknowledging that many have been critical of what he said. He was in good humor, and doesn't seem particularly concerned about the negative attention, let alone inclined to take back what he said, which he continues to stand by. Just for the record.

You must have been mistaken.

We've been told here that Elder Oaks must obviously be wishing he could take back what he said. Even a "Blind Freddy" could see how ignorant his comments were.

[Daniel Peterson]

We've been told here that Elder Oaks must obviously be wishing he could take back what he said. Even a "Blind Freddy" could see how ignorant his comments were.

I expect that it's only a "Blind Freddy" who'll be able to "see" that.

[DanGB]

I attended a luncheon today at which Elder Dallin H. Oaks spoke for about thirty minutes or so. He alluded in passing to his remarks at BYU-Idaho, acknowledging that many have been critical of what he said. He was in good humor, and doesn't seem particularly concerned about the negative attention, let alone inclined to take back what he said, which he continues to stand by. Just for the record.

I have a great deal of respect for Elder Oaks. And I do t know specifically what "alluded to in passing" specifically means since I was not there. But I would never expect, after he said it, to publically or privately say he wished he hadn't said what he did. It would never look good.

I hope his remarks did something good within the membership. I just can't see for the life of me what good it will do or bring from outside the Church. I just hope the media coverage doesn't go much beyond the blurb from the idiot Olberman. From a very practical standpoint, that would be the best the Church can hope for. Bringing up the plight of the black community and the Church will never generate a positive perception for the Church from the outside. It's just a fact and reality we can't deny if we are objective about it!

[DanGB]

I attended a luncheon today at which Elder Dallin H. Oaks spoke for about thirty minutes or so. He alluded in passing to his remarks at BYU-Idaho, acknowledging that many have been critical of what he said. He was in good humor, and doesn't seem particularly concerned about the negative attention, let alone inclined to take back what he said, which he continues to stand by. Just for the record.

I have a great deal of respect for Elder Oaks. And I do t know specifically what "alluded to in passing" specifically means since I was not there. But I would never expect, after he said it, to publically or privately say he wished he hadn't said what he did. It would never look good.

I hope his remarks did something good within the membership. I just can't see for the life of me what good it will do or bring from outside the Church. I just hope the media coverage doesn't go much beyond the blurb from the idiot Olberman. From a very practical standpoint, that would be the best the Church can hope for. For the Church to compare the plight of strggles for the blacks to those of the Church will never generate a positive perception for the Church from the outside. It's just a fact and reality we can't deny if we are objective about it!

[juliann]

For the Church to compare the plight of strggles for the blacks to those of the Church will never generate a positive perception for the Church from the outside. It's just a fact and reality we can't deny if we are objective about it!

A fact? Hardly. That is not even an accurate rendition of what Elder Oaks said.

[DanGB]

A fact? Hardly. That is not even an accurate rendition of what Elder Oaks said.

Whether I agree with you or not is besides the point. It no longer matters what is accurate or what Elder Oaks point is. Perception is reality from the world outside the Church! There is a very obvious reason the Church has tried to distance itself from this part of our history within the public perception, to the outside, all Elder Oak's statement will do is bring us back to something we as a church would rather not discuss today with the outside.

It matters little how we feel about it emotionally on this board. My point remains we cannot deny public perception and given the Church wants little if any dialogue in an official manner about this history with those outside the church, there is nothing good to come from bringing it back into the fray now.

I am just being very honest and real to the facts!

[Daniel Peterson]

For the Church to compare the plight of strggles for the blacks to those of the Church will never generate a positive perception for the Church from the outside. It's just a fact and reality we can't deny if we are objective about it!

I suspect that that's among the many reasons why Elder Oaks didn't do such a thing.

That the news media very often yank things out of context and attempt to create controversy even at the expense of the people being misrepresented is no surprise, of course. It's happened to me a number of times. Tiresome, but predictable.

[DanGB]

I suspect that that's among the many reasons why Elder Oaks didn't do such a thing.

That the news media very often yank things out of context and attempt to create controversy even at the expense of the people being misrepresented is no surprise, of course. It's happened to me a number of times. Tiresome, but predictable.

True .

But will the Church ever, in an official capacity and in a public media forum ever explain why blacks were denied equal treatment in the eyes of Christianity? Until they do, they will always be subject to what we want to call "misunderstood". And having an Elder of the Church give the press an opportunity to link the Church back to this history is, well, not to be unexpected nor a surprise to anyone. What good could ever come from it?

[Daniel Peterson]

But will the Church ever, in an official capacity and in a public media forum ever explain why blacks were denied equal treatment in the eyes of Christianity?

I don't think anybody knows the answer. So no, I don't think there will likely ever be an official, public explanation.

Until they do, they will always be subject to what we want to call "misunderstood". And having an Elder of the Church give the press an opportunity to link the Church back to this history is, well, not to be unexpected nor a surprise to anyone. What good could ever come from it?

Good will come to those who actually hear and/or read his speech and understand it. Those looking for offense or to be offended will find what they seek, but will have little or no benefit from it.

[DanGB]

I don't think anybody knows the answer. So no, I don't think there will likely ever be an official, public explanation.

That is true also. But it also does not bode well for the Church's public perception. If we can't explain to our own members why it was ever taken away, what chance of credibility will we ever have with the public? Hence the need to distance ourselves from this history and issue. Hence why I believe Elder Oaks did nothing positive with his analogy however it was understood or misunderstood.

Good will come to those who actually hear and/or read his speech and understand it. Those looking for offense or to be offended will find what they seek, but will have little or no benefit from it.

How is and who defines "good will"? Did Elder Oaks comments create good will for the church?

[Daniel Peterson]

That is true also. But it also does not bode well for the Church's public perception.

I don't expect Mormonism ever to be widely loved or generally approved.

We can and must seek to have others understand us and our beliefs, but we should lose little sleep over the inevitable fact that most of the world will not like or respect our faith.

Christianity only became generally accepted and approved in the ancient Mediterranean basin when it was apostate and had "sold out."

If we can't explain to our own members why it was ever taken away, what chance of credibility will we ever have with the public?

Little or none, with most.

Hence the need to distance ourselves from this history and issue. Hence why I believe Elder Oaks did nothing positive with his analogy however it was understood or misunderstood.

Those who understood his point seem to have gotten something positive from it. Or so they tell me. And so I judge for myself. But probably you know best.

How is and who defines "good will"? Did Elder Oaks comments create good will for the church?

Try reading what I wrote again, keeping in mind the differences between nouns, adjectives, and verbs.

[Duncan]

As a Canadian Mormon I have never ever heard of Keith Olberman or have ever read or plan to read the US Constitution or anything other then Section 134 I think it is... on that subject. I can certaintly think of way worse people in the world today then Elder Oaks. What I have read is Elder Oaks' talk. It seems to me that he made a passing reference to the US civil rights movement of which I know almost nothing and what I do know I learned from American movies. Elder Oaks is no idiot and knows much better then me or most of us what the Church worldwide can or can't do. Elder Oaks is entitled to his opinion just like everyone else. Its sad when people's talks or opinion spill out into violence either pro or con for gay marriage or civil rights issues.