Media coverage of Elder Oaks's talk

[DanGB]

Standing up for Jews?

You must have missed the now locked thread where in documents from the pope have been uncovered which encouraged bishops and nuns to kidnap 5000 jewish kids and Baptize them Christians.

You must have missed the point and the historical acknolwedgement John Paul II made in Jerusalem at the "Wall of _____" (I forget the proper name) acknowledging the catholic chrch's mistreatment.

But my point remains that this would be a very easy and appropriate thing for the Church to acknowledge and have nothing but upside!

[DanGB]

Like the ancient prophets (Jeremiah and Lehi and John the Baptist come immediately to mind) modern prophets should focus on being popular and not making waves.

Perhaps they should choose their topics and positions on the basis of focus-group research?

My comments were sincere. Aside from your defensive and sarcastic response to a very real and detrimental issue for the Church, witnessed and experienced for all to see in Elder Oaks speech, can you see any downside for the Church to ask for forgiveness?

We constantly rationalize that our prophets are men and not free from error. Why not just use that same rationale to acknowledge a treatment of people that was not doctrinal nor revelatory?

A serious question.

[jwhitlock]

Like the ancient prophets (Jeremiah and Lehi and John the Baptist come immediately to mind) modern prophets should focus on being popular and not making waves.

Perhaps they should choose their topics and positions on the basis of focus-group research?

Evidently, being popular and liked and well-integrated into society and its trends is important to some members of the Church.

Just like it apparently was to a man named Simon (not Peter) in the New Testament.

Paul, of course, was very restrained in what he had to say about the influences of the world and the Church. I do wish that Elder Oaks and Elder Holland would be more like Paul.

Oh, wait...

[jwhitlock]

My comments were sincere. Aside from your defensive and sarcastic response to a very real and detrimental issue for the Church, witnessed and experienced for all to see in Elder Oaks speech, can you see any downside for the Church to ask for forgiveness?

To ask for the forgiveness of the world for what, pray tell??

For their (and evidently your) blatant misinterpretation of Elder Oaks' comments? For having the gall to claim that God talks to us through prophets? For not following the lead of the world as far as morals and trendy causes?

Do you understand anything of the concept that those who rely on the arm of flesh will fail at the last day? Do you understand at all how devastating it would be for a prophet of the Lord to say to the world "You're right, we need to do things your way?"

Why on earth do you keep beating this drum about accomodation with the world, after we've pointed out to you how utterly problematic such a course would be - not to mention how displeasing to the Lord it would be?

The only "real" issue here is about being true to the charge the Lord has given his prophets in the last days. Elder Oaks, and others, are being absolutely true to that charge, despite those who would "steady the ark".

[Pahoran]

Pay attention Scotty.

I was not making a comparison to Oak's reasoning. I was making a comparison to his analogy.

And your comparison was not valid. As you evidently intended.

Oaks likened the attacks post Prop 8 to what African Americans experienced during the civil rights movement.

No, he likened the effect of your customers' intimidation tactics to the effect of the voter intimidation that took place at that time.

Your description of his analogy was meaningfully inaccurate. As you evidently intended.

I realize you want to try to spin the gaffe by focusing on the reasoning, and your buddy at Mormon Times wants to yell context, but a gaffe is a gaffe is a gaffe.

And Elder Oaks didn't make one.

People should not go around comparing their mistreatment to the mistreatment suffered by the blacks of the South.

Why? Is that somehow sacrosanct?

Especially when one of the past leaders of the organization they represent thought that the civil rights leaders were communist dupes.

How, exactly, is that relevant?

If you want to make a valid argument, Jaybear, you need to either go with reason or with emotion. Swapping between them on an ad hoc basis makes you look shifty.

In common with a lot of what you post.

But you and Dr. P are right, my comment was dumb. But that was the point.

It was your point to make an invalid comparison?

Well then, it worked.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

My comments were sincere. Aside from your defensive and sarcastic response to a very real and detrimental issue for the Church, witnessed and experienced for all to see in Elder Oaks speech, can you see any downside for the Church to ask for forgiveness?

Absolutely yes.

Are you asking that we apologize for the denial of priesthood to blacks?

If so, I see no basis on which to apologize, as I don't know that it was an error. Since I don't know the reason for it, I don't know that the reason was a bad one.

Am I happy that the policy was changed? Yes. I was ecstatic when I heard the news of the 1978 revelation. I was in Switzerland at the time, returning from the Near East, and it took hours to confirm the initial reports. I still remember how happy I was.

But do I know that President McKay and President Smith and President Lee and, until June 1978, President Kimball were wrong? No. I don't. So I won't apologize for them, and I won't condemn them.

We constantly rationalize [???] that our prophets are men and not free from error. Why not just use that same rationale to acknowledge a treatment of people that was not doctrinal nor revelatory?

When the Brethren determine that it was neither doctrinal nor revelatory, they'll be completely free to say so. Thus far, though, I'm unaware of any definitive proof that it was neither doctrinal nor revelatory. So I, personally, would not favor going beyond what we know in order to condemn people who may not deserve our condemnation.

A serious question.

And your proposal would have serious ramifications.

Yet I can think of nothing in our history or doctrine to justify accepting it.

Which is a very serious problem, from my point of view.

[DanGB]

And your proposal would have serious ramifications.

Which, in your opinion, would be? I just can't see any so I am interested in what u see

[Daniel Peterson]

Which, in your opinion, would be? I just can't see any so I am interested in what u see

Potentially condemning innocent people, possibly falsifying history and misrepresenting the will of the Lord, casting doubt upon the teaching authority of the prophets and apostles -- these are some of the implications that come readily to mind.

I regard such things as rather serious.

[Analytics]

Joel Campbell asked,

137 words. The paltry number of words the Salt Lake Tribune either quoted directly or paraphrased from Elder Oaks speech in its article. That's about 3 percent of what Elder Oaks said. So explain why the Tribune can't be charged with taking his words out of context?

Whether or not the Tribune took Oaks's words out of context isn't determined by comparing the word-count of the Tribune article to the word count of the speech as Campbell seems to think. Rather, it depends upon whether or not the 137 words it used are sufficient to acurately describe the part of the speech the article was talking about. If somebody talks for 30 minutes about how people should be free to worship God as they see fit, and then talk for 1 minute about how "in their effect" (whatever that means), supporters of proposition 8 suffer from the same thing that blacks in the South did, the latter-one minute is more newsworthy than the other 30 minutes, and a newspaper has no moral obligation to make sure that 97% of the text of the story deals with the 97% of the speech that wasn't newsworthy.

If this 3% argument is the best Campell has, then the answer to his question is that the Tribune can't be charged with taking his words out of context because it didn't.

[Droopy]

The Salt Lake Tribune appears to be the Intermountain West's version of the New York Times, which is to say, it isn't really involved in news gathering and dissemination so much as cause activism through journalism (journalism as cultural war by other means).

Question: is the Tribune dying a fairly rapid death as are most other liberal major dailies throughout the nation? Will they get a bailout?

[jwhitlock]

Joel Campbell asked,

Whether or not the Tribune took Oaks's words out of context isn't determined by comparing the word-count of the Tribune article to the word count of the speech as Campbell seems to think. Rather, it depends upon whether or not the 137 words it used are sufficient to acurately describe the part of the speech the article was talking about. If somebody talks for 30 minutes about how people should be free to worship God as they see fit, and then talk for 1 minute about how "in their effect" (whatever that means), supporters of proposition 8 suffer from the same thing that blacks in the South did, the latter-one minute is more newsworthy than the other 30 minutes, and a newspaper has no moral obligation to make sure that 97% of the text of the story deals with the 97% of the speech that wasn't newsworthy.

If this 3% argument is the best Campell has, then the answer to his question is that the Tribune can't be charged with taking his words out of context because it didn't.

Even though you're parroting the inaccuracy bolded above?

Seems like good evidence to me that the Tribune did take his words out of context.

[John Larsen]

The Salt Lake Tribune appears to be the Intermountain West's version of the New York Times, which is to say, it isn't really involved in news gathering and dissemination so much as cause activism through journalism (journalism as cultural war by other means).

Question: is the Tribune dying a fairly rapid death as are most other liberal major dailies throughout the nation? Will they get a bailout?

"Cause activism" clearly corrupts a newspaper's ability to gather and disseminate accurate information. Now what was it the Mormon Times was saying again?

[Analytics]

Even though you're parroting the inaccuracy bolded above?

Seems like good evidence to me that the Tribune did take his words out of context.

Huh? Here is what Oaks said:

As such, these incidents of

[Ray Agostini]

Here is what I said,

With the qualification "in their effect" (whatever that means), Oaks likened the incidents of

[jwhitlock]

Huh? Here is what Oaks said:

Here is what I said,

With the qualification "in their effect" (whatever that means), Oaks likened the incidents of

[Zakuska]

Huh? Here is what Oaks said:

Here is what I said,

With the qualification "in their effect" (whatever that means), Oaks likened the incidents of

[Daniel Peterson]

Come on, jwhitlock. We've already been justly rebuked for trying to "spin" this situation by paying attention to Elder Oaks's actual reasoning and by understanding his analogy in its real context.

Give it up. We simply won't be able to get away with such low tricks any more.

[Programmer]

The Salt Lake Tribune was started to be just that: An Anti-Mormon newspaper. I expect nothing less from it.

[jwhitlock]

Come on, jwhitlock. We've already been justly rebuked for trying to "spin" this situation by paying attention to Elder Oaks's actual reasoning and by understanding his analogy in its real context.

Give it up. We simply won't be able to get away with such low tricks any more.

Then I stand, again, justly rebuked. I must humble myself and apologize often and loudly for the public pronouncements of the so-called leaders of my faith.

After all, the first page of the Book of Google, indexed by "Dallin Oaks Prop 8" gives us so many indisputable pronouncements on what Elder Oaks really meant, and the righteous backlash against his boorish remarks.

I bow to the Superior Intelligence and Wisdom of our Esteemed Critics - obtained, of course, via the Internet.

[SomethingGirl]

Sorry for no attribution... Im quoting the blog post you linked. commenting on the Fox 13 lady.

http://www.becomings...commentary.html

its about 1/2 way down tweeting with her x.

It wasn't tweeting. It was through Facebook. :-) And he's not exactly my ex unless you mean ex-friend. Because he's sooooo unfriended. ;-p

Do you disagree or agree?

[Zakuska]

It wasn't tweeting. It was through Facebook. :-) And he's not exactly my ex unless you mean ex-friend. Because he's sooooo unfriended. ;-p

Do you disagree or agree?

Neither at the moment... Im still processing the logic. Your blog post is about the best reasoning Ive heard from your side of the fence. I applaud you for removing the emotion from the argument.

[Analytics]

Nice of you to actually quote Elder Oaks in your latter post...

What can I say, I'm a nice guy.

Perhaps in your accusations of "hair splittling" you want us to ignore the fact that your "paraphrase" is far more comprehensive than the limited voter-intimidation situation that Elder Oaks was referring to. Were prop 8 supporters lynched? Were they segregated in housing, schooling, and other social settings? Did they suffer from a variety of other things that blacks in the South went through? Elder Oaks is specific in targeting "voter intimidation", yet you disingenously expand the scope of his statement with your "paraphrase" to make it appear he was equivalencing the experiences of both groups in all aspects.

I see. You think that since I didn't explicitly limit my comment to voter intimidation, I disingenuously meant to imply that Oaks claimed that California Mormons suffered everything that blacks in the South did.

Since you clearly understand my intentions better than I do, I

[Ray Agostini]

Perhaps in your accusations of "hair splittling" you want us to ignore the fact that your "paraphrase" is far more comprehensive than the limited voter-intimidation situation that Elder Oaks was referring to. Were prop 8 supporters lynched? Were they segregated in housing, schooling, and other social settings? Did they suffer from a variety of other things that blacks in the South went through? Elder Oaks is specific in targeting "voter intimidation", yet you disingenously expand the scope of his statement with your "paraphrase" to make it appear he was equivalencing the experiences of both groups in all aspects.

Then why didn't Oaks make this clear in his original speech? He clarified it to some media, but after he was criticised. Why could he not have said something like "I don't mean to place us [Mormons] on the same level of Blacks in the South........."

He was trying to garner sympathy by equating Mormons with Blacks, when in reality this is like comparing Holocaust victims with media criticism of a religion.

Have you been denied your right to free speech? Has anyone said Oaks must not express his opinion? Yet you react to criticism like it will totally extinguish your religion. Yea, the "persecution" is "on". All for criticism in a free society.

What are you? A wimp? You expect everything to go your way and for all to accept Mormonism without question? Sounds to me like you'd be happy if no one uttered a single word of criticism, in line with Oaks' statement that criticism of Church leaders is never justified - "even if it is true".

Well tell Dallin Oaks that this standard does not apply to those who are not members of his Church. And that they have a democratic right to criticise him, as outlined in the US Constitution, exempt from his "Law of Criticism Against Church Leaders".

So cop it sweet.

[jwhitlock]

I see. You think that since I didn't explicitly limit my comment to voter intimidation, I disingenuously meant to imply that Oaks claimed that California Mormons suffered everything that blacks in the South did.

Since you clearly understand my intentions better than I do, I

[jwhitlock]

Then why didn't Oaks make this clear in his original speech? He clarified it to some media, but after he was criticised. Why could he not have said something like "I don't mean to place us [Mormons] on the same level of Blacks in the South........."

He made it clear in his speech. He was talking about voter intimidation.

He was trying to garner sympathy by equating Mormons with Blacks, when in reality this is like comparing Holocaust victims with media criticism of a religion.

Evidently you didn't read my post for comprehension. Otherwise you wouldn't make the mistake of parroting again the media inaccuracy that Elder Oaks was "equating Mormons with Blacks". Especially after Elder Oaks has been requoted (accurately) in this thread.

Have you been denied your right to free speech? Has anyone said Oaks must not express his opinion? Yet you react to criticism like it will totally extinguish your religion. Yea, the "persecution" is "on". All for criticism in a free society.

Does this bit of misplaced hype have any relevance to what Elder Oaks - or I - really said?

What are you? A wimp? You expect everything to go your way and for all to accept Mormonism without question? Sounds to me like you'd be happy if no one uttered a single word of criticism, in line with Oaks' statement that criticism of Church leaders is never justified - "even if it is true".

As I suspected. Now you're just blathering without regard to any accuracy at all.

Well tell Dallin Oaks that this standard does not apply to those who are not members of his Church. And that they have a democratic right to criticise him, as outlined in the US Constitution, exempt from his "Law of Criticism Against Church Leaders".

Not a clue. Pathetic.

So cop it sweet

.

Got yourself all lathered up, didn't you. Too bad it's totally misplaced.

Then again, that's SOP for enemies of the Church. Elder Oaks has been soundly misrepresented in this situation, and you're more than happy to get yourself all tied in knots by that misrepresentation - fueled, of course, by your own imaginary accusations against us.

Thanks for giving us a view from the dark side. Have a nice day.