Responding To Accusations Of Hate Speech

[Stone holm]

Anti-Mormon comments had increasingly dropped off with the apparent descalization of political activism under Pres. Monson and the reining in of rhetoric , however, after Conference there was a spike in accusations of hate speech. Elder Oaks in particular is singled out, but old talks of Elder Packer are resurfacing as well. What is the appropriate response to these which tend to classify Mormons as a milder and more civil version of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do we ignore them, deny the characterization, try to explain that they were not intended that way, or try to distinguish these as simply opinions?

[thesometimesaint]

Give them all the attention they so rightfully deserve.

[california boy]

Doing positive things for the gay community helps.  Like this.

 

 

TrevorLIVE Will Honor Mormon Adam White, Toyota

[thesometimesaint]

Do positive things for people regardless.

[Stone holm]

Normally, I ignore. This week tried to explain. These are not members of the gay community. Will probably go back to ignoring, although it gets tiresome getting painted with the broad brush because a few insist on dosing wounds with salt.

[thesometimesaint]

Sometimes the best thing to do is just walk away.

[Stone holm]

Sometimes the best thing to do is just walk away.

While I tend to agree , the problem is that so many closet progressives in the Church are doing that rather than entering into an explanatory dialogue, that we cede the microphone to others and then we wonder why so many think that those who are being verbal represent us all. Which simply adds to the growing flood of people wanting nothing to do with organized religion.

[Buzzard]

A short selection from the second chapter of Jacob would seem to be appropriate:

 

 6 Yea, it grieveth my soul and causeth me to shrink with shame before the presence of my Maker, that I must testify unto you concerning the wickedness of your hearts.

 7 And also it grieveth me that I must use so much ^aboldness of speech concerning you, before your wives and your children, many of whose feelings are exceedingly tender and ^bchaste and delicate before God, which thing is pleasing unto God;

 8 And it supposeth me that they have come up hither to hear the pleasing ^aword of God, yea, the word which healeth the wounded soul.

 9 Wherefore, it burdeneth my soul that I should be constrained, because of the strict commandment which I have received from God, to ^aadmonish you according to your crimes, to enlarge the wounds of those who are already wounded, instead of consoling and healing their wounds; and those who have not been wounded, instead of feasting upon the pleasing word of God have daggers placed to pierce their souls and wound their delicate minds.

 10 But, notwithstanding the greatness of the task, I must do according to the strict ^acommands of God, and tell you concerning your wickedness and abominations, in the presence of the pure in heart, and the broken heart, and under the glance of the ^bpiercing eye of the Almighty God.

 

More things change, the more things stay the same.

[The Nehor]

 What is the appropriate response to these which tend to classify Mormons as a milder and more civil version of the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

Start screaming at them that they are going to hell for five minutes then ask if they noticed a change in your demeanor.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Anti-Mormon comments had increasingly dropped off with the apparent descalization of political activism under Pres. Monson and the reining in of rhetoric , however, after Conference there was a spike in accusations of hate speech. Elder Oaks in particular is singled out, but old talks of Elder Packer are resurfacing as well. What is the appropriate response to these which tend to classify Mormons as a milder and more civil version of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do we ignore them, deny the characterization, try to explain that they were not intended that way, or try to distinguish these as simply opinions?

There was a time when a group could speak of their beliefs, and it was just that "our beliefs"...now it is hate speech. Soon God will need to come save us all from ourselves.

Also anyone who would liken us to Westboro, is not guilty of hate speech, but of stupidity.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Stone holm]

There was a time when a group could speak of their beliefs, and it was just that "our beliefs"...now it is hate speech. Soon God will need to come save us all from ourselves.

Also anyone who would liken us to Westboro, is not guilty of hate speech, but of stupidity.

Yeah I fear hat time departed when religion went political.

[BCSpace]

Consider Orson Scott Card.  In many reviews of the movie Ender's Game, there is often an aside mentioning something to the effect of "...despite the author's homophobia...".  If you look at Card's statement's historically, it doesn't help that he's vacillated, taken a stand then not taken a stand, etc.  However, nothing he has said qualifies for the manufactured psychological condition of "homophobia".  Same goes for anything any apostle has officially said as far as I can tell, including Packer.

[wenglund]

I have found that accusations of hate speech are usually misguided projections and/or manipulations, and the parties doing the accusing typically aren't open to accepting or respecting anything but agreement. So, just agree with them and wish them a better day, and don't let their warped perception ruin your day.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Nehor]

Consider Orson Scott Card.  In many reviews of the movie Ender's Game, there is often an aside mentioning something to the effect of "...despite the author's homophobia...".  If you look at Card's statement's historically, it doesn't help that he's vacillated, taken a stand then not taken a stand, etc.  However, nothing he has said qualifies for the manufactured psychological condition of "homophobia".  Same goes for anything any apostle has officially said as far as I can tell, including Packer.

 

Orson Scott Card is a weird case because of how homoerotic many of his books are. Just the Ender's Game stories have enough of it: Naked boys fighting each other in the shower; boys sleeping in communal bunk rooms nude; jogging, working out, and wrestling nude; Ender and Bean sharing a bed; the Ender and Alai kiss; Ender's rhapsodizing over Bonzo's beauty; the practice of an older boy taking a younger boy under his wing practically screams comparisons to Greek pederasty (and this is not the only part that seems pulled out of Sparta).

 

Mostly he is disliked for being a right-wing nut. I especially enjoyed his "speculation" about Obama having his wife run and establishing some kind of dynasty where he rejects democratic processes by putting puppets in the Presidency and establishing the equivalent of SA Brownshirts.

[Robert F. Smith]

Orson Scott Card is a weird case because of how homoerotic many of his books are. Just the Ender's Game stories have enough of it: Naked boys fighting each other in the shower; boys sleeping in communal bunk rooms nude; jogging, working out, and wrestling nude; Ender and Bean sharing a bed; the Ender and Alai kiss; Ender's rhapsodizing over Bonzo's beauty; the practice of an older boy taking a younger boy under his wing practically screams comparisons to Greek pederasty (and this is not the only part that seems pulled out of Sparta).

 

.......................................................................   

Maybe he is repenting and trying to make nice with the gay community.

[Robert F. Smith]

I have found that accusations of hate speech are usually misguided projections and/or manipulations, and the parties doing the accusing typically aren't open to accepting or respecting anything but agreement. So, just agree with them and wish them a better day, and don't let their warped perception ruin your day.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Maybe so, Wade,

However the latest issue of the Atlantic Monthly has a short article suggesting that we should learn to love hate speech, that it can be a good thing!!

 

See Jonathan Rauch, "The Case for Hate Speech: How Anita Bryant, Jerry Falwell, and Orson Scott Card have advanced the cause of gay rights," Atlantic, 312/4 (Nov 2013):17-18, online at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-case-for-hate-speech/309524/ .

[The Nehor]

Maybe he is repenting and trying to make nice with the gay community.

 

Except this is his early work.

[Robert F. Smith]

Except this is his early work.

Well, does that mean he is still in the closet?

[california boy]

Maybe so, Wade,

However the latest issue of the Atlantic Monthly has a short article suggesting that we should learn to love hate speech, that it can be a good thing!!

 

See Jonathan Rauch, "The Case for Hate Speech: How Anita Bryant, Jerry Falwell, and Orson Scott Card have advanced the cause of gay rights," Atlantic, 312/4 (Nov 2013):17-18, online at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-case-for-hate-speech/309524/ .

 

I have often stated that the passage of Prop 8 has been the single most effective event to push the equality of gay Americans.  Without the passage of Prop 8, gay marriage would not have been in the news regularly for the past 6 years.  It allowed those against gay marriage to make ridiculous statements and claims that have pushed the entire population towards better understanding the civil right of gays in this country.  We can thank Orson Scott Card and others for their homophobic remarks that reasonable people dismissed and helped them to see denying gays the right to marry is not in keeping with the standards and beliefs of equality in this country.

 

Passing prop 8 allowed the issues to be argued in the courts of law where the fear mongering and false arguments were vetted in the open and were unsupportable and without any factual basis.  All of the arguments against gay marriage have fallen to the wayside.  Virtually every court who has heard the legal arguments against gay marriage have struck down those laws.  This week celebrated the right for gays to marry in New Jersey.  Over 1/3 of all Americans can now marry the person they want.  This issue is now before the supreme court of New Mexico the Hawaiian legislature.  Does anyone really have much doubt of the outcome of these decisions?  The only argument  left standing is a religious belief against homosexuality.  And that belief has been put back into the confines of the churches where it always belonged.

 

The gay community should be forever grateful for the Mormon church in its role in passing prop 8.  No one would have guessed at the impact the successful passing of Prop 8 would have in instituting equality for gay couples in America.  In answering the OP, I would suggest reminding those that lambast the church that without the churches activism in passing Prop 8, where would gay marriage be today?

[Robert F. Smith]

I have often stated that the passage of Prop 8 has been the single most effective event to push the equality of gay Americans.  Without the passage of Prop 8, gay marriage would not have been in the news regularly for the past 6 years.

................................................................................   

 

The gay community should be forever grateful for the Mormon church in its role in passing prop 8.  No one would have guessed at the impact the successful passing of Prop 8 would have in instituting equality for gay couples in America.  In answering the OP, I would suggest reminding those that lambast the church that without the churches activism in passing Prop 8, where would gay marriage be today?

You are certainly correct.  However, this all has much more far reaching implications.  For, even without a specific US Supreme Court overturning of Reynolds v the USA, I think that the Court will eventually give broad general legal support for nearly any sort of marriage or legal liaison (polygynous, polyandrous, etc.), thus allowing Muslims in the USA to have multiple wives, allowing fundamentalist polygamists to live openly, and allowing individuals and groups (unorganized) to benefit from official recognition of their chosen patterns of association and cohabitation.  This would help make it easier for such people to pay taxes jointly, to have legal visiting status in jails and hospitals, and all manner of other practical consequences.  There is little likelihood, though, that the LDS Church would reinstitute polygyny.  Nor do I think  that there would be a sudden rush into polygyny by the general public.  It is an onerous burden.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have found that accusations of hate speech are usually misguided projections and/or manipulations, and the parties doing the accusing typically aren't open to accepting or respecting anything but agreement. So, just agree with them and wish them a better day, and don't let their warped perception ruin your day.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Also we should want to protected from hate speech. I don't like the idea of being (or playing) the victim. We can take it...it is only when the world and the worldly attack us what we say, can serve as a Liahona, and as such we are not seeking to become popular in the eyes of the world.

[Stone holm]

Maybe so, Wade,

However the latest issue of the Atlantic Monthly has a short article suggesting that we should learn to love hate speech, that it can be a good thing!!

 

See Jonathan Rauch, "The Case for Hate Speech: How Anita Bryant, Jerry Falwell, and Orson Scott Card have advanced the cause of gay rights," Atlantic, 312/4 (Nov 2013):17-18, online at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-case-for-hate-speech/309524/ .

I tend to agree. Vermont was really initially only supportive of civil unions, however , when the Churc's designated spokesperson described theChurch's then 12 step program for curing homosexuality, it not only made us the laughing stock of the State but dramatically changed public opinion. The Church's position with regards to its members is clear, and I support it. What is not clear is why certain GAs keep beating the drum. I cannot believe that anyone would be so ill informed as to think that because something was legal that made it not sinful. Given that, why on earth would a GA think it would not be considered like screaming sour grapes to dwell on that at Conference. As one non member friend recently said, "Do you folks just like picking scabs to make things bleed?"

[slamarwi]

It's not that legalizing something takes away the sin. Legalizing does however, encourage use and availability.

 

Addictive substances, pornography, homosexuality (SSM) abortion etc. .... are just some of the tools satan uses to blind, deceive and destroy our families. 

 

It's interesting to see how speaking the truth is now hate speech. It's reassuring to know that today's apostles and prophets aren't the first to encounter such nonsense  (2 Nephi 9:40). 

 

Call it what you like, hate speech or the truth given in plainness and humility. I look forward to hearing continued light and direction from the Lord's servants.

[Stone holm]

You are certainly correct.  However, this all has much more far reaching implications.  For, even without a specific US Supreme Court overturning of Reynolds v the USA, I think that the Court will eventually give broad general legal support for nearly any sort of marriage or legal liaison (polygynous, polyandrous, etc.), thus allowing Muslims in the USA to have multiple wives, allowing fundamentalist polygamists to live openly, and allowing individuals and groups (unorganized) to benefit from official recognition of their chosen patterns of association and cohabitation.  This would help make it easier for such people to pay taxes jointly, to have legal visiting status in jails and hospitals, and all manner of other practical consequences.  There is little likelihood, though, that the LDS Church would reinstitute polygyny.  Nor do I think  that there would be a sudden rush into polygyny by the general public.  It is an onerous burden.

Justice Rehnquist in a footnote to a concurring opinion suggested that US v Reynolds was no longer good law. But even if a clean polygamy case gets filed where no minors or welfare fraud is involved and it gets formally overruled on free exercise grounds, I do not expect that Church will reinstitute it except in the event of some catastrophic event that changed life as we know it.

[The Nehor]

Well, does that mean he is still in the closet?

 

Not necessarily. I have no idea if it means anything.