Responding To Accusations Of Hate Speech

[Hamba Tuhan]

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?"

Silly apostles. Maybe someday they'll wise up and realise they need to market-test their teachings with Vermont 'progressives' before delivering them. Just like how Samuel should have run his messages past a group of right-thinking people before climbing up on that wall and making not just himself but the entire Church a laughingstock in Zarahemla.

[teddyaware]

Silly apostles. Maybe someday they'll wise up and realise they need to market-test their teachings with Vermont 'progressives' before delivering them. Just like how Samuel should have run his messages past a group of right-thinking people before climbing up on that wall and making not just himself but the entire Church a laughingstock in Zarahemla.

 

Bullseye! Prophets always have been and always will be unpopular because the carnally minded and worldly wise will always take the truth to be a hard thing to hear. There's no use fretting about it because, as sure as night follows day, the natural man will always at first bristle and then rage against the "inflexible and hopelessly old fashioned ideas" of the "narrow minded," legally authorized servants of the living God. We're always going to be unpopular with the world and nothing's that's ever going to change that.   

Edited October 28, 2013 by teddyaware

[Rivers]

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?"

Perhaps Elder Oaks wants to separate the wheat from the tares.

[california boy]

Perhaps Elder Oaks wants to separate the wheat from the tares.

If God wanted to separate the wheat from the tares, is all he would have to do is reinstitute polygamy.  Maybe his plan is to have gay marriage be legalized first. 

[Stone holm]

Silly apostles. Maybe someday they'll wise up and realise they need to market-test their teachings with Vermont 'progressives' before delivering them. Just like how Samuel should have run his messages past a group of right-thinking people before climbing up on that wall and making not just himself but the entire Church a laughingstock in Zarahemla.

Interesting thought. Kind of undermines trying to understand why Pres Hinckley was coy about the Snow Couplet on Larry King Live though if they pay no heed to public relations when they speak. And you are right, about not worrying about Vermont, I was present at a Stake Conference when Dalin Oaks made a slur about the weird people up in Vermont not realizing that their were Vermonters in the Stake.

[teddyaware]

Interesting thought. Kind of undermines trying to understand why Pres Hinckley was coy about the Snow Couplet on Larry King Live though if they pay no heed to public relations when they speak. And you are right, about not worrying about Vermont, I was present at a Stake Conference when Dalin Oaks made a slur about the weird people up in Vermont not realizing that their were Vermonters in the Stake.

 

Clarity of speech and specificity are more important when a prophet is addressing present moral imperatives than when he's called upon by some ignorant gentile to address theological speculations.

 

I'm sure Elder Oaks was poking fun. That's something I've seen many General Authorities do. I'm from New Jersey and one day in stake conference I heard then visiting Apostle Hinckley refer to Newark as "that smoky, dirty little city down by the river." LOL!

[thesometimesaint]

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.

We will always have our nay sayers. I don't pay too much attention to them, as I value my sanity and relationship with God much much more.

 

It is long past time for good men and women to join cause and make this a better world. STAND UP and be not afraid of telling the truth in love, patience. long suffering, and a desire to do good. I don't have any problem with telling anyone what I believe.

[thesometimesaint]

If God wanted to separate the wheat from the tares, is all he would have to do is reinstitute polygamy.  Maybe his plan is to have gay marriage be legalized first. 

 

Don't hold your breath on that one.

[Stone holm]

Clarity of speech and specificity are more important when a prophet is addressing present moral imperatives than when he's called upon by some ignorant gentile to address theological speculations.

 

I'm sure Elder Oaks was poking fun. That's something I've seen many General Authorities do. I'm from New Jersey and one day in stake conference I heard then visiting Apostle Hinckley refer to Newark as "that smoky, dirty little city down by the river." LOL!

 

Well that is interesting.  If that is the case, it appears that they got it somewhat reversed.  The timing of the slur was clearly a political attack on Vermont for having authorized Civil Unions and was specifically directed at the idea we had a lot of gays over in Vermont -- that is the type of humor that drives people from the Church.  Can't comment on Hinckley's comment as I was not there.  The notion that the Church does not screen its representatives comments or as it was said "market-test" them is absurd.  Of course they "market test" them, and the marketing has in some ways been successful since they were given kudos by a Baptist Minister speaking at BYU and remarking on the political alliance having been formed with the Southern and Bible belt evangelicals.  Which makes sense since Oaks was specifically put in charge of an ecumenical outreach program to the Evangelicals by the Church -- which resulted in several cosmetic changes like the cover to the paperback version of the Book of Mormon and the addition of the Second Testimony of Jesus Christ language to the title.

[california boy]

Don't hold your breath on that one.

I completely agree with you.  And I also don't think that Elder Oaks was separating wheat from tares.  The church has no interest in causing a schism in the membership.  Nor should it.

[thesometimesaint]

I completely agree with you.  And I also don't think that Elder Oaks was separating wheat from tares.  The church has no interest in causing a schism in the membership.  Nor should it.

 

Agreed. Though I don't foresee the return of polygamy anytime soon, and have no desire to practice it myself, it isn't a deal breaker for me. 

[wenglund]

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 nauseatingly self-congratulatory article may have an unintended point.  If no one publicly objected to the advancement of homosexual behaviors and special privileges, then gay activists would have no one to wrongly label as bigoted and hateful, and thus no way to wrongly use those labels to wrap themselves in feigned victimhood. And, without the feigned victimhood, they may be robbed of at least one means for emotionally manipulating public sentiment.

 

But, of course, this whole way of thinking is a joke. Had Prop 8 not been passed, then SSM would have been legal in California for the last five years, instead of just recently through executive fiat, and all the legal dollars spent over those five years could have been spent litigating in other states and moving things along more quickly there.

 

I view the article as a not-so-clever way of attempting to eliminate resistance--one I am personally not buying. It is kind of like inanely attempting to convince people that: "for evil men to [more speedily] accomplish their purpose it is only necessary that good men should do [something]." LOL

 

However, if other potential resisters are gullible enough to be talked into not resisting the advancement of perversion (for fear of being labeled as bigoted and hateful, and with the hope of somehow slowing down the advancement of perversion), then they deserve the speedier advancement of perversion.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Nehor]

Perhaps Elder Oaks wants to separate the wheat from the tares.

The whole point of that parable is not to separate the wheat and the tares.

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

Often, the most prudent course is to ignore it.

 

There have been apologetics organizations in place in later years that have served to counter such hate speech. I expect they will go on doing so. (And I refuse to accept the fiction that such efforts do more harm than good.)

 

The absolutely worst thing that one could do, in my opinion, is to try to apologize, explain away or marginalize the objects of the hate speech. It is not the place of rank-and-file Latter-day Saints to dilute or neutralize the expressions of the Brethren in official fora such as general conference.

[california boy]

The nauseatingly self-congratulatory article may have an unintended point.  If no one publicly objected to the advancement of homosexual behaviors and special privileges, then gay activists would have no one to wrongly label as bigoted and hateful, and thus no way to wrongly use those labels to wrap themselves in feigned victimhood. And, without the feigned victimhood, they may be robbed of at least one means for emotionally manipulating public sentiment.

 

But, of course, this whole way of thinking is a joke. Had Prop 8 not been passed, then SSM would have been legal in California for the last five years, instead of just recently through executive fiat, and all the legal dollars spent over those five years could have been spent litigating in other states and moving things along more quickly there.

 

I view the article as a not-so-clever way of attempting to eliminate resistance--one I am personally not buying. It is kind of like inanely attempting to convince people that: "for evil men to [more speedily] accomplish their purpose it is only necessary that good men should do [something]." LOL

 

However, if other potential resisters are gullible enough to be talked into not resisting the advancement of perversion (for fear of being labeled as bigoted and hateful, and with the hope of somehow slowing down the advancement of perversion), then they deserve the speedier advancement of perversion.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Legalization of gay marriage was going to happen one way or the other.  So many untruths unfounded fears and distortions was a central part of the prop 8 campaign that many people were fooled into what they were voting for.  Now that time has past and those "talking points" have been vetted out in the open, it was inevitable that gay marriage would be instituted in California.  Polls in California in 2012 show 59% Californians support gay marriage.

 

When the NOM tried using the same distorted facts last election cycle, all 4 states shot down their arguments and voted for gay marriage.  The time has past that such distortion will work.  American can thank the passage of Prop 8 for this discussion to not be limiting gay marriage only to California but in changing public opinion in the entire country.  There is not a single area of the country that has not moved to supporting the civil rights of gay couples.  Passing of Prop 8 is not just about California.  

 

The arguments against gay marriage have been silenced, not because of "gay activism" but because the fear mongering and untruths no longer work.  There is not a single legal argument that those opposing gay marriage can put forth.  And that is the reason why we hear less and less political rhetoric against gay marriage.  

[Stone holm]

Often, the most prudent course is to ignore it.

 

There have been apologetics organizations in place in later years that have served to counter such hate speech. I expect they will go on doing so. (And I refuse to accept the fiction that such efforts do more harm than good.)

 

The absolutely worst thing that one could do, in my opinion, is to try to apologize, explain away or marginalize the objects of the hate speech. It is not the place of rank-and-file Latter-day Saints to dilute or neutralize the expressions of the Brethren in official fora such as general conference.

 

Yeah, I know I keep forgetting my place.   Raise one's hand to sustain and keep one mouth shut.  Its just I have this thing about people beating dead horses in public -- it does nothing to reform the horse, and annoys many bystanders.

[Stone holm]

Legalization of gay marriage was going to happen one way or the other.  So many untruths unfounded fears and distortions was a central part of the prop 8 campaign that many people were fooled into what they were voting for.  Now that time has past and those "talking points" have been vetted out in the open, it was inevitable that gay marriage would be instituted in California.  Polls in California in 2012 show 59% Californians support gay marriage.

 

When the NOM tried using the same distorted facts last election cycle, all 4 states shot down their arguments and voted for gay marriage.  The time has past that such distortion will work.  American can thank the passage of Prop 8 for this discussion to not be limiting gay marriage only to California but in changing public opinion in the entire country.  There is not a single area of the country that has not moved to supporting the civil rights of gay couples.  Passing of Prop 8 is not just about California.  

 

The arguments against gay marriage have been silenced, not because of "gay activism" but because the fear mongering and untruths no longer work.  There is not a single legal argument that those opposing gay marriage can put forth.  And that is the reason why we hear less and less political rhetoric against gay marriage.  

 

Whether it was going to happen or not, is not really the question -- although, concededly we probably helped it to happen, kind of like the Pope baning books -- the question is why State the obvious that because something is lawful does not mean it isn't a sin.  The whole question is not whether or not it is a sin -- the overwhelming majority of Mormons who have spent any time at all with the Scriptures know that, the question is why are we still trying to legislate our religious beliefs.  If you want to be a Mormon you can't participate in homosexual behavior end of discussion.  Does that mean we have to spend millions of dollars to try to keep other people from engaging in homosexual behaviour?  Do we have the right to tell them that they have to behave like us?  No.  So why keep beating the drum?

[wenglund]

Legalization of gay marriage was going to happen one way or the other.  So many untruths unfounded fears and distortions was a central part of the prop 8 campaign that many people were fooled into what they were voting for.  Now that time has past and those "talking points" have been vetted out in the open, it was inevitable that gay marriage would be instituted in California.  Polls in California in 2012 show 59% Californians support gay marriage.

 

When the NOM tried using the same distorted facts last election cycle, all 4 states shot down their arguments and voted for gay marriage.  The time has past that such distortion will work.  American can thank the passage of Prop 8 for this discussion to not be limiting gay marriage only to California but in changing public opinion in the entire country.  There is not a single area of the country that has not moved to supporting the civil rights of gay couples.  Passing of Prop 8 is not just about California.  

 

The arguments against gay marriage have been silenced, not because of "gay activism" but because the fear mongering and untruths no longer work.  There is not a single legal argument that those opposing gay marriage can put forth.  And that is the reason why we hear less and less political rhetoric against gay marriage.  

 

Riiiiiiiggggghttttt! LOL

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah, I know I keep forgetting my place.   Raise one's hand to sustain and keep one mouth shut. 

You're free to do what you like, and I think you know that.

 

I'm just saying I don't think it does the Church any good to marginalize a general conference speaker by presuming to apologize or make excuses for him when responding to purveyors of hate speech, as though he were an eccentric uncle that's an embarrassment to the family.

 

And presumably, the question pertains to what is most helpful to the Church.

[Stone holm]

You're free to do what you like, and I think you know that.

 

I'm just saying I don't think it does the Church any good to marginalize a general conference speaker by presuming to apologize or make excuses for him when responding to purveyors of hate speech, as though he were an eccentric uncle that's an embarrassment to the family.

 

And presumably, the question pertains to what is most helpful to the Church.

 

So what happens if they are behaving like eccentric uncles?

[Scott Lloyd]

So what happens if they are behaving like eccentric uncles?

From where I sit, this seems to be one of those contrary-to-fact hypotheticals that are hardly worth the cerebral energy it takes to ponder them.

 

But even if that were to happen, I would feel no obligation to offer any sort of explanation to one who is disposed to use it as an occasion to purvey hate speech.

 

Again, ignoring the hate speech is often the most prudent course.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

From where I sit, this seems to be one of those contrary-to-fact hypotheticals that are hardly worth the cerebral energy it takes to ponder them.

 

But even if that were to happen, I would feel no obligation to offer any sort of explanation to one who is disposed to use it as an occasion to purvey hate speech.

 

Again, ignoring the hate speech is often the most prudent course.

 

Umh, not sure I understand this.  So you are saying that when people accuse the GAs of hate speech, that we should ignore the GAs speech?

[Scott Lloyd]

Umh, not sure I understand this.  So you are saying that when people accuse the GAs of hate speech, that we should ignore the GAs speech?

Yes, you have quite misunderstood me. I don't concede that the General Authorities engage in hate speech. I was referring to those who, among other things, would accuse them of hate speech.

[Stone holm]

Yes, you have quite misunderstood me. I don't concede that the General Authorities engage in hate speech. I was referring to those who, among other things, would accuse them of hate speech.

 

Oh so you are saying that people who consider something that a GA has said to be hate speech, are themselves engaging in hate speech.  Is that because the objection that they are making to whatever the GA has said is generalized to be opinion of all Mormons and therefore such a comment would be an act of hate speech against Mormons?  Interesting, I wonder if we dial back 70 years or so whether those who were speaking out against the intolerance of blacks down South were engaging in in hate speech against Southerners.  What do you think?

[Mystery Meat]

Whether it was going to happen or not, is not really the question -- although, concededly we probably helped it to happen, kind of like the Pope baning books -- the question is why State the obvious that because something is lawful does not mean it isn't a sin.  The whole question is not whether or not it is a sin -- the overwhelming majority of Mormons who have spent any time at all with the Scriptures know that, the question is why are we still trying to legislate our religious beliefs.  If you want to be a Mormon you can't participate in homosexual behavior end of discussion.  Does that mean we have to spend millions of dollars to try to keep other people from engaging in homosexual behaviour?  Do we have the right to tell them that they have to behave like us?  No.  So why keep beating the drum?

 

Hey Stone, not going to lie I have had some very similar thoughts to yours recently. Anybody with half a brain can see that the battle has been decided on the issue of gay marriage. I think the Church and its leadership knows this too and has significantly reduced its legislative efforts on the matter (in fact based on what I know they may say that getting involved to the extent that they did was a mistake as well). Additionally, I agree with you on the morality of being practicing gay (sexually active). It doesn't take long to see that there is scriptural (both ancient and modern) precedent for saying homosexual activity is contrary to the Lord's commandments. That shouldn't be hard for people who are familiar with scripture and the revealed plan of salvation to understand. So why keep bringing it up?

 

My answer: because there are still many people who are members of the Church who half expect (or fully expect) for that bit of doctrine to change. They are convinced that the current men we sustain as prophets and apostles are wrong on this matter. Read Jacob or King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon for a quick glimpse and how serious a charge it is for the Church leaders (aka prophets) to declare God's word to the people. It's such a huge responsibility in fact, that failing to do so could potentially jeopardize their own eternal standing with the Lord (if I am reading the Book of Mormon and other scripture correctly). As I listened to Elder Oaks talk, I did not take it as a renewed call for keeping same sex marriage off the books (full disclosure I support equality under the law for gay and straight couples); rather I heard an emphatic declaration of God's stance on the matter: Marriage between man and woman is ordained of God. 

 

I don't think this was a separating the wheat from the tares moment. But there are a growing number within the Church who believe that homosexuality (or being sexually active) is not a sin under God's law. The prophets have a sacred and grave obligation to teach correct principles so they are not brought under condemnation. Bringing it up this past conference was fine and I believe in this context Elder Oaks was not being the eccentric old uncle. He was clarifying the Lord's position on the matter.

 

My two cents.