Responding To Accusations Of Hate Speech

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Of course not.  By definition, they would actually have to be saying something hateful to be engaging in hate speech. You don't engage in hate speech unless you engage in it. (Do I really have to explain this to you?)

 

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? 

 

 

 

Quite possibly. It would depend on what was said and how it was said. You're the one who started this thread saying the level of hate speech is resurging after the recent conference. You ought to understand what you meant by that.

 

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?

 

Probably not in most cases. But again, it would depend on what was said and how it was said. (This isn't rocket science.)

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Worth far more than 2 cents. Bravo!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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?

Some one likes to be obtuse.

[Stone holm]

Of course not.  By definition, they would actually have to be saying something hateful to be engaging in hate speech. You don't engage in hate speech unless you engage in it. (Do I really have to explain this to you?)

 

 

Quite possibly. It would depend on what was said and how it was said. You're the one who started this thread saying the level of hate speech is resurging after the recent conference. You ought to understand what you meant by that.

 

Probably not in most cases. But again, it would depend on what was said and how it was said. (This isn't rocket science.)

Where did I say anything about the level of hate speech against Mormons increasing? Unless you consider the term anti-Mormon as meaning hate speech.

[Scott Lloyd]

Some one likes to be obtuse.

I think what happened is Stone holm and I have not had a shared frame of reference, and I take partial blame for not being clearer.

 

When Stone holm uses the term "hate speech" here, he has reference to what the General Authorities said as potentially fitting that classification. But he also refers to "anti-Mormon comments" which, for some reason, he appears to exempt from the category of hate speech.

[Scott Lloyd]

Where did I say anything about the level of hate speech against Mormons increasing? Unless you consider the term anti-Mormon as meaning hate speech.

I do. See my post immediately preceding this one.

 

For the record, I categorically deny that Elder Oaks or President Packer have been guilty of hate speech either at this most recent general conference or at past ones. Those who characterize what they did say as hate speech are themselves, by their unjust accusations, engaging in hate speech.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

Riiiiiiiggggghttttt! LOL

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Now I know how people answer when they have no legal argument that will stand up in a court of law.

[wenglund]

Now I know how people answer when they have no legal argument that will stand up in a court of law.

 

Rrrrrriiiiiighttttt!!!--as if this thread was intended for presentations of legal arguments that have or will stand up in courts of law. LOL

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

Rrrrrriiiiiighttttt!!!--as if this thread was intended for presentations of legal arguments that have or will stand up in courts of law. LOL

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm more interested in arguments that will or will not stand up before the judgment bar of God.

[Hamba Tuhan]

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.

 

CFR on the following:

• That the Church has ever put Elder Oaks in charge of an outreach program to Evangelical Christians.
• That the goal of this outreach was specifically 'ecumenical'.
• That the cover of the paperback Book of Mormon was changed as a consequence of this or any other ecumenical outreach program to Evangelicals.
• That the subitle 'Another Testament of Jesus Christ' was added to the Book of Mormon as a consequence of this or any other ecumenical outreach program to Evangelicals.
• That Dallin Oaks was involved in these changes, made in 1982, when he was still serving as a state supreme court justice.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Stone holm]

CFR on the following:

• That the Church has ever put Elder Oaks in charge of an outreach program to Evangelical Christians.
• That the goal of this outreach was specifically 'ecumenical'.
• That the cover of the paperback Book of Mormon was changed as a consequence of this or any other ecumenical outreach program to Evangelicals.
• That the subitle 'Another Testament of Jesus Christ' was added to the Book of Mormon as a consequence of this or any other ecumenical outreach program to Evangelicals.
• That Dallin Oaks was involved in these changes, made in 1982, when he was still serving as a state supreme court justice.

Will work on that, but yes to all categories...there was a specific campaign to combat the concept that we were not Christian. As part of that campaign they changed the cover of the paperback B of M to plain blue removing the picture of the Temple Spire Angel Moroni, they added the subtitle, and Pres Hinckley started with the (paraphrased) we are just like you but have more. Will see if I can find the flyer about Elder Oaks call.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Will work on that, but yes to all categories... Will see if I can find the flyer about Elder Oaks call.

I'm looking forward to clear and specific references in support of each of your five claims.

[thesometimesaint]

Now I know how people answer when they have no legal argument that will stand up in a court of law.

 

I have consistently said I can find no legallly justifable way to prevent it. That doesn't mean that I find that SSM will ever meet LDS requirements for Temple attendence.

[Rivers]

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.

.

I'm one of those people who would like the doctrine to change. So this talk was for me. After hearing this talk I thought to myself, "Fine Elder Oaks. You win!" This talk has helped me make a stride in coming to terms with the fact that homosexuality simply doesn't fit in with our theology.

I actually enjoyed this talk for the most part. He did a great job of articulating the importance of families. I also appreciate him saying that we should respect the beliefs and opinions if others including atheists.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Rivers

[california boy]

I have consistently said I can find no legallly justifable way to prevent it. That doesn't mean that I find that SSM will ever meet LDS requirements for Temple attendence.

I tend to agree with you.  I am grateful that the church has backed away from trying to take away those legal rights of gay Americans.  

 

I also don't really think that church doctrine on temple ordanaces will change.  As with most gay former members, I have long ago come to grips that I will not be a part of the LDS church while here on earth.  If the church is ok with that, then so am I.  The path that the church offers to gays is not one I really want to be on.  Celestial marriage to a woman for eternity is not a goal I want to pursue. That can't be the only option that God has in mind for his gay children.  Maybe those other options simply don't require temple attendance to be achieved.  Until God reveals more, no one really knows.   

[cdowis]

I tend to agree with you.  I am grateful that the church has backed away from trying to take away those legal rights of gay Americans.  

 

 

Similar to the church's stand on abortion.

[Scott Lloyd]

Will work on that, but yes to all categories...there was a specific campaign to combat the concept that we were not Christian. As part of that campaign they changed the cover of the paperback B of M to plain blue removing the picture of the Temple Spire Angel Moroni, they added the subtitle, and Pres Hinckley started with the (paraphrased) we are just like you but have more. Will see if I can find the flyer about Elder Oaks call.

Like Hamba, I find your claims on the outlandish side and an curious to see what you come up with.

Regarding your garbled President Hinckley paraphrase, what he did say on several occasions, and it was not just to Evangelicals, was, bring with you all the good that you have and let us see if we can add to it. To my knowledge, he never said, "We are just like you."

And this didn't originate with President Hinckley. President George Albert Smith said it as well. And the Prophet Joseph Smith said something very similar.

 

Here's an editorial I wrote back in June that provides the relevant quotes.

What do you do with the fact that Dallin Oaks was still a Utah Sureme Court justice when, according to you, he was put on a committee for "ecumenical" outreach? I know for a fact that the Brethren don't employ the term "ecumenical" to pertain to interfaith relations. Check the definition of that term. I doubt it means what you think it means.

Regarding the adding of the subtitle to the Book of Mormon, there is a memorable general conference talk by Boyd K. Packer announcing the new subtitle and giving the reasoning for it. I'll see if I can find it later today.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Similar to the church's stand on abortion.

I think the Church is still opposed to both in principle as public policy, but it's a matter of choosing battles and investing energy and resources prudently.

[teddyaware]

I tend to agree with you.  I am grateful that the church has backed away from trying to take away those legal rights of gay Americans.  

 

I also don't really think that church doctrine on temple ordanaces will change.  As with most gay former members, I have long ago come to grips that I will not be a part of the LDS church while here on earth.  If the church is ok with that, then so am I.  The path that the church offers to gays is not one I really want to be on.  Celestial marriage to a woman for eternity is not a goal I want to pursue. That can't be the only option that God has in mind for his gay children.  Maybe those other options simply don't require temple attendance to be achieved.  Until God reveals more, no one really knows.

 

Doing God's will, even when its extremely difficult to do, has always been the chosen path of the most heroic prophets and saints. "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there be some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19:12) 

[CV75]

I have never personally been faced with someone accusing the Brethren of using hate speech. I live in the "mission field," and have a lot of friends and acquaintances of all stripes. It hasn't been in the news. The only exposure I've had to such things has been on this board, where I typically respond in terms of the specific subject matter. I've seen the links that sometimes appear in such posts, and the sources and arguments are hardly credible.

 

And why doesn't someone sue? If it isn't a case of criminal offense, then I suspect just about any accusation can be argued against by showing that the Brethren's statements are not or based on discrimination against a person or group, but in support of or against a particular principle. This is how I would likely handle a face-to-face confrontation, but only if the accuser was behaving somewhat civilly.

[pnugent84]

The church has said nothing in the last forty years or so that it needs to apologize for.  Nothing even close to true hate speech. 

[Buzzard]

I tend to agree with you.  I am grateful that the church has backed away from trying to take away those legal rights of gay Americans.  

 

I also don't really think that church doctrine on temple ordanaces will change.  As with most gay former members, I have long ago come to grips that I will not be a part of the LDS church while here on earth.  If the church is ok with that, then so am I.  The path that the church offers to gays is not one I really want to be on.  Celestial marriage to a woman for eternity is not a goal I want to pursue. That can't be the only option that God has in mind for his gay children.  Maybe those other options simply don't require temple attendance to be achieved.  Until God reveals more, no one really knows.   

Remove the word "gay". God has many options for those not willing to obey his commandments and not wanting to be part of his kingdom. You can read all about them in the 76th section of the Doctrine and Covenants. He loves all his children, gay and straight, Mormon, Muslim, Atheist, chaste and promiscuous. He loves you just as much as he loves President Monson.  But he has also said he cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. We do not get to set the terms, though we obviously have a choice on accepting our Heavenly Father's terms. 

[california boy]

Remove the word "gay". God has many options for those not willing to obey his commandments and not wanting to be part of his kingdom. You can read all about them in the 76th section of the Doctrine and Covenants. He loves all his children, gay and straight, Mormon, Muslim, Atheist, chaste and promiscuous. He loves you just as much as he loves President Monson.  But he has also said he cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. We do not get to set the terms, though we obviously have a choice on accepting our Heavenly Father's terms. 

Yes, I think what you say is true.  I have seen great devotion to God outside of the church as well as inside the church.  You don't have to be a member of the church to live a Christ like life.  You don't have to be even Christian.  Indeed, God does love all of His children.  If your belief is that only those perfected and without sin will return to God, heaven will be a pretty quiet place.  Few people leave this earth life fully repented and perfected both within the church and without.

[thesometimesaint]

I tend to agree with you.  I am grateful that the church has backed away from trying to take away those legal rights of gay Americans.  

 

I also don't really think that church doctrine on temple ordanaces will change.  As with most gay former members, I have long ago come to grips that I will not be a part of the LDS church while here on earth.  If the church is ok with that, then so am I.  The path that the church offers to gays is not one I really want to be on.  Celestial marriage to a woman for eternity is not a goal I want to pursue. That can't be the only option that God has in mind for his gay children.  Maybe those other options simply don't require temple attendance to be achieved.  Until God reveals more, no one really knows.   

 

I'd like to get the government out of the marrying business all together. Make them all Domestic Partnerships, a legally enforcable contract. Let the churches provide whatever religious meanings for their own membership.

 

While very hard to do I belive that the Church does have a place for our homosexual brothers and sisters. You are welcome to sit with me in the front row of the chapel anytime you want. Christ was tempted in ALL things. Yet he did not give into those temptations.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, I think what you say is true.  I have seen great devotion to God outside of the church as well as inside the church.  You don't have to be a member of the church to live a Christ like life.  You don't have to be even Christian.  Indeed, God does love all of His children.  If your belief is that only those perfected and without sin will return to God, heaven will be a pretty quiet place.  Few people leave this earth life fully repented and perfected both within the church and without.

 

There is only one type of person that won't find place in Heaven. It is only those that refuse to repent.