Responding To Accusations Of Hate Speech

[Danzo]

Maybe I fell asleep during the relevant section of conference, but I seemed to miss all of the 'hate speech'.

Could someone point out to me where all the hate at conference was?

[slamarwi]

Maybe I fell asleep during the relevant section of conference, but I seemed to miss all of the 'hate speech'.

Could someone point out to me where all the hate at conference was?

 Even if you had heard every word, you would have missed the hate speech. It never happened : )

[Danzo]

 Even if you had heard every word, you would have missed the hate speech. It never happened : )

Then what is the purpose of this thread?

[slamarwi]

To besmirch the talk that Elder Oaks gave, and then argue about how we LDS continue to use hate speech when discussing ssm, homosexuality etc.  - I think that about sums it up.

[Danzo]

Did elder oaks say something wrong?

[Buzzard]

Did elder oaks say something wrong?

Of course not, he just had the temerity to call sin sin. The nerve.

[Stone holm]

Did elder oaks say something wrong?

 

What has been focused upon was the discussion of the fact that just because something is lawful does not mean its not sinful.  Given the proximity of comment to the recent Court decisions, the reaction was that the Oaks was stirring the pot again over the SSM debate since the only real reference would be to the recent Court decisions and otherwise the statement is just reciting the obvious.  The purpose of the thread is how do you respond to accusations that Oaks comments were hate speech.  From reading this thread the conservative approach is to deny that it was hate speech.  Other alternatives would be to try and ignore the accusations, to try and say that Oaks was just stating the obvious, or try to push aside Oaks comments and point to some of the statement say of Pres. Uchtdorf  to as the saying goes "accentuate the positive".

[ERayR]

I think about all I have left to say is that I am saddened that some people mistake civility for acceptance of sin, kindness for condoning sin, and compassion for embracing sin. If being a disciple requires me to build walls and shove people out the door, I don't really want to be a disciple. Sorry.

 

I think about all I have left to say is that I am saddened that some people mistake forthrightness for "hate speech" but then maybe its not a mistake.  Any club to silence the opponent.

[Danzo]

What has been focused upon was the discussion of the fact that just because something is lawful does not mean its not sinful.  Given the proximity of comment to the recent Court decisions, the reaction was that the Oaks was stirring the pot again over the SSM debate since the only real reference would be to the recent Court decisions and otherwise the statement is just reciting the obvious.  The purpose of the thread is how do you respond to accusations that Oaks comments were hate speech.  From reading this thread the conservative approach is to deny that it was hate speech.  Other alternatives would be to try and ignore the accusations, to try and say that Oaks was just stating the obvious, or try to push aside Oaks comments and point to some of the statement say of Pres. Uchtdorf  to as the saying goes "accentuate the positive".

 

Who was reacting to this talk?

On what basis do they say it is hate speech?

What kind of non member listens to conference talks anyway?

What kind of member would be surprised by what he said?

[thesometimesaint]

If you had attended an AA meeting, you would know that it is customary, and an unwritten requirement, for each participant to introduce themselves by saying, "My name is _____, and I am an alcoholic." Again, as Dr. Phil often says, "You can't change what you don't acknowledge."

 

 

 

 

You are obviously straining to mis the point. I am not assigning derogatory labels to people, I am correctly categorizing behaviors. Calling perverse behaviors perverse, is no more derogatory than calling carcinogenic behaviors carcinogenic. And, If the behavior is not thought to be perverse or carcinogenic or deleterious or whatever, there is no reason to change. Rightly acknowledging the perversion or carcinogens or toxicity or whatever does give reason to change. Correctly labeling/acknowledging the nature of the behavior, acts as an agent for change. Encasing the bad behaviors in a PC whited sepulchar will do just the opposite.

 

So, again, you continue to get it exactly backwards.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

No; calling a person with the disease of alcoholism a wino is not the same thing as admitting to being an alcoholic.

 

Behaviors are not carcinogenic. Certain substances are.

 

One would think that after 6 millennia of calling people inappropriate names; disrespecting them as people, all the way up to murdering them in the name of our God. Such behaviors would have disappeared a long time ago. I guess I'm being too PC for you. Who knows maybe in another 6 millennia or so you'll succeed by doing it your way.

[Stone holm]

Who was reacting to this talk?

On what basis do they say it is hate speech?

What kind of non member listens to conference talks anyway?

What kind of member would be surprised by what he said?

 Will take these in order:  

 

Non-members reading reports of Conference.

Not sure they had a basis other than the context and timing as noted above in the thread.

Its been my experience over the years that a fair number of non-Mormons listen to Conference -- I was first confronted with that fact when a graduate student at Notre Dame commented on what a beautiful meeting place and choir the Mormons had for their Conference, immediately followed by too bad they are so ...... which sort of made me wince to get painted with the b word.

I don't think a lot of members would be particularly surprised that Oaks would say what he said, a few who grow weary of keeping the pot stirred may have hoped he could have found it in himself to let things lie for awhile, but surprise no I don't think so not on this issue.

[Danzo]

 Will take these in order:  

 

Non-members reading reports of Conference.

Not sure they had a basis other than the context and timing as noted above in the thread.

Its been my experience over the years that a fair number of non-Mormons listen to Conference -- I was first confronted with that fact when a graduate student at Notre Dame commented on what a beautiful meeting place and choir the Mormons had for their Conference, immediately followed by too bad they are so ...... which sort of made me wince to get painted with the b word.

I don't think a lot of members would be particularly surprised that Oaks would say what he said, a few who grow weary of keeping the pot stirred may have hoped he could have found it in himself to let things lie for awhile, but surprise no I don't think so not on this issue.

So Timing makes something hate speech?

maybe you just need to talk to your friend about what is and isn't hate speech.

If everything they disagree with is hate speech, then they are going to experience a lot of hate in their life.

They may also run the risk of crying wolf and having real hate speech ignored because of it.

[Stone holm]

So Timing makes something hate speech?

maybe you just need to talk to your friend about what is and isn't hate speech.

If everything they disagree with is hate speech, then they are going to experience a lot of hate in their life.

They may also run the risk of crying wolf and having real hate speech ignored because of it.

Timing is a part of understanding what is meant by something,and its impact. When much of the socio-political media is focused upon a topic and watching to see if an organization is going to move on or possibly stir the pot, then timing is critical.

[Danzo]

Timing is a part of understanding what is meant by something,and its impact. When much of the socio-political media is focused upon a topic and watching to see if an organization is going to move on or possibly stir the pot, then timing is critical.

 

So you think that his talk was hateful because it was given this year

It would not have been hateful if it was given 5 years ago, or he would have waited 5 years?

 

It would seem that you have a very broad definition of hate speech

 

Your definition seems to be

 

Hate Speech:  Something that offends someone

 

In that case (since we have no control over whether someone is offended), Anything could be hate speech.

[thesometimesaint]

Legal defintion of hate speech: Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like.

 

For the record I do not consider Elder Oaks GC talk hate speech. Pot stirring possibly, but not hate speech.

[Stone holm]

So you think that his talk was hateful because it was given this year

It would not have been hateful if it was given 5 years ago, or he would have waited 5 years?

 

It would seem that you have a very broad definition of hate speech

 

Your definition seems to be

 

Hate Speech:  Something that offends someone

 

In that case (since we have no control over whether someone is offended), Anything could be hate speech.

Not necessarily. And I agree with

Legal defintion of hate speech: Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like.

 

For the record I do not consider Elder Oaks GC talk hate speech. Pot stirring possibly, but not hate speech.[/ionsquote]

It was pot stirring that triggered the accusations.

[teddyaware]

Not necessarily. And I agree with

Legal defintion of hate speech: Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like.

 

For the record I do not consider Elder Oaks GC talk hate speech. Pot stirring possibly, but not hate speech.[/ionsquote]

It was pot stirring that triggered the accusations.

 

So let me see if I can get this straight: If I have this right, an Apostle of the Lord cannot bring up any subject on morality that might raise someone's else's hackles without being accused of gratuitously "stirring the pot." Well, fasten your seatbelts and be aware that those who bristle at the Lord's anointed for speaking the gospel truth to the wicked are in for one very long, extremely uncomfortable ride. When our fallen latter-day world is almost fully ripened in iniquity, and the prophets have no other choice but to bear down in pure testimony against the wicked as the only way to save them from impending judgment and hell, those who decry the apostolic "pot stirrers" are going to have a full time job lamenting and decrying their actions on boards such as this one.

 

Perhaps we would be better off in the end if the Lord's servants just held their peace and kept their 'judgmental' notions to themselves? That way fallen denizens of this world could lull each other into a sense of carnal security and lead each other carefully down to hell without any unwelcome interference from those wacky, backward Mormons.

Edited November 2, 2013 by teddyaware

[thesometimesaint]

Keep in mind that the LDS are in for a very hot ride according to a lot of "Christans". We don't appreciate it when they go on media outlets and tell us it is just because they love us. The definition of "To stir the pot" is to agitate a situation in order to cause a reaction. Last I looked that is the job of Apostles and Prophets.

Edited November 2, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Stone holm]

So let me see if I can get this straight: If I have this right, an Apostle of the Lord cannot bring up any subject on morality that might raise someone's else's hackles without being accused of gratuitously "stirring the pot." Well, fasten your seatbelts and be aware that those who bristle at the Lord's anointed for speaking the gospel truth to the wicked are in for one very long, extremely uncomfortable ride. When our fallen latter-day world is almost fully ripened in iniquity, and the prophets have no other choice but to bear down in pure testimony against the wicked as the only way to save them from impending judgment and hell, those who decry the apostolic "pot stirrers" are going to have a full time job lamenting and decrying their actions on boards such as this one.

 

Perhaps we would be better off in the end if the Lord's servants just held their peace and kept their 'judgmental' notions to themselves? That way fallen denizens of this world could lull each other into a sense of carnal security and lead each other carefully down to hell without any unwelcome interference from those wacky, backward Mormons.

If you read my thread comments you will see that I have said that the Apostles have a duty to speak out against sin, the question was tying it to secular law. By the timing of stating the obvious regarding sin and legality at a time so close to the recent Court battle, some felt that was another basic attack on the gay community. To me it wasn't hate speech, just stirring the pot.

[teddyaware]

If you read my thread comments you will see that I have said that the Apostles have a duty to speak out against sin, the question was tying it to secular law. By the timing of stating the obvious regarding sin and legality at a time so close to the recent Court battle, some felt that was another basic attack on the gay community. To me it wasn't hate speech, just stirring the pot.

 

Perhaps it should be called stirring up to repentance instead. "Stirring the pot" has a rather gratuitous and negative connotation. I doubt very much brother Oaks was consciously trying get into the faces of SSM proponents so that they might get irritated.

[california boy]

What Elder Oaks said was not hate speech, it was Mormon doctrine.  To equate Elder Oaks remarks to be hate speech cheapens the real meaning and reality of hate speech.  I am not in favor of calling religious doctrine of any kind hate speech.  That doesn't mean that others should not voice their objections to conflicting beliefs.  It is expected.  It is why there are so many different religions in the world.  People disagree with what is the will of God.

[Mystery Meat]

If you read my thread comments you will see that I have said that the Apostles have a duty to speak out against sin, the question was tying it to secular law. By the timing of stating the obvious regarding sin and legality at a time so close to the recent Court battle, some felt that was another basic attack on the gay community. To me it wasn't hate speech, just stirring the pot.

 

I will simply reply to this what I said earlier in this thread. I believe there are people in the Church who needed to hear Elder Oaks' talk. They needed to know and it needed to be made emphatically clear that homosexuality and gay marriage is not the Lord's way. You didn't need to hear it. I didn't need to hear it. But there are still a decent number of members of the Church who needed to hear it because they still don't understand the doctrine. As a special witness Elder Oaks has a duty before the Lord to declare His word clearly and bluntly. Others may not like the tone. The timing makes it hard on those of us who have more progressive friends or homosexual friends. But if our biggest worry (and I have been very, very, very guilty of this) is the kickback we are going to get from others we as individuals need to reexamine our lives. It is my opinion that things like this are only going to get more common. Members of the Church better get used to "pot stirring." I don't like it any more than anybody else, but I guess that has always been the lot of those who claim to be disciples of Christ.

[Stone holm]

I will simply reply to this what I said earlier in this thread. I believe there are people in the Church who needed to hear Elder Oaks' talk. They needed to know and it needed to be made emphatically clear that homosexuality and gay marriage is not the Lord's way. You didn't need to hear it. I didn't need to hear it. But there are still a decent number of members of the Church who needed to hear it because they still don't understand the doctrine. As a special witness Elder Oaks has a duty before the Lord to declare His word clearly and bluntly. Others may not like the tone. The timing makes it hard on those of us who have more progressive friends or homosexual friends. But if our biggest worry (and I have been very, very, very guilty of this) is the kickback we are going to get from others we as individuals need to reexamine our lives. It is my opinion that things like this are only going to get more common. Members of the Church better get used to "pot stirring." I don't like it any more than anybody else, but I guess that has always been the lot of those who claim to be disciples of Christ.

Truly difficult for me to believe that any Mormon sufficiently competent to be baptised would be so clueless as to believe that legality defines what is or is not sinful. Again, I don't think it was hate speech, but it sure walked and talked like pot stirring, and pot stirring has nothing to do with stirring up repentance and everything to do with stirring up contention.

[Mystery Meat]

Truly difficult for me to believe that any Mormon sufficiently competent to be baptised would be so clueless as to believe that legality defines what is or is not sinful. Again, I don't think it was hate speech, but it sure walked and talked like pot stirring, and pot stirring has nothing to do with stirring up repentance and everything to do with stirring up contention.

 

No disrespect Stone, but I know plenty of baptised covenant making members of the Church who think homosexual sexual activity is not a sin in the eyes of God. Some on this very board has said as much. Elder Oaks as an Apostle has a responsibility to make sure they know where the Lord stands. This is especially true in light of many voices (and I understand why...in part at least) claiming that the Church will change its position on the issue like they have in the past because the Spirit has told them same sex marriage is okay and the will of the Lord. 

 

What's more, even if every member was on the same page on the issue, the prophets and apostles are not just called to preach to the saints, but to the entire world. You may not like the pot stirring. It may even make you uncomfortable. But Elder Oaks is hardly the first pot stirrer (Lehi, Abinidi, Mormon, Joseph Smith, Noah, Moses, Jeremiah, and even the Savior. In fact it looks like Mormonism has a rich tradition of stirring the pot.), and if it leads to contention that is caused by the adversary, not because of Elder Oaks.

[thesometimesaint]

There is a difference between a sin and a violation of law.