Religion, SF, and Other Speculative Fictions.


Mind on Fire random header image

The Hypocrisy of Dallin H. Oaks.

Posted by John on October 14th, 2009 at 10:00 pm · 145 Comments

I spent about 2-3 hours over the past couple of days writing a point by point rebuttal to LDS apostle Dallin Oaks’ recent talk in which he compares recent violence and harassment against Prop 8 supporters to the violence and intimidation tactics of opponents of the Civil Rights Movement. For the past hour I’ve been reviewing the acts of vandalism against Churches and the verbal harassment of supporters (and in some cases, suspected supporters).

I have to take a moment here to say that I condemn such violence and harassment without reservation. During a peaceful protest at a Mormon Temple after the election, I and other activists tried to restrain some of the more ‘in your face’ protesters when they confronted people leaving the adjacent chapel. Many of my friends, who voted no on Prop 8, attended that meetinghouse, after all.

But reading through the human cost of the Civil Rights Movement, I’m sickened by the analogy to the point where I’m convinced that Oaks is his own worst enemy. As I read about the refusal of Southern State governments to prosecute Klan members for the savage beatings and murders of activists, of police support and coordination of organized beatings of boycotters and sit-ins, of torture endured by jailed freedom riders, of shootings/beatings/arsons against blacks who tried to register to vote, and all of this occurring after decades of systemized, socially-sanctioned and state-supported intimidation and disenfranchisement of blacks in the South, Oaks’ comparison is so bad as to appear satirical.

Further worsening his attempt to make young Mormons feel that they are being deprived of their right to freedom of religion is that his arguments are all hypothetical. Mormons are as free to practice their religion as they ever were. But thousands of gays who, for a short space of time, had the right to marry, were, by Prop 8 supporters, actually deprived of that right. The sad thing is that so many Mormons are uncritically swallowing down Oaks’ verbal excrement.

Further exacerbating Oaks’ hypocrisy is that the Church was no friend of the Civil Rights Movement. Then apostle Ezra Taft Benson, with the backing of President McKay, made several public condemnations linking the black fight for equality with Communism (making it a threat to national security). The Church also withheld exaltation and administrative authority from blacks until 1978 (recall that the Civil Rights Movement was as much about dignity as it was about legal rights), and that a predominantly Mormon Utah had the weakest state protections for the rights of minorities outside of the South. Its single legislative concession during that time was the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws in 1963.

Finally, while Oaks rambles on about how Mormon rights are being deprived because a few churches were spray painted at the height of voter frustration, gays face actual persecution on a daily basis. They continue to be denied the right to marry and to serve their country openly in the military. They are harassed to the point where many find life unbearable and commit suicide. Finally, gays are beaten and killed solely for their orientation. Dallin Oaks, the LDS institution and many of its members continue to contribute to a cultural environment that endangers gays by painting them and love between gays as ungodly, unnatural, sick, depraved, immoral, and threatening to fundamental principles of Christian and American life.

At the moment, my one consolation is that this Church finds me unfit to be a member. I can stand with my queer sisters and brothers and friends with some dignity.

Tags: Gay Rights and Queer Issues · Mormonism

145 responses so far ↓

  • 1 ECS // Oct 15, 2009 at 4:33 am

    I’m not sure whether, if pressed, the Church would find me fit to be a member, but I’m just as outraged by the hypocrisy and double speak as anyone else.

  • 2 Craig // Oct 15, 2009 at 5:38 am

    As you can imagine (and have partially seen online), I’m furious about this. Not only is his analogy offensive as fuck, but I know that some of my family members will use this as greater justification for their homophobia and fuel for their ridiculous and imaginary persecution complex. Mormons are being given a way to not feel guilty about taking away others rights because they’re being lied to and told their own rights are under attack, so they can shift the blame, ignore reality, and keep blindly following the hierarchy.

    It’s just sickening.

    What’s even more hypocritical is when Oaks says, referring to his original analogy, “It may be offensive to some — maybe because it hadn’t occurred to them that they were putting themselves in the same category as people we deplore from that bygone era”

    This part of it is just amusing to me, in a sick way. He’s saying that people who stand up to the church’s meddling in secular politics are the same as racists in the south in the 60s. Here’s a fun fact, Thomas Monson, president of this oh-so-persecuted church, has been an apostle since 1963 – you know, when the Mormons supported segregation.

    But yeah Oaks, let’s go with the whole “church persecuted like blacks in the 60s” angle. That’s certain to go over well.

  • 3 Urban Koda // Oct 15, 2009 at 5:45 am

    Well said John! I’m still curious as to exactly what persecution Mr. Oaks is referring to. I think any formal protests against the Church are entirely within reason, given the Church’s support of prop 8. Other than that, while I would disagree with those who vandalize churches or terminate employee who support prop 8, it seems to me that those incidents are few and far between.

    It seems to be that the attempt is being made to circle the wagons against an unseen enemy. Sadly it’s a tactic which will likely work well in the Church’s favor. Well at least for all those who have yet to see the light.

  • 4 kuri // Oct 15, 2009 at 6:04 am

    “Dallin Oaks… compares recent violence and harassment against Prop 8 supporters to the violence and intimidation tactics of opponents of the Civil Rights Movement.”

    The blind ethnocentrism in a statement like that is just astonishing. Because in this case, Mormons are like the Southern businessmen who had their businesses disrupted by Civil Rights protesters with their boycotts and sit-ins. They don’t realize that they’re the bad guys.

  • 5 Craig // Oct 15, 2009 at 6:08 am

    I just had another few thoughts.

    This whole thing is just a symptom of the idea Mormons and apparently the Mormon hierarchy have that any criticism of the church, its policies, or its doctrines is persecution.

    They seem to think that being criticised and being called (rightfully, and with evidence) bigots somehow violates their rights. It does not, but it seems they don’t realise that not being called bigoted or not having your religious beliefs critiqued aren’t rights anywhere (except in the Middle East and parts of Africa…)

    This, I think , stems from the Mormon superiority complex. They’re always right, because Jesus said so – to their leaders. They have the 1 true church, gospel, truth, etc., regardless of whether reality matches up or not. They’re persecuted because Satan (i.e. the gays, feminists, blacks, and indeed everyone else in society is out to get them. In reality, they’ve not been persecuted to any real degree in well over a century, and the church has, for years, been persecuting and oppressing others (blacks, women, gays).

    Mormons not only want, but think they have special rights, more rights, higher rights than everyone else. Because Jesus told them they’re special. They think it’s unfair to have their temples and churches protested after prop 8 because they don’t understand the difference between being rounded up by police or other government suppression of your speech, and being protested and reaping social consequences for your actions and expression of belief. They also have a belief that protests are inherently wrong because of their strong sense of loyalty and obeying authority.

    All this adds up to the church and many of its members truly thinking they’re being persecuted simply because when they took away an entire group’s civil rights, people got angry. The church is, in reality, more like racist whites in the 60s (oh, and in the 60s that’s exactly what they were), and gays are the blacks. It’s still a flawed metaphor, and the degree of hardship and violence gays experience isn’t the same as blacks did, but the kind is the same – and that cannot be said about Mormons to any degree.

  • 6 “I’m rubber and you’re glue!” | Main Street Plaza // Oct 15, 2009 at 6:17 am

    [...] Oaks’ Prop 8 Devotional, Oaks Speaks Out, Gays and the Church: Whose Ox is Being Gored?, The Hypocrisy of Dallin H. Oaks. Others went with simpler reporting and commentary: Dude?!? Wrong Side!!, Persecution Complex, From [...]

  • 7 Rich // Oct 15, 2009 at 6:46 am

    I find Oaks’ analogy highly offensive too, FWIW. Unlike some members, I realize leaders are often deeply flawed, fallible humans with their own opinions and failings, who are prone from time to time to present such personal (however collective) opinions as fact or doctrine. I question everything that’s stated as fact or doctrine from the pulpit, and this particularly bad example has very little to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ, IMO. Sad, because he’s also delivered one of my very favorite sermons.

  • 8 Rainey // Oct 15, 2009 at 7:56 am

    I am just beyond angry that Oaks would use the analogy of the repression of Black Americans when clothing the church in persecution rhetoric. He’s doing that for a church that specifically was an agent to preserve the repression of Blacks. And I doubt that in his position of trust and free access to information that he’s unaware of that. The flat-out hypocrisy is nothing short of stunning.

    Witness this 1964 letter from then apostle Delbert Stapley to MI Gov. George Romney. In it, he makes a very heavy handed effort to intimidate Romney from supporting civil rights efforts. He cites official church publications and doctrines that enforce the concept that Blacks are second class as human beings. And he makes two different veiled threats of divine retribution on those who work to advance the cause of full civil rights for Blacks. All this on official church stationery.

    http://www.boston.com/news/daily/24/delbert_stapley.pdf

    Read it! It’s an extremely candid behind-the-curtain look at the church’s bullying, political interference and, in light of Oaks’ most recent braying, fundamentally dishonest.

    To be fair, I don’t think the Catholic church or the evangelical mega churches with political agendas are an more innocent. This is just a hard copy of one instance of the LDS’ heavy hand that relates to Oaks’ BYU Idaho speech.

  • 9 Clay Whipkey // Oct 15, 2009 at 8:12 am

    John,
    I didn’t notice this bit from the transcript at first until a friend pointed it out, but he actually tips his hand later in the talk, and I think this pretty much tells the story about SSM, too. Its not about differing definitions of equality, its about be convinced of a right to inequality (in their favor):

    Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution.

  • 10 Rainey // Oct 15, 2009 at 8:18 am

    Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action.

    Hmmm… Where have I heard that before? But doesn’t it go: “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than other animals”?

  • 11 Molly // Oct 15, 2009 at 8:56 am

    Family members have been forwarding me a copy of the talk, along with Glen Beck-ish apocalyptic predictions of the “constitution hanging by a thread” and the elders of Israel coming to rescue it. That prophecy never made any sense to me. Why the heck would the Elders of Israel rescue the US Constitution when the end goal is to establish a Mormon theocracy?

    I am so weary of this. I’m so tired of family members becoming increasingly hostile because I won’t jump on the homophobia bandwagon with my mouth foaming. I look forward with dread to the 2010 and 2012 elections in California, and how much more pain and alienation it’s going to cause between “pay, pray, and obey” Mormons and those who don’t see surrendering free will as a prerequisite for faith.

    I hate you, Dallin Oaks. I really do. Because of this you are driving the wedge between me and my family ever deeper. You say there should be no religious tests for public office. Well, what about belonging to a family? There sure seems to be a religious test to being accepted and loved by LDS family members. My family increasingly wants nothing to do with me because I can’t deny the honest feelings in my heart that people other then white, heterosexual men are still people.

  • 12 Craig // Oct 15, 2009 at 9:05 am

    @Clay, Rainey

    The Mormon concept of who deserves what rights is kind of like this pyramid (b/c god said so):

    Mormons
    Other Christians
    Other Religionists
    Gays, Atheists, & Everyone else
    (and at one point blacks)

  • 13 Craig // Oct 15, 2009 at 9:10 am

    @Molly

    I sympathise completely.

    No one in the church hierarchy has done more in the past 10 years to allow my parents to justify their homophobia and ostracism of me than Oaks. I hate him too. Because of his words, my parents feel justified in forbidding me to visit them unless I pretend to be straight, and I’m utterly forbidden from ever bringing anyone home, or even talking to my siblings about being gay. They also feel justified in opposing gay rights because Oaks (and others) lie to them and say that their religious rights are under attack and that children will be forced to be taught about gay sex in elementary school.

    I really do hate him and hate the church he speaks for.

  • 14 xJane // Oct 15, 2009 at 9:21 am

    I’d like to briefly echo what Craig noted, as well as what John said above, that his is yet another

    attempt to make young Mormons feel that they are being deprived of their right to freedom of religion

    Religions, especially ones with a fair amount of power, are nearly constantly afraid that their power will dwindle or that they will become equal to other groups. The persecution theme is one running, in some way through many religions, including Catholicism. I used to hear on a regular basis out our freedom of religion was in danger because atheists (and non-Catholics) were reminding us of the separation of church and state. The fact that the Church was not supposed to have political power was seen as an infringement upon the right of the Church to convert the whole country to the one true faith (a different OTF, incidentally, than the one that Craig is talking about).

    It’s unfortunate that children are still being federal this message.

    Also?

    Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution.

    Just “ugh“. Also dittos to Rainey @9 with the Animal Farm reminder.

  • 15 Xeesha // Oct 15, 2009 at 9:31 am

    This is a tragedy. I am a recovered battered wife and mother. One thing that I learned after being so very abused is that the batterer often deludes himself/herself into believing that he/she is the victim. This is a psychological defense against having to fully accept that one is the aggressor, that one is usurping rights from another, that one has injured another. By “turning the tables” and becoming the “victim” one can further abuse someone else without all of guilt. One becomes justified in abusing someone else because one is the “victim” not the bully.

    I do NOT endorse any violence or hostility against any religious group. I am saddened to her that Churches have been vandalized and people have been fired, but I have not heard of one single case of a Mormon who has been fired from his/her job just for being Mormon. I am a Mormon and a returned missionary. I freely discuss my faith at work.

    What I have noticed is that members of my faith such as Gayle Ruzicka and Senator Chris Butters actively and openly sexually harass others. They are both voyeurs who have become addicted to discussing the sex lives of others. They constantly talk about extremely private, personal aspects of another persons sex live. This is against the law as it constitutes sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is legal grounds for termination of employment. But this is not all, I have heard them bully and threaten others. Gayle Ruzicka yelled, “Shame on the Governor Huntsman” from the Capital Steps during a legislative session. Now, if I yelled, “shame on the governor” at my work, (I work for the State), I would expect to be hauled into Human Resources and fired within minutes.
    Oaks doesn’t see this. He thinks that we can just behave anyway we choose and not face the consequences. He should know better.

  • 16 Russ // Oct 15, 2009 at 9:50 am

    I don’t think you (or half of the people making these points) read this part of the speech correctly. When he cites what seems to be making people mad they say “he compares Prop 8 backlash to the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s” and that’s not what was discussed. I just read it.

    What he describes is the use of “violence and intimidation” as being anti-democratic. Violence and intimidation were absolutely used in the voter intimidation of blacks (which he cites), and violence and intimidation were certainly used during those days after the Prop 8 vote (By proponents and opponents).

  • 17 Craig // Oct 15, 2009 at 10:06 am

    We read it.

    It’s completely ridiculous, offensive, non-applicable, manipulative, and crazy.

    Mormons were not the target of violent intimidation. There were a few instances of vandalism of church property. Mormons were not systematically intimidated and threatened – they were rightfully the subject of legal protests for their role in removing civil rights from others and spreading lies.

    Both the degree and kind of “violence and intimidation” Mormons experienced after prop 8 are completely different from anything in the 60s, and minuscule in comparison to what blacks experience(d) and what gays experience. His analogy is completely flawed.

    He also defended his analogy by basically saying that people who find it offensive only do so because they’re really in the same group as people who oppressed, harassed, threatened and murdered blacks in the 60s.

    Gays are murdered, blacks are murdered. Mormons are NOT murdered for being Mormon. A little spray paint on a temple or a broken window in NO WAY compares to fearing for your life because you skin is a different colour or because of whom you hold hands with (or assumed to hold hands with).

  • 18 Craig // Oct 15, 2009 at 10:07 am

    Oh, and it’s not just that part of the speech which is offensive and full of lies. The whole thing is – this was just the most audacious and insane part.

  • 19 Molly // Oct 15, 2009 at 10:52 am

    @Russ

    Seriously, even some very devout members are raising their eyebrows at this talk. It’s nuts. Really. As Craig articulately put it, there has been no violence and the term “intimidation” is a stretch.

    Please post one news story about a Mormon being lynched for making a Prop 8 donation.

    Please post one incident of they gay rights movement putting up legislation that would force all Mormons to use separate bathrooms and drinking fountains and schools.

    Please post one incident of gay rights workers driving around a town in Utah looking for a Mormon to murder.

    No Mormons have been fired from their jobs for supporting Prop 8. (The *one* incident of theater director Scott Eckern was not even a firing — he resigned because he couldn’t handle the consequences of his own actions http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2008/11/here-is-an-exce.html)

    Anything Oaks claims is “intimidation” is really just people whining that their feelings got hurt because those who favor equality disapprove of actions that make second class citizens out of our brothers and sisters. To that I would say, boo hoo, grow a pair.

    Mormons whining about backlash over their *civil, political action* which went far beyond the boundaries of their own church and culture is like somebody complaining that they got scorched after walking into a bonfire. Mormons are so used to “unanimous sustaining votes” that I think the reality of authentic debate was too much of a shock. People who don’t belong to your church won’t venerate your prophet and they don’t want your rules governing their lives. And when you push them, they will push back. Can’t handle that? Head back to the chapel.

  • 20 G // Oct 15, 2009 at 10:55 am

    well said, john and others. I’m commenting to be able to handily see the followup discussion.
    thanks

  • 21 Elaine // Oct 15, 2009 at 11:14 am

    I haven’t yet read all the responses to this post, John, but I have to say a couple of things before I even get there.

    First of all, I think Oaks might have finally pushed me over the edge and into formally quitting the church. I still hate to essentially ask permission to leave, but I can’t be associated with such asinine thinking as that in his talk.

    Secondly, beyond the offensiveness of the specific analogy made by Oaks re: the Civil Rights Movement, I think the things he said point out something that most people take for granted but that I find puzzling and offensive in the extreme, and that is the way religious beliefs are privileged above beliefs arrived at in other ways in our culture.

    His remarks take for granted that if someone holds a belief that is dictated by a set of religious dogmas and a belief in god, that belief is superior to and should get more respect than a belief arrived at by study, through philosophical principles, and so forth. He takes that further, as I understand his remarks, and posits that any belief arrived at through religion…well, through Christian religion mostly, most likely…may not under any circumstances be contradicted or criticized.

    As far as I can see, religious freedom, which is what Oaks was ostensibly defending in his talk, means that each person has the right to practice his or her religion without interference. It does not mean, as far as I can see, that an individual or a religious organization’s beliefs must never be contradicted or criticized, and that such contradiction or criticism is tantamount to persecution.

    But then, that’s the problem with the hierarchy of the Mormon church…they believe that they have a divine right not to be contradicted or criticized. They’ve even institionalized that in instruction that it is not right to criticize the brethren, even if the criticism is correct.

  • 22 Megan // Oct 15, 2009 at 11:39 am

    The extent of the hypocrisy is breathtaking: declaring the church the defender of ‘traditional’ marriage with scriptures and writings that declare polygamy as essential to salvation; declaring the church the defender of the constitution with a history of blood oaths against the government; declaring the church the equivalent of violently and systematically oppressed peoples with a history of violent rhetoric (death to anyone who is in a mixed marriage) and of systemic spiritual oppression of those very people.

    The church seems to be becoming more polarized and making ever starker divisions between those who are Faithful and those who think freely.

  • 23 Rainey // Oct 15, 2009 at 11:50 am

    I hate you, Dallin Oaks. I really do. Because of this you are driving the wedge between me and my family ever deeper. You say there should be no religious tests for public office. Well, what about belonging to a family? There sure seems to be a religious test to being accepted and loved by LDS family members. My family increasingly wants nothing to do with me because I can’t deny the honest feelings in my heart that people other then white, heterosexual men are still people.

    Isn’t this something that’s covered under the 11th Article of Faith?

  • 24 Mossie // Oct 15, 2009 at 11:51 am

    I was ever-so-briefly “friends” with a childhood classmate on FaceCrack who went on and on and on about being “screamed at” as he tried to enter his house of worship and was really attached to feeling like he was a victim as a Mormon. Despite my efforts at patience and empathy for how horrible that must feel, he simply refused to see that queer people had any justified reason to feel upset that Mormons had campaigned so hard to take away their right to marry in California. When I tried to express how it felt to be a legal stranger to my partner, and the ways in which hate crime violence is documented to escalate around political campaigns to deny equal rights, and how fears for physical safety were not exaggerated – he dismissed me and my feelings out of hand. He could only see himself in the role of The Persecuted and Mormons as The Righteous Misunderstood Saints. Certainly one person’s perspective is only anecdotal, but in my experience it reflects a larger tendency.

    Oregon’s former Senator Gordon Smith was mired last year with bumbling comparisons between polygamy and same-sex marriage. I blogged about it briefly (and in retrospect, in a tone that is not as respectful as I would like) here. Now, some months later, I continue to mull this persecution fetish that I see in some LDS people. As others have stated above, more articulately than I have, uncritically positing oneself as a victim is an unfortunate and self-indulgent choice that neither furthers personal nor collective growth.

  • 25 Chandelle // Oct 15, 2009 at 11:52 am

    John, please consider giving up the CAPTCHA! I just lost my second long comment in two days. I can’t ever get a comment past the first time and now I’m losing them when I backtrack. I’m seriously bummed.

    Anyway, I was commenting on this:

    “Mormons are as free to practice their religion as they ever were. But thousands of gays who, for a short space of time, had the right to marry, were, by Prop 8 supporters, actually deprived of that right.”

    This is what really burns me up. Mormons’ ability to practice their religion has not changed one whit. Even spray paint on a handful of walls has no real effect on the events carried out within those buildings. Cultural and doctrinal rituals are carried out the same as they ever were. This is obvious.

    On the other hand, Mormons flexed their political muscle and tossed astronomic amounts of money at stripping existing rights from a minority. Thousands of lives were changed, and it could be millions.

    So what the hell is Oaks thinking? Has he completely lost his mind? Is this the toxic gas arising from dangerously mixing superiority and persecution complexes? That someone could even C O N S I D E R comparing the actions of the KKK, beatings, rape and torture, physical intimidation to prevent voting, in some cases ending in murder, to a few unkind words and perhaps two cans of spray paint – somebody put that man on some meds, for the safety of the rest of us!!

    (Okay, I’m copying this in case it gets lost again.)

  • 26 Rainey // Oct 15, 2009 at 12:01 pm

    …especially since the LDS was complicit in at least making the attempt to maintain the Jim Crow-type second class legal status for Blacks during the era Oaks cites.

    Has no one read that Stapley letter? Is no one else incensed at it?

  • 27 John // Oct 15, 2009 at 12:12 pm

    Rainey (#26), I’ve read so many racist statements from Church leaders (including some of the research I did last night), that I think I’m desensitized to new revelations in that department. It is an attempt to maintain the disenfranchisement of minorities that is worthy of the deepest contempt, but it’s also par for the course. If anything, it makes me respect George Romney (and Harry Reid) a bit more than I did.

    I used to work catering at the Church-owned Joseph Smith Memorial Building, and they would entertain dignitaries in an attempt to improve the situation for the Church. I served at a dinner between Monson, Faust and the mayor of Jerusalem, and another one with the Japanese ambassador. But the state governor, congressmen (all men), and senators, in addition to other government officials, were also invited. I wonder how much informal influence Church leaders wield over politics and government this way.

  • 28 John // Oct 15, 2009 at 12:15 pm

    Chandelle, apologies for the Captcha issues. I’ll try turning it off tonight. I really really value your opinion and don’t want to discourage your feedback! But I also don’t have a lot of extra time to monitor spam, and this site seems to attract its fair share of it (behind the scenes), so I may have to turn it back on again. Let’s see how it goes.

  • 29 John // Oct 15, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    Elaine (#21): oh my, is this the last straw then, for you? Good luck in the process, and please keep us posted so we can cheer you on!

    Mossie (#24): your tone doesn’t sound so bad in your post, but I may be biased…and the Bagley editorial comic is spot on and priceless!!

    Xeesha (#15): very insightful comment (I’m sorry that you had to gain this perspective through hard experience) about the psychology of victimhood. I’ve been thinking about this, and I’m amazed and saddened at how many real-life relationships in which I think I can see this at work.

    Craig (various): once again, you argue so eloquently much of what is on my mind. Thank you.

    Clay (#9): Good catch. It’s one of the key underpinnings of his whole argument, but it seems so fragile and poorly grounded.

    Rich (#8): Thank you for voicing this. And I’m sorry that you have to struggle with this from your position as a thoughtful and compassionate member.

    Urban Koda, kuri and others: I think that Oaks is well aware (see the first paragraph of his talk) that this would be poorly received outside the Church, but I think you’re right, that he’s rallying the troops, and the good soldiers will listen and obey. Unfortunately.

    ECS, I’m really sorry that you have to put up with this. Will you be writing about this on fMh? (I hope so!)

  • 30 Rainey // Oct 15, 2009 at 12:42 pm

    John, I agree with you that Gov. Romney showed real strength of character not to capitulate when a letter came directly from one of the twelve. I wonder how many of the faithful would have been able to do that.

  • 31 Craig // Oct 15, 2009 at 1:05 pm

    @Chandelle
    I found that the captcha does both capitalised and lower-case letters, but requires what you type to be either entirely upper- or lower-case. Also I’ve gotten in the habit of always copying my comments before I post them, because I’ve had many long comments lost – it’s incredibly frustrating and annoying, I know.

  • 32 Craig // Oct 15, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    @John
    As always, thanks. You flatter me. And I’m inclined to let you. :)

  • 33 GKB // Oct 15, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    I’ll remember all this indignation the next time an arsonist sets one of the chapels in my Stake on fire…or firebombs the stake house along with sprays Prop 8 slogans on the building. (All of which have occured in the last ten months.)

    I’ll also remember all this indignation when Latter Day Saints lose employment and livelhoods because of the deliberate voter-intimidation campaigns by gay-rights activists.

    Oh, and let’s also remember all this indignation as we recall the series of hate-crime attacks on LDS chapels in the South Salt Lake Valley area this past week.

    I would neve compare the depth of deliberate hatred and intimidation the LDS Church and members are experiencing lately for participating in the traditional marriage debate with the horrors of the deep South’s civil rights movements. However, I’d say that the intent of those who are participating in the campaign to intimidate Latter Day Saints are set on having the same effect as those who sought to stop those who participated in the South’s civil rights movement. I believe that is the intent of Elder Oaks comment.

  • 34 Eric // Oct 15, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    @ Russ

    “I don’t think you (or half of the people making these points) read this part of the speech correctly. When he cites what seems to be making people mad they say “he compares Prop 8 backlash to the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s” and that’s not what was discussed. I just read it.

    That is what he compared it to :

    “As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.”

    but it is not an Apples to Apples comparison. in the 60′s people were trying to prevent Blacks from voting and securing their rights. In the prop 8 scenario itwas directed at peopl and institutions trying to take away rights.

    “What he describes is the use of “violence and intimidation” as being anti-democratic. Violence and intimidation were absolutely used in the voter intimidation of blacks (which he cites), and violence and intimidation were certainly used during those days after the Prop 8 vote (By proponents and opponents).”

    This talk was “Mormon Spin” Elder Oaks is a very good speaker, in this case he took similar acts and calls them the same, however the motivations and background are completely different.

    No one should ever say that the religious voices should be silentced in the public square. America is founded on the principles that all voices have the right to be heard. The issue at hand on Prop 8 was that Support for in issue in California was endorsed and sent material support from Utah. Utahn’s have no right influencing policy in California. If you want to influence California’s policy… Move there and become a part of that community.

    By Elder Oaks logic Prop 8 Opponents in California would be well within their rights to demonstrate and contribute to a proposal in Utah to reverse the sale of Main Street to the church.

    The bottom line is no one should be excluded from the public square but you need to be part of the public associated with that square. Otherwise your voice has no place there.

    I do not support violence and vandalism. I understand the motivation for it though, and if you step back and put yourself in the shoes of CA’s Gay community, what would you do to defend your rights against a foreign force supporting the cause to take them away?

  • 35 Eric // Oct 15, 2009 at 3:10 pm

    P.S. I too am sorely tempted to do a point by point analysis of this talk…

  • 36 Urban Koda // Oct 15, 2009 at 3:17 pm

    GKB, the actions of a few extremists who chose to vandalize property does not represent the LGBT community as a whole and in all cases which I am aware, these actions have been condemned by all major groups involved.

    I suspect that while some who share your beliefs on homosexuality, might use those beliefs to beat a gay man to death, you would not and would condemn those actions as well.

    Vandalism and Murder are the two extremes on both sides of this conflict, and do not reflect the vast majority of either side. Elder Oaks was not addressing the extremists though.

    On the subject of LDS Church members losing employment and livelihood…

    I know of no reports where a Mormon has been fired for being supportive of prop 8, and if so, they would be entitled to legal redress, but being fired for religious orientation is a little like being fired for sexual orientation, and I think the LGBT community has a lot more experience with this than the LDS community.

    My question for you is… Have you ever recommended that fellow saints withdraw their support for a particular corporation due to the corporations support of Gay Rights?

    During the last few years, I’ve received countless email from friends and family, encouraging me to withdraw my support of companies which support Gay Rights. It’s how a market economy works. You support businesses which promote your ideals, or withdraw support from others which don’t.

    If it’s OK for members of the LDS Church to encourage this kind of behavior, it’s a little hypocritical for them to complain when those who support Gay Rights to pull funding from businesses which don’t match their values.

    If the LDS Church had maintained it’s position on political neutrality and had not used it’s meeting houses to coordinate and seek donations towards the passage of Prop 8, this wouldn’t even be an issue. However as Elder Packer has said in the past… “You knew what I was when you picked me up.”.

  • 37 Craig // Oct 15, 2009 at 3:22 pm

    @GKB

    It must be nice to be able to pretend that property damage or social repercussions as consequences of taking away others’ rights somehow makes you the victim or persecuted player in all this.

    No one here is supporting any violent or illegal acts.

    “However, I’d say that the intent of those who are participating in the campaign to intimidate Latter Day Saints are set on having the same effect as those who sought to stop those who participated in the South’s civil rights movement.”

    Really? They wish, based on religious and societal bigotry, to further disadvantage & intimidate a historically oppressed minority who is fighting against the majority to get equal rights, and even more importantly, be able to live in peace without being murdered?

    Both you and Oaks have your analogy backwards.

    Especially as your church was one of the entities “…wh[ich] sought to stop those who participated in the South’s civil rights movement.”

    Nothing in Oaks speech is defensible, least of all this.

    To be frank, your tone sickens me. Get off your self-righteous pedestal and realise that members of the LGBT community have fewer rights because of people like you, and are experience the threat of violence, are beaten up or murdered daily in this country. No matter what minuscule harm church members have experienced, no matter how much property damage, it DOES NOT compare, in any way, with civil rights in the south, nor with the realities of life as a sexual minority today.

    Just stop it.

  • 38 Donna // Oct 15, 2009 at 3:38 pm

    I appreciate this post, and the comments. I left the LDS Church several years ago, and came out as a lesbian. I did not leave the church because of being gay. I did not feel it was the only one and true church on the earth. I am appalled at Elder Oaks arrogance, and the victimhood that the church continues to use as a “evidence” of its truthfulness. They had no business being in CA, and hopefully, America will not put any Mormon into the White House.

  • 39 Molly // Oct 15, 2009 at 3:49 pm

    Oaks joins Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World” list:

    “One would think that with the Mormons’ history of having previously been on the wrong side of integration and the wrong side of that pesky ancient order of one woman per marriage,
    that these are subjects about which Elder Oaks would want to shut the hell up.”

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/33319827#33319827

  • 40 GKB // Oct 15, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    Quote: “No one should ever say that the religious voices should be silentced in the public square. America is founded on the principles that all voices have the right to be heard. The issue at hand on Prop 8 was that Support for in issue in California was endorsed and sent material support from Utah. Utahn’s have no right influencing policy in California. If you want to influence California’s policy… Move there and become a part of that community.”

    With all due respect, silencing the voice of the LDS Church through intimidation is exactly what many gay-rights activists have in mind. Americans of every belief from all over the United States participated in Prop 8. Actions designed to punish and intimidate the LDS Church and its members through discrimination, economic sanctions, and violence will have a chilling effect on all of our democratic freedoms. Calls for the LDS Church to be singled out and deprived of its non-profit status are blunt instrument attempts at intimidation and silencing opposition.

    Quote: I do not support violence and vandalism. I understand the motivation for it though, and if you step back and put yourself in the shoes of CA’s Gay community, what would you do to defend your rights against a foreign force supporting the cause to take them away?

    I don’t mean this harshly, but to this Mormon, that comment sounds alot like a ‘blame-the-victim mentality.

    If the LDS Church engaged in the tactics used by opponents of Prop 8 for the purpose of controlling the political outcome, I suspect that some of y’all would be having seizures.

    Instead…there is empathy for the mind set that condones acts of violence. Could you ever imagine yourself empathizing with a white racist for setting fire to a black Church?

    Quote: “By Elder Oaks logic Prop 8 Opponents in California would be well within their rights to demonstrate and contribute to a proposal in Utah to reverse the sale of Main Street to the church.”

    You are exactly right. Let anyone come to Salt Lake and protest the LDS Church. Wait..wait…that happens all the time.

    By the way, the sale of one block of Main Street was subject to the full-monty democratic process. In the end, the democratic process was followed. Even now, those who continue to oppose the ownership of the Church Plaza are free agitate, protest, petition, etc. all they want. The difference is that Mormons are not torching their houses of worship. We are not attempting to intimidate the critics through economic punishment. We are not advocating that those who oppose our point of view be deprived of their right to participate in public affairs.

    In fact, recent protests over behavioral policies on the Church Plaza…in UTAH… were held all over the United States. Addittionally, anti-Prop 8 protests against the Church were held all over the United States. So…the freedom to politically advocate local issues is alive and well in regards to the LDS Church. Folks who do not live in Utah were voicing their opinions about Utah and LDS issues.

    In the end, all Elder Oaks was saying to the students in Rexburg, Idaho is that we need to stand up to those who seek to deprive or intimidate us from expressing our views.

    I respectfully suggest that everyone benefits when smaller religion’s like the LDS Church and its members have full rights to participation in our democratic process.

  • 41 Craig // Oct 15, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    “I respectfully suggest that everyone benefits when smaller religion’s like the LDS Church and its members have full rights to participation in our democratic process.”

    No one is threatening those rights. No one. They’re not under attack. They’re not in danger of being taken away. That is a lie. It is a massive mischaracterisation. Just massive. It’s a straw-man. It’s ridiculous.

    The LdS church basically (with the help of others) took away others’ rights because of a hypothetical and non-substantiated idea of religious rights being under attack and threatened.

    The few instances of vandalism etc., only some of which can be tied to Prop 8, are NOT in any way, indicative of the rights of Mormons to express and practise their beliefs being threatened. It’s just ludicrous to even suggest such a thing.

    We in fact, wish for you to express your views, so the rest of society can see how crazy, bigoted, backwards, anti-scientific, and offensive they are.

    The vast, vast majority of atheists, secularists, gays, and other societal minorities would and do defend the religious majority’s (and pseudo-minority’s) right to express their beliefs. The arguments Oaks, and by extension you, are making are utter crap. It’s drivel.

    Finally, and again, no one is condoning violence, or in any way suggesting it is ok or even laudable. What we are saying is that when you’re oppressed, abused, beaten, under constant threat of violence, sometimes the only way you can think of to fight back is, regrettably acts of vandalism. It isn’t excusable or right, but it is understandable, and you might try a little understanding before you condemn what you don’t understand and will likely never experience.

    “With all due respect, silencing the voice of the LDS Church through intimidation is exactly what many gay-rights activists have in mind.”

    Prove it.

    And before you try, no church has the right, as part of its free speech rights, to take away others’ rights, or force their non-science/reality-based beliefs on secular society. While the church may think it ought to have that right, or even does, it is wrong.

  • 42 John // Oct 15, 2009 at 4:38 pm

    GKB in particular: I think it’s important to distinguish between isolated incidents and systematic, coordinated offenses. To me, this (and the severity and depth) is the critical distinction between harassment of Prop 8 supporters and the violence against Civil Rights activists.

    This is the other key distinction, brought up by Craig (#41):

    “The LdS church basically (with the help of others) took away others’ rights because of a hypothetical and non-substantiated idea of religious rights being under attack and threatened. ”

    The Church is trying to take the initiative, and force its critics to go on the defensive. The fact continues to be that Prop 8 proponents directly impacted the happiness and changed the lives of gays in California. They took their religious ideals and imposed it on the private lives of others. Nothing about gay marriage directly impacts the right for Mormons to practice their religion.

  • 43 Chandelle // Oct 15, 2009 at 5:24 pm

    “We in fact, wish for you to express your views, so the rest of society can see how crazy, bigoted, backwards, anti-scientific, and offensive they are.”

    Oh Craig, you made me laugh. :)

    I will say one thing, a truth FOR ME, not necessarily anyone else. I don’t give a shit about property damage. I really and truly do not. I don’t consider it “violent” to attack a building. “Violence” implies hurt, and buildings don’t feel anything. It might be offensive to the people who occupy those buildings, but I don’t consider it violent.

    In some cases, I support vandalism as a way to express righteous aggression without really hurting anyone. The Black Bloc blowing out the windows of various corporations during the WTO demonstration in Seattle is a good example. Whether their effort was effective is certainly up for debate (actually, it’s not – no, it was not), but it can’t be debated that nobody got hurt, and that a gigantic, multinational corporations spent a few bucks to replace some windows does not make my heart bleed.

    The Church has acted as a gigantic corporation in most senses for many years now. Its financial actions during Prop. 8 were very like corporate interference. So if a few of its buildings got a teeny weeny wittle bit of spway paint and some picketing, I can’t say that I have any sympathy for that. Individual violence (actual violence), private homes being made unsafe, that’s something different. But spray paint on the temple gates doesn’t elicit heartache on my part.

  • 44 GKB // Oct 15, 2009 at 5:28 pm

    Quote: ” No one is threatening those rights. No one. They’re not under attack. They’re not in danger of being taken away. That is a lie. It is a massive mischaracterisation. Just massive. It’s a straw-man. It’s ridiculous.”

    Wow…we see two different things. I’d say the the non-LDS group that took out an ad in the ‘New York Times’ decrying the intimidation campaign sees things differently. The title of their message is: “No Mob Veto.”

    The ad can be viewed here: http://www.nomobveto.org/images/nytad_lg.png

    Personally I don’t think it is a ‘massive strawman’ to recognize and cite the campaign of economic sanctions, the calls for the removal of non-profit status of the Church, the acts of Prop-8 related hate crimes targeting LDS buildings, violence, vandalism, etc…all as parts of an attempt by some to prevent the LDS Church and its members from exercising their right to participate in our democracy.

    I shudder to think what it would take for some to see deliberate attempts to curtail the rights of a religious minority. Will Mormons have to be killed, lynched, thrown in prison…etc. before we have a right to object?

  • 45 Craig // Oct 15, 2009 at 5:40 pm

    Specifically, tell us what rights are being curtailed, and where. Give specific, evidenced, clear examples and specific legal rights.

    The LdS church and its members (and Catholics, and Evangelicals, etc.) acted unethically and unconstitutionally when they took away my rights. To say that people ought not be allowed to vote on who gets civil rights and who doesn’t isn’t infringing on a right – it’s actually supporting a right – my right to not have others force their beliefs on me. It is not participating in democracy to have the majority vote on what rights minorities get. Every single person and group should have the same, equal rights – and your church is fighting against that idea.

    Plain and simple, there is no legitimate reason to oppose gay marriage, gay adoption, non-discrimination laws, or any other aspects of equal rights for gays. The actions of the LdS church were wrong and discriminatory and unconstitutional. It is not a violation of religious rights to tell religions that they cannot force their bigotry into law.

    You are, in effect, defending segregation. The segregation of gays from marriage, and from civil and legal equality.

    “Will Mormons have to be killed, lynched, thrown in prison…etc. before we have a right to object?”

    Just keep digging.

    Gays already are. What more will it take before we have the right to equality, and the right to not let bigots tell us how to live, or take our lives from us because we love “wrong”?

  • 46 Rainey // Oct 15, 2009 at 6:24 pm

    I don’t know Mormon theology so I don’t know what the essential ethical teachings are. But to me Christianity — of which the LDS is supposed to be a part — has always come down to the Two Great Commandments. …because when Jesus was asked, this is what he said it comes down to: love god with your whole heart and love your fellow man the same way.

    I don’t pretend to be a believer any more. Not for the 40 or so years that I’ve considered myself and adult. But these are still excellent ways to view relationships as I go through life.

    When I measure Oaks’ speech against that keeping in mind that he’s one of the twelve selected out of all Mormondom to be an apostle, I don’t hear anything of love god with your whole heart and love your fellow man in the same way. I hear an attempt to justify interfering in the civil rights of gay Americans. And I hear encouraging impressionable young people to think in terms of us v them and instill suspicion in them. And I hear an attempt to counter random acts generated by the LDS’ (and others’) deliberate repressive behavior toward their fellow Americans with an organized response of fingerpointing at their very victims.

    Yes, I realize that fundamental religionists — like the LDS, the Catholic church and evangelical mega-churches — consider both gay sex and sex outside of marriage sinful. And it appears that they put sex in a pantheon of sin that leaves everything else in the dust. But Christ didn’t do that. He defended the prostitute and attacked those who used religion as a business. And he said judgment was the province of his father not ours. And he said, when you strip everything else away, it comes down to loving your fellow man — even your weak and fallible fellow man who commits sins just like me and you — as you love god.

    Is that what Oaks is doing? This authority of his religion?

    Bottom line: doesn’t look like it to me.

  • 47 Molly // Oct 15, 2009 at 6:38 pm

    Seriously, KGB. Examples. I want to see examples like:

    1. Mormon fired from their job specifically and directly because of religious affiliation

    2. Mormon beaten up specifically for their religious beliefs.

    3. Property of Mormons or the LDS church damaged beyond a few isolated incidents of damage on par with skateboard hooliganism.

    4. Mormons intimidated out of exercising their right to vote or their right to free speech.

    5. Mormon children ostracized by their schoolmates or asked to leave school because of their religious affiliation.

    6. Mormon brutally murdered, the victim chosen just because he happened to be the first Mormon who ran into some guys who belong to the Gay KKK.

    As with the case for Prop 8, you’re basing your argument on hypothetical (and extremely unlikely) outcomes. Nobody is going to lynch any Mormons. When you say it plainly like that, it sounds so paranoid that I’m almost don’t want to mock it, because only somebody with psychological problems would entertain a belief in a lynching campaign against Mormons launched by a conspiracy of Queers.

    I can see it now. “Hey everybody, go fetch your little pink ropes and your rainbow robes. This is gonna be the most FABULOUS lynching ever!”

    The comparison is insulting and absurd. All I’m seeing is a bunch of Mormons whining because they got involved in political issues and then got blindsided by the fact that the environment for political debate is intense, rowdy, and places no stock in venerating any particular religious authority.

    Specific, please. And realistic, while you’re at it. And if you need something to sip on while you’re thinking, may I recommend the red punch? It goes lovely with the green jello and funeral potatoes.

  • 48 Craig // Oct 15, 2009 at 6:48 pm

    @Molly

    I’m glad I’m not the only one who is completely incensed. Very well put.

  • 49 GKB // Oct 15, 2009 at 7:35 pm

    Seriously, KGB. Examples. I want to see examples like:

    1. Mormon fired from their job specifically and directly because of religious affiliation:

    Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the California Musical Theatre was forced to resign his position for donating to the Prop 8 campaign. The theatre was under pressure to oust him after his donation was made public by a gay-rights group publicized donors. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html) This was not an isolated instance, there are numerous examples of

    2. Mormon beaten up specifically for their religious beliefs.
    I never claimed that Mormons are being beaten up as a part of the incidents related to voter intimidation. I mentioned violent arson acts. Here is another example of packets of white powder being sent to LDS temples during the Prop 8 protests: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=6250825
    Here are some quotes from various Prop 8 supporter blogs:

    • “Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT.”
    • “I’m going to give them something to be f–ing scared of….I’m a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they’ve done.”
    • “Burn their f–ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers.”
    • “I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.”
    • “I swear, I’d murder people with my bare hands this morning.”
    • “Trust me. I’ve got a big list of names of mormons and catholics [sic] that were big supporters of Prop 8….As far as mormons and catholics…I warn them to watch their backs.”

    The hostility is not just directed against Mormons…voters of all types are subject to attacks:

    http://iperceive.net/prop-8-supporter-bloodied-outside-catholic-church-in-modesto-attack/

    http://www.ktvu.com/news/17986914/detail.html

    3. Property of Mormons or the LDS church damaged beyond a few isolated incidents of damage on par with skateboard hooliganism.

    As I mentioned in my post above, two buildings in my Stake alone have been targeted in the last few months. One was an arson fire. The other had a Molotov cocktail thrown through a window with Prop 8 graffiti sprayed on the outside of the building. But…I guess that is only skate board hooliganism.

    4. Mormons intimidated out of exercising their right to vote or their right to free speech.

    There is a deliberate campaign to ‘out’ Latter Day Saints for the express purpose of discouraging support for traditional marriage initiatives. The public listing of donors has resulted in property damage and threats of violence. Here is an article from the New York Times discussing the intimidation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/business/08stream.html?_r=3

    5. Mormon children ostracized by their schoolmates or asked to leave school because of their religious affiliation.

    What exactly does this have to do with the issue of voter intimidation and violence related to Prop 8?

    6. Mormon brutally murdered, the victim chosen just because he happened to be the first Mormon who ran into some guys who belong to the Gay KKK.

    Again…what does this have to do with the topic at hand? Do Mormons have to be murdered before Prop 8 opponents recognize the acts of violence and intimidation being targeted at Mormons and others who support traditional marriage?

    No doubt these examples will be dismissed out of hand. I don’t think the request for citations was genuine.

    As I have stated…I would not compare the level of violence and intimidation directed at Mormons and others over the Prop 8 issue to match that of the deep South. However, there is a deliberate attempt at poisoning the democratic process by means of intimidation on the part of some.

  • 50 Molly // Oct 15, 2009 at 9:30 pm

    1. Scott Eckern was not fired. He chose to resign. If he was really in the right, he should have stayed in his position and worked it out. The hypocrisy of a theater director booking “Avenue Q” at his venue and then contributing to Prop 8 is absolutely mind-boggling. No example. Nobody got fired. I also love the “This was not an isolated instance, there are numerous examples of” trail-off. “OOPS IT CUT ME OFF BEFORE I COULD MAKE A REAL EXAMPLE LOL.”

    2. No example. People whining on blogs obviously didn’t translate to arson, murder, or assault. You’re acting like idiots shooting their mouths off on the Internet is some kind of phenomenon unique to anti-Mormons. Next?

    3. No documentation specific cases. The stories I’ve read are shameful cases of minor vandalism. But nobody died. Three cases out of . . . how many Mormon churches in the U.S.? Yep, I’d call that minor and isolated cases of vandalism. Not widespread, concerted intimidation. Next?

    4. Oh noes! Two people in an NYT article got e-mails from people saying they don’t like them very much!! OH THE HUMANITY. Political contributions are a matter of public record. Welcome to the age of the Internet, where those public records are dropped into the fishbowl. If angry e-mail and hurt feelings constitutes violence nowadays, then those heterosexuals can hardly complain that gays are unmanly.

    Oh, you also provide no evidence of property damage. Next?

    5. It has nothing to do with Prop 8, which was my whole point in the first place. Dallin Oaks shouldn’t have compared Mormons to those working for black civil rights. There are no Mormon equivalents to Brown vs. Board of Education or the case of Autherine Lucy. Thanks for agreeing with me on this one!

    6. You were the one who suggested that Mormons would start being lynched because of the horrible, evil Mormon haters being allowed to be mean on the Internets. You explain it.

    My request for citations was genuine. That’s why I asked for citations. I’m not a liar, so don’t suggest that I am one. You’re just kind of repeating Oaks’ pattern here — you sparked a debate, you got flamed for it, and now you’re pouting. Provide something substantial, or yes, your arguments will be rejected out of hand.

  • 51 John // Oct 15, 2009 at 9:41 pm

    GKB, you don’t seem to get that the balance is between Mormons and gays. Oaks is claiming that Mormons are victims of persecution by prop 8 supporters. We’re arguing that such incidents are infinitesimal compared to the persecution, violence and intimidation against gays, and that Mormons contribute to this culture.

  • 52 Kelly Ann // Oct 15, 2009 at 10:05 pm

    Having snapped and backed away from the Mormon church after last year’s election, I wonder why I flirt with the church still when I hear something like Oak’s talk.

    Granted it wasn’t in general conference but what good did he think would come from it. What gets me is that he knows better. He is a lawyer after all.

    While you can argue that Mormons have been harassed and victims of some minor cases of violence, it is not the same. Although I have to admit that what made me decide I could not cross the picket lines was a comment from a lesbian coworker that she hoped “her people would not firebomb my temple”. It wasn’t a threat but her perspective made me really understand the passion behind the protests. While I never supported the churches position it made me rethink what my non-action was saying (that I indirectly supported it).

    I ripped my temple recommend in half and resigned from my calling because in that moment all of my faith collapsed. All the other issues of church history and similar patterns fell to the floor. As I continued to search, everything unraveled.

    But for some reason, I have been going back. 30 years of perfect faith is hard to give up. I have missed the community and the prevailing goodness. I think of the Prop8 has an exception. I am also in an area where a lot of people disagreed and there is open skeptism about this and other issues. So I go stating I no longer believe everything and have been taking one day at a time. Sometimes I really like the Mormon perspective on other issues.

    However, when I hear things like this I realize I haven’t made peace with the issue or the church. Am I ready for the church to meddle in 2010 or 2012 elections? Absolutely not. At least they have the decency to stay out of Maine.

  • 53 John // Oct 15, 2009 at 10:16 pm

    I don’t have links to support me on this, but Jana said that Oaks told an AP reporter that he knew this would generate controversy beforehand, and the speculation is that this is intended to help galvanize donations to the Maine efforts.

  • 54 Eric // Oct 15, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    The Democratic process is not a clean process. No one is given a free pass on any level. I have been thinking about this more since I posted earlier, and after a discussion I had with my Wife. This talk bothered me and I have had a strong reaction to it, but why? I had to stop and answer this question for myself because I have chosen to part ways with the church. So why would I let someone who speaks for a religion I do not believe in, to members of that religion, on a topic I disagree with the institution on bother me? Because honestly that is what I should expect him to do.

    Well here are my reasons (I will use quotes from his address to underscore):

    1-”In choosing my subject I have relied on an old military maxim that when there is a battle underway, persons who desire to join the fray should “march to the sound of the guns.”[i] So it is that I invite you to march with me as I speak about religious freedom under the United States Constitution. There is a battle over the meaning of that freedom. The contest is of eternal importance, and it is your generation that must understand the issues and make the efforts to prevail.”

    This is framed as a call to battle against an enemy.

    ” The greatest infringements of religious freedom occur when the exercise of religion collides with other powerful forces in society. Among the most threatening collisions in the United States today are (1) the rising strength of those who seek to silence religious voices in public debates, and (2) perceived conflicts between religious freedom and the popular appeal of newly alleged civil rights.

    As I address this audience of young adults, I invite your careful attention to what I say on these subjects, because I am describing conditions you will face and challenges you must confront. ”

    So who is the enemy that Mormon youth must march along with Elder Oaks against?

    2 -”Other wise observers have noted the ever-growing, relentless attack on the Christian religion by forces who reject the existence or authority of God.[vii] The extent and nature of religious devotion in this nation is changing. The tide of public opinion in favor of religion is receding, and this probably portends public pressures for laws that will impinge on religious freedom… Atheism has always been hostile to religion, such as in its arguments that freedom of or for religion should include freedom from religion. Atheism’s threat rises as its proponents grow in numbers and aggressiveness…Such forces — atheists and others — would intimidate persons with religious-based points of view from influencing or making the laws of their state or nation.”

    As a skeptic and atheist I have been marked as a threat to Mormons… It is apparently OK to practice religion but there is no freedom to not practice religion even though as Elder Oaks points out: “there are at least 500 [million] declared non-believers in the world — enough to make atheism the fourth-biggest religion.”

    No let’s get down to the Agenda of the address.

    3-” “For three decades people of faith have watched a systematic and very effective effort waged in the courts and the media to drive them from the public square and to delegitimize their participation in politics as somehow threatening.”[xi]

    For example, a prominent gay-rights spokesman gave this explanation for his objection to our Church’s position on California’s Proposition 8:

    “I’m not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people. . . . My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims.”[xii]…The real issue in the Proposition 8 debate — an issue that will not go away in years to come and for whose resolution it is critical that we protect everyone’s freedom of speech and the equally important freedom to stand for religious beliefs — is whether the opponents of Proposition 8 should be allowed to change the vital institution of marriage itself. ”

    So here is what the message a call to battle, a defined enemy, and a cause to unite behind. As a supporter of Same sex marriage I am now a double threat.

    The point he should have focused on is touched on briefly and is:

    “Religious freedom needs defending against the claims of newly asserted human rights. The so-called “Yogyakarta Principles,” published by an international human rights group, call for governments to assure that all persons have the right to practice their religious beliefs regardless of sexual orientation or identity.[xiv] This apparently proposes that governments require church practices and their doctrines to ignore gender differences. Any such effort to have governments invade religion to override religious doctrines or practices should be resisted by all believers.”

    Folks this is why Same-Sex marriage is an issue for religionists. They fear that government will force them to change their beliefs and practices… i.e. Homosexual marriages will have to be performed in the temple. This is the crux of this whole issue. The fact is No one will force this on any religion. The freedom to practice religion will remain. The state will have to recognize same sex couples… judges, Ship Captains, and Unitarian Ministers will marry same sex couples… but temple marriage is and will be safe from government interference. I would fight to keep that so as ardently as i fight for Gay Rights.

    Finally he asks for:

    4-”We must also insist on this companion condition of democratic government: when churches and their members or any other group act or speak out on public issues, win or lose, they have a right to expect freedom from retaliation.” Would the church grant that same leniency to a member that disagreed with the church’s stance on this very issue? Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence of what you speak. Vandalism and violence are illegal anyone who commits these acts in response to someone’s act of free speech should be punished as dictated by law. However if you speak your mind and people boycott you business because of your beliefs. That’s life deal with it. If you exercise free speech you will be criticized…deal with it.

    Religion is welcome in the public square, it is just not free from criticism and social sanctions.

    That was long I had to get it off my chest though.

  • 55 Sean @ Alone and Unobserved // Oct 16, 2009 at 10:22 am

    (Skipping past all of GKB’s insightful comments to say:)

    My brother paid me a surprise visit at my house yesterday, and during the visit he asked to get on my computer to show me a research project he’s been working on. Sure enough, when he brought up the BYU-Idaho website so he could log in to his student account, there was a prominent link to Dallin Oaks’s devotional address right front and center on the home page. They’re proud of it Oaks’s defiant bigotry. That’s what I can’t really wrap my head around. It’s also right on the front page of lds.org!

    It actually hadn’t even occurred to me that I have siblings who attend BYU-Idaho and may very well have been at that devotional and have opinions about it (pro or con). But because he and I don’t really talk about stuff like that, we both just ignored it, and he showed me the computer science project he’s been working on instead. *sigh*

  • 56 Duke // Oct 16, 2009 at 4:19 pm

    As a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I must admit that this issue has left me frustrated during the last twelve months. I am currently in graduate school and prop. 8 engendered debate among the students where I attend school. Repeatedly I was labeled as intolerant, and fellow students (who I like a lot) attempted to ridicule my sincere attempts to discuss these issues. The real shame about my experiences is that people seemed unable to reasonably and intelligently talk about the issue despite my attempts to do so.

    Although I don’t live in California, I would have voted yes on Prop. 8 if I had been given the chance. My vote would have, in no way, been based on ill-feelings toward others with a different sexual orientation or different beliefs from my own. Instead, my vote would have signified my feeling that ‘marriage’ is already defined and that definition should be preserved. Many on here have voiced the opinion that Mormon’s seek to take away the rights of the gay community. I disagree. We are not advocating that it be against federal or state law to be gay or participate in a homosexual relationship. I have close friends who are gay and I would never want them to suffer economic, social, or emotional loss due to their sexual orientation. I want just the opposite not only for the gay community but also for all people. If there are proposed laws affording gays specific rights (monetary, medical, property, speech, etc.), I will gladly vote in favor of those proposals. My yes vote on proposition 8 (and those of the entire church) would be in no way aimed at preventing these civil rights from being enjoyed equally by all.

    Some will say that by preventing the re-definition of marriage to include homosexual couples that we are inherently taking away some of those civil rights that I previously mentioned. My response is that this is an unintended consequence of my determination to protect the definition of marriage. Where rights are lacking, lets talk about those individual instances and work to make them available to all. In my opinion, these rights can be gained without altering the definition of marriage.

  • 57 Tina // Oct 17, 2009 at 9:25 am

    I see no real concrete examples of true persecution as listed by KGB at least not consistent examples. The persecution thing seems hit or miss from Anti-Prop 8 extremists, not from groups, and is certainly not taking place from the government as it was for the blacks and the gays as it is in the military currently. This whole speech from Dallin Oaks is just a complete farce and makes the church looks like an authoritarian nuthouse. The church has a persecution complex that stems from the pioneer days I believe.

  • 58 John // Oct 17, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    Tina and Duke, welcome and thanks for your comments! I apologize for the long delay in approving them out of the moderation queue–I haven’t been online much for the past day. Duke, I appreciate your tone even though we definitely disagree on the definition of marriage.

    Sean, your comment has me thinking a lot about how families navigate these difficult issues. It seems so very complex at times…

    Eric, you caught a number of things I wish I had brought up, like the targeting of skeptics. Your comment is worthy of its own post!

  • 59 Rainey // Oct 17, 2009 at 7:03 pm

    #56

    Instead, my [yes on Prop 8] vote would have signified my feeling that ‘marriage’ is already defined and that definition should be preserved.

    The problem with that logic is that “marriage” has been defined many ways. Once upon a time it meant a husband and as many wives as he could support. Restoring that biblical concept was one of the defenses of the LDS in reintroducing polygamy to the Americans of White European lineage. And then again — and twice because the first time the Authorities were privately ignoring it themselves — the LDS and UT redefined the concept to restore monogamy.

    At other times “marriage” has meant restriction to the same racial lines. Or to any woman or very young girl regardless of the degree to which she consented. Or within very close kinship. During the pioneering years people were “married” simply because they said so. They didn’t necessarily rely on any church or government authority to solemnify it or they deferred the time when some itinerant preacher or circuit judge to do the honors even if it was after the birth of children. …and that’s just in America.

    All of these things have been redefined by civil and ecclesiastic law as necessary. Pretending that it is now locked into some immutable form is logically and historically wrong and, probably, for some, some matter of convenience or personal aesthetic. Not that I’m attributing a less than sincere motivation to you, Duke, but I have no doubt that there are significant numbers who are justifying homophobia.

    Anyway one parses this and most specifically to the extent that some groups dig in their heels to deny it, it is an attempt to create a second class of civil rights for some American citizens. And that’s why the effort is wrong-headed and ultimately (and not that far in the future) doomed. As a White, straight, agnostic woman who’s been in the same marriage for 42 years and who started working for civil rights when I was in high school in the late 60s, full and universal civil rights has taken far too long in this country which pats itself on the back for being a “sweet land of liberty” and for providing “liberty and justice for all”. Until we live up to those ideals we make hypocrites of ourselves and weaken our democracy.

  • 60 Eric // Oct 18, 2009 at 11:18 pm

    John- Thanks, I am glad you liked it I am actually cross-posting and expanding on it a little on my blog… I’ll probably be the only one to read it, but it will feel good to get it out there.

    Duke (#56) – Thanks for sharing your opinion. We are obviously going to disagree on the re-definition of marriage, but welcome to the debate. I find it fascinating that we are so anxious about the re-definition of a word. according to Merriam Webster here, is the definition of the word:

    1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
    2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
    3 : an intimate or close union

    In the 3 definitions of that word. 1/3 of one is dedicated to the concept of the opposite sex, granted only 1/3 of the same is dedicated to same sex union. The rest of the definitions are devoid of gender specifics and are equally applicable to hetero and homosexual couples.

    Just to be sure I checked the Oxford Dictionary:

    • noun 1 the formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife. 2 a combination of two or more elements.

    There the definition is only 50% gender specific, however half of it is equally applicable.

    The bottom line is we have a definition that allows two people who are committed toeach other and love each other to be able to share financial, medical and legal benefits. Why do we need to create a new term for the exact same institution that is separate but equal.

    Can’t we all just drink from the same water fountain?

  • 61 Miles // Oct 19, 2009 at 8:50 pm

    I think you read to far into the comment made by Elder Oaks. But if you can find one relegion, race, or group, that has ever had an official extermination order brought against them like the mormons did, I would be interested to know who. Good luck.

  • 62 John // Oct 20, 2009 at 6:16 am

    Miles, I don’t know why Mormons need to feel so special? Not only is Boggs’ Extermination Order in no way unique, it had far less serious consequences than other similar orders in the past. So here’s the few I could find in the in the few minutes I have before I go to work:

    350 CE: The ethnic Jie are wiped out by order of Ran Min, the leader of the victorious side of the Wei-Jie war.

    Charles IV ordered the extermination of the Romani (gypsies) in 1721.

    Genocide was ordered against the Herero tribe of South Africa in 1904.

    This was just a 5-minute Google search on “extermination order.” So, no, Miles, the Mormons are not special in this way.

    And why single out “extermination order?” I hate to bring Hitler up, but he is the obvious example. Historians haven’t found an official order against the 11 million Jews, gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, gays, Slavs, Poles, disabled, pacifists, blacks, and others who were killed in the Holocaust. Holocaust deniers use this lack of extermination order in the historical to help build their case against the Shoah.

    Your focus on “extermination order” also belies something else. While searching the web, I saw it used as a defense in arguments against charges of Mormon discrimination against blacks and gays.

    I can’t even believe I’m arguing this with you. Your response belies your willful ignorance of history, your callousness towards other groups that suffered and who continue to suffer far more than anything the Mormons had to endure, and your smug sense of superiority.

  • 63 John // Oct 20, 2009 at 6:21 am

    Miles: And it doesn’t matter if Mormons were the only group that had an extermination order against them–it doesn’t imply that they’re being persecuted similarly today and it doesn’t give them a “get out of bigotry free” card. Are you trying to say that Mormons were persecuted so therefore aren’t capable of discriminating others today?

  • 64 Urban Koda // Oct 20, 2009 at 6:37 am

    Actually, if we’re going to look at the Boggs Extermination order, I think we should look at the reasons for it as well.

    The order was not written based purely on a hatred of Mormons, it was due to a number of events which raised significant suspicion amongst the citizens of Missouri regarding the intent of the Mormons in the State, and the safety of the non-mormon residents of the state. And in contrast to some other extermination orders in history, this was an extermination or expulsion order.

    Ironically, one of those events concerned the Gallatin Election Day Battle. The motivation behind the events which caused that battle, was a belief that the Mormons had decided to vote as a bloc against a particular candidate in a local election. Interestingly enough, it was a Democratic Party candidate which was supposed to be receiving their vote as well.

    I say ironic, because based on orders issued from Salt Lake City, members of the Church were told to support and vote for Prop 8, in effect establishing a voting bloc in favor of a ballot initiative. I for one, was called a traitor against the faith by my Stake President for not sustaining that request.

  • 65 James // Oct 20, 2009 at 7:28 am

    I realize this is a tangent, Koda, but what difference does any of that make? The Boggs order was wrong under any definition.

    Mormons are allowed to band together and vote however they want without fear of intimidation and retaliation by federal and state governments or any entity.

    That’s what Oaks’ talk was about. The Constitution provides for the free practice of religion, including being able to vote based on your religious beliefs without fear of intimidation or physical retaliation. He did not say that the reaction has been EQUAL to the Civil Rights era, he said it is COMPARABLE, and the fact of the matter, as GKB has laid out numerous times in this thread, is that the facts support Oaks’ statements. There has been intimidation and physical retaliation against a religious group, and that is plain and simply against the founding tenets of our country.

    You can call the Mormons bigots and homophobes all you want. But you can’t throw molotov cocktails in their churches and intimidate members into having to resign from their jobs based on their religious beliefs. It’s purely unconstitutional.

    The “civil rights” issue behind SSM is a completely separate issue (and one where many constitutional scholars disagree), and Oaks’ acknowledged as much if you really took the time to read his speech.

  • 66 Chandelle // Oct 20, 2009 at 7:31 am

    “But if you can find one relegion [sic], race, or group, that has ever had an official extermination order brought against them like the [M]ormons did, I would be interested to know who.”

    The sheer level of ignorance evidenced by this comment is repeated ad infinitum by Mormons who inexplicably delight in being “persecuted.” Some people really get off on that extermination order. I suppose it’s proof for them that their religion is True, which is kind of sick.

    During the great Prop. 8 debate, one person on fMh commented that she couldn’t think of another religion that had been persecuted like her own, what with the picketers outside her wardhouse and all. I was truly struck speechless.

  • 67 Rainey // Oct 20, 2009 at 8:20 am

    #65
    The Boggs order was wrong under any definition.

    I agree with you that these things are ugly and keep us all from being the people we want to be living simply and in peace among one another. That’s why Oaks’ encouraging BYU students to feel persecuted and become aggressive is so counter productive.

    It brings up all manner of negativity and reminders of the way the LDS has behaved in exactly the way they object to. For every Prop 8 protest against the church, there was a rally to deprive gay Americans of their civil rights that culminated in legalizing discrimination. For every Extermination Order there was an Oath of Vengeance which, ironically enough, and not the least because Oaks probably was taught “the same to your children and to your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation” sounds uncomfortably like his rallying cry in Idaho. Does anyone need a recitation of the things that divide us and the wounds we all have had inflicted on us at one time or another?

    Churches, particularly church’s as wealthy and powerful as the LDS shouldn’t be teaching suspicion, defensiveness and attempting to marginalize minorities. Or ratcheting up the conflict. It’s the behavior of a corporation with privilege to protect not the message of Jesus on whom the religion is supposed to be based.

  • 68 James // Oct 20, 2009 at 8:33 am

    Rainey, you still fail to recognize that, despite your personal opinions, the LDS Church was well within its rights to do what it did, namely encourage their members to vote a certain way. Governor Boggs didn’t like it and you may not like it, but it’s perfectly legal.

    The point that Oaks was trying to make is that the Constitution allows religious groups to express their views in their churches AND at the ballot box without fear of intimidation and/or physical threats. Both have happened as a result of Prop 8.

    Whether you agree or disagree as to the underlying reasons as to WHY these things happened, there is no denying that the fact that they (wholly separate from the ACTUAL Prop 8 debate) did happen strikes a blow to religious freedom. It sends the message that if you live your life according to your religious beliefs, including voting and trying to influence public policy, you are subject to intimidation and physical violence.

    The problem is that Oaks talk was not intended to be a general commentary on the Prop 8 debate. It was a micro-discussion of religious freedom in America…period. It was not a commentary of the pros and cons of SSM. That has nothing to do with the specific topic he addressed. And when you read his comments in that context, they really do make perfect sense.

    I understand there are still strong feelings coming from the pro-SSM crowd, and taking his comments out of context certainly stoked those feelings even more. But its helpful to step back and understand the context of the remarks rather than resorting to “sound byte” reactions.

  • 69 Urban Koda // Oct 20, 2009 at 8:35 am

    James, with all due respect, I wasn’t arguing that Mormons shouldn’t be allowed to vote, the problem is that you have a group of people who are told how to vote by 1 man. That’s not democracy by any stretch of the imagination.

    If the Church had approached this issue the way it has issues in the past, by encouraging members to exercise the right to vote, to understand the issue, and to vote the way they felt they should, that would have been fine, and I don’t think anyone would have had a problem with it…. But they didn’t.

    I’m not condoning the Extermination order at all. However the actions of the saints in the Gallatin election and the actions of the saints in respect to Prop 8, were both in direct opposition to how a democracy should function. That fear of loss of the democratic process, was one of the things which prompted the Extermination Order, and it’s a big part of what upset people with Prop 8 as well. That was my point.

    Elder Oaks wasn’t arguing about freedom of religion, speech or any of that. Elder Oaks wants to perpetuate the Church being able to influence political campaigns by telling the membership of the Church how to vote, and not have anyone outside criticize them for it. That in addition to being able to retain tex-exempt religious status while crossing the line and becoming a political entity.

    And to echo Chandelle’s comment… Picketing outside a wardhouse (Which was used to promote the campaign, and IMHO is perfectly reasonable) is hardly persecution, let alone anything even close to an extermination order.

  • 70 James // Oct 20, 2009 at 9:14 am

    Kado,

    It’s hard to pick through all the straw men you constructed with your last post, but I’ll give it a shot.

    First, are you honestly arguing that the Mormon prophet instructing his followers how to vote is not protected by the Constitution? Based on what? Your own personal opinion and feelings?

    The fact is that Monson and the rest of the Church leaders were well within their right, whether you agree or not, to encourage (key word) Church members in California to support Prop 8. You may not like it and I may not like it, but the fact remains.

    Second, regardless of your personal views on democracy, the Constitution protects free speech, and the Church’s actions fall well within that threshold. I can certainly understand if that makes you and SSM-advocates uncomfortable, but it also makes the Church uncomfortable when the SMM movement rallies in large numbers and encourages their followers to vote a certain way. It just so happened that the Prop 8 supporters had more votes this time. That’s the democratic process as set up in California at this time. I’m sorry you didn’t like the outcome, but it was perfectly constitutional. There are, of course, legal battles going on right now to overturn Prop 8, but not based on the arguments you lay out.

    Third, I get the impression you didn’t actually read the speech by Oaks. It was about freedom of religion and speech.

    Regardless of that, you once again fail to recognize that the Church is well within its rights to encourage its members to vote a certain way. I know you don’t like it, but until I hear a legitimate legal reason against it, you have no foundation upon which to argue against it.

    I’d encourage you to actually go and read the requirements to be a tax-exempt organization. It might surprise you. You are allowed to influence legislation, as long as the majority of your activities as an organization are not for that purpose. You are not allowed to influence the outcome of a specific election for or against a specific person.

    Finally, picketing is one thing. I have specifically used the words “intimidation and physical violence” for a reason. Molotov cocktails, vandalization and workplace intimidation all based on religion are inappropriate, should be condemned, not defended, and I think you know that.

  • 71 John // Oct 20, 2009 at 9:24 am

    I want to note that both the comparison of Prop 8 supporters to Civil Rights activists and the bringing up of the Boggs extermination order are intended to do one thing: to put those who experience valid, present-day persecution on the defensive, and to sidetrack them from the real underlying issue, which in this case is whether or not Prop 8 is discriminatory. Even in this thread, this strategy is working pretty well. The fact I even responded to Oaks shows that it’s working well.

    Contrast this exaggerated “oh my god my right to practice religion and vote is being repressed” with the news I woke up to today:

    Young lesbian couple beaten in Brighton

    Every day I read about violence to gays. Mormons and Prop 8 supporters contribute to discrimination against gays, by promoting bigoted legislation and by teaching that gays are deviant and sick and same sex attraction a social disease. You cure disease. You surgically remove it. You eradicate it. You vaccinate against it.

    You promote this hatred and these attacks through your attacks on gay marriage, and through your opposition to the secular sanction of gay love.

  • 72 Craig // Oct 20, 2009 at 9:30 am

    @James

    Even more to the point, Prop 8 should never have even happened. It should never be legal to have the majority vote on what rights minorities get. That the church funded and promoted a vote to take away civil rights from others is the crux of the problem, and why even if what the church did was legal in California, it was terribly wrong, unethical, and immoral. In the near future, I hope such votes to be made illegal – but their current legality doesn’t make the church’s actions any more right or any more immune to very strong critique.

    The ability of religions to force their beliefs on me and the rest of secular society shows not that religious rights are threatened when we stand up to that kind of tyranny, but that the religious have TOO many de facto rights in this country, too much power, and too much influence.

    I agree that any intimidation or threats against Mormons are out-of-line and a threat to civil rights, but not only were there very few, isolated incidents, but the oppression of gays by the Mormon church and other groups is far, far greater than anything Mormons have experienced because of, or since Prop 8.

    Oaks’ entire talk was full of lies, half-truths, extreme hyperbole, and context-free facts. There is no real threat to religious rights, period. Mormons are today just as free to vote their conscience (or vote the way they’re told to, depending on how individualistic the Mormon) as they were before Prop 8.

    For Mormons to complain that they’re being targeted as bigots and being sharply criticised for supporting Prop 8 is akin (though yes, different) to rich whites in the south claiming they’re being unfairly targeted for opposing desegregation.

    It sends the message that if you live your life according to your religious beliefs, including voting and trying to influence public policy, you are subject to intimidation and physical violence.

    I really think you’re overstating this. Rather, I think that it sends the message that if you’re a bigot and homophobe/racist, be prepared to be treated like one, and protested and condemned. Contemptuously, and rightfully so.

    I think that any real fear Mormons have of being physically harmed is just the result of fearmongering on the part of their leaders, and not because there is a real threat of Mormons being targeted for violence. As I’ve said, I know there have been a couple incidents, but they in no way show any sort of systematic targeting of Mormons.

    The Extermination Order happened so incredibly long ago that, while it is regrettable and very wrong, it has nothing to do with this issue at all. Mormons are not persecuted, and haven’t been for a very long time. That you have to go back 150+ years to find the last instance(s) of real persecution shows the weakness of the argument.

    And when you read his comments in that context, they really do make perfect sense.

    If by “perfect” you mean “none at all”, then yes, I agree.

  • 73 James // Oct 20, 2009 at 9:30 am

    John, I think the problem here is that you’re failing to distinguish between two separate themes.

    They are: what do institutions and people have the RIGHT to do, and what is the RIGHT thing to do.

    They are wholly separate discussions, yet you are trying to meld them into one.

    Oaks speech was about the first. I’m still waiting for you to acknowledge that, regardless of your feelings, the Church was well within its constitutional rights to do what it did, and that it is protected under the Constitution against specific acts of intimidation and violence.

  • 74 Craig // Oct 20, 2009 at 9:34 am

    Molotov cocktails, vandalization and workplace intimidation all based on religion are inappropriate, should be condemned, not defended, and I think you know that.

    Not one single person here is defending such acts. And I think you know that.

  • 75 James // Oct 20, 2009 at 9:44 am

    Craig,

    You won’t find an argument from me (or from Oaks, for that matter) that the Church is free from “very strong critique.”

    I really think you’re overstating this. Rather, I think that it sends the message that if you’re a bigot and homophobe/racist, be prepared to be treated like one, and protested and condemned. Contemptuously, and rightfully so.

    You can use labels all you want, Craig. It doesn’t change the facts. Freedom of speech and religion are protected under the Constitution, and no one has the right to retaliate with physical violence and intimidation based on someone’s religion.

    FTR, I did not bring up the extermination order. I simply responded to the notion that it was somehow or in some way fully or partially justified.

    I think that any real fear Mormons have of being physically harmed is just the result of fearmongering on the part of their leaders, and not because there is a real threat of Mormons being targeted for violence. As I’ve said, I know there have been a couple incidents, but they in no way show any sort of systematic targeting of Mormons.

    Funny, this sounds eerily similar to the arguments I heard from the Christian right following Matthew Shepard’s murder. Oh, it’s just an isolated incident, and the gays are using it to try and rally their troops through fearmongering. There’s only a few documented incidents of gays being killed or threatened, but they in no way show any sort of systemic targeting of gays.

    Nice try, Craig.

  • 76 James // Oct 20, 2009 at 9:45 am

    Not one single person here is defending such acts. And I think you know that.

    Umm…Craig? You just did.

  • 77 Urban Koda // Oct 20, 2009 at 9:46 am

    Well Jemas ;-)

    I’d actually agree with all of that.

    “Molotov cocktails, vandalization and workplace intimidation all based on religion are inappropriate, should be condemned, not defended, and I think you know that.”

    I do, and so do all the major parties involved in both side of this debate, and they agree with you, which makes Elder Oaks talk kind of irrelevant in that regard.

    He talked about a threat to religious freedom though, against which I think everyone else here has failed to see any threat – as do I. And he made a big deal about persecution, which is condemned by both sides and as I pointed out would appear to be the exception, rather than the rule.

    In my opinion, his talked was designed to rally the righteous foot soldiers, and continue the Church’s mission to eliminate the rights of same sex couple in seeking marriage.

    And if the Church continues to do that, there are going to be people like myself who will criticize them for it. Do I have a legal right to do so? Absolutely.

    Protesters will continue to protest against the Church by picketing it’s temples – the symbols of the Church and of marriage. And it’s meeting houses from when they initiate political activity. Do they have a legal right to do so? Absolutely

    And neither of those instances are even close to anything which could be considered persecution.

    Extreme nut jobs, on both sides of the argument will discriminate against each other in the work place and vandalize buildings. This is illegal and should be punished and condemned, which it is.

    But it is the extreme minority on each side which is engaging in these illegal activities, and it hardly seems significant enough to be the target of a worldwide address, and accusations of persecution similar to that of blacks during the Civil Rights era. If the perpetrators were getting away with it and it was on a broad scale perhaps, but I don’t know of any case where the rule of law hasn’t been invoked.

    I’m not sure if I’ve even made a point with all of that, so let me try and sum it up…

    Elder Oaks painted a picture of an enemy which is out to destroy the rights of Americans to choose how, where and what they may worship.

    With the exception of a very few extremists, this enemy does not exist anywhere other than in the mind of Elder Oaks, and unfortunately because of who he is, and his address, it is now in the minds of millions of his followers, who as a result now see the Gay community as more of an enemy than before and a group which has to be stopped at all costs.

    I would have hoped for and expected better of a man who claims to be a special witness of Christ.

    And that is what offended me personally about his talk.

  • 78 James // Oct 20, 2009 at 9:52 am

    Koda,

    Have you read the comments at all? There are people within THIS VERY THREAD who want to limit the rights of the church to encourage its members to vote a certain way on a public policy initiative such as Prop 8.

    Either it’s not just the nuts and extremists, or John’s got a whole lot of them commenting on his blog.

  • 79 Andrew // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:00 am

    Understand the Prop 8 did more than just give Gay couples the right to marry. It was so earmarked with additional “minor” addendum that it would have greatly influenced the “rights” of others as well. Including making it illegal to not allow gay marriages in any institution. This infringes on the rights of any church or organization to not believe in gay marriage, or at least allow it in their holy places.
    I’m all for allowing gay individuals to do whatever it is they want, AS LONG AS IT DOESN’T INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
    So, write up a simple bill allowing gay marriage and I’ll vote yes, but earmark it to the point where is affects me in ways i don’t want. Look for me to slap down a fatty “NO”. Oh, and I’ll be out there protest against a earmarked bill too.
    I miss it when bills were straightforward. No wait, that was never.

  • 80 Craig // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:06 am

    @James

    Where, exactly did I say that? I completely agree that no one has the right to limit constitutional rights, which is why I’m against the church’s involvement in Prop 8 and all other similar actions. Any and all attempts by any and all parties to limit the rights of gays is an affront to constitutionally mandated rights, and there is no right of religions to engage in votes to take away minorities’ rights based on their doctrines. Just because we’re in the middle of deciding that gays are people too doesn’t mean that those who oppose gay rights should get any sort of pass. Just like it opposed desegregation and full equality for blacks, the LdS church is doing the exact same thing with regards to gays. It’s sad that you can’t see the extreme similarity.

    And FTR, no one said the extermination order was justified, just that there was more behind it than just a malicious force out to persecute the innocent and blameless Mormons and Joe Smith. The historical context is relevant, and provides insight that neither side was wholly right or wrong.

    And we want to curtail the church’s overreaching of its rights. Once more, no church has the right to force its bigotry into law, or vote on what civil rights others should and do get. The only “rights” being threatened are imaginary ones. Again, Prop 8 should never have happened, and could not happen in most states.

    There’s only a few documented incidents of gays being killed or threatened, but they in no way show any sort of systemic targeting of gays.

    The problem with that, is that in fact it is well documented that there exists systematic and pervasive societal homophobia which results in daily instances of gays being murdered, intimidated, threatened, beaten-up, etc. Can you give the same sort of evidence for Mormons any time recently that would in any way compare to blacks’ or gays’ oppression? I am willing to concede to evidence, if you have any. The cry of persecution from Mormons is just neither believable nor evidenced. A few instances of condemnable violence persecution does not make.

  • 81 Craig // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:07 am

    @Andrew

    There was not a thing in Prop 8 which would have demonstrably infringed on anyone’s rights – except on hypothetical situations on imaginary rights. That has, I believe, been sufficiently proven.

  • 82 John // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:11 am

    Andrew, I suggest you understand an issue before passing on false info about it. Prop 8 says nothing about gay right to marriage. There is no addendum. Here is the full text:

    This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.

    This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

    SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”

    SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:

    SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

  • 83 James // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:18 am

    Can you give the same sort of evidence for Mormons any time recently that would in any way compare to blacks’ or gays’ oppression? I am willing to concede to evidence, if you have any. The cry of persecution from Mormons is just neither believable nor evidenced. A few instances of condemnable violence persecution does not make.

    “A few” instances is not the same thing, no. But this is where you, and everybody else, builds a straw man in reference to Oaks comments.

    He never said they were the same. He only said they were comparable. Big difference. In fact, in the Q&A the Church put out in reference to his talk, he specifically says that actions against the Church have in no way been on the same level or degree as the Civil Rights area, only that you can make a logical comparison to the acts of violence and intimidation. That’s it. You’re trying to draw way too much out of the comment. These actions DO pose a threat to religious speech and actions in that their intent is to limit that speech and those actions through intimidation and threats. I’m seriously having a hard time why so many people don’t understand that.

    Either way, specific cases of intimidation and violence against the Church as an institution and Church members have already been laid out within this thread by GKB and others. I won’t rehash them.

  • 84 Urban Koda // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:22 am

    By nut jobs and extremists, I mean those who kill opponents and vandalize their buildings.

    Freedom of Religion and Speech…

    Where is the line between being free to exercise your own beliefs and actively seeking to deprive another to pursue theirs?

    It messes with the line of what do we have the right to do, and what is the right thing to do, as you raised before. Ethics vs. Legality.

    Where is the line between politics and religion? And if a religion steps over that line and enters politics, is it exempt from being targeted as a political organization? And if so targeted can it cry foul and hide behind the “We’re a religion, so leave us alone” protection?

    Protesting the Church’s involvement in politics is not taking away their right to freedom of speech or religion.

    I fully support the Church teaching what I and others consider homophobic teachings. That’s freedom of religion.

    I fully support the right of the Church to deny the rights of homosexual couples to being married in the temple. That’s freedom of religion.

    I don’t like and I think it should be illegal for a Church to contribute money to a political campaign. It’s legal now unfortunately and they do have the rights to do so.

    The Church didn’t just encourage it’s members to vote a certain way. In direction given from the top in Salt Lake City, it actively organized a campaign to further the passage of prop 8. There is a difference.

    I don’t think it’s ethical for a Church to try to eliminate another groups right to pursue their rights. Especially one which was the target of similar legislation a century ago.

    The Church got involved in politics and it shouldn’t have. After successfully campaigning to remove the rights of same sex couples to marry – something some sex couple believe in and are fully within their rights to expect under the Constitution, the Church must now face the consequences of it’s actions, but which I mean protests and criticism for their involvement.

    Crying foul and claiming persecution is just plain hypocritical.

  • 85 James // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:27 am

    Crying foul and then hoping to strip the Church of its rights is also hypocritical, Koda.

    Just pointing that out.

  • 86 Urban Koda // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:40 am

    I want to strip the Church of the right to participate in a process of removing the rights of another group. I suppose that is hypocritical. Good Call!

    Question for you… When the Federal Government outlawed the practices of polygamy within the LDS Church. Did they infringe on the Church’s rights to practice their religion freely?

    Just so you know where I stand on the matter… I think they did.

    I bring that up only to provide comparison and a different perspective.

    Religion enjoys a number of excellent privileges in this country and I fully support that. I think the problem comes when with that right, is taken the right to infringe on the freedom of another.

  • 87 Craig // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:41 am

    @James

    To make churches follow the same laws as non-religious non-profits is hardly “stripping” them of rights. In fact, it’s simply correcting laws and traditions and lapses in judgement which have (unconstitutionally) allowed religions MORE rights than other institutions and allowed the religious more rights than the non-religious, and allowed the religious (white men) more rights than gays (and women and racial minorities).

    Oh and also, while he did try to ameliorate his statement slightly, he also defended it by comparing those who protest the church’s bigotry to racists in the south in the 60s. That’s hardly defensible or even the slightest bit accurate or applicable.

    And the specific cases are also all the known cases. Only some of the cases he even brought up have any proven tie to prop 8, and even fewer (1 or 2) can even be called intimidation or violence. Extremely isolated incidents by individuals simply show that a very few individuals can’t control their violent impulses, not that there is any campaign or the least degree of organised intimidation of Mormons.

    And again, the same cannot be said of gays. The hypocrisy of this entire thing is just astounding.

  • 88 James // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:47 am

    In fact, it’s simply correcting laws and traditions and lapses in judgement which have (unconstitutionally) allowed religions MORE rights than other institutions and allowed the religious more rights than the non-religious, and allowed the religious (white men) more rights than gays (and women and racial minorities).

    Good luck with that Craig. Let me know how it turns out.

  • 89 Urban Koda // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:55 am

    James, if I may….

    Why were you supportive of Prop 8?

  • 90 kuri // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:56 am

    Andrew,

    Prop 8 wasn’t a bill to make same-sex marriage legal. Same-sex marriage already was legal in California (with none of the consequences you’re worried about). Prop 8 was a ballot measure that took away the existing right of people of the same sex to marry each other.

  • 91 Eric // Oct 20, 2009 at 11:07 am

    James-

    The concepts in this debate is getting heavily blurred by parties on all sides. I tried to address it in comment 54 with a quote from Mr Oaks’ talk:

    The point he should have focused on is touched on briefly and is:

    “Religious freedom needs defending against the claims of newly asserted human rights. The so-called “Yogyakarta Principles,” published by an international human rights group, call for governments to assure that all persons have the right to practice their religious beliefs regardless of sexual orientation or identity.[xiv] This apparently proposes that governments require church practices and their doctrines to ignore gender differences. Any such effort to have governments invade religion to override religious doctrines or practices should be resisted by all believers.”

    Folks this is why Same-Sex marriage is an issue for religionists. They fear that government will force them to change their beliefs and practices… i.e. Homosexual marriages will have to be performed in the temple. This is the crux of this whole issue. The fact is No one will force this on any religion. The freedom to practice religion will remain. The state will have to recognize same sex couples… judges, Ship Captains, and Unitarian Ministers will marry same sex couples… but temple marriage is and will be safe from government interference. I would fight to keep that so as ardently as I fight for Gay Rights.

    The bottom line is that the church has every right to mobilize politically… in the prop 8 fight the reason there is so much ill will is that the church asked that it’s membership in and out of California contribute to a Californian Election. This was a local california issue that people outside of CA had no business in. On top of which it was afocused effort to take away a right that the homosexual community of CA had. While it may have been done according to legal means that does not make it ethical.

    Instead of focusing on the issue that effects religion the church would rather prevent a minority group rights than focus on the issue that will secure their rights.

  • 92 MH // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    Thank you GKB, I appreciate your comments.

    To everyone else, I will not ridicule or make fun of or discriminate you or your beliefs.

    The LDS organization has been one of the most generous organization’s in the world. When natural distasters strike, they are the first ones to help, when hurricane Katrina struck, they were the first ones there, helping to the end, when there are starving children in third world countries, they are there to help feed and love. If you say that the LDS church does not focus it’s points around love, that is incorrect. If you study their General Conference that was the main topic, that is what they are all about love and service, even to those that revile them.

    In this wonderful country of America, we have the great freedom of speech. You can say or vote what you will, LDS members can say or vote what they will, what a awesome country we have where that is possible. We have so many freedoms here.

    The LDS church encourages everyone to study out issues, and not only use their intellectual insticts but also their conscience. If you study it out, LDS people are some of the more educated people in the world.

    In Dallin H. Oaks talk he says,

    “Even as we seek to speak with love, we must not be surprised when our positions are ridiculed and we are persecuted and reviled.

    As the Savior said, “so persecuted they the prophets which were before you” (Matthew 5:12).

    And modern revelation commands us not to revile against revilers (Doctrine and Covenants 19:30).”

    He is laying it out, very clearly, what is currently happening and what, sadly, will happen.

    Is that logical? Is it common sense?

    Do you put out the organization that helps and supports so many people around the world that need it? Just because they believe a certain way?

  • 93 AV // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:24 pm

    Dallin H. Oaks said in his talk,

    “Even as we seek to speak with love, we must not be surprised when our positions are ridiculed and we are persecuted and reviled.

    As the Savior said, “so persecuted they the prophets which were before you” (Matthew 5:12).

    And modern revelation commands us not to revile against revilers (Doctrine and Covenants 19:30). ”

    Isn’t this what is happening right now to the LDS church?

    The LDS church is such a good organization, they do so much service for the hungry, the needy. They are the first the the natural disaster sites to help. The statement, the LDS church is not about love. It is about love in every aspect and action.

    Why put out the organization that does so much good in the world, just because you don’t like their beliefs?

    What a great country we live in, where the freedom of speech is an opportunity for everyone!

  • 94 James // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:38 pm

    Koda,

    I wasn’t.

  • 95 Urban Koda // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:39 pm

    Do you mind if I ask why not?

  • 96 Urban Koda // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:44 pm

    MH, you’re right.

    The LDS church encourages everyone to study out issues, and not only use their intellectual insticts but also their conscience.

    Except in the case of prop 8.

  • 97 James // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    I don’t live in California.

  • 98 kuri // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    In Dallin H. Oaks talk he says,

    “Even as we seek to speak with love, we must not be surprised when our positions are ridiculed and we are persecuted and reviled.

    As the Savior said, “so persecuted they the prophets which were before you” (Matthew 5:12).”

    So basically, he’s saying that the fact that people disagree with him proves he’s right. And the more vehemently they disagree, the more that proves how right he is.

    I, for one, can’t help being convinced by logic like that.

  • 99 Eric // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    MH – Just because a group does good things does it give it a pass when it does something wrong.

    No one will argue that the church does great Humanitarian Deeds, but we will criticize it when it supports taking people’s rights away. which it did in the case of Prop 8.

    I believe that the church is well within it’s legal right to oppose Gay marriage, it is not an ethical or good stance, and boycotts, demonstrations, and public criticism are all legal responses to the churches stance. Violence and threats of violence are unacceptable responses to the churches stance. No one here will support those types of responses to the church stances.

  • 100 Urban Koda // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    Fair enough…

    But that raises an interesting question… by that same token, do you think it was right that in a California State matter, the Church based in Salt Lake City, asked members in all states, specifically those in the west to contribute money to the Prop 8 campaign?

    I think that is one of the key complaints with those protesting the Church’s involvement.

    I think we’ve established that technically the Church has a legal right to get it’s member to donate money and promote the Prop 8 campaign.

    The other key element is…

    Was it ethically right, for the church, in keeping with their mission as a religious body, to promote an initiative which would remove the right to marry from another group of people?

  • 101 James // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:36 pm

    Ethically?

    I dunno. Depends on whose set of ethics you’re using. According to the church’s set of beliefs and ethics, yes it was right of them to uphold the most basic of their religious tenets, the fact that a man and a woman are the cornerstone of a family, and that the church is mandated by God to defend the traditional family. Love it or hate it, that’s what the Church believes, and I don’t understand why anyone would be surprised that they go to great lengths to defend that belief, even if it is in the public sector.

    According to the gay community’s set of beliefs and ethics (and that of their supporters), no it wasn’t right.

  • 102 Craig // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:48 pm

    And yet it would be considered by the church unethical for gays to vote on whether Mormons get to be civilly married or be discriminated against or be fired or evicted for being Mormon.

    We don’t live in a theocracy – which is why it’s problematic and surprising when a church which claims in its scriptures that it is wrong to mix religious influence into secular government does exactly that.

    The massive hypocrisy on the part of the church is what makes all this so especially wrong.

  • 103 Urban Koda // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:58 pm

    @James

    Well, I guess that puts me in a quandry… I’m not part of the gay community, and I’m currently a member of the Church… Well, at least until they find out that I considered the issue intellectually and made up my own mind ;-)

    Had prop 8 been about forcing the Church to adopt Gay Marriage, then I think you would be correct. But this isn’t and wasn’t about the Church being forced to do anything.

    Mandated by God to defend the traditional family?!? Traditional as in 1 man / 1 woman, or traditional as in 1 man, multiple woman. The history of marriage is a changing and convoluted one, even in the relatively brief history of the LDS Church. Who defines what a traditional family is anyway – seems to me that’s a religious thing…

    Freedom of Religion and the 11th Article of Faith for that matter are about having the right to being able to do what you feel is correct, but don’t give you the right to infringe upon another persons right to pursue what they believe. Even if you think God has told you that you’re right.

  • 104 Eric // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:08 pm

    James,

    Yes Ethically.

    The church’s belief that a man and a woman are the cornerstone of the family has never been under attack. The right of Homosexuals to marry has been under attack.

    In California it was legal it was their right to be married. No church was required to marry them. Any church was free to marry them. The state was required to recognize the union.

    The church mobilized it’s worldwide congregation to support taking away the right of homosexuals to marry in CA.

    The uncontested beliefs of the church and it’s views on marriage were never in doubt or challenged!

    Those are the facts!

  • 105 James // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:09 pm

    What a shocker, Craig, that the church and the gay community would think each other wrong on issues of marriage.

    In other news, the sun rose in the east today.

    I suppose, also, that you’re referring to D&C 134 with your second to last paragraph. Here’s the whole quote, seeing as though you’re taking it out of context:

    9 We do not believe it just to amingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

    Leaving behind the fact that this is not a “revelation” from God to Joseph Smith, but rather a rough set of political beliefs put together (according to most accounts) by Oliver Cowdery, the verse doesn’t quite say what you try to make it out to say.

    It says that religious institutions should not use their influence to keep another religious institution from practicing their beliefs. Last time I checked, the Church was not trying to keep the Anglican church from marrying gay couples or ordain gay priests, but trying to influence public policy in the state of California, a secular institution.

  • 106 James // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:16 pm

    Koda,

    The 11th article of faith does not say “let them marry how where or what they may.” It says let them “worship.”

    Big difference.

    Eric,

    You may say that the church’s ability to say who gets married in the temple and who doesn’t is under no such danger, but I’m not really convinced, and the fact is that there is a movement, perhaps not a large one, which has as its goal forcing all religions to recognize SSM. You may think that’s crazy, but 50 years ago I guarantee people would have thought you were crazy to say that some day two men or two women could get married.

    Undoubtedly the church is worried about the slippery slope, and this slippery slope causes them to feel that, yes, traditional marriage is under attack.

  • 107 Craig // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:16 pm

    Last time I checked, the Church was not trying to keep the Anglican church from marrying* gay couples or ordain gay priests, but trying to influence public policy in the state of California, a secular institution.

    By doing what it did, the church infringed on the right of other religions to practise their doctrines – many churches believe in and wish to practise the marriage of gays – but the gov’t won’t let them based in no small part on the fact that larger more powerful and rich religions freak out at the very thought. Why does the LdS church have the right intervene in secular laws and thereby infringe on other religions’ rights to practise their doctrines?

    The Lds church used its influence to keep other religions from practising their beliefs, plain and simple. How you’re going to wiggle out of this one is beyond me.

    *And if it is against LdS belief to have secular marriage for gays, it’s just as much against UU, CoC, Episcopalian, etc., belief to NOT have secular marriage for gays.

  • 108 Urban Koda // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:21 pm

    Last time I checked, the Church was not trying to keep the Anglican church from marrying gay couples or ordain gay priests, but trying to influence public policy in the state of California, a secular institution.

    No, by outlawing gay marriage in California, the Church doesn’t have to worry about the Anglican church, or any other Church from marrying gay couples, since they are all denied that right, thanks to the LDS Church for forcing it’s beliefs on others.

    In making that statement too, you’re also inadvertently admitting that a secular institution has fewer rights than a religious institution – I believe you wished Craig luck with that notion!

  • 109 Craig // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:21 pm

    What a shocker, Craig, that the church and the gay community would think each other wrong on issues of marriage.

    But one side has evidence and science and fairplay on its side, and the other does not.

    You may say that the church’s ability to say who gets married in the temple and who doesn’t is under no such danger, but I’m not really convinced, and the fact is that there is a movement, perhaps not a large one, which has as its goal forcing all religions to recognize SSM.

    Evidence? Or perhaps just reality-free conjecture and scare-mongering. Just as it is was the LdS church’s right to be racist, so it is its right to be homophobic. Are you suggesting that the gov’t was going to force the LdS church to allow blacks to go to the temple? Why not other religions & organisations which currently do segregate and are racist?

    You may think that’s crazy, but 50 years ago I guarantee people would have thought you were crazy to say that some day two men or two women could get married.

    And 50-60 years ago, people would’ve thought it crazy to say people of two different races could marry, drink from the same water fountain, go to the same school, or ride the same bus. Hardly a good argument, eh?

  • 110 James // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:22 pm

    Craig,

    A church can marry whomever they want to. It doesn’t mean that marriage will be recognized by the state. Those are two separate issues.

    There are countries around the world who do not recognize LDS Temple marriages every single day.

  • 111 Craig // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:29 pm

    So they’re separate issues when I point out that it’s hypocritical for Mormons to force their view on other religions, but if we allow secular gay marriage it’ll somehow impact (the totally separate institution) of Mormon religious marriage/sealings, is that right?

    Oh my how your argument changes depending on whom it’ll benefit.

  • 112 Urban Koda // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    No James, but in countries where LDS temple marriages are not recognized, people can still be married civilly, and they are not denied the right to have a temple marriage.

    That’s a pretty lousy argument I’m afraid.

    Actually having lived in those countries, civil ceremonies in chapels, held prior actual contain a fair amount of mocking the civil requirement, which I found to be quite distasteful too. But that’s a whole other can of worms I think.

  • 113 Urban Koda // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:33 pm

    Craig – if I wasn’t so darn attracted to my wife, I’d swear we were meant to be soul mates!!!

  • 114 James // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:40 pm

    Craig,

    The Church is not infringing upon the rights of any other church to do anything. If you have examples of this, I’d love to hear them, but I’m going to guess you don’t.

    Gays can still get married in another church. Does the state in which that church reside recognize that marriage? It may or may not. But that has nothing to do with the fact that that church is allowed to do whatever it wants and call it a “marriage.”

    What the church IS afraid of, is their right to not allow gay marriages in their temples. That would be infringing upon the church’s rights as a religious institution. The slope, in the church’s eye, is getting more and more slippery by the decade, and they decided to take action against that slippery slope. If marriage is not recognized by the state, legally you can’t force a religion to recognize it. If it IS recognized by the state, however, and deemed discriminatory, you have the beginnings of a legal argument for forcing churches to recognize a couple married legally under state law within the records of said church.

    Now, what part of that don’t you understand still?

  • 115 Eric // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    James (105)

    “You may say that the church’s ability to say who gets married in the temple and who doesn’t is under no such danger, but I’m not really convinced, and the fact is that there is a movement, perhaps not a large one, which has as its goal forcing all religions to recognize SSM. You may think that’s crazy, but 50 years ago I guarantee people would have thought you were crazy to say that some day two men or two women could get married.”

    That is a bit of a stretch as the comparison doesn’t fit. A church cannot be forced to perform a marriage. If a person does not meet the requirements for a temple marriage the church doesn’t have to marry them in there anyway i.e. if a member and a nonmember were to get married the state won’t force the church to perform the temple marriage.

    50 years ago people would have thought you were crazy to suggest that a black man and a while man should drink out of the same water fountain….

  • 116 Urban Koda // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    The membership of the Church are only afraid of that because they’ve been told to be afraid of it, and thus we come back full circle to Elder Oaks’ comments.

    Even suggesting that is quite a leap I’m afraid.

    There is absolutely NO legal precedent for that kind of thing either.

  • 117 Craig // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:58 pm

    @Urban

    Thanks :)

    @James

    What I don’t understand is why you harp on the same point which has been disproven, and expect us to believe that which has been disproven without giving us any evidence at all to believe you besides the (disproven) rantings of church authorities. Just because they tell you be afraid of it happening doesn’t make it any more likely or less crazy.

    That’s what I find so odd and confusing.

    And I already explained how the church infringed on other churches, and gave examples. Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “I can’t hear you” or “It only counts if as discrimination if its done to us” is hardly a good tactic.

  • 118 N8 // Oct 20, 2009 at 7:42 pm

    Upon hearing about all the controversy over a recent speech given by Elder Oaks at BYU-Idaho, I must admit I was intrigued . I immediately google’d “Dallin H Oaks” and clicked on the first “anti-Oaks” hit which brought me here (Congrats on being number 1!). After reading the authors “summary” and feelings about Oaks’ remarks as well as many of your comments, I began to feel a little uneasy.
    Fortunately I was able to read his remarks for myself. (which can be found at “http://www.byui.edu/Presentations/Transcripts/Devotionals/2009_10_13_Oaks.htm”) My biggest concern was the webmaster’s attack on the supposed “analogy” given by Oak’s regarding the black civil rights movement. This is an obvious straw man attack (“A fallacy that occurs when someone attacks a less defensible position than the one actually being put forth. This occurs very often in politics, when one seeks to derive maximum approval for himself/herself or for a cause.” – http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm#strawman). In truth, the only reference made to the black rights movement was toward the end of his speech in summary:
    “It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.” (Dallin H. Oaks, BYU-Idaho address, Oct 13th, 2009) Here Oaks takes religion out of the equation by stating the intimidating acts associated with Prop 8 was “not anti-religious”, that the use of “violence and intimidation” in public affairs is “anti-democratic” as was the case in the 60s during the civil rights movement.
    Needless to say, I find the webmasters appeal that Elder Oak’s statements are full of “hypocrisy” based on this comparison pathetic. His speech was plain and simple – the constitution supports religious freedom AND civil rights. That individuals should not be afraid to exercise their freedom of religion and make a stand for what they believe in and that they should do so with love, patience and understanding for their opposition.
    Anyway, now that I know what all the “hype” is about, what I don’t understand is why so many people are pissed off at this. Is it really hypocrisy to say that we should tolerate one another despite our religious/political/social differences? That we should stand up for what we believe is just, true and right? I guess I don’t see the connection, let alone the cause for blatant hatred to Oaks or the church. If you ask me we could all benefit from stepping outside ourselves and looking at all the issues revolving around a single proposition, and that we should all do so with love, patience, understanding and tolerance regardless of what side we’re on. After all, isn’t that whats best for society?

  • 119 kuri // Oct 20, 2009 at 9:39 pm

    N8,

    Did you actually read John’s post? You addressed none of his points. That makes your remarks about “strawmen” and “stepping outside ourselves and looking at all the issues revolving around a single proposition” look pretty hypocritical themselves.

  • 120 N8 // Oct 20, 2009 at 11:19 pm

    Jrui,
    If you are referring to the post at the top of this page which I was commenting on, yes I managed to read a bit. By all means correct me if I’m wrong and cure me of my insatiable hypocrisy, but it seems to me that John’s whole reason for posting was an alleged analogy made by Oaks regarding acts that took place during Prop 8 and the civil rights movement (against the mormons and the blacks respectively). Well I read Oaks article after being somewhat disturbed by this accusation against a man of Oaks standing, both in and out of the church. In fact John drew a rather hasty conclusion that Oaks inferred that there was a some comparison between what mormon’s (and other people of religion) faced in support of Prop 8 and what blacks went through in the south during the civil rights movement. Now, you really don’t have to look far to realize that such an analogy would be false, however, Oaks made no such comparison. He did in fact state that the acts that transpired against Prop 8 supporters were “not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic” and that all acts of “violence and intimidation” to sway people to the left or the right are anti-democratic acts – the same anti-democratic acts that took place during many civil rights movements including those experienced by black Americans in the 60s.
    Now, this statement by Oaks was made in summary, a side note of the real topic of his discussion. To take this, misrepresent it and blow it out of proportion distracting readers from the real issues presented to make your own cause look stronger? That is in fact a fallacy that many ignorant people fall victim to far too often in politics and just about every other facet in life.
    Again, in answer to your comments, yes I did read John’s post and had Elder Oaks talk truly been about “how mormons have been persecuted during Prop 8 just like the blacks were during the civil rights movement and why this should motivate you to exercise your freedom of religion”, I just might see your point.

    This begs the question, did you read Elder Oaks Address?

  • 121 Eric // Oct 20, 2009 at 11:27 pm

    N8 – I wonder if you are reading the same speech I read. Mr. Oaks spends a hefty portion of it “demonizing” atheists. Why is my religious freedom to not practice any religion any less valid than his? If I pledge allegiance any time in the past 50 years I am forced to recognize a God I don’t believe in in order to be patriotic. For me to criticize that I am often spurned by good Christians who say it shouldn’t matter. But because a handful of politicians wanted to root out communists in the 50s my freedom of religion is less important than everyone else’s.

    It is hypocritical because he doesn’t afford Atheists the same religious freedom he holds dear. It is hypocritical because he compares actions done to prevent people from gaining their rights to actions that were done by people to take the rights away from others.

    No one here is going to argue that what the church did in prop 8 was not legal. However it was unethical and no we won’t sit here and tolerate the actions of one group that led to the revocation of rights that they enjoy from another group. That would be hypocracy!

  • 122 Eric // Oct 20, 2009 at 11:32 pm

    edit – It is hypocritical because he compares actions done to prevent people from gaining their rights to actions that were done to people in response to their aid in taking rights away from others.

  • 123 N8 // Oct 21, 2009 at 12:10 am

    Thank you for you comments Eric.
    If it is demonic to be “hostile to religion” or religious people, or to expect freedom “from” religion and not “of” or “for” it, than your right, Oaks was demonizing atheism. But the point he makes is that when you take something like atheism and use it to trump believers in God (whether its burning money, books or works of art, altering the pledge of allegiance, amending the constitution and much more…) you infringe upon the rights of those who desire to exercise their religious affiliations. The question is, where do we draw the line? Do we make the necessary changes needed to free atheists from a God they don’t believe in while at the same time depriving those that do?

    I do have a more personal question for you, as an atheist. Do you really feel forced to recognize God in order to be patriotic? My reason for asking being the fact that this nation was founded by men who all shared this belief. I guess what I’m really wondering is if by acknowledging that a belief in God (which you do not share) can lead to the foundation of such a great nation (which you are a part of), that this might enable you to be patriotic without sacrificing your convictions? (at the same time understanding why so many of your Christian friends have this belief)

  • 124 kuri // Oct 21, 2009 at 7:12 am

    N8,

    So… Elder Oaks did not infer that there was any comparison between Mormons on Prop 8 and blacks on civil rights, he merely said that things that happened to Mormons were like things that happened to blacks? And no one should take that as him saying that they were in any way analogous?

  • 125 kuri // Oct 21, 2009 at 7:20 am

    I’d like to add that (of course) I read the entire speech. And while Elder Oaks’s analogy was only one sentence in that speech, there’s a reason why so many people focus on that one sentence: because the comparison is so outrageous.

  • 126 Craig // Oct 21, 2009 at 7:24 am

    And not only was it outrageous, but he later defended it by saying this (quoted from the SL Tribune)

    “In an interview Monday before the speech, Oaks said he did not consider it provocative to compare the treatment of Mormons in the election’s aftermath to that of blacks in the civil rights era, and said he stands by the analogy.

    “‘It may be offensive to some — maybe because it hadn’t occurred to them that they were putting themselves in the same category as people we deplore from that bygone era,’ he said.”

    That takes out the ambiguity from his statement and makes it clear he’s not only saying that Mormons are like blacks in the 60s, but those who oppose the church are like white racist/supremacists in the 60s.

  • 127 Urban Koda // Oct 21, 2009 at 7:33 am

    And by “In an interview Monday before the speech, …” , the SL Tribune was referring to a Q&A session produced and released by LDS Public Affairs.

    So yes, perhaps it was just one line in the speech itself, but that one line was used to put together a dog & pony show in order to promote the speech.

  • 128 Eric // Oct 21, 2009 at 12:57 pm

    N8- “I do have a more personal question for you, as an atheist. Do you really feel forced to recognize God in order to be patriotic? My reason for asking being the fact that this nation was founded by men who all shared this belief. I guess what I’m really wondering is if by acknowledging that a belief in God (which you do not share) can lead to the foundation of such a great nation (which you are a part of), that this might enable you to be patriotic without sacrificing your convictions? (at the same time understanding why so many of your Christian friends have this belief)”

    Absolutely, The pledge of allegiance never said “under God” until the 50′s. Before that I wouldn’t have to recognize a god in order to pledge allegiance to my country. Let’s also remember it was not a belief in God they appealed to for founding the nation but to Reason.

  • 129 John // Oct 21, 2009 at 1:32 pm

    N8, it’s also poor history to assume that most of the founding fathers were Christian theists, esp. as those terms are understood today. Even if most were, several prominent ones were deists, and were as skeptical as one could be pre-Darwin. Remember that deism is an explicit rejection of divine intervention and anything supernatural, except for creation. The divine clockmaker set the universe in motion, and then removed himself (it was always a male) from human/natural affairs. Thomas Paine was (in)famous and ostracized for his anti-Christian broadsides and promotion of freethinking. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and John Adams were all privately acknowledged deists, even if they used God language in their public discourse. Also keep in mind that these men promoted an utterly radical and unconservative idea in their day, the removal of religious institutional involvement in government.

  • 130 Craig // Oct 21, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    @N8
    Furthermore, the assertion “… the fact that this nation was founded by men who all shared this belief [in god].” is patently false.

    While some few of the founding fathers were Christian, most of them were deists and had only the vaguest notion of belief in god(s) – and did not believe in Jesus, a personal god. Basically they believed that some being had created the universe and then had nothing to do with it after that. Others still like Franklin were possibly atheists.

    The point of that is simply that religionists have taken over government in the US and have forced Christianity down the throats of everyone, whether they like it or not. This country, regardless of the personal religious beliefs of its founders, was clearly founded to be a totally secular nation. Any official, government sanctioned or placed mention of “God” is unconstitutional because it involves government in promoting 1 version of religion over others, and promoting religion over irreligion.

    All god-speak in government & politics are there to satisfy ridiculous notions of morality being tied to religion, and as a hold-0ver (as Eric pointed out) from the virulent anti-communism and anti-atheism in the 50s.

    We neither want government to support atheism than we want it to support religion. It simply needs to stay out of all questions of religion. Not mentioning god in government isn’t supporting atheism (saying there is no god would be).

    And it is ridiculous to suggest that the freedom of religion doesn’t include atheists to be from the influence of religion in government. As soon as you promote any sort of religion, you’re not only violating the rights of nontheists, but also religionists who believe differently.

  • 131 paisley // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:22 am

    Wow what a site!
    N8 thank you for your comments. They were simple and to the point. I was in attendance at Elder Dallin H. Oaks speech.

    I do agree that while Elder Oaks compared the acts of retaliation against the church to those of the deep south, he was in no way suggesting Mormons are being murdered and lynched. Rather he is pointing out that an attempt of intimidation of practicing the right to vote is non-democratic. We all know this.

    Elder Oaks is a highly educated man. Surely you can’t believe that he, as a lawyer, doesn’t realize how brutal the acts of the deep south were? He is not attempting to minimalize them nor is he trying to maximize any backlash at the Mormon church. He is simply pointing out that retaliation at voicing ones opinion democratically is wrong.

    Obviously I do not believe that most supporters of marriage for Gays and lesbians would graffiti a church or other illegal acts. We are all decent people who are not violently inclined. Lets then not over exaggerate this comment Elder Oaks made in his attempt to point out that democracy is challenged when any form of violence and intimidation is applied.

  • 132 John // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:35 am

    Paisley (#131), thanks for your comment. I thought that this was one of the more reasonable and valid defenses I’ve heard of Oaks’ analogy:

    “Elder Oaks made in his attempt to point out that democracy is challenged when any form of violence and intimidation is applied.”

    I strongly concur with you in principle that violence, even by a radical fringe within a group, does threaten democracy. Time and again a tiny, violent minority has cowed a violent majority. That said, I think that Oaks is overstating the case with regards to Prop 8 supporters. I think he’s actually making the situation worse by combining a few isolated acts of vandalism into something that Mormons may perceive as an organized and sustained campaign or conspiracy of intimidation that doesn’t actually exist.

    I also agree with you that he is indeed an experienced and intelligent public leader. Given that there were many less provocative and more analogous examples he could have chosen to illustrate his point, it’s my analysis that the comment was intended to be deliberately provocative, and to give the speech more mileage and airtime than it might otherwise have achieved.

  • 133 James // Oct 22, 2009 at 9:04 am

    That said, I think that Oaks is overstating the case with regards to Prop 8 supporters. I think he’s actually making the situation worse by combining a few isolated acts of vandalism into something that Mormons may perceive as an organized and sustained campaign or conspiracy of intimidation that doesn’t actually exist.

    These weren’t isolated incidents. Seven Mormon churches/temples in the Salt Lake area were vandalized just within weeks of the Nov 2008 election. Ten churches in the Sacramento area were vandalized in the same time period. Two temples (one in LA, one in SLC) had anthrax scares. The FBI opened an official “hate crimes” investigation in regards to all the acts of vandalism against churches and temples.

    http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html

  • 134 Craig // Oct 22, 2009 at 9:11 am

    @james

    But is there any evidence that these were done by an organisation in order to specifically intimidate Mormons?

    I think it’s most likely that many different, uncoordinated people decided to release their frustrations with some vandalism. Regrettable, yes. Organised campaign of intimidation in order to suppress Mormons from voting, highly unlikely – and therefore, technically “isolated incidents” – especially as they occurred only at that time and not since.

    And how ironic it is that Mormons can be targeted and have “hate crime” status be applied to acts of vandalism, but gays in many states (including infamously Utah) cannot be part of a protected class or have “hate crime” status be applied to what are clearly hate crimes. And that the church refuses to support such rights for gays.

  • 135 James // Oct 22, 2009 at 11:29 am

    You’re exposing your own biases just fine on your own, Craig. You don’t need any more help from me.

    See ya.

  • 136 John // Oct 22, 2009 at 11:50 am

    James, that last point of Craig’s, that attacking someone expressly because they are gay is a not a hate crime in Utah, is pretty valid. That’s a statement of fact, not a biased opinion.

    The major theme of this debate is that the Church, through Oaks, is claiming a persecuted status and denial of rights while it is in the process of helping to persecute and deny rights to another minority. You have challenged the veracity that it is helping to deny rights to gays; Craig’s argument is fact-based, and responding with a “hey, you’re biased” doesn’t help your argument much.

  • 137 John // Oct 22, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    And it is one of the primary points in my post is that one of the key differences between the Civil Rights example and the post-Prop 8 violence is not just one of degree, but also how deep the social and institutional support for the Civil Rights era violence was. There *was* coordination on the part of the violence against Civil Rights activists. Police worked *with* the KKK for example, and many religious organizations offered “moral” support.

    This is one of the key problems with Oaks’ comparison–by making the links to such a powerful symbol, he’s implying that there is a widespread backlash against Mormons, that Mormons are indeed being systematically intimidated.

    There is no proof of such coordination in the vandalism against LDS chapels. There is no widespread support for such violence among those who were against Prop 8.

    If anything, there is greater evidence for systematic and even coordinated efforts to deprive gays of rights. The Church does not care about gay rights one whit–another hypocrisy. If the Church truly was only worried about marriage, as it argued in California, and truly cared about gays, they would support civil unions in Utah.

  • 138 djinn // Oct 23, 2009 at 8:19 am

    James’ and Miles’ argument that Mormons are a persecuted minority relies quite a bit on what happened in Missouri back in the 1830′s–specifically the extermination order by Gov. Boggs. Not to even slightly excuse the Missourians, but the Mormons (and this is my family we’rer talking about) also misbehaved pretty badly. For example, the Mormon blog bycommonconsent.com had a post that discussed some of the events leading up to the extermination order–namely Mormons sacking and burning three non-Mormon towns. Here’s a quote from the website:

    “Crossing the county border on October 15, 1838, the Mormon militia from Caldwell County illegally entered Daviess County and thus became a “mob.” The Mormons subsequently sacked and burned to the ground the non-Mormon settlements of Grindstone Fork, Millport, and Splawn’s Ridge, along with the county seat of Gallatin. By the end of October (well before the November 12 deadline), Mormon mobs succeeded in driving all the non-Mormon settlers from Daviess County. ”

    from here: http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/03/29/a-land-war-in-missouri/

    Also, Dallin Oaks understands full well that the contention that gay marriage will somehow cause Mormon temples to be invaded by the unrighteous is a canard. Starting in 1964, discrimination was not allowed based on race.

    From 1964 to 1978, black people could not be married in the temple–they were discriminated against based solely on race, a clear civil rights violation. No one even tried to make temples open up to marriages that included a black person. Nothing happened. Nothing.

    Gay marriage is exactly the same thing. If temples didn’t have to be opened up to black marriages before, why would the rules suddenly change now? Answer: they won’t. Catholic churches don’t even have to marry actual Catholics that have been divorced. Churches have huge leeway in who they marry. This fear is totally manufactured to rile up the base.

  • 139 Craig // Oct 23, 2009 at 8:26 am

    @djinn

    Excellent points all around.

    It’s troubling to me that Mormons are brought up with the false belief that the early church was utterly and completely blameless and in no way whatsoever incited and even invited the “persecution” it experienced. In reality, it was more like retaliation – the Mormons basically started the fight.

  • 140 Andrew // Oct 28, 2009 at 2:40 pm

    I think Oak’s comments were blown out of proportion. In no way, shape, or form did he say persecution against Mormons was as severe as that endured by blacks in the South. Rather, he simply stated that the persecutions were “in effect” the same. Or in other words, the effect of intimidating others to shy away and not let their voice be heard. A civil right that BOTH homosexuals and straights have. Just as gays proclaim the right to speak and vote for gay marriage, so do others (including the LDS Church) have the right to speak up and vote for traditional marriage.

    Oaks’ talk was focused on the importance of protecting religious freedoms that are being threatened by others claiming our religious freedoms are infringing on their religious freedoms. Well, what happens when their religious freedoms now begin to infringe on ours?

    Other concerns on this blog address how Oaks’ has alienated gays and that has led many gays from LDS families to be discriminated against in their own families. I feel sorry for those individuals and for their families. Oaks’, in a recent address, condemned such family relationships. While counseling parents on how to react to a child’s actions that don’t concur with their beliefs he said he has “seen both of these extremes, and I believe that both are inappropriate.” In other words, Oaks himself does not believe parents should reject their children for their decisions.

    (see http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1117-9,00.html for more on his talk)

  • 141 Betsy Crawford // Feb 16, 2010 at 9:21 pm

    you guys just want drama, and you’re in denial.

  • 142 Jon // May 11, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    Touting the right to practice a religion whenever, wherever and however one wishes as more important that other freedoms such as speech or civil rights accorded to the majority but not all citizens is scary to me. Belief that something is religiously wrong or that it has been so for thousands of years does not make it OK to impose it upon those who do not believe the same. Having a religious belief should not be more protected than being atheist. Atheists are not interested in eliminating freedom of religious belief. Atheists simply want to attend government sponsored events without being forced to pray hear a prayer in order to attend. I know of no atheists who want to erect a stone wall outside a courthouse listing the basics of the theory of evolution or other scientific theories or facts which refute a belief in God. Gays don’t want to take away anyone’s right to believe how they do about homosexuality. They simply ask to be allowed a right to marry the person they choose the same as any other person. The continual deflection of the issues and creation of fear and demonizing of those simply seeking equality such as Elder Oaks speech creates a rift in society which makes my heart ache.

  • 143 Sun Feng Wei // May 25, 2010 at 8:38 pm

    I am not a Christian, and perhaps a believer of Satan, if there is such a being, I will go for gay marriage. And if I am a devil I will gather John and his gay friends who are obviously offended by this Christian man, Oaks. In fact, I read a lot from Wikipedia and other sources before I made this comment… Go John!! Go!!! But how come you are gay…Satan will just make you his lowest servant…. anyway he loves you very much..he is my master now..Come.. to us…!!!

  • 144 chris // Aug 10, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    the things you print on your blog are nuts!

  • 145 cstimpson // May 17, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    What most people don’t know is that the Mormon history from the early 1800′s is actually frequented with violence, murders, robbing, driving them from city to country to a region not even in US custody at the time.

    The major difference between the folks of the civil rights movement and the Mormons is internal vs. external. A religious belief versus skin color. The history of skin color runs deeper and they were more numerous and prevalent than a group of Mormons driven from two large communities they built out of unwanted swampland with their own sweat and blood by masked cowards with guns blazing and burning homes.

    Why? they were afraid that the Mormons were too populous and would take over the political balance of their states, Illinois (Nauvoo was much larger than Chicago in the day until they were driven by force) and Missouri (an extermination order was put into law by Governor Boggs). The violence and vehemence displayed against the Mormons lessened when they moved out of US territory. But, they were visited by the US Army to put down a fictitious rebellion. Even hough many of the husbands of families walking from the midwest across Nebraska and Wyoming plains with their meager belongings in a handcart were enlisted to fight the Mexican American war, leaving their wives to finish pushing the carts on the worst stretch through the Rocky Mountains with bloody and frozen feet.

    All this because of an internal belief that is founded and based on a principal that the fundamental unit of societies is a family formed in the bonds of marriage between man and woman. And as we work responsibly to grow a family that pleases God, we will be blessed.

    Philisophically speaking, is this different than than the plight of African Americans who were stolen from their home lands to serve selfish individuals who were too proud to do the work themselves? Is the violence and murder different? No. It is the difference of internal value versus external value.

    Human rights is the core of the civil rights movement.

    Spiritual rights is at the core of the struggle Mormons have and continue to face. Unfortunately, it does spill into the fair treatment of humans, even to this day. Mormons are still physically and politically persecuted to this day. Dallin H. Oaks knows this better tan anyone as a former lawyer and judge.

Leave a Comment