Oaks is in favor of religious freedom

[TripletDaddy]

cool, thanks. this is what I was hoping for...firsthand accounts.

So if you don't my asking...

1. Do you ever recall anyone in SS class or anywhere raising the issue that perhaps the Church was wrong on its stance, that it might be racist, and that change was in order, esp given that society had already passed up the Church in extending rights formally to blacks?

2. If so, how was it received? Do you see any parallels to today's debate with gays (although you seem to have indicated that you don't see any, which is fine. your experience is your own).

3. Do you recall specifically any sort of teaching in classes, from the pulpit, etc....wherein people expressed the doubt that God would ever change the policy?

I wonder what my stance would have been had I been old enough back then. Undoubtedly, I would have been a product of my time and environment, not unlike today.

[byu71]

cool, thanks. this is what I was hoping for...firsthand accounts.

So if you don't my asking...

1. Do you ever recall anyone in SS class or anywhere raising the issue that perhaps the Church was wrong on its stance, that it might be racist, and that change was in order, esp given that society had already passed up the Church in extending rights formally to blacks?

2. If so, how was it received? Do you see any parallels to today's debate with gays (although you seem to have indicated that you don't see any, which is fine. your experience is your own).

3. Do you recall specifically any sort of teaching in classes, from the pulpit, etc....wherein people expressed the doubt that God would ever change the policy?

I wonder what my stance would have been had I been old enough back then. Undoubtedly, I would have been a product of my time and environment, not unlike today.

1) I don't. However, remember I grew up in Utah. I didn't even know a black kid until I transferred to Davis High. Eddie never asked me why he couldn't have the Priesthood. I really think he didn't care about the church and was treated well by all his mormon friends.

3) I honestly remember more talk about the policy would someday change. That may have been mainly from my Dad though, I don't remember.

I do remember on my mission at a Stake Conference George Romney (Stake Pres.) invited a black lady to speak in conference. She wasn't a member. There was some murmuring.

[COUGZ]

Wow! Elder Oaks is really doubling down on the church owning this issue. I think the church is digging itself a really deep pit here. The serious danger here is that the church will get so wedged into this issue, and public opinion will leave the church so far behind, that the church's capacity to grow (externally) and/or do good will be seriously diminished.

Let me play the Church's advocate on this one? Or Devil's advocate...whatever floats your boat.

I'm going to ask...WHY? Why the assumption that the Church and its Leaders are digging a hole bigger than they can climb out.

I don't really give a damn one way or another what you do or don't believe....

But...what if...just what if...The Church and its Leaders know exactly what they are doing by this? What if...this actually acts as a call to action by several traditional Christians into researching personally more about the LDS religion, why the LDS Leaders so vehemently support Prop 8, marriage, etc...?

What if....the Church actually grows because of this?

For those who us who can be accused of blindly leading (those who know me know that isn't the case...) accuse it.

Perhaps, just perhaps...this is exactly what the Lord wants them to do and in His omnipotence knows that fighting this battle and staying true to the basic tenements of Christian religion will only soften the hearts of those ready to hear the True Gospel of Jesus Christ and accept it?

I'm just saying....


Am I simplifying the issue? Absolutely....because in past arguments with you on CB...there is no sense on trying to reason or go more in depth.

[il Padrino Ute]

I was 14 when the announcement came that there would no longer be a Priesthood ban. To be honest, I never really thought about it, because at 14, I was interested in baseball and hanging out at the neighborhood pool with friends.

My parents, however, were overjoyed that finally, all worthy males could be blessed with the priesthood. My parents are rather orthodox, but when the topic came up, their thoughts about the ban was that they hoped they would see it lifted while they were still around. They were especially happy for a friend of theirs - a black gentlemen whom my dad had baptized when they were roommates at Utah State in 1956. He had remained faithfully devout in the church for 22 years and lived in the Philadelphia area. He had married a terrific woman of his race there and introduced her to the missionaries and she eventually joined the church as well and was as devout as he was. They had two kids (two sons) that he didn't get to baptize, but who were baptized at the age of 8.

Anyway, he called my dad the Sunday night that he had learned in Sacrament Meeting that the ban was lifted and asked that my dad ordain him. My dad happily accepted and the entire family went to Philly for this. It was a great experience and I saw really for the first time how faithful this gentleman must have been to stay active in the church for that long without the blessing of being a priesthood holder. Two weeks after he was ordained, he ordained both of his sons and both served missions.

As for my thoughts about the church and homosexuals, like the priesthood ban, I've never really thought much about it, as I'm not gay so it doesn't affect me. I don't know if we'll ever see a change, nor am I concerned if there ever will be a change - not because I'm homophobic, but because I have enough going on in my life to worry about. I've softened my stance about homosexuals from being against gay marriage because some of the privileges of marriage are related to taxes (social security benefits, for example) - and it's well known how I feel about taxes - to indifference, in the sense that I don't care if gays are allowed to marry or are not allowed to marry. That may not seem like much to those who support it, but for me, it's a big change. I also believe that if God decides that being a member of his church and being gay can be compatible, then that change will happen, but it will be because God wants it, not because society has forced the change. (I don't believe that the LDS church succumbed to pressure from society to lift the priesthood ban but I know many here do).

Hope that makes sense.

[COUGZ]

So Mormons have had hounds unleashed on them and fire hoses turned on them to intimidate them from voting?

There are documented cases where they were refused the right to vote in Missouri....

Certainly the verbiage comparing the Blacks to modern day Mormons is a stretch, but I'm giving Oaks the benefit of the doubt on this one.

[TripletDaddy]

epu, that is a nice post. thanks.

another question that epu's post raises for me...as did 71s......this joy that many reference......was it a joy or a relief? were people tired of having to defend it to outsiders?

again, I was not old enough and was not a member, anyway, so I don't recall.

where are the other oldies but goodies to chime in with their stories? there is great value in passing along the oral traditions of the fathers. (not THOSE sickos, get your mind out of the gutter)

[LA Ute]

what was the vibe in the 70s? This is pre-1978, but post Civil Rights Act? How did the Church address the blacks issue amongst the members? Was the debate as divided as we see here on CUF? Was there much open dissent?

I grew up in a solidly Mormon neighborhood on the East Bench of Salt Lake, and I was 23 when the revelation came. I recall the priesthood policy being kind of accepted as a fact of life for the time being. That's how my (3) black friends in high school saw it, and also how Frank Henry (Utah football player I knew in college) saw it. It really wasn't discussed much. Prior to my mission I really don't remember the issue being discussed much at all. I did hear lots of theories, and I remember the "not valiant in the pre-existence" idea being mentioned. I do not recall anyone saying that was the reason, but it was one that was kind of accepted, uncritically. Just before I left on my mission I read Lester Bush's article in Dialogue. That was when I started to open my mind to the possibility that the Church had gotten itself into a box that it was having a terrible time getting out of.

Also, speaking as honestly as you can, was the popular sentiment amongst the rank and file faithful a "I can't see God ever changing his position on this issue.....blacks have the curse of cain" sort of thing?

Honestly, the message/hope/meme I recall was "this is going to change someday, and black people will someday have all the blessings of the gospel." I heard that all the time, and repeated it. I don't recall this being taught, it was just the notion that had currency at the time.

I am not asking you to abandon your current stance on gay marriage, but as an educational exercise, what parallels can you draw between the current debate over homosexuality and the then "hot debate" re: race?

Again, honestly, the two issues seem starkly different to me. To my mind, for the Church to say same-sex couples will have all the eternal rights and blessings as traditional male-female couples just turns fundamental doctrine upside down, calls black white, and down up. With the priesthood issue, the mainstream idea I recall was, "This will change someday." With same-sex marriage, that kind of change is not even part of the mainstream discussion. It would be a very radical change and would call into question some very fundamental notions. The presthood ban was never like that, at least to me. EDIT: But who am I to say it won't happen? (Ninth Article of Faith, Ninth Article of Faith . . . .)

[BlueHair]

This is absurd. Those are all complex issues with distinctly diverse causes and difficult solutions. It's reductionist nonsense to suggest that pro-traditional-marriage and anti-outlawing-divorce are inconsistent positions. Moreover, none of those issues--which are also serious threats to the family--challenge the fundamental definition of marriage.

I suppose it's much simpler to just accuse those you disagree with of bigotry (even "subconscious" bigotry, no less! how remarkably incisive!), rather than make a reasoned argument.

Is it really worth descriminating against a group of people just to preserve the definition of the word "marriage"? Definitions in a dictionary change all the time without catastrophic consequences.

I want to be clear that I support the right of any religion to preach against anything they want. I just wish they didn't feel the need to push their agenda in a legislative manner.

[il Padrino Ute]

epu, that is a nice post. thanks.

another question that epu's post raises for me...as did 71s......this joy that many reference......was it a joy or a relief? were people tired of having to defend it to outsiders?

again, I was not old enough and was not a member, anyway, so I don't recall.

where are the other oldies but goodies to chime in with their stories? there is great value in passing along the oral traditions of the fathers. (not THOSE sickos, get your mind out of the gutter)

For my parents, it truly was joy.

Growing up in suburban SLC, I believe I can say that those who call it joy mean just that, as there were so few blacks who lived there that there was never any reason to defend it. (At Alta High, there were 5 of 2400 students who were black and none of them LDS.) In more urban areas, I'm sure there was a mix of joy and relief for that reason.

I remember there were some here in this area who were not happy with it at all. I remember hearing things in school about a number of people who decided to leave Utah and headed north to Idaho in order to keep what was in their minds the "true" church pure. That group would be those I would consider racist, not the mainstream members who didn't leave the church.

[byu71]

epu, that is a nice post. thanks.

another question that epu's post raises for me...as did 71s......this joy that many reference......was it a joy or a relief? were people tired of having to defend it to outsiders?

again, I was not old enough and was not a member, anyway, so I don't recall.

where are the other oldies but goodies to chime in with their stories? there is great value in passing along the oral traditions of the fathers. (not THOSE sickos, get your mind out of the gutter)

Honestly, I didn't feel joy or relief as best I can remember. I personally knew no blacks who wanted the Priesthood. Had I known the people I saw in the documentary on blacks and mormons, I would have felt great joy. Their stories were inspiring.

[LA Ute]

another question that epu's post raises for me...as did 71s......this joy that many reference......was it a joy or a relief? were people tired of having to defend it to outsiders?

again, I was not old enough and was not a member, anyway, so I don't recall.

where are the other oldies but goodies to chime in with their stories? there is great value in passing along the oral traditions of the fathers.

On the day it happened I was in the Salt Lake Temple with a close friend and his fiance - she was receiving her endowments. I remember being in the dressing room after the session, when one of the older temple workers walked up to one of his fellow workers (who was standing next to me) and said:

"Do you know what I just heard?"

"What?"

"They just announced that blacks can have the priesthood."

"Really?"

"Yes, it's all over town."

I was thunderstruck. The news was all over the temple within seconds. People were crying. Some were excited. Some were stunned. Everyone was electrified.

I went out on the street and it was everywhere. The radio stations were all talking about it. The TV stations interrupted programming to annonce it and interview people - "man on the street" interviews, dignitary interviews, poeple like Sterling McMurrin, the local Rabbi, and many others. It was quite a day.

I recall feeling not emotional, but like a great weight had been lifted. Elation was the emotion I felt. I felt like my church was normal now, and no longer had this strange belief to explain - sure, we still had to talk about its history, but not about its presence.

That's what I remember. For those interested, I recommend "Lengthen Your Stride," Ed Kimball's book about his father's administration as president of the Church. The section on the priesthood revelation was riveting to someone like me who was around when it happened. Ed had access to his father's and mother's notes and diaries and does a great job of making the episode live.

[SeattleUte]

Unfortunately, none of the arguments against Oaks, at least as presented in the article, were as articulate or to the point as they could ahve been. It seems Oaks is complaining about LDS being criticized, in some cases losing thier jobs, for supporting Prop. 8. So yes, no one has been lynched or vandalized that I'm aware of, unless there is a freakish situation I've not heard of. We all are vulnerable to crime whatever the motivation. It doesn't make it a civil rights problem unless it's widespread and systematic and permitted by government to occur.

But beyond this, Mormons are being cticicized and in some cases losing their jobs for making a choice. A choice is not like race. It's a choice they had a right to make; bully for them, they should also be willing to stand criticism, some satirizing, for their beliefs. Gays and their supporters also have a right to criticize the LDS Church, spoof it, etc., and fire Mormons for supporting Proposition 8 (I'm talking about the prominent people who have lost jobs and business; I'm not an employment lawyer, and if employees have been fired there are employment laws that may provide redress). If I were a gay with a lot of legal work to spread around I'd not consider it immoral to fire a Mormon lawyer for making a choice to give money and time to proposition 8.

Obviously Oaks is intelligent, but his analogy is a bad one.

[LA Ute]

Unfortunately, none of the arguments against Oaks, at least as presented in the article, were as articulate or to the point as they could ahve been. It seems Oaks is complaining about LDS being criticized, in some cases losing thier jobs, for supporting Prop. 8. So yes, no one has been lynched or vandalized that I'm aware of, unless there is a freakish situation I've not heard of. We all are vulnerable to crime whatever the motivation. It doesn't make it a civil rights probem unless it's widespread and systematic and permitted by government to occur.

But beyond this, Mormons are being cticicized and in some cases losing their jobs for making a choice. A choice is not like race. It's a choice they had a right to make; bully for them, they should also be willing to stand criticism, some satirizing, for their beliefs. Gays and their supporters also have a right to criticize the LDS Church, spoof it, etc., and fire Mormons for supporting Proposition 8 (I'm talking about the prominent people who have lost jobs and business; I'm not an employment lawyer, and if employees have been fired there are employment laws that may provide redress). If I were a gay with a lot of legal work to spread around I'd not consider it immoral to fire a Mormon lawyer for making a choice to give money and time to proposition 8.

Obviously Oaks is intelligent, but his analogy is a bad one.

Have you read Oaks' talk?

[SeattleUte]

Have you read Oaks' talk?

I read the article and the quotes therein. Frankly, the article was not very well done. Would you like to link his speech? I assure you I will give it a fair critique. I only want to respect Oaks and have only spoken well of him here.

[LA Ute]

I read the article and the quotes therein. Frankly, the article was not very well done. Would you like to link his speech? I assure you I will give it a fair critique. I only want to respect Oaks and have only spoken well of him here.

Here you go. It is not a difficult read, especially for a lawyer. It strikes me as a serious piece of work.

I assume you disagree with this statement:

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.

Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California’s adoption of Proposition 8, including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members by firings and boycotts of member businesses and by retaliation against donors. Mormons were the targets of most of this, but it also hit other churches in the pro-8 coalition and other persons who could be identified as supporters. Fortunately, some recognized such retaliation for what it was. A full-page ad in the New York Times branded this “violence and intimidation” against religious organizations and individual believers “simply because they supported Proposition 8 [as] an outrage that must stop.” [xv] The fact that this ad was signed by some leaders who had no history of friendship for our faith only added to its force.

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.

I think the retaliatory actions taken against Mormons and other Prop 8 supporters are un-American, or incompatible with American values. Had those actions been undertaken by a government entity or under color of government authority, they would have been unconstitutional. That alone should give one pause. And, I daresay, had those actions been taken against a group you find sympathetic, rather than the church towards which you feel such antipathy, you would be outraged.