Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Hall of shame or badge of honor? I’ll take the latter, but it just goes to show what power the Associated Press has in setting the standard media message. It lifts one sentence from a talk, distorts the meaning behind it, grossly exaggerating it out of context and news outlets across the country relay it unquestioningly. Then Mr. Olbermann gets to call out Elder Oaks as one of the “worst people in the world” (I guess it lasts for only a day so don’t be too concerned).
Quick aside: are all those who are so concerned about Glenn Beck okay with Keith Olbermann and his brand of “civility”?
Unsurprisingly, the Church-owned Deseret News didn’t follow suit. But the local City Weekly takes umbrage that the DN refused to copy and paste the AP’s characterization of Elder Oaks’ talk and decided to write its own story instead. More outrage.
Curious to hear Elder Oaks explain himself? Ignore the video above and see below.
(Possibly) Related posts:
-
dana, here is your answer:
How do I contact NBC News or MSNBC TV?
To reach the producers, anchors and correspondents of NBC News and MSNBC TV via e-mail or to post a comment about a show, click on a link below:TODAY
Nightly News with Brian Williams
Dateline NBC
Meet the Press
The Rachel Maddow Show
Countdown with Keith Olbermann
Hardblogger, the blog of Hardball
Morning Joe
The Ed ShowYou can also mail a letter to:
NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10112Transcripts for NBC News Programs are available for purchase through the BurrellesLuce Transcript Service by calling 1-800-777-TEXT. Only selected segments of our news magazines are available on VHS cassette.
How do I contact msnbc.com?
If you want to contact the writer of a story you’ve just read, try clicking on his or her name at the top of the story to get an e-mail address. (Note that not all writers are reachable by e-mail.)To share and discuss stories you read on msnbc.com, click the “Discuss story” link at the bottom of the story or visit Newsvine.com, msnbc.com’s community site.
-
Your accusations against Elder Dallin H. Oaks not only show a complete misunderstanding of the reasons behind polygamy in the LDS faith but also a complete lack of respect of the freedom to one’s religion and beliefs. Apparently no one on MSNBC or NBC at all for that matter can allow people to voice their opinions without slandering them and labeling them as “the worst people in the world” without doing some in depth research and decent respectible debate. What a sad world we live in.
-
agreed
-
Mr. Olbermann might want to learn more about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints before he goes about attacking someone like Elder Oaks. He will never be a fraction of the man that Elder Oaks is. For him to call the church the “Church of Latter-Day Saints” shows how ignorant Olbermann really is.
-
Interesting. Mr. Oaks mentions people being fired for practicing their religion. However, if a BYU professor disagree’s with church policy and speaks out, they get fired!
On polygamy: the ONLY reason for polygamy was for control and power. period!
Barring blacks from the “priesthood”: Racism! -
Stephen,
Thank you for pointing out a poorly written sentence. Allow me to rephrase. I am not against disagreeing in a public forum, nor debating against comments.
When I used the word “attacks” i meant hateful and debasing comments. I in no way meant to imply a limit on another person’s freedom of speech. I simply find it unjust that someone would find attack someones beliefs. Not only should someone be allowed to say what they want, but they should also believe in what they want. As long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others.
Some might respond to this statement by saying that gay rights were infringed by Prop 8. Prop 8 prevented a severe infringement on the rights of others. If it had not been passed, then limitation would have been put on Churches who did not allow same-sex marriage. Sadly, the media forgot to tell us about that. Oops!
Let man practice and live as his sees fit. Just don’t make me live how you want me too as well.
So Stephen, i hope you understand where i’m coming from. Let’s be civil in our disagreements, and find ways where we can live side-by-side despite our differences. So let’s allow Elder Oaks to believe what he will.
Also, we all need to stop looking so deeply into one or two sentences in a blog, speech, or article. Instead, lets look at the message as a whole. Then we can avoid these tiresome miss-understandings and actually make some headway to resolve our differences. -
Keith Olberman is in serious need of learning to know “WHEN” to shut his BIG IGNORANT MOUTH. He represents everything that I detest in self rightousness, pompousness, and PRIDE. He is one of the alternate voices in the world that I would never give ANY CREDIBILITY TO. He has now to reconcile his self to the fact that he has DISPARAGED AN APOSTLE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST and for that, he will be held accountable at the judgement bar. ( He has no clue what this means i am sure). Wouldnt want to stand in his shoes for one second.
-
Andrew:
Nothing in the California Supreme Court decision that was overturned by Proposition 8 would have required the LDS Church, the Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Church or any other religious institution to marry a gay or lesbian couple if that church did not want to. Instead, the court’s original decision allowed a civil (i.e., non-religious) marriage to occur between two consenting men or women who met specific standards. Period.
It is a red herring to claim that a church’s religious freedom would have been infringed upon if the Proposition 8 had not passed. If Proposition 8 had not passed, then gays and lesbians would have retained the equal right to a civil marrage in California. Period.
If I still had the right to marry in California, that would not have impacted your right to practice your religion in any way. You would have still retained your right to practice your religion and live your life as you see fit. It just would have meant that I still had equal rights to marry–something that I do not have now.
-
Stephen,
True, that we would not have been forced to, but that would have taken away tax exemptions and other religious exemptions. So yes, it would have affected churches.
Also, children would have been educated that Gay marriage is OK in public schools. That is not OK. I consider marriage a religious principle. Therefor, separation of church and state. No marital discussion should be allowed at all.
Oh, and in case you didn’t know, your arguments tend to focus on just one or two points of a person argument. Try addressing the entire thing. -
Andrew:
You are misinformed. The California Supreme Court decision overturned by Proposition 8 would NOT have impacted the tax-exempt status of churches and other religious exemptions. You can review the actual opinion at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF.
You are also misinformed that the California Supreme Court decision would have required mandated that “children would have been educated that Gay marriage is OK in public schools”. During the Propositon 8 campaign, California’s Secretary of Education Jack Connell clearly stated that legalized gay marriage was not going to require any kind of teaching of personal relationships or lifestyles in the public schools. (See http://cbs5.com/education/proposition.8.schools.2.846661.html , plus numerous other articles on the Internet.)
Your argument on educationwas one of the key elements of the misinformation campaign (successful, I might add) by Protect Marriage, the main “Yes on 8″ proponent. It is not, however, true.
-
Obviously it’s true what Elder Oaks said about respect for religious freedom deteriorating in this country if he get’s labeled as one of “the worst people in the world” for expressing his religious beliefs at a private university. Pretty sad
-
Stephen –
You are correct that CA Supreme Court did not say anything about churches or the education of children.
But it is reasonable to be concerned that once SSM is given the government imprimatur of not only being legal but elevated to a civil right, there will be tremendous pressure for all areas of society to recognize and endorse it.
Massachusetts has had SSM for five years now and given that it’s a “reality” there, it’s only natural that it be taught in schools.
Once it’s the norm for a while, SSM activists will continue to follow the racial civil rights narrative and insist that only “inclusive” Churches be allowed to continue having their tax exempt status.
A mere ten years ago the debate was only over civil unions. Now you are a called a “bigot” for saying marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s not hard to see how things will unfold once government considers SSM no different than traditional marriage.
-
Man alive gloria LeSueur you sound far more self-righteous than Keith Olberman. For goodness sakes Elder Oaks is not a God. He makes mistakes and says dumb things sometimes just like the rest of us. Even the greatest of prophets have said dumb things. God allows them to make silly mistakes. They are not exempt from making mistakes. I know the adage that God will not allow leaders to lead the people astray, however that was regarding a very very important matter which was began the end of the practice of plural marriage. What makes you think that Elder Oaks is any better of a man than lets say Elder Parley Pratt who actually signed an affidavit against Joseph Smith that he later deeply regretted signing while he was an Apostle? This Apostle & Prophet worship in Mormonism or believing the Church leaders are infallible is a real cultural problem (very dysfunctional) that’s akin to the Evangelical’s “sola scriptura” issue as many if not most Evangelicals believe that the Bible is infallible. Many Mormons have the Idea that their Church leaders are somehow infallible. Brigham Young himself taught that all of us need to study, read and pray and find out for ourselves whether something that the leaders do is true or not. That is everyone’s responsibility not to just blindly follow like a herd of sheep.
It wasn’t necessarily the content or point of what Keith Olberman said, it is the way in which he said it that was rude. He could have said the same thing but without the rudeness. That would have been a much better way of expressing the same points. It may not have been the high drama that so many in the t.v. audiences want but you know how America is addicted to drama, conflict and controversy. It’s a sad travesty in our nation and a symptom of the cultural problems that we suffer from.
-
Stephen
In the mid-90’s I attended a parents meeting that present the sex education curriculum, etc. As I looked over the material, I realized that every name in the curriculum was genderless. Chris, Pat, you get it. The Supreme Court of California was only able to grant equal protection with strict scrutiny by creating a new criteria, never before used in civil rights law anywhere, because they could not justify it as an immutable right and they did not want it restricted by being labeled a creed of belief, which would prohibit its being taught in schools or public places based on separation of church and state, which is being crafted to prohibit religious participation in the public square. Elder Oaks could not have been more correct in his assessment. Before you label me, I am a lifetime democrat and been involved in the civil rights efforts since my childhood. As well, I have defended the rights of gays in the workplace, housing market, etc. my whole life. The movement for gay rights has gone way beyond being about securing rights. Elder Oaks has accurately made this point. Please let me know where I am wrong based on your reading of the Supreme Courts decision. More genderless teaching to come in the schools, which discredits any believe that gender is equal but not the same. The goal promoted by the gay movement is sameness, not equality.
-
Also Steven H. Sundwall I invite you to go to a website called Affirmation.org and read about the stories of LGBT Latter-day Saints and their families. Whether you realize it or not there is a gay story interwoven throughout Mormon history. The denial of gay people throughout history (people who attracted to their same gender) can be denied and has been denied by people for decades but denial does not make something true just because someone denies it enough. From the late Patriarch Joseph F. Smith (from all of the historical data) shows that he was same gender oriented. You can read about his story through a simple google search.
There is a host of gay people who are or were LDS. It is incredibly difficult to exist in a Church that denies your very being when you are gay. Hence the dismal track record (generally speaking) of the LDS Church with regard to its gay members. Now they appear to have followed the Evangelical pattern (a pattern that seems quite prevalent these days) in supporting an ex-gay program called Evergreen which is similar to that of ex-gay ministries like Exodus International and others supported by James Dobson’s Focus on the Family. Though Evergreen does offer some positive support (which is a big change from the horrible lack of support prior to the emergence of Evergreen) the revolving door of Evergreen pretty much speaks for itself.
An incredibly beautiful and spiritual support group for gay Latter-day Saints is called LDS Reconciliation (LDSreconciliation.org) which has meetings every Sunday evening in various people’s homes and one Sunday at a public meeting place. The meetings follow a family home evening pattern. They begin with prayer, then there are a few talks given about the scriptures or some other uplifting discussion then that portion of the meeting ends with a prayer and a blessing on the food refreshments. There is no bashing of any Church or individual allowed in the meeting. It is considered a safe place for gay people who want to integrate their orientation with basic LDS scriptural principles free from feeling judged or treated as outcasts. The results of LDS Reconciliation also speak for themselves as they are very positive including some individuals who come to the meetings regularly who are very active in the Church and who also are married to an opposite gender person and they have found Reconciliation has been very helpful in helping them be stronger in their marriages. Others are former LDS, inactive or excommunicated gay people. It’s a positive and spiritual setting for many different people who just happen to be gay.
Whether they admit it or not gay people are not going to go away. We will always be here. I think we all can learn from each other. If some gay people wish to have marriage equality then that’s a positive step in a direction of commitment and responsibility which is far greater than the typical alternative which is to be alone or to be promiscuous which often leads down a path to sorrow and chaos.
Also there is no evidence to prove that same gender CIVIL marriage will cause the demise or downfall of our society and civilization. Canada has same sex marriage, Massachusetts and 5 other states do as well. The sky has not fallen and it has not had a detrimental effect on heterosexual marriage in any way.
-
Reed you need to look at the individual lives of same sex couples who are in marriage relationships right now in California (the ones who retained their marriages after the ruling), the same sex marriages of individuals in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and in Iowa. Maine is likely going to retain those rights if the people vote in favor of it as now it is a 50/50 split. The argument for the rights of children goes both ways. My partner and I have every right to give the same benefits to our adopted children as any other parent within any civil marriage contract should. We are just as legitimate a family as any. Same sex couples who are civilly married and are raising children in those households (the numbers are in the thousands) desert all of the same civil rights as heterosexual families do. To state that what we want is “sameness and not equality” is not only a logical fallacy but it also speaks volumes about your view that heterosexual marriage is more legitimate civilly than same gender marriage. That says a lot more about your personal view about the issue than the real lives of real persons out there in the real world.
-
Andrew,
In the Bible an entire group of people were denied full access to the priesthood of God. Amongst the people of Israel at the time of Moses, not every member of the congregation was allowed the priesthood.
That would be true for the Aaronic Priesthood, but not for the Melchezidek Priesthood, which was given to worthy people (who at the time were apparently only prophets, but these prophets were not solely from the Levitical line).
-
Also California tends to govern through referendum which is not a very mature way to govern. The New England states are far closer to the will of our Founding Father’s than the “willy nilly” chaos of governing through referendum like California. The New England states are much older and more mature states than California or any state that uses referendums to cause controversy in representative government. If you don’t like the way your government is leading then elect different leaders don’t use referendum laws in order to use fear tactics to scare the heck out of people to vote for your Proposition. Prop 8 was and continues to be one of the most divisive and destructive propositions that has hit the state of California. It will take several years to clean up the resulting mess.
-
David:
First, thank you for hosting this excellent forum for discussion of important issues.
As to the issue of what would be taught in schools if marriage equality becomes the norm, I understand your concern but believe that it is unfounded. There was great concern when sex education started to be taught in public schools 30 plus years ago. However, for sex education classes, parents have the option of “opting out” when sex education is taught. It is very likely that a similar “opting out” process could be included–to the extent that issues regarding marriage are even taught in the public schools.
As to the issue of tax exempt status, it is highly unlikely that the tax exempt status of some churches would be pulled based upon whether or not that church was “inclusive” on the issue of marriage equality. There are a number of constitutional protections (including freedom of religion, equal protection, freedom of speech and freedom of association) that would prevent the U.S. government from singling out specific churches for negative treatment, such as pulling their tax exempt status.
In addition, according to Wikipedia, 25 of 100 members of the U.S. Senate are Catholic and 5 are Mormon. Do you really think that the elected officials in Washington would allow the tax exempt status to be pulled from the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church – two churches that have been at the forefront opposing same sex marriage? It is not going to happen.
-
Benjamin – Why does it come back to my “personal view” being inadmissable, which was one of Elder Oak’s points.
Been awhile since I read the decision but my recollection is that the arguments established that sameness is not required, which is a legitimate topic for discussion and requires differentiation. Please try to address the topic without just saying it isn’t so and I am uninformed.
No argument with having the “same benefits” but you need to address whether or not same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage are the same. The Court, as I recall, established the two are not the same and do not require the same treatment. As well, the ruling established that same-sex couple’s already had the right to marry in Califonia and the use of the term marriage would not secure additional rights. Well, difficult to lay out all the Court’s issues but please allow a view other than yours into the public square without insulting them as knowing nothing about same-sex marraige, unless you feel only those within a same-sex marriage know enough to make law.
-
Stephen,
Don’t forget to mention that in terms of religious freedom, losing a tax exempt status doesn’t alter the ability of the members of that religion to keep practicing their religion.
-
Benjamin – Additionally, I did not bring up the rights of children, which is a whole additional topic. My blog was in regard to what is taught in schools and a reponse to a prior blog on that topic. Based on your reply, seems you feel it will and should be taught is schools because children need to know you are a family the “same” as any other family.
-
Professors getting fired from BYU for teaching things in direct opposition to church principles is not a matter of religion, but a matter of right for the University to employ only those teachers who fit the criteria which they agreed to uphold in good standing upon entering employment at the University- private university upholding criteria agreed upon previously. In addition, the doctrinally unfounded (and scientifically unfounded) theory of macro-evolution is taught in BYU’s biology program to every freshman and are still teaching there- Dave, you’re in the dark on that one.
#2- Withholding priesthood from blacks-
The CJCLDS was of the FIRST organizations in the WORLD to have black members preaching to white congregations, as well as the ONLY church to speak against slavery in the south AND offer a way for southern businesses to be compensated and without completely destroying the economy of the country. The CJCLDS was, and has always been, on the side of the ‘inalienable rights’ of man from its inception, while the rest of the country and all the churches in the south sat as greedy cowards in the comfort of their free labor plantation empire. -
Oh, and by the way- everyone in America has equality in marriage RIGHT NOW. There is no inequality of opportunity, even now- EVERYONE IN THIS COUNTRY HAS A RIGHT TO MARRY- SOMEONE OF THE OPPOSITE GENDER. Before the law, ALL are equal.
-
Sam:
I don’t think if you would be claiming equality if you (and every other hetrosexual man) had the right to marry only a man. Not so cool and not so equal. -
In reference to Benjamin-
It has been proven that the definition of fidelity for a same sex couple is NOT the same as fidelity in a heterosexual couple. Same sex relationships and lifestyle have been studied and are proven to be inconsistent and short-lived. Children of same sex couples are proven, not to be gay, but to be more sexually active at a younger age- one of many findings of several studies. I don’t care what the definition of ‘normal’ is- I care about what is best, and my children being exposed to a sexual environment at the inappropriate time because the son of a homosexual couple has been aware of a sexual climate and culture prematurely is not something that is best- and therefore my votes will be toward keeping what is best, instead of what you want at the moment.Also, tax exemptions are given to organizations because they do not, as an organization, devote their facilities to political actions, but are allowed to speak. One rule in America and in politics that is something that should be used-
STICKS AND STONES MAY BREAK MY BONES, BUT WORDS WILL NEVER HURT ME– you can, fundamentally, say anything you want in a political arena (as long as it is grounded) without legal recourse- just as long as your wallet and messing with the property of others isn’t involved, everything is fine. So it’s time for people to stop being so sensitive about words and come up with a different plan, because the current media slander and vandalism plan obviously isn’t working, and never will. -
“So it’s time for people to stop being so sensitive about words and come up with a different plan”
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-mormon-ethic-of-civility
“It has been proven…”
Citiation?
“Same sex relationships and lifestyle have been studied and are proven to be inconsistent and short-lived. ”
As are non-married straight relationships.
“STICKS AND STONES MAY BREAK MY BONES, BUT WORDS WILL NEVER HURT ME”
How old are you?
-
Benjamin- You mentioned the Evangelical belief in the infallibility of the Bible. Just curious if mormons believe the BOM , as well as the other “Standard works” to be infallible. Thank you for your input!
-
Reed, you obviously can say anything you wish in the “public square” just as much as I have a right to express my views on this issue and I emphatically disagree with your premise. The only difference between same gender and opposite gender marriage (just the basics) is that one is between two consenting opposite sex adults (may or may not choose or be able to have children) and the other is between two consenting same sex adults who may choose to adopt or have surrogate children or take in children from a previous opposite sex marriage that one or the other or both had. The courts of different states have ruled differently including other much older states than California’s Supreme Court. The CA Supreme Court’s decision is also being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by some interesting individuals. We’ll see what the final word is at that juncture.
I fundamentally disagree with your view about same sex and opposite sex civil marriage being “different.”
-
With regard to same sex marriage being taught in public schools the approach is so extreme and the fear mongering so severe that the truth get lost somewhere in the hype. I was taught basic sex education when I was in the 4th grade in a very progressive public elementary school in a little town. We were taught the basic human anatomy and how conception occurs during a one hour class. It was very clinical. We were taught about respecting sex and respecting one another’s bodies as well as our own. That was the basic extent of it. Kids learn it from their peers anyway (typically the skewed version) and since many parents are just too embarrassed or too preoccupied with work, etc. to even teach their kids then it was a wise thing that we had the myths dispelled through a very basic elementary class in sex education where the truth and science is taught and kids are prepared to be much more responsible as adolescents.
It’s up to the parents to teach their kids about religion and also about the more spiritual matters of sexuality. The only thing I believe that the public schools should ever teach in a curriculum that even brings up any issue of homosexuality is to simply teach kids to respect other kids who come from same sex parent households should kids from same sex households be in any of the classes. They should also be taught to respond to kids who are same gender oriented by being kind and respectful and to have zero tolerance for bullying. That’s the extent of it.
I never was taught about marriage in any of my classes I took even in High School. I can’t recall one heterosexual marriage class that was even offered so this hype and fear about same sex marriage being taught in public schools is a bunch of bunk. The closest thing I ever learned about marriage in high school was a song I sang in my Jazz Chorus for a wedding we were asked to sing at. We were expected to get a note from our parents to even attend that. I was taught by my parents and older sister to respect diversity and I have always looked at diversity as a great blessing.
It’s sad when people just can’t seem to live and let live. They seem to have a need to meddle in and try to control other people’s lives and their responses are typically based in fear.
-
Sam you need to show peer reviewed references for your claims and not LDS.org. Just because you make a statement without solid evidence doesn’t make it so. Your politically charged buzz words like “lifestyle” are very revealing as to where you get your information. There is no such thing as a “gay lifestyle” anymore than there is a “heterosexual lifestyle” or a black lifestyle or a Hispanic lifestyle. Gay people are as diverse as the general populous. Some are very liberal while others are deeply conservative. Some gay folks are not religious at all whether others are deeply committed to their Churches and Synagogues. Also your allegation that children of same sex couples tend to be more sexually active at an earlier age comes from where? Peer reviewed citation please. I’m sick and tired of being labeled and pigeonholed in this way through using stats that just don’t bear out in the real world.
-
Also Dave the answer to your question about mistakes is right in the Book of Mormon stating, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God…” (title page of the Book of Mormon)
So can imperfect scriptures lead us to God? Of course they can. Also can imperfect leaders lead us to God? Absolutely. I think that the Bible itself (let alone the other standard works) have teachings and principles that have yet to be unlocked and understood. That’s my own experience though.
-
Would to heaven that more people could be like this National Hero and Veteran from Maine. Mr. Phillip Spooner fought and watched his brothers suffer and many of them die at Omaha Beach and he is standing up for Marriage Equality in Maine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrEbJBFWIPk&feature=player_embedded
-
The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act just passed the Senate. It will be on the President’s desk very soon and will be signed into law.
-
So I just wanted to throw a few things out there.
1. Do you really think Olbrmann even belives the things he is reading from the screen that someone else wrote? The same goes for Hannity, Papa bear orielly, and glen beck. It seems to me that they are just characters created.
2. Also it seems that many say, dont worry gay marriage wont be taught in school. But i would think that if gay marriage were a civil right that it should absolutly be taught in school.
3. I am sure you can tell that i am not a lawyer, so just a question for you folks that seem to understand this a bit more. If gay marriage were a civil right then doesnt it seem that it should be solved on a national level. I feel like all national politicians say handle it at the state level as a way not to offend anyone. Or is this not correct? -
Hey E I think that these guys do believe the things that they are saying though some of them do exaggerate a bit for drama sake. Keith is involved in a lot of charitable programs, etc. I admit that he can get a bit silly and over-dramatic in some of his theatrics. Rachel Maddow is the calm one.
-
Benjamin…… I simply stood for what i know to be TRUE:) I called a rude and prideful person on the carpet. I have the right to do that:) If I am more prideful than Mr. Olberman, then you sir, are more SANCTIMONIOUS then he is. You are all over this comment board like ants on honey.
-
Yep you do have the right to say whatever you wish and I’m going to use my freedom of speech to say again that I found your response to be extreme and unbalanced. I found this sight to be interesting so I made comments which anyone has the right to do inspight of your issues with it.
-
Funny that Olbermann goes on about Mormons being on the wrong side of the one man – one woman thing. Mormons ended up conforming to those laws and expectations. Isn’t it natural that they would expect other members of society to do the same? Olbermann can’t think his way out of a paper bag.
-
Of course, there are many people who think the same thing about conservative commentators such as Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Bill O’Reilly (among others).
-
John K. You’re right that Mormons did conform to the laws of the land as far as civil laws are concerned yet the practice of multiple marriage continues in the Temple. A man who has been sealed to a woman and his wife dies can date, court and marry another woman and eventually be sealed to her as well unless she is sealed to another man who has passed on (etc.). This is a religious practice and therefore obviously legal. It is the spirit of this “one man one woman” issue in it’s historical context (Some LDS leaders acting and speaking as if it were always the case throughout history when it most definitely was not) that is not very honest.
The LDS Church has unfortunately “sanitized” much of it’s polygamous history (which consists of at least 6 of its original prophets) in its modern Sunday school texts, etc. Unfortunately these amazing historical pioneering people (especially the women) have had their voices in history silenced as a result. All in the name of public relations and Church policy. I remember in the year that the Church used the Brigham Young priesthood manual that the word “wife” replaced President Young’s original plural word “wives” when President Young was teaching about families and how a man needs to be responsible for his “wives” which was replaced with [wife]. It’s almost as though the Church wants to erase that part of their history which is unfortunately has a very silencing affect on the voices of so many amazing people and paints a very untrue picture of certain important aspects in LDS history. I agree with Keith Olberman except I disagree with him that the Mormons were on the “wrong side of history” when it came to the one man one woman scenario. It’s just that the Church is using monogamy in a legal framework when the Church’s previous leaders fought the government in its war against the LDS principle of plural marriage and several Church leaders even went to prison to support, uphold and protect the principle of plural marriage. Now the Church is fighting against the rights of a minority class to have another form of marriage and the Church is acting as though they were monogamists all along. Not a very integritous approach. Brigham Young speaks very clearly on this “one man one woman” issue here:
“Marriage is a civil contract. You might as well make a law to say how many children a man shall have, as to make a law to say how many wives he shall have. It would be as sensible to make a law to say how many horses or oxen he shall possess, or how many cows his wife shall milk.” Brigham Young
So how would have President Young responded to, “marriage shall be defined as the union of one man and one woman” legislation? It’s pretty clear by what he said above how he would respond.
The black priesthood issue that Olberman brings up. Well, I’ll just let that history speak for itself. Anyone who researches history and reads the words of several of the brethren during the 50’s and 60’s can decide for himself or herself on how the Church stood regarding the African American civil rights struggle during those years.
Keith’s dramatic t.v. persona definitely comes through here and it also comes through with rudeness “…to shut the he11 up.” Leaving that aside I do agree with the basic premise of Olberman’s argument regarding a church leader speaking out on “religious freedom” in the context of the civil rights movement in America without scrutinizing the Church’s own track record on the issue.
-
Scott on 24 October 2009 at 9:36 am: “I do agree with the basic premise of Olberman’s argument regarding a church leader speaking out on “religious freedom” in the context of the civil rights movement in America without scrutinizing the Church’s own track record on the issue.”
Let me get this straight. Because the church had a policy that ended 30 years ago that barred Blacks from the Mormon priesthood, the church has no right to complain today about possible violations of the civil rights of its members?
Using that logic, no Democrat has a right to even breath the words “civil rights” since Democrats fought a war to defend slavery, started and ran the KKK, fought against civil rights for blacks for 100 years after the civil war, enacted Jim Crow laws to keep blacks down, interred innocent Japanese in concentration camps because of racist fears and have pursued policies for the past 60 years the purpose of which has been to keep blacks dependent instead of making them independent.
And of course no white protestant or decedent of a white protestant has any right to complain of civil rights violations either because it was white protestants who were slave traders and owners.
Need I go on? The sins of the Mormon Church vis-a-vis civil rights discrimination are minuscule compared to 80% of the rest of America.
-
I just watched both videos, back to back, and the comparison between the two men is revealing. If Elder Oaks actually were one of the worst people in the world, this world would be a paradise. He is calm, intelligent, rational, polite, respectful, and broadminded. He doesn’t order anyone to “shut the H*** up.” In fact, if I understand him, he sees the security of his right to speak as being firmly connected to his own right to speak, and wants to foster an environment where dissent is treated civily.
-
Pardon me, I meant “he sees his right to speak as being firmly connected to the right of those who disagree with him.”
-
Jim B:
Let’s keep this in perspective — it was Elder Oak who made the comparison between Proposition 8 protests and the civil rights movement. I don’t see the other groups that you are referring to making the same types of comparisons when people are protesting their actions.
-
Jim B:
Your comparison of all the groups that you raised is simply wrong because these groups have not experienced civil rights issues like African Americans did in the 1960s and before in the South. Clearly, as a white Protestant, I would never dream of making the comparison that Elder Oak made because–based upon my ethnicity and religious background–my experiences have clearly not been as severe as African Americans
However, I would not be barred from making the comparison because some white Protestants may have been slave traders or owners. First, slavery ended in the United States in 1865–unlike the Mormon Church’s discrimination against African Americans which ended in 1978–and the ancestors of most white Protestants did not owe or trade slaves. My ancestors (like many other Americans) were from the north, did not owe or trade slaves (they were farmers through the time slavery ended) and they actually fought on the side of the North during the Civil War to end slavery.
-
Jim B. get real. The Democratic Party has a far more progressive track record over the past 40 years (especially since JFK) than the GOP ever had.
The LDS Church membership and leadership used to be much more politically diverse than it is today. I’m finding that today’s Mormons (especially several of the leaders like Elder Oaks) are beginning to look and act more like a religious version of the G.O.P. Utah is overwhelmingly Republican. Even though the Republican Party is dying Utah’s die hards who are hanging on making extreme statements like religious freedom is at risk, etc.
As for the Civil Rights issue in the LDS Church you need to look at the history books. I know that the the Church has changed the policy regarding blacks and the priesthood. It was a policy that never was established through common consent. It was not ever included in any of the LDS scriptures and yet it was treated as Gospel for over 100 years. Joseph Smith never taught that kind of dogma in all of his life. Joseph Smith was a true visionary and had an uncanny ability to transcend many of the bias’s and the typical bigotry of his time. His incredibly progressive plan to purchase the slaves from slave owners through the sale of public lands in order to end slavery gradually could have been revolutionary and could have averted the Civil War. His ordination of Elder Elijah Abel who is a black man is evidence as to his lack of prejudice on this issue. Also Elder Walker Lewis is another black African American man who received the prior to Joseph’s murder. His son Enoch married a white LDS woman named Mary Webster and there is evidence that Brigham Young began the priesthood ban partly as a response to this interracial marriage. Brigham Young even records in his minutes that if black Enoch and his white LDS wife “far away from the Gentiles they wod. [would] all be killed – when they mingle seed it is death to all.” (Quorum of the Twelve Minutes, December 3, 1847, pp. 6–7, LDS Archives.)
Unfortunately Brigham Young gave into the bigotry that permeated the majority of American thought at the time and stopped the practice of giving black men the priesthood.
He even allowed blacks to be used as human tithing as evidenced by Mr. Green Flake a black African American man who was a slave in the Salt Lake Valley his entire life. Too many Mormons want to erase this part of the history and pretend it never happened. The Church needs to take responsibility for these things and not make excuses for them. Just simply say that Brigham Young was wrong in teaching this kind of doctrine, that it was not inspired and that he had limited understanding and knowledge at the time. The Book of Mormon was right on in the statement “black, white, bond and free all are alike unto God.” I still hear and read the b.s. remarks especially from returned missionaries and others that the priesthood ban was inspired during those times. The excuses are brought out and the pontification continues. There is and never was any excuse for this policy banning black men from the LDS priesthood simply because of his race.
Brigham Young, though an amazing and wonderful man was subject to prejudice and bigotry of his time. Even he did not escape it. Prophets are not gods.
“The sins of the Mormon Church vis-a-vis civil rights discrimination are minuscule compared to 80% of the rest of America.” Where do you get your stats? Since the vast majority of Americans are not LDS that seems kind of ridiculous when you look at it historically. America organically transcended much of this racism through the process of time. A Christian Church should never ever include racism as part of its doctrine. That is just not in keeping with the Gospel of Christ and never was. The Book of Mormon even emphatically states this in very clear terms as all are alike unto God.
-
Also it must be corrected as per the primary source history that Brigham Young did free Green Flake in 1854 and that he did die a “faithful member of the Church.” The point is that nobody should ever be involved with the Gospel of Christ and be a slave or have slaves EVER.
-
As another follow-up to Apostle Oaks’ speech and MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann’s response, see the following article by Joann Brooks at http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/religionandtheology/1931 . Entitled “Mormonism’s Black Issues”, the introduction of the article states: “While many Mormons would like to forget the Church’s history of discrimination against blacks, an Apostle’s recent statements comparing the post-Proposition 8 Mormon backlash to the Civil Rights-era harassment of black voters have brought that painful past back into the spotlight.
Worth a read.
-
Well, all I can say is how sad all this makes me. One can tell that religious freedom truly is under fire and I completely support Elder Oaks. I have to add though that I find it somewhat humerous that Keith Olbermann is fulfilling a profesy given in the Book Of Mormon!
‹ Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next ›
105 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://asoftanswer.com/2009/10/14/keith-olbermann-declares-elder-oaks-one-of-the-worse-people-in-the-world/trackback/