Mormon Apostle Dallin Oaks chose a friendly audience deep within the Book-of-Mormon-belt for his now controversial October 13 speech in defense of the Mormons’ ongoing fight against same-sex civil marriage. Speaking to students at Brigham Young University-Idaho, Oaks decried the continuing erosion of religious freedom and the declining influence of religion in the public sphere, before mounting a strongly-worded defense of “the ancient order” of marriage against the “alleged ‘civil right’ of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage.”
Elder Oaks recalled expressions of outrage directed at Mormons and acts of vandalism against Mormon temples and wardhouses committed after the November 2008 passage of Proposition 8 outlawing same-sex marriage in California. (Mormons, who make up 2% of California’s population, contributed more than 50% of the individual donations to the Proposition 8 campaign and a sizeable majority of its on-the-ground efforts.) The post-Proposition 8 backlash was, he stated, comparable to Civil Rights Movement-era “voter intimidation of blacks in the South.”
Oaks, a former University of Chicago law professor who clerked for United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1957 and 1958 in the aftermath of the Warren court’s landmark Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) desegregation decision, knew that his black-Mormon comparison would draw public attention. In fact, when he previewed his speech for an AP reporter on October 12, he speculated that it might “be offensive to some.”
Sure enough, commentators from within (and without) the world of Mormonism have questioned the soundness of Oaks’ analogy, asking whether Mormons in their effort to eliminate same-sex marriage are more justly characterized as proponents of religious freedom or opponents of gay human rights. In fact, four Mormon gay rights groups issued a joint statement on October 16 urging the Apostle to consider how the Mormon anti-gay marriage effort might paradoxically compromise religious freedom for members of faiths that recognize the sanctity of committed same-sex relationships.
But most of Oaks’ respondents politely sidestepped an even deeper paradox troubling his black-Mormon analogy: the fact that Mormons have our own long and peculiar history of discrimination against African Americans.
MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann alluded to this history when he gave Oaks his daily “worst person in the world” award on October 14. Comparing the Proposition 8 Mormon backlash and the harassment of black voters was especially inappropriate, Olbermann argued, because Mormons had been “on the wrong side of integration.”
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prohibited individuals of African descent from joining the Church’s lay priesthood (open to all devout Mormon men over the age of twelve), serving as missionaries, or participating in Mormon temple ordinances from 1849 until 1978, a fact that many Mormons today find difficult to talk about or explain.
In the earliest years of Mormon history, during the 1830s and 1840s, six or seven African-American men including Elijah Abel (1808–1885) and Walker Lewis (1798–1856) were ordained to the Church’s priesthood. But under the leadership of Mormon Church president Brigham Young, the ordination of African-American men ceased, African-American men and women were prohibited from temple worship, and intermarriage was officially discouraged.
Some historians believe that Young’s about-face on the status of African Americans may have been motivated by embarrassment stemming from an 1847 scandal involving an excommunicated African-American Mormon named William McCary, or by political pressures surrounding the extension of slavery to Utah territory.
Whatever the actual motivation for the priesthood ban, Mormons soon articulated a number of working theological narratives to legitimate anti-African American discrimination, drawing liberally from European and European-American folk theologies that identified Africans and African Americans as the descendents of Cain or Ham.
According to some Mormons, the priesthood ban was an element of the curse placed upon Cain for killing his brother Abel (Genesis 4), or the curse levied on Ham’s son Canaan to punish Ham’s humiliation of his father, Noah (Genesis 9:20-27). The Pearl of Great Price, a Mormon book of scripture, described the people of Canaan as being cursed with “blackness” (Moses 7:5-8) and indicated that descendents of Ham and his wife Egyptus were “cursed... as pertaining to the Priesthood” (Abraham 1:21-26).
In 1849, Brigham Young declared that “the Lord had cursed Cain’s seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood,” a position he reaffirmed in a January 16, 1852 statement to the Utah territorial legislature:
Any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain]… in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it.
Tags: african american, brown v. board of education, church of jesus christ of latter-day saints, civil rights movement, dallin oaks, keith olbermann, lgbt, mormon, mormonism, mormons, race, racism, same-sex marriage
Ms. Brooks:
I enjoyed the article. However, you failed to elaborate on three important issues.
The first is the issue of ordination of black men by Joseph Smith. You did mention this but you failed to acknowledge its importance in American history. Joseph Smith's ordination of black men were the first ordinations of black men into an all white Church nearly 30 years before the Civil War. There have been some suggestions that speeches by Joseph Smith given in Illinois about the freedom of blacks later influenced Abraham Lincoln.
The second is the the extensive influence of traditional Christian beliefs on Brigham Young, that blacks were cursed by God. The "Seed of Cain" doctrine was not a Mormon invention but already ingrained in the minds of Mormon converts from their former Christian religions traditions. Some view the priesthood ban as a return to those traditions.
The third issue is the ordinations of some black men while the ban was in place. For instance, Elijah Abel's sons and grandsons were ordained to the priesthood well into the 1930s.
These three issues belong in the discussion if we are going to form a complete narrative concerning blacks issues within the Mormon/LDS faith.
This article is spurred by a common misquote of what Dallin Oaks actually said. Using the direct quote, and not supposing to paraphrase it, gives it a whole different context.
He did NOT say that the treatment of LDS Church members is the same as the former treatment of blacks. He said, referring specificially to the anti-democratic voter-intimidation:
"IN THEIR EFFECT, they are like well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation." (emphasis added).
What was "their effect" (and their purpose)? To dissuade people from voting their conscience. The degree of voter intimidation may not have been the same, but the effect is. How can you disagree with that?
If you are going to write a long article giving context to a controversial quote, at least give the actual quote in context.
Isn't unusual that Prophets never really seem to implement anything new? I would think that a Prophet would be at the fore front of changing society not reacting to it. I would think anyone who has a direct line to god, wouldn't care what society wanted. Yet, is appears that BY was "pressured" or "adopted" a society norm, that anyone today would say isn't just.
Was Christ being racist?
Matt 15
22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not asent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread,and to cast it to dogs.
No, Christ was NOT being racist...
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour
Why did he call her a "dog?"
He was painting a word picture familiar to the people of that time. (Remember: context?) The family would eat at the table. Any crumbs that would fall to the ground were eaten by the dogs that were hanging around. It wouldn't be right to take food off the children's plates and throw it to the dogs. Jesus was called to bring the gospel to Israel. He was commending her willingess to be happy with whatever crumbs he would let fall her way. He was speaking in terms that she perfectly understood.
When you read an ancient text, stop trying to interpret it from your own, post-Enlightenment, Western worldview.
The Bible records that Jesus waited to cure the child until after the mother exhibited the "proper" attitude, that Jews were better than Canaanites. This is not being nice, it is being racist and rewarding the kind of behavior that keeps racism thriving.
Jesus kept that child in pain while he admonished that black lady...err, Canaanite, for being too uppity by demanding the same treatment as white people...err, Jews. The Bible language is quite clear on this: instead of Jesus curing the child the moment the mother asked for a cure, the text reads that the child was cured after the mother did a proper "Uncle Tom" impersonation.
Jesus behaved like a white Southern doctor at a "whites-only" hospital, refusing treatment to a black child UNTIL the child's mother exhibited the "proper" subservient attitude of "lesser races," then he rewarded her "Uncle Tom" attitude with a cure for her daughter ("good to see you black people recognizing your place in society. here's a doggie treat from your master's table!").
Jesus did the same thing to the non-Jewish Centurion, though the Centurion was smart enough to debase himself and his race while asking for help, to get his daughter cured more quickly.
The "question of faith" is a non-starter: if you don't have faith that Jesus can heal your child, you won't bother asking in the first place.
There is a big difference from saying "only this group of people can have soemthing" compared to saying, "all people can have this, except "you" group of people...don't spin the issue. why do mormons always use this argument to justify their racism?
Like the many articles that beat this one to the press, it is just sloppy, copy-cat reporting.
Elder Oaks spoke out against the "anti-democratic" behavior some Mormons and other prop 8 supporters endured during and after the election.
We all need to take a stand against voter intimidation, vandalism, threats, and especially violence, no matter how you or others vote.
Now let's look closer at the money. Did you know that more money was donated against prop 8 than for? According to the LA Times:
-- Against Prop 8: $44MM (30% from out of state
-- For Prop 8: $38MM (29% from out of state)
So while the Mormons are getting criticized for their support of Prop 8, those against it still donated much more money (16% more).
But at the end of the day, it's votes, not money that win elections. With Mormons accounting for only 2% of state, it's a reminder that the majority of Californians, not Mormons, are the ones responsible for Prop 8.
Stop blaming the Mormons. You give them more credit than they deserve. Really.
that the gay marriage issue among the LDS church will follow the path of integration--the Church will see that they are impeding human rights, admit their wrongs and change their policies. I have sat and listened to a local Bishop admit that the church was wrong in supporting segregation laws and denying Blacks their rightful place in the priesthood. I suspect, despite current resistance, that years down the line, we will hear the same apology while sitting in the pews. The church has been wrong before, and it's wrong again on this issue. Thankfully, it is a courageous group of folks with a history of righting its wrongs and a deep compassion for community.
Brigham Young, the "prophet" said that Black was an ignorant race. He said the day blacks and whites can marry would be the day the priesthood is taken from the earth. Guess he really wasn't a prophet. Then there is Joseph Smith and his many wives including a 14 year old. And Joseph Smiths mess of translating the Book of Abraham in the Mormon Scriptures "The Pearl of Great Price" His translation of hyrogliphics is no where near the actual translation which is straight from the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
There is no explaining this to Mormon's as they always make up something to justify these things with. Now you have them trying to justify Oaks comments. I wonder what these peoples faces will look like on judgement day when God asks them what gave them the right to discriminate in his name.
Oops. You missed a few other prophesies. Like when Joseph Smith prophesied about the civil war, the exact place and day it would start, decades before. Or when he said as a 14 year old boy in a small New York community that his name would be had for good and evil throughout the world. Or when he said to the first Mormon Church congregation of six people that this church will fill North and South America, it will fill the world. Or what about when he came up with that law of health, banning alcohol and tobacco among other things long before science even knew such things caused health problems. And now we see Mormons live healthier lives and outlive the average American by 12 years. We have seen in a relatively short period of time the LDS Church grow to the fourth largest denomination in the US--and is still one of the fastest growing. And we have even seen people like you, who for apparently no reason at all feel compelled to post baseless accusations against Joseph Smith.
You are right, there is no explaining this to Mormon people.
Joseph Smith's "Civil War Prophesy" is interesting in that, four days before he made his prophecy, a newspaper called the Painesville Telegraph (not far from Smith's Kirtland, Ohio headquarters), printed a story from the New York Courier and Enquirer, on December 21, 1832, entitled "The Crisis." The article spoke of the "probabilities of dismemberment" stemming from discontent in South Carolina and Georgia over states rights. If you read about things which are happening already, you're not prophesying, you're "reading the newspaper out loud."
The prophecy has additional problems. For example, Joseph Smith predicted not a U.S.-only war, but a World War: "war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place." Famine, plague, and an earthquake were to accompany this "war", none of which occurred. While Smith did predict that Great Britain would help the South, and would get other nations to help as well, Britain only provided some supplies and didn't "call on other nations for help." Since neither World War started inside the U.S.A., those wars weren't predicted by Smith either.
As for the bans on alcohol and tobacco, when you want to discourage your followers from contact with "outsiders", you ban them from using things which outsiders must provide. Being isolationist is not always a good thing, as tea has been shown to enhance health and life (and compounds in it reduce the size of cancer tumors), and even coffee has healthful properties. Neither one is allowed to Mormons under a vague heading of "hot drinks", putting the lie to the claim that the ban was about health and not about isolationism.
Clean Cut provides an interesting perspective on this issue at Why I Don't Believe That God Instituted The Priesthood Ban.
See Blacks and the Priesthood at Some Mormon Stuff.
I am LDS and understand the desire for many to protect the church, but it was simply wrong. Church leaders have acknowledged this, but don't do that often enough or public enough for the members to understand just how wrong we were.
Two Black Latter Day Saints put out a DVD series call Blacks in the Scriptures. www.blacksinthescriptures.com After seeing it, you'll understand the truths directly from the scriptures and words of the leaders, but you'll also have a much stronger testimony that the LDS church is God's church. It's a must see. If you're trying to discuss this issue without seeing that 4 part series, well, you're just not using your time wisely. You'll understand what I mean by this once you see them. Also search iTunes for free podcast from "Blacks in the Scriptures"
www.blacksinthescriptures.com
The Mormon church DID make a huge mistake with Blacks. No doubt about it. Of course, so did most of the churches in the US at the time. So Brook's argument bascially boils down to castigating Mormons because they weren't the first in line. It's unfortunate they weren't, but they've made a 180. And all this is more than 30 years in the past.
The real problem is in her equating race with sexual behavior. They are not the same.
Brooks would like us to think the Mormon church has a beef with people having gay urges. But the Mormon church has no beef with people having gay urges. And in many recent speeches they've made that clear. Just as they have no beef with people have heterosexual urges. Or urges to drink, do drugs, lie, cheat, steal, etc. People will have urges.
What the Mormon church speaks out against is acting on sexual urges outside the limits they think God has prescribed. So Mormons will speak out against adultery and pre-marital sex. They'll speak out against any type of sex outside the marriage relationship between a man and wife. That's it. They want to retain this right.
But what the gay movement wants to do is make it illegal for them to do so. This is not about gaining the legal rights granted in marriage. All of those rights can be arranged under current laws. It could be made a bit more convenient. But they're there for all sorts of relationships other than man and wife--gay couples, brothers, sisters, Mother/daughter, friends, etc. You don't need marriage to get those legal arrangements.
Gay proponents might argue that they can't help their orientation. And that may be true. But this doesn't mean a certain behavior must be protected. If that were the case, then pedophiles, those with attractions to animals, and heterosexuals who want to step out on their spouse could all make the same argument. And ask that laws be put in place to make it illegal to speak out against such behavior.
The gay movement isn't about legal rights. It might have been 20 years ago. But today it's about one group trying to force, via legislation, the acceptance and promotion of a specific sexual practice.
One might ask who is framing the 'gay rights' movement wrongly--surely no better example exists of wrongly and I might add illogically framing gay rights than this post. 'Sexual behavior' is a silly nonsensical term as a person is homosexual whether or not they are engaging in homosexual sex. Are you suggesting that a heterosexual is not a heterosexual unless he/she is actively engaging in heterosexual sex? One might ask what you would then call them?
No, race and sexuality are not the same things. Neither is religion which is an obviously 'chosen' state. However, discrimination against a person based on their race, or religion or sexuality IS the same thing, and the Mormon Church's discrimination against and persecution of homosexuals looks very much like its 150 years of vile racial discrimination against blacks. Only the targets of discrimination have changed. Discrimination and persecution are the same things, regardless of whom it is directed against.
If your contention is that the Mormon Church's position against homosexuals is the same position it takes against premarital or extramarital sex then to be consistent you must also strive by spending millions of dollars and hours of effort to make these behaviors illegal. Why not extend this zeal to Nevada, where heterosexual prostitution is legal in every county except Clark and Washoe, (Vegas and Reno) where the mafia has a huge hand in it.
If you contend that alcohol consumption is sinful, why not make it illegal also? Interestingly, the Mormon Church and BYU have no problem accepting tithing and donations from Marriott International, which has 3,200 hotels worldwide and which makes millions from the sale of inroom porn and alcohol. Apparently these things do not rise to the level of a 'moral' concern if the Mormon Church reaps enormous sums of money from them.
If you are going to make the claim that anyone anywhere is trying to stop the Mormon Church from proclaiming what they think, however hateful and bigoted it might be--like the past policy against blacks and the current policy of demeaning and persecuting homosexuals--then at least make a half hearted attempt to show some proof. Any evidence of that would be helpful to making that claim seem a little less ridiculous.
Say what you will--no one is stopping you. Perhaps if you weren't so hateful and bigoted while simultaneously claiming that the Mormon Church alone speaks for God, then you wouldn't find so many people calling you out.
Your problem is that you think the Mormon Church's political actions should be above criticism because they are founded on religious conviction. They are not. Overwhelmingly, demonstrations and boycotts have been peaceful and legal, and part of the noisy tumult of free speech. Such (reprehensible) acts of minor vandalism that have occurred have not been proven to be the actions of any homosexual or homosexual group. So before you begin the familiar whining chorus of how persecuted you are because you took legal rights from homosexuals, and because they loudly shout back and aren't going to stand for it--please provide a single--I don't ask even for two-example of any illegal activity anywhere against Mormon persons or property done by any homosexual persons or groups. Name one...anything...any case proven or pending.
The Mormon Church is the most hateful and well funded enemy homosexual Americans have, and your effort to spin it as anything else is as pathetic as the attempts have been to distance the Mormon Church from its hateful bigoted past in regards to blacks.
Homosexuals as Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law--its called the 14th amendment, and our equality is not subject to the whim of whom the Mormon Church is currently discriminating against.
If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Alas, you've misread my post and made some dangerous assumptions.
First, you try to equate a desire to do a thing with actually doing it. You go so far as to suggest that when someone has a desire they must act on it. But this is not only false, it's dangerous.
A man might have moments when he wants to throttle his neighbor, but we don't call him a killer for having the desire. Nor would we say he must stoke and carry out that desire and then seek to protect that freedom to kill. That's ridiculous on the face. A heterosexual male might find himself attracted to someone other than his spouse, but we don't call him an adulterer or two-timer for having an attraction. Nor would we say because he has the attraction he must therefore act on it. Same with all sexual desires.
There is a significant line between desire and action. People might not have control over all the desires they have. But the do indeed have choice in whether or not they stoke the desire or act on it.
Second, you misread me. I never said that people in the gay movement should be silenced. Or that anyone's statements on a give topic should be above criticism. That's exactly what should NOT happen. All parties MUST be free to voice their arguments. But we aren't talking about legislation to silence proponents of the gay movement. We ARE talking about legislation that would attempt to silence critics of homosexual behavior in a number of venues. That's what protected class legislation is all about.
Finally, in regards to discrimination, you say, "Discrimination and persecution are the same things, regardless of whom it is directed against." Not always. But the big error here is in the underlying suggestion that all discrimination is bad.
We discriminate against (treat differently) felons, pedophiles, terrorists, alcoholics, drug users, and hundreds of other groups. We discriminate against children, reserving a number of rights only to adults. The question is not whether we discriminate because we do it all the time. We have to. The question is where we draw the lines. And in what ways we are allowed to discriminate.
Many of the proponents of the gay movement want to make a specific sexual practice protected. With legal remedies to enforce the acceptance of it. Under such legislation it would be illegal for for public schools to cast homosexual behavior as anything but another valid and wholesome choice. Organizations and individuals that spoke out against the behavior would be penalized via taxes or the withholding of federal and state funding. We already saw what happened to the Catholic adoption agencies in the North East. If you want to argue for that, it's your right. Argue.
I think most Americans would agree that treating homosexuals with cruelty, violence, and mean-spiritedness is wrong and counterproductive. Just as it would be wrong to treat a hormone-charged heterosexual youth or adults that way. On the other hand, I don't think that means we should legally protect all sexual behaviors.
I don't know what the best solution is, but I can tell you it's not laissez-faire Wild West persecution. Nor is it protected class status. Perhaps a version of don't ask, don't tell. I do know that all the groups involved need to avoid treating people on the other side of the debate with hate.
I think this illustrates the actual concerns and intents of the Mormon church regarding the issue quite well.
"Salt Lake City has become the first Utah city to offer housing and employment protections for gays and lesbians — an action supported by the Mormon church"
More here: http://tiny.cc/K1hYn
The only concern of the Mormon Church involved in this move is to blunt criticism. This is a cheap publicity ploy--this measure would have passed anyway. The Mormon Church has had decades to support such legislation, but has never supported it and always fought against it until now when it needs a PR boost. No homosexual person will fall for this cheap transparent ploy. The Mormon Church remains the most well funded and dedicated enemy homosexual Americans have--this changes nothing.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.