In 2011, Dallin H. Oaks speech gave a speech at Chapman University School of Law in which he spoke about religious freedom. Here is an excerpt from that speech:

“Many of the great moral advances in Western society have been motivated by religious principles and moved through the public square by pulpit-preaching. The abolition of the slave trade in England and the Emancipation Proclamation in the United States are notable illustrations. These revolutionary steps were not motivated and moved by secular ethics or coalitions of persons who believed in moral relativism. They were driven primarily by individuals who had a clear vision of what was morally right and what was morally wrong. In our time, the Civil Rights movement was, of course, inspired and furthered by religious leaders.”

I find it very curious that a Mormon leader would cite the abolition of slavery and the fight for civil rights to support his case for religious “freedom.” We all have heard stories about TSCC’s battle to end slavery in the 1800s, and the tireless efforts of the LDS church to advance civil rights in the 20th century. /s

Sure, now that they've ended their institutional racism and from-the-pulpit official opposition to equal rights for blacks, they can pretend they were on-board the whole time, and that their religion was the solution, not part of the problem.

Sheesh.

It’s nice to hear he’s pushing for gay rights now.

Consider the following statement:

“Much of the *resistance* to the great moral advances in Western society have been motivated by religious principles and moved through the public square by pulpit-preaching. The *resistance* to the abolition of the slave trade in England and the *resistance* to the Emancipation Proclamation in the United States are notable illustrations. This *resistance* was not motivated and moved by secular ethics or coalitions of persons who believed in moral relativism. They were driven primarily by individuals who had a clear vision of what was morally right and what was morally wrong, *and that vision included white supremacy.* In our time, *resistance* to the Civil Rights movement was, of course, inspired and furthered by religious leaders.”

Religion is a motivating social influence for good and evil, However, you cannot single out the good deeds of religion and declare that therefore religion per se must be good. This is especially offensive when a religion like Mormonism that was clearly associated with the resistance cleaves to the high ground only as forced upon them by history.

But he conveniently omits all of the counter-examples of where religion has fostered horrific actions and policies.

Of course it's not just religion. Stories are used to program human thoughts and actions in various collectives. Religion used to have a monopoly on the business of programming society with their stories about an all-powerful God and his plans, wishes and capability to inflict punishment and reward good behavior.

Political ideological belief systems have been filling in the gaps where religious belief systems are falling apart, often with similarly distorted and dishonest storytelling about what has happened, what is happening and what will happen, and leading to many of the same fanatical, violent ends.

"In our time, the Civil Rights movement was, of course, inspired and furthered by religious leaders."

Just not *his* religious leaders. (See "Benson, Ezra Taft".)

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,247447

Yep.
And the same goes for slavery.
Do we need to remind him what *his* religious leaders were saying?

"I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall.... the first mention we have of slavery is found in the Holy Bible.... And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it [slavery] remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude."
- Joseph Smith

"Question Thirteenth. 'Are the Mormons abolitionists?' No, unless delivering the people from priestcraft, and the priests from the power of Satan, should be considered abolition. But we do not believe in setting the negroes free."
- Joseph Smith

"You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham."
- Brigham Young

"Cain slew his brother.... and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and tehn another curse is pronounced upon the same race – that they should be the 'servant of servants,' and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree."
- Brigham Young

"There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits."
- Joseph Fielding Smith

"I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation?"
- Mark E. Petersen

"Those who believe that the Church 'gave in' on the polygamy issue and subsequently should give in on the Negro question are not only misinformed about Church History, but are apparently unaware of Church doctrine.... Therefore, those who hope that pressure will bring about a revelation need to take a closer look at Mormon history and the order of heaven."
- Elder John Lund (1967)

OMG--how quickly we forget--especially when we're purposely forgetting. "The Sons of Ham" Another obnoxious Mormon label. Lamanites and the sons of Ham. Mormons will have to corral and tame those members remember their parents being Mormons through the years of the Civil Rights movement. We can't forget it, because we lived it. We know that Oaks is as false as any other cult kook out there.

but but but...

the decision to allow african males to have the PH was never (?) revealed / published to ChurchCo as a revelation, it was presented as more of a policy change approved by consensus.


Didn't give in to the gov't on Polyg? that my friends is an outright, boldfaced lie.

Same idea as with John Doyle Lee when Ew-tah wanted statehood; first trial was a hung jury, second was a conviction.


the more 'leaders', the more times MoHistory is retold, the more it changes!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2018 09:44PM by GNPE.

There is freedom of thought and freedom of speech and freedom of association or there is an absence of those freedoms. (There is no absolute freedom of action, and never has been. No society or government has ever advocated for an absolute freedom of action--other than for the ruling class.)

If those freedoms of thought, speech and association exist in actual practice, freedom of religion is an automatic consequence or byproduct. You can believe what you want. You can talk about your beliefs and promote your beliefs. You can associate freely with people who share your beliefs and exclude from your voluntary meetings/gatherings those who do not share your beliefs. Those freedoms provide the basis for freedom of religion.

Ironically, though, any given religion will generally work against and often be expressly opposed to those freedoms that are the prerequisites for "freedom of religion" as well as imposing countless limitations on freedom of action. Also, virtually no religion that gains overwhelming political dominance in a particular political jurisdiction will itself protect and preserve freedom for other religions.

The Bible itself countenances slavery. So if one set of people espousing a religious belief system that opposes slavery, based on their interpretation of scriptures and uses military force against another set of people who (sincerely in some cases) claim that slavery is "ordained by God", we're not really talking about something that can be referred to as a good illustration of "freedom of religion" in action. We're talking about a violent political struggle between competing religious views, with the winner forcing the loser out of business.

Oaks wants the freedom to make you think and believe what he and his church thinks and believes. If you don't want to do that then you're persecuting his religion.

Oaks, and his allies, are not really that concerned with individual religious freedom. Instead, their main concern is freedom to exercise religious dominion in institutional contexts, which sometimes abrogates other rights.

Oaks wants to preserve the ability of LDS affiliated institutions, even those with a secular and religious purpose--like BYU, to continue to discriminate against LGBT people or restrict freedom of speech on religious grounds.

These folks also want to allow people to exercise their religious freedom (I mean impose their religious viewpoint in other domains) within the context of their business affairs. Companies like Hobby Lobby don't want to be required to purchase their employees health care plans that are required to cover contraceptives under government mandates that these are medically necessary (as they are for things besides birth control purposes). Of course, just hope you don't work for a Jehovah's Witness, who doesn't want your plan to cover blood transfusions.

Oaks wants to preserve the power of religious organizations and religious people to sanction behavior and shape culture using their institutional and business powers. You want to attend BYU? Good, don't drink coffee. You want to work at this company? Fine, but we're not going to pay for your sinful birth control stuff.

That's why they have the Thomas Beckett Society. Thomas Beckett was martyred during the reign of Henry II, because he was defending church institutional prerogatives against those of the crown. I happen to also admire what Beckett did, but that was a very different kind of world. But there's a symbolism that Oaks and his religious conservative friends are trying to convey with their choice of patron saint.