Dallin H. Oaks: Calling for fair reading, fair thinking, fair commentary

There was an incident this week in the media where Elder Dallin H. Oaks gave a speech at BYU Idaho and in it he said:

"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." (Emphasis added.)

A journalist named Monica Bielanko, who works for Fox 13 in Salt Lake City, tweeted 15 minutes prematurely about this speech, with which the LDS church newsroom took issue because they had placed an embargo on the story where it couldn't be discussed by news media who were privy to the news until 3:00 that day, which was the time Elder Oaks was expected to be finished giving his speech. 

I happen to think it's fair to let a person finish what they're saying before you go reporting on what they said.

Monica's tweet was:

"LDS apostle gives speech at BYU-Idaho. The contents of which has my head exploding and FOX seeking a response from the NAACP. More at Five."

Now, that doesn't really report on what Elder Oaks said, it merely suggests enough for speculation.  If it were me, I wouldn't have been bothered by what she said but the church newsroom was.  I also wouldn't have made a fuss about being 15 minutes premature but the newsroom did.  Perhaps they wanted to be strict so that a standard could be set or maintained.  Perhaps the issue wasn't so much the tweet.  Perhaps it was that they didn't want to set a precedent of being a pushover in any way so that anything they might say or do in the future would be taken seriously. 

Monica wrote a blog post just saturated with snottiness, bitterness, and chip-on-the-shoulderness about this incident.  Behold a portion (language warning if you're so sensitive to that):

"I will give you this. I still have issues. Always will. But my lingering rage anger doesn't negate that when the church is full of shit, the church is full of shit.

Today I arrived at work to find that during a speech to BYU students in Idaho, a leader of the Mormon church, an apostle, if I'm to use their terminology, compared the backlash against those who voted for Prop 8 to the African American struggle for civil rights in the south.

After I picked my eyeballs up off the floor and shoved 'em back in my head I read the entire story being reported by the Associated Press. Did he really say that? I thought those cagey, old, white dudes hid their true feelings better than that.

He did. He said it. And elaborated for ages about why he totally believes it.

Well, that's just plain wrong and fucked up eight ways to Saturday, the special day, the day we get ready for Sunday."

(If it were me, I would have had a full colon after "I will give you this", but that's just me... and proper writing.)

Monica is by no means unbiased towards the church.  She writes about how she had an abortion as a teen because,

"I debate the merits of adoption but don't feel like I can go through with it for a myriad of reasons. I tell myself it's because it will be too hard to give up the baby after carrying it for nine months. I couldn't bare the thought of a child of mine living in the world when I didn't know it's name or how it was doing. That's true to an extent. But deep down I know that thought process is mostly me trying to cast myself as a tragic figure too sensitive to deal with adoption. Mostly I just don't want to be pregnant. Don't want my teenage indiscretion to interfere with the business of being a teenager. Pregnancy means disclosure. Disclosure means shame, acknowledging to the world that Monica Butler had lived up to expectations of being a member of The Bad Family and got knocked up at seventeen. I told you so."

Abortion is a grave sin in the LDS church.  So I could see it possible, in response to her abortion and the things she's been taught over the years, that Monica's choices are either to hate or judge herself or hate or judge the church.  Now, she says she was already questioning the church before her abortion and I'm sure that's true.  Plenty of people DO question their religion, their family, their way of life in their coming-of-age years.  But not all people attack the church with such fury as Monica did in her post, and does in other blog posts.

The fact that she had an abortion-- I'm surprisingly nonjudgemental about that.  As a teen, I thought I was pregnant once and if I had turned out to be, my plan was to have an abortion.  I wasn't Mormon, mind you, but that's not really the point.  The point is that I can empathise with the emotions and thoughts she described.

I point out her reason for getting an abortion not so we can all judge her but to show that she would have good reason for hating herself, if she held on to her Mormon upbringing.  Again, I'm not saying she should hate herself-- I don't think God wants that for any of us.  I'm just saying that if she remained an active LDS person, that would be a really hard decision to come to terms with.  The easier thing is to leave the church, blame, and attack it because if it's really, really bad, then maybe... she's not.

Do I KNOW this to be her psychology?  No, of course not.  But it's certainly a reasonable inference.  I'm also not saying that this would be her only reason for hating the church.  I'm sure she has a boatload.  My point is only that she is FAR from unbiased.

Bias established?

Okay.

So, then Dooce, another person raised in the church who left and has become quite bitter toward it, links from Twitter to this blog post of Monica's.  Rah, rah, yay, Monica!  Way to intelligently attack the evil Mormon church!

Except...

...what exactly are we attacking?  Let's look at that quote again:

"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." (Emphasis added.)

Note that it doesn't say that what black voters faced was the same or even similar to what Mormon voters faced.  What he said was that the EFFECT was similar.  The effect was that people felt scared to vote.  So, he's saying that one group of people felt scared to vote and that's like another group of people feeling scared to vote.  Sounds like a pretty valid comparison. "Scared" is like "scared".  Maybe one group felt scared because they were being threatened with death and another group were feeling scared because they were threatened with losing their jobs.  That's not the same and he didn't say it was.  The EFFECT is the same.

Now, that's not semantics.  That's called READING WORDS AND SENTENCES AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY MEAN IN ENGLISH BY ALL STANDARD DEFINITIONS.  Now, maybe to YOU the word "effect" means "Alf" or "I love marshmallows" but I don't care how you want to screw up the English language because you have brain issues, it still means what it means by every other sane person's definition and you can't change that.

When I first read Monica's post and watched the video from Fox 13 Now, I stupidly believed their interpretation on what was said.  Because this is news media and media should be reporting news in an unbiased way, no?  Wording things in scandalous ways is a strategy only employed by shows like Jerry Springer, right?

Then when I read the entire speech by Elder Oaks even I didn't notice the crucially relevant qualifier "in their effect".  I didn't notice until my friend Mary pointed it out to me as *I*, too, was ranting about this comparison I thought Oaks had made.

When I re-read the speech a second time, it jumped out at me and I realised that this Mormon scandal?  Completely made up by the media. 

Call me naïve but I call it giving the benefit of the doubt.  I don't assume that people and news media lie and I don't assume that people and news media are self-serving.  I know it's possible but it's never my first assumption.

Now, you might say, Natasha, that was one person's blog that you linked to.  You can't say that the Fox 13 Now news station itself is biased and misleading.  Well, I have no proof.  But check this out from Salt Lake City Weekly.net's website:

"In light of Bielanko's struggles, I would like to make an offer to everyone in local media who face similar situations: send the embargoed materials to me, jloftin@cityweekly.net or call me at 801-413-0940. I'll put the damn thing up, because City Weekly is almost never important enough to get embargoed stuff in the first place. And if I haven't agreed to an embargo, I have no responsibility to honor an embargo. (Obviously, that means if I actually have agreed to the embargo, then I will not put the stuff up.)

And for anyone who does send me something, be assured that nobody will ever know where I got it. So you run no risk of pissing off the wrong people. And yes, the big downside is that little ol' City Weekly scoops you. But sometimes, there are bigger victories to consider."

Here we have a news service(?) openly saying that they are not above asking people to break their word and their work ethics to leak stories so they can report them in their own words and style, which is the sort to sarcastically call the LDS Church Newsroom the "Bureau of Righteous Thought".  Real journalistic-y! The twisted ethics is pitiful.  Journalists are supposed to feel comforted because they can trust the cloak of secrecy from someone who doesn't mind encouraging other people to compromise their integrity?  They're supposed to feel comforted because while their integrity may be compromised, they don't have to risk pissing off the sources that give them a reason for having a livelihood?

Josh Loftin, don't fool yourself.

Now, I know that people are getting their news from nonprofessional sources these days, like The Daily Show and Colbert Report (both of which Jude and I LOVELOVELOVE), but those shows are in the genre of comedy and entertainment.  (If you want to watch such programs with the delusion that they don't crop news clips to twist their messages, that they're unbiased, that they don't misquote people, then you're missing out on truth and actual news.)

But is City Weekly a comedy site?  Didn't look like it to me. 

So, maybe the news media doesn't have the integrity that it should.  Maybe you should be wary.

I'm urging you to GO DIRECTLY TO THE SOURCE which is being reported and to use your reading and critical thinking skills, and also to ask yourself, Does this source reporting on this have any reason to skew the information?  These days, with the LDS church as the news focus, the answer to that last question is often YES.

An At-home Example of Failure to Read, Think, and Comment Critically and Fairly

Yesterday someone with whom I used to have a relationship of sorts messaged me on Facebook with the purpose of rebuking me (his words, not mine).  Rebuking me over this statement of mine made in one of my Facebook statuses:

"Argh. I wish the church would stop mentioning gay people's pleas as "newly asserted" because what difference does that make? Why is the length of time relevant? For how long were women not allowed to vote? Anyone know? For how long we...re blacks enslaved? For how long were children off and married?"

I was surprised when he asked me:

"Are you comparing gays to black slaves and women's right to vote?

Do you believe that the gay rights movement is similar to these two initiatives?"

My reply:

"They are similar enough when the only argument for disenfranchisement is TRADITION. The church is [refuting] gay "civil rights" because they are "newly asserted". I'm saying that if the length of time they've gone without a right is a good reason to not grant it, then by that logic women should not have been given the right to vote neither should blacks."

But that was not clear enough for him because he took that to mean that I disagree with the church's stance on gay marriage and that I think gay rights are the same as black people's rights and women's rights.  I never said that.

I was galled x 6 and just a wee bit wounded when his reply to "my" point that he made up in his confused  head was, 

"That is what I see as the issues - "gay" is not the same as blonde... it's not part of your make-up. AND if it is, then it's closer to retarded than freckles."

"Closer to retarded than freckles"?  Okay, now I know he is NOT saying that it is like being mentally retarded.  He's just saying that it's closer to a flaw, a mistake of nature, than a neutral feature.  Except even the suggestion that mental retardation is a flaw or a mistake is offensive.  Surely, it's the Lord's will that people be born this way and surely parents of mentally retarded children don't feel like their children are horrible mistakes.  But besides all that, could he have chosen a more offensive way of expressing his opinion that people aren't born gay?!  He had to know that "retarded" would not go over well with me, yet he said it anyway.  And he has known for years that I consider myself bisexual (or Same Sex Attracted in jumbly Mormon lingo).  Still, he said that.

And Readers, I IGNORED IT.  I knew that anything I would say in response would involve the word "idiot" or "ass".  Readers, I used such self-control.  You might think I can be sharp-tongued but I SAID NOTHING. Where is my medal?! 

Instead I said:

"You're making a comparison between blacks and women and gays. I'M making a comparison between time and time and time.

Every reason you just gave for gays not being allowed to marry is an ACTUAL reason. The reason Dallin H. Oaks alluded to in his most recent address to BYU, which I'm assuming you didn't read, was not that...  And HE called [the civil rights] "newly asserted". And my point was exactly what I said: newness is irrelevant. It makes for a bad debate argument.

It's like you read what I said and instead of taking it at face value you made assumptions about what I was trying to say. Except that I'm a good communicator and if I had wanted to make the point that gays should be allowed to marry, I would have. I never did.

I'll say it again: I wish [church leaders] would stop making the point that these civil rights that gays are asking for are new and invented because it's a poor point to make, one that's easily batted out of the park. The church itself is new because it needed a country and an era where its freedoms would be protected. Same with gays. The way something has been for thousands of years is not a good reason to withhold."

End of discussion, right?  Like, could I have made my point more obvious?  I couldn't have really, but that didn't stop him from misunderstanding. 

His reply back to me included these tidbits:

"I find your treatment of this topic disturbing and my initial response was gentler because I didn't want to simply rebuke you...

I can't believe that you are tearing apart a statement made by a chosen Apostle of the Lord with such vigor AND so publically [sic]. Do you really think you are helping soften the issue in the eyes of the public or are making our leaders look foolish? Do you think that Elder Oaks was in any way confused about his message?

I can't believe that you would openly contradict him like this instead of asking yourself, "what am I not seeing here?"

Then a bunch of blather about why gays should not be married and something about transexuals and then pedophiles.  Blah, blah, blah.

Now, what he missed in the discussion that ensued on my Facebook wall was my testimony that the revelation from our church leaders comes from God.  I believe that wholeheartedly.  And all revelation, not just some.  But leaders themselves are men with their own styles of communication and I have every right to say that I don't like the way something was communicated.  I am allowed to have preferences.  For one thing, I didn't criticise the church but even if I did, I didn't do it on my blog, I did it on Facebook amongst my friends, many of whom are Mormon and are perfectly able and welcome to chime in with their own testimonies and opinions. 

But I didn't criticise the church.  I criticised the use of a few words because of what they suggested and that suggestion dilutes, I think, the other valid arguments the church has.

This discussion on my Facebook wall ended up helping another member of the church to see the difference between the man and the message.  For example, if you read what Spencer W. Kimball says about homosexuality in The Miracle of Forgiveness, it's pretty harsh.  Obviously, he thought it was just one of the most vile things ever.  If you read what Gordon B. Hinckley has said and what Dallin H. Oaks has said, you get a very different tone, one of more love and understanding.  The differences can be confusing until you realise that the message has never, ever changed.  The way that message has been communicated-- the medium-- has changed.  And why?  Because the delivery comes from different people who are mere men who are influenced by their own biases, experiences, histories, education, personalities, and societies in which they were raised. 

Once you realise that, it's easier to understand why some prophets seem to contradict other prophets.  You need to look carefully at the message, look past how it's communicated, and ask if there really IS a contradiction or if your own biases just helped you to interpret things that way.

As for the flavour of the messages, the medium, we're allowed to have opinions on that!!  I have every right to say that I, Natasha, wish the church leaders would stop making this argument, or would stop using this word.  I'm allowed to have a preference!  It doesn't mean I'm right but I'm allowed to have a preference AND EXPRESS IT.

There's a difference between the message and the medium;  the medium comes from man while the message comes from God.

Dooce, Monica, Salt Lake City Weekly, and other media sources, don't like the message OR the medium.  And that's fine.  I don't care if they like it or not, do you? 

I care about people being careful to distinguish between the two AND to not trust anyone else to make that distinction. 

THINK CRITICALLY.  Be careful.  Reread.  And if you're like the aforementioned who obviously doesn't care enough about me and my feelings to actually READ stuff that I've written about gay marriage and my views on it, then find someone smarter than you, who DOES know how to read, who does know how to set aside their own emotions for a moment, and who can think critically for you.

Comments

[sloanie]

Still impressed. Way to think through it and write out a response logically without letting emotion dominate.

How can you take a "news producer" seriously who is so filled with negative emotion that they can't give an honest and unbiased report, who distorts what was actually said because of the premise they hold in their mind before they've even read the material? The objective is not to inform and invite the reader / viewer to make up their own mind. No they're telling you what to think by just telling you what they think.

You're right on target that what was being compared was the intimidation and the effect on people's comfort in voting.

You know that talk I referenced the other day with regards to making the best case for the opposing viewpoint before making your own argument against it?

That talk starts like this:

"I have a friend who is a member of a political panel that is seen each week on national television. Explaining her role, she said, "We are encouraged to speak before thinking!" We appear to be living in an era in which many are speaking without thinking, encouraging emotional reactions rather than thoughtful responses. Whether it be on the national or international stage, in personal relations or in politics, at home or in the public forum, voices grow ever more strident, and giving and taking offense appear to be chosen rather than inadvertent. "

And of course the news outlets encourage it! Most all news has become entertainment, for lack of a better word-- it's not an honest institution that seeks to inform, but one that seeks to get money-- so the more controversy, the more attention, and the more attention, the better.

That is exactly what I see here. Monica herself may not be in it for the money, but she's sure fitting the bill for those who do stand to gain from it. A quick emotional response. The bias you mention... well these people have already taken offense and formed an opinion that colors the way they perceive anything the church does.

I heard someone say yesterday that you could use all the logic in the world to argue your point, but it's worthless if your premise is flawed.

Thanks for the post. So clearly expressed and communicated without resorting to personal attacks and the like. Speaks volumes.

[Th.]

.

I'm in favor of pretty much everything you said except the last sentence. Not WANTING to read your other posts does not equate to not being ABLE to read. Shame on you. :)

[Natasha]

No, Eric. The issue I was referring to was this ex-friend not being ABLE to read and understand my comments directly made to HIM.� Not my past posts.

[Sam, the Nanti-SARRMM]

So comments still are not showing up? How odd.

[Natasha]

Sigh. I know. It's the only post, too, as far as I know. My other ones with that many comments are fine. At least it's not a Blogger blog or I'd never get it fixed. Typepad is working on it.

[ChristinaS]

Brilliant as always and my unending admiration for standing up for what you believe in no matter what anyone has to say about it. I disagree with you frequently however, I never feel the need to point it out for two reasons:

1) I believe you have given considerable thought to your point of view and it is never uninformed or without empathy for all parties (which makes me respect it even if I don't AGREE) and
2) I seriously doubt I will ever change your mind because you are more than clear on your reasons.

You are one smart cookie. If only everyone gave as much thought to matters before talking or acting. The world would truly be better off.

C

[Natasha]

Aw, thanks Christina.� I am swayed sometimes, though.� I have to write a conclusion post about the US politics and it will include some ways in which I am more understanding and can respect more those Republicans. (More the Libertarians than Republicans, but either way.)

[JonW]

Thank you Natasha, I think a little rationality on this subject is a good thing.

I find myself having to control my sarcasm on Facebook quite often with members comments, and non-members, about what I think or feel.

Anyway, great post.

[Daniel Ortner]

Fantastic post! I may have to blog about this though its a few days removed. My study group that discusses church culture and history is going to be talking about the Oaks talk today so I will be sure to link to your post.

[Nancy]

Your observation that many (most?) find it less painful to criticize the Church than to admit their own failings is absolutely on the mark. Having observed several leave the Church, only to discover that all along they were adulterous, has led me to first ask who the boy/girlfriend is. Ultimately, faith is a matter of choice, and those who choose not to exercise faith are doing so because they value something else more.

There are lots of reasons to choose faith (love of family, covenants, intellectual satisfaction, to name just three in no particular order) but very few non-selfish reasons to choose otherwise. "To be true to myself" is the ultimate hogwash, especially when it involves evangelical efforts to distance others from their own faith.

[Natasha]

I liked that you said "intellectual satisfaction".� I have an idea of what that means for me but I'd be interested in hearing what it means for you.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1499760158]

I am absolutely capable of reporting unbiased information, that is, after all, what a journalist does AND TAKES PRIDE IN DOING in spite of personal feelings which I am allowed to express on MY PERSONAL BLOG. Perhaps you should direct your Journalists Should Be Unbiased diatribe at The Deseret News or KSL. Oh wait, they're owned by the church so their reporting objectively on the LDS church just ain't gonna happen. I think you should take your own advice when ingesting their particular brand of journalism and THINK CRITICALLY. Be careful. Reread. Because that's the last place you're going to get "fair thinking" on anything LDS related.

I didn't break an embargo (an embargo that I never agreed to in the first place) and my "snotty" post was because, once again, the LDS church, a church completely immersed in lawmaking (in Utah and now California) even though it is considered a nonprofit organization was trying to bully and intimidate. Over a tweet?

Thank God for outlets like The Salt Lake City Weekly that fight for transparency over LDS church secrecy. Every single point you made in your piece here applies directly to KSL and The Deseret News.

Also, you are quoting Oak's speech text when maybe you should take the time to LISTEN to the comments he made on camera about his speech. He compared the post Prop 8 backlash directly to what blacks experienced in the south. I spent an hour logging this tape and I believe his exact statement was "I see that as directly comparable to the intimidation of black people in the south for asserting their civil rights." Your efforts to parse away the offensive are impressive, though. Perhaps KSL is hiring?

To utilize the analogy Oaks chose is audacious at least and appalling at most. Particularly as he's a member of a church that kept blacks from holding the priesthood until 1978

And for your information, I was seminary class president AFTER my abortion at which time I read the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover and prayed about it. But I appreciate how "unsurprisingly judgmental" you are about my ordeal. Goodness, you must be Mormon.

Also, I find it tiresome when someone ruins an intellectual point with grammatical critique. Commenting on my semi colon or lack thereof really illustrates your petty state of mind. As if that's some sort of an intellectual score on your part.

[Natasha]

You assume that I would not have the same criticisms of KSL and Deseret News if I spotted them.� I don't read Mormony news, so I'm not "ingesting their personal brand of journalism". *shrugs*�

"Completely immersed" in lawmaking?� REALLY, now?� Or do you mean that they have attempted to influence SOME laws?� Because that would be more accurate reporting.� Not that you're reporting anything because you're not here as a journalist, right?� You're not concerned about maintaining any kind of reputation, credibility, or stability of state of mind, right?

If I were in a position to be hiring someone as a journalist, I would not be hiring the likes of Glenn Beck nor Monica Bielanko whether their hateful, spewing, sarcastic, petulant diatribes were on personal blogs, blog comments, or in any professional arena.� C.S. Lewis has an analogy about rats in the cellar.� They'll stay hidden if given warning but if you suddenly open the door and cast light, you see them scamper about.� There was nothing virtuous about them staying hidden when forewarned.� Hidden or not, they were there all along.�

Your Twitter comments and your blog posts suggest that you're not ashamed at your lack of emotional control; you're not ashamed at your petulance.� I'm not saying that it's impossible for you to be a good journalist, reporting on things you despise without bias.� I'm just saying that you give me and likely other people zero reason to have such confidence.� I'm skeptical.� "Which I am allowed to express on MY PERSONAL BLOG".�

"Thank GOD" that people like Salt Lake Weekly are faulty in their integrity and encourage others to be so as well?� I doubt that God has anything to do with that.

I did listen to ALL of his comments and they all need to be taken into context.� What interests me is how you were commenting on his SPEECH before he was done giving it, were you not?� So, you would not have been commenting on the video remarks.� Or am I completely confusing the order of events?� Speech finished at 3pm, you tweeted before 3pm?

You didn't make it clear that you had not agreed to the embargo.� You implied that you did.� But maybe you wouldn't mind explaining how it matters?� Tell me how not honouring the request of any organisation helps you in the future to have an in with that organisation.

How is it relevant when you read the Book of Mormon and when you were Seminary President??� You said in your own post that you chose to act now and moralise later.� I don't remember, I guess, what you could be arguing. ?

Now, my petty remark?� That was on purpose for when you read my post to see if the pot would call the kettle black unaware of the hypocrisy.� I knew it would bug you.� Petty?� Reread your post, then with a straight face come and point fingers.� Your voice in your post was more than tiresome and undersold anything you had to say. IMO.�

[Becky]

Thank you for clearing up this misunderstanding for many people.