The Church has a history of wanting to be seen as en vogue when it comes to popular political causes. The most recent example of this is Elder Dallin H. Oaks’s speech at BYU this week where he proclaims, “Black lives matter an eternal truth all reasonable people should support.”
Of course, Elder Oaks issues a few caveats that the Church doesn’t condone violence and the tearing down of statues, but to be sure that he is not just borrowing popular words to teach a different sermon, Oaks makes sure to include his disgust for the “shocking police-produced death of George Floyd in Minnesota.”
With such an extensive legal background, Elder Oaks should realize the dangers of making such bold statements, especially while the case against the police officers is still being adjudicated.
As tragic as was his death, Floyd has become a false hero in a false propaganda war intent on inciting the overthrow of our government. His death has been hijacked. His name is now being exploited for devilish purposes.
We’ve learned some things since the tragic death of Goerge Floyd that were not known at the time or withheld. None of this is intended to justify or exonerate anyone, but surely all of us should want the facts to come to light before making final judgments.
- George Floyd had fatal, lethal levels of fentanyl in his system (one of the reasons he was unable to breathe).
- Floyd said he couldn’t breathe way before he was on the ground.
- Floyd, who was high on drugs, asked to be put on the ground, saying he couldn’t breathe and wanted to lie down on the street.
- The police officers called the ambulance because they were concerned about Floyd’s mental and physical health.
- Floyd had a long history of violence and crime and recent arrests.
- The full video of the altercation with Floyd and other crucial facts to the case were intentionally kept from public view by the media.
- Charges against the police officers involved are being dropped or lessened because of the evidence being examined.
For these reasons and many others, Elder Oaks and the Church are unwise to condemn men who still await their day in Court. Instead of throwing fuel on the fire, the Church should be calling for law and order and justice through the normal judicial processes.
Instead, they court the Black Lives Matter banner, which as we’ve already pointed out, represents a host of evil ideas, principles, and activities that they or any “reasonable person” should want to disassociate themselves from.
The Church could instead be taking the opportunity to fight against good words being used to now mean evil things rather than legitimizing the new, reckless definitions.
Why not pick up the banner of ALL LIVES mattering? Why not use their pulpit to make this a focus on baby lives mattering? It’s a great opportunity that counters the false narrative and shows good people that we still stand up for truth, even when it’s unpopular. Of course, black lives matter — everyone knows that and should believe it. But, Black Lives Matter doesn’t value black lives, that’s for sure. Not conservative ones. Not black police officers. Not black babies. Not black youth being killed in America’s cities largely by other blacks.
What if the same logic was being used for other misleading causes? “Being pro-choice is an eternal principle. All reasonable people should support being pro-choice.” An argument could certainly be made that members of the Church believe in the freedom to choose. But, does this send a mixed message? Might this confuse people into believing that the Church is pro-abortion? Or that choice has no consequences. Add to that, the marching in pro-choice parades by the likes of prominent Church members such as Mitt Romney and statements that seemed to take the side of the wrong team, and might that send a mixed message.
How about marriage equality? “Marriage equality is an eternal principle. All reasonable people should support marriage equality.” Sure sounds nice. But again, what message does that send? Marriage equality is code for gay marriage. Another example of nice words being twisted to mean something different.
Mormons building bridges? Is this also an eternal principle? Should we join in parades where sex toys and vagina hats are part and parcel? Is everything an eternal principle if you squint at it long enough? If we legalize it?
My vote is for the Church to counter the message of the world and stop trying to appeal to everyone. The gospel message is for everyone, true, but let’s not water down our message in order to appease people who frankly hate faith in God and want to destroy the nuclear family.
Follow Up Comment I received by email, which I think makes a great point:
Saw your recent post about BLM and President Oaks talk he gave at BYU this week. I wasn’t able to leave a comment on that post but leaving it here. One thing you didn’t mention in the post but which strikes me as bizarre was this phrase from President Oaks Talk: (the last sentence most specifically)
“The shocking police-produced death of George Floyd in Minnesota last May was surely the trigger for these nationwide protests, whose momentum was carried forward under the message of ‘Black Lives Matter,’” President Oaks added. “Of course, Black lives matter. That is an eternal truth all reasonable people should support. Unfortunately, that persuasive banner was sometimes used or understood to stand for other things that do not command universal support. Examples include abolishing the police or seriously reducing their effectiveness or changing our constitutional government. All these are appropriate subjects for advocacy, but not under what we hope to be the universally accepted message: Black lives matter.”
Ok so let me get this straight:
1. abolishing the police or seriously reducing their effectiveness
2. Changing our constitutional government.
All “these” are appropriate subjects for advocacy??? President Oaks is saying the only issue with them is that they were promoted under the banner of BLM? But if we don’t put them under that banner…. they are then appropriate subjects for advocacy? Changing our constitutional government? Really?
I’m so confused.