Did Oaks 'lie for the Lord' during Conference?

[_Drifting]

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, an apostle of the church, spoke about family, the value of life, and the importance of loving everyone — all worthy subjects. He also spoke about bullying and the "permanent" psychological damage that bullying can cause children by making them feel "worthless, unloved, or unwanted."

Then, in what seemed an about-face, Oaks changed themes. After describing a long list of supposed social ills, he said that church members should "assume" that "children raised by parents of the same gender" are "disadvantaged" and "victimized" by this circumstance. He did not bother to properly support his claim, apart from vague references to an unnamed "scholar" or a supposed "New York Times article."

The obvious reason for his reticence about sourcing, of course, is that there is no reputable research supporting such an assertion. Across the board, peer-reviewed studies on same-sex parents show that such couples raise happy, well-adjusted children (according to such unassailable sources as the Child Welfare League of America, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute and the American Academy of Pediatrics).

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55 ... x.html.csp

[_sock puppet]

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, an apostle of the church, spoke about family, ... . After describing a long list of supposed social ills, he said that church members should "assume" that "children raised by parents of the same gender" are "disadvantaged" and "victimized" by this circumstance.

I agree with Oaks. Children raised by same gender parents will be disadvantaged, even victimized, by the societal attitude fostered by the LDS Church against same gender couples and parents. What's the solution, then, Oaks? Maybe the LDS Church could do a 180 and become an agent for helping to foster the enlightenment going on in the attitudes towards homosexuality. Tolerance and acceptance? Shouldn't those be some of the Christian virtues that the LDS Church embraces and promotes?

Homosexuality has occurred in mankind for as long as there has been a recorded history. It occurs in other sexual species. The closed-mindedness that encourages and teaches intolerance of it is crumbling.

As with the ban on the priesthood being extended to blacks, the general population's morality has outdistanced LDS thinking regarding homosexuality considerably. I suspect before 2020 a 'revelation'. The excoriation of homosexuals will then be recharacterized by Mopologists as the 'talking as men' that dates back all the way to the Old Testament. But Pres News Room will take the vague dive--'we don't know why god kept religious inclusion and privileges from homosexuals previously, but that is now in the past.'

[_mercyngrace]

Maybe he was referencing this study, reported in the NYT in June 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/healt ... .html?_r=0

While his basic claim is justified by the study, mitigating factors make it difficult to lay the blame for the problems of the studied children on a single issue.

by the way, this link was the fifth on the first page of a google search using this search phrase "new york times article same-gender parent". In other words, not even hard to find.

[_Kishkumen]

While his basic claim is justified by the study, mitigating factors make it difficult to lay the blame for the problems of the studied children on a single issue.

We Mormons heard the same song and dance in the '70s regarding children of mixed-race couples. It was a weak argument then, and it is a weak argument now. In my view, this is what Oaks' use of this research amounts to: "hey, people don't like it when you do stuff that is weird in their view, so don't do it." To be even less generous, it is similar to blaming the victim of rape for inciting the passion of the assailant by dressing provocatively.

So, what do we really learn from this study? Children thrive in stable and secure situations, so when a parent comes out of the closet, leading to the break up of the mixed gender marriage, it kinda freaks the kids out. Any kind of instability, however, would adversely impact the child's sense of emotional well-being in the short term. That does not make gay marriage an evil that will surely bring on the apocalypse or anything of the sort.

I am venting not to m&g, but in general response to Oaks' misuse of this study.

[_mercyngrace]

I am venting not to m&g, but in general response to Oaks' misuse of this study.

I hear you, Kish. I think instability is the bigger issue and I think the article points to that clearly.

My comment was in response to the accusation of lying.

[_Kishkumen]

I hear you, Kish. I think instability is the bigger issue and I think the article points to that clearly.

My comment was in response to the accusation of lying.

Understood.

I guess woefully misunderstanding or egregiously misusing is more accurate.

[_moksha]

Considering how cruel children can be to a child they perceive as different, did it not behoove Elder Oaks to furnish these children justification for their actions? Remember, weeding out these so called "diversities" is all part of being therefor perfect.

[_sock puppet]

Considering how cruel children can be to a child they perceive as different, did it not behoove Elder Oaks to furnish these children justification for their actions? Remember, weeding out these so called "diversities" is all part of being therefor perfect.

The whole notion of perfection (morgbots) is contradicted by diversity.

[_son of Ishmael]

As with the ban on the priesthood being extended to blacks, the general population's morality has outdistanced LDS thinking regarding homosexuality considerably. I suspect before 2020 a 'revelation'. The excoriation of homosexuals will then be recharacterized by Mopologists as the 'talking as men' that dates back all the way to the Old Testament. But Pres News Room will take the vague dive--'we don't know why god kept religious inclusion and privileges from homosexuals previously, but that is now in the past.'

I totally agree. The first thing that has to happen is that SSM will be made legal throughout country. Universities will start to boycott BYU like Stanford and others did in the late 70's. Then there will be talk about trying to pull the Church's tax exempt status away and then the clouds will uncover and low and behold the Lord will speak yet once again...

[_beefcalf]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55067358-82/church-oaks-bullying-sex.html.csp

A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause.

Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng

You better get with the program, Drifting. Evil speaking of the lord's annointed will get you in some serious sh*t.

So, all you haters, who be hatin' on those people who knew that some bishop or other was sexually molesting some kid, and who said nothing... they were simply doing what the lord commanded.