Understanding Elder Oaks

[_Wonhyo]

As an analog to Lester Bush's research and writing on the history of the priesthood ban (an article that may have helped melt the ice jam that led to the 1978 policy change - or revelation, if you like), Greg Prince is finishing up a book on the history of the church's relationship with gay members. KUER's RadioWest interviewed Prince about it a few days ago:

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/history- ... osexuality

[_Meadowchik]

I'm trying to understand the motivation here on bitching about gay marriage--it's settled law; there's no actionable item for church members on this.

Best I can come up with is that the church's biggest apocalyptic fear is that the gov't shows up and says "marry gays in the temple or we confiscate the temples." This talk, the Nov 5 policy, are legal wranglings to make this a more core part of our beliefs to keep the gov't from forcing us to marry the gays.

Oaks is entrenched and surrounded by bias confirmation.

Gay marriage undermines Mormon marriage because it creates marriage from a different basis, love instead of obedience. Obedience is the foundation of Mormon marriage. Was and still is.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

I'm trying to understand the motivation here on bitching about gay marriage--it's settled law; there's no actionable item for church members on this.

Best I can come up with is that the church's biggest apocalyptic fear is that the gov't shows up and says "marry gays in the temple or we confiscate the temples." This talk, the Nov 5 policy, are legal wranglings to make this a more core part of our beliefs to keep the gov't from forcing us to marry the gays.

Oaks is entrenched and surrounded by bias confirmation.

Gay marriage undermines Mormon marriage because it creates marriage from a different basis, love instead of obedience. Obedience is the foundation of Mormon marriage. Was and still is.

Very true.

[_SuperDell]

I can understand his reasoning: Once the Soviet Union fell, there needed to be some issue to keep the LDS John Birch animus alive. Shifting their animosity from Commies to homos seemed to do the trick. This makes sense if you buy the argument that Mormons gotta hate on somebody.

Wonder why they did not go after the ChiComs after the Red Menace in Russia folded?

[_sock puppet]

Oaks was once on the Utah Supreme Court. As he was a jurist, I imagine that in coming to a decision in a case he would have tried to look at the case and issues from both or all sides.

He seems utterly incapable of doing that now that he's one the big 15, and 2nd in line behind Nelson to succeed to the throne.

[_I have a question]

The Church doesn’t recognise gay marriage, doesn’t facilitate gay marriages and doesn’t allow married gays to be members. Society’s recognition of gay marriage, felicitation of gay marriages and allowance for gays to be open members of society is entirely seperate and doesn’t change the Church’s right to be intransigent on this matter.

The irritation for me is that for Oaks and Co, being left alone to practice their own brand of discrimination simply isn’t enough. They seek to impinge their discrimination on a society that has nothing whatsoever to do with Mormonism. They agitate and fund people to try and prevent non Mormons adopting a marriage standard that Mormons won’t allow.

It’s the equivalent to other religions trying to impinge on society their particular definitions of things.

Oaks just thinks he’s special, morally superior. And that comes across in everything he does and says.

However, the issue he is fighting is a bit deeper. Whilst same sex marriage is the battle ground, the fight is for control of the obedience of the membership. Oaks and Co are losing this control, this obedience, both at a membership level, and a local leadership level. We had wards running programmes to welcome back into the fold members with same sex partners. Successful programmes. But they didn’t like that, so out comes the new policy, which is an horrific piece of bureaucracy by any measurement. But it’s designed to kowtow the local leadership into subservience and obedience.

That’s the fight Oaks is having, same sex marriage is just the excuse to have it.

[_fetchface]

Oaks was once on the Utah Supreme Court. As he was a jurist, I imagine that in coming to a decision in a case he would have tried to look at the case and issues from both or all sides.

He seems utterly incapable of doing that now that he's one the big 15, and 2nd in line behind Nelson to succeed to the throne.

Oh, he is quite capable, he just plays stupid in public. See this memo: http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/9/1/3/913d6fed4525a85a/Principles-To-Govern-Possible-Public-Statement-On-Legislation-Affecting-Rights-Of-Homosexuals-August-7-1984-Dallin-H.-Oaks.pdf?c_id=8270928&expiration=1506956416&hwt=1863d9f636f01a1839775d8307077443

Check out #1 of the section "Two Closing Obervations." He looks at both sides and knows what he is doing. He just ends up looking like an idiot to informed people because his case is weak, but he is playing a good lawyer and not presenting the other side's case for them. The cool thing for him is that the vast majority of LDS members will never hear the other side presented, so he doesn't even bother with a rebuttal.

How many of you lawyers would find it easy to win cases if the other side wasn't allowed in the courtroom? Would your strategy look more like Elder Oaks'?

[_moksha]

I can understand his reasoning: Once the Soviet Union fell, there needed to be some issue to keep the LDS John Birch animus alive. Shifting their animosity from Commies to homos seemed to do the trick. This makes sense if you buy the argument that Mormons gotta hate on somebody.

Wonder why they did not go after the ChiComs after the Red Menace in Russia folded?

The Church realized that some of the John Birch ideas were pretty nutty. Just look at all that Cleon Skousen stuff. Back when they shifted foes as a vehicle for their animus, hating on gays looked like a pretty good bet. Very few main-stream Americans were willing to accord them civil rights, let alone be willing to grant them the right to marry. Congress even enacted a bill which said that marriage was between a man and a woman. One of the LDS Church leaders testified before Congress about this, but when he got to "a man and a woman" - he cleared his throat and added softly - "or women". That way he shoved a shiv into gay marriage and still remained true to both his monogamous values and the polygamous Principle that has been put on hold.

[_I have a question]

Remind me again, how many wives does Oaks plan on living with eternally?

[_Equality]

I can understand his reasoning: Once the Soviet Union fell, there needed to be some issue to keep the LDS John Birch animus alive. Shifting their animosity from Commies to homos seemed to do the trick. This makes sense if you buy the argument that Mormons gotta hate on somebody.

Wonder why they did not go after the ChiComs after the Red Menace in Russia folded?

They like their affordable electronics and clothing.