Understanding Elder Oaks

[_moksha]

Elder Oaks reaffirmation of the Mormon position against same-sex marriage is in response to speculation that Mormons will at some point in the future let go of their policy against same-sex marriage. Elder Oaks sought to nail the LDS shoes into the corner with this for time and eternity-type pronouncement. 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.

The alternative to this continual dwelling on the subject of same-sex marriage for Elder Oaks would be to relive his arguments against the Brown v. Board of Education decision by the Supreme Court, and that would leave many General Conference listeners scratching their heads because it happened so long ago.

[_Madison54]

Oak's talk yesterday left many scratching their heads.

So, President Hinckley just left out the part about the proclamation being a revelation twenty two years ago when he presented it to the church?

[_Dr Exiled]

Gotta keep the boogie man alive. Giving the population something to hate plus keeping the population in a state of self-loathing from the inability to reach perfection, whatever that even means, is part and parcel of the control playbook. Gotta keep up the fear otherwise the population might just turn on the leadership.

[Guest]

The alternative to this continual dwelling on the subject of same-sex marriage for Elder Oaks would be to relive his arguments against the Brown v. Board of Education decision by the Supreme Court, and that would leave many General Conference listeners scratching their heads because it happened so long ago.

Wait, what?!? Oaks was opposed to the decision in Brown v. Board of Education?

Well, knowing the opposition of many of our prolific leaders to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1950s, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But still...

[_Wonhyo]

Gotta keep the boogie man alive. Giving the population something to hate plus keeping the population in a state of self-loathing from the inability to reach perfection, whatever that even means, is part and parcel of the control playbook. Gotta keep up the fear otherwise the population might just turn on the leadership.

We are as good as any group at creating moral panics, fabricating foes, setting up strawmen, and defeating windmills. Perhaps the bumper music for these kinds of conference talks could include Pink Floyd's "Us and Them".

[_lemuel]

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.

[_Wonhyo]

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.

Legally, if the church is really worried about being forced to solemnize a gay marriage in the U.S., it seems like all it would take for them circumvent the matter would be to stop doing U.S. civil marriages altogether.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

We are as good as any group at creating moral panics, fabricating foes, setting up strawmen, and defeating windmills. Perhaps the bumper music for these kinds of conference talks could include Pink Floyd's "Us and Them".

I'm guessing the Church could buy the exclusive rights to "Us and Them" from Pink Floyd for around 5-10 million? Probably a bargain compared to the 35 million they just shelled out for the printer's copy.

Then, instead of having Conference the Church could just loop this song for 10 hours. I would probably get more out of Conference by dwelling on Pink Floyd's lyrics.

Actually, I just now listened to "Us and Them" and my question is how could Pink Floyd get it so right in 1973 by summing up the message of the New Testament and how come in 2017 our Church is still struggling with the basics?

Evidently even in 1973's drug fueled haze, Pink Floyd managed to have more inspiration than our current leaders. Frustrating as hell....................

Us and them
And after all we're only ordinary men
Me and you
God only knows it's not what we would choose to do

Forward he cried from the rear
And the front rank died
And the General sat and the lines on the map
Moved from side to side

Black and blue
And who knows which is which and who is who
Up and down
And in the end it's only round and round and round and round

Haven't you heard it's a battle of words
The poster bearer cried
Listen son said the man with the gun
There's room for you inside

Down and out
It can't be helped but there's a lot of it about
With, without
And who'll deny it's what the fighting's all about

Out of the way it's a busy day
I've got things on my mind
For want of the price of tea and a slice
The old man died

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGwtXfIH3bc

[_lemuel]

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.

Legally, if the church is really worried about being forced to solemnize a gay marriage in the U.S., it seems like all it would take for them circumvent the matter would be to stop doing U.S. civil marriages altogether.

But if they did they did that, they'd lose the tithing dollars of those who don't attend the temple on their own, but need a current recommend to go to family weddings. It's a matter of priorities.

[_Wonhyo]

Actually, I just now listened to "Us and Them" and my question is how could Pink Floyd get it so right in 1973 by summing up the message of the New Testament and how come in 2017 our Church is still struggling with the basics?

Evidently even in 1973's drug fueled haze, Pink Floyd managed to have more inspiration than our current leaders. Frustrating as hell....................

Yes, Pink Floyd got it right 44 years ago. And 44 years ago we were disciplining members who publicly questioned the priesthood/temple race restriction. Thank heaven for the brave Lester Bush, who put his faith and membership on the line with his 1973 article in the journal "Dialogue", entitled "Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: a historical Overview":

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/2012/mo ... -overview/

We have consistently come down on the wrong side of these issues. It takes monumental patience for progressive change to happen. (Although reactionary retrenchment often happens immediately.)