In news that will shock no one, a 90-year old white, wealthy, conservative, able-bodied, heterosexual man who has not been employed outside of a hierarchical, patriarchal, predominantly white, male-led religious organization in 40 years recently gave a Chicago fireside in which he criticized efforts at celebrating diversity. (During this same visit, he also went out of his way to confirm that the Church still hates gay marriage, and only supported the Respect for Marriage Act because the Act advanced the Church’s objective to continue discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, and should not be interpreted as an olive branch to queer folks.)
In that fireside, Dallin Oaks asserted that “Jesus did not pray that His followers would be diverse. He prayed that they would be one.” He encouraged attendees to “concentrate their efforts to strengthen our unity–not to glorify our diversity.” He used the metaphor of the Body of Christ from the New Testament to suggest that we need to all be united as one body, not worried about our differences.
None of this is new. Russell Nelson has been telling people to put their identity as children of God and children of the covenant (whatever that means) as primary over any other identity. David Bednar (in)famously claimed that “there are no homosexual members of the Church.” BYU’s newly-created Office of Belonging & Inclusion is based on the proposition that we are all Children of God and don’t need to worry about differences.
Oh, and it’s especially not new because Oaks gave nearly-identical remarks in 1999: “Jesus did not pray that his followers would be ‘diverse.’ He prayed that they would be ‘one’ (John 17:21–22). Modern revelation does not say, ‘Be diverse; and if ye are not diverse, ye are not mine.’ It says, ‘Be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine’ (D&C 38:27).”
In case you’re counting, that’s 24 years ago. Have you changed your views on diversity (or really anything) in the last 24 years? If so, you’re in good company. If not … well, I guess they say that ignorance is bliss.
Oaks’ remarks are frustrating because he misrepresents what “diversity” means and what people–at least the people I know–supporting diversity & inclusion initiatives, in the Church or otherwise, are doing. I don’t know if he is being intentionally obtuse or deliberately ignorant to make a point or if he really doesn’t get it. But here are the some ways in which he’s missed the boat with the way he has characterized diversity and inclusion efforts (the dictionary definition of which is simply, “the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.”).
First, AFAIK, no one is “praying for more diversity.” Diversity is already here. God created diversity. When we look for ways to “celebrate” diversity, we are trying to respond to the diversity that already exists. We are not trying to sow division. Quite the opposite: we are trying to connect and include. We are, in particular, trying to help underrepresented folks (whether women, or BIPOC, or neurodiverse, or disabled, or queer, or whatever) have the same opportunity show up as themselves in the workplace, at Church, in public, even in our homes that white men have had for a long time. If we don’t allow people to be who they are and share their experiences, how are we taking advantage of their unique gifts and perspectives in the Body of Christ? We’re not including them. We’ve cutting them off.
In fact, and this is the second major problem with Oaks’ argument, when we try to celebrate, connect, and include people who are different from us, we are doing precisely what Jesus asked us when he said to “be one.” Jesus was not saying that we should stop talking about difference and tighten the circle. Jesus was telling us to draw a bigger circle. We can’t draw a circle big enough to fit everyone if we can’t see them for who they are.
As Michael Austin put it, “It would be hard to read the New Testament worse than [Oaks]. The diverse nature of Jesus’s followers is perhaps the major point of the New Testament. The text makes it enormously clear that they come from classes of people (prostitutes, tax collectors, Roman centurions, lepers, Samaritans) who were unacceptable to the religious leaders of his time. Most of the plot of Acts is driven by a conflict in the early Church leadership about how much diversity to include–a question that is answered, quite decisively, as ‘all of it.’ So, when Jesus prays for his followers to be one, he has already factored their diversity into the equation”.
It’s unsurprising that Oaks so seriously misconstrues the teachings of the one he claims represent. I’ve already written about how badly he mutilates Jesus’s teaching on the first and second great commandments. Another example of Oaks’ distortion of the message of Jesus Christ is his repeated refrain that we “be civil” with one another. To that, I say: Jesus didn’t say be civil to one another. He said to love one another. (I suppose that’s a post for another day.)
Third, Oaks’ comments are particularly problematic given the ways that the LDS Church has, past and present, insisted on the existence of real, meaningful, inherent differences between different groups and treated (and continues to treat) people differently because of their membership in one of those groups.
- Church leaders, including Oaks specifically, teaches as doctrine the inherent differences between men and women, and the Church uses those differences to exclude women from priesthood offices and Church leadership positions. Oaks also has made it his life’s mission to exclude queer folks who want to actually be queer from Church. (If they shape up and conform their behavior to his standards, he’ll take them … but only if they amputate the queer part of their identity.)
- I was raised on a steady diet of how different Mormons (back when we used that word) were different from, and better than, other religions–Oaks himself has taught these things. I think leaders are trying to tone down that rhetoric … but then again, we did have Wilcoxgate talking about other people just playing “pretend Church.”
- And, of course, for many years the Church denied black folks priesthood and temple blessings based on their racial identity, which the Church taught was eternally linked to their behavior in the pre-existence. Even after the ban was lifted, Church leadership discouraged interracial marriage. Because races are so … different from each other. The Church still can’t get away from its race-based categorizations and discriminatory teachings–including in a 2020 Come Follow Me manual that taught that “[d]ark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing.”
It is in fact largely because of the Church’s insistence on these differences, which has marginalized women, queer folks, people of other faiths, and people of color, that the Church so badly needs to improve its approach to diversity and inclusion.
Now, I actually think that if Oaks and I sat down to talk this out, we wouldn’t disagree for the most part on what kind of diversity and inclusion efforts are good to pursue. I am guessing that Oaks would agree that it’s good to help white people, for example, understand the experiences of BIPOC folks so that they can develop empathy for and better minister to them. I’m not really sure how we could consider ourselves Christlike whatsoever if we refused to do that. Unfortunately, the language he uses is so broad and sloppy that his attempt to recycle a cute, memorable “scripture” has just given new cannon fodder for the far right. He should know better.
So then, what’s he at? Is he deliberately exaggerating his diversity-loving foes’ position to make a point? Does he actually truly have no clue what diversity & inclusion means? I don’t know, because he doesn’t clarify what kinds of “diversity” efforts are problematic and what are OK. My best guess is that he doesn’t want us to use “diversity” to condone “bad behavior” (like getting gay married). But I don’t see where he makes the leap from that concern to “don’t celebrate diversity.” Oaks’ single-minded, lifelong, unyielding, take-no-prisoners battle against queer folks and gay marriage (which is itself problematic) is making collateral damage of every other member of the Church that doesn’t look, talk, act, or think like him.
Discuss:
- Have your views on diversity & inclusion, or homophobia, or sexism, or racism, or ableism (etc.) changed in the last 25 years? If so, how? If not, why not?
- Have you seen genuine evolution in the beliefs and teachings of Church leaders in the last 40 years? Or just wordsmithing to make things sound nicer?
- Is Oaks really talking about “diversity”? What do you think he means by “diversity”? Why is he so alarmed about it?
- Do you see ways in which the Church has created divisions between groups or emphasized diversity through its own teachings and practices? In what ways have you seen the Church positively impact diversity and inclusion?
Wheat & Tares 
Add to the list of Oaks errors “The doctrine never changes.” I can’t swallow that. It does change. I am good with it changing. To me that’s part of the idea of restoration.
As far as diversity, we are a diverse group, God made us this way. To be unified we need to be more inclusive. Nothing else will do.
I respect Elder Oaks so much in his approach to politics and working with other churches. His encouragement to change the party you vote for every election if necessary is priceless. His talks clarifying that the constitution can change, are important to read.
But some of the ideas he is supporting seem blatantly not right. I want to support him, if I knew how to do that around my honest disagreements with him. I feel concern for him that in his later years his ideas may be getting less flexible.
I pray for him and our church.
W.G. Grace famously stated: “If I believe the same thing at age 60 as I believed at age 16, I have either not lived a life or did not pay attention while doing so.”
Grace was absolutely correct. We must always be working hard to learn and grow. And when we receive new credible information, we should not be afraid to change our minds. That it what life is all about.
I issue my strongest possible condemnation to discrimination of any and every kind. It has always been wrong, and remains wrong today. It’s lesser cousin marginalization is no better.
Marginalization does not bring diverse groups into the fold; it pushes them out of it. Instead of filling the chapels, marginalization pushes people to fill up the honky tonks, Dairy Queens, and 7-Elevens in an empty search for happiness. This is the exact opposite of what those who fight against diversity claim to be all about.
It often seems that there is not much difference between President Oaks and Governor DeSantis or Governor Abbott. Oaks has long been intent on bringing US culture war issues into the LDS Church, claiming divine authority for his rather predictable, conservative political opinions.
Remember Pleasantville, that charming (my opinion) 1998 film in which two teens are transported to a 1050s B&W sitcom similar to My Three Sons or Father Knows Best or Leave It to Beaver? Given their perspective, they proceed to muck with the place and tell people like their TV mom (a wonderful Joan Allen) that she doesn’t have to accept a B&W world. Gradually, she decides she doesn’t want to and turns into a colorful (literally) person. Her husband, William H. Macy, decides he is more comfortable in the B&W world and is frightened by the color.
Mostly, the Mormon church remains a B&W place that is comfortable to B&W thinkers, including Dallin Oaks, his alleged legal brilliance notwithstanding. I’d like to think it might change as the old guard dies out, but then there is Bednar, so no. At his age, Oaks’ mental capacity may also be slipping, because if it’s not his comments can be viewed as nothing short of propaganda appealing to only the most devout, in my opinion. How else to explain such a limited and limiting definition of diversity? My mother lives in a more colorful world than that, and that’s really saying something.
As you already said, Elisa, the church once again misreads Christ’s ministry and what clearly visible diversity says about God, but then they have never, never passed up an opportunity to throw Christ and God under the bus to elevate the institutional church. I think members should be offended that leaders think their reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are so bad, but it continues to work.
Elisa: great material, as always.
It’s interesting that Oaks gave similar remarks in 1999 and is doing so again. When he becomes President, and does so again, let’s not forget that he already stated his opinions on diversity PRIOR to becoming Prophet. Because what is going to happen is that when he does so as prophet the TBMs will assume he is speaking for God. Members assume RMN is speaking for God when he says that the term “Mormon” is a victory for Satan until they realize he said the same thing back in 1990 (I believe).
Here’s what I want: I want all 15 members of the Q15 to state that they agree with DHO on this. After all, it’s only doctrine if all 15 agree, right? (shout out to Neil A Anderson). So one down, 14 to go
I agree. I am all in favour of each of us being allowed to be ourselves and appreciated for that. Uniformity is not unity needs to be repeated loudly and often. It’s important to recognise that we are all children of God in our diversity, rather than try to squash each and every person into a very narrow mould some people decided is the model of a child of God.
Being 68, I’ve seen the church, I should say the ward at the street level, has evolved into a much more exclusionary organization. There always seems to be a reason to put you down if you are a democrat, gay, have a beard or long hair as a guy or wear slacks as a woman. I’ve heard people in my ward brag about not talking to their children for years because their children were going down the wrong path and now we have the latest put down because we say we are Mormon or LDS instead of saying we are from the COJCOLDS. Ward members in the 1960’s-70’s would shun members of the John Birch Society for being to radical today embrace everything the JBS believe in the name of being a Republican. You can’t talk about social justice because it’s political but if it’s against social justice and part of the GOP platform, it’s OK. So bottom line at the street/ward level the church is less diverse in spite of what the leaders may say, which usually is one step forward and then corrected with two steps back.
I was shocked in a February 2020 youth face to face that President Oaks didn’t know what an app store was, in spite of holding an iPad in his lap at the time. His wife didn’t even bother explaining, just having the audience members who knew what it was raise their hands so that Oaks wouldn’t put his foot in his mouth any further. While it’s commendable that Oaks tries to keep up with current laws and court cases, I’m just not confident that he feels any need to change his views from the 1990s.
Living in a more elderly ward, I get to interact with lots of folks in their 80s and 90s. The views of President Oaks are consistent with these wardmembers. While it’s easy to love these folks, it doesn’t change the fact that they say some super-cringy comments and testimonies.
Great post, Elisa. And shout out to jaredsbrother who mentions Pleasantville, one of my favorite movies (any movie with a Buddy Holly song in it is okay with me). I think your mention of the possibility that Oaks is being deliberately obtuse is probably correct. There is a lot of both gaslighting and intentional exaggeration and muddying of the waters whenever church leaders try to address concepts that “the world” teaches/espouses. They have to muddy the waters in order to distinguish teachings on diversity and unconditional love because if they don’t, that means the things they’ve been teaching for fifty years are suddenly under a lot more pressure and scrutiny than they’re used to. And so they play the intentional misunderstanding card a lot in order to foment fear and loathing in the members regarding “worldly” concepts like inclusion, equality, empathy, self-determination, etc. So this is no surprise. One of my rules is: If a leader tries to use fear to dissuade people from believing something, that means they actually don’t have a logical claim that will hold up to scrutiny, which means they actually don’t have a reason for objecting to an idea/practice/concept; they’re just afraid of it and they therefore seek to make others afraid. They therefore should not be in a leadership position. I gave up looking to church leaders for sound advice and compassion a long time ago, but it’s still occasionally shocking to see how much vitriol Oaks has for people who are not like him.
I think the rhetorical strategy that Oaks is deploying here is a purposeful misunderstanding of the meaning and intent of diversity and inclusion. To the uninitiated (or those pretending to be), it’s on one level understandable that the concepts and practices of diversity and inclusion may seem to emphasize difference rather than diversity. One can imagine that, if someone hasn’t been exposed to these concepts, it might initially be difficult to process or understand how one can acknowledge diversity while also working to create community. Oaks, however, is very well aware of what diversity and inclusion means. And he’s very aware of the ridiculous “religious freedom” argument against gay marriage. This, of course, is simply more fear-mongering. Oaks doesn’t have a good argument, so this is what he does.
And to answer one of your questions, no, I haven’t seen much change over the past 40 years (I’ve been a member for 37 years). It is not only wordsmithing, it is lying. And it is fear-mongering. And it is a demonstration of a profound fear of and contempt for that which is different. I don’t respect Oaks’ position in the church and I certainly don’t respect his approach to leadership. His continued contempt for LBGTQ people make him, IMHO, entirely unsuitable for the position of apostle in a church that is quite adamant about Christ being in its name.
I was a BYU student in 1995 when the Family Proclamation came out. I was completely against gay marriage back then. Church leaders taught me that homosexuality was a choice, and I believed them. Why would I support gay marriage when gay people just needed to repent?
Through study, I became convinced that homosexuality was not a choice long before the Church conceded that point. Once I became convinced that homosexuality was not a choice, I threw out pretty much everything any Church leader said about homosexuality since they’d been wrong about it being a choice in the first place (so how could any of their other ideas on the subject be trusted?).
If being gay isn’t a choice, and I personally could never live a straight celibate life, then how could I ever expect a gay person to live a celibate life? I completely flipped my position on gay marriage almost overnight once I realized the Church’s teachings on homosexuality were wrong (the Church has since admitted that some of them were, indeed, wrong). I firmly believe that Christ has a place for monogamous married gay people in His Church, and Dallin Oaks and the rest of the Q15 that oppose gay marriage are wrong.
Since I became a supporter of gay marriage in the Church, I have had deep relationships with a few gay Church members. I had to watch the ugly process unfold as these people who loved the Church were essentially forced to leave because a celibate life was simply unworkable. These experiences have transformed me from just being a mere gay marriage proponent to someone who seethes with anger, is filled with sorrow, and is wracked with guilt to have witnessed what my church has done to these people.
THIS
“Jesus was telling us to draw a bigger circle. We can’t draw a circle big enough to fit everyone if we can’t see them for who they are. “
Just as the church teaches that “all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole”, all diversity can be circumscribed into one great church if we follow the second great commandment.
Oak’s kind of thinking has been around for as long as the church has been around, or at least as long as Brigham Young took the helm. Some church leaders literally believe that the “lamenites” with become white if they join the church and behave themselves. That was one of Spencer W. Kimball’s goals in implementing the Indian Placement Program decades ago.
Maybe when we get everyone in the church looking and acting the same, we can start working on our Heavenly Parent’s other creations and get all flowers to be red tulips and all carnivore to be lions. Of course those lions will need to shave and get their hair up off their ears.
It looks as if Dallin has already written a new submission on this theme for the Children’s Songbook.
I saw part of the video of Oaks’ remarks on the church website and didn’t invest much into watching once I could see that he was making the same tired case as he always does. It was edited with shots of audience members smiling beatifically as if basking in his holy words. That was a sobering takeaway.
Since I didn’t reflect on it then, I appreciate the clarity in the post, and in the comments. I remember as a kid when I first learned Christ’s teachings about unity, entreating his disciples to become as one, and wondering how unity could be achieved amid the vastness of peoples’ inherent differences. And thinking that would take a lot of love and conversation. Sometimes I engaged in a thought problem — wondering where to draw the line at which to exclude, and what criteria would be so bad as to make that necessary. It almost always was some measure of the love in a person’s heart, or compassion for others in an ideology — or some such notion.
In my older adulthood I don’t need to devise a hypothetical problem, instead I have real-life, thorny problems with being inclusive of actual people with whom I have serious disagreement. Sometimes it’s pretty easy to override my ideological preferences, and other times it’s a lot of work to maintain inclusivity within a high stakes relationship where the differences are severe.
More recently I have examined the false notions about racial divides (and other corollary divisions,) that once seemed subtle but only because I was groomed by cultural ignorance about my own perceived ableist superiority, I’ve had to work out even more knots and wrinkles in real-life relationships where challenges exist about including or excluding.
The only time I like Oaks is when he is firmly stating a position with which I agree. My goodness, he’s magnificent. Otherwise I’m kind of gobsmacked to see such a fine legal mind repeatedly miss the obvious. (Or maybe that’s deliberate, who knows?) And I saw him doing just that, once again, in the video. The camera would cut to adoring faces in the assembly, witnessing the magnificence, and that was sobering, indeed, to watch. Because there is a limit to how much unity we can muster, and achieving it is never easy, nor is enlarging it. It takes engagement, conversation, education, and most of all, a willing love in the hearts of all the individuals for each other — whatever we happen to believe on the things that divide us.
But merely excluding everyone outside the arbitrary line just traced by your prophetic leader isn’t what Christ was talking about. That’s just being close minded, and kind of a lazy learner. And within this attitude I’ve just expressed, I feel little love for the fawning acolytes that I saw attending Oaks’ pulpit. And that’s the most sobering of all to me. Navigating the path to unity in Christ needs a different kind of leadership, and perhaps only He can provide it.
I remember that devotional talk in 1999 at BYU. I was a graduate student. I think I probably agreed with all of it at the time and thought Oaks’ put-down of “diversity” to be rather clever. However, another event that happened around the same time that changed me much more than Oaks’ political talk masquerading as devotional message. Another BYU student, someone I had known from my mission and developed a great deal of respect for, published an op-ed in the Daily Universe (BYU’s student newspaper for anyone who doesn’t know) describing the challenge of living with what he then described as “same-sex attraction”. He expressed his intention to stay single and celibate and active in the church. I have no idea whether that is ultimately the path he took in life, but simply having someone I respected come out changed me profoundly. It took another decade for my views on how our society and church should be including LGBTQ people to fully evolve to where they are now, but that was the event that set me on that path. Someone, not an apostle but a regular member of the church, challenged me to get out of my comfort zone and think differently. Oaks’ words, then and now, were never designed for that. They are designed to make a group of people whose views are increasingly out of step with society feel that God agrees with them and assure them they can continue in the smug self-satisfaction of believing themselves to be right and need no soul searching about why so many people have come to think differently in the last 25 years.
I hope this comment doesn’t get taken the wrong way.
#1 This makes me very angry. One thing that creates cognitive dissonance for me is the two contradictory statements of: “God wants everyone to receive exaltation and this is the one true church that everyone must belong to in order to achieve exaltation”- and “You need to be a certain way to be a full active member of this church (not gay or transgender- and you also need to follow the church culture).”
#2 I think the church needs to change it’s policies immediately to be more inclusive of minorities and marginalized groups (lgbtq, all racial groups, women, etc…)
#3 I don’t think the church is going to change it’s policies. (At least not anytime soon)
#4 This makes me believe that not everyone needs to be a member of this church- And in it’s current state, I don’t think it’s a good or healthy choice for everyone to be a member of this church.
#5 (See #2- I think the church needs to change it’s policies immediately to be more inclusive of minorities and marginalized groups)
#6 Since the church isn’t going to change it’s policies to be more inclusive- I think the 2nd best thing the church could/should do, is acknowledge that it is not necessary for everyone to be a member of the church in order to obtain exaltation. Just state “This is an organization that is best suited to help straight white people get to heaven and obtain exaltation. And it works pretty well for that purpose. All people are welcome here, but it’s not actually designed so much to help people who are not straight/white receive exaltation. There are actually better churches and organizations that create a healthier climate and will be better for you as an individual if you are a minority or lgbtq. Those churches are just as valid, and can help you connect to God and achieve your greatest potential. You may be happier there.” That would take the pressure off of people to feel that they weren’t loved by God, or that they needed to change themselves in some way. It fully acknowledges the limitations of the church, and that the problem is within the church, not the people who don’t fit in at church.
#7 The best thing that the church could do is change it’s policies (and doctrines?) to be more inclusive of minorities and marginalized groups, and also acknowledge the validity of other churches and organizations (Making clear that this is not the one and only path to heaven and exaltation).
Owen, I agree that DHO’s position on gay rights is not sustainable in the long run and that he likely sees the 1950s as a mythical American Avalon, but to lump him in with Abbot and DeSantis seems unfair. I honestly don’t believe DHO would have had immigrants sent to other states as a political stunt or engage in the unrestrained cruelty that the governors of Texas and Florida are reveling in. There is much to criticize for sure, but this criticism seems extravagant.
For the record, I’ve been on the planet for over six decades now and I’ve heard Elder Oaks speak many on many occasions. And I give it to you as my humble opinion that his hopes for the church are grounded in the teachings of 4 Nephi. Here are a few selected nuggets:
“And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.”
“And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults . . . neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.”
“And surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.”
So let me get this straight:
1. According to DHO, there are limits to how much diversity Mormons should tolerate.
2. Despite the fact Mormons believe no other world religions have legitimate authority, we demand freedom from intolerance and religious bigotry – even from those whose diversity we condemn.
3. Mormons dismiss the validity of all non-Mormon baptisms performed since the end of the apostolic era. But never question the authority or legitimacy of Mormon baptisms, sealings, or other ordinances. After all, God only communicates with Mormons.
4. BKP set the standard in 2003: “If they throw the word ‘diversity’ at you, grab hold of it and say, ‘I am already diverse and intend to stay diverse.’ If the word is ‘tolerance,’ grab that one too, saying, ‘I expect you to be tolerant of my lifestyle — obedience, integrity, abstinence, repentance.’ If the word is ‘choice,’ tell them you choose good, old-fashioned morality.”
Mormonism’s ‘Tent’ is shrinking rapidly. Double standards abound. The current administration is playing to their older, orthodox demographic with predictable results. I can only hope Christian Kimball’s next book provides guidance on how to live ‘outside the edge’.
As mountainclimber said, I was also at BYU in the 90s and regarded LGBT+ individuals unkindly. I’m ashamed to admit that. My evolution is genuine and also includes better attitudes about race, gender, and socioeconomic class. Hopefully I’ll continue to improve. Keynes said “one of the easiest mistakes to make is refusing to change your mind when the facts are in and you’ve been proven wrong. “
That is the very mistake the church is making by refusing to admit error. I don’t think the church has materially improved stances that are objectively wrong. Women praying at conference and a Brazilian in the Q12 do not equal meaningful progress.
There are so many amazing positive benefits to diversity that we’re missing even if you consider it from a purely selfish point of view. If Oaks wants to ignore that it’s more loving and kind to be inclusive, ok I guess, but the LDS church would be noticeably stronger with diverse leadership. It’s like we’re leaving 80% of our best players on the bench.
@Jack, I mean, you may actually be right. Especially when you consider @janey2022‘s excellent take on the scriptures you reference:
Outstanding post, Elisa. One thing I’ve tried to remind myself of is that the GAs are really old, and it’s easy to lose track of how fast time probably feels like it’s moving to them. Oaks was born in 1932, so he was in middle age when the Church finally ended the priesthood/temple ban in 1978. To him, that might not feel like all that long ago. I really like Brother Sky’s point about them needing to reframe things they’ve been teaching because they’re suddenly under more pressure and scrutiny. Again, connecting this to the subjective passage of time, I think for Oaks, 1978 was recent, and he probably feels like they just gave in to accept black people as maybe people not that long ago, and now there’s gay people and gay marriage, and don’t even get me started on trans people! And there are even people who don’t believe in the gender binary! I suspect it feels like an avalanche of newness to him, an ongoing constant challenge to his view of the world as being straight white cisgender men, with a bunch of others maybe mentioned in the footnotes, but for sure at least remembering their proper (i.e., subservient) roles.
All this of course is not to say that we need to cut him some slack. It’s to say another reason for the Church needing to put a maximum age on Q15 members of maybe 80 at the outside, and ideally like 70 or 75.
@Jack, where do LGBTQ individuals fit into your 4th Nephi utopia? As things stand today, there is no place for them. Let me slightly adjust one of the versus you quoted:
“And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults . . . neither were there Same Sex Attractionites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.”
Oaks is calling for everyone to be one, yet he is also the one pushing our LGBTQ brothers and sisters out of the Church. How exactly does he expect our LGBTQ brothers and sisters to become one with us? By “repenting” and somehow magically transforming to cis-straight individuals?
If we are going to be one then we should (1) let every member experience the blessings of the priesthood firsthand by holding and exercising the priesthood; (2) let every member have a chance to serve in every calling; (3) not put sins into a caste system where someone who made out with their boyfriend/girlfriend can’t take the sacrament for six months while a person who broke the law and sped to church gets a pass; (4) not place restrictions on callings such as marital status, sin status, gender status; (5) not denigrate other religions, etc. You get the picture.
The church sets us up in a caste system then tells us to be one? Major eye roll.
@Elisa
“We are not trying to sow division. Quite the opposite: we are trying to connect and include. ”
Really, that is what you are trying to do here?
“In news that will shock no one, a 90-year old white, wealthy, conservative, able-bodied, heterosexual man who has not been employed outside of a hierarchical, patriarchal, predominantly white, male-led religious organization…”
@mike sanders hah! That’s a fair point. Touché.
But I have a hard time feeling bad about it when he’s inflicted so much harm on so many people I love and done so in what he claims is the name of God. I wouldn’t really say something like that about a non-public figure but his hubris just puts him on another level and I think it’s fair game 🤷🏼♀️.
mountainclimber479,
The laws of the gospel are stringent. They are typically challenging for all of God’s children to live up to because of our mortal predispositions and proclivities–biological or cultural or anywhere in between. Of course those challenges manifest themselves in different ways to different people depending our individual situations and struggles. And I certainly would not want to trade my struggles –as difficult as they can be at times — with those of others. Sometimes it seems like some folks are called to bear heavier crosses than others–and we are left to wonder at the seeming unevenness of mortal life. Even so, Christ, who is full of grace and truth, is the Lawgiver–and it is incumbent upon those who take his name upon themselves to strive to live by the laws that he has established.
Chadwick,
What’s most important is getting everyone on the high road to eternal life. And the church does a splendid job at making sure that all who will come — without respect to persons — have the opportunity to receive the fulness of the gospel. All are invited to receive the Holy Ghost as fast as they are able and to be transformed by the power of Christ’s atonement. And it doesn’t matter if one is a stake president or a bedridden recluse–revelation will flow to all who are willing to receive it regardless of their position or prestige.
@Jack, you claimed that Oaks is trying to direct the Church in the direction of a utopian society as described in 4 Nephi where “they were in one”. I simply asked you how LGBTQ individuals are supposed to become one with the rest of the Church if the Church, at Oaks’ command, continues to push out (literally excommunicate) married gay members. You did a lot of hand waving about “heavier crosses” to bear, “stringent gospel laws”, and “the unevenness of life”, but I don’t feel like you answered my question. How exactly does Christ expect our LGBTQ brothers and sisters to become one with us when the Church, under Oak’s command, pushes our LGBTQ brothers and sisters out of the Church? In one clear sentence, what are you suggesting that our LGBTQ brothers and sisters do?
Jason, that’s a fair criticism. I was thinking mostly of Texas and Florida’s responses to all things DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). But I do think that Pres. Oaks’s general sensibilities were made quite clear when, in his capacity as an apostle, he showered praises on Clarence Thomas when he visited Utah last year.
mountainclimber479:
“In one clear sentence, what are you suggesting that our LGBTQ brothers and sisters do?”
Strive to live the restored gospel.
That’s the best thing anyone can do regardless of the mortal challanges that beset us.
@Jack, if your recommendation to our gay brothers and sisters is simply to “strive to live the restored gospel” in order be be one with the rest of the Church, then it would seem to logically follow that you also believe that those of our gay brothers and sisters who choose to marry have so utterly failed to live the restored gospel that they need to be immediately amputated from the body of Christ. I utterly reject that idea for a number of reasons, but perhaps most importantly because I have close relationships with a few gay married people who were forced out of the Church who I feel are much better at striving to be Christlike than I am.
The fact is that it is almost impossible to stay gay and celibate. Research has shown that those that try it almost universally suffer decreased mental health. I don’t have the source, but I recently read (or listened to a podcast?) about how the Church’s own mormonandgay.lds.org website featured the stories of a number of gay Mormons: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/member-stories?lang=eng. The stories sound promising, until you learn the fact that almost every one featured in the story eventually decided they couldn’t remain celibate, so the Church had to remove their story. In short, your solution to becoming one with our gay brothers and sisters is not a workable solution at all.
@sacreligious Scotty, I actually think you are really onto something.
Oaks’ April 2022 conference talk (in which he also talked about “diversity” and hated on gay marriage) seems to suggest that God’s plan for our gay friends and family is that they still get to go to heaven! Just a lesser heaven. It’s almost like they are trying to create a softer landing for those they are kicking out the door:
“A loving Heavenly Father has a better plan for His children. The revealed doctrine of the restored Church of Jesus Christ teaches that all the children of God—with exceptions too limited to consider here—will finally wind up in a kingdom of glory. “In my Father’s house are many mansions,” Jesus taught. From modern revelation we know that those mansions are in three different kingdoms of glory. In the Final Judgment each of us will be judged according to our deeds and the desires of our hearts. Before that, we will need to suffer for our unrepented sins. The scriptures are clear on that. Then our righteous Judge will grant us residence in one of those kingdoms of glory. Thus, as we know from modern revelation, all “shall be judged … , and every man shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the mansions which are prepared.”
“In short, your solution to becoming one with our gay brothers and sisters is not a workable solution at all.”
According to the revelations the solution is to be one with each other in Christ by covenant. And he is the one who has set the terms of the covenant.
@jack quick correction: Dallin Oaks and Russel Nelson have set the terms of the covenant.
Jesus never taught anything remotely resembling the LDS “covenant path” or its exclusion of gay marriage.
As I told my six-year-old son today (he got teased for wearing nail polish to school), “People should be free to do whatever makes them happy as long as it’s not hurting anyone.”
I despair for people like Oaks and Jack who will never learn about what really makes other people happy in this big, wide, messy, beautiful world. Hint: it isn’t necessarily the gospel. Go to any Pride celebration and you’ll see what I mean. There’s a whole lotta happiness outside the “covenant path.”
And as for 4th Nephi’s described utopia, I have some bad news: There never were Nephites or Lamanites so that utopia never existed. What actually happened was a whole continent’s worth of diverse peoples and tribes were driven to near extinction by European colonial settlers (including our blessed, honored pioneers) who didn’t like all that diversity and tried to kill, convert, or assimilate anyone who wasn’t like them. That’s the real story.
@Jack, we covenant with Christ, not with the Church and certainly not with Dallin Oaks. Christ is perfect. His Church is not because it’s run by men, and Christ apparently isn’t a micromanager. The Church is currently sinning in its treatment of gay people because of the men at the top, not because of anything Christ told them. Christ never told Oaks or anyone else at Church HQ that gay people must remain celibate. They came to that conclusion all on their own mostly due to their upbringing and cultural biases.
I’ve been down this road with you before. You say that Church leaders are fallible, yet you are incapable of admitting that they’ve ever made a significant mistake in doctrine. There was a time long ago that I believed as you do, so I understand where you are coming from.
I’ve been “there and back again.” I’m aware of all the arguments–and there is nothing new under the sun. That’s why — what with long hair down my back and a long beard down my front — I am 100% orthodox with respect to the foundational claims of the church.
The funny thing is that the Canadian Newsroom goes to great lengths to emphasize the church celebrating and being in harmony with the concept of diversity.
Why the difference?
Because Oaks knows that few Canadian audiences (member or nonmember) are paying any attention to this speech to American Audiences.
The Canadian Newsroom is managed by Canadian public affairs employees, to be consumed by Canadian members (and rarely nonmembers) and this requires an emphasis upon Canadian social norms
Check it out:
https://news-ca.churchofjesuschrist.org/news-releases?start=11
So many terrific comments! I can’t address them all right now but really appreciate the discussion.
Re: celibacy, two (related) thoughts:
1 – I personally know some of the original people on the Mormons & Gays website who also went around on Church fireside circuits talking about being celibate. And yes, that website basically went defunct because those people all gave up and left the Church. (One I know was suicidal the majority of the time he tried to be celibate or date women. He’s infinitely happier married to a man.)
2 – I also knew Dean Byrd personally. Dean died believing he had “cured” many gays. Sadly for all involved, MANY of those he “treated” ended up miserable or stopped trying to have heterosexual relationships / being celibate.
I say that and particular (2) to emphasize that when we know better, we do better. That’s why it’s so appalling that Oaks hasn’t changed his tune in a lifetime. We have much, much more data than we did when he started on this in the 80’s. It’s not courage to continue to stand for beliefs in the face of change. It’s cowardice not to be able to admit you were wrong.
@Elisa, yes. That’s what I took away from his conference talk. E’ Oaks was essentially saying “Okay Gays, here’s the deal. We’re not saying you’re going to Hell. You all get to go to heaven, just a lower degree of heaven. That’s our theology and that’s not gonna change.”
I could see Elder Oaks moving along one of two logical pathways from that statement. One is E’ Oaks might say, “Since you’re going to a lower degree of heaven anyways, you don’t really need to be a part of our church (and since it makes me uncomfortable, I kinda prefer that you weren’t).”
Another possible pathway is that E’ Oaks, might say, “Since we can’t make you not be gay (believe me, I’ve tried), the thing we can do is make space for you and make you feel loved and welcome in our church and our community. Moving forward, gay members can be baptized, hold the priesthood, attend the temple, etc… Just with the understanding that they are going to a lower heaven. (Sorry I’m not going to change my stance on that).”
The thing that gives me comfort, is that Elder Oaks opinion has absolutely 0 influence on what is actually going to happen in heaven. And since nobody really knows what is going to happen in heaven, I think that opening the blessings of the gospel up to all people on Earth makes a lot of sense. When I read the scriptures, I hear Christ inviting ALL people to come unto him.
@sacreligiousscotty, scenario 2 would be a huge shift given that the church’s current MO is to excommunicate same-sex married couples. So I think 1 is most likely.
I’m with you on Oaks’ heaven being irrelevant. In re-reading the April 2022 talk tonight, I honestly thought it was laughable that he thinks he knows all that stuff about the afterlife. Umm really? How? It is honestly ridiculous. That he closed that drivel “in the name of Jesus Christ” is honestly appalling to me and offends me deeply as someone who is trying to be Christian.
There are a *lot* of single adult Latter-day Saints. And a good number of them live meaningful productive lives while being completely celibate. It can be done. In our overly sexualized western society we’ve talked ourselves into believing that life is meaningless without sex–and that just ain’t so. As sad and difficult as it may be to live without sexual intimacy there are worse things than celibacy. Instead of seeking to modify the gospel we — all of us — need to be willing to take up our cross when times get tough. It doesn’t matter what the challenges are that mortal life may thrust upon us. The gospel is no respecter of persons with regard to whom it invites nor what it requires of those who choose to live by its precepts.
Jack, I’m coming out of lurking to respond to your point about celibacy.
I love my husband deeply. He is my guy, my one and only. And church purity culture has messed him up in a profound, deeply broken way. There is so much shame and anxiety surrounding his sexuality (and he’s heterosexual), that only now, more than 30 years into our marriage, is he finally starting to see how much we’ve missed out on because of this. It’s been years and years and years of broken promises and pleading and pain.
There is a massive, MASSIVE difference between celibacy because that is the only choice, and awful sex/celibacy when it doesn’t have to be that way.
I imagine you may not understand this. You probably don’t. But in online spaces where married LDS people grapple with a spouse who won’t, or can’t, step into their God-given sexuality, every single higher-desire partner expresses the opinion that we’ve gotten it wrong to expect celibacy from gay members. Every. Single. One.
There are worse things than celibacy? We’ve done death, unemployment, medical issues and a special-needs child, but nothing has been worse than this. The West is oversexed, but it’s oversexed in not seeing the beauty of intimacy in a long-term relationship. Our sexuality is a profound and important part of our spirituality. It’s one of the distinctive teachings of the Church.
It is WRONG to ask this of gay members.
Margot, I’m sorry for the pain you’ve experienced–and I agree with much of what you say. In fact, I’ve experienced some of the same difficulties that you’ve spoken of in your comment–and I wouldn’t wish that kind of suffering on anyone.
That said, let me ask you a sincere question: is it wrong to require *anyone* to live a celibate life?
Which of these two situations involving celibacy is more grievous:
1) The young single gay man who must put away all hope of marriage and family in order to live by the standards of the church?
2) The elderly single sister who never fulfilled her dream of marriage and family because no man ever showed enough interest in her?
Jack, Dallin Oaks was married to his first wife for 46 years and Russell Nelson was married to his first wife for 60 years. I assume they had reasonably satisfying sex lives for all those decades. Yet when their wives died and they faced the prospect of secondary celibacy as senior citizens, they could not bear the thought of being alone. (Marriage, of course, is about much more than just sex.) They are demanding a standard of asceticism from young LGBTQ members that they themselves were completely unable and unwilling to undertake–even as an example or a spiritual exercise. Their hypocrisy and lack of compassion are breathtaking.
Also, it seems to me that there is a difference between celibacy that results from various human circumstances and celibacy that is imposed by the Church. Even if LGBTQ members were allowed to find spouses and remain in full church fellowship, there is no guarantee that they would all be successful in marriage. There would still be many instances of an “elderly single [lesbian] sister who never fulfilled her dream of marriage and family because no [woman] ever showed enough interest in her.” Ditto for elderly gay brothers. Life and love are difficult all around, but the Church has made it more difficult for gays and lesbians (with very little warrant from scripture.)
All it would take is an Official Declaration 3 stating that because we don’t have a full knowledge of what marriage in the next life will look like (something that Pres. Oaks himself admitted in a conference talk), from henceforth same-sex couples and their children are to be welcomed into the Church in full fellowship, with access to all the blessings and ordinances available to opposite-sex couples. It’s not just the celibacy that’s the problem, it’s the celibacy plus the inequality. I happen to believe that God loves all his children equally, including those whom he created with same-sex attraction or non-binary orientation, just as he loves his children of all races equally–though it took our church leaders several generations to overcome their prejudices and misunderstandings in order to finally embrace the idea that “all are alike unto God.”
To those addressing Jack’s empathy toward LGBTQ+ individuals: he has made it clear both here at W&T and at BCC in multiple threads that his empathy and understanding and acceptance in regards to such issues is ‘what the brethren currently say.’ (Note, this position also includes complete dismissal of past, contradictory statements, etc). He isn’t open to considering other opinions, experiences, facts, etc, as valid if such aren’t identical to (or won’t lead him to) what he is currently being told by Church leaders. In this, Jack is a brick wall. (Which, of course, like DHO, Jack appears to wear as a point of pride as it re[resents his solid, unerring understanding and testimony of truth). FWIW, and of particular note, however, the issues he is firmest on, the ones he feels most compelled to respond repeatedly to in the comments are those related to gender and sexuality (temple inequality, LGBTQ issues, etc).
Hi Everyone: I’m an “elderly single sister who never fulfilled her dream of marriage and family because no man ever showed enough interest in her”. Please don’t tell me my pain isn’t real, or isn’t as bad as a gay or lesbian brother or sister. My loneliness is just as real and my life just as painful. I can’t take any of your arguments seriously when you divide us into two groups (straight and gay) and then insist that it is somehow easier for straights.
Anon for this: I don’t think anyone is arguing that your pain or loneliness isn’t real. From the Church leaders, you have the promise that if you ‘keep the covenant path,’ that you will be presented with the opportunity of eternal companionship at some point. Gay members do not currently have that assurance.
Nothing anyone says is going to change Jack’s mind on this – I often point people to this excellent article which addresses, among other things, the celibacy argument. He can read it if he wants but everyone else can save their emotional energy :-).
https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/what-do-we-know-of-gods-will-for-his-lgbt-children-an-examination-of-the-lds-churchs-position-on-homosexuality/
@anon, fwiw I think it’s wrong to ask this of mature single heterosexual adults too. We don’t need the same rules for adults as for teenagers. There are still differences – like queer folks literally not being allowed to date at all – but you’re right that just like straight folks like Jack should be very careful on what it’s like to be celibate and gay, married folks should be very careful opining on what it’s like to be single and celibate.
Janey wrote a good post about chastity a few months ago.
https://wheatandtares.org/2022/11/11/rethinking-the-law-of-chastity/
Thanks for your perspective, Anon for this. It’s generally a bad idea to try to compare other people’s challenges when one has not experienced them personally (that’s me). I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I don’t think your pain is real, or that your grief and loneliness are not as bad as those of gay or lesbian brothers or sisters. You know much more about your life than I do, and for those of us in different circumstances, it’s our responsibility to mourn with those that mourn and comfort those in need of comfort, as best we can. I too wish that the Church didn’t divide its members into the two groups of straight and gay, and instead treated everyone the same. My main point, however, is that I believe the Church has it within its power to alleviate some of the kind of pain you describe, at least for some people, with a change in policy. But that would require leaders who were willing to seek further light and knowledge and then act upon it, instead of doubling down and putting off that task for some future prophet with Spencer Kimball-like humility and courage. I could be wrong about what God demands of gay and lesbian members, so perhaps the Church will never change course, but a god who tells his earthly representatives to limit the opportunities of some of his children based on unchosen biological characteristics seems like a lesser god to me.
@jason, I am not sure the comparison is that far off (and Owen was only talking about treatment of diversity – not immigration).
Oaks served on the board of a full-on hate group that has attempted to *criminalize* homosexuality in countries where it can. He’s appalling.
https://wheatandtares.org/2022/03/03/the-real-gay-agenda-homophobia-russian-imperialism-and-the-lds-church-in-eastern-europe/#comment-269196
One can only “celebrate diversity” when one perceives value in cultural differences and varying perspectives . The honest truth is that some church leaders and members fear diversity. In my opinion, some reasons that one would fear diversity are:
– One believes that differences from one’s own worldview (cultural. ideological or experiential) have no perceived value (ethnocentrism)
– One’s prestige relies on an illusion of infallibility, making change or repentance impossible
– One believes that the harms done by intolerance are nonexistent or minimal.
– One does not trust their fellow human beings to assess value and meaning for their own lives
– One engages in black-and-white thinking, some sort of absolutist worldview without blurred lines or nuance.
– One believes that unity requires sameness.
I would have a hard time defending any of these as rational or Christian. I doubt that one can be fearful of the diversities found in the human family and truly know what is of value and good in one’s own culture and worldview.
@Eliza – thank you for the post – even if reading it last night led me to have a rather fitful sleep. DHO has greatly contributed to driving me out of the church. His singleminded belief on this topic is so damaging. Combine that with the fact that just earlier in the evening I finished watching the documentary series Mormon No More.
@ Jack I would strongly recommend you take the time to watch this series. It might give you a small inkling to the immense pain that our LGBTQ + church family members have experienced from the kind of rhetoric they were raised on. So many suicides and suicidal ideation.
I no longer believe in the truth claims of the church but since I am still somewhat Mormon adjacent I just want to see some of these old men move on to their ‘reward’ and hopefully there will be less damage coming from younger leaders for those still being raised in the church if they don’t fit the perfect ‘ideal’.
I long ago adopted Christian Kimball’s “I don’t have to agree with everything a leader says.” Without that attitude, I’d have a hard time reconciling Pres. Oaks’ recycled talk with Elder Wirthlin’s “orchestra” (“… the erroneous belief that all members of the Church should look, talk, and be alike. The Lord did not people the earth with a vibrant orchestra of personalities only to value the piccolos of the world. Every instrument is precious and adds to the complex beauty of the symphony. All of Heavenly Father’s children are different in some degree, yet each has his own beautiful sound that adds depth and richness to the whole. This variety of creation itself is a testament of how the Lord values all His children.”)
“ The Lord did not people the earth with a vibrant orchestra of personalities only to value the piccolos of the world. Every instrument is precious and adds to the complex beauty of the symphony. All of Heavenly Father’s children are different in some degree, yet each has his own beautiful sound that adds depth and richness to the whole.”
Agree!
I’ve come to view that, rather than life is a test based solely on obedience to the WoW, etc etc etc that life is more a test about how we treat others, especially
those different from ourselves.
When was the last time you heard a talk/lesson about not judging?
Ok, perhaps this comes across as a thread-jump, but why all the piling-on on Jack for expressing a different view? If you look at it from the other perspective, the exact same statements can be said in reverse – borrowing from someone else’s language in a comment above:
“He isn’t open to considering other opinions, experiences, facts, etc, as valid if such aren’t identical to (or won’t lead him to) what he is currently being told by [[Church leaders – replace with whatever source(s) the person is using for informing their opinion the other way about LGBTQ+ issues)]]. In this, [[Jack – person who is opinion in support of LGBTQ issues]] is a brick wall. (Which, of course, like [[DHO-other people in LGBTQ spaces]], [[Jack -person with LGBTQ opinion]] appears to wear as a point of pride as it re[resents his solid, unerring understanding and testimony of truth).”
From my perspective reading all the comments, each side could be characterized as a brick wall. Why criticize the other side for not being persuaded by your arguments, when you yourself are not persuaded by the other side’s arguments? Do you really want this to just be an echo chamber? The comments against Jack’s positions certainly suggest it. Either one is enlightened, and apparently by definition supports the typical arguments – give women the priesthood, allow SSM to occur without excommunication, etc. – or one is blindly “following what they are told by church leaders.” Apparently it is not possible to consider all the positions, all the arguments, and come to one’s own conclusions if those conclusions are not aligned with the current popular attitudes about these issues.
Maybe my comment will be deleted, but at least I got to write out my frustration with this overarching issue – it permeates all of our public discourse these days. You are either for or against something, and if you “reach across the aisle” on anything, compromise on anything, you are a traitor to the “cause.” I find that attitude harmful, and ironically (in my mind) the antithesis of being inclusive. You are literally deriding someone because their beliefs/convictions are different from yours, all while apparently missing the irony that you are doing so because you believe their position is not inclusive enough.
@adam, I’m not sure if you’ve spent much time in this space.
We actually have really respectful disagreements with people – it’s a much better space for that than a lot of others & we get that feedback from people commonly.
Jack is our current contrarian and people are respectful to him (I think he’d agree) BUT when we’ve had this conversation a million times and he’s said the same thing, it gets tiring WHEN many of us find his arguments not only to be incorrect but offensive and hurtful. So that’s where you’ll see some of that.
I also wouldn’t say he’s reaching across the divide so much as representing a side of the argument that all of us are familiar with bc it’s the Church position.
In the fireside, Oaks made some very obtuse remarks about diversity, which are not out of character for him, but are also similar to things I used to hear my parents say quite often whenever such topics came up: “I’m colorblind! I treat all people equally! I don’t see race!” and other such lame attempts at virtue signaling, though they thought they were being progressive and inclusive. When you are willfully blind to human markers of individuality, like race, you are also choosing to ignore of the persistent injustices and inequalities that come with it. You could switch out “race” for gender, sexuality, and any number of human identifiers and it would still apply. My parents didn’t really know better, but I expect Oaks as a legal scholar and jurist to understand these concepts better than most, and to think critically and with nuance. It turns out he does not, and gets worse with age.
Back in the 1970s, when the Church’s racially-based priesthood/temple ban was still firmly in place (but facing a growing tide of criticism and opposition from within and without the Church), Oaks was not just some innocent middle-aged rank-and-file bystander to the Church’s overt and codified bigotry. He was president of the Church’s flagship educational institution, and in a position to enforce the ban with an iron fist within his purview. This included decisions about hiring/firing faculty, expelling students, fighting athletic boycotts, fending off possible government sanctions, and in all other ways upholding the party line and supporting the Brethren. He has made it clear that he doesn’t do apologies, so I don’t expect that much from him, but I seriously doubt he has done any real self-reflection. introspection, or made any other personal effort to come to terms with his role in perpetuating harmful systems. So he continues on that path. I pity him, for bigotry will likely be his legacy after he is gone.
Adam, you write: “Apparently it is not possible to consider all the positions, all the arguments, and come to one’s own conclusions if those conclusions are not aligned with” and here’s the kicker, “the current popular attitudes about these issues.” Wow.
I think that reveals enough of what you actually think.
Also, you conveniently left out of your quote of my comment the fact that the Church’s positions have changed on these issues. Many people here have disagreed with Church’s views on a variety of topics and have heard the same things are you now saying, only to see the Church then change their views and positions.
It’s a bit more complicated than you are presenting. You are painting with broad strokes about the commenters here. Have you not noticed in this very thread the apologies and acknowledgements of the other side?
Or, what Elisa said.
I don’t want to pile on too much, Adam, because I glad that you took the time to share your opinion on this thread, but I think your bothsideism accusations of dogmatism are inaccurate. I like to think that I am capable of changing my mind when confronted with new data, new analyses, and new perspectives. My evidence for this self-assessment is that I actually have changed my mind about LGBTQ issues over the last twenty-five years, rather dramatically. I used to think much like Jack, and now I don’t–and not just because it’s trendy or I want to be “popular.” I have genuinely struggled with this issue, along with other questions of gender, race, inclusion, diversity, and much else. Dallin Oaks, on the other hand, with the same access that I have to new information from science, social science, history, and scripture scholarship, has not changed his mind in any significant way, as was pointed out in the OP. This could be a problem both for himself and for the church he leads.
I think when Oaks says we all need to be “one” he means that we all need to be just like him. When he says “unity” he means we need to unify behind his opinions and positions. I’ll even go so far as to say that I have no doubt he is quite sincere in believing that his opinions and biases do not conflict with the gospel, the scriptures or the teachings of Jesus. He’s quite obviously wrong (we’ve already pointed out several of his misunderstandings of gospel principles here), but I am fairly sure he’s sincere in his belief. When he claims that the doctrine never changes, he means his opinions and his interpretation of the gospel has not changed. All true. The only untrue part of it is that he has a very distorted view of the gospel, yet doesn’t seem to be aware of the distortion. He’s definitely not consistent with many other authoritative church leaders. His views have not always carried the day. We as members experience diversity (of experience and interpretation) but he doesn’t because he sees his own life experience and interpretation as authoritative, regardless of who’s been in charge.
Gay man here who tried the celibacy thing for most of his adult life so far.
‘You want angry exmo’s? Because that’s how you get angry exmo’s.’
I think @Brian is right. After initial condemnation just ignore @Jack. He’s a homophobe and ultra-orthodox. If he was interested in actual logical debate I’d feel differently, but he isn’t so I don’t.
Another comment on Adam F’s frustration that we aren’t engaging with Jack’s comments. I’ve been on both sides of this debate. I’d guess that most of us here have been. We were all raised to believe LGBTQ was a choice, or was evil, or was just hopeless or whatever. The reason no one wants to entertain the possibility that Jack is right is that most of us used to agree with Jack, and we’re not going back. I have been neck deep in the other side of this discussion and I decided it’s wrong after much pondering and prayer. Jack doesn’t have that perspective and there’s nothing he can say that I didn’t believe 20 years ago, and no longer believe.
About celibacy – I’m not celibate; I’m asexual. The difference is that a celibate person desires a sexual relationship and doesn’t have one. I don’t want a sexual relationship. However, I do want love and acceptance and I’ve struggled with loneliness and the reality that I won’t get the relationship I wish I could have. The Church’s teachings made things infinitely harder, as I had to wade through self-hatred and the fear that I was broken, defective, created to be second-class, and should stay far away from people like me (other queers) to avoid being contaminated further. Involuntary celibacy, loneliness, self-hatred, it all hurts. I’d guess the self-hatred is a few degrees more painful for the queer community, but pain is pain, as our single-sister Anon pointed out. The Church doesn’t do a good job in dealing with the sexual needs of those who don’t fit neatly into a heterosexual marriage (and even those who do, as Margot so eloquently said). Purity culture does a lot of damage.
More on topic, I loved Elisa’s point that no one is praying for diversity. God created diversity and the challenge is in how we respond to it. My thoughts and opinions have changed dramatically in the last 20 years. I don’t think the Church has changed much; it just changes its words. The Church wants to use its nice voice to say mean things. Then it casts itself as the victim of persecution.
I was tempted to jump on the middle of the night Jack-pile but slept peacefully instead. (So glad I did.) I try to be tolerant of, if I’m unable to be kindly toward the cranky contrarians in this space. After dealing with kindly patriarchal fellows for a lifetime, who have zero compassion for whatever you are trying to express but would really rather keep that attitude on the down-low, I discovered a tool to identify and reject the mind games, that I’ll share, briefly I hope.
You can google the acronym DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim Order) and you’ll probably find a lot about pretty bad guys, overt abusers who don’t care what people think of them. (Exhibit A: Trump) Those who care much more about their reputations will modify somewhat, but still use the same tool kit. Because the core marker is zero compassion for another’s feelings, and it’s useful to them to keep that covertly hidden. (Caveat: this general information is not about our friend Jack, but more about a type many of us encounter when seeking care and justice, in any space.)
This kind of interlocutor rarely Attack, but Deny their true attitude by expressing solidarity or sympathy with the trauma being discussed, and may align as a victim too, (Reverse Victim Order) often with a masterful word salad imitation of empathy. … Then comes the two words that ring my alarm for someone playing both sides — “That said, . . .” And then launch into whatever form the counter argument takes. Sometimes there’s genuine logic to engage, more often it’s more surreal word salad, sometimes the word salad is a test to see if they can fog things up with confusion, almost always it results in chaos. Happy googling!
This discussion is holding up pretty well, and there are still excellent comments being made that add to the topic. Kudos to Elisa and some regular commenters for maintaining sanity. I appreciate the kindness toward Anon For This, calling out the very bad practice of setting up a (meaningless) hierarchy of which stereotype has worse pain. In the yet-to-come unity we may have amidst diversity (some people call it Beloved Community) we won’t play games like that, instead giving attention to the pain expressed and coming up with actions to mitigate it.
My impression of this discussion is that we’ve been a bit sidetracked by defending gay marriage within the Mormon belief system and a lot of back-and-forth on those whys and hows. In my experience, that ship has long since sailed. The real topic in the OP is about Oaks’ leadership, which is badly waning in power because he refuses to face real-world diversity.
I liked Old Man’s list of why leaders and members fear diversity, and I have one to add: One believes they have a godly sanction to control the values and behavior of others, who are lesser, and they really really enjoy using their license to correct that.
Also Angela’s spot on assessment of Oaks’ problem deserves a shout out.
And what Janey said right up there. I’d say all of that too, but I’ve already commented enough. Just go read it again.
I’ve mentioned this before–but some of you might be surprised to learn that I’m a theater guy. I’m first and foremost a composer–I’m currently working on the score for my 12th musical. I did a fair amount of acting and performing back in the day–and also a whole lot of tech. On one occasion I was doing some tech stuff backstage during a show–and one of the actors who was supposed to fall to his death from the top of an 8-10 foot platform missed his mark behind the set. He landed hard and wrenched in pain. I ran over to check on him and found that he was more frightened than injured from the fall. And so I pulled him — a gay young man — into my embrace. He sobbed in my arms for about 10 minutes. That’s a moment that I’m sure neither of us will ever forget.
A lot has been said about conflicting ways of thinking and believing and whatnot–and certainly there’s plenty of room for differing opinions. Even so, I’d hope that I can at least set the record straight on the issue of compassion. I’m convinced that the leaders of the church — who a far better human beings than I am — are vessels filled to overflowing with the love of God. IMHO, the problems that the church is facing with regard to LGBTQ issues has less to do with a lack of compassion and empathy (on the part of the apostles especially) and more to do with loyalty to inspire counsel.
Revelation must have the final word.
Some will be concerned about what they view as the negative fruit of inspired counsel. And so the question must be — and has always been — does the Lord speak to his servants? And that’s something that each one of us must come to know through direct revelation. No other litmus test will do for the simple reason that the world simply doesn’t know the mind and will of God–at least not as well as it thinks it does.
That said, I’m sure there’s nothing new in what I’m saying here–you’ve heard it all before. Even so, try to resist the notion that because I’m speaking of things that smack of orthodoxy that I must live in a fog of naivete–and that I don’t see the landscape for what it really is. This isn’t my first turn around the block.
The gospel is true my friends.
I have no respect for that man. None. The only thing that even vaguely interests me about his hate-fueled rhetoric is wondering how the church will spin it after he dies. Speaking as a man? Disappear his words down the memory hole? Who knows?!
Owen,
I appreciate your thoughtful response.
“They are demanding a standard of asceticism from young LGBTQ members that they themselves were completely unable and unwilling to undertake–even as an example or a spiritual exercise.”
I think you’re making the assumption that they were incapable of living without an intimate companion. We don’t really know that for certain. I’m of the opinion that they could’ve moved forward in their lives without getting married a second time–as other apostles have done. Richard G. Scott lost his wife ten years before his own passing–and he never remarried.
“Their hypocrisy and lack of compassion are breathtaking.”
That depends on what we assume the point of conflict to be. As far as the standards of the church are concerned the apostles don’t preach anything that they’re not willing to do themselves. If, however, we judge their actions by secular standards then we’ve got a different argument–which opens the door to questions about revelation, morality, ethics, and all of that.
“Also, it seems to me that there is a difference between celibacy that results from various human circumstances and celibacy that is imposed by the Church.”
I think there certainly can be a difference. The latter of the two is a unique and difficult sacrifice–I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. But then again, the law of chastity is no respecter of persons. It applies to everyone regardless of their circumstances, orientation, proclivities, etc. with respect its boundaries. And so with the understanding that some may sacrifice more than others in order to live the LoC — as would also be the case with the law of tithing or the Word of Wisdom, etc. — the real question (IMO) has less to do with fairness and more to do with whether or not we believe the standards of the church to be inspired.
“It’s not just the celibacy that’s the problem, it’s the celibacy plus the inequality.”
Again, this has to do with locating the real point of contention–IMO.
Jack, your assessment of the situation seems to assume that the law of chastity is absolute and unchangeable. It is not. At one point in our dispensation, earthly marriage to more than one woman was allowed under the law of chastity, and then the definition of the law of chastity was changed. Who’s to say that the law of chastity cannot be revised again (under God’s direction) to allow same-sex couples to marry? I believe that will happen someday, because the current articulation of the law of chastity is discriminatory and unfair—and I do not believe that God is discriminatory and unfair (in other words, “a respecter of persons”). If (or when) the day comes for an Official Declaration #3 announcing a policy change that applies the same standards of chastity to LGBTQ members as to straight members, I will rejoice, just as I did in June 1978.
My question for you is, at that time, will you welcome same-sex couples into full fellowship? Or will you cling to the limited understandings of past prophets? Will you be embarrassed to have so adamantly defended a policy that in retrospect was unnecessary, cruel (“a unique and difficult sacrifice,” in your words), that caused so much pain to so many members, and that impeded the growth of the Church?
It’s fair to turn that same question to me and ask how I would feel if things never change and same-sex couples are always treated as different and lesser than opposite-sex couples. If I’m wrong on this issue, I don’t think I will regret having stood up for love, equality, diversity, and inclusion. You appear to believe that church leaders can never be wrong (at least on big issues), and you prioritize your loyalty to our leaders over any other moral considerations. As you say, “the real question (IMO) has less to do with fairness and more to do with whether or not we believe the standards of the church to be inspired.” I sustain our leaders and want them to succeed, but recognize that they have made mistakes in the past, and I am not willing to outsource my standards of Christian morality to them.
Owen,
Polygamy has been a known quantity since the beginning. The only factor involved vis-a-vis how it fits within the scope of the Law of Chastity is whether or not the Lord commands it. Even so, the righteous practice of polygamy does not change the fundamental nature of marriage between a man and a woman.
You are certainly right that any number of things could change because of further revelation. I believe it is incumbent upon the saints to be open to the inspired counsel that flows through the proper channels however difficult it may be to follow–whether it be the First Presidency’s counsel on the pandemic or the church’s teachings on marriage and family or anything else that may flow through those channels.
As to the specific question of discrimination: I think both you and I understand that the answer to that particular question is premised upon how we (respectively) define marriage. For me, the scriptures, the temple, the proclamation on the family, and other teachings of modern prophets, leave me in no doubt as to how marriage ought to be defined.
Having said that–yes I must acknowledge the possibility that I could be wrong. And though I’d certainly be challenged by such a change in doctrine I’d try to be open to it. But by the same token, we might learn one day that there has been withheld fundamental knowledge about the Savior’s mission–and that his is not the only name by which we may be saved. Could we handle that kind of radical change in the doctrine? That’s how foundational the church’s definition of marriage is to the plan of Life–IMO. And so I’m doubtful that we’ll see that kind of change in the church. (Though I’ve no doubt it will try to be as inclusive as possible–up to the point of modifying the doctrine, that is.)
I should mention at this point, that the lifting of the priesthood ban doesn’t fit within the category of doctrinal change–IMO. (Though I suppose a case could be made for it being a change in a “soft” doctrine of sorts–which really amounts to a change in policy or operations or what-have-you.) It was known that the blacks would receive every blessing of the priesthood at some point in the future. The big question was the matter of when. And so when the ban was lifted — and yes it was a glorious day! I remember it too — it was not accompanied by any fundamental changes in salvific doctrine. But with regard to gay marriage in the church–there’d have to be a shift in the doctrine in order to allow gay married couples full participation in the church.
Finally, I sustain our leaders because I know for myself that they are the Lord’s servants. Of course, they’re not perfect. But when they speak with authority — and especially when all 15 apostles issue a statement, proclamation, or declaration, together — I’m confident that they are the Lord’s mouthpiece.
mDearest made this astute observation:
“My impression of this discussion is that we’ve been a bit sidetracked by defending gay marriage within the Mormon belief system and a lot of back-and-forth on those whys and hows. In my experience, that ship has long since sailed. The real topic in the OP is about Oaks’ leadership, which is badly waning in power because he refuses to face real-world diversity.“
It seems impossible to stay out of the gay marriage territory because that’s so much of what motivates Oaks. But I agree. I would love to get back to diversity 🙂
“The real topic in the OP is about Oaks’ leadership, which is badly waning in power because he refuses to face real-world diversity.”
I think there’s a bit of “in spite of our differences vs because of our differences” confusion going on here. What Elder Oaks is calling for may sound a bit old school–like MLK–but it’s absolutely scriptural. The ultimate goal of the Kingdom is to gather all into one–one kingdom, one people, one family. And we cannot finally achieve that goal if we reverence our differences more than our commonalities. And it is when we take upon our selves the name of the Savior that we come in possession of a common element that far surpasses any mortal differences between each other–as a covenant people, that is. There’s no question that diversity is beautiful. But as with anything that is good, true, and beautiful, if it is taken to an extreme it will inevitably trammel other virtues–which in this particular case are unity and oneness, etc.
I experience your comment as off topic word salad, Jack. I’m not sure what you mean and I’m not going to fill in the gaps. I can’t tell what you infer is being taken to extremes. To my observation, you dance around your meaning without clearly communicating it. Also I’m not asking for clarification.
The topic of discussion is simple. Oaks restricts the fellowship group of the church to only those who believe like him, and don’t find gay marriages acceptable or even worse, desirable for queer people. Therefore anyone who practices or supports gay marriage cannot be in the holy group. According to doctrine that Oaks speaks of, people can and must achieve this measure of holiness first, as a condition of membership, by rejecting this thing as unacceptable to God. Also rejecting all the other unholy diversities, but this one is his hobby horse.
Some of us see all people as inherently holy from the get go, which helps to mitigate any friction between differences and “commonalities” so it isn’t a big enough deal that it would rise to unresolveable competition. In the real world, so many people are already in a place where queer folks are included just as they are. That’s why Oaks’ leadership is DOA, at least for these people.
That’s it.
MDearest,
That some folks are not happy with the words of the prophets — for whatever reason — is not a new phenomenon. And in light of that reality, it seems to me that before we attempt to judge their words by conventional wisdom we ought to come to terms with their claim of being prophets, seers, and revelators. Because if they are indeed the Lord’s servants then we ought to be open to receiving their counsel–even when it is conveyed in a clumsy manner because of their weaknesses and imperfections.
It’s clear to me, and many others commenting about this, that Oaks is not speaking with a prophetic voice in his rejection of gay marriage. Speaking for myself, I don’t have the least inclination to follow his leadership in this, but don’t mistake that for a simple whim. Since Prop 8 over a decade ago, I’ve worked hard to sort out and test my beliefs, in the real world God put us in. I’m not buying what he’s preaching, and I don’t think God thinks the way he does, according to my own experiences. Don’t accuse me of “judging their words by conventional wisdom.” That’s rather dismissive of other commenters here too. I don’t know what’s to be done about that disconnect between how God is to me and what you and Dallin think, but it’s not my job, and not yours either. I don’t hear the same voice in Oaks’ teachings that has directed me to see LGBTQ people and their sexuality as holy, same as the rest of us, and all of us in need of encouragement to value that in a healthy way. I will for now and in the future accept gay folks’ marriages as holy, just as much as cis-het folks’.
As well, let me also be clear about accepting the consequences that come from my divergence of receiving any and all counsel that comes, without question. I’ll take whatever stripes the Lord may have in store for me before I’ll ever again join with folks who espouse what Oaks preaches, and lay that sort of hate on the already heavy burden that non binary people carry throughout life. I won’t do that, but in whatever small ways that I can, will bind up their wounds instead, and join with people who accept them, protect them from harm, and welcome them into our society as one of us. That’s one way how unity is done.
There’s one thing I think we can count on — you’ll have another comment to counter with, sooner or later, to occupy our attention. Even though many commenters here have been plain spoken about tender feelings and experiences, and more carefully reading what prophecy means, or not, to them. Even though I’ve made my own belief clear that governs my actions. So please don’t come back and tell me or anyone else what we ought to do; we work that out for ourselves. As well, I won’t have any more time and attention for this today. This topic has been belabored enough.
Yes, let’s come to terms with their claim of being prophets, seers, and revelators, by all means. What’s the epistemology for that, Jack?
Sorry if I come across as being judgmental–I don’t mean to. But just to be clear, I’m not simply telling people what they ought to do. I’m suggesting what we ought to do pursuant to a certain course of logic. I’m saying we ought to call 911 if we see that our neighbor’s house is on fire–not just call 911 for no apparent reason. *If* Elder Oaks is indeed a prophet–then we ought to be open to his counsel. Also–just to clarify: I suggested that we ought to be *open* to receiving the counsel of the apostles–not that we should receive it without question.
jaredsbrother,
I think both you and I know that the key to accessing the proper epistemology is found in Moroni chapter 10. Even so, for folks like you and I who are familiar with the doctrine we have to start at verse 3 rather than verse 4.
“3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.”
In other words — as it relates to this particular question — we should try to remember the goodness of God not only to all of his children collectively but to each one of us individually as well–and that includes all of the good that may have reached us because of the counsel of the apostles. In so doing — by trying to place the apostles in the best possible light — we push out the boundaries of our biases and make our selves more open to what may come as we approach the Lord. And then with all of the sincerity that we can muster — and with a willingness to act upon the knowledge we may receive from above — we call upon God for confirmation of the apostles claim of prophetic authority.
As to the actual experience of receiving confirmation through the spirit of God: there are many manifestations of the spirit. But those elements that seem to be common to most manifestations are peace, clarity, edification, and a measure of joy.
Jack,
At the time that gay marriage became legal I was a temple worker. The definition of chastity in the temple was to not have sexual relations except with the person to whom you are legally and lawfully married. Not sealed but lawfully married.
I thought OK the church has to change nothing just accept that that definition includes gay couples.
They added to their definition in the temple between a man and a woman. So the church changed it’s definition, not in response to revelation, but in response to legislation.
There is nothing in scripture to defend discrimination, so you are left with the same explanation for this discrimination, as for racism that it was the culture of the day. Not of God.
I realise this will mean nothing to you but
Jack
You possessed the question: “Does God speak to his servants?” Most of us on W&T would probably answer “yes” to that general question – how could that not be the case. But it doesn’t get to the crux of the matter. What I find the more compelling questions to be: “Are the Q15 God’s servants?” and “Do they always listen to and follow His direction?” That is not so cut-and-dried in my mind.
I would also like to build upon your admirable “Good Samaritan” experience of holding and comforting an injured gay man. Comforting and binding up wounds that came from no fault of his own. You lept into the breech and provided loving service.
I too have held gay men: three times, I held different men as they were interrupted in the act of taking their own lives. I have held several others who were having mental and emotional breakdowns from the pain of shame inflicted on them by those that ridiculed their orientation. I have literally cleaned and bound the wounds of men who were physically attacked for being gay. And lastly, I held the arm of a young gay man as my wife, daughter, and gay son made a mold of his hand in the funeral home. The many successes and achievements and loving people of his life could not compensate for the pain he felt.
All of these were LDS. All raised in Utah. All had their burdens made heavy by their LDS associates, families, neighbors, teachers, and the teachings of the leaders and fellow members of the church.
Yes – we need to bind up the wounds. But we also need to wield a virtual flaming sword against their oppressors, whoever and wherever they be. Whether its some redneck – or someone who sits on a red velvet chair.
BeenThere,
There have been a lot of comments. I can’t remember exactly where but I think I identified the apostles as the Lord’s servants–at least as it relates to the theme of this thread. Certainly, anyone who is doing the Lord’s will may be identified as his servant. Even so, I think it’s critical that we come to know for ourselves that the apostles are his anointed servants–called and ordained as prophets to lead his church in the latter days. If we don’t come to terms with that rather audacious claim through direct personal revelation–sure as the sun shines they (the apostles) will at some point dispense counsel that will be too much for us to take. Such has always been — not only our burden — but the burden of the prophets: to challenge the saints in some way or other that is calculated to stretch their souls and make them more fit for the Kingdom.
Your experiences with comforting the afflicted are admirable and Christlike. I hope that I can be more like you in that regard.
Just to add a little perspective to the challenges that we as a people face collectively: without wanting to diminish anyone’s suffering — and there are many reasons as to why people are pushed to the edge and become suicidal — I’m one of those who lives with constant suicidal ideation. And there are at least 30 thousand or so guys like me who take there own life every year–this particular demographic accounts for nearly 70% of all suicides in the U.S. And so my question is: what about them? What are we willing to do to ameliorate their suffering? Are we willing to tap the brakes a little on societal change to help them feel less displaced in this topsy-turvy world?
The reason I bring up that particular demographic is to suggest that–IMO–we have to be careful not to allow our desire to take away suffering — however virtuous that desire may be — to trump other necessary virtues. To suggest that suffering must be evidence of false doctrine or bad leadership begs the question because there are so many members of the church who suffer for so many different reasons–and many of those reasons have to do with the church’s teachings.
But here’s the problem: if the church were to stop proclaiming anything that might cause offense its message would be dumbed down to little more than “don’t offend anyone.” And that’s unreasonable for the simple reason that it’s practically impossible to do good without offending someone. And so rather than throw out all of the good what we tend to do is draw the line — with respect to where we (individually) believe the line of “acceptable” offenses should be — according to our own sociopolitical values. And that simply won’t do–because no matter how sensitive we try to be towards all involved someone is going to get hurt.
So what’s to be done? We must be guided by revelation through these turbulent waters. The church must be led by living prophets in order to safely navigate the modern mess that we’ve gotten ourselves into. It’s a murky mess–and there’s no other way to know whether or not we’re taking the right course when we’re in the thick of it.
Jack your reasoning is solid.
To me it boils down to which is more likely – God set up this game of life, makes the rules, and rolls the dice. And it is just super crappy for some of his sons and daughters – his creations – because he made them that way.
Or that millennia of church men have created their own doctrines and invented enemies of god to unite their followers and consolidate their dominion. Lather, rinse, and repeat.
I think the second the most likely and that our favorite church continues to play the game in His name.
I usually get taken to task on my reasoning–so thanks for the compliment.
Two thoughts on your first scenario: 1) IMO, we had some idea of what we we’re getting ourselves into before we came here–but we signed the bottom line anyway. 2) The vast majority of humanity has had it really bad since the dawn of civilization. 95% percent of people have lived has paupers or peasants or servants or slaves.
As to your preferred scenario: that’s probably the one I would choose too–that is, if I didn’t know for myself that the apostles are indeed prophets, seers, and revelators.
Jack’s reasoning is not solid. It is still the same circular argument that begins and ends with “the church is true.” What comes in between those two points doesn’t matter, because if one has decided that the church is true and the leaders are prophets, any amount of inflicted suffering is simply the price paid for truth–collateral damage, to use the military parlance. You have no trouble playing with overzealous ideas, Jack, and are intimating that there is nothing church leaders would ask of you that you would not do. But the church has already gone down that road with destructive results. Polygamy almost destroyed the lord’s once true church, which is an odd outcome from genuine inspiration. It led to the death of the “prophet of the restoration.” Ideas like blood atonement fed the hysteria preceding Mountain Meadows. The priesthood ban stamps the church with the ‘racist’ label to this day. None of that contributes to “building the kingdom”; indeed, it does the opposite.
God’s plan of salvation is to give a tiny American religion with odd practices the power to dispense essential ordinances, but then also make it so largely unappealing and hubristic that few find it compelling. Brilliant. The rush Mormons get from basking in the idea of themselves as God’s “peculiar people” should have lost it’s luster by now for what it says of God–that he plays favorites, that he shrouds the truth, that he is totally inconsistent and illogical with regard to acceptable sexual practices and the health benefits of coffee–and what it says of the church, specifically that it takes a tremendous amount of denial and some narcissism to still believe you are correct while those around you are leaving in droves.
Jack, I thought it would be courteous–and your are, to your credit, faithfully and appreciably courteous–to at least respond on the epistemology question, but then it seemed like the conversation had petered out. In short, a spiritual witness is not epistemologically reliable or shareable. It’s the cold fusion of epistemology, and those who continue to use it outside of certain circles deserve the be dismissed like Pons and Fleischmann. Millions of people of different faiths have had spiritual experiences convincing them of the correctness of some belief system or the divine mantle of some leader or other, but you are convinced that your experience is unique. Why?
And why can’t we draw the line at doing demonstrable harm to others of the species? Why is that such an audacious suggestion? Because it asks the church to abandon sacred cows that reveal erroneous decisions? Most of the more odd and controversial policies and doctrines the church still embraces are totally absent from the Gospels and receive nary a mention in the Book of Mormon, which ostensibly contains “the fullness of the gospel.” Right, right, continuing revelation and all that, which looks more and more to me like elevating the importance of a geriatric retired heart surgeon over that of Christ himself.
jaredsbrother,
Thanks for the response.
Re: Circular Reasoning: It’s just one of those things, I guess–that is, unless the church is in fact true. It would be the same sort of thing if I were arguing more specifically for the reality of an afterlife. The whole thing would get lost in circular reasoning–unless, of course, Christ did indeed rise from the dead. And so the question really comes back to how we know such things to be true. And so all I can really do is reiterate my conviction that such things are knowable. I agree with Moses when he says: “Would to God that all of the the Lord’s people were prophets!” I believe that each one of us — especially those who have received the gift of the Holy Ghost — may receive a measure of the spirit of prophecy in order to learn for ourselves that these things are true.
As to the mechanics involved–they are not easily conveyed in words. “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” But it is real nonetheless. It is much like any abstract element that we encounter in life, e.g. love, affection, taste, or what-have-you–except that it speaks to us at the deepest of levels. It’s a knowing that runs deeper than the mind or the heart or even the marrow of our bones.
It is indeed possible, jaredsbrother, to know these things with the same degree of certainty that the brother of Jared did.
I don’t know why you spend the time and energy to post the same thing, essentially a testimony, time and again, Jack, but that is not my concern. Suffice it to say that I appreciate your genial nature as it pertains to this forum. I don’t post all that often here unless I find a topic that piques my interest, but I think I’ll resist the urge to engage you moving forward. After all, I know what you’re going to say.