On the one hand, there has *never* been an authentic "need" for Interpreter or Mopologetics in general. Yes, of course: the prophets/Brethren should have been handling this stuff on their own all along. But if you've got some energetic go-getters who want to get their hands dirty by wrestling in the gutter with critics? Why not let them, eh? Maybe even egg them on behind the scenes?Kishkumen wrote: ↑Thu Jan 08, 2026 12:57 pmRes Ipsa wrote: ↑Tue Jan 06, 2026 12:21 amIf it is, where does that leave Mopology? Why is there need for an Interpreter when the membership has leaders appointed by God to interpret the Gospel? Which side of the orthodox/heterodox boundary will the Mopologists find themselves on? Will the 15 look upon the invention of Ghostly Translators the same way they look upon the denial of Smith's multiple wives? Weill they share the fate of ark steadiers of the past?
Could be interesting.
Yes, great thoughts, RI. I think the key difference here is the regular expressions of absolute fealty to the Brethren. Mopologists generally see themselves as big supporters of their priesthood leaders, and they are careful to keep a loose grip on their loyalty to their creative theories. Given a choice between the Brethren and Limited Geography, they will vociferously invoke loyalty to the Brethren first, while grumbling sub rosa about how such and such apostle "just doesn't understand." We saw the high-water mark of disloyalty surrounding Maxwell Institute upheavals, but the Mopologists backed down from their public complaints, which, after all, were mostly restricted to the MADD board. Now they intone the names of Maxwell, Oaks, and Holland to reassure themselves that apostolic authority always really smiled upon their work.
Doctor Scratch is the expert, however, and I look forward to his views on the subject.
That said, I think that what the Brethren perceive as "threats" and "concerns" are not necessarily the same as what the Mopologists see. For example, I doubt very much that any of the Brethren has even had any problem with the Heartlanders. These are loyal, tithe-paying Latter-day Saints, so why attack them?
But you raise an interesting point re: Oaks, RI. Sometimes we get cases where there are individual Brethren (perhaps best exemplified by Packer) who go off on their own obsessive crusades in terms of "rooting out" problems. In Packer's case, the target was "so-called intellectuals," and so we got the September 6 (among other things), and I think that the Mopologists rabidly fed off of that animosity.
Does Oaks have "pet peeves" that he'd like to see stamped out? Maybe. Historically he has been venomously anti-LGBTQ+. I don't think he has even been as anti-"so-called intellectual" as Packer, though: recall that it was Oaks who made the "trying to stage-manage a grizzly bear" comment. But would he go after the polygamy deniers? That I'm not sure about. Ultimately, I think the answer would have to do with how much of a threat this is to member retention. If the people in the COB wind up thinking that this is going to create a problematic "milk before meat" scenario where more people are going to leave due to feeling like they were deceived, then maybe he would order up a tightening up of the rules.
If I were to speculate, I'd say that the prime target of Oaks would be the sort of person that Greg Smith went after in his most recent Interpreter hit piece: i.e., someone who's making a well-researched, academic defense for being tolerant of SSA/SSM within Mormon theology. But that is just a guess.
