Did Scott Gordon Meet with the "Oaks Faction"?

[_Trevor]

I keep sharing Scott Lloyd's example in which he said that "folk Mormons" - folks who believe LDS will walk to Missouri to rebuild the temple - cling to these beliefs out of laziness and intransigent ignorance. I was shocked by his words, and I've seen a lot of rude stuff at MAD.

Yeah, I find this kind of amazing. Do the Brethren really stand behind calling Mormons who believe these longstanding teachings "folk Mormons"--that special brand of rube that actually reads Mormon history, and, shocker, believes what he reads!

I do have to applaud the ingenious economy of the whole thing, however. When it came time to jettison Adam-God, it took a First Presidency statement to do the job. Now, with this vague category of "folk doctrine" all it will take is a consensus among apologists, speaking on behalf the Brethren, consistently dismissing one of these teachings as "folk doctrine."

I do not know if MADdites have tried to restrain themselves on that account lately, but I do know that when I read MAD regularly, I would have to give them a near failing grade on how they treat folk Mormons who stumble on the site. I mean god help any believer who simply says "I didn't know Joseph Smith married all these women!!" They'll be told they're lazy saps who want everything spoon fed to them.

Yeah, it can be quite a nasty place.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The way I understood it is that Oaks was basically "ordered" to deliver the message. Think of how McConkie was told that he needed to "clean up" the text of Mormon Doctrine. Similarly, if Oaks had delivered the message, he would have been doing it on orders from the FP.

I await your new thread and some more satisfactory evidence and conclusions, Scratch.

Believe me, Ray---I sympathize with you 100%. If and when I get any hard evidence, you can rest assured that I'll post it. But I'm in a tricky position at the moment: on the one hand I would like to post everything I know, and on the other, I do need to carefully protect my sources. As I think you saw, the people on MAD have been quite vicious.

The question in my mind is, what specifically would he ask FAIR/ Scott Gordon to "tone down"?

I'm not quite sure. I was told that FAIR would be "backing away" from a number of positions, but I wasn't able to obtain any further clarification beyond that. My guess is that we might see more projects along the lines of "Mormon Scholars Testify," but, as I said, that is just a "guess."

The attacks on Meldrum (if I missed this)? When Meldrum himself is attacking FAIR? If Oaks is really into scholarship, and has been following this, then he must realise that what Meldrum is doing isn't "scholarship". Thus, why would he ask FAIR to tone it down? It seems like the cart is before the horse somewhere here.

No, no---you've got things mixed up a bit, Ray. Oaks *is* against Meldrum. The allegation is that it was Oaks who first influenced Deseret Books to pull Meldrum's book.

Re: why Oaks would be the one to tell FAIR to tone it down... The reasoning is that Oaks would have been told to do this by the FP and the rest of the Twelve. The thinking is that Packer and Perry have seniority, and that Pres. Monson sides with the "Packer Faction." Thus, Oaks would have no choice but to comply and deliver the message to Scott Gordon and FAIR. No one is suggesting that Oaks would give the order to FAIR of his own accord.

Established is that Oaks met Gordon. Now all we need is a fruit fly on the wall who heard what was privately said. That could equally have been a congratulatory wink and nod of approval.

Yes: you're right. I think that Gad was astute in pointing out that Oaks could have ignored the FP's (and Packer Faction's) alleged directive and just gone ahead and told Gordon to "keep up the good work." And yes: a "fruit fly" would be awfully nice!

[_Trevor]

Oaks *is* against Meldrum.

Evidence?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Oaks *is* against Meldrum.

Evidence?

<Ahem> Excuse me: per the allegations, Oaks *is* against Meldrum. (Or, it's not so much that he's "against" him as that he's "aligned" with the apologists.)

[_Ray A]

Re: why Oaks would be the one to tell FAIR to tone it down... The reasoning is that Oaks would have been told to do this by the FP and the rest of the Twelve. The thinking is that Packer and Perry have seniority, and that Pres. Monson sides with the "Packer Faction." Thus, Oaks would have no choice but to comply and deliver the message to Scott Gordon and FAIR. No one is suggesting that Oaks would give the order to FAIR of his own accord.

That's going to need some lion's teeth, Doctor. That is, the idea (and I know it's only thinking) that Monson sides with a "Packer faction". I've been hearing these "faction" stories since the early 1980s, but in those days it was Maxwell/Oaks vs The Old Guard. They were supposedly "progressives" and the talk of the time was getting the hierarchy to change the method of ascendency being based on seniority in the Twelve, so that a "younger progressive" could take over. Nothing, that I can tell, has come of these rumours.

[_Trevor]

That's going to need some lion's teeth, Doctor. That is, the idea (and I know it's only thinking) that Monson sides with a "Packer faction". I've been hearing these "faction" stories since the early 1980s, but in those days it was Maxwell/Oaks vs The Old Guard. They were supposedly "progressives" and the talk of the time was getting the hierarchy to change the method of ascendency being based on seniority in the Twelve, so that a "younger progressive" could take over. Nothing, that I can tell, has come of these rumours.

Yes, the Church is full of rumors, which is to be expected given the opaque nature of its governance. The great majority of those rumors never proved to be true.

[_Droopy]

Not really. We still don't know who the source of the fabrication really is. Is Beastie protecting the fabricator by claiming ignorance of the source?

Inquiring minds want to know, especially as Beastie didn't promise to reveal that she doesn't know who the source was, but promised to reveal her source.

I suspect, of course, that Beastie knew full well, with her source, that the entire thing was a ruse from the beginning, but so goes life in Slim Shadyville.

You are, predictably, completely wrong.

Yes, I see you are right in this case. You did leave yourself a nice, clean, lawyerly out on this one. You did cover your bases well here, I'll admit.

[_The Nehor]

I can say that one real positive that has emerged from all of this is that a long-standing Mopologetic myth has been utterly smashed. According to Scott Gordon, Elder Oaks is familiar with FAIR's work, which means, in effect, that the Brethren do indeed monitor Internet Mormon apologetics (or that they receive reports on it).

That one person is familiar (perhaps vaguely) with someone's work does not mean that fifteen men are actively monitoring it but this is a wonderful way to weasel out of this whole mess suggesting you learned something and try to avoid living up to the utter humiliation you face as your web of informants is shown to be either fictitious or liars.

[_Droopy]

Scratch (Sandra), the entire DSM manual is going to have to be rewritten to take into account the new personality disorders you yourself have invented.

Yes, I'm sure there's a "war room" beneath Church headquarters dedicated to monitoring messege boards in cyberspace.

Its quite frankly the vast spaces between your ears that really worry me the most.

[_Joseph Antley]

How on earth does Elder Oaks being "familiar" with FAIR mean that the Brethren are "receiving reports" or actively "monitoring" the organization? Scott's total comments seemed to state the complete opposite.

Is this just another example of the rampant paranoia that some here experience, or is it Scratch just trying to cling to his ridiculous theories even after they've been shown to be false?