From My Informant: Oaks "Apoplectic" at FAIR & FARMS

[_Doctor Scratch]

It's been quite a while since I received a "communique" akin to the one that arrived in my InBox this afternoon. Of course, I was delighted to read it, and after a bit of consideration, I do believe that it may very well shed some light on the bizarre behavior we've been observing from the apologists as of late.

According to my informant's "intel," Elder Dallin Oaks is *extremely* angry over several recent events in the apologetics world, and he's now hell-bent on affecting change. Here are a few of the key titbits:

1. Per my informant, Oaks is attempting to oversee a "systematic “cutting loose” of any perceived links between FAIR and the Church," though it was unclear what this means. My informant speculated that it may involve something like the elimination of hyperlinks that connect sites like FAIR to LDS.org.
2. One of the things that allegedly infuriated Oaks was Valerie Hudson's recent FAIR talk on polygamy. More on this later.
3. While Oaks was "still steaming" about the Hudson affair, The Mormon Defense League published its "BY Was a Racist" article, and this was brought to the Senior Apostle's attention, angering him further.
4. The icing on the cake was the now-familiar hullabaloo surrounding the Bushman/Gold Plates Seminar. According to my informant, Oaks is supposed to have said that the seminar included what he termed "hard core homosexual anti-Mormons."
5. Because of this--per the 'intel'--Oaks is now "on a rampage" to "do all he can to distance the church as far as possible from FAIR" unless/until they--and this was apparently a transcription of Oaks himself--"cease trying to chart doctrinal courses" for the Church.
6. Sometime this week, Oaks apparently plans to meet with key figures from the Maxwell Institute in order to “chop off a few heads” and “lay down the law”.
7. Oaks is alleged to have said something to the effect that "We’ve got to get this thing back under control before it gets entirely out of hand."

So, some interesting material here. Prior to receiving this message, I had been under the impression that Oaks was sympathetic to the apologists and to FAIR. (Hence his meeting with Scott Gordon.) My informant hasn't yet clarified, but I can't help but wonder if Elder Oaks has perhaps taken over the "mantle" that was formerly carried by the increasingly aged and frail Boyd K. Packer. Or, provided that the intel is accurate, it could simply be that Oaks is finally fed up with the apologists' antics. Who knows? This sort of material is virtually impossible to verify, but nonetheless I proffer it to the board for the sake of interest. As usual, all my warnings re: skepticism, etc. apply. And yes: it's possible that my informant is simply making it all up. The best means of evaluating this, I suppose, is to wait and see whether or not links start disappearing from FAIR, MDL, MST, etc.

All that said, I do wonder if the apologists' behavior towards Mike Reed is related to these allegations in some way. Sure: the MI crew have a history of blowing up and attacking people, but even this seemed a bit extreme for them. It's almost as if they're panicking in an effort to do damage control. If Oaks really is threatening to "chop off a few heads," the apologists' behavior suddenly becomes a lot more understandable. After all, we've got Gee, Roper, DCP, Hamblin, Midgley, and Mitton all tangled up in this somehow, and it does seem odd that Mike Reed's rather innocuous paper would have caused this big of an eruption. (Incidentally, didn't DCP say something about having to attend a meeting in SLC pretty soon?)

But I'm just speculating here. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

[_harmony]

Let us hope that Bushman is not one of the heads that roll. The man has balls!

Your post made me laugh.

Long live President Monson!

[_RockSlider]

Rather true or not, I cannot image having my professional career, rent, food on the table, and next car payment at risk any moment from the angry indignation of a righteous stance by those in power over me.

I salute those that somehow were able to walk away, or recover from the effects of the, so called, honor code.

[_harmony]

Rather true or not, I cannot image having my professional career, rent, food on the table, and next car payment at risk any moment from the angry indignation of a righteous stance by those in power over me.

There is something to be said for being able to live under those conditions. I'm not sure what, but "something".

[_Doctor Scratch]

Rather true or not, I cannot image having my professional career, rent, food on the table, and next car payment at risk any moment from the angry indignation of a righteous stance by those in power over me.

I salute those that somehow were able to walk away, or recover from the effects of the, so called, honor code.

Well, Rockslider, we've been told that no one actually makes a living off of doing apologetics, so I don't think the apologists' livelihoods are on the theoretical chopping block here. So if Oaks were to go off the deep end and actually kick FARMS out of BYU, the Maxwell Institute would still do its "other" stuff--the METI publications and so forth. Heck, even if Oaks went the full nine yards and decided to nuke the entire MI, most of these jokers still technically have paying jobs in other departments of the Lord's University. Probably some of the lower-down, clerical people would get canned, though. That would be the real tragedy: that these folks with less power lost jobs because the top-tier Mopologists were acting like a bunch of jerks.

[_Dr. Shades]

Dear Doctor Scratch:

I'm having a bit of trouble making "heads or tails" out of some parts of your opening post. To that end, maybe we can put our heads together and figure out a few things.

It's been quite a while since I received a "communique" akin to the one that arrived in my InBox this afternoon. Of course, I was delighted to read it, and after a bit of consideration, I do believe that it may very well shed some light on the bizarre behavior we've been observing from the apologists as of late.

I guess I'm either dense or out of the loop, but if the "bizarre behavior" consists of the items that you listed in your numbered, uh, list, then I don't see how it's anything other than "business as usual" for the FARMS and FAIR types. What, specifically, is this "bizarre behavior" to which you refer?

According to my informant's "intel," Elder Dallin Oaks is *extremely* angry over several recent events in the apologetics world, and he's now hell-bent on affecting change.

I'll admit that I'm thrown for a loop by this. Up until recently, didn't his status as de facto head of the "Oaks Faction" pretty much make it a given that he's on the apologists' side? That he agrees with their tactics? Of course, rumor has it that this mantle was taken over by Elder Holland, but would he really do an "about-face" like that in such a short period of time?

One of the things that allegedly infuriated Oaks was Valerie Hudson's recent FAIR talk on polygamy. More on this later.

Forgive me for being the one to point this out, but you forgot to give us the "more on this later" part. :-) So, what did Valerie Hudson's talk contain? Why was it controversial in any way? I'm not trying to challenge you here; I merely have no idea what she said.

While Oaks was "still steaming" about the Hudson affair, The Mormon Defense League published its "BY Was a Racist" article, and this was brought to the Senior Apostle's attention, angering him further.

Yet more cause for confusion on my part, since I thought as a pro-Mopologist he approved of such tactics.

The icing on the cake was the now-familiar hullabaloo surrounding the Bushman/Gold Plates Seminar.

What's the "now-familiar hullabaloo?" If you're referring to l'affaire d'Reed/Gee/Roper, I thought that that occurred as part of a separate, subsequent seminar, whose name I've forgotten. Is there something else that went down?

According to my informant, Oaks is supposed to have said that the seminar included what he termed "hard core homosexual anti-Mormons."

How could Oaks have possibly known the sexual orientation of any of the participants? Is the "Strengthening the Church Members Committee" now snooping into the lives of non-Mormons as well?

Because of this--per the 'intel'--Oaks is now "on a rampage" to "do all he can to distance the church as far as possible from FAIR" unless/until they--and this was apparently a transcription of Oaks himself--"cease trying to chart doctrinal courses" for the Church.

HAHAHAHAHA!! If this is true, then let no man or woman ever doubt the existence of the Internet Mormon/Chapel Mormon dichotomy ever again!!

My informant hasn't yet clarified, but I can't help but wonder if Elder Oaks has perhaps taken over the "mantle" that was formerly carried by the increasingly aged and frail Boyd K. Packer.

My impression was that the "mantles" consisted merely of differences of opinion, not as callings or vanguards or something.

Or, provided that the intel is accurate, it could simply be that Oaks is finally fed up with the apologists' antics.

Like I said, all this seems pretty much "business as usual," unless of course I'm missing something (which is entirely possible). If this is true, I wonder what took him so long to notice?

The best means of evaluating this, I suppose, is to wait and see whether or not links start disappearing from FAIR, MDL, MST, etc.

I for one will be watching with great interest.

All that said, I do wonder if the apologists' behavior towards Mike Reed is related to these allegations in some way. Sure: the MI crew have a history of blowing up and attacking people, but even this seemed a bit extreme for them. It's almost as if they're panicking in an effort to do damage control. If Oaks really is threatening to "chop off a few heads," the apologists' behavior suddenly becomes a lot more understandable. After all, we've got Gee, Roper, DCP, Hamblin, Midgley, and Mitton all tangled up in this somehow, and it does seem odd that Mike Reed's rather innocuous paper would have caused this big of an eruption.

So, if your informant is correct, then Oaks's blow-up preceded Reed's presentation? It didn't occur in part as a result of the goings-on during the presentation?

If so, then I wonder why the Mopologists would risk angering Oaks further. Unless, of course, they didn't know about Oaks's mood and simply did what comes natural.

Any thoughts and/or clarifications from you (or your informant!) would be much appreciated.

[_RockSlider]

....

My theory is that oaks saw your post about your bednar experience and he is jealous as all get out. hence the unexpected misplaced anger outburst.




by the way, nice post, thought providing and I much enjoyed it.

[_Dr. Shades]

My theory is that oaks saw your post about your bednar experience and he is jealous as all get out. hence the unexpected misplaced anger outburst.

Ha! :-)

by the way, nice post, thought providing and I much enjoyed it.

Thanks, but to which post are you referring? My post immediately above yours in this thread, or my post about Elder Bednar?

[_RockSlider]

My theory is that oaks saw your post about your bednar experience and he is jealous as all get out. hence the unexpected misplaced anger outburst.

Ha! :-)

by the way, nice post, thought providing and I much enjoyed it.

Thanks, but to which post are you referring? My post immediately above yours in this thread, or my post about Elder Bednar?

bednar, for sure ... this thread is just fun gossip

[_CaliforniaKid]

What's the "now-familiar hullabaloo?" If you're referring to l'affaire d'Reed/Gee/Roper, I thought that that occurred as part of a separate, subsequent seminar, whose name I've forgotten. Is there something else that went down?

The Reed/Gee/Roper affair occurred at the symposium at which seminar participants presented their research to the public. In other words, it was part of the seminar.

I can't comment on the validity of Dr. Scratch's rumors, but I can say that the participation of Gentiles in the seminar was a topic of gossip in Mormon Studies circles well before the symposium. Mike and I got lots of questions about it at Sunstone.

For the record, though, I'm not aware of anyone in the seminar who was either homosexual or anti-Mormon.