Hi, Dr. Shades. Let me see if I can address your questions....
Dr. Shades wrote: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.
Doctor Scratch wrote: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?
I suppose that you could argue that the recent kerfuffle involving Mike Reed's presentation was "business as usual," but I'm inclined to think that it's a bit "more so" than normal, if you catch my drift. Just the fact that *so many* of the high-ranking apologists (Hamblin, DCP, Mitton, Gee, Roper, Midgley) have had their fingers in this, in a rather public way.... *That*, to me, is "bizarre." I mean, we've known all along that they gossip via Skinny-L and coordinate attacks and so forth. But to do it in such a brazen and public way? It smacks of desperation and a lack of caution.
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?
I was thrown for a bit of a loop myself, Dr. Shades. As best I can tell from the "intel," Oaks is simply fed up. It wasn't one thing in particular that ticked him off; rather, it was the total accumulation of all those things--V. Hudson; MDL; and then the Gold Plates Seminar--that pushed him over the edge. Plus, it may be that there were other factors involved. I was told at one point that Oaks had been "kicked off" of his appointment as the GA who oversees Church historical publications. Maybe that had something to do with it, too?
But I don't know. I'm really just speculating. I found it as peculiar/intriguing as you.
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.
I believe that I had meant to draw a (potential) connection between Hudson's talk and Oaks's alleged comment about the apologists "trying to chart doctrinal courses." Oaks, as Infymus pointed out recently, is essentially a "Celestial Polygamist," meaning that he apparently expects to have two wives in the CK. Well, Hudson's FAIR talk was on polygamy, and from what I can gather, she was quite condemnatory towards the practice, and (I'm guessing) it could probably interpreted as being a colossal slap in Oaks's face. Based on what I read, Hudson's argument was that polygamy is *only* okay when God explicitly commands it. And if that's the case, it puts Oaks in the difficult position of either (a) Having to claim that Heavenly Father told him to take a polygamous "celestial" wife, or (b) that Oaks is directly violation God's commandments. Either way, it's not hard to see why he might take issue with Hudson's presentation.
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.
Even if an apostle was "pro-Mopologist," I would imagine that eyebrows would raise at the COB over a statement like that. But I see what you mean, Shades, and I don't have the answer. It's unclear to me why Oaks would/might have shifted sides (provided that he actually did, of course).
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?
No, I'm referring to
l'affaire d'Reed/Gee/Roper. That *was* the Bushman/Gold Plates Seminar. This has spread far and wide in LDS intellectual circles, Shades.
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?
Cf. California Kid's post on this thread.
Still, your calling attention to this makes me wonder.... Maybe Oaks has been "pushed over the edge" in the wake of the Prop 8 fiasco? Hence his "about-face," and his alleged remark about "hard core homosexual anti-Mormons"? I bet that many of the GAs' paranoia levels have spiked post-Prop 8, post
The Book of Mormon musical, and with two Mormon contenders for the presidency. All of that, plus the normal stress of running the Church---I can easily see how crap from the apologists would turn their old ally Dallin Oaks against them.
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.
Oh, sure. That's basically what I meant.
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?
Well, Shades, as I tried to make clear, all we can really do is speculate. Probably the best verification we'll be able to get is the business about the links, and/or if some kind of "shakedown" occurs at the Maxwell Institute.
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.
Yeah, I'll be sure to relay any additional information if/when I get it.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14