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

[_Buffalo]

As much as I dislike the intellectual dishonesty of the mopologists, they're actually making the church better. I hope the brethren don't clamp down on them.

How so?

Well, even if they deal dishonestly with difficult issues, at least they're admitting they're there. The Ministry of Correlation stuffs difficult issues down the memory hole.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

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.

Any chance that Elder Oaks is also upset at the MAD Board and Juliann for instigating and fomenting that stupid Board War of 2011? That behavior (and the continued Neighborhood Watch) doesn't reflect well on a board that is supposed to be promoting the LDS faith.

It's high time that Elder Oaks or someone else step in and neuter MAD.

[_The Nehor]

Any chance that Elder Oaks is also upset at the MAD Board and Juliann for instigating and fomenting that stupid Board War of 2011?

Any chance that Elder Oaks has heard of this week-long "board war"?

None at all.

That behavior (and the continued Neighborhood Watch) doesn't reflect well on a board that is supposed to be promoting the LDS faith.

i.e. It annoys me.

It's high time that Elder Oaks or someone else step in and neuter MAD.

No it isn't. You'd like it to happen because like Scratch you start salivating at even the hint of some kind of LDS civil war. There hasn't been one but Scratch will have you thinking one is imminent if you find yourself trapped in a dark room listening to him whisper his conspiracy theories long enough. Or if you're an idiot. Either way.

[_CSA]

It's high time that Elder Oaks or someone else step in and neuter MAD.

I cannot agree more. I believe it has been their super-inflated egos and pride which have simply destroyed the effort to provide logical and faithful apologetic answers for critical questions and has turned the place into a hateful animal-house.

[_Mike Reed]

For the record, though, I'm not aware of anyone in the seminar who was either homosexual

Must've been my earrings and muscular wife that tipped them off.

[_Blixa]

For the record, though, I'm not aware of anyone in the seminar who was either homosexual

Must've been my earrings and muscular wife that tipped them off.

Had there been a beverage nearby, reading this could have been a catastrophe...

[Guest]

I noticed that a companion thread was launched (it has by now been shut down by the moderators--probably LifeOnaPlate, in his Nemesis sockpuppet) on the ironically named Mormon Dialogue board:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/554 ... -doubtful/

The thread is speculating on whether or not it's possible that Elder Oaks could have been angered by Valerie Hudson's recent FAIR talk, as was alleged by my informant. This is one of those cases where I'm left wondering about the intelligence of the MDD board's participants. Here is the OP:

I just read on another board that that guy who has "informants" had one of them supposedly tell him that Dallin H. Oaks was "infuriated" by Valerie Hudson Cassler's FAIR talk about polygamy. I find this VERY difficult to believe. First of all, Elder Oaks has stated in an interview that to state that we will practice polygamy in the hereafter, he would be making a statement that the living Prophet has not spoken about. This tends to support Valerie's position. Second of all, I found nothing in her presentation that would be infuriating to a genuine LDS member. Instead of relying on hearsay and folk traditions and unofficial sources, as those do in support of eternal polygamy, she went to the scriptures and simply stuck to the clear message of D&C 132 in her presentation. I enjoyed her remarks and think they will help bring clarity to that troublesome subject in the future. Maybe that's why the antis and apostates are so eager to disagree with and discredit her.

Later, Calmoriah helpfully provided a quote from Elder Oaks himself:

If I talked about that I'd be making doctrinal statements where the prophet has not chosen to make doctrinal statements, so I think I shouldn't say anything except to affirm that a lot of people, myself included, are in multiple-marriage situations. Look at the significance of that.

http://newsroom.LDS.org/article/elder-o ... ocumentary

Now look at this passage from Valerie Hudson:

If this interpretation of Doctrine and Covenants 132 is correct, then some interesting things begin to happen to our casual acceptance of certain “folkways” accepted uncritically in LDS culture. A whole new vision begins to appear when we understand from God’s own reasoning that monogamy is the rule, polygamy is the exception, and he is not indifferent between the two because the second is an Abrahamic sacrifice in his eyes and the first is not. Serious doubt is now cast on a variety of pervasive assumptions concerning polygamy in our culture.

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerPolygamy.html

Here are the two key elements again, side-by-side:

the prophet has not chosen to make doctrinal statements, so I think I shouldn't say anything except to affirm that a lot of people, myself included, are in multiple-marriage situations.

that monogamy is the rule, polygamy is the exception, and [God] is not indifferent between the two

Now, maybe I'm reaching here, but if *I* were Elder Oaks, and *I* were in a "multiple-marriage situation," and if I happened to hear of a "so-called intellectual" saying that "[God] is not indifferent" and that "monogamy is the rule," I might take some issue with this sort of rhetoric. Notice that Elder Oaks is hesitant to actually weigh in, whereas Hudson comes right out and tries to make a much more definitive argument. And yet, all of this seems to sail right over the heads of the MDD TBMs. I wonder how confident "Scotty Dog" Lloyd or Pahoran would feel telling Elder Oaks to his face that "monogamy is the rule."

[_harmony]

Here are the two key elements again, side-by-side:

the prophet has not chosen to make doctrinal statements, so I think I shouldn't say anything except to affirm that a lot of people, myself included, are in multiple-marriage situations.

that monogamy is the rule, polygamy is the exception, and [God] is not indifferent between the two

Where is the original source of the Oaks quote?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Where is the original source of the Oaks quote?

Hi, Harmony. I went back and added the link to my post.

On a side note: Can someone explain to me why the MDD apologists--including Bill Hamblin, who often works in Israel, and Dr. Peterson, who has frequently expressed outrage at any insinuation that he might be an "anti-Semite"--are making Hitler jokes on this thread?:

http://newsroom.LDS.org/article/elder-o ... ocumentary

[_beastie]

This has nothing to do with the intel, but I wanted to comment on the Oak's quote shared on the MDD thread:

DHO [Dallin Oaks]: If I talked about that I'd be making doctrinal statements where the prophet has not chosen to make doctrinal statements, so I think I shouldn't say anything except to affirm that a lot of people, myself included, are in multiple-marriage situations. Look at the significance of that. There are a lot of people that live on this earth that have been married to more than one person. Sometimes those marriages have ended with death; sometimes they've ended with divorce. What does the next life mean to them in relation to a covenant they once made and so on? I don't think those people have much of an answer for that question. It might not bother them because they don't believe that people will live as married couples in the next life. And if they don't make and live for the covenants to do that, [as for themselves] they're right! But for people who live in the belief, as I do, that marriage relations can be for eternity, then you must say, What will life be in the next life, when you're married to more than one wife for eternity? I have to say I don't know. But I know that I've made those covenants, and I believe if I am true to the covenants that the blessing that's anticipated here will be realized in the next life. How? Why, I don't know.

Gee, I wonder why Elder Oaks isn't musing about what may happen if a WOMAN is married to more than one HUSBAND????

Their bias and sexism is so engrained they don't even recognize it.