Did Scott Gordon Meet with the "Oaks Faction"?

[_Trevor]

So, now we know that Elder Oaks knows about FAIR and who Scott Gordon is. Other than that, we have evidence of little else. Another skyscraper of speculation raised on that foundation of banal fact won't get us anywhere. The little dribbles of information from this outing hardly justify the exercise. But maybe that's just me.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Maybe you're right, Trevor. We'll see.

[_Trevor]

Maybe you're right, Trevor. We'll see.

Maybe we will someday. I am not holding my breath. You are talking about wrestling information out of a group of people that has no reason to share, and, when you do get something, you have almost no way of testing its veracity.

[_Ray A]

Rather, it was Elder Dallin Oaks himself who was dispatched to tell FAIR to "tone it down." Thus, it was the "friend" of the apologists who was forced to deliver the bad news.

If something *was* said about FAIR, and Gordon & Co. needed to conceal this fact....well, I won't go there.

If this is really the case, then Oaks has changed his opinion:

The lack of decisive scientific proofs of scriptural truths does not preclude gospel defenders from counterarguments of that nature. When opponents attack the Church or its doctrines with so-called proofs, loyal defenders will counter with material of a comparable nature to defend.(Source quoted is The Lord’s Way, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991), 92.

I admire those scholars for whom scholarship does not exclude faith and revelation. It is part of my faith and experience that the Creator expects us to use the powers of reasoning he has placed within us, and that he also expects us to exercise our divine gift of faith and to cultivate our capacity to be taught by divine revelation. But these things do not come without seeking. Those who utilize scholarship and disparage faith and revelation should ponder the Savior's question: "How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?" (John 5:44).

The Historicity of the Book of Mormon.

It's a bit of a mystery why Oaks would ask those very apologists to "tone it down".

If Oaks said anything, in view of the increasing challenges with the Internet post-1993, I imagine he would be more likely to have said in confidence, "step it up".

[_Doctor Scratch]

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).

[_Gadianton]

I too believe that SG is telling the truth. And I congratulate him on that. It took a lot of guts to admit that the informant was right all along, as far as the informant can be accountable for, that is. That Oaks knows who SG is, is aware of his activities and supports them, and personally greeted SG with words of encouragement for the effort is a pretty big confirmation of the existence of the so-called "Oaks faction" and their interest in apologetics. It's the clearest statement of GA/FAIR interaction we've ever received and it would not have come to light without the informant's intel. An informant couldn't have been right to the extent that s/he was merely fabricating a story whole cloth. The informant could also not be expected to predict the future -- if prophets, seers, and revelators can't predict the future for all you open theists at FAIR, how can a lowly informant?

What i mean is, Just because Oaks was requested to deliver a message doesn't guarantee that he would deliever the message. Other presseing matters could have arose, some new developments could have led to the message beingt called off at the last minute, or he might simply have decided NOT to deliver the message in a dicey move to expand his factions power. Had Packer been sent, it would be far more telling if the message had not been delivered. Oaks, however, would have every reason to avoid the matter if he could.

All in all, on a scale of 1 to 10, I give this tip a 7.8.

One last thing, man, what a rude crowd they've got over on MAD? SG ought to be ashamed of the way Beastie was treated on his board for merely asking a question and being perfectly polite about it.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Ray---

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.

[_Doctor Scratch]

What i mean is, Just because Oaks was requested to deliver a message doesn't guarantee that he would deliever the message. Other presseing matters could have arose, some new developments could have led to the message beingt called off at the last minute, or he might simply have decided NOT to deliver the message in a dicey move to expand his factions power. Had Packer been sent, it would be far more telling if the message had not been delivered. Oaks, however, would have every reason to avoid the matter if he could.

Huh. I hadn't thought of that. Certainly it makes a lot of sense in light of the fact that Oaks "accidentally" bumped into Gordon not once, not twice, but three times. Could it be that Oaks is pulling a "McConkie" here and going rogue? It wouldn't surprise me if that were the case.

One last thing, man, what a rude crowd they've got over on MAD? SG ought to be ashamed of the way Beastie was treated on his board for merely asking a question and being perfectly polite about it.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

[_Ray A]

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. Mc Conkie's MD was examined by Mark Petersen primarily, who found over a thousand errors and made a report on it to the FP. If there's any basis to your informant's information, Oaks would more likely have been "commissioned" rathered than "ordered", a la Petersen. The illness/death of Mc Kay and Fielding Smith's ascendency ended all that.

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

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.

[_beastie]

I think what would have to be toned down is how MADdites react to "folk Mormons" or those innocent "shaken faith syndrome" folks who happen to ask the wrong question, and who are then treated harshly like they're wolves in sheep's clothing. MADdites are just too eager to assume the worst of new posters. They just can't stand being made fools of by a troll, so they're rather take the risk of offending a fellow believer. That is what I suspect would not sit well with the brethren.

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.

In other words, I don't think the brethren care how critics are treated. I do think they would care about how "folk Mormons" are treated.

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.