I’m resurrecting this thread because I don’t feel like starting a new one. I’d like to comment, generally, on the possibility that there are Oaks and Packer factions within the Church, and though I’m sure this has been raised before, I think it’s worth revisiting.
I was aware of this kind of “talk” among members going a long way back, when many were suggesting that Apostolic succession be abandoned, and that the Church should appoint its “youngest and brightest”, not based on seniority. Besides, too many aging presidents were left as cripples while their younger counselors, or assistant presidents (if we go back to McKay), were left to run the Church anyway. Oaks and Maxwell were the prime contenders (and both eventually strongly supportive of MI-type apologetics), at least in the minds of those speculating, when the demise of Spencer W. Kimball occurred.
I’ll use as simple a source as
Wiki to highlight the very possibility of these “factions”:
Boyd K. Packer and To Young Men Only
Quinn has pointed to Apostle Boyd K. Packer's LDS General Conference address from October 1976 as evidence of problematic attitudes in the LDS Church towards homosexuals. In the speech, Packer encourages teenage boys to avoid immoral activities, which he says includes viewing pornography, masturbating, participating in homosexual behavior, and participating in heterosexual behavior outside of marriage. Packer encourages young Latter-day Saints to "vigorously resist" any males "who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts." Packer cites the example of a male missionary he had known who punched his missionary companion for making romantic advances. Packer says he told the missionary, "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way."After telling the story, Packer comments, "I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself." Packer offers a similar warning against heterosexual advances, but without the threat of violence in return: "Never let anyone handle you or touch those very personal parts of your body which are an essential link in the ongoing of creation"[122]
Quinn has argued that the obliqueness of these vague comments constitute an endorsement of gay bashing by Packer, and that the church itself endorses such behavior by continuing to publish Packer's speech in pamphlet form. However, in 1995, Apostle Dallin H. Oaks said, "Our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called 'gay bashing'—(defined as) physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior."
(Emphasis added)
I think anyone can see the difference in approaches here, with Packer almost condoning violence as a means of self-protection, and Oaks adamantly opposed to “gay-bashing”.
I doubt that “spiritual eyes ” Packer would at all be concerned about Meldrum’s apologetics, and may even himself believe it! But the more “scholarly” Oaks, and the late Maxwell, took, for want of a better word, the “academic” approach, trying to combine reason with faith.
Do I think that Doctor Scratch’s informants are just fictional, wild-eyed, or even devious
misinformants? Well, if they are, they have reconstructed these scenarios with an accuracy that many of the “old timers” remember very well.
The truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.