Not Buying It wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 10:44 am
And in a win for white supremacists all throughout the Church, President Oaks attacks diversity, and the Church News amplifies his clueless white guy rhetoric:
https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-a ... uth-221732
“There is worldly praise and pressure for divisions that draw us apart, for diversity that impairs our unity, for reliance on family descent instead of individual qualifications and we are influenced by a culture of opposition. I concluded that ‘as a Church and as a culture, we need to lead out in demonstrating inclusion.’”
That “inclusion” is not the same as surrendering commitments to truth and morality.
President Oaks’ definitions
Diversity: At a time when diversity is earnestly sought and greatly praised, the Restored Church opposes the popular definition of diversity in its organization and composition. We are all children of God and that is our most important characteristic. We need to unite in love.
The "definitions" aren't definitions, except maybe the first (divisions). The second, which you quoted, made me think there must be more context, so I clicked the link... nope.
It's hard to tell from the quote whether he's opposed to pushing for diversity in general or just "diversity that impairs our unity."
He refuses in the text and definitions to say what he means by diversity, so "reliance on family descent instead of individual qualifications" could imply he's against racial diversity as a goal (if he's still talking about diversity), or that he's against using/respecting class privilege (if he's not). Given that the talk he referenced is partly about how the Mormons treated the poor who came to the Salt Lake Valley, you could make a case that he's against either, or even both.
Implying that some forms of inclusion amount to "surrendering commitments to truth and morality" could mean that including openly LGBT members would be bad, and I'm sure most right-leaning members will take it that way. But left-leaning members can read "don't include racists and homophobes" into this.
What will happen is what normally happens when apostles are maddeningly (to us) vague: every believer who hears or reads them gets a warm, fuzzy glow that tells them they're already on the right track. And everyone who used to believe will be tempted to read the worst into what was said. In the long run, it feeds those relentless divisive forces he's so against.
The remaining two "definitions" are similarly oblique.
Descent: You don’t need to be descended from pioneers or notable leaders to be included in the choicest blessings of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Oh, it's using/respecting class privilege that's bad, then? President Oaks, please look hard at the composition of the Q15, and then tell us all about class privilege.
Wait, he said "choicest blessings," which I think refers to temple blessings. Was he actually talking about worthiness the whole time, or is this a particularly crappy dodge?
Opposition: We know that there must be opposition in all things, but we must resist being critical or pessimistic in these trying times.
"Don't criticize us, especially when things are bad (which they always are)." Classic.
But is he also throwing shade on the left here? He relates that "culture of opposition" he's against to the scripture that talks about how sweet must be opposed by bitter and good must be opposed by evil. That was actually subtle. Bravo!
Learn to doubt the stories you tell about yourselves and your adversaries.
