Oaks and the Priesthood Ban as a Directive from God

[Mormorrisey]

So, I found something much better to do last night than watch the "Be One" celebration. As a result, I just wanted to read over some of the talks - when I saw that Oaks was one of the speakers, I rubbed my hands in anticipation. (Well, not literally, it's just a great visual.) I knew that the king of not giving apologies was going to be in fine form, and I wasn't disappointed:

“I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them,” President Oaks said. “As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray — as promised from the beginning of these restrictions — that the day would come when all would enjoy the blessings of priesthood and temple."

Well, then. A couple of interesting thoughts on this. I guess they are doubling down on the notion that it WAS a commandment, it WAS doctrine, and then, magically, it just wasn't anymore. It's pretty clear to me, that they would rather throw God under the bus for this, that it's God's doing, not Brigham Young's or the succession of white guys after him who did nothing about it. Which is rather disturbing in itself, that God is a racist. And of course, the Oaks mantra to be loyal even if you don't get it, don't question your leaders, and just wait for the time that God decides not to be racist.

The second is, what kind of God gives stupid commandments like this without any explanation? What's the point of having prophets if they can't figure out WHY God commands you to leave out men of a different colour from having the priesthood? Or the larger question, over half of the human race from having "his" authority? Many of you know that I have a narcissistic parent, and this is the kind of crap she would spew when I questioned her - "just do it because I told you too!" I never realized God was a narcissist as well as a racist. That's a new one, even for Oaks.

So glad I found something better to do, my blood would have been boiling if I sat down to watch that.

[Palerider]

“I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them,” President Oaks said. “As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray...

Here, let me fix this.

1. I observed...something that seemed wrong, a great injustice.

2. I studied....tried to figure out if there was any possible justification.

3. I learned....there wasn't.

4. I determined....to take the chicken $h!t way out and keep my mouth shut.

5. I am...a gutless wonder....and you should all follow my example.

[Mackman]

After I got done Lol I have to agree what kind of God would give a stupid commandment like that !!! Why in the world would we need a prophet if they can't even figure it out !! The more I learn about Mormonism I find it hard to believe I was once a member . You can't even make this stuff up.

[Reuben]

The second is, what kind of God gives stupid commandments like this without any explanation? What's the point of having prophets if they can't figure out WHY God commands you to leave out men of a different colour from having the priesthood? Or the larger question, over half of the human race from having "his" authority? Many of you know that I have a narcissistic parent, and this is the kind of crap she would spew when I questioned her - "just do it because I told you too!" I never realized God was a narcissist as well as a racist. That's a new one, even for Oaks.

My parents occasionally expected obedience without giving reasons. Neither is a narcissist. I think this was regarded as good parenting once upon a time. It was one of the things I decided I would do differently.

They also never apologized or even admitted wrongdoing. I think that was also regarded as good parenting. I did that one differently, too.

It's an arrogant style of parenting, to be sure.

Now take that parenting style, add self-aggrandizing beliefs to back it up, throw in obsession over purity... and you have Mormonism's leaders. And what do you know, Mormonism's god is just like its leaders. Who would have thought?

The craziest thing is this. When they say they were just following orders, whose are they really referring to?

[deacon blues]

This is disappointing. Dallin Oaks is suggesting that the Lord told Brigham Young that around 1848-52 that it was time for a Priesthood Ban, and reaffirmed this to every prophet until 1978. No mistakes were made, no sin of racism or personal prejudice influenced this, no cultural influences were bowed to.

[IT_Veteran]

“As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants.

It’s almost as if God isn’t actually speaking to men (or at least these ones).

I mean, the only other explanation is that he’s an asshole.

[alas]

Actually, I think this demonstrates the biggest problem I have with the church. It promotes men who are loyal and obedient to the church, rather than good, honest, truth seeking, loving, Christlike men. They promote others who stopped listening to their own sense of right and wrong, their conscience, and now only listen to *the church*. So, look carefully at what Oaks did here. He saw something that was hurting people. He thought about it and studied it and found no reason to justify this pain. But *the church* said it was right and good, so he threw his own conscience, his in born sense of right and wrong, his "light of Christ" under the bus. Once you throw your ability to tell right from wrong under the bus, it is easy to throw God under the bus. And you see nothing wrong with throwing God and goodness under the bus because your first and only loyality it to *the church*.

So, once you no longer have any ability to see right from wrong and your only "moral compas" is what the church tells you, it is easy to say that a policy that keep innocent children from being baptised is good because it seems to be in the best interest of the church. When it comes to promoting someone who has confessed to being a sexual predator, then refusing to do anything when accusations come out against him, because it is in the best interest of the church. It is easy because you already sold your soul to the church.

Oaks here is telling us exactly how he sold his soul to Evil because *the church* is more important to him than truth, goodness, right and wrong, or following Christ.

Yikes.

[foolmeonce]

It's been a while since I've read it, but doesn't this talk contradict the Race Essay? Isn't the theme of that one "Yeah, the early prophets were bigots, but give them a break, so was everyone else" ?

[Angel]

It does go against the essay.

There are different versions of religion
A) the massocistic, punish yourself, rigid "letter of the law" - theory where people think pain is good for you...the priesthood ban was good, it humbled them, broken heart is good, honor pain and suffering...

B) the kind, joyful, forgiving, let's not make mountains out of mole hills, enjoy life - how can we find more joy - kind of religion.

I am choosing option B now.

[StarbucksMom]

Just. Wow. **Content removed** But if you read this I did send my friend a msg.

[Mormorrisey]

Actually, I think this demonstrates the biggest problem I have with the church. It promotes men who are loyal and obedient to the church, rather than good, honest, truth seeking, loving, Christlike men. They promote others who stopped listening to their own sense of right and wrong, their conscience, and now only listen to *the church*. So, look carefully at what Oaks did here. He saw something that was hurting people. He thought about it and studied it and found no reason to justify this pain. But *the church* said it was right and good, so he threw his own conscience, his in born sense of right and wrong, his "light of Christ" under the bus. Once you throw your ability to tell right from wrong under the bus, it is easy to throw God under the bus. And you see nothing wrong with throwing God and goodness under the bus because your first and only loyality it to *the church*.

I think you hit it on the head, as palerider did above. It's bizarre to think that this smart lawyer, who taught in a law school and became president of a major university, could study out a problem in his mind, realize the priesthood ban had no basis in scripture or reality, was unsatisfied with any response the church came up with, and um, stayed quiet about it? Out of some misguided loyalty? Isn't it even more loyal and more morally courageous to give the church your best self, and passionately discuss with anybody willing to listen about rescinding a ban you know is not correct? Something you know not only by study, but by the "spirit?" What a cop-out. Thanks to you both for pointing this out.

Loyalty to the church does come at the cost to one's soul. This is now clear.

[Mormorrisey]

It's been a while since I've read it, but doesn't this talk contradict the Race Essay? Isn't the theme of that one "Yeah, the early prophets were bigots, but give them a break, so was everyone else" ?

You know, I went back and read the entire essay from top to bottom. While they do decry all of the theories that led to the ban (which interestingly enough, as pointed out by some dude/dudette on reddit, Oaks claimed the church IMMEDIATELY decried in 1978, to which I call BS as did a number of other reddit commenters) I did not see anywhere in the essay that said the ban itself did not come from God. So while they say the theories that led to the ban are erroneous, and there is no good reason for the ban itself, nowhere does it say that it was NOT a commandment of God. So legal eagle Oaks can then swoop in and say that we "just don't know why God does what he does." Isn't this what us laymen call plausible deniability?

[foolmeonce]

It's been a while since I've read it, but doesn't this talk contradict the Race Essay? Isn't the theme of that one "Yeah, the early prophets were bigots, but give them a break, so was everyone else" ?

You know, I went back and read the entire essay from top to bottom. While they do decry all of the theories that led to the ban (which interestingly enough, as pointed out by some dude/dudette on reddit, Oaks claimed the church IMMEDIATELY decried in 1978, to which I call BS as did a number of other reddit commenters) I did not see anywhere in the essay that said the ban itself did not come from God. So while they say the theories that led to the ban are erroneous, and there is no good reason for the ban itself, nowhere does it say that it was NOT a commandment of God. So legal eagle Oaks can then swoop in and say that we "just don't know why God does what he does." Isn't this what us laymen call plausible deniability?

So the theme is actually ""Yeah, the early prophets were bigots, but give them a break, so was everyone else. Furthermore it was still a commandment form God, we just don't know why, and it definitely was not related in any way to the bigotry of the prophets."

Good game Mr. Oaks.

[moksha]

I imagine when Elder Oaks was a young lawyer, he envisioned himself in front of the United States Supreme Court delivering the decisive arguments in the Brown v. The Board of Education of the City of Topeka case. He would wax elegant on the Curse of Cain and lack of valiance in the pre-existence to cement his case and the Warren Court would be swayed to uphold the Plessy v. Ferguson decision and ensure that segregation remained the law of the land. Can't fault young men for their dreams.

[Palerider]

Isn't this what us laymen call plausible deniability?

Nope...

Where I come from it's called blowing smoke up yer a$$.

[deacon blues]

If God is a God of absolute Truth, Elder Oaks is on a slippery slope. Did Elder Oaks sign off on the Blacks and Priesthood Essay? Did he contribute to it in any way? These are questions he could and should answer.

[consiglieri]

Here, let me fix this.

1. I observed...something that seemed wrong, a great injustice.

2. I studied....tried to figure out if there was any possible justification.

3. I learned....there wasn't.

4. I determined....to take the chicken $h!t way out and keep my mouth shut.

5. I am...a gutless wonder....and you should all follow my example.

This is a total classic, Palerider!

Absolutely spot-on!

Another thing I find interesting is that Oaks is saying church leaders were not inspired in giving the reasons for the ban, but they were inspired in giving the ban itself.

This seems internally inconsistent to me.

[consiglieri]

It's been a while since I've read it, but doesn't this talk contradict the Race Essay? Isn't the theme of that one "Yeah, the early prophets were bigots, but give them a break, so was everyone else" ?

My take on the essay is that, like the Book of Abraham essay, it gives multiple possible explanations without endorsing any as the correct answer.

The Race and the Priesthood essay does suggest the cultural racist milieu as a possible contributing factor, but also holds out space for members to believe the ban was instituted by God.

It seems clear Oaks is hitting the "it came from God" note pretty hard.

[consiglieri]

It’s almost as if God isn’t actually speaking to men (or at least these ones).

I mean, the only other explanation is that he’s an asshole.

LOL!

Oaks admits it, too.

He says that God has a reason for the priesthood ban, but he hasn't told his prophets yet.

And the reasons he gave to his prophets before were all wrong.

But there is a reason out there somewhere that only God knows. But God isn't talking.

And if he isn't telling us the reason, he won't tell you the reason, either.

But a friend just mentioned to me this additional insight . . .

If there is some unknown reason by which God is justified in discriminating against people based on their race, then it would be okay for God to do the same thing again.

And so all of Oaks' talk about putting our prejudice and racism aside and moving into a glorious future has a foreboding specter cast over it.

[consiglieri]

I think you hit it on the head, as palerider did above. It's bizarre to think that this smart lawyer, who taught in a law school and became president of a major university, could study out a problem in his mind, realize the priesthood ban had no basis in scripture or reality, was unsatisfied with any response the church came up with, and um, stayed quiet about it? Out of some misguided loyalty? Isn't it even more loyal and more morally courageous to give the church your best self, and passionately discuss with anybody willing to listen about rescinding a ban you know is not correct? Something you know not only by study, but by the "spirit?" What a cop-out. Thanks to you both for pointing this out.

Loyalty to the church does come at the cost to one's soul. This is now clear.

Absolutely!

I expect Oaks has massaged his story somewhat in the retelling.

The problem is that in order to try to get the church out of the corner on the priesthood ban (at which he was singularly unsuccessful), he has painted himself into a corner of his own.

If he is not telling the truth, he is a liar.

If he is telling the truth, he is a coward without the courage of his convictions.

Nice work, Oaks!