Pres Oaks & Free Speech Hypothetical

[Arcturus]

This isn't exactly doctrinal, but it's related to Mormon pseudo-doctrine as articulated by Dallin Oaks.

Oaks is on record effectively saying "do not speak negatively / criticize me or any of the leaders of the church, even if that criticism is correct." In other words, Oaks is effectively saying there is no free speech in God's one true church, and they carry out this rule administratively through "courts of love" and excommunication for apostasy.

Entertain me. What if: Oaks were to invited to give a speech at a public university. Given that this man subtly is against free speech and is on record promoting an unhealthy and cult-like pretense, should this man be allowed to speak at a public university?

I myself would sign a petition to try and keep Oaks specifically (dunno about another Q15 member) from speaking unless he retracts his bull s*** statement about free speech and criticism within the church. Thoughts?

[dogbite]

You let him express himself. Just point out his hypocrisy.

He's on the record numerous times now that religious speech should be protected speech free from criticism or repercussions. And it's clear he knows better and is using his legal sophistry to empower his bigotry.

[2bizE]

I can’t respond at the moment as just hearing the word Oaks triggers bad emotions.

[Palerider]

Slight derail but not much.

Oaks is using a little sleight of hand here to protect church leadership and himself.

In order to accept his opinion on criticism of church leaders one must ALREADY affirm that those leaders are actually called of God. It has to be a given.

However, if their very position of being true prophets is what is in question, then making an honest critique actually is a quest for truth. It's a good thing!

In one of his talks Oaks uses Jude 8 which says it is wrong to "speak evil of dignities" to support his false doctrine that it is wrong to critique Mormon leadership. But "speaking truth to power" is not an "evil" thing if that power is a fraud. It's actually a good thing. It is not a matter of pointing out a few warts in someone's character. It goes to the very heart of the issue, which is was Joseph Smith a true prophet of God.

Thus we actually have a mandate to establish the veracity of someone claiming to be a prophet. Deuteronomy 18:21-22 essentially says to test a man's prophecy to see if it comes true. If it doesn't, you may pay him no heed. Joseph Smith had plenty of revelations and prophecies that were abject failures.

So are we not supposed to point out this obvious failing? Would that be speaking evil of the Lord's anointed or would it be speaking truth to power?

Oaks hypocrisy of pushing for freedom of religious speech while repressing free speech among his own followers is a sign of his non-calling as a prophet. He cannot teach false doctrine and at the same time maintain his declaration of his prophetship and that of his colleagues.

[deacon blues]

Slight derail but not much.


In one of his talks Oaks uses Jude 8 which says it is wrong to "speak evil of dignities" to support his false doctrine that it is wrong to critique Mormon leadership. But "speaking truth to power" is not an "evil" thing if that power is a fraud. It's actually a good thing. It is not a matter of pointing out a few warts in someone's character. It goes to the very heart of the issue, which is was Joseph Smith a true prophet of God.

Thus we actually have a mandate to establish the veracity of someone claiming to be a prophet. Deuteronomy 18:21-22 essentially says to test a man's prophecy to see if it comes true. If it doesn't, you may pay him no heed. Joseph Smith had plenty of revelations and prophecies that were abject failures.

I mention a false prophecy in the "August, 1836" thread, in D&C 111:6 where God tells Joseph that he shall have power to pay all his debts. Never happened.
On my mission (California, 1975-77) I was constantly reminded of the Deuteronomy 18:21-22 passage. I wonder if Pres. Oaks ever had anyone confront him with it on his mission?

[moksha]

If we believe in free speech, we would let President Oaks speak. Hopefully, he will not shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

Let us be the ones to speak the password primeval and give the sign of democracy. Let Oaks have his say on equal terms.

[blazerb]

You let him express himself. Just point out his hypocrisy.

He's on the record numerous times now that religious speech should be protected speech free from criticism or repercussions. And it's clear he knows better and is using his legal sophistry to empower his bigotry.

I'm not sure he knows better. The idea that religious speech should enjoy special protection seems pretty common throughout the world. There are several western countries that outlaw criticism of religious belief. I think he'd like to see that type of law here.

However, I do think he knows that is not going to happen in the near future in the US. People on the left and right would see threats to their actions if such a law were passed. If Oaks speaks at a campus, I think he should be allowed to just as you said. Then, those who disagree should speak up. That is the ideal, in my opinion.

I think a lot of Oaks' rhetoric is not really about changing the law, though. I think it is, in large part, the reverse of the Voltaire quote: If you want to know who you rule over, find those who are afraid to criticize you.

[dogbite]

You let him express himself. Just point out his hypocrisy.

He's on the record numerous times now that religious speech should be protected speech free from criticism or repercussions. And it's clear he knows better and is using his legal sophistry to empower his bigotry.

I'm not sure he knows better. The idea that religious speech should enjoy special protection seems pretty common throughout the world. There are several western countries that outlaw criticism of religious belief. I think he'd like to see that type of law here.

I'm assuming his stint on the state supreme court would have required such knowledge.

[Rob4Hope]

This is a trend the church takes over and over--licentious behavior being justified because of their "high [self-imposed] calling".

For example, it says in the 10 Commandments, "Thou shalt not kill"....and along comes blood atonement which can be administered by BY with impunity. It said in Illinois law that bigamy was against the law, and along comes "plural wifery", taught by JS as a commandment, and protected with blatant lies, character defamation, threats, and possibly even murder to protect the practice. It says in the BoM that telling lies is of the devil...and along comes historical rewrites of the BoM, D&C and massive edits and retroactive revisions of church history, doctrines, and even legal documents like land grants or Safety Society type documents.

What is the justification for all this? Its that the ends justify the means for the LDS church. They think they are speaking and enacting the will of God. But in the process, they use God as a justification for taking license to make the rules as they go along. Its wrong for others to do what the LDS leadership does, but you can't criticize them, because "they are special"...they have "God's blessing".

Its cult type stuff. The LDS church operates like a cult. One of the biggest signs is the condemnation of calling evil acts evil, because doing so may speak about the slanted character of a leader.

They are not the "lord's anointed". They are men who have appointed themselves, and use rhetoric to justify their choices. Very cult like behavior.

[blazerb]

I'm assuming his stint on the state supreme court would have required such knowledge.

I'm not sure that the constitutional guarantee of free speech is as secure as you imply. Oaks is laying the foundation for a reinterpretation that stifles a lot of speech, as has been done in some European countries. He knows that the current political environment is not going to allow that, but he is using rhetoric to move the terms of the discussion. This won't happen for decades, but he and other GAs are playing the long game, in my opinion. They are finding willing accomplices to outlaw "hate speech."