The Pope and Dallin H Oaks

[Anonymous]

Not in one room together — but on both being controversial in their own spheres.

In case you missed it, the Pope was “outed” yesterday (May 28, 2024) after privately stating that gay men should not be allowed to train for the priesthood — adding that there was already an air of “frociaggine” about it, which is a colloquial slur that means “faggot.” Oops, he spoke his truth and got caught out!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrrexn0094o” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrrexn0094o

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvvyxr79glo” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvvyxr79glo

The Pope’s private comment reveals far more about his personal feelings than any anodyne former statement such as, “In the Church there is room for everyone, everyone! Nobody is useless or superfluous, there is room for everyone, just the way we are.” We’ve heard plenty of statements like that from our own leadership.

Well, I say fair play to the Pope because he offered an apology to those who were “hurt by the use of a word.” He hasn’t (yet) denied anything or pretended he doesn’t feel the way he conveyed, but at least he owned it and had the backbone to offer an apology for causing offence.

Not so with Dallin H Oaks. In his interview with the Salt Lake Tribute in 2015 (https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2108746&itype=CMSID” class=”bbcode_url”>https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2108746&itype=CMSID), he offered a blanket statement to the effect that the Church does not offer apologies. As it happens, that seems to be consistent with his personal life. Why else would his speech “The Popular Myth of the Victimless Crime” to the Church Educational System at BYU in 1974 have been redacted? By redacted, I mean it is missing (https://speeches.byu.edu” class=”bbcode_url”>https://speeches.byu.edu). Removed. The same action was taken with the controversial BYU speech on race by Mark E Petersen. Hide the evidence so there’s no need to offer any subsequent retraction, disavowal, or apology.

Have you read that speech? In it, he said, “I believe in retaining criminal penalties on sex crimes such as adultery, fornication, prostitution, homosexuality, and other forms of deviate sexual behavior.”

It was several decades ago, but the internet is the worst enemy of those who wish to hide from their past. You can read the speech here: https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Farchive.org%2Fdetails%2FOaks_Criminalize_Homosexuality&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AOvVaw0GrXtewitEHRGGEkh4wscc” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Farchive.org%2Fdetails%2FOaks_Criminalize_Homosexuality&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AOvVaw0GrXtewitEHRGGEkh4wscc

That’s criminal penalties, folks. I would never support such a law for those who are of my faith let alone those who are of a different faith or no faith at all. And if I did think it was OK in the past and put my views in the public domain as a public figure, I’d own up and say my values and understanding have changed, so I’m sorry about that. But that’s just me because I’m the type of guy who offers an apology when he messes up, rather than trying to pretend it never happened.

Am I alone in feeling uneasy in this respect? This may sound like a bit of an anti-DHO rant, but I’m simply expressing my reservations in view of how the Pope dealt with something awkward yesterday compared with how DHO has dealt with things.

[Anonymous]

Pres. Oaks is without doubt a controversial figure. There is much of what he says I disagree with, and like you I do not look forward to the day when he is at the head of the table (and that’s the primary reason I am happy for Pres. Nelson’s longevity).

As a former Catholic and one who knows a few Catholics at present (where I live there are way more of them than there are of us), there is a lot about the Catholic Church culture and Catholics themselves that differ from our church and church culture. While the Pope is believed to be infallible, in reality most Catholics don’t really believe that (and I’m not just quoting the old adage there). The church spouts off about Catholics who support abortion not being allowed to take Communion (The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper), but in reality nobody prevents them from doing so even when they are quite public about their beliefs. It is likewise for several other religiously conservative issues, including LGBTQ+ issues. A Catholic can be fully active and “faithful” while being opposed to official Catholic stances on any particular topic and few bat an eye. As to the Pope, this latest sort of “hot mic” moment seems to be more of a faux pas. He has said many good things publicly about inclusion of LGBTQ+ folks while mostly keeping his now apparent personal opinion to himself. In my book that’s really the sign of a great leader who is in tune with his organization. The same cannot be said for Pres. Oaks, who consistently makes the mistake of pontificating his own beliefs as doctrine. And as you point out, the Pope will apologize (another sign of great leadership) while Oaks and those who hold those antiquated ideals of church infallibility will not.

That said, Catholicism has had a great deal more time to evolve (and Judaism even more so) than the CoJCoLDS – perhaps we’ll get to that same cultural level at some point (but probably not in my lifetime).

[Anonymous]

I have had Catholic bosses and several Catholic friends over the years and my experience has been similar to DJ’s.

In my own words, Catholics are more free to be openly critical of leadership and not experience any blowback or loss of social capital among other Catholics. Many of the Catholics I know don’t like Pope Francis at all and they’re not afraid to say so.

I compare that to my experiences with our church, where if you are critical of the prophet your movement within the culture could be restricted (loss of TR or even membership). You’ll certainly lose social capital.

I’m also very frustrated by what appears to be the church’s modus operandi.

[Anonymous]

Just a few thoughts:

I have a lot of experience with Catholicism and Catholics. I also have studied comparative religion extensively.

The Catholic Church’s history is long and complex. There have been times of nearly every place on the acceptance and apology spectrum, except full acceptance of differing views and full apology for all mistakes, even some that were truly egregious and appalling. Excommunication does not happen as often now as it did in the past, but it still happens, along with other forms of “punishment”. There also are many kinds of Catholics – both formally and informally. Any generalized statement about Catholicism is just that: a generalization. I personally know VERY devout Catholics who are every bit as (fill in the blank) as VERY devout Mormons – and the same applies to Catholics in name and inheritance only.

Both churches have changed doctrines over the years, and it has happened more in Catholicism than Mormonism largely as a function of age.

The LDS Church worships more like a Protestant church, outside the temple, but it operates more like the Catholic Church, organizationally. To even imply Mormon leaders are or have been “worse” in any way than Catholic leaders simply isn’t accurate. In this case, for example, there is a huge difference in saying someone is sorry to people who were hurt by the use of a word (which is what the Pope said) and an actual apology for saying what was said, which the Pope didn’t do. His apology didn’t change a thing about what he said or its actual meaning. That is an important point.

[Anonymous]

Admin Note: This site has a very simple rule about posts that are written explicitly to criticize individual church leaders. It isn’t allowed. It isn’t our purpose. Our purpose is to help people “stay LDS” in some way.

This thread can continue IF it refocuses on a general issue in the original post – NOT a personal attack, which it obviously is, disclaimer notwithstanding. If that continues, it will be locked.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Admin Note: This site has a very simple rule about posts that are written explicitly to criticize individual church leaders. It isn’t allowed. It isn’t our purpose. Our purpose is to help people “stay LDS” in some way.

This thread can continue IF it refocuses on a general issue in the original post – NOT a personal attack, which it obviously is, disclaimer notwithstanding. If that continues, it will be locked.

Thank you for the polite warning. My purpose wasn’t to attack an individual but to contrast the approaches of the primary leader of one world religion with the likely-soon-to-be primary leader of ours.

I fully agree that the Pope’s apology was simply offered in respect of the hurt his particular choice of words may have caused — not an apology over his personal beliefs. The same cannot be said of DHO’s history. I do not consider that to be a personal attack. I was simply making a factual comparison, supported by evidence, of how two world leaders appear to differ in their approach to controversy and apology.

I had my Stake Presidency temple recommend interview this week. When the member of the Stake Presidency asked me the question about the Word of Wisdom (“Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom?”) I said I strive to obey it as far as I understand it, although I accept that I should be a vegetarian if I truly wish to align myself with D&C 89:13, which states, “And it is pleasing unto me that they [beasts and fowls] should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.”

He told me I was mistaken because it says “not only in times of winter, etc.,” and I went on to explain that the insertion of the key comma before the word “only” in 1921 was to make it clear that we please the Lord when we avoid eating meat — even though my own choice is to eat a little meat.

I don’t believe I was attacking him when I shared the following link so he could learn more about the wording and intent of that verse, here: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/questioning-the-comma-in-verse-13-of-the-word-of-wisdom” class=”bbcode_url”>https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/questioning-the-comma-in-verse-13-of-the-word-of-wisdom

My intention was to present the facts and allow a more enlightened assessment to be made.

If/when DHO replaces President Nelson, his approach and past history will represent my greatest-ever obstacle to StayLDS. It seems to me, therefore, both fair and valid to discuss how the Pope’s handling of things is different from DHO’s approach. Perhaps you can advise me how I could reframe my reservations (supported by evidence) to avoid them being construed as an attack. I support/sustain DHO in his current office.

[Anonymous]

[Admin Note]: Simple: Reframe the point so it doesn’t focus on praising one leader and criticizing the other.

For example, it took my comment to point out that Pope Francis, whom I like, actually did not apologize for what he said. If the post had been a general post about apologies from the Catholic Church and the LDS Church, the administrative comment would not have been written. Instead, it literally was framed as “Catholic leader good” vs. “LDS leader bad”. All the other things my personal comment mentioned were shared to point out the problem with such a focused comparison – especially given the totality of Pope Francis’ comments over the course of his papacy.

Further, your new comment does the same thing, at least in implication within the context of the post. I say that for a simple reason:

Catholics have been excommunicated for a very long time for things that are similar in severity, from an LDS perspective, as a nuanced view of the Word of Wisdom (and it is instructive that your view, which I respect, never has been the standard view of church leadership, including Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other early leaders at the time Section 89 was written and published).

As gently as I can say this, one of the difficulties of black-and-white, absolute views (e.g., this is the only true view of the Word of Wisdom) is that they often cause issues when stated firmly, with no room for personal interpretation – which is how the comment reads. There a a lot of ways the Word of Wisdom is viewed by the membership, including fully active, faithful, temple recommend holding, temple attending, leadership position holding members. Part of peace is learning to have one’s own views and allowing others the same grace without challenging them, except in cases where it is so important to us that silence is not an option.

Pitting Elder Oaks against Pope Francis is problematic here simply because, again, personal attacks on leaders are not allowed – but doing so in an inaccurate way only makes it more problematic.

So, in summary, to answer your question, if you can focus on the issue itself and how we can help you deal with it in a way that helps you stay LDS, in some way, this conversation is totally fine. If it stays a comparison of Catholic and LDS leader tolerance and humility, with the conclusion “good vs. bad”, it isn’t – especially if the comparisons are historically inaccurate.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

[Admin Note]: Simple: Reframe the point so it doesn’t focus on praising one leader and criticizing the other.

So, in summary, to answer your question, if you can focus on the issue itself and how we can help you deal with it in a way that helps you stay LDS, in some way, this conversation is totally fine. If it stays a comparison of Catholic and LDS leader tolerance and humility, with the conclusion “good vs. bad”, it isn’t – especially if the comparisons are historically inaccurate.

Thanks. I think it will be more straightforward if the post could simply be removed. I posted about what I thought was contrasting behavior by respected public figures. That has come across as a personal attack. I have no option to remove the post myself. Perhaps you would be kind enough to oblige.

[Anonymous]

Carburettor wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

[Admin Note]: Simple: Reframe the point so it doesn’t focus on praising one leader and criticizing the other.

So, in summary, to answer your question, if you can focus on the issue itself and how we can help you deal with it in a way that helps you stay LDS, in some way, this conversation is totally fine. If it stays a comparison of Catholic and LDS leader tolerance and humility, with the conclusion “good vs. bad”, it isn’t – especially if the comparisons are historically inaccurate.

Thanks. I think it will be more straightforward if the post could simply be removed. I posted about what I thought was contrasting behavior by respected public figures. That has come across as a personal attack. I have no option to remove the post myself. Perhaps you would be kind enough to oblige.

Speaking as moderator: This thread was/is a topic in the admin only section of the forum. If we were going to delete or lock it we would have. We’re inclined to delete it partly because we rarely delete posts and only if they are extremely egregious. Also, leaving posts like this serves as sort of a model for forum etiquette and how things work with moderation. So for now I’m going to lock the post and we’ll further discuss.

[Author]

Posts