New LDS Church Website: Mormons and Gays

[Jeff Lebowski]

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/fait...apostle?page=1

I'm not sure if this has been talked about but it seems to be the latest thing that has come out of SLC that has upset people.

I am still shaking my head on that one. Oaks seems to be on a mission to go down in history as the most corporate GA.

"I know that the history of the church is not to seek apologies or to give them," Oaks said in an interview Tuesday. "We sometimes look back on issues and say, 'Maybe that was counterproductive for what we wish to achieve,' but we look forward and not backward."

The church doesn't "seek apologies," he said, "and we don't give them."


The Mormon leader made the same point, only stronger, Thursday during a video chat on Trib Talk by insisting that the word "apology" doesn't appear in LDS scriptures.

Yes indeed. Why would a Christian church ever worry about a concept like apologizing?

[SandYFan]

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/fait...apostle?page=1

I'm not sure if this has been talked about but it seems to be the latest thing that has come out of SLC that has upset people.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't apologize for "doctrines," the blogger noted. "Doctrines come from God; they don't change and we do not make excuses for them."

I just don't see how anyone can look at the history of the church and say this with a believing heart.

[Harry Tic]

I am still shaking my head on that one. Oaks seems to be on a mission to go down in history as the most corporate GA.



Yes indeed. Why would a Christian church ever worry about a concept like apologizing?

Before we write off DHO as the Cari Jenkins of the Q12, I'll venture a guess that he was mindful of some of the legal repercussions of going down that path. Perhaps some of our enlightened attorneys could say more. But I'll admit that it sounds pretty cringe-worthy at first.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Before we write off DHO as the Cari Jenkins of the Q12, I'll venture a guess that he was mindful of some of the legal repercussions of going down that path. Perhaps some of our enlightened attorneys could say more. But I'll admit that it sounds pretty cringe-worthy at first.

If you are saying that he said that his point is that the church strategically avoids any and all apologies (he didn't distinguish) due to a blanket concern for lawsuits, then I rest my case about a "corporate" persona.

[Harry Tic]

If you are saying that he said that his point is that the church strategically avoids any and all apologies (he didn't distinguish) due to a blanket concern for lawsuits, then I rest my case about a "corporate" persona.

Well, it's DHO. Given who he is and his past history, I can't see anyone being surprised by this.

That said, since he may well be president of the church someday, I'll admit that it would be nice for him to play good cop every once in a while. I don't think he'll ever be lovable, but it would be nice if every now and then he left the lawyering to others.

[TripletDaddy]

I actually love DHO inadvertently giving the green light for pious a-holery across the spectrum of LDS-centric issues.

"I dont seek apologies and I dont give them." It's the new "Dont take offense where none is intended."

[Northwestcoug]

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/fait...apostle?page=1

I'm not sure if this has been talked about but it seems to be the latest thing that has come out of SLC that has upset people.

The rationale that the church doesn't give apologies is even more creepy. He said that the word 'apology' isn't found in the scriptures.

He's right, you know.

[LVAllen]

I am still shaking my head on that one. Oaks seems to be on a mission to go down in history as the most corporate GA.

I think the thing that really irritated me is this:

Elder Oaks restated the church's position that nondiscrimination laws and ordinances should protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people against discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation, with some exceptions for religious conscience.

"We think there is a very real question about whether there should be an absolute nondiscrimination (provision) in housing that would not let a widow, say, who rents out a room in her home, make some individual choices on the basis of her conscience, so if you have nondiscrimination as a value that overrides everything else, that's not good."

He said such "gradations" will be difficult for lawmakers to draw.

"But I hope they will be drawn and you won't get an absolute 'no discrimination' law or (one that is) an absolute, 'religion is an excuse for everything.'"

He expresses concern that an elderly widow would be forced to abide by anti-discrimination laws. Except that the elderly widow is exempt from fair housing laws, as is anyone who rents out rooms in their own home, as long as they live there too and the house is built for 4 or fewer families. It's called the "Mrs. Murphy exemption;" it's codified into the federal statute, and the exemption is mirrored in the Utah statute. What's more, this isn't coming from an old railroad man, or a teacher-turned publisher. This is coming from a man who was once sitting on the Utah Supreme Court.

He outta know better. He does know better. And to sit there and pull out Mrs. Murphy as a red herring makes me a bit disappointed.

[Northwestcoug]

I think the thing that really irritated me is this:


He expresses concern that an elderly widow would be forced to abide by anti-discrimination laws. Except that the elderly widow is exempt from fair housing laws, as is anyone who rents out rooms in their own home, as long as they live there too and the house is built for 4 or fewer families. It's called the "Mrs. Murphy exemption;" it's codified into the federal statute, and the exemption is mirrored in the Utah statute. What's more, this isn't coming from an old railroad man, or a teacher-turned publisher. This is coming from a man who was once sitting on the Utah Supreme Court.

He outta know better. He does know better. And to sit there and pull out Mrs. Murphy as a red herring makes me a bit disappointed.

That reminded me of the other moment from Oaks. During his press conference he trotted out 4 anecdotes to bolster his case that religions need anti-discrimination protections from the law. IMO, those cases were pretty weak and really not related to what he's arguing for, but that's a separate issue. However, during his trib talk interview the reporter asked him about a couple of hypotheticals, such as a homeowner that doesn't want to rent a room to a gay couple, or a restaurant owner that refuses to serve Mormon missionaries, all based on religious beliefs. The first one in particular directly involves his stated commitment to ban housing discrimination. Oaks refused to comment on those issues, deferring to lawmakers to hash that out.

If Oaks can cite anecdotes that he wants lawmakers to base future legislation on yet refuse to comment on other valid hypotheticals, that's pretty pathetic. I think he knows the weakness of his position. He's a smart man; he has to see the hypocrisy with allowing a person to base business decisions based on personal convictions and the church's professed worry about housing and employment discrimination. He is trying to carve out a religious exemption to allow very specific discrimination in the public sector. I'm not bullish about the church's chances.

[pellegrino]

Well, it's DHO. Given who he is and his past history, I can't see anyone being surprised by this.

That said, since he may well be president of the church someday, I'll admit that it would be nice for him to play good cop every once in a while. I don't think he'll ever be lovable, but it would be nice if every now and then he left the lawyering to others.

IRRC, one of the factors behind his calling was precisely because the church needed to "clarify" their discipline procedures and DHO was the one to do that.

[jay santos]

Did a senior apostle and possible next prophet of the church really just say "I'm not aware that the word apology appears anywhere in the scriptures"? Just when you think the church can't do anything more to embarrass themselves over this Prop 8 thing.

I'm not aware of it saying anywhere in the scriptures you should never say "Hey Elder Oaks, f*** off and die." just sayin...

[DrumNFeather]

Did a senior apostle and possible next prophet of the church really just say "I'm not aware that the word apology appears anywhere in the scriptures"? Just when you think the church can't do anything more to embarrass themselves over this Prop 8 thing.

I'm not aware of it saying anywhere in the scriptures you should never say "Hey Elder Oaks, f*** off and die." just sayin...

c41220cfe4f7c510921d0f7dfa32199ff6b4ac6d7613ce0344335d6e723e5fb6.jpg

[Uncle Ted]

Did a senior apostle and possible next prophet of the church really just say "I'm not aware that the word apology appears anywhere in the scriptures"? Just when you think the church can't do anything more to embarrass themselves over this Prop 8 thing.

I'm not aware of it saying anywhere in the scriptures you should never say "Hey Elder Oaks, f*** off and die." just sayin...

Technically Oaks is right. While words one would not expect such as "horse" or "elephant" appear in the BoM the word "apology" doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the scriptures. Many of the synonyms of "apology", such as "atonement", do appear in the scriptures, however. Oaks is a damn good lawyer.

[CardiacCoug]

Stephen Covey:

It takes a great deal of character strength to apologize quickly out of one's heart rather than out of pity. A person must possess himself and have a deep sense of security in fundamental principles and values in order to genuinely apologize.

[ERCougar]

I wonder if Oaks' quad has the words "gay" or "homosexual".

Probably says "same sex attracted" instead.