This is the worst possible week to have a double-edition of SiOB because the Brodie Awards voting has begun!! It’s time to give a little extra recognition to all of the very good works of the past year, so I hope you’ll take the time to click on the links of the various nominees and have a look — particularly at pieces you might not have seen when they first appeared. (Also, if you like Sunday in Outer Blogness and the various awards, etc., that we host here at Main Street Plaza, please pop on over to the Wheaties/Tarefic Awards to vote for us — I think today is the last day of their voting period.)
But instead of letting you peacefully review the nominees, Elders Oaks and Holland have conspired to make it an amusing week!! In a nutshell, they held a press conference about how the CoJCoL-dS is going to support anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals — which some hailed as a grand step forward — except… they still support protecting the right to discriminate, which kinda doesn’t make any sense:
LGBT people do not need protection from those who would not discriminate anyway, but rather from those who would. It doesn’t matter where the discrimination comes from, or why, but rather such legislation says that citizens of this country shall not be discriminated against in housing, employment and public accommodations because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Also, they buried the meager good stuff under a deep pile of misconceptions about how freedom of expression works, false or misleading examples, and general whining about how the church is the real victim here. This led people to wonder whether they’re intentionally polarizing the discussion or whether they’re just jerks.
The icing on the cake was Oaks’ later quote:
I know that the history of the church is not to seek apologies or to give them
…which people analyzed thoroughly and had a lot of fun with. I think they’re going to be regretting that one for a long time.
So what happened to John Dehlin and his impending excommunication? (Seriously, does anyone know why nothing about it has shown up in any of my feeds?) How about a turnabout to illustrate the church’s double-standard in discipline.
Meanwhile life in Mormondom goes on. Modesty is still running amok! And what are the fundamentalist Mormons up to? here‘s an interesting tale of being a plural wife.
Here‘s an interesting look at a Catholic looking seriously at why people leave — do you think these old guys are capable of the same? And how is your burning bosom (or something) like a compass inside a tank?
In scripture study, Gospel Doctrine for the Godless offered some really interesting insights on linguistic and philosophical problems with the New Testament (plus contradictions), and the Book of Mormon study hit the parts where they accurately prophesy about stuff that happened before the book was written, plus some odd war stories.
In history, Mithryn posted a tithing bailout timeline.
In life journeys, myrtlejoy listed some things that aren’t what made her leave the church, and Chelsey Sidler-Lartey listed how her life has changed since.
In books, we have more reviews of The Bishop’s Wife, plus a comparison of two missionary novels.
In fun, check out the power of fasting, predicting temple locations, suggestions for a style guide, new hymn parody, and some hilarious feminist haiku!!
In not-Mormon-related, some sad news, some beautiful photos, and a recipe.
Happy reading and happy voting!! đ
Wow, this is the real summary!!
And even better: Even if the church isn’t perfect, ordinary faithful members can help make up for it…
I’m glad that folks are readily recognizing the duplicitous nature of the Church’s call for “civility” over LGBT matters — that the so-called “middle ground” is basically codifying discrimination into the law. For Oaks and Co. to talk about a pressing need for this middle ground, as if nondiscrimination laws all over the country don’t already include religious exemptions is misleading.
Oaks is particularly irritating because he’s shaped so much policy over the last few decades on LGBT matters — from that 1984 memo, to the 1990s formalization of the memo, to now. It’s probably why he doesn’t feel an apology is necessary, because to his mind, he took the bad pre-1980s stuff (electrotherapy, marriage as cure) and following Hinckley, made everything “good.” So anything bad that’s happened after that is a result of people not adhering to the leadership’s guidelines, rather than “the Church” or the unthinkable: that the policy then and now rests on an essentially broken theological interpretation that gays are “fixed” in Heaven.
In that Trib Talk, when Oaks says that the Church still has a “lot of teaching to do” on transgenderism — in other words, more top-down, we-know-how-this-all-works and fits into the hierarchy — it’s just disappointing. Some people have noted that they thought Oaks using the word “transgender” is a good sign (certainly better than Packer saying it doesn’t exist, I suppose), but how can any good come of it?