The night Elder Dallin H. Oaks was held at gunpoint

[pam]

I never heard this story until today.  A story of a time when Elder Oaks was held at gunpoint.

 

http://www.aggielandmormons.org/2015/10/in-very-moment-harrowing-night-elder.html

 

During my life I have had many experiences of being guided in what I should do and in being protected from injury and also from evil. The Lord’s protecting care has shielded me from the evil acts of others and has also protected me from surrendering to my own worst impulses. I enjoyed that protection one warm summer night on the streets of Chicago. I have never shared this experience in public. I do so now because it is a persuasive illustration of my subject.

 

My wife, June, had attended a ward officers’ meeting. When I came to drive her home, she was accompanied by a sister we would take home on our way. She lived in the nearby Woodlawn area, which was the territory of a gang called the Blackstone Rangers.

 

[Vort]

I remember him telling that story in General Conference. He said that he felt constrained not to do the guy harm. Given his current calling, I understand why. For an apostle to have killed or seriously injured anyone, even in self-defense, would be highly problematic. it's likely he would not have been called to his current office had he exercised self-defense as he might have, which would have been an incalculable loss to the Church.

[kapikui]

Given that it happened in Chicago with their famous lack of corruption and pro gun stance,    Elder Oaks would likely have been brought up on charges of premeditated murder, illegal possession of a firearm (yes even if he wrestled it from the kid), and whatever else the prosecutor could make stick, particularly if the gang was paying the right bribes to the right people. 

[mirkwood]

I remember when he gave the talk.  I remember the pacifists gloating in their church approved stance of victimization.

[kapikui]

I remember when he gave the talk.  I remember the pacifists gloating in their church approved stance of victimization.

I did notice that he didn't say that defending himself would have been wrong.  He also didn't say that had the thug in question had died that he would have been a murder, only that the blood would have been on his conscience (not hands interestingly enough), and that he was prompted that it would have been a bad idea.   But pacifists, in general, aren't content to be like the Ammonites and let others choose, they demand that you become a pacifist as well. 

[Vort]

I did notice that he didn't say that defending himself would have been wrong.  He also didn't say that had the thug in question had died that he would have been a murder, only that the blood would have been on his conscience (not hands interestingly enough), and that he was prompted that it would have been a bad idea.   But pacifists, in general, aren't content to be like the Ammonites and let others choose, they demand that you become a pacifist as well. 

 

Furthermore, the people of Ammon were murderers. Their hands were drenched with blood -- innocent blood, in some cases. They made their covenant as a way to gain forgiveness, and as Elder Scott noted a couple of years ago in General Conference, they had a lust for blood that might have been reawakened had they shed blood for any reason, and that unholy lust would have severed them permanently from God.

 

When speaking of the people of Ammon, it is also well worth noting that they were not "pacifists" in any modern sense. They came very close to reneging on their covenant in order to help the Nephite defense, and when finally persuaded not to do so, willingly sent their adolescent sons to fight and die in their place.

[The Folk Prophet]

I remember him telling that story in General Conference. He said that he felt constrained not to do the guy harm. Given his current calling, I understand why. For an apostle to have killed or seriously injured anyone, even in self-defense, would be highly problematic. it's likely he would not have been called to his current office had he exercised self-defense as he might have, which would have been an incalculable loss to the Church.

I find this thinking odd in light of King Benjamin, Alma, Helaman, Moses, etc.

[Capitalist_Oinker]

I find this thinking odd in light of King Benjamin, Alma, Helaman, Moses, etc.

 

I completely agree.

 

Too many times as Church members we read a faith promoting story by a General Authority and subsequently insist on applying the lesson to ALL people and ALL circumstances. 

 

For whatever reason the Lord didn't want Elder Oaks to act in a defensive way in that particular event. To suggest that He would require the same response at every other time or place is hard to justify considering the individuals you mentioned.

 

Joseph Smith said: "It is the duty of all men to protect their lives and the lives of their household when necessity requires it..."; and the Lord Himself stated: "Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies."

I believe that applies to prophets and apostles as well as the rest of us. 

[Guest]

We still have the problem of public perception.  People have a problem with Joseph defending himself at Carthage.  And he didn't even kill anyone.  What would be the perception if an apostle today had actually killed someone -- even in self defense?

[Blackmarch]

I find this thinking odd in light of King Benjamin, Alma, Helaman, Moses, etc.

I don't- many of these older prophets had training to deal with blood. Blood is not a light burden.

However i'd also note that with many of those same prophets they were inspired to withhold executing justice at times and at others taking up the sword. (i'd further note that blood on Moses' hands kept him from entering the promised land, if I recall right)

As that was inspiration to him (elder oaks) from the spirit I'm in agreement with vort, it would have been significant in some way that was detrimental to his becoming an apostle. exactly in what way would it have been I don't know.

altho if i had to make a guess it would likely stem from some psychological issue... but the public idea isn't a bad guess either; how would people react to an apostle who killed a black kid? (nevermind that he was threatened with a weapon by the guy, the media tends to leave out things like that) - and that sort of thing becomes ammo for people who try to institute laws that can be used against the church.

 

[kapikui]

We still have the problem of public perception.  People have a problem with Joseph defending himself at Carthage.  And he didn't even kill anyone.  What would be the perception if an apostle today had actually killed someone -- even in self defense?

Exactly the issue. I've run into antis who can go on for hours about how horrible it was that Joseph Smith used a weapon to defend himself.  Somehow a single pepperbox and a few canes turns into an arsenal when it processes through their filters. 

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't- many of these older prophets had training to deal with blood. Blood is not a light burden.

 

Which is an entirely different issue than what I find odd -- which is that Elder Oaks couldn't have been called to the twelve if he'd ever been involved in some sort of self-defensive violence.

[Sunday21]

Really? Why could he not have become an Apostle after such an encounter? Bad PR? Need to have controversy free past?

[Vort]

Which is an entirely different issue than what I find odd -- which is that Elder Oaks couldn't have been called to the twelve if he'd ever been involved in some sort of self-defensive violence.

 

Did someone say that?

[The Folk Prophet]

For an apostle to have killed or seriously injured anyone, even in self-defense, would be highly problematic. it's likely he would not have been called to his current office had he exercised self-defense as he might have, which would have been an incalculable loss to the Church.

 

Did someone say that?

 

Shruggiddy shrug. I'll grant that the "couldn't" have been isn't entirely accurate. Likely wouldn't have been fulfills the general meaning enough that I stand by my point that I consider it odd. I can't see why someone exercising appropriate self-defense would have any bearing on their potential for being called of God -- as in Moses, Alma, Helaman.......

[kapikui]

Like it or not, much of the modern world is rabidly anti-self defense. A leader of a church involved in such a killing may be a serious liability.  Morevover given the political situation in Chicago, it is a virtual certainty that such an act of self defense would have resulted in a murder charge against Elder Oaks, and likely a murder conviction.  The thug would have been styled as a choirboy who was just misunderstood and never hurt anybody.

[The Folk Prophet]

Like it or not, much of the modern world is rabidly anti-self defense. A leader of a church involved in such a killing may be a serious liability. Morevover given the political situation in Chicago, it is a virtual certainty that such an act of self defense would have resulted in a murder charge against Elder Oaks, and likely a murder conviction. The thug would have been styled as a choirboy who was just misunderstood and never hurt anybody.

Seems a bit extreme to me. Murder charge, maybe. Conviction? Hardly. Beyond that, the modern world is rabidly anti a lot of stuff that the apostles are. Doesn't seem to be a problem.

[kapikui]

Seems a bit extreme to me. Murder charge, maybe. Conviction? Hardly. Beyond that, the modern world is rabidly anti a lot of stuff that the apostles are. Doesn't seem to be a problem.

Maybe, maybe not.  Chicago has set up life sentences for a lot of people for using force for things that in Idaho would have had the investigating officer go "Yep, he needed killin" and that would be then end of it. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Maybe, maybe not.  

 

Maybe, maybe not.

[estradling75]

While it shouldn't affect God's willingness to call....  Have we considered how such an action might have fundamentally altered Elder Oaks?  Such an alteration in the nature of the man could have all kinds of later impacts.

[mirkwood]

While it shouldn't affect God's willingness to call....  Have we considered how such an action might have fundamentally altered Elder Oaks?  Such an alteration in the nature of the man could have all kinds of later impacts.

 

Are you saying only negative impacts could have come from such an action?

[Vort]

Are you saying only negative impacts could have come from such an action?

 

Do you think there are lots of positive spiritual impacts coming from killing a man in self-defense?

[estradling75]

Are you saying only negative impacts could have come from such an action?

 

I would not say "Only" negative...  But remember he was not trained... Boot camp and police training (and possibility a few other I am not thinking of) train people for that possibility so that when it happens they are at least some what ready/prepared for it...  Elder Oaks had none of that.

[mirkwood]

But does that mean only a negative could come from such an action?

[mirkwood]

Do you think there are lots of positive spiritual impacts coming from killing a man in self-defense?

 

Do you think there are none?