🌳 Dallin H. Oaks¶
Estimated time to read: 7 minutes
Criticism¶
It’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true.
— "The Mormons", PBS special (archive), quote from Dallin H. Oaks; See also Video Part 2 at 2:08 (archive); See also Mormon Newsroom transcript (archive); See also FAIR (archive) insist that it's taken out of context, and then fail to provide context
In the rest of this response to the interviewer Helen Whitney's question, Oaks uses the following suspiciously specific illustration:
[D]on’t depreciate their effectiveness in one area because they have some misbehavior in another area — especially from their youth. I think that’s the spirit of that. I think I’m not talking necessarily just about writing Mormon history; I’m talking about George Washington or any other case. If he had an affair with a girl when he was a teenager, I don’t need to read that when I’m trying to read a biography of the Founding Father of our nation.
Now... why would Oaks choose that as a valid criticism in a hypothetical example? Also, why would we not want biographical information in a biography?
Does this counsel to avoid faultfinding and personal criticism apply only to statements that are false? Doesn’t it also apply to statements that are true? In a talk I recently gave to Church Educational System teachers, I urged that “the fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it.”
— Criticism, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Quorum of the Twelve, Ensign February 1987
Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,
“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)
— Criticism, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Quorum of the Twelve, Ensign February 1987; see also "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness", Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, Conference Report April 1947
Here we have "evil speaking" being directly connected to criticizing performance.
We also read from Elder Richards in 1947 that smack-talk only makes leaders of the church perform worse. You're impairing their usefulness and are working against Jesus Himself if you ever say anything bad about them.
... Oh, was Elder Richards just speaking as a man?
My bad.
Apologies¶
Oaks, a former Utah Supreme Court justice, wasn't sure apologizing for past language on homosexuality would be advisable.
"I know that the history of the church is not to seek apologies or to give them," Oaks said in an interview. "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."
— We all can be more civil on LGBT issues, Mormon leader says, The Salt Lake Tribune, January 30, 2015 (archive)
I’m not aware that the word ‘apology’ appears anywhere in the scriptures — Bible or Book of Mormon. The word ‘apology’ contains a lot of connotations in it, and a lot of significance. We do not seek apologies. When our temple was desecrated in California, when people were fired and intimidated, when a lot of other coercive measures were used, we sought no apology. That’s what I meant by saying ‘we don’t seek apology.’ We think that the best way to solve these problems is not a formal statement of words that an apology consists of, but talking about principles and good will among contending viewpoints.
— Trib Talk: LDS leaders Oaks, Christofferson will appear on Trib Talk to discuss religious freedom..., 25:14 - 26:01
In a bizarre twist of irony, after watching that ~45 second segment, scroll back to 10:26 timestamp to hear the following qualification:
One of the things that needs to be pointed out — and I apologize for my voice, I guess all of us have been in a position when we've lost our voice at an inconvenient time — but one of the things that needs to be pointed out is that the questions you ask are not resolved at church headquarters. ...
The fuller context around that brief aside isn't really my point, but you're welcome to listen to it if you like.
The refusal to use a word because it doesn't appear in the Book of Mormon is such a baffling rationalization. I intend to write a page of notes on other times when this same rationalization is used, but I point it out here because of the irony in apologizing fifteen minutes before explaining why the church refuses to apologize for anything. Yes, they're for completely different matters. It's superficial and petty. Do what you like with that info.
Dallas¶
In the announcement of the church's new First Presidency on 14 October, 2025, Elder Gary Stevenson was tasked with verbally naming the presidency members. The one time we should hope that Dallin H. Oaks' name is pronounced properly is the same moment when the church announces to the world that we're led by one Dallas Harris Oaks. As an added bonus, this is described as being a "relevatory" process.
Special Announcement: The New First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Timestamp 01:09
To be clear, no, Dallin is not named Dallas. It is pretty funny, though. Yes, this is a cheap shot, and it really doesn't prove anything, but we can point and laugh while it's available for our viewing amusement. If you encounter folks referring to the acting president of the church as Dallas, now you know why they're being cheeky.
This linked video is a bit over 13 minutes long, but it was released in 2025 so we need short-form content for modern attention spans. Not to worry, the Church Newsroom channel has published a more concise version, parsed down to 2:38. It features some very awkward and jarring edits as it cuts away from Elder Stevenson before he can say the wrong name, nor attribute the process to "relevation."
Reading Material¶
Here are some links that will ultimately reiterate over points I've already made here:
Apologies - Oaks’ ‘No Apologies’ – The Church Doesn’t Seek or Give Apologies, wasmormon.org - The Church does not apologize, A Careful Examination - Mormon leaders and the fear of apologizing, Religion News Service