Dallin H. Oaks | University of Virginia Q&A Session **FULL VERSION** (electroshock therapy at BYU)
Channel: Latter Gay Stories
Date: 14/11/2021

**Partial Transcript Below**
On November 12, 2021, Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' First Presidency addressed the community in two meetings. The first was a Question and Answer meeting on the University Campus. The second was a message titled, "Going Forward with Religious Freedom and Nondiscrimination," a lecture which was given publicly at the campus rotunda. 

During the Q&A President Oaks was asked about his role as president at BYU and his involvement with the horrific electroshock and vomit therapy programs. President Oaks stated in this Q&A that BYU had abandoned the electroshock therapy program prior to his tenure as BYU President.

Oaks also admits that he changes his messaging regarding+ LGBTQ people based on the audience that is hearing his message. The general public gets one version, Latter-day Saints get another version. 

Partial Transcript: 
Opening Moderator: “I’m conscious over time here, and we have, I wanted of course to get to LGBT rights and a couple of other questions but I think our audience might do that for us…and we’ll let them guide us in that part of the questioning with an apology that we weren’t able to get to it more during…[unsure of the last few words]”

Question #1: Doesn’t the mask mandate apply to everyone? Shouldn’t they be wearing masks right now? 

Question #2:  Is it inevitable that the legal conflict of the Free Exercise Clause increases over time? 

Question #3: This question is for Dallin. In June 2019 you said at a conference at BYU in Provo, you said, “we’re confronted by a culture of evil and personal wickedness in the world. This includes the increasing power and phenomenon of lesbian, gay, and transgender lifestyles and values. So, I have two questions for you: What have you done to be more progressive since that time, since 2019 to the LGBTQ community? And what have you done to address some of the things you have done in the past, including the things that you have said and overseeing the enforcement of electroshock and vomiting aversion therapy for LGB students at BYU?

Oaks: Let me say about electroshock treatments at BYU, when I became president at BYU that had been discontinued earlier and it never went on under my administration. 

Put that to one side. 

Let me begin to answer your question from the lightning remarks. Bear in mind, that my audience there was an audience of Latter-day Saints [audience laughs in shock at that statement]

I have different responsibilities when I teach people who follow Latter-day Saint doctrine than I have when I speak as a representative of the Church on what positions the Church ought to take in society as a whole. And so, I think the correct answer to your question, the accurate answer to your question is, #1 I understand better the situation of the Church in relating to society now, than I did then—partly by working on lectures that I will be giving tonight—I refer you to that lecture as part of the answer to your question. 

The other part is: asking you to understand what the Church has issued as its main doctrines. It does not try to make a rules for all society but we do make rules and set limits for own membership and they’re responsible to receive that message or not but don’t judge a private sermon by public issues. 

Question #4: This question is also for Dallin: I am curious if following Bob Jones and understanding the religious exemptions for race in this country. How does that fit with your Utah Compromise? And how does that mesh with LGBTQIA topics? [paraphrased]

Question #5: This is directed at Dallin H. Oaks. Do you think there is a way to be both a proponent of the religious liberty and a proponent of the rights to other minorities like the LGBTQ community? And if you can’t be a proponent of both can you define that distinction between the private and public sphere? 

Oaks: The distinction is a sound one, I am going to throw you a constitutional distinction but the answer to your basic question is, yes, and I will talk about that distinction in my lecture tonight. 
I think the solution to that is for people on one side to become better acquainted and have more respect and knowledge for the people on the other side. That’s a principle that applies to people on both sides. And finally, the Utah Compromise, so called, seen in that light is a small step toward that. There are several other steps that I will outline. I cannot do thirty-minutes’ worth in sixty seconds but basically I think we’ve got to live together, we’ve got to meet each other, by “we” I mean this side and that side, we need each other, we’ve got to learn how to live with each other, and the way to do that is not to take hardline positions that we do not have to prevail in every contest between non-discrimination and religious freedom, that there is room to make compromise and accommodations and better understanding. That’s the best understanding I can give tonight.