• Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
baddonkey

Elder Oaks "Infuriated" By V. Hudson'S Fair Talk? Doubtful.

13 posts in this topic

I just read on another board that that guy who has "informants" had one of them supposedly tell him that Dallin H. Oaks was "infuriated" by Valerie Hudson Cassler's FAIR talk about polygamy. I find this VERY difficult to believe. First of all, Elder Oaks has stated in an interview that to state that we will practice polygamy in the hereafter, he would be making a statement that the living Prophet has not spoken about. This tends to support Valerie's position. Second of all, I found nothing in her presentation that would be infuriating to a genuine LDS member. Instead of relying on hearsay and folk traditions and unofficial sources, as those do in support of eternal polygamy, she went to the scriptures and simply stuck to the clear message of D&C 132 in her presentation. I enjoyed her remarks and think they will help bring clarity to that troublesome subject in the future. Maybe that's why the antis and apostates are so eager to disagree with and discredit her.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Instead of relying on hearsay and folk traditions and unofficial sources, as those do in support of eternal polygamy, she went to the scriptures and simply stuck to the clear message of D&C 132 in her presentation. I enjoyed her remarks and think they will help bring clarity to that troublesome subject in the future. Maybe that's why the antis and apostates are so eager to disagree with and discredit her.

I dunno. I found her to be more of a "hopeful apostate" who skipped some important concepts on the issue. But of course I have no idea how Oaks reacted or even if he did. There are some on that board who delight in story telling and do so very well and I think the informant threads fall into that category.

1

Share this post


Link to post

I dunno. I found her to be more of a "hopeful apostate" who skipped some important concepts on the issue.

A "hopeful apostate" who happens to be passionate about her membership in the Church, who would rather present a forthcoming view of Mormon history than engage in a partisan one - that is, faith in a Church that doesn't care so much about "orthodox" or "heterodox" thoughts, as much as it does that members actually have thoughts.

1

Share this post


Link to post

I dunno. I found her to be more of a "hopeful apostate" who skipped some important concepts on the issue.

This characterization is uncalled for.

I too was present to hear her speech, and I found it to be one of the most sensible analyses of the topic that I have ever heard. Not only did it reflect solid reasoning but it was entirely compatible with faith in the doctrine and principles of the restored Church.

2

Share this post


Link to post

she went to the scriptures and simply stuck to the clear message of D&C 132 in her presentation.

is there a "clear message" in section 132? I have read that early members of the Church were very much concerned with eternal salvation and the discontinuation of polygamy; such a concern of early members of the Church would indicate an unclear message of section 132.

0

Share this post


Link to post
I just read on another board that that guy who has "informants" had one of them supposedly tell him that Dallin H. Oaks was "infuriated" by Valerie Hudson Cassler's FAIR talk about polygamy. I find this VERY difficult to believe. First of all, Elder Oaks has stated in an interview that to state that we will practice polygamy in the hereafter, he would be making a statement that the living Prophet has not spoken about. This tends to support Valerie's position. Second of all, I found nothing in her presentation that would be infuriating to a genuine LDS member. Instead of relying on hearsay and folk traditions and unofficial sources, as those do in support of eternal polygamy, she went to the scriptures and simply stuck to the clear message of D&C 132 in her presentation. I enjoyed her remarks and think they will help bring clarity to that troublesome subject in the future. Maybe that's why the antis and apostates are so eager to disagree with and discredit her.

It is ironic that apostates frequently jeer at us about "FPR's" when they so avidly swallow this kind of stupidity. Steve Benson grandly announced that Elder Oaks has "privately" discussed his "concerns" about FARMS with Benson. How likely is it that Elder Oaks would be confiding in a rabid anti-Mormon who has publicly defamed him in the past?

Not very.

Regards,

Pahoran

0

Share this post


Link to post

...Elder Oaks has stated in an interview that to state that we will practice polygamy in the hereafter, he would be making a statement that the living Prophet has not spoken about...

I have been looking for a quote such as this. Can you provide a reference for me?

0

Share this post


Link to post

I have been looking for a quote such as this. Can you provide a reference for me?

DHO [Dallin Oaks]: If I talked about that I'd be making doctrinal statements where the prophet has not chosen to make doctrinal statements, so I think I shouldn't say anything except to affirm that a lot of people, myself included, are in multiple-marriage situations. Look at the significance of that. There are a lot of people that live on this earth that have been married to more than one person. Sometimes those marriages have ended with death; sometimes they've ended with divorce. What does the next life mean to them in relation to a covenant they once made and so on? I don't think those people have much of an answer for that question. It might not bother them because they don't believe that people will live as married couples in the next life. And if they don't make and live for the covenants to do that, [as for themselves] they're right! But for people who live in the belief, as I do, that marriage relations can be for eternity, then you must say, What will life be in the next life, when you're married to more than one wife for eternity? I have to say I don't know. But I know that I've made those covenants, and I believe if I am true to the covenants that the blessing that's anticipated here will be realized in the next life. How? Why, I don't know.

http://newsroom.lds.org/article/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary Edited by calmoriah
0

Share this post


Link to post

As with all private conversations held with anyone from the prophet to the local Bishop, the contents of these conversations is (wait for it) private!

In accordance with Church practice the content of these private conversations (be it off the cuff or part of a disciplinary counsel) are not divulged in public.

Therefore the telling of these private conversations is going to be one sided and incomplete and reflect badly on the trustworthiness of the source of said conversation.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I too was present to hear her speech, and I found it to be one of the most sensible analyses of the topic that I have ever heard. Not only did it reflect solid reasoning but it was entirely compatible with faith in the doctrine and principles of the restored Church.

Ditto!

I think the only people who would not be happy with her presentation would be those who hope polygamy comes back. Hudson was totally logical in her presentation and used actual scriptural references. She actually interpreted Section 132 the way I always have. The New and Everlasting Covenant is not about plural marriage; it is about eternal marriage and the Law of Abraham discussed fits perfectly with what she called the Abrahamic sacrifice.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Ditto!

I think the only people who would not be happy with her presentation would be those who hope polygamy comes back. Hudson was totally logical in her presentation and used actual scriptural references. She actually interpreted Section 132 the way I always have. The New and Everlasting Covenant is not about plural marriage; it is about eternal marriage and the Law of Abraham discussed fits perfectly with what she called the Abrahamic sacrifice.

Is there a transcript of this presentation anywhere?

If only someone from the MI had had the temerity to ask her a question about her sources, we might have had the whole presentation explained to us in detail by now....

Regards,

Pahoran

0

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Calmoriah

0

Share this post


Link to post

You need to start getting your gossip from a more reputable source than Scratch. In the future do not bring his tabloid trash to our board again.

Nemesis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.