Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
12 replies to this topic

#1 baddonkey

baddonkey

    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 24 August 2011 - 02:03 PM

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

#2 BCSpace

BCSpace

    Right Divider of Systematic LDS Theology

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,257 posts

Posted 24 August 2011 - 02:14 PM

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

BYU Combined Choirs perform "Come Thou Fount Of Every Blessing"
LDS doctrine defined. The first bullet point is the key.
Capitalism from the Lord: Law of Consecration.
Evolution Primer Evolution does not conflict with LDS doctrine in any way.

Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy


#3 kolipoki09

kolipoki09

    Gadianton Rhetor

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,516 posts

Posted 24 August 2011 - 02:42 PM

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
Academia.edu
"Morman [scholars] is just a bunch of white men trying to figure out how to better hide all there wives. and make it legal for you ppl to be able to vote legally without being jailed." - Ernie Tschikof

#4 Scott Lloyd

Scott Lloyd

    Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 24 August 2011 - 02:51 PM

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
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.

#5 frankenstein

frankenstein

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,990 posts

Posted 24 August 2011 - 02:57 PM

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

#6 Pahoran

Pahoran

    Creates Man & Woman

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,097 posts

Posted 24 August 2011 - 02:59 PM

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
(1) Honest. (2) Well-informed. (3) Denying that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been a Christian institution without interruption from the beginning of its history.

A critic may choose any two of the above three. Choose wisely.

#7 SeattleGrunge

SeattleGrunge

    Bur under the saddle of Critics and TBM's.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 465 posts

Posted 24 August 2011 - 03:02 PM

...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
Humble, and proud of it!

#8 calmoriah

calmoriah

    Dulce de labris loquuntur, corde vivunt noxio.

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,738 posts

Posted 24 August 2011 - 03:08 PM

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, 24 August 2011 - 03:10 PM.

  • 0
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
UMW forever!

#9 KevinG

KevinG

    Outspoken zealot of moderation

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,747 posts

Posted 24 August 2011 - 03:13 PM

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
Please ask me what I believe before telling me what I believe. Hint- start here: http://lds.org/scriptures/

#10 Deborah

Deborah

    Dark Chocolate Darling

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,852 posts

Posted 24 August 2011 - 03:24 PM

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
Judges 4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet

#11 Pahoran

Pahoran

    Creates Man & Woman

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,097 posts

Posted 24 August 2011 - 03:27 PM

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
(1) Honest. (2) Well-informed. (3) Denying that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been a Christian institution without interruption from the beginning of its history.

A critic may choose any two of the above three. Choose wisely.

#12 SeattleGrunge

SeattleGrunge

    Bur under the saddle of Critics and TBM's.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 465 posts

Posted 24 August 2011 - 03:29 PM

Thanks Calmoriah
  • 0
Humble, and proud of it!

#13 Nemesis

Nemesis

    You...Obey The Fist

  • Senior Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 112,505 posts

Posted 24 August 2011 - 03:32 PM

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 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users