President Oaks' advice to young married couples in Chicago

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Recently heard a talk that was recorded of him speaking to the Priests (young men) after speaking in the ward's Fast Sunday. He was upset at the young men for taking the bread with their left hands and not right. And he was shocked at how many did that. Now I don't know, but I thought this was no longer a big deal, I guess I am wrong. 

In the interest of doing the necessary research to form my own understanding, I ask you for a CFR. I need to hear or see for myself exactly what he said and the context in which it was said. Please post the talk or a transcript.

I find it very disturbing that members (?) are recording General Authority talks without their knowledge or permission and then using snippets to discredit them. Who did this?

Edited February 5, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[MustardSeed]

Well I for one do not need my leaders to be flawless and like I said I’m happy to think for myself, even when listening to a general authority so I’m happy to assume ***for myself that he suggests we not research in a way that removes us from God. 

I personally don’t believe (***my opinion) that this little talk was some great revelation that suddenly Oaks wants the people to stop asking questions and stop researching answers.  

[The Nehor]

Oh look. Another critique of a General Authority address. How original.......

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I could not disagree more with this advice.  

How many times have we heard members blamed for not doing their own reading and research when they complain that the church has hidden details regarding some of the more difficult issues from church history?

Also, some members have claimed that they are definitely not to blame because of the counsel over the years to only read and listen to teachings written by the church.

One can't have it both ways here, IMO. (Don't do your own reading and research, but then turn around and say that members should know the details and history and blame them when they don't.....the essays do not cover everything.)

I strongly feel that each member needs to do their own research and reading when it comes to church history.  They need to come to their own conclusions after study and prayer.  I cannot imagine discouraging anyone from doing that (especially when some others turn around and blame the members for being lazy and not knowing things because they have not done their own research).  

His advice is the same as that given by Jesus himself, first be converted to Christ.  Since the primary purpose of the Church is to point us to Christ, it seems self-evident that conversion to Christ ought to be the first priority—and Christ invites us to come to Him when we lack wisdom, we’re not able to do so without the requisite faith (that’s attendant to that conversion) and we’re left to our own limited comprehension  and unable to tap into Divine omniscience.

Restlessness or rest.

 

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

In the interest of doing the necessary research to form my own understanding, I ask you for a CFR. I need to hear or see for myself exactly what he said and the context in which it was said. Please post the talk or a transcript.

I find it very disturbing that members (?) are recording General Authority talks without their knowledge or permission and then using snippets to discredit them. Who did this?

I saw this posted of this portion of the talk.  I haven't watched it yet myself (but will now).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0siBml8crY&feature=youtu.be

ETA:

Can't get my volume to work on my computer!  If anyone listens to it, maybe then can supply a quote?

Edited February 5, 2019 by ALarson

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think we can take them into account, but Pres. Oaks is not one to NOT state what he means and do so with clarity.  For this discussion, I think we should not be posting what we believe he meant to say and discuss what he did state.  This thread is about the talk he just gave to young couples and not what he's stated in the past.  

But we disagree about what he did state means.   How can we resolve that disagreement?

Also, Oaks specifically said "He acknowledged that some Latter-Saint couples face conflicts over important values and priorities. Matters of Church history and doctrinal issues have led some spouses to inactivity. Some spouses wonder how to best go about researching and responding to such issues.

“I suggest that research is not the answer,” he said.

So, if we want to stick only with what Oaks actually said then we must acknowledge that he was speaking about a very specific situation and it would be wrong to try to apply his advice outside of that scope.  

The only situation that we can apply his words to (if we want to stick with what he did state, as you said we should) is one where there is 1) one spouse who has become inactive over doctrinal issues and 2) a spouse wants to know how best to research and respond to those issues.  Only when those two things have occurred can we apply his response that 3) research is not the answer.

If we are sticking only with what Oaks said, is it fair to broaden his words to more situations than the one he specifically is speaking of?

 

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The word precede suggests that after a person is converted to the Lord, the next step is conversion to the church.  I don't like that binary approach of course, because of the exclusivity claim.  I would decouple that idea as I know many people have a deep devotion to divinity and no relationship with the COJCOLDS.  

For most people I know who were born into the church, they had the conversion to the church first anyway, they were born into it.  The process of faith crisis had me first question my beliefs in the church and then question my belief in God.  I continue to see how incredibility out of touch some of these leaders are when it comes to faith crisis issues.  

I have every confidence in the ability of anyone who is covered to, and communes with, Deity to find and dwell in the rest of the Lord, regardless of whether or not they know anything about the Church.

And I concede I don’t think it would have been possible for me to be converted to the Church without first being converted to Christ.  I might have been able to say there was some goodness in the Church prior to conversion to Christ, but Divine confirmation is necessary for my conversion.

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I don't see the conflict between the two.

There's nothing wrong with research. Indeed I think inquiry is important for reasons similar to what Clark says. However I also think that ultimately answers are tentative in the sense that typically our inquiry underdetermines the answer. Ask me about the grounds for 19th century polygamy, which I'm deeply uncomfortable with and I can give a bit of data, but not enough to really answer anything satisfactorily. Further inquiry only works if one also has that direct faithful relationship with Heavenly Father and Christ. The way I interpret the stuff on polygamy is fully informed by that faith. Without that faith, I'd probably interpret it more the way an atheist critic would. That doesn't mean I'm being irrational in the least nor avoiding investigation. Just that scholarly investigation only gets me so far.

It'd be nice if inquiry always got us in the short term to the correct truth. In practice that just doesn't happen much. I'm convinced the Book of Mormon is historical but can't explain the problem of metalurgy. I don't know why the translation took the form of extensive quotes and paraphrases from the KJV for passages that clearly aren't quotes. I've no idea why God didn't reveal the law of adoption to Joseph in a clear fashion but waited for Joseph to tell Brigham about it in a dream. I don't know why God didn't chew our Brigham and Joseph for having too many marriages leading to heartbreak for the women involved. The reality is that inquiry frequently doesn't lead to a clear answer and how we interpret the data completely depends upon our faith in God along with what personal revelation he grants us.

To say that research is not the answer doesn't imply research is bad. Just that it doesn't give us the answer.

The answer to what?  To say research doesn't give anyone the answer doesn't make sense.  Is he saying research doesn't give us the answer to the question of whether there is God?  Maybe, but to say research isn't the answer to that question seems silly.  Research can only help someone come to an answer, in the long run no matter the question.  Given your example of metallurgy, the problem is real.  It may or may not have any bearing on whether the book is scripture.  I don't see how researching the issue of metallurgy provides no answers.  

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But we disagree about what he did state means.   How can we resolve that disagreement?

Also, Oaks specifically said "He acknowledged that some Latter-Saint couples face conflicts over important values and priorities. Matters of Church history and doctrinal issues have led some spouses to inactivity. Some spouses wonder how to best go about researching and responding to such issues.

“I suggest that research is not the answer,” he said.

So, if we want to stick only with what Oaks actually said then we must acknowledge that he was speaking about a very specific situation and it would be wrong to try to apply his advice outside of that scope.  

I agree.  He states that "research is not the answer" for "matters of Church history and doctrinal issues" that "have led some spouses into inactivity".

That's pretty specific actually and then he recommends reading the essays.  I do agree that they contain some of the answers, but they leave a lot of the details out, IMO.  

 

Edited February 5, 2019 by ALarson

[MustardSeed]

Bluebell you are quite intelligent. I have no CFR but just going off my experience, it is ***my opinion. 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

But that's not what he said.  So let's not get into what he meant to say.  

He said that research was not "the" answer.

He didn't say that research wasn't a answer (among others), or part of the answer, just that it wasn't "the" answer.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

But that's not what he said.  So let's not get into what he meant to say.  

That is why i said, "I think he means research alone is not the answer."

One purpose of discussion to determine what we think he meant to say. This is what the OP did when he said, "I worry that President Oaks doesn't care about actually helping people to grow into mature humans..."

And he did say it, taking this part of the quote provided into consideration:

“But the best answer to any question that threatens faith is to work to increase faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” he said. “Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church. And conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study and service, furthered by loving patience on the part of spouse and other concerned family members.”

Not "study" alone...

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

He said that research was not "the" answer.

He didn't say that research wasn't a answer (among others), or part of the answer, just that it wasn't "the" answer.

It's very definitely part of the answer and should be recommended, not discouraged.  As I've already posted, members should do their own research and reading....then study and pray.

 

Edited February 5, 2019 by ALarson

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I've followed the Elder Corbridge talk and comments closely, and I see some similarities between the two messages.  I disagree with both Oaks and Corbridge's approaches on many levels and I think they are the wrong direction to take for people struggling with faith.  I much more like the recent Elder Uchtdorf approach on this topic.  

Which approach from Elder Uchdorf are you talking about? That we wish those well who have come to a different end than what Elder Oaks is promoting? Both their sentiments and messages apply equally; they are not mutually exclusive.

Why is continued engagement with faith "a wrong direction to take for people struggling with it"? Is not it similar to our persisting to wish people well who come to the conclusion to drop certain points of faith?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The question I would ask is whether you've ever been confident that something was inspired by God, and then later had a change of heart?   I personally have and those experiences have contributed towards my skeptical orientation these days.  I think the question I would ask someone who says that they have faith that some elements of polygamy were inspired by God, is what would you do if the current President of the church reinstated polygamy and you were called to practice it?  Would this be a challenge to your faith? 

Yes, perhaps it would be challenging but I would expect the same counsel, rather I would expect that i would apply the same counsel that always works in dealing with spiritual matters.

My default position is not so much that such-and-such is inspired by God and such-and-such isn't on a point-by-point basis, but that my initial witness of the Church and the Book or Mormon have not changed. That God allows bad things, or things I am uncomfortable with, and trials and tribulations to occur have not proven sufficient to change that witness. That they have deepened and expanded to include testimonies of other things is the result of far more than research alone, and I try not to perform any research devoid of any degree spiritual dimension, no matter how small.

Edited February 5, 2019 by CV75

[clarkgoble]

46 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The answer to what?  To say research doesn't give anyone the answer doesn't make sense.  Is he saying research doesn't give us the answer to the question of whether there is God?  Maybe, but to say research isn't the answer to that question seems silly.  Research can only help someone come to an answer, in the long run no matter the question.  Given your example of metallurgy, the problem is real.  It may or may not have any bearing on whether the book is scripture.  I don't see how researching the issue of metallurgy provides no answers.  

Contextually he clearly means the answer to what is causing a faith crisis. He gives that sentence right after "Matters of Church history and doctrinal issues have led some spouses to inactivity. Some spouses wonder how to best go about researching and responding to such issues." In other words the answer is the truth (from his perspective) that would resolve the question that is leading someone out of the Church.

Of course a Church critic will see this quite differently than active members. But Oaks is coming from the perspective that the Church is true and that there are answers. Certainly research can give answers to some questions, but not the questions Oaks is interested in.

I'm surprised people are attempting to make this into Oaks advocating no research. Which, if anyone knows Oaks history, makes no sense as an interpretation.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure that I agree that having an encounter with God or the BoM imposes a specific burden of proof in the way that you seem to suggest. 

The nature of the experience will certainly determine how evidence gets interpreted. But typically if one believes one has had a clear revelation saying that the Book of Mormon is true entails beliefs about the consequences of being true. Those are themselves interpretations of course arising out of ones other beliefs and practices. In general though I think for most people its truth entails a degree of historicity and thus evidence that has to be judged along side missing evidences such as say metallurgy.

I'm not trying to prescribe a specific set of reasoning here. Just noting that these revelatory encounters with God and then faith in their validity will change how we interpret evidence. How could it not? I think Oaks is completely correct to point to these experiences as what ultimately determine the answers rather than evidence since those experiences shape how the evidence is interpreted.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The question I would ask is whether you've ever been confident that something was inspired by God, and then later had a change of heart?

Sure. I'm a fallibilist. I think we can regularly be wrong about things.

But by the same measure I've thought I've seen things that upon closer inspection turned out to be false. I've misremembered things. I don't infer from that that I should disbelieve all I see or remember. That'd be functionally impossible.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the question I would ask someone who says that they have faith that some elements of polygamy were inspired by God, is what would you do if the current President of the church reinstated polygamy and you were called to practice it?  Would this be a challenge to your faith? 

Sure. But since I don't foresee it happening I don't worry about it much.

Edited February 5, 2019 by clarkgoble

[sjdawg]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I find it very disturbing that members (?) are recording General Authority talks without their knowledge or permission 

I find it more disturbing that General Authorities are so paranoid about having a broader audience for their words.  Perhaps if they were more confident in their messaging then a recording wouldn't be a bad thing.  When you have the entire talk available it is much more difficult to take something out of context or confuse what you thought you heard with what was actually said.  If the message is correct a recording seems to offer a lot of protection against having the talk taken out of context.

I have no issue with someone recording a public meeting with or without permission.  I"m also 100% fine with people recording their own disciplinary councils.  I'm a little less ok with people recording personal conversations.  

Edited February 5, 2019 by sjdawg

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

In the interest of doing the necessary research to form my own understanding, I ask you for a CFR. I need to hear or see for myself exactly what he said and the context in which it was said. Please post the talk or a transcript.

I find it very disturbing that members (?) are recording General Authority talks without their knowledge or permission and then using snippets to discredit them. Who did this?

Do I dare? It was recorded last Fast Sunday, by one of the young men in attendance. I guess the recording has been pulled because the YM was caught. I heard it in full, and the transcript below is accurate from my memory.

Transcription for the Left Hand Rant:

"I come to see what happens when I'm not here. But I had an impression from the Spirit of the Lord, to teach something to each of you and particularly the young men of the Aaronic priesthood. Because I saw something, in Sacrament meeting today, that told me that some of you don't understand something. The Sacrament is an ordinance of the Gospel. And because it's an ordinance, it needs to be done exactly right. Just like the prayers that the priests offer, they have to say the exact language in the prayers. Because it's a priesthood ordinance. Just like baptism. The Lord taught us, when we are baptized, the priest who officiates raises his right hand, and says, 'having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you, in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost.' and then he immerses the person in the water. And if that's not done exactly that way, it has to be done again.

Now. When we partake of the sacrament, young men and young women, we are renewing the act of baptism. We're promising the Lord again, what we promised in baptism, that we'd keep his commandments. And also, he promises to renew the effect of our baptism, so that we're cleansed, from our sins, when we partake of the sacrament, if we've repented of them. But now there's something about the right hand. When we're baptized the priest raises his right hand, not his left hand, but his right hand. And when we partake of the sacrament, we partake with our right hand, not our left hand. And today, I saw quite a few of the deacons take the sacrament with their left hands. Don't do that. Because you set the wrong example for the congregation if you do that.

I know why you did that, because the sacrament tray was coming up on this side, and it was easiest to do that way. But a mother who's holding a baby, probably changes the baby, so she can use her right hand. And all of us should partake of the right hand, when we participate in that great ordinance of the gospel. That's what I felt impressed to share with you, and I've often mentioned that in other meetings, but I've never seen so many deacons take the sacrament with their left hand, so I thought I'd better perform my responsibility to share that with you. God bless you in the name of Jesus Christ, amen."  

ETA: Just noticed that the youtube is posted now on the thread. I don't have a problem per se with him reiterating a way of taking the Sacrament, but why does it feel so legalistic? And why can the temple wording and covenants change? He should have came with a more postive comment to the YM, IMO. Life is hard for youth they need more than what they got from him in person. Sorry to hope_for_things, if I've made this thread go off track to the desires you had for posting it.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Tacenda

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Contextually he clearly means the answer to what is causing a faith crisis. He gives that sentence right after "Matters of Church history and doctrinal issues have led some spouses to inactivity. Some spouses wonder how to best go about researching and responding to such issues." In other words the answer is the truth (from his perspective) that would resolve the question that is leading someone out of the Church.

Well I don't think it's bad advice to advise the spouse who wants to stay in to avoid the research, because research only confirms the questioning spouses position in most cases.  The problem I've seen in these situations is the believing spouse has no clue what the questioning spouse is talking about.  It's odd to tell the spouse whose trying to keep the questioning spouse in that he/she should not research.  That just doesn't work for me at all.  As it is for me, spouses move along together, not separately.  My wife was always afraid, unbenownst to me, of the things I was reading, early in our marriage, because in her mind it was exactly where I was getting my questions and ideas.  As soon as she decided to look into it a little, she wanted out of the Church immediately.  

He seems to be advising spouses to move in separate directions, if that is the case.  Whether people come or go it's probably a good idea that they communicate effectively.  To tell one spouse to effectively shut out the life of the other seems silly, and foolish.  "trying to research the questions your spouse asks, isn't the answer".  Again, I say to what?  It's not the answer to the spouses questions?  I guess not.  There are no such answers, as the gospel topics essays typically show.  

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Of course a Church critic will see this quite differently than active members. But Oaks is coming from the perspective that the Church is true and that there are answers. Certainly research can give answers to some questions, but not the questions Oaks is interested in.

I'm surprised people are attempting to make this into Oaks advocating no research. Which, if anyone knows Oaks history, makes no sense as an interpretation.

It seems to me this fits nicely into Oaks history of no research into the issues.  I suppose you are thinking of his professional life, but I don't know much about that.  Nobody is making this into anything.  The issue is with what he said.  

I'm not feeling convinced by your explanation here.  I think the Church will lose people no matter what.  The gospel topics essays aren't really answers to questions, they are summaries of research.  It's odd to promote them as answers.  I suppose there are some answers but for the sum of each essay the answer seems to be we don't know.  I that's what he's saying here.  After researching you will find that there are no definitive answers.  The problem is I think that's a pretty terrible way to approach this.  Research is not the answer to accepting the Church as what it claims to be, I suppose.  But, that doesn't really work for the questions that are leading people out fo the Church.  Those questions need to be explored further not ignored, not treated as they don't matter.  You would, I think, be one of the first to say that research is actually a good way for one to get a handle on the issues and help decide or evaluate one's thinking on any given topic.  

[ALarson]

47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Contextually he clearly means the answer to what is causing a faith crisis.

But the problem is, most of those having a faith crisis over ""matters of Church history and doctrinal issues"  are having a crisis because they have not done any research on these topics.  They are blindsided when they learn of them.  And, when they express shock regarding some of the things they are now discovering, they are many times met with "If you'd paid attention, these things have always been taught" or...."If you'd not been so lazy, you would have done your own research and reading up on these topics"....or something similar.  

So to say that research is not the answer....what is then?  How can a member be well read on these topics and not do any research?  Yes, there is pondering and praying needed....but one needs to research to learn what to ponder much of the time (especially regarding the topics that are causing many of the issues).

These topics are still not being taught by our leaders to the members (except possibly in some institute or seminary classes).  So, where do they learn about them if not by doing their own research? 

(By the way Clark....I always appreciate your posts and insight and I'm not just directing this just at you....).

Edited February 5, 2019 by ALarson

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It seems to me this fits nicely into Oaks history of no research into the issues.  I suppose you are thinking of his professional life, but I don't know much about that.  Nobody is making this into anything.  The issue is with what he said.  

I think you're just misinterpreting what he said. And it's not just his professional life, depending upon what you mean by that. I assume you mean his life as a lawyer and university president. But he's also one of the founders of Dialogue magazine. He has a long history of inquiry and investigation.

Anyway, I just don't see a history of Oaks worrying about research. Quite the contrary. I do see him strongly suggesting that research requires the spirit and that we should always pay attention to what we don't know as well as what we do. That is, I see him as advocating fairly straightforward critical methods.

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not feeling convinced by your explanation here.  I think the Church will lose people no matter what.  The gospel topics essays aren't really answers to questions, they are summaries of research.  It's odd to promote them as answers.  I suppose there are some answers but for the sum of each essay the answer seems to be we don't know.  I that's what he's saying here.  After researching you will find that there are no definitive answers.  The problem is I think that's a pretty terrible way to approach this.  Research is not the answer to accepting the Church as what it claims to be, I suppose.  But, that doesn't really work for the questions that are leading people out fo the Church.  Those questions need to be explored further not ignored, not treated as they don't matter. 

I'd agree that a major problem with the gospel essays is that none of them really help give a faithful final interpretation. That is they give summaries of research but no real help with how to interpret that research. I think the Church should do better there.

That said, I don't think the answer is "we don't know" and I don't think in the least that's what Oaks is saying. It seems clear he's saying the exact opposite. Now again, that depends upon how you see those other methods. Someone who's skeptical epistemologically of revelation and faith in general is simply going to dismiss Oaks here. But he clearly is advocating a way to get answers.

I'm certainly not saying ignore data. But I think we also have to acknowledge that sometimes we don't have the data to reconcile conflicts of data. I don't mind exploring them further. However again if one does that without the spirit you're going to get wrong answers.

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You would, I think, be one of the first to say that research is actually a good way for one to get a handle on the issues and help decide or evaluate one's thinking on any given topic.  

As for my view, I think that research without the spirit will be completely counterproductive depending upon the topic in question. That's because you'll almost always just be getting a skeptical secular perspective minus those key elements that can give one the correct answer. That's been my whole point.

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But the problem is, most of those having a faith crisis over ""matters of Church history and doctrinal issues"  are having a crisis because they have not done any research on these topics.  They are blindsided when they learn of them. 

I don't know if it is most people, but certainly some information put in a faithful form is important. I am an advocate of an inoculation approach. I think we should be broaching more of these topics in a faithful context. I think the gospel topics help a little here. But they alone are insufficient.

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And, when they express shock regarding some of the things they are now discovering, they are many times met with "If you'd paid attention, these things have always been taught" or...."If you'd not been so lazy, you would have done your own research and reading up on these topics"....or something similar.  

So to say that research is not the answer....what is then?  How can a member be well read on these topics and not do any research?

Well at a certain point I do think people are responsible for their own knowledge. So depending upon the topic I often am less sympathetic when these topics have been broached in Church magazines, lessons, and so forth.

However again I'm not advocating no research. Oaks and I are saying that research alone won't get you the answer. You first have to have confidence in what you do know. A testimony. A big part of the problem is that we go through route motions at Church regularly and believe simply because those around us believe. We don't do the constant work to gain and nourish a testimony. That's been especially a problem in the strong Mormon corridors where it's rather easy to not need a testimony. So when the challenges come, people are ill prepared. (Not to get back into that less sympathetic point - but the lessons on the house built on sand and the house built on rock are quite relevant here)

So I'd first say we need to earnestly want to know and attempt to know. That is inquiry and research. (You can't just ask without first studying it out in your mind) You have to be reading scriptures, praying nightly etc. You have to reach the point where you know.

Then you continue to inquire and aren't bothered by evidence that appears to go the other way simply because you know what the answer is. How you interpret and deal with the evidence will be radically different.

I've mentioned this before, but on my mission we'd constantly have anti-Mormons show up for our investigators. Often in very odd coincidences that make me think there's more going on than chance. If we were able to get the investigator past the third discussion, so that they'd prayed and had a spiritual experience, then when the anti-Mormon material and people showed up, it led to a stronger testimony. If they hadn't (as was typical before a 3rd discussion even if they'd had spiritual experiences during the lessons) then they'd fall away. What made the difference? The anti-Mormon materials (which included most of what get brought up now in faith conflicts) forced them to really come to God to know if it was true. As such they actually helped get the person to find out directly.

The problem with research that's so often done is that it is coming from a purely secular perspective and only giving one side of the debate. The data is important, but unless one reads it with the spirit, one will most likely get the wrong answer (IMO).

 

Edited February 5, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But the problem is, most of those having a faith crisis over ""matters of Church history and doctrinal issues"  are having a crisis because they have not done any research on these topics.  They are blindsided when they learn of them.  And, when they express shock regarding some of the things they are now discovering, they are many times met with "If you'd paid attention, these things have always been taught" or...."If you'd not been so lazy, you would have done your own research and reading up on these topics"....or something similar.  

So to say that research is not the answer....what is then?  How can a member be well read on these topics and not do any research?  Yes, there is pondering and praying needed....but one needs to research to learn what to ponder.

(By the way Clark....I always appreciate your posts and insight and I'm not just directing this at you....).

I think by Pres. Oaks saying what he did, he validated we who have always said that the church would rather us read only church authorized sources and also validates those of us that have had faith crisis over finding out something we hadn't known and that there is a distinct reason for that after all.

Thanks for bringing this up and posting this topic hopes_for_things, it is proof finally that we couldn't help but fall into this conundrum.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  He states that "research is not the answer" for "matters of Church history and doctrinal issues" that "have led some spouses into inactivity".

That's pretty specific actually and then he recommends reading the essays.  I do agree that they contain some of the answers, but they leave a lot of the details out, IMO.  

 

In your opinion, if one spouse has become in active in the church due to doctrinal issues, and the other spouse is attempting to get the spouse to be active again, is research the way to do it?  

[Bernard Gui]

38 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Do I dare? It was recorded last Fast Sunday, by one of the young men in attendance. I guess the recording has been pulled because the YM was caught. I heard it in full, and the transcript below is accurate from my memory.

Transcription for the Left Hand Rant:

"I come to see what happens when I'm not here. But I had an impression from the Spirit of the Lord, to teach something to each of you and particularly the young men of the Aaronic priesthood. Because I saw something, in Sacrament meeting today, that told me that some of you don't understand something. The Sacrament is an ordinance of the Gospel. And because it's an ordinance, it needs to be done exactly right. Just like the prayers that the priests offer, they have to say the exact language in the prayers. Because it's a priesthood ordinance. Just like baptism. The Lord taught us, when we are baptized, the priest who officiates raises his right hand, and says, 'having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you, in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost.' and then he immerses the person in the water. And if that's not done exactly that way, it has to be done again.

Now. When we partake of the sacrament, young men and young women, we are renewing the act of baptism. We're promising the Lord again, what we promised in baptism, that we'd keep his commandments. And also, he promises to renew the effect of our baptism, so that we're cleansed, from our sins, when we partake of the sacrament, if we've repented of them. But now there's something about the right hand. When we're baptized the priest raises his right hand, not his left hand, but his right hand. And when we partake of the sacrament, we partake with our right hand, not our left hand. And today, I saw quite a few of the deacons take the sacrament with their left hands. Don't do that. Because you set the wrong example for the congregation if you do that.

I know why you did that, because the sacrament tray was coming up on this side, and it was easiest to do that way. But a mother who's holding a baby, probably changes the baby, so she can use her right hand. And all of us should partake of the right hand, when we participate in that great ordinance of the gospel. That's what I felt impressed to share with you, and I've often mentioned that in other meetings, but I've never seen so many deacons take the sacrament with their left hand, so I thought I'd better perform my responsibility to share that with you. God bless you in the name of Jesus Christ, amen."  

ETA: Just noticed that the youtube is posted now on the thread. I don't have a problem per se with him reiterating a way of taking the Sacrament, but why does it feel so legalistic? And why can the temple wording and covenants change? He should have came with a more postive comment to the YM, IMO. Life is hard for youth they need more than what they got from him in person. Sorry to hope_for_things, if I've made this thread go off track to the desires you had for posting it.

Wow! Thanks for answering the CFR. It’s even worse than I thought. That is awful! Such a huge overreaction to a bunch of deacons going off course a little bit. Oh, the legalistic anger! I can just hear his bullying and scolding tone! The condemnation!  I can hardly bear it. You said young men, but he said young men and women? They’ll never ever recover. 🥴

Does his doctrinal teaching connecting baptism and sacrament upset you, his correction of an innocent erroneous practice, or is it the presumptive anger in his voice? The anger doesn’t come through in the written form.

I still have a huge problem with members who surreptitiously record Church authorities and then use the recording to demean them. Like captioning the instruction, “Crocodile man comes to youth group and screams about how left hands are evil.” That’s a disgusting distortion of what happened. 

Having listened to the tape, I hear nothing but a humble loving correction and explanation for the correction.  “God bless you,” he says at the end. Crivens. 

Edited February 5, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I find it sad that he's taking a negative approach to living among people with different beliefs.  I just attended the Silicon Slopes Tech Summit last week in Utah and one of the themes of the conference was around diversity and how beneficial it is for successful business.  Is it really that hard to "love and live with" other people?  Is having someone challenge your standards in a "persuasive" way really a bad thing?

Depends upon the type of persuasion. The main problem that I have observed in living and socializing in areas with different beliefs is that those of the other beliefs may not be very tolerant of LDS doctrines and their persuasion is often social pressure. There is nothing wrong with diversity as long as most of the diverse groups are tolerant of the viewpoints of others. That is something that President Oaks was referring to.

And here is his advice as to how best to deal with those situations:

Quote

“But the best answer to any question that threatens faith is to work to increase faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” he said. “Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church. And conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study and service, furthered by loving patience on the part of spouse and other concerned family members.”

If a person is not well grounded in the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints by those methods, he pr she will be the more easily swayed by secular arguments and social pressures.

Glenn