Jump to content
hope_for_things

President Oaks' advice to young married couples in Chicago

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, ALarson said:

In today's world it is.  Were the young women there too?  (I'm just asking because I think he referenced them at some point....but I'd need to listen again.)  

Common decency would suggest not surreptitiously recording another person in a personal setting of any kind. 

Yes, he did refer to young women. Who recorded the discussion and posted it on the internet? What was their intention?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Common decency would suggest not surreptitiously recording another person in a personal setting of any kind. 

Yes, he did refer to young women. Who recorded the discussion and posted it on the internet? What was their intention?

I already posted this:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71560-president-oaks-advice-to-young-married-couples-in-chicago/?do=findComment&comment=1209886920

I'm not going to go around in circles here with you.  I just believe it's a fact that the way things are today, anyone speaking to a group should assume they may be recorded.

It's actually a good thing it was recorded since it was first represented as him yelling at the kids or as if it was done in anger.  If you listen to the recording, that is not true.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I can't see them doing that unless things get much worse. Rather I suspect they'll just dumb down such public appearances and be very cautious in what they say. Eventually it may reach the point of General Conference were carefully prepared talks are all we get. Which is what I fear by all this. I kind of like what happened on my mission where Pres. Hinckley spoke on what it meant to have your calling and election made sure for over an hour. I'm sure not everything he said was completely accurate, but you got a pretty compelling view of his views on the matter. That doesn't happen anymore.

Perfect.  This is what I am saying — if they are going to come and share their own views on a subject, by all means, let that be known and ask that it not be recorded. 

What I don’t get is every appearance of an apostle being preceded with the request to not record as if being a witness to the world isn’t their calling. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

Think about it.

The chance, actually likelihood, of being quoted out of context is big.  Typically, these people are speaking to a specific audience at a specific time.  The advice and Opinions they offer may only apply to that audience.  This entire stupid thread is about extrapolating one isolated speech to becoming doctrine and advice for the whole church.  Of course, the chance of misspeaking or having a Freudian slip for any speaker, are always present as well.

Many times the statements or advice given are opinions, not statements of policy or doctrine, but the statements are taken as such.  Again, witness this useless thread.  Even doctrinal statements can be taken with a grain of salt.  They have not been vetted by the Prophet or the Church as a whole.  And again can be taken out of context of where and when and to whom spoken.

While Apostles can speak for God, this really only happens as the Catholics would say ex Cathedra.  And it's done by the Prophet.

These guys have a lot of experience with the spirit and my judgement is that by and large they are certainly worth listening to.  But remember, this church was built on the Rock of Revelation.  And everyone must have their own.  One should take these speeches for what they are nothing more and seek personal guidance for oneself.

So inconclusion, I would not want to be taped on everything I say, for sure.  And considering the hazards stated above, I can certainly understand why the GAs avoid this.

The chance of being quoted out of context decreases if the entire address is recorded. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I doubt it.  My only point is that there are legitimate reasons that a messenger from God might not want his words recorded, just besides privacy issues.

It seems like they disagree with you on that.  And reasonable people can disagree on the best way to handle the issue (without one of them automatically disqualifying themselves from speaking for God just because they disagree with the other).

If I am to use my own discernment regarding when an apostle is speaking as a prophet, seer, and revelator, that is one of the methods by which I’ll make that determination.  I’m not saying I won’t listen to the spirit, but if he doesn’t want his words recorded, that is meaningful to me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't really get the relevance of the analogy to the topic.  You had a lot at stake in your analogy.  Someone who doesn't record a public church meeting risks nothing by choosing to follow the request.

I was told not to do something. I chose to do it.

The risk to the person who doesn't record the public meeting is not being believed about what was said.

Some might say that there is great risk choosing in which religious message to follow.

 

 

Edited by Thinking

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Because people portray being able to speak for God as be able to speak for God on demand on any topic. And then when they can't do that they use that to try and undermine the claim of prophethood. It happens rather regularly.

So what does the teaching of right hand use for sacrament passing and partaking mean then?  Oaks presented it to the kids as some true teaching coming from one who speaks for God.  You seem to want to say it was no such thing.  Shall we go back to those kids and tell them Oaks didn't know what he was talking about and they can partake with their left or right--its the actual ordinance that counts?  

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So what does the teaching of right hand use for sacrament passing and partaking mean then?  Oaks presented it to the kids as some true teaching coming from one who speaks for God.  You seem to want to say it was no such thing.  Shall we go back to those kids and tell them Oaks didn't know what he was talking about and they can partake with their left or right--its the actual ordinance that counts?  

It was a teaching meant specifically for those boys in that quorum on that day.  Since an apostle taught it to them, they are now under the obligation to live up to that teaching for the rest of their lives (or until another apostle tells them something differently).  But, since it was specific to that particular quorum, the rest of us are under no such obligation.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Think about it.

 

I did.  I don't know why some grand leader would want to teach something to a small subset if that teaching mattered to all.  I'd agree with Teancum above when he says "I have no sympathy".  They are, after all, the ones claiming to teach us things from God.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I did.  I don't know why some grand leader would want to teach something to a small subset if that teaching mattered to all.  I'd agree with Teancum above when he says "I have no sympathy".  They are, after all, the ones claiming to teach us things from God.  

When will I get to rep you again??  I agree with Teancum also.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I did.  I don't know why some grand leader would want to teach something to a small subset if that teaching mattered to all.  I'd agree with Teancum above when he says "I have no sympathy".  They are, after all, the ones claiming to teach us things from God.  

Maybe it is not the teaching so much as the experience of being taught in such a fashion that is important.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Thinking said:

I was told not to do something. I chose to do it.

The risk to the person who doesn't record the public meeting is not being believed about what was said.

Some might say that there is great risk choosing in which religious message to follow.

 

 

Yes, but we were talking about pretending not to do something when you are really doing it and whether or not that makes a person untrustworthy in that instance.

I’m not sure how your analogy is relevant to that.

(but the risk of not being believed is no real risk unless being believed has a recognizable reward that someone would otherwise forfeit.)

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe it is not the teaching so much as the experience of being taught in such a fashion that is important.

I have to be honest, Calm....I'm not impressed with this "fashion" of teaching.  Saying I see what you do when I'm not here.  Like he caught the boys doing something wrong.  Then, he goes into a letter of the law stance (and he's wrong about leaving the impression that taking the sacrament with the right hand is doctrine or a commandment and needs to be exact just like the wording of the prayer).  These boys most likely felt guilty and like they were being lectured to or scolded.

How is this fashion of teaching "important"?  I don't see it....

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I have to be honest, Calm....I'm not impressed with this "fashion" of teaching.  Saying I see what you do when I'm not here.  Like he caught the boys doing something wrong.  Then, he goes into a letter of the law stance (and he's wrong about leaving the impression that taking the sacrament with the right hand is doctrine or a commandment and needs to be exact just like the wording of the prayer).  These boys most likely felt guilty and like they were being lectured to or scolded.

How is this fashion of teaching "important"?  I don't see it....

Him saying, "I come to see what happens when I'm not here", is a little odd. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I have to be honest, Calm....I'm not impressed with this "fashion" of teaching.  Saying I see what you do when I'm not here.  Like he caught the boys doing something wrong.  Then, he goes into a letter of the law stance (and he's wrong about leaving the impression that taking the sacrament with the right hand is doctrine or a commandment and needs to be exact just like the wording of the prayer).  These boys most likely felt guilty and like they were being lectured to or scolded.

How is this fashion of teaching "important"?  I don't see it....

I’m wondering if he said that part (to see what you do when I’m not here) trying to be funny. 

He was pretty funny when he spoke at our stake conference two years ago and it sounds like something he would joke about to me. 

I obviously have no idea if that’s true. I just wonder. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I’m wondering if he said that part (to see what you do when I’m not here) trying to be funny. 

He was pretty funny when he spoke at our stake conference two years ago and it sounds like something he would joke about to me. 

I obviously have no idea if that’s true. I just wonder. 

If we could watch a recording we'd know. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, rockpond said:

If we could watch a recording we'd know. :)

 

I’m good with just giving him the benefit of the doubt on it. 😁

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but we were talking about pretending not to do something when you are really doing it and whether or not that makes a person untrustworthy in that instance.

I'm curious. It is illegal to make the recording?

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe it is not the teaching so much as the experience of being taught in such a fashion that is important.

So you think Oaks really does not think the right hand teaching is important?  he just said it was important but was really being sly and tricky so the kids will learn some other lesson in life?  My goodness...that's a weird thought.  

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’m wondering if he said that part (to see what you do when I’m not here) trying to be funny. 

He was pretty funny when he spoke at our stake conference two years ago and it sounds like something he would joke about to me. 

I obviously have no idea if that’s true. I just wonder. 

Have you listened to the recording?  

It didn't seem like he was joking and I don't remember laughter from the boys.  He was pretty stern and matter of fact, IMO.   But he certainly wasn't yelling or shouting as I originally heard.

I just don't see that fashion of teaching to be an "important" lesson for them.  There are much better ways to teach the youth, from my experience, than to lecture and chastise.  (Which is how it felt to me when I listened.)

 

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I'm curious. It is illegal to make the recording?

It would depend on the state I think. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It didn't seem like he was joking

Does he joke? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I have to be honest, Calm....I'm not impressed with this "fashion" of teaching.  Saying I see what you do when I'm not here.  Like he caught the boys doing something wrong.  Then, he goes into a letter of the law stance (and he's wrong about leaving the impression that taking the sacrament with the right hand is doctrine or a commandment and needs to be exact just like the wording of the prayer).  These boys most likely felt guilty and like they were being lectured to or scolded.

How is this fashion of teaching "important"?  I don't see it....

I am not that fond of this instance, but in general I think the experience of learning is often more important than what is being taught. Having said that, it is not always done right. 

Think how it is important for parents to take kids for one on ones or teachers not having huge groups when younger students, mentoring, etc. 

While more personal teaching can have greater emotional effects, these can be negative as well as positive, of course. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Common decency would suggest not surreptitiously recording another person in a personal setting of any kind. 

Yes, he did refer to young women. Who recorded the discussion and posted it on the internet? What was their intention?

From what I read on reddit, it is a minor, and I believe a young man.

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

From what I read on reddit, it is a minor, and I believe a young man.

Back in my day when a  juvenile disrespected a bald prophet he set his pet she-bears on them. 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×