Jump to content
hope_for_things

President Oaks' advice to young married couples in Chicago

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Thank you.  I typed "First Vision" into the LDS.org search bar and got different results.  I see a number of different articles about multiple first vision accounts but none that provide the full text of those accounts.

True, but the 1985 article does go into pretty good detail about each separate account, including the differences.  

Also, the church has been teaching about the different first vision accounts in seminary at least since 2013 (and in other lesson manuals), so hopefully most of the people that this specific address is directed towards (young adults) have had the chance to be in a church setting and learn about this specific topic. 

I found BYU speeches from the 1980s that also discussed the different first vision accounts, but before the wise use of the internet those would have only really been accessible to students attending BYU at that time.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you have any that published the actual text from the different accounts?  

And, do you have any references to where the different versions were actual taught by our church leaders?

And, I go back to what Nevo stated:

A few random mentions that Joseph Smith wrote something when he was younger but that the main version is the one we have today (or something similar is what I've seen in the articles you've posted), is not the same as what members are discovering today (reading the actual text of the different versions).

I suppose in 1965 you could just walk over to byu and ask to make a photocopy of Paul Cheesman's thesis.  The machines were available but pretty expensive.   How would you get a tip that such content was available in a student archive somewhere?  Today the vast majority of full time missionaries I speak to have never heard of such a thing.  When a new set arrives I copy the 1832 and hand it to them as a welcoming gift..  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you have any that published the actual text from the different accounts?  

And, do you have any references to where the different versions were actual taught by our church leaders?

And, I go back to what Nevo stated:

A few random mentions that Joseph Smith wrote something when he was younger, but that the main version is the one we have today (or something similar is what I've seen in the articles you've posted), is not the same as what members are discovering today (reading the actual text of the different versions).

My post to rockpond answers some of these questions.

But I think you have a point, when it is the exact differences that have caused a faith crisis.  It is the discovery of the mere existence of different accounts when the church never acknowledged them though (which is what two people that I am personally friends with said caused their faith crisis) that I am less inclined to lay at the feet of the church.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My post to rockpond answers some of these questions.

But I think you have a point, when it is the exact differences that have caused a faith crisis.  It is the discovery of the mere existence of different accounts when the church never acknowledged them though (which is what two people that I am personally friends with said caused their faith crisis) that I am less inclined to lay at the feet of the church.  

So it is your friends' fault that they didn't catch the Ensign articles even though the church curriculum and all the addresses from our church leaders only acknowledged one account?

When your friends say that the "discovery of the mere existence of different accounts" that were never acknowledged caused their faith crisis I suspect the word "different" is operative in that statement.  If they had discovered that there were several accounts that all matched, would they have been concerned that the church only ever focused on and published one account?

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

True, but the 1985 article does go into pretty good detail about each separate account, including the differences.  

Also, the church has been teaching about the different first vision accounts in seminary at least since 2013 (and in other lesson manuals), so hopefully most of the people that this specific address is directed towards (young adults) have had the chance to be in a church setting and learn about this specific topic. 

I found BYU speeches from the 1980s that also discussed the different first vision accounts, but before the wise use of the internet those would have only really been accessible to students attending BYU at that time.  

IIRC the Gospel Topics essays began coming out in late 2012 (or maybe early 2013). But still, this is really only 5 years old.  This reflects a very recent effort to make info available. That's good, but thinking that everyone had internet level access to BYU speeches from the 70-90's before the internet was really a thing misses the point. Having 2-3 talks over decades about multiple first vision accounts was simply one small piece of information in a document dump of talks/speeches/conference addresses etc IF one had access to paper copies of all of those things and IF one expected there was something outside the standard teaching that might be found there. But like Pres. Oaks says, research isn't the answer, so why would people think they needed to research something they didn't know existed and had no (or at least very limited) access to.

The church is making more info available now which is good. Pres. Oaks even makes reference to the GT essays, which is good. But for all of those people who found this info before the church came late to the game, didn't have the benefit of the essays until it was too late. I think it's great to recognize the church is doing better but we should also remember that the church was a late and seemingly hesitant participant in making this info available for many, many decades. The church is now reaping what it has sewed for generations and there will be losses. The church can only blame itself and the actions of its leaders in creating and perpetuating this problem.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

True, but the 1985 article does go into pretty good detail about each separate account, including the differences.  

Also, the church has been teaching about the different first vision accounts in seminary at least since 2013 (and in other lesson manuals), so hopefully most of the people that this specific address is directed towards (young adults) have had the chance to be in a church setting and learn about this specific topic. 

I found BYU speeches from the 1980s that also discussed the different first vision accounts, but before the wise use of the internet those would have only really been accessible to students attending BYU at that time.  

Here's a good quote from the 1985 Backman Ensign article, 

"When he listed his educational attainments, he did not mention spelling. A comparison of the spelling in the 1832 account with forms recommended in the popular grammars of the age indicates that by that time Joseph (like most of his contemporaries) had not learned to spell a number of words as prescribed by some secular authorities. Moreover, some of the sentences in that recital were not complete. Others were not in the best literary form, and there was little punctuation in the manuscript. Such natural mistakes, however, take nothing from the powerful, spiritual, and uplifting tone of the 1832 account. In fact, in some ways the 1832 account is the most powerful and convincing of all the accounts."

I think it definitely ranks in the top5 as most important documents in Joseph Smith's writing which the church has in its possession.  Which makes the mysterious (still missing as of 2019), 8 leaves from H1 all the more intriguing.  

Edited by blueglass
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

It's interesting, I continue to get involved in these debates about...

...what the Church did and didn't teach

and

...what members should and should not have known

 

In the end, it is clear to me that the Brethren are looking at those who have gone "down the rabbit hole" of the list of problems with the Church's narrative and truth claims and they have decided to write those members off.  Regardless of where the blame may or may not lie.  The active members are being told that those who go down that road just lack faith.  President Oaks is just the latest with his statement that research is not the answer.  The plan going forward:  inoculate the youth, redirect the adults, and rewrite the narrative the best they can.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IIRC the Gospel Topics essays began coming out in late 2012 (or maybe early 2013). But still, this is really only 5 years old.  This reflects a very recent effort to make info available. That's good, but thinking that everyone had internet level access to BYU speeches from the 70-90's before the internet was really a thing misses the point.

Which is why I specifically said that most people wouldn't have access to those speeches.

Quote

Having 2-3 talks over decades about multiple first vision accounts was simply one small piece of information in a document dump of talks/speeches/conference addresses etc IF one had access to paper copies of all of those things and IF one expected there was something outside the standard teaching that might be found there. But like Pres. Oaks says, research isn't the answer, so why would people think they needed to research something they didn't know existed and had no (or at least very limited) access to.

You know that Pres. Oaks didn't say that research isn't the answer.  Why misrepresent his words?  He was speaking about a very specific situation and to a very specific group of people.  Pretending that he was making a blanket statement that applies to everyone and every situation doesn't seem very honest.

Quote

The church is making more info available now which is good. Pres. Oaks even makes reference to the GT essays, which is good. But for all of those people who found this info before the church came late to the game, didn't have the benefit of the essays until it was too late. I think it's great to recognize the church is doing better but we should also remember that the church was a late and seemingly hesitant participant in making this info available for many, many decades. The church is now reaping what it has sewed for generations and there will be losses. The church can only blame itself and the actions of its leaders in creating and perpetuating this problem.

Like I said before, laying all the blame for people losing their testimonies over stuff they didn't know at the feet of the church doesn't make sense to me.   I agree that the church is recognizing that they can help people by providing more information, which is as great thing.  

Edited by bluebell
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I searched "First Vision" on lds.org and this article was the first article listed.  It's from 1996.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/04/joseph-smiths-testimony-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng&_r=1

This article is the second one listed.  It's from 1985.

https://lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

I haven't looked at the articles listed below those.

And April, 1970, Improvement Era article accessible here:

https://archive.org/details/improvementera?sort=-date

Eight Contemporary Accounts 
of Joseph Smith's First Vision - 

What Do We Learn from Them? 

By Dr. James B. Allen 

These footnotes of discussions on the discovery of new versions of the FV...

1 Paul R. Cheesman, "An Analysis of the Accounts Relating to Joseph 
Smith's Early Visions" ( Master's thesis. College of Religious Instruction, 
Brigham Young University, 1965 ) , Appendix D. 

2 Dean C. Jessee, "The Early Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision," 
Brigham Yoting University Studies, Vol. 9 (Spring, 1969), pp. 277-78. 

3 This document, discovered by Dean Jessee, was first printed in James 
B. Allen, "The Significance of Joseph Smith's 'First Vision' in Mormon 
Thought," Dialogue, Vol. 1 (Autumn, 1966), pp. 40-41. 

1 Wesley P. Walters, "New Light on Mormon Origins from Palmyra 
(N.Y.) Revival," Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 10 
(Fall, 1967), pp. 227-44. Milton V. Backman, Jr., "Awakenings in the 
Burned-Over District: New Light on the Historical Setting of the First 
Vision," Brigham Young University Studies, Vol. 9 (Spring, 1969), pp. 
301-20. Wesley P. Walters, "New Light on Mormon Origins from the 
Palmyra Revival," Dialogue, Vol. 4 (Spring, 1969), pp. 59-81. Richard 
L. Bushman, "The First Vision Story Revived," Dialogue, Vol. 4 (Spring, 
1969), pp. 82-93. 
Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You know that Pres. Oaks didn't say that research isn't the answer.  .  

That's exactly what he said:

Quote

“I suggest that research is not the answer,"

If he wasn't referring to researching church history and doctrines, what do you believe he was referring to?  He had just specifically mentioned them and how they are causing members to experience a crisis of faith.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Which is why I specifically said that most people wouldn't have access to those speeches.

You know that Pres. Oaks didn't say that research isn't the answer.  Why misrepresent his words?  He was speaking about a very specific situation and to a very specific group of people.  Pretending that he was making a blanket statement that applies to everyone and every situation doesn't seem very honest.

Like I said before, laying all the blame for people losing their testimonies over stuff they didn't know at the feet of the church doesn't make sense to me.   I agree that the church is recognizing that they can help people by providing more information, which is as great thing.  

I'm not sure how I'm misrepresenting his words. Could you explain?

So if he tells a specific population (young married adults in Chicago) that "Research is not the answer" in matters of church history or doctrinal issues, is there a reason that I should expect for that advice to pertain ONLY to young married adults in Chicago? Are they somehow different than everyone else in the world? Different than every other young person? Different than every other married couple? Different than every other person who struggles with church history and doctrinal issues?

Quote

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.

The Church does offer answers to many familiar questions through its Gospel Topics Essays found at lds.org.

“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 people struggle with the church because of what it teaches, or because of what it teaches now versus what it taught their entire lives until now, why not blame the church for creating those issues. Who else should bear the responsibility for the church's failures to adequately and consistently teach it's doctrines and history?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's interesting, I continue to get involved in these debates about...

...what the Church did and didn't teach

and

...what members should and should not have known

 

In the end, it is clear to me that the Brethren are looking at those who have gone "down the rabbit hole" of the list of problems with the Church's narrative and truth claims and they have decided to write those members off.  Regardless of where the blame may or may not lie.  The active members are being told that those who go down that road just lack faith.  President Oaks is just the latest with his statement that research is not the answer.  The plan going forward:  inoculate the youth, redirect the adults, and rewrite the narrative the best they can.

I think that what is clear to you isn't clear to everyone, and that differing perspectives (which your post is a great illustration of) is a large reason for most of the contention on debates about this topic.   Everyone wants to argue that their perspective is the only reasonable or "clear" one (myself included) and we are not very willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those who see things differently.  We are quick to laud our good intentions and equally quick to assign the worst of intentions to those who have done things differently than we would do them or said things differently than we would say them.

This is true for what active members do and believe about those dealing with crises of faith, and also true for what member-critics do and believe about active members.   It's all fingering pointing now regardless of what side a person is on, and outlining just how much the 'other group' is failing to behave like Christ would.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that what is clear to you isn't clear to everyone, and that differing perspectives (which your post is a great illustration of) is a large reason for most of the contention on debates about this topic.   Everyone wants to argue that their perspective is the only reasonable or "clear" one (myself included) and we are not very willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those who see things differently.  We are quick to laud our good intentions and equally quick to assign the worst of intentions to those who have done things differently than we would do them or said things differently than we would say them.

This is true for what active members do and believe about those dealing with crises of faith, and also true for what member-critics do and believe about active members.   It's all fingering pointing now regardless of what side a person is on, and outlining just how much the 'other group' is failing to behave like Christ would.

 

This is something that is so obvious to me as well in every single aspect of life that spurs debate or conflict .  This, plus unskilled delivery, leads to unessessary misunderstanding and divide.  It’s here, on this site, everywhere. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that what is clear to you isn't clear to everyone, and that differing perspectives (which your post is a great illustration of) is a large reason for most of the contention on debates about this topic.   Everyone wants to argue that their perspective is the only reasonable or "clear" one (myself included) and we are not very willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those who see things differently.  We are quick to laud our good intentions and equally quick to assign the worst of intentions to those who have done things differently than we would do them or said things differently than we would say them.

This is true for what active members do and believe about those dealing with crises of faith, and also true for what member-critics do and believe about active members.   It's all fingering pointing now regardless of what side a person is on, and outlining just how much the 'other group' is failing to behave like Christ would.

 

I don't assign "worst intentions" to past or present leaders of the church.

I think that what they did in the past they did to promote faith and belief.  It may have led us to the current crisis where we find ourselves, as a church, today, but it was done with good intentions.

I think what they are doing today is also intended to promote faith and belief.  It is leading to some spiritual casualties but I don't think they want that.  I just think they don't know of a better way while still promoting faith and belief among a majority of members.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's exactly what he said:

If he wasn't referring to researching church history and doctrines, what do you believe he was referring to?  He had just specifically mentioned them and how they are causing members to experience a crisis of faith.

I've already talked about this with you so I'm not sure why I need to answer the question again but Pres. Oaks suggested that research wasn't the answer for a specific group of people (spouses) who was dealing with a specific problem (a spouse with a faith crisis). 

So implying that he said that research is never the answer for anyone is not accurate.   Knowingly quoting his suggestion out of context is misleading.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not sure how I'm misrepresenting his words. Could you explain?

So if he tells a specific population (young married adults in Chicago) that "Research is not the answer" in matters of church history or doctrinal issues, is there a reason that I should expect for that advice to pertain ONLY to young married adults in Chicago? Are they somehow different than everyone else in the world? Different than every other young person? Different than every other married couple? Different than every other person who struggles with church history and doctrinal issues?

I quoted him from his GC address in October and he doesn't say that research isn't the answer in that talk.  That's one reason why you might expect the advice in this address not to be universally applied.  

Another reason that you might not expect his suggestion about research isn't meant for everyone in every situation is that the context of the suggestion (concerning research) clearly outlines a specific situation that he is talking about.  He presents a question (a spouse wondering what research to study to help) and then answers that question with "I suggest that research isn't the answer."

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've already talked about this with you so I'm not sure why I need to answer the question again but Pres. Oaks suggested that research wasn't the answer for a specific group of people (spouses) who was dealing with a specific problem (a spouse with a faith crisis). 

So implying that he said that research is never the answer for anyone is not accurate.   Knowingly quoting his suggestion out of context is misleading.

 

Come on....really?

So, he's fine with doing research on church history issues and doctrines as long as it's not your spouse who is having the faith crisis?  

How about if it's your son....or your daughter....or your fiancee?  A friend?  Then it's ok and it is the answer?

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

This is something that is so obvious to me as well in every single aspect of life that spurs debate or conflict .  This, plus unskilled delivery, leads to unessessary misunderstanding and divide.  It’s here, on this site, everywhere. 

It's true.  And it's almost always something that the other group is doing badly but that "I'm not doing."

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

And April, 1970, Improvement Era article accessible here:

https://archive.org/details/improvementera?sort=-date

Out of curiosity, how would someone who was born in say...1975 have accessed this article from 1970? How would this person have even known the article or the topic existed?

Another article was written in the Ensign around 1985. How would this (now 10 year old) person access this information and why would they expect that there would be anything different in an article than what they are taught every week at church?

Another article was written in the mid-late 90's...let's just say it's 1995. This (now 20 year old) person may very well be serving their mission, teaching about the first vision as it appears in the missionary discussion. This person memorizes the content of the first vision as recorded in the PoGP and teaches it to many, many people. Would this missionary reasonably think that there were different versions of the vision than what appeared in the discussions? Should he have sought after a paper copy of the Ensign to see if there was a discrepancy with the first vision? I didn't have access to the Ensign on my mission. Maybe others did.

Then the Gospel Topics essay comes out around 2013. This person is now 38 years old. He never had access to the 1970 Improvement Era article, nor did he have any reason to believe such a topic had ever been addressed or was even a thing.  He was a young child the next time the topic was addressed in the Ensign. How many 10 year olds read the ensign?  The next time it's addressed is while he's on his mission, focusing like a laser on teaching the discussions provided by the church. Finally, when he's 38, he learns that there were multiple first vision accounts. It's odd because he's only missed church a handful of times in his entire life. He's been to primary, sunday school, seminary, served a mission and been very active in church leadership after being married in the temple. Now he learns there are multiple first vision accounts. Now there's a problem.

In your mind, is the church responsible for failing to teach the multiple first vision accounts, or is this person responsible for not researching and learning about it?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ALarson said:

Come on....really?

So, he's fine with doing research on church history issues and doctrines as long as it's not your spouse who is having the faith crisis?  

How about if it's your son....or your daughter....or your fiancee?  A friend?  Then it's ok and it is the answer?

I already provided the quote from him from GC where he talks about secular study and how you can't find complete truth without it.  Is there some reason we should discount his GC address while believing that this address (which wasn't given to the entire church) is really what he wants all of us to do and believe?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've already talked about this with you so I'm not sure why I need to answer the question again but Pres. Oaks suggested that research wasn't the answer for a specific group of people (spouses) who was dealing with a specific problem (a spouse with a faith crisis). 

So implying that he said that research is never the answer for anyone is not accurate.   Knowingly quoting his suggestion out of context is misleading.

 

We don't have the full transcript of his address, here's what we've got from the Church News:

 

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.

“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.”

 

This is the redirect.  I felt like Elder Corbridge was giving the same message.  Oaks:  Church history and doctrinal issues can lead to inactivity and damage faith.  Rather than research them, work to strengthen your faith.  Corbridge:  Reading that material can give you a sense of gloom and a feeling of darkness.  Focus on the primary questions and the secondary ones may get answered too or they will pale in significance, whether or not you understand them.

At least that is how I am hearing those messages.  I agree that others may have a different interpretation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't assign "worst intentions" to past or present leaders of the church.

I think that what they did in the past they did to promote faith and belief.  It may have led us to the current crisis where we find ourselves, as a church, today, but it was done with good intentions.

I think what they are doing today is also intended to promote faith and belief.  It is leading to some spiritual casualties but I don't think they want that.  I just think they don't know of a better way while still promoting faith and belief among a majority of members.

Saying that the leaders "have decided to write those members off" is, in my opinion, assigning bad intentions to our leaders.  But that wasn't my point.  My point is that both critics (those that have gone down the rabbit hole) and faithful members want to lay the blame for the 'current crisis' on the actions of the other side.  One side is accused of not having faith, the other is accused of not being honest.  Both sides believe they hold the moral high ground.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I already provided the quote from him from GC where he talks about secular study and how you can't find complete truth without it.  Is there some reason we should discount his GC address while believing that this address (which wasn't given to the entire church) is really what he wants all of us to do and believe?

His message comes through as saying:

Don't research the issues from church history and doctrines that are causing people to experience a crisis of faith.

I'm not sure how you can see it as being anything different.  He was specifically referring to them.

I doubt it matters to him whether it's your spouse or another loved one going through the crisis.  

But let's move on....as we apparently read his words to mean different things and probably aren't going to change the other's opinion.  I can respect that too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

This interpretation you are offering doesn't seem to fit what he said.  He said research is not the answer, not that research with the spirit will help one get an answer.

The implication of the following sentence which says study (i.e. research) is part of the solution is that he meant research alone. If he meant you shouldn't do research, as you are asserting, it makes very little sense to then two sentences later when he gives the solution to include research.

Now you might make an argument about the type of research but that is then projecting onto his comments and not something entailed by them.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Uh...ok.  So if one has a question about the BoA, what answer do you think they acquire from the Gospel Topics essay on the topic?  Well, it's either a translation from egyptian writings that we no longer have, or the papyrus was a catalyst.  In other words, we don't really know, right?  

Not following how that entails we can't know. In terms of public knowledge we don't know and I certainly don't claim to know but I don't think it follows we can't know. But again you're shifting the goal posts since the issue Oaks was addressing was this being a problem that leads someone out of activity. So following his argument even if we don't know the answer to the translation of the Book of Abraham we can know that it shouldn't bother us. Which is part of his larger argument.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That's just a silly assumption, clark.  You are assuming that someone who gets a wrong answer, the answer you apparently have already assumed, didn't have the spirit.

That's not at all what I said. There are lots of ways to get wrong answers. Bad reasoning is a particularly common one. Less than careful reading too. (grin)

I am asserting that the reliable method of knowing that one shouldn't be bothered by historical or theological issues requires the spirit. Of course someone may, without the spirit, just decide they don't matter. Say adopt a fideist approach to religion. But that seems rather uncommon.  I don't want to say one with always get wrong answers. But one will be much, much more likely to get wrong answers.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That is exactly what Oaks is advocating, though, so I see your confusion.  Oaks is denouncing research as helpful when it comes to these issues. 

Again not what he is saying. You're just doing a ton of projecting onto this. Now you may think that the only research/study Oaks advocates is say just reading the scriptures or something like that. From the quoted excerpts though he doesn't say anything like that.  Again I think you're doing more projecting than carefully reading what he states. (Further this doesn't appear to be a carefully written talk, so getting so hung up on particular words seems uncharitable)

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It's clearly confirming what past leaders have suggested for a long time--we oppose intellectual pursuits.  

 

I think you're projecting a common view from the 70's and 80's (that had its own historic context) onto Oaks who clearly doesn't fall into that given his publications and talks over the decades. He was the main figure pushing against that. Rather than being charitable in your reading your making his words fit your preconceptions.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I got your point now.  I see what you're saying.  If someone does research and isn't getting the assumed answer the Church puts out that person will be wrong, because that person will be advocating answers that are wrong and therefore they are secular, void of spirit and the answer can't be correct.  it's a really awkward position to take, but I get now why you are defending Oaks' stated position.  

I fear your reading of me is about as accurate as your reading of Oaks and may signify a lot about how you read people. That's not at all what I'm saying and indeed I've outright rejected that position.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...