Elder Oaks' Oct 2013 Gen Con Address

[rockpond]

I've never said doctrine can't change and hasn't change, just that certain ones haven't.

Off the top of my head:

The 1949 FP statement:

"It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord" [which implies earlier than 1949]

"but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time"

The 1969 FP statement:

President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”

Examples?

BY taught that it would be in the millennium.

So where is the direct commandment of the Lord for the ban? Certainly someone recorded it, right?

Example: Various versions of the Doctrine & Covenants with sections that replaced each other being contradictory.

[rockpond]

I don't see why that would require revelation. Church meeting schedules have been changed several times and no revelation has been announced in conjunction with them. We might say that policy changes occur due to inspiration, but even that is not clear.

When President David O. McKay wanted to ordain Black people and open an African mission, he could find no doctrinal reason why not. However Joseph Fielding Smith insisted that a revelation was required, so that the change did not come until a Prophet received a revelation on the matter.

Yep, and thus we see how a "doctrine" becomes a policy which is then changed through revelation.

I'm still not getting Elder Oaks. But maybe I should wait until later in the week when I can read it.

[Robert F. Smith]

Sounds like the doctrine today.  Someone who is valiant in the testimony of Jesus, a requirement for the CK, will accept the doctrines of the Church and everything the Church has done with the Lord's authorization.  Hence today, one must accept the plural marriage doctrine in order to be considered valiant and on the path to the CK.

Maybe so, but it is not one of the questions asked in a temple recommend interview, nor is it a covenant entered into in the temple that we must believe in plural marriage.  Polygyny is a specific practice which may only be entered into when God permits or commands it, and not otherwise.  Any need for additional wives can be taken care of through ordinance work in the Millennium.  They need not be entered into now.

[Robert F. Smith]

Yep, and thus we see how a "doctrine" becomes a policy which is then changed through revelation. I'm still not getting Elder Oaks. But maybe I should wait until later in the week when I can read it.

You're not getting me either, rockpond.

Pres. McKay had a careful search made of the LDS Archives and could find no doctrine forbidding priesthood for Black people.  It was a policy adopted in the time of Pres. Young, plain and simple.  It was not the Lord's commandment.  Indeed, Joseph Smith and his Brethren ordained Black people.  Policies have become pretend doctrines, but I have seen no changes in Mormon doctrine from the beginning of the LDS Church until now.

Your evolutionary schema is false.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

The funny thing was I agreed with absolutely everything he taught, but I found it hypocritical considering how may changes in doctrine and ordinances have occurred and continue to occur.

I know of no changes in LDS doctrine from the beginning with Joseph Smith, Prof.  Perhaps you could enlighten me.

[Robert F. Smith]

We are exclusive in that we claim modern revelation from God. ............................................  .

Roman Catholics also believe in modern revelation from God, as well as from other heavenly personages.  It is not exclusive to us.

[rockpond]

You're not getting me either, rockpond.

Pres. McKay had a careful search made of the LDS Archives and could find no doctrine forbidding priesthood for Black people. It was a policy adopted in the time of Pres. Young, plain and simple. It was not the Lord's commandment. Indeed, Joseph Smith and his Brethren ordained Black people. Policies have become pretend doctrines, but I have seen no changes in Mormon doctrine from the beginning of the LDS Church until now.

Your evolutionary schema is false.

My comment of it being a doctrine was in reference to those on this thread who have stated that. My study has revealed the same as you have explained here. It was always a policy but they sought a revelation to make sure that changing the policy was correct in the Lord's eyes.

But Elder Oaks includes policies in his statement which creates some dissonance for me.

[Buzzard]

Yep, and thus we see how a "doctrine" becomes a policy which is then changed through revelation. I'm still not getting Elder Oaks. But maybe I should wait until later in the week when I can read it.

Sometimes doctrines can evolve into policy, the opposite could also be true. But heterosexual marriage (one on one or plural) is not just "a" doctrine, it is "THE" doctrine. The entire structure of the church and even the gospel is directed at getting us to the Celestial Kingdom with our spouse(s). I don't have much hair left, but in light of the clear pronouncements of both the Standard Works and modern prophets, Elder Oaks being only the latest in a long string, it makes me want to tear out what little I have left when I hear members try to find "wiggle room" for allowing homosexual relationships in the eternities.

And for members struggling with this, to be anything other than perfectly clear on this critical issue is to do them a cruel, potenially eternally crippling disservice. They already have Affirmation, reassuring them that their "relationships" fit within the Plan of Salvation. The voices of wannabe apostles we cannot control, but the voices of God's duly ordained Apostles have been and continue to be unequivocal on this and other critical matters.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Buzzard

[Robert F. Smith]

Take a breath. This conference I was sat in front of the TV with my phone in my hand and when each of the speakers got up, I looked them up on the internet wiki. This helps me gain perspective on their point of view.

 

Dallin H. Oaks is an Attorney and Judge. To me this means a certain rigidity in viewpoint, and high need for order. In the short view, the church's views do not change. However we all know that over a long period of time it does. We need these varying points of view so that Heavenly Father can build his church.

 

The Huffington Post, the liberal trumpet, says that he said "Gay Marriage is immoral", and that if fine for this day.

 

Still, it is my sincerest hope that in time, we will find the causation for these variant issues. I know of no gay person who will say it was voluntary.

The question is whether minors can voluntarily decide to have sex with adults.  Lesbian Tammy Bruce has frankly pointed out the fundamental problem, which credible academic research supports:

 

A majority of gays, I believe, have their first sexual experience as a minor with a gay adult, and almost every gay and lesbian knows that’s true.  We need to be willing to address that.

 

Homosexual activity can be learned through seduction by adults, and the younger the minor at the time of seduction or rape, the more confused the gender identity becomes.  Is that voluntary?  Why do we have statutory rape laws?

[Robert F. Smith]

What other way could our doctrines and policies work? The doctrines are that we are to meet together often to receive the Sacraments, and to teach one another the doctrines, and how best to impliment the Gospel. Policy can change the times of the day, even what day in 7 we are to meet.

Yes.  We never batted an eyelash when it was decided that our LDS Sabbath would be each Saturday at the Branch in Jerusalem.  Sunday was a working day, the first day of the week.  We had university classes that day. Policies are practical arrangements.

[EllenMaksoud]

 

The question is whether minors can voluntarily decide to have sex with adults.  Lesbian Tammy Bruce has frankly pointed out the fundamental problem, which credible academic research supports:

 

A majority of gays, I believe, have their first sexual experience as a minor with a gay adult, and almost every gay and lesbian knows that’s true.  We need to be willing to address that.

 

Homosexual activity can be learned through seduction by adults, and the younger the minor at the time of seduction or rape, the more confused the gender identity becomes.  Is that voluntary?  Why do we have statutory rape laws?

 

I will respectfully, and adamantly disagree that homosexual behavior is a learned trait. That just is not supported by any science I know. The Scandinavians have done more research on the subject than other countries. I don't think much research is done on it in the US because there is no money in settling the issue, and if some scientist came out with research refuting the conservative agenda, you'd see him laid across a fence and beaten. I will say that some of us can resists these sorts of impulses and they should be given saint hood.

[Robert F. Smith]

I would add that today's "policies" of racial priesthood ban and plural marriage were "doctrines" (and referred to as such) when they were practiced.

They were certainly believed to be, and that got young Jerald Tanner angry enough to leave the LDS faith.  However, he and his opponents were mistaken.  The ban on Black priesthood was a policy, not a doctrine.  To this day, no evidence that it was an actual doctrine has been found.  Indeed, based on Joseph Smith's  practices, it is clear that he saw no bar to Black people having the priesthood.  A policy was adopted after his death, and some have tried to dignify it as a "doctrine," but that is hogwash.

Fallible humans sometimes do dumb things.

[Robert F. Smith]

I will respectfully, and adamantly disagree that homosexual behavior is a learned trait. That just is not supported by any science I know. The Scandinavians have done more research on the subject than other countries. I don't think much research is done on it in the US because there is no money in settling the issue, and if some scientist came out with research refuting the conservative agenda, you'd see him laid across a fence and beaten. I will say that some of us can resists these sorts of impulses and they should be given saint hood.

So, would you suggest that the entire country of Classical Greece voluntarily practiced male homosexuality?  How was that not a learned behavior?  Over time, for whatever reason, it came to be entirely normal for young men to be introduced to homosexuality by an older mentor.  This sort of behavior was absent from the earlier Greek Heroic Age, and is absent from modern Greece, but virtually all males practiced homosexuality in Classical times.  How was that not a learned behavior?

[Robert F. Smith]

This talk is a gift to the enemies and critics of the church that will serve them well for years to come.  People no longer need to go back decades to find a church leader officially making disparaging and offensive remarks about a certain class of people. 

 

Phaedrus

Perhaps.  However, this Conference is noteworthy for its frank talk, and for coming to grips with hard issues.  I would much rather hear that than some mealymouthed PR stuff.  Boundaries must needs be set.

I was particularly impressed with Pres. Uchtdorf's exposition on the fallibility of humans charged with teaching divine commandments.  I will be using his sermon for years to come in refuting the anti-Mormons.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[EllenMaksoud]

So, would you suggest that the entire country of Classical Greece voluntarily practiced male homosexuality?  How was that not a learned behavior?  Over time, for whatever reason, it came to be entirely normal for young men to be introduced to homosexuality by an older mentor.  This sort of behavior was absent from the earlier Greek Heroic Age, and is absent from modern Greece, but virtually all males practiced homosexuality in Classical times.  How was that not a learned behavior?

You know, I am just going to stand down on this conversation because I heard enough of that line of thought in the Evangelical Church, and it feels really self righteous and sanctimonious to me.  In the end Science will reveal the truth. In the mean time those with the drives just need to be celibate and patient.

[Robert F. Smith]

There have been many doctrinal changes, but they are all explained away as being "just someone's opinion", "continuing revelation", "not essential for salvation" or some similar term. 

I could list changes, but everyone of them has an official explanation and would thus be a waste of time.  But there have been many changes since the days of Joseph Smith to doctrine, ordinances, policies, procedures, and church teachings.

So you say.  Unfortunately, I can't think of any doctrines which have changed.  Plenty of policy changes, and the tweaking of ordinances, which don't present any problem in my view.  Perhaps you can recommend a serious book or article which deals with that issue in detail, and which avoids claiming that everything Brother Brigham said in the JD constitutes official doctrine.  Brigham was frequently at loggerheads on doctrine with Orson Pratt and with John Taylor, even though they acknowledged Brigham as their boss.  The turmoil in the early LDS Church belies settled doctrines in all areas.

[Stargazer]

Pretty brave to gamble your exaltation on interpretation -

 

No courage is required.  God cannot in justice require obedience to a principle which His Church would excommunicate one for obeying.

 

It's sort of, I don't know, a contradiction in terms?  What's the word I am looking for?

[Stargazer]

Sounds like the doctrine today.  Someone who is valiant in the testimony of Jesus, a requirement for the CK, will accept the doctrines of the Church and everything the Church has done with the Lord's authorization.  Hence today, one must accept the plural marriage doctrine in order to be considered valiant and on the path to the CK.

 

Yep, and woe betide you if you try to practice it.

[Calm]

No courage is required.  God cannot in justice require obedience to a principle which His Church would excommunicate one for obeying.

 

It's sort of, I don't know, a contradiction in terms?  What's the word I am looking for?

paradox?

[Stargazer]

I will respectfully, and adamantly disagree that homosexual behavior is a learned trait. That just is not supported by any science I know. The Scandinavians have done more research on the subject than other countries. I don't think much research is done on it in the US because there is no money in settling the issue, and if some scientist came out with research refuting the conservative agenda, you'd see him laid across a fence and beaten. I will say that some of us can resists these sorts of impulses and they should be given saint hood.

 

At some risk of going too political I will say that if some scientist were to come out with research refuting the gay/liberal agenda you would see him or her laid across a fence and beaten, too.  The flower shop in Oregon that refused to provide flowers for a lesbian wedding was driven out of business by physical threats of violence. 

 

Let's not lay all disproprionate reactions at the feet of one side in this and pretend the other is blameless.

 

And actually, I predict that conservatives would be OK with proof that homosexuality has a largely genetic basis and is not primarily behavioral.  I know that there's lots of conservatives who already believe this.

[WmLaw]

The question is whether minors can voluntarily decide to have sex with adults. Lesbian Tammy Bruce has frankly pointed out the fundamental problem, which credible academic research supports:

A majority of gays, I believe, have their first sexual experience as a minor with a gay adult, and almost every gay and lesbian knows that’s true. We need to be willing to address that.

Homosexual activity can be learned through seduction by adults, and the younger the minor at the time of seduction or rape, the more confused the gender identity becomes. Is that voluntary? Why do we have statutory rape laws?

Sounds very scientific...

Especially, the 'I believe' and 'almost every gay and lesbian knows that's true' parts...

[Stargazer]

paradox?

 

Yes, that's the word.  Thanks!

[rockpond]

Sometimes doctrines can evolve into policy, the opposite could also be true. But heterosexual marriage (one on one or plural) is not just "a" doctrine, it is "THE" doctrine. The entire structure of the church and even the gospel is directed at getting us to the Celestial Kingdom with our spouse(s). I don't have much hair left, but in light of the clear pronouncements of both the Standard Works and modern prophets, Elder Oaks being only the latest in a long string, it makes me want to tear out what little I have left when I hear members try to find "wiggle room" for allowing homosexual relationships in the eternities.

And for members struggling with this, to be anything other than perfectly clear on this critical issue is to do them a cruel, potenially eternally crippling disservice. They already have Affirmation, reassuring them that their "relationships" fit within the Plan of Salvation. The voices of wannabe apostles we cannot control, but the voices of God's duly ordained Apostles have been and continue to be unequivocal on this and other critical matters.

Oops. My bad. I thought the entire structure of the church was to help us be disciples of Christ.

[EllenMaksoud]

At some risk of going too political I will say that if some scientist were to come out with research refuting the gay/liberal agenda you would see him or her laid across a fence and beaten, too.  The flower shop in Oregon that refused to provide flowers for a lesbian wedding was driven out of business by physical threats of violence. 

 

Let's not lay all disproprionate reactions at the feet of one side in this and pretend the other is blameless.

 

And actually, I predict that conservatives would be OK with proof that homosexuality has a largely genetic basis and is not primarily behavioral.  I know that there's lots of conservatives who already believe this.

Well, perhaps I just don't really have an informed opinion.  There was just a cake maker out in Gresham whose business suffered the same fate. I don't advocate any of this behavior.  I know people in the GBLT community and I do not know people who would walk into any business and reveal that they are Gay or Lesbian.  The people that did that are rabid activists bent on warfare with the people of belief based upon hatred and rebellion. There are people in that group who believe I should be involved with thier activities; thinking that I am part of their group. I am not. I have a genetic issue, and I follow the two commandments with all my heart.

[Stargazer]

You know, I am just going to stand down on this conversation because I heard enough of that line of thought in the Evangelical Church, and it feels really self righteous and sanctimonious to me.  In the end Science will reveal the truth. In the mean time those with the drives just need to be celibate and patient.

 

I am entirely certain that homosexual behavior CAN be freely chosen, exclusive of genetics.  It is clear that the part of ancient Greek culture that permitted and even embraced it considered it so.  I recall a conversation (reported by Plato) between Socrates and one of his followers, in which his follower proposed that they should become lovers.  He had some reasonable argument in favor of it, as I recall, but Socrates gently steered the matter off on a tangent of some kind.  And back in my evil Gentile days I used to peruse Playboy from time to time (for the articles of course), and there was an article on the motivations of a number of gay men whom the author interviewed.  One of those interviewed claimed that he had chosen to be gay and that he was not naturally so. 

 

On the other hand, I am entirely certain that the majority of people who are gay did not choose to have same-sex attraction, and that there is either a genetic or a congenital factor involved.