Elder Oaks' Oct 2013 Gen Con Address

[EllenMaksoud]

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.

I should have stopped when I said I would

[Stargazer]

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.

 

Yes, cake maker.  I was confusing that one with the flower shop in Washington state having a similar problem.

[Stargazer]

I should have stopped when I said I would

 

Why?  You have a valid opinion, and even if I disagree with part of it there is no reason to discontinue the dialog.  Unless it pains you to do so, then perhaps I should stop pushing your buttons.

 

I don't insist that everything I believe to be true is true in actual fact -- although on some questions it might be so!  I hope that most of what I believe to be true is in fact true.  It's embarrassing to me to be caught out as having looney opinions that I made a big huge deal about. 

 

Ben Franklin once confessed to having had the problem of insisting to all and sundry that he was completely correct on all issues, and made a complete nuisance of himself about these matters.  Which is why he tried to change his ways to be less confrontational about his opinions, even if he was completely correct and his interlocutor was completely wrong.

 

And there are those here, myself included, who need to remember old Ben and take his advice more often.

[EllenMaksoud]

Why?  You have a valid opinion, and even if I disagree with part of it there is no reason to discontinue the dialog.  Unless it pains you to do so, then perhaps I should stop pushing your buttons.

 

I don't insist that everything I believe to be true is true in actual fact -- although on some questions it might be so!  I hope that most of what I believe to be true is in fact true.  It's embarrassing to me to be caught out as having looney opinions that I made a big huge deal about. 

 

Ben Franklin once confessed to having had the problem of insisting to all and sundry that he was completely correct on all issues, and made a complete nuisance of himself about these matters.  Which is why he tried to change his ways to be less confrontational about his opinions, even if he was completely correct and his interlocutor was completely wrong.

 

And there are those here, myself included, who need to remember old Ben and take his advice more often.

Thank you. To be clear, I am completely estranged from my fundamentalist family. They think I am insane. I have no reason to live at all save to live out my life in service and gratitude to Heavenly Father. Flatly, the Mormon Sister missionaries saved my life. The GA still have not made up their mind about me, and it may not happen in this life.  I would kill myself, have the method and the plan, but for the first time in my life, I can honestly say that there are people in my life that love me. How could I hurt those who love me?

 

Most people do not realize that there are people right here in front of them that have never heard the words, "I love you". I didn't until I was married at 19 years old. There are people that grew up being told that they were always wrong, that everything that went wrong was their fault, that they are worthless.

 

The Mormons would not put up with that  with me, and the constant love and affirmations have begun to make their mark on me. Heavenly Father has really revealed himself to me in this church, and while I do not always agree with every rule, I will be obedient.

[Stone holm]

Isn't everything we have something that a prophet or apostle told us?  I'm not seeing your distinction with "structural doctrine".

 

And what of policies that he mentioned alongside doctrines?  Are there "structural policies"?  How are those defined?

 

No need to kick of another gay marriage debate in this thread.  I understand and have already added it to my list of things that the church is/was never going to do.  So, I'm on board.

Structural doctrine is something around which our understanding of how the universe works. For example, most Christian sects have no doctrine about marriage continuing after the resurrection or married couples going on to populate worlds in the future with spirit children, so for them their opposition to gay marriage is based simply on God having told them homosexual behavior is sinful. Embracing SSM does not require them to reorder their understanding of how the universe works. They have no Temples sealing families together for eternity. On the other hand, we oppose say tattoos, but accepting tattoos doesn't call upon us to reorder our world view. Allowing women to hold certain offices from which they are currently barred does not require us to reorder our worldview, etc.

[Senator]

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.

 

Yes I'm quite sure that that exposition will have great mileage with apologist and critic alike, to the point where the Brethren might begin to feel like a bunch of babbling baboons. I predict in a future conference we will hear Bro. Uchtdorf give a clarification address declaring the confidence we can, and must have, in the leaders of the church.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Senator

[Tacenda]

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.

CFR that it isn't doctrine or wasn't. That's two now, one I'm still waiting on.

[rockpond]

Structural doctrine is something around which our understanding of how the universe works. For example, most Christian sects have no doctrine about marriage continuing after the resurrection or married couples going on to populate worlds in the future with spirit children, so for them their opposition to gay marriage is based simply on God having told them homosexual behavior is sinful. Embracing SSM does not require them to reorder their understanding of how the universe works. They have no Temples sealing families together for eternity. On the other hand, we oppose say tattoos, but accepting tattoos doesn't call upon us to reorder our world view. Allowing women to hold certain offices from which they are currently barred does not require us to reorder our worldview, etc.

So you believe that when Elder Oaks said "doctrines and policies" he actually meant just "structural doctrines"?

And good examples of non-structural doctrines are tattoos and ordaining women?

[Glenn101]

Regarding interracial marriages in the temple, they were prohibited.  Now they are not.  That's a change.  So what exactly did Elder Oaks mean?

 

Regarding BY, yes... I agree... he was inconsistent.  Sometimes he taught the necessity of polygamy for the highest level of exaltation.  Other times, he did not.  I guess that doesn't qualify as change.

 

Are you saying that all interracial mariages were prohibited in the Temple, or just for those  afected by the Priesthood ban?

 

Glenn

[thesometimesaint]

Did the Mormon version of Heavenly Father ever say that "three or more" will become one flesh?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Actually that comes from the Bible. John 17:21

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

See, this is why I specifically said there was no point in discussing doctrines that change.  There is always someone to explain it away and say, well that wasn't official doctrine, or that an item doesn't meet the definition of doctrine.  Anyone who seriously thinks that the doctrines of the church haven't changed over the years is just being blind.  Otherwise we would be teaching and believing the exact same doctrines as the church membership in 1830 or 1870, which we clearly aren't.

And frankly, the way you cage your so-called requests for info ("prove to every real historian", "recommend a serious book") just leaves the option for you to claim "well, that doesn't count".

 

One book (of many) that shows the changing & developing doctrines of the church would be "This Is My Doctrine" by Charles Harrell.

"Mormon Polygamy" by Richard Van Wagoner traces the church's changing teachings on polygamy over the course of its existence.

[Stone holm]

So you believe that when Elder Oaks said "doctrines and policies" he actually meant just "structural doctrines"? And good examples of non-structural doctrines are tattoos and ordaining women?

 

Not trying to address everything that Elder Oaks discussed, was only specifically addressing the issue of trying to determine what issues the Church is not going to change its position on.  My point is that there are certain positions which are so fundamental and so tied to the structure of our belief system that there is no room to discard the position.  We have more of those than most of Christianity does, which puts us in an ironical position as we are better suited to receive new revelation that can alter beliefs than nearly any other Christian sect, yet in some ways we are more locked into certain certain positions than others are.  Take the Catholics for example, they forbid (except for a few minor exceptions) their religious to marry, they have very little doctrine as to what you actually do if you get to their heaven.  So they are under very little constraint as to how they want to address the subject of marriage from a structural standpoint.  (Many conservative Catholics would take severe exception to what I just said -- my apologies in advance.)

[thesometimesaint]

Regarding interracial marriages in the temple, they were prohibited.  Now they are not.  That's a change.  So what exactly did Elder Oaks mean?

 

Regarding BY, yes... I agree... he was inconsistent.  Sometimes he taught the necessity of polygamy for the highest level of exaltation.  Other times, he did not.  I guess that doesn't qualify as change.

That doctrine has always been that found in the Bible. Membership in the Church is not based on race. The holding of Priesthood can be given or taken away as God so sees fit. IE; At one time the Priesthood could be held only by the first born sons of Priests in the tribe of Levi.

[Stone holm]

See, this is why I specifically said there was no point in discussing doctrines that change.  There is always someone to explain it away and say, well that wasn't official doctrine, or that an item doesn't meet the definition of doctrine.  Anyone who seriously thinks that the doctrines of the church haven't changed over the years is just being blind.  Otherwise we would be teaching and believing the exact same doctrines as the church membership in 1830 or 1870, which we clearly aren't.

And frankly, the way you cage your so-called requests for info ("prove to every real historian", "recommend a serious book") just leaves the option for you to claim "well, that doesn't count".

 

One book (of many) that shows the changing & developing doctrines of the church would be "This Is My Doctrine" by Charles Harrell.

"Mormon Polygamy" by Richard Van Wagoner traces the church's changing teachings on polygamy over the course of its existence.

 

It is pointless to discuss doctrine vs policy vs tradition -- all that does is get you into a game of semantics, it is better to use neutral references like "teachings" or "stances" or "positions", etc.  Obviously "doctrine" changes as soon as a Prophet gains enough support from the leadership to implement a change that the Lord wants, at which point "doctrine" becomes a policy or a tradition that can be changed.

[thesometimesaint]

See, this is why I specifically said there was no point in discussing doctrines that change.  There is always someone to explain it away and say, well that wasn't official doctrine, or that an item doesn't meet the definition of doctrine.  Anyone who seriously thinks that the doctrines of the church haven't changed over the years is just being blind.  Otherwise we would be teaching and believing the exact same doctrines as the church membership in 1830 or 1870, which we clearly aren't.

And frankly, the way you cage your so-called requests for info ("prove to every real historian", "recommend a serious book") just leaves the option for you to claim "well, that doesn't count".

 

One book (of many) that shows the changing & developing doctrines of the church would be "This Is My Doctrine" by Charles Harrell.

"Mormon Polygamy" by Richard Van Wagoner traces the church's changing teachings on polygamy over the course of its existence.

 

Since the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, monogamy is the default position of the Church unless God commands otherwise.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Book_of_Mormon_condemns_the_practice

[JLHPROF]

My point is that there are certain positions which are so fundamental and so tied to the structure of our belief system that there is no room to discard the position.  We have more of those than most of Christianity does, which puts us in an ironical position as we are better suited to receive new revelation that can alter beliefs than nearly any other Christian sect, yet in some ways we are more locked into certain certain positions than others are.

 

This is what I wanted to discuss on the other thread I started - which positions are so fundamental and tied to our beliefs that we can never change or discard them?  If we can receive new revelation to alter beliefs, which beliefs if altered would trouble us enough to question?  But I only got a couple of honest responses so far, and a lot of claims that no doctrines have been changed.

[thesometimesaint]

In theory not much can't be changed. But truth claims wouldn't be one of those that can be changed.

[Buzzard]

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

Well, of course. But WHY are we to be disciples of Christ? Why do we try to emulate him and invoke his infinite atonement in overcoming our sins? It is to return to him and the father, and to become joint heirs with him in our fathers kingdom-or do you propose a different reason for our discipleship?

And receiving all that the father hath means living in a family unit for all eternity, with our spouse and having eternal increase. And as per the words of modern prophets, that requires a spouse of the opposite gender, which is why same sex relationships are so harmful in an eternal sense-they literally dam up the eternal progression of those who enter in to them. A man and a woman, even if they did not accept the gospel in this life, may have the opportunity through proxy temple work to be sealed together and obtain their exaltation-conditional of course on repentance and acceptance of the gospel when it is presented to them. But a same sex couple, even if they live together all their days and are "faithful" to each other, can have no such opportunity.

When Elder Oaks decries the state of marriage and the high number of of unwed births, and declares that same sex marriage can never be acceptable to God, he is not just an old fogey holding out for an obsolete morality that does not exist any more, he is concerned about the eternal happiness of all of God's children, who must at some point either reject or accept the gospel, and the way they conduct their lives will directly influence the spirit that they enter the next life with, and the choices they make now will determine how much eternal happiness they are able and willing to claim. 

Edited October 8, 2013 by Buzzard

[california boy]

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.

I agree.

Edited October 8, 2013 by california boy

[Stargazer]

I agree.

 

Well, there's a first!

[california boy]

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?

 

While homosexual BEHAVIOR can be chosen, homosexual orientation is not chosen.  

 

I don't think anyone would say that a straight person could not have gay sex.  It happens all of the time.  The whole discussion on gay marriage is not about who you have sex with, it is about who you are hardwired to fall in love with and who you connect with on a much higher level than just sex.  Could a gay man marry a woman?  Of course.  It has happened for centuries.  Does that make them straight?  It does not.  If simply having straight sex made a person straight, the church would command every gay man to get married and their gay orientation would disappear. The church no longer counsels its gay members to do this for obvious reasons.  Having gay sex does not make you any more gay than having straight sex makes you straight.

 

When you have celibate members who identify as being gay, it is impossible to make any claim that it is a learned orientation.

[thesometimesaint]

The sin is not in the temptation. Such would be a denial of the atonement. The sin is in giving into that temptation.

[california boy]

The sin is not in the temptation. Such would be a denial of the atonement. The sin is in giving into that temptation.

This is the current church doctrine/policy.  I am so confused these days what is doctrine and what is policy.  For years, I thought it was doctrine that "As man is, God once was, as God is man may become"  Then I find out on Larry King that this is only policy, not doctrine.  

[wenglund]

The 5 wives (as an example) are not married to one another but they are married to the

same husband - so the five share a union with the same man.  One could consider this

as one union or five unions, but I would view them as part of the same family, not 5

individual families.  So if a man has a son with one wife and a daughter with another wife,

the male and female are brother and sister within the same family.  When introducing

his wives and children at a social function, he would probably use the phrase "This is my

family" instead of "These are my families".  Also, in the doctrine of celestial marriage,

they would form an eternal family (singular).

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

It seems that you are conflating "one flesh" with "one family."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Not trying to address everything that Elder Oaks discussed, was only specifically addressing the issue of trying to determine what issues the Church is not going to change its position on.  My point is that there are certain positions which are so fundamental and so tied to the structure of our belief system that there is no room to discard the position.  We have more of those than most of Christianity does, which puts us in an ironical position as we are better suited to receive new revelation that can alter beliefs than nearly any other Christian sect, yet in some ways we are more locked into certain certain positions than others are.  Take the Catholics for example, they forbid (except for a few minor exceptions) their religious to marry, they have very little doctrine as to what you actually do if you get to their heaven.  So they are under very little constraint as to how they want to address the subject of marriage from a structural standpoint.  (Many conservative Catholics would take severe exception to what I just said -- my apologies in advance.)

 

So am I misinterpreting Elder Oaks? ...Because I understood him to be saying that none of our doctrines or policies change because they are all based on unchangeable truths of God.