Elder Oaks' Oct 2013 Gen Con Address

[rockpond]

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.

 

Okay... when did God take away the right to hold the priesthood by those of African descent?  Where is our record of that?

[thesometimesaint]

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.  

 

It is still a doctrine. Albeit one we don't know much about the first part.

[JLHPROF]

Okay... when did God take away the right to hold the priesthood by those of African descent?  Where is our record of that?

 

Abraham 1:27

[rockpond]

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. 

 

As you do, I believe that Elder Oaks is sincerely concerned about the eternal happiness of all of God's children.

[thesometimesaint]

Okay... when did God take away the right to hold the priesthood by those of African descent?  Where is our record of that?

 

Such is not extent. Obviously President McKay thought it was just a policy, but one that required revelation to rescind. To be clear we don't have much in the way of anytime it has been taken away from any group. And none as to why God did it. IE; The Judaizers of the ancient Church didn't lose their Priesthood authority, but there is no requirement now for members to be Jews first.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Or that some jaded observers will give such a spin to whatever he might say in the future, whether he intends it so or not.

[thesometimesaint]

Abraham 1:27

Pharaoh never had the Priesthood. He only claimed to have it.

[rockpond]

Abraham 1:27

 

Joseph Smith, who revealed the book of Abraham, did not interpret it that way as he ordained men of African descent during his life.  Where did the command from God come after that time?

[rockpond]

Such is not extent. Obviously President McKay thought it was just a policy, but one that required revelation to rescind. To be clear we don't have much in the way of anytime it has been taken away from any group. And none as to why God did it. IE; The Judaizers of the ancient Church didn't lose their Priesthood authority, but there is no requirement now for members to be Jews first.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying.  You said that God can take away the right to hold the priesthood as He sees fit.  When & how did he remove it in this dispensation after Joseph Smith was granting it to men of African descent?

[thesometimesaint]

He took the Priesthood away from the Jews.

[JLHPROF]

Pharaoh never had the Priesthood. He only claimed to have it.

Not really the point - the point was that he was of a banned lineage, ie Ham through Caanan.

[wenglund]

As you do, I believe that Elder Oaks is sincerely concerned about the eternal happiness of all of God's children.

 

Just out of curiosity, did you find Elder Oaks' comments to be even the least bit problematic to your position on SSM?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

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.

 

I don't want to try and interpret what Elder Oaks thought he was saying or what he said.  Obviously policies change and sometimes doctrine gets reclassified as policy and changed, and sometimes doctrine is only for specific seasons.   It is fairly clear that Joseph Smith believed in and preached a literal physical gathering of the Saints -- was that doctrine? did it change?  Answering that question gets you into a game of semantics.  Its based on the notion that "truth" never changes and that "God is unchangeable" -- in my mind it is that our perception of what is truth changes as God reveals more and more of the whole picture.  When Prophets and members have only been allowed to see a part of the picture, their profession of what is "truth" may well be different from when they see the whole picture.  In other cases, certain doctrines like polygamy are intended only for certain time periods -- that doesn't make them non-doctrinal when you are outside that time period.

[wenglund]

I don't want to try and interpret what Elder Oaks thought he was saying or what he said.  Obviously policies change and sometimes doctrine gets reclassified as policy and changed, and sometimes doctrine is only for specific seasons.   It is fairly clear that Joseph Smith believed in and preached a literal physical gathering of the Saints -- was that doctrine? did it change?  Answering that question gets you into a game of semantics.  Its based on the notion that "truth" never changes and that "God is unchangeable" -- in my mind it is that our perception of what is truth changes as God reveals more and more of the whole picture.  When Prophets and members have only been allowed to see a part of the picture, their profession of what is "truth" may well be different from when they see the whole picture.  In other cases, certain doctrines like polygamy are intended only for certain time periods -- that doesn't make them non-doctrinal when you are outside that time period.

 

Perhaps I can ask you as well. Just out of curiosity, did you find Elder Oaks' comments to be even the least bit problematic to your position on SSM?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JLHPROF]

I'm not sure what you are saying.  You said that God can take away the right to hold the priesthood as He sees fit.  When & how did he remove it in this dispensation after Joseph Smith was granting it to men of African descent?

 

I am going to play devil's advocate here - this is not my opinion at all:

But since we believe in continuing revelation and that early prophets acted with limited light and knowledge, perhaps Joseph gave it to men of African descent without knowing any better.  If we believe that it was actually forbidden until the revelation of 1978, but that Joseph Smith truly did ordain men of African descent, perhaps he didn't know it was forbidden until he translated the Book of Abraham (the only really possible scriptural reference, well that and the very vague Zechariah 14).

Edited October 8, 2013 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

Just out of curiosity, did you find Elder Oaks' comments to be even the least bit problematic to your position on SSM?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

It's not really the first time that I've been told I should not hold out any hope for revelation on the subject of SSM.  His statement regarding SSM doesn't surprise me.  It also doesn't change my views as they are based on personal promptings of the spirit.

 

The fact that he prefaced his SSM remarks with his statement implying that our doctrines and policies never change makes me question what he had to say and wonder if it is more representative of his opinion.

 

Frankly, after having listened to both Elder Oaks and President Uchtdorf twice now, I feel buoyed up by being in the church that President Uchtdorf described.

[rockpond]

I don't want to try and interpret what Elder Oaks thought he was saying or what he said.  Obviously policies change and sometimes doctrine gets reclassified as policy and changed, and sometimes doctrine is only for specific seasons.   It is fairly clear that Joseph Smith believed in and preached a literal physical gathering of the Saints -- was that doctrine? did it change?  Answering that question gets you into a game of semantics.  Its based on the notion that "truth" never changes and that "God is unchangeable" -- in my mind it is that our perception of what is truth changes as God reveals more and more of the whole picture.  When Prophets and members have only been allowed to see a part of the picture, their profession of what is "truth" may well be different from when they see the whole picture.  In other cases, certain doctrines like polygamy are intended only for certain time periods -- that doesn't make them non-doctrinal when you are outside that time period.

 

Well, his statement included this veiled insult to the "other churches" that do change their doctrines and policies while we do not.  If he's playing a game of semantics, I didn't really feel that it was very apostolic.

[omni]

This is an official declaration made in 1949 from the First Presidency under the direction of President President George Albert Smith.

 

 

"The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

 

 

I don't know how it can be any more clearer or more official than that.

Edited October 8, 2013 by omni

[wenglund]

It's not really the first time that I've been told I should not hold out any hope for revelation on the subject of SSM.  His statement regarding SSM doesn't surprise me.  It also doesn't change my views as they are based on personal promptings of the spirit.

 

The fact that he prefaced his SSM remarks with his statement implying that our doctrines and policies never change makes me question what he had to say and wonder if it is more representative of his opinion.

 

Frankly, after having listened to both Elder Oaks and President Uchtdorf twice now, I feel buoyed up by being in the church that President Uchtdorf described.

 

I can't say that I am surprised by your answer. In fact, I fully expected it. I asked on the off chance that I might be wrong about you. The odds were significantly against you thinking you were mistaken rather than Elder Oaks.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

This is an official declaration made in 1949 from the First Presidency under the direction of President President George Albert Smith.

 

 

 

I don't know how it can be any more clearer or more official than that.

 

That was just an official attitude!

 

HEY! I've just discovered a new classification for the apologist's tool box :   Doctrine....Policy......Official Attitude

Edited October 8, 2013 by Senator

[JLHPROF]

That was just an official attitude!

 

HEY! I've just discovered a new classification for the apologist's tool box :   Doctrine....Policy......Official Attitude

Revelation, Doctrine, Policy, Official Attitude, Teaching, Opinion, Speculation, False Doctrine, Heresy....the sliding scale of Mormonism...no wonder people get so confused as to which items of "truth" actually come from God.  The waters we swim in are very murky.

 

If only truths were eternal and God told us directly what was true. 

Edited October 8, 2013 by JLHPROF

[Stone holm]

Perhaps I can ask you as well. Just out of curiosity, did you find Elder Oaks' comments to be even the least bit problematic to your position on SSM?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Do not want to derail this thread.  What Elder Oaks says is not problematic to me with regards to my personal position regarding SSM.  I have always understood that SSM is contrary to fundamental doctrinal constraints of the Church and will never be acceptable for the Church to embrace, perform or accept.  What he has to say or not say about the right of believers of one religion to try and impose their religious beliefs about the definition of marriage by legislation upon non-believers is simply irrelevant to me as it is outside the scope of his calling.  Am not going to get into a discussion as to whether he did or did not call for that kind of action.

[california boy]

It is still a doctrine. Albeit one we don't know much about the first part.

What President HInkley said to Larry King when he asked about the couplet.

 

"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."

 

There is a big difference between not knowing a lot about something and stating that "we don't teach it.  Was God once a man or not?  Can anyone answer that simple question?  Is it in fact still doctrine as you stated?

 

Just my opinion.  It is something that really bothered me when I was watching the interview.  Quite frankly I was stunned that a prophet of God would say we don't teach something that I had in fact been taught all my life.  I am sure there are ways to explain this away if you really want to.

[Stone holm]

What President HInkley said to Larry King when he asked about the couplet.

 

"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."

 

There is a big difference between not knowing a lot about something and stating that "we don't teach it.  Was God once a man or not?  Can anyone answer that simple question?  Is it in fact still doctrine as you stated?

 

Just my opinion.  It is something that really bothered me when I was watching the interview.  Quite frankly I was stunned that a prophet of God would say we don't teach something that I had in fact been taught all my life.  I am sure there are ways to explain this away if you really want to.

 

Yeah, well then the Church promptly put out the manual on President Snow which had an entire lesson the couplet.  Pres. Hinckley was just being coy as he did not want to enflame the Evangelicals again by getting into deep doctrine on a TV show.

[rockpond]

This is an official declaration made in 1949 from the First Presidency under the direction of President President George Albert Smith.

 

 

 

I don't know how it can be any more clearer or more official than that.

 

Two questions:

 

1)  Where is that direct commandment from the Lord?  It would seem that the Brethren have now distanced themselves from the idea that there was a direct commandment.

 

2)  If "all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood" then are we done with missionary work?  And temple work?  Whew... that's a load off.