Elder Oaks' Oct 2013 Gen Con Address

[rockpond]

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-

 

Well, since nobody can really explain his comments about our doctrines and policies not changing... I am unable to put much faith in his words.  We also know that he has repeatedly hammered away (multiple venues) at SSM as a religious freedom issue without acknowledging that fighting against SSM infringes on the religious freedoms of those who may believe differently than us.

 

If I am guilty of a personal bias on this issue, so is Elder Oaks.

[california boy]

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.

I guess I am just as bothered by this explaination as I am about President Hinkley's statement.  Is it Gods will to have his prophets be less than truthful rather than enflame those that don't beleive in His gospel?  

 

Ok I will drop this.  I know it is a dead end that members don't like to discuss.  But it is an example where confusion creeps into what the church considers doctrine and what ends up being policy or what ends up being personal opinion.  I was also taught that what is said in conference is just as much scripture as the standard works.  I guess that was just opinion as well.  

[Rivers]

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.

Maybe General Conference addresses need to have Q&A sessions. I would love to hear General Authorities give clarifications for many of the things they say. Edited October 8, 2013 by Rivers

[Rivers]

I think Elder Oaks meant to say that policies that have a direct connection to doctrine are unchanging.

[omni]

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.

1. I don't believe there was a direct commandment from God, instead I believe the ban was a result of BY prejudices.

2. I don't believe I'm the right person to answer that.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

It was stated in an off-the-cuff interview. "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it." The second sentence was by way of clarification of the first: Yes, we acknowledge it, but we don't emphasize or sermonize or give doctrinal expositions about it, because we don't know enough about it to dwell at any great length on it.

 

That's my reasoned analysis. I'm sure you can blow this off as my effort to "explain this away" if you really want to.

 

Or, you can choose not to make a man an offender for a world.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1. I don't believe there was a direct commandment from God, instead I believe the ban was a result of BY prejudices.

2. I don't believe I'm the right person to answer that.

 

Fair enough.  But I guess it could be more clear than that 1949 letter, right?

[Scott Lloyd]

 I was also taught that what is said in conference is just as much scripture as the standard works.  I guess that was just opinion as well.  

What I was taught was that when a prophet speaks when moved upon by the Holy Ghost -- whether it be in conference or elsewhere -- it is the mind and will of the Lord.

 

And no, that's not just opinion. It's scriptural.

[omni]

That was just an official attitude!

 

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

 

Don't worry, any minute now someone will post LDS Newsroom's statement regarding official doctrine--newly updated to include official attitude.

[Scott Lloyd]

Don't worry, any minute now someone will post LDS Newsroom's statement regarding official doctrine--newly updated to include official attitude.

Seems to me you two guys are the only ones chattering about "official attitude." Straw man argument?

Edited October 8, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

Don't worry, any minute now someone will post LDS Newsroom's statement regarding official doctrine--newly updated to include official attitude.

 

I will have therefore left my mark in the world, and my life fulfilled!

[Senator]

Seems to me you two guys are the only ones chattering about "official attitude." Straw man argument?

 

Don't you dare rain on my two man parade..

[Scott Lloyd]

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-

Given the choice, I'll cast my lot with the prophets.

[rockpond]

Given the choice, I'll cast my lot with the prophets.

 

 

Ahhh... c'mon Scott... not gonna cast your lot with me?  Random heterodoxic-Mormon internet guy?

Edited October 8, 2013 by rockpond

[Stargazer]

It was stated in an off-the-cuff interview. "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it." The second sentence was by way of clarification of the first: Yes, we acknowledge it, but we don't emphasize it, because we don't know enough about it to dwell at any great length on it.

 

That's my reasoned analysis. I'm sure you can blow this off as my effort to "explain this away" if you really want to.

 

Or, you can choose not to make a man an offender for a world.

 

Well, not to make a man an offender for a word, I guess I understood his response to King's question as trying to downplay something that is true but is less important than the overall message of the Church, which is Christ crucified and raised from the dead.

 

I had a similar experience on my mission, incidentally. 

 

There was a JW family to whom we had taught the first discussion.  On the next appointment we found that they had called in reinforcements, namely the local "Mormon expert" who hauled out a looseleaf notebook containing all the zinger questions to ask Mormon missionaries.  It was not a knockdown dragout battle, it was quite a friendly discussion.  The ME brought up a number of LDS doctrinal things they had problems with, and we responded with scripture and our understanding of scripture, and to pretty much everything we pretty much agreed to disagree.  But then he trotted out the Lorenzo Snow couplet, just like Larry King did.  Since the conversation was in German and he read the quote as a translation from English, he first assured that we thought the translation was accurate.  And it was.  He then asked us what it meant.  I told him it meant exactly what it said.  There was this very short interlude in which all the JWs leaned back in their chairs and looked at each other in some consternation.  Then the Mormon Expert said, "Well, that is so far off our understanding of things that I think I can say that there is not much point in further discussion.  But I thank you for coming and for the friendly conversation!"  We returned the compliment, and departed, a good time having been had by all. 

 

Sort of.

 

The thing is, President Hinckley could have done what I did and it would have been just as conversation-stopping as my decision to say "It is what it is" was.  In my case, there was actually little point in the conversation in any case, given that we had been set up to lose, and there was surely no genuine interest in learning what we believe.  But Larry King's audience was quite different.  There were doubtless many people who were genuinely curious about Mormon beliefs.  I think that President Hinckley's decision to meet the question with a polite evasion was sound.  Even if I myself didn't particularly like it.

 

Didn't Jesus once say something about milk before meat?  Did he not avoid a frank answer on a few occasions when asked if he was the Messiah?

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, not to make a man an offender for a word, I guess I understood his response to King's question as trying to downplay something that is true but is less important than the overall message of the Church, which is Christ crucified and raised from the dead.

 

I had a similar experience on my mission, incidentally. 

 

There was a JW family to whom we had taught the first discussion.  On the next appointment we found that they had called in reinforcements, namely the local "Mormon expert" who hauled out a looseleaf notebook containing all the zinger questions to ask Mormon missionaries.  It was not a knockdown dragout battle, it was quite a friendly discussion.  The ME brought up a number of LDS doctrinal things they had problems with, and we responded with scripture and our understanding of scripture, and to pretty much everything we pretty much agreed to disagree.  But then he trotted out the Lorenzo Snow couplet, just like Larry King did.  Since the conversation was in German and he read the quote as a translation from English, he first assured that we thought the translation was accurate.  And it was.  He then asked us what it meant.  I told him it meant exactly what it said.  There was this very short interlude in which all the JWs leaned back in their chairs and looked at each other in some consternation.  Then the Mormon Expert said, "Well, that is so far off our understanding of things that I think I can say that there is not much point in further discussion.  But I thank you for coming and for the friendly conversation!"  We returned the compliment, and departed, a good time having been had by all. 

 

Sort of.

 

The thing is, President Hinckley could have done what I did and it would have been just as conversation-stopping as my decision to say "It is what it is" was.  In my case, there was actually little point in the conversation in any case, given that we had been set up to lose, and there was surely no genuine interest in learning what we believe.  But Larry King's audience was quite different.  There were doubtless many people who were genuinely curious about Mormon beliefs.  I think that President Hinckley's decision to meet the question with a polite evasion was sound.  Even if I myself didn't particularly like it.

 

Didn't Jesus once say something about milk before meat?  Did he not avoid a frank answer on a few occasions when asked if he was the Messiah?

Whatever. I don't agree President Hinckley was being either imprudent or evasive.

[T-Shirt]

Well, since nobody can really explain his comments about our doctrines and policies not changing... I am unable to put much faith in his words.

I just listened to the talk again.  Frankly, I don't understand what you are concerned about.  When he refers to the Church's "Policies", he was, very clearly, referring to its policies regarding marriage and the Law of Chastity.  He said that these policies are based on God's law, which cannot be changed.  No where in the talk did he ever make a general statement that the Church's policies never change.

Edited October 9, 2013 by T-Shirt

[wenglund]

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.

 

I was asking in regards to your personal position regarding the principle of SSM, and not about the legalization of SSM, I figured this would have been obvious since legalization wasn't addressed by Oaks, but the principle was, and I didn't include the word "legalization" it in my question, In short, I asked my question in such a way that it was on topic.

 

With that having been said, the reason I asked was because I was under the impression that while you acknowledged the Church's position on the principle of SSM (as you stated above), you don't personally agree with it--you prefer that homosexuals be allowed to marry in the Church and sealed as man and man or woman and woman for all eternity. Is my impression incorrect?

 

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

[cinepro]

Maybe General Conference addresses need to have Q&A sessions. I would love to hear General Authorities give clarifications for many of the things they say.

 

Most members don't need clarification.  Just the ones that want to think they meant something other than they said.

[Stone holm]

I was asking in regards to your personal position regarding the principle of SSM, and not about the legalization of SSM, I figured this would have been obvious since legalization wasn't addressed by Oaks, but the principle was, and I didn't include the word "legalization" it in my question, In short, I asked my question in such a way that it was on topic.

 

With that having been said, the reason I asked was because I was under the impression that while you acknowledged the Church's position on the principle of SSM (as you stated above), you don't personally agree with it--you prefer that homosexuals be allowed to marry in the Church and sealed as man and man or woman and woman for all eternity. Is my impression incorrect?

 

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

No. That is not correct my personal view is that homosexual behavior is not only sinful but disgusting. SSM should never be cepted or conducted by the Church because it is contrary to the organization of the heavens where Gods, male and female, create Spirit children to be inhabited by eternal intelligences. Having said that, I am also a firm believer in separation of church and state a doctrine which is part of what makes us Americans and free. As a result I cannot abide the notion that in a free country we can legislate definition and confer or deny civil rights on the basis of religious beliefs. We are not the victims here, nobody is trying to deny us the right to marry in accordance with our beliefs, and we do not have the right to say that others cannot enter into committed relationships just because we disagree with them on religious grounds. Our anti SSM campaigns in particular Prop 8 violated our policy of political neutrality. The continued beating of the drums on this issue is just alienating people who believe that majorities should not discriminate against minorities strictly on religious grounds. Mormons of all Americans should know better.

[Stargazer]

Whatever. I don't agree President Hinckley was being either imprudent or evasive.

 

I don't fault him for it.  I might have put it differently (if I had a chance to think about it, which I don't think he did).  I think it would have been imprudent to just come out with it, which he didn't, and if you want to find another word for other than evasive, then go for it.  Maybe deflective? 

 

But the words he used struck me then, and strike me now as less than fully forthcoming. 

 

And like I say, I don't fault him for it. 

[Stone holm]

I don't fault him for it.  I might have put it differently (if I had a chance to think about it, which I don't think he did).  I think it would have been imprudent to just come out with it, which he didn't, and if you want to find another word for other than evasive, then go for it.  Maybe deflective? 

 

But the words he used struck me then, and strike me now as less than fully forthcoming. 

 

And like I say, I don't fault him for it.

I agree. It was simply being coy and deflecting a question that if answered would have given the Christian Right one more thing to preach anti Mormon sermons about. Plus Pres. Hinckley had a practice of sort of making us out to be Protestants with more scriptures, you may disagree with this approach, I certainly was uncomfortable with it, but it was a possibly a sound MadisonAvenue approach to marketing the gospel. Pres Hinckley felt the Church was in the communication business, some weirdos like myself think business management theories have been pushed beyond their usefulness in many spheres, but we are a minority in the Church.

[rockpond]

Most members don't need clarification. Just the ones that want to think they meant something other than they said.

"Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?" Pres. Uchtdorf

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-leadership-training/2012/01/acting-on-the-truths-of-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

[Rivers]

It was stated in an off-the-cuff interview. "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it." The second sentence was by way of clarification of the first: Yes, we acknowledge it, but we don't emphasize or sermonize or give doctrinal expositions about it, because we don't know enough about it to dwell at any great length on it.

That's my reasoned analysis. I'm sure you can blow this off as my effort to "explain this away" if you really want to.

Or, you can choose not to make a man an offender for a world.

I fully agree with your analysis. I don't understand why people make such a huge deal out this.

[Calm]

The printed format is available:

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng

 

The intro and first section are general, after that the sections appear to me to be particularly talking about marriage and family.

 

What is unchangeable are the truths that policies are based on.  Thus policies can be changed if it allows for a better adherence to the eternal truth in the current  circumstances, it would seem to me.

 

Am including the whole section for context:

 

 

 

There are many political and social pressures for legal and policy changes to establish behaviors contrary to God’s decrees about sexual morality and contrary to the eternal nature and purposes of marriage and childbearing. These pressures have already authorized same-gender marriages in various states and nations. Other pressures would confuse gender or homogenize those differences between men and women that are essential to accomplish God’s great plan of happiness.

Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them. And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has identified as unchangeable.

Our twelfth article of faith states our belief in being subject to civil authority and “in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.

In this determination we may be misunderstood, and we may incur accusations of bigotry, suffer discrimination, or have to withstand invasions of our free exercise of religion. If so, I think we should remember our first priority—to serve God—and, like our pioneer predecessors, push our personal handcarts forward with the same fortitude they exhibited.

A teaching of President Thomas S. Monson applies to this circumstance. At this conference 27 years ago, he boldly declared: “Let us have the courage to defy the consensus, the courage to stand for principle. Courage, not compromise, brings the smile of God’s approval. Courage becomes a living and an attractive virtue when it is regarded not only as a willingness to die manfully, but as the determination to live decently. A moral coward is one who is afraid to do what he thinks is right because others will disapprove or laugh. Remember that all men have their fears, but those who face their fears with dignity have courage as well.”11

I pray that we will not let the temporary challenges of mortality cause us to forget the great commandments and priorities we have been given by our Creator and our Savior. We must not set our hearts so much on the things of the world and aspire to the honors of men (see D&C 121:35) that we stop trying to achieve our eternal destiny. We who know God’s plan for His children—we who have made covenants to participate in it—have a clear responsibility. We must never deviate from our paramount desire, which is to achieve eternal life.12 We must never dilute our first priority—to have no other gods and to serve no other priorities ahead of God the Father and His Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

Edited October 9, 2013 by calmoriah