Elder Oaks' Oct 2013 Gen Con Address

[Stone holm]

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:

 

I believe that all he seems to be saying in this quote is that just because something is allowed by secular law, that does not mean it isn't sinful in the eyes of the Church and God.  I certainly have no quarrel with that concept as it applies to many, many things from drinking coffee and imbibing alcohol to homosexual behavior.  I think there are a substantial number of people, like myself, who do not approve of homosexual behavior or SSM because of our religious beliefs (and for some like myself additionally because of my cultural upbringing), but do not believe that we should use civil law to coerce conformity to our religious beliefs.  There seems to be this idea that if we defend the civil liberties of non-members with regards to their gender orientation and consequent behavior that we are approving that behavior -- which is neither accurate, nor fair.  I wouldn't mind those insinuations so much, if that type of activity did not turn people away from the Church.  If we want to encourage the membership of the Church to behave in a manner which alienates people who do not adhere to conservative ideologies and want all of us to be painted with an affection for Confederate culture -- then this is an excellent way to do so.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

"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

 As a general principle he is correct on what he said. Does this apply to gay marriage and women getting the priesthood? No. They were abundently clear this past confrence. Specifically about gay marriage. That is just something that cannot change as it goes against God's plan.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[rockpond]

 As a general principle he is correct on what he said. Does this apply to gay marriage and women getting the priesthood? No. They were abundently clear this past confrence. Specifically about gay marriage. That is just something that cannot change as it goes against God's plan.

 

He's correct on what he said but you don't think I should actually follow his advice with respect to gay marriage?  Got it.  The message from Elder Oaks was clear... although if we also believe President Uchtdorf than Elder Oaks could be mistaken.  Generally speaking, I don't believe revelation is received without first "knocking".  So I'll keep asking questions.

 

And as I've said before... I got the message and have added "gay marriage" to the list of things that the church is/was never going to abide.

[Stone holm]

Have always felt a little uncomfortable with talks about things being un changeable as history rarely substantiates the claim. There are some core principles, but that just switches the debate over what is and is not core. I suspect the core even in our Church is a lot smaller than most imagine, so statements like his need to be taken with liberal dose of salt unless they really, really do change our structural views or truth claims...but even as to the latter we have seen these narrowed.

[wenglund]

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.

 

I appreciate the clarification. I evidently got your beliefs confused with rockpond's/

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

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

Probably because for some members, seeing a prophet of God mislead everyone is pretty shocking.  You can say what you want about President Hinckley being coy or imprudent or evasive or what ever way you want to excuse his answer.  The truth is, every member knew that yes indeed the church teaches the principle "As man is, God once was, as God is, man may become.

 

I respect President Hinckley and don't think that this statement defines who he was.  He did much good for the church under his leadership.  I just wish that he had been more forthwrite about this principle and since he was not, I was disappointed that he didn't follow up this interview with an apology or at least a clairification that yes indeed, the church teaches this principle.  I actually think if he had focused on the unique Mormon concept that we are the children of God and as such can through the atonement of Christ, work to become more Christlike.  In fact that is the sole goal of our earthly existence.  As Christ became like his Father, we too can become like Christ.  It is a beautiful doctrine (?) that should be told to all the sons of God.

[wenglund]

Probably because for some members, seeing a prophet of God mislead everyone is pretty shocking.  You can say what you want about President Hinckley being coy or imprudent or evasive or what ever way you want to excuse his answer.  The truth is, every member knew that yes indeed the church teaches the principle "As man is, God once was, as God is, man may become.

 

As a member, I watched the interview, and I agreed completely with what President Hinkley said, and I didn't consider it the least bit misleading--though pragmatically cautious. Over the years that I have discussed this issue with antagonists like yourself, some of them as non-members presuming to speak on behalf of all or even most members, and I haven't changed my mind, but am all the more convinced.  So, at least in my case, you are demonstrably wrong.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

Probably because for some members, seeing a prophet of God mislead everyone is pretty shocking.  You can say what you want about President Hinckley being coy or imprudent or evasive or what ever way you want to excuse his answer.  The truth is, every member knew that yes indeed the church teaches the principle "As man is, God once was, as God is, man may become.

 

I respect President Hinckley and don't think that this statement defines who he was.  He did much good for the church under his leadership.  I just wish that he had been more forthwrite about this principle and since he was not, I was disappointed that he didn't follow up this interview with an apology or at least a clairification that yes indeed, the church teaches this principle.  I actually think if he had focused on the unique Mormon concept that we are the children of God and as such can through the atonement of Christ, work to become more Christlike.  In fact that is the sole goal of our earthly existence.  As Christ became like his Father, we too can become like Christ.  It is a beautiful doctrine (?) that should be told to all the sons of God.

It was slightly misleading

[california boy]

As a member, I watched the interview, and I agreed completely with what President Hinkley said, and I didn't consider it the least bit misleading--though pragmatically cautious. Over the years that I have discussed this issue with antagonists like yourself, some of them as non-members presuming to speak on behalf of all or even most members, and I haven't changed my mind, but am all the more convinced.  So, at least in my case, you are demonstrably wrong.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well as a member at the time, I was more than surprised by his response.  

 

And I have no idea why you feel the need to label me as an antagonist.  I have never spoken ill of the church or it's leaders.  I may disagree with certain actions of the church, but that does not make me any more of an antagonist than any active member that is on this discussion board discussing issues they have with church policies.  That said, I doubt I am able to dissuade you from any of your positions.  It is not like you are the most open-minded guy I have come in contact with.

[CV75]

Can anyone help me understand how I am supposed to interpret Elder Oaks' implication that our policies and doctrines have not and do not change?  Some have.  And to say that they don't/won't seems antithetical to a church guided by continuing revelation.

 

I don't have the exact quote cause it isn't published yet but he said something to the effect of:  Unlike some churches that change their policies and doctrine, ours are based upon unchangeable truths from God.

 

I agree that truths from God do not change but our understanding of them (as reflected in our policies/doctrines) has seemed to change.

 

Thoughts?

 

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

 

“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 are upon all sectors and institutions of society and the Church.

 

“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.” He is saying here that God’s truths are unchangeable, so even when we might change our policies, they are still in line with these truths.

 

He is not saying that our policies and doctrines have not and do not change, but that they are always in line with God’s unchangeable truths. Thus, our policies and doctrine will not condone behaviors contrary to God’s decrees about sexual morality, marriage and childbearing.

 

It is interesting that he represents the Church as unable to change like "other organizations that can change their policies and doctrines..." by indicating that only God determines our policies and doctrines in accordance with His revealed, unchangeable truth. We do not identify or change these policies on our own, because we operate differently than those without the keys do.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

He's correct on what he said but you don't think I should actually follow his advice with respect to gay marriage?  Got it.  The message from Elder Oaks was clear... although if we also believe President Uchtdorf than Elder Oaks could be mistaken.  

  He is not mistaken. And there is no "could" with this regards. What on earth in Elder Uchtdorf's talk makes you think he was talking about what Elder Oak's was talking about? I mean context matters here.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 I am also a firm believer in separation of church and state

This is such poop. You are are not for the separationo of church and state. Because anytime some one has a hard time with something you believe it is a problem for you and you want to abanon it but it is not for someone else that has a contray belief like SSM. Well I got news budy. I am not interested in recognizing gay marriage as it goes against my belief. Why do my beliefs need to be dumped on? Such a misunderstood conecpt from people that supposedly are educated. The concept is about not having a state recognized religion. That is what separation of church and state means. Good grief.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[rockpond]

  He is not mistaken. And there is no "could" with this regards. What on earth in Elder Uchtdorf's talk makes you think he was talking about what Elder Oak's was talking about? I mean context matters here.

 

President Uchtdorf said that leaders can make mistakes.

[omni]

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

 

“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 are upon all sectors and institutions of society and the Church.

 

“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.” He is saying here that God’s truths are unchangeable, so even when we might change our policies, they are still in line with these truths.

 

He is not saying that our policies and doctrines have not and do not change, but that they are always in line with God’s unchangeable truths. Thus, our policies and doctrine will not condone behaviors contrary to God’s decrees about sexual morality, marriage and childbearing.

 

 

 

 

This is demonstrably false. The church teaches that in the 1830's-40's that it was not only permissable, but that God commanded a 38 year old man to marry a 14 year old girl.  If this happened today it would most certainly be seen as a sin.  How is this not evidence of a changing truth regarding morality, marriage and child birth?

[CV75]

 God commanded a 38 year old man to marry a 14 year old girl.  If this happened today it would most certainly be seen as a sin.

While it would offend many (not all) modern sensibilities or the mores of many (not all) cultures, and I imagine illegal in some (not all) places or where performed improperly where it is legal, where does it say in the Church Handbook of Instructions (or any other officlal Church document) that a man marrying a 14-year old girl is a sin?

[omni]

While it would offend many (not all) modern sensibilities or the mores of many (not all) cultures, and I imagine illegal in some (not all) places or where performed improperly where it is legal, where does it say in the Church Handbook of Instructions (or any other officlal Church document) that a man marrying a 14-year old girl is a sin?

Wow, I can't even believe you're trying to make that argument.

[Calm]

God commanded a 38 year old man to marry a 14 year old girl.  

CFR that in this case there was a specific commandment.  My memory says that her father, HCK, wanted to establish an eternal link with JS and 'offered his daughter' to JS for that purpose, not that it was one of those cases where one could interpret it as a commandment for a specific relationship.

 

Plural marriage could be seen as a commandment, but that doesn't mean that each instance of it had to be part of the practice, surely there were options...it was usually seen as not who precisely you were sealed to but, that you were sealed.

Edited October 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

Well as a member at the time, I was more than surprised by his response.  

 

And I have no idea why you feel the need to label me as an antagonist.  I have never spoken ill of the church or it's leaders.  I may disagree with certain actions of the church, but that does not make me any more of an antagonist than any active member that is on this discussion board discussing issues they have with church policies.  That said, I doubt I am able to dissuade you from any of your positions.  It is not like you are the most open-minded guy I have come in contact with.

 

Whether you are an antagonist or not (it is debatable, but of little import to my point), and regardless of how President Hinckley's response struck you as a member then (or as a non-member now), the fact that I didn't think his response was misleading renders demonstrably false your "every member" claim.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

Probably because for some members, seeing a prophet of God mislead everyone is pretty shocking.  You can say what you want about President Hinckley being coy or imprudent or evasive or what ever way you want to excuse his answer.

I'm one who countered your post, and I never said he was being coy or imprudent or evasive. In fact, I contradicted those very descriptors. And mine wasn't an effort to excuse his answer; it was reasoned analysis derived by reading for comprehension.

 

 

 The truth is, every member knew that yes indeed the church teaches the principle "As man is, God once was, as God is, man may become.

 

Reading for comprehension, one realizes that the portion he was referring to that he said we don't teach or emphasize is the first part: that "as man is, God once was."

 

And he was absolutely right. You seemed determined to ignore my post wherein I said that while we acknowledge it, we don't teach it in the sense of giving lessons or sermons or publishing articles about it, for the simple reason that we don't know enough about it to dwell on it.

 

What you are insinuating is deception and evasion was in reality a careful effort to be accurate in an off-the-cuff and wide-ranging interview before a largely uncomprehending public. And yes, I do see it as disrespectful to President Hinckley.

[Stone holm]

I'm one who countered your post, and I never said he was being coy or imprudent or evasive. In fact, I contradicted those very descriptors. And mine wasn't an effort to excuse his answer; it was reasoned analysis derived by reading for comprehension.

 

Reading for comprehension, one realizes that the portion he was referring to that he said we don't teach or emphasize is the first part: that "as man is, God once was."

 

And he was absolutely right. You seemed determined to ignore my post wherein I said that while we acknowledge it, we don't teach it in the sense of giving lessons or sermons or publishing articles about it, for the simple reason that we don't know enough about it to dwell on it.

 

What you are insinuating is deception and evasion was in reality a careful effort to be accurate in an off-the-cuff and wide-ranging interview before a largely uncomprehending public. And yes, I do see it as disrespectful to President Hinckley.

 

Uhm, maybe not in your Ward, but it is taught in our Ward and the Sunday School manual which came out taught about the Snow Couplet which involves both verses.  His comment was clearly coy and though technically true -- it was slightly misleading in its implication.  Had it not been so, we would not have so many people wandering around now wondering if the church had disavowed a portion of the couplet.  I believe that it was an adroit way of deflecting the question with some slightly misleading implications which the Church quickly cured with its manual.  Is this something that should be held against President Hinckley?  No, I don't believe so -- normally King threw softballs to Pres. Hinckley, this time he threw a potential hard-ball and Pres. Hinckley bunted, would not be the first time a GA bunted on a hard-ball.  We don't elevate idiots to lead the Church.

[omni]

CFR that in this case there was a specific commandment. My memory says that her father, HCK, wanted to establish an eternal link with JS and 'offered his daughter' to JS for that purpose, not that it was one of those cases where one could interpret it as a commandment for a specific relationship.

Plural marriage could be seen as a commandment, but that doesn't mean that each instance of it had to be part of the practice, surely there were options...it was usually seen as not who precisely you were sealed to but, that you were sealed.

Joseph claimed that he was threatened by an angel with a flaming sword if he didn't engage in polygamy. I think it's odd that he needed that "extra push" when it came to plural marriage with adult women, but he didn't when it came to teenage girls.

Even if you don't believe he was commanded to marry HMK, you still would have to recognize he claimed it was at least permissible in the eyes of God.

[JLHPROF]

Joseph claimed that he was threatened by an angel with a flaming sword if he didn't engage in polygamy. I think it's odd that he needed that "extra push" when it came to plural marriage with adult women, but he didn't when it came to teenage girls.

Even if you don't believe he was commanded to marry HMK, you still would have to recognize he claimed it was at least permissible in the eyes of God.

 

That is completely not true, and frankly, an offensive description of Joseph Smith.  He needed no "extra push" to marry adults compared to marrying a younger girl.  He needed a push to enter plural marriage, but the age of his wives varied from beginning to end.

 

And I don't believe there was any sin in marrying the 14 year old - that is simply today's culture.  Most estimates have Mary the mother of Christ as being about 14 when she conceived of the Lord.

[Scott Lloyd]

Uhm, maybe not in your Ward, but it is taught in our Ward and the Sunday School manual which came out taught about the Snow Couplet which involves both verses. 

What Sunday School manual?

 

Did you mean the Teachings of Presidents of the Church manual that was used in Relief Society and Melchizedek Priesthood lessons? If so, please don't call it a Sunday School manual. That is inaccurate and confusing. If that's not what you mean, please identify which Sunday School manual you are talking about.

 

His comment was clearly coy and though technically true -- it was slightly misleading in its implication.  Had it not been so, we would not have so many people wandering around now wondering if the church had disavowed a portion of the couplet. 

Maybe some people were not clear on what he meant, but it was not misleading. Saying we don't teach or emphasize something is not saying we have disavowed it. The fact that it was included in a manual (and again, I'm not sure which manual you mean here) indicates nothing more than what I said: We acknowledge it but we don't teach or emphasize it in the sense of writing sermons and lessons exploring and emphasizing it.

 

 

 

I believe that it was an adroit way of deflecting the question with some slightly misleading implications which the Church quickly cured with its manual.

 

So you've said repeatedly now. I disagree.

 

 

  Is this something that should be held against President Hinckley?  No, I don't believe so -- normally King threw softballs to Pres. Hinckley, this time he threw a potential hard-ball and Pres. Hinckley bunted, would not be the first time a GA bunted on a hard-ball.  We don't elevate idiots to lead the Church.

 

If President Hinckley was adroit here it was in being careful and accurate in his response.

 

As for elevating people to lead the Church, it is God, not you or I, who does the elevating.

 

ETA:

 

The rep point I gave you was in error. I meant to click on the reply button. Merry Christmas.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

Wow, I can't even believe you're trying to make that argument.

It is ceratinly evident that you are unable to counter it. CFR that a 38 year old man marrying a 14 year old girl is a sin.

[Calm]

I believe that the evidence demonstrates that the sealing was much like a betrothal and followed the pattern of future such sealings that took place among Saints where the girl remained with the parents until of a more 'marriageable' age, iow she was sealed to become a full wife in the future, that there was no physical relationship between the two of them at that time (or any time due to JS dying not long after the sealing...about a year, IIRC).

 

If so, while such a circumstances would be highly unusual in our Western culture...I could imagine an instance where even in this day and age an 'understanding' between families is created, some ritual ceremony is performed and there is created the expectation that at sometime in the future, the two would become husband and wife.  If I understood the plot (not having watched the show that much), I believe this was a plot point of the TV show Royal Pains though they were of the same age, so apparently I am not the only one that can imagine this happening.

 

I do not see why that would be sinful as long as the girl was not forced into the situation (and yes, I know it is debated whether or not Helen was forced in her circumstances) and she would be allowed to back out of it when the time came.  Now it may not be too intelligent of a thing to do in our day and age, but again I don't see it as inherently sinful.

Edited October 10, 2013 by calmoriah