Elder Oaks And Ow

[jchristopher]

I think that the talks are a mixed bag of doctrinal matters, inspirational matters and opinions. But mainly the talks are inspirational to inspire the lds to live better, to do better and to remember god.

The GAs can speak inspiration through the holy ghost or they can speak inspiration because they are good inspirational speakers even without the holy ghost. And this why members need to critically think their way through the talks.

Yes, it is a good thing to critically think through these talks, but it is good to do it with faith and an open mind always remembering that we do not understand all the things but that the Lord does, and we don't always need to fully understand before we can believe and follow. One can know that a particular doctrine, principal, or commandment, whether given from the Lord's own lips, or from his profit, or his bishop, is true without fully understanding it.

[Teancum]

Great talk. The brethren are being very direct and very specific about several issues so that the position is well understood.

 

I suspect, though, that OW will continue to agitate for a revelation labeled as such on the subject; <facetiousness> after all, a conference talk on the subject is really nothing more than Elder Oaks' opinion. </facetiousness>

 

 

Sort of reminds me of the various things said and statements issues during the civil rights movement and President McKay's adminisration.  Read the chapter in the Prince bio of Mckay on the priesthood restriction on for those of African descent.  Oaks talks reminds me a lot of a statement Harold B Lee pushed through behind Mckay's back (He was ill) and Lee pressured President Brown to sign on.  We may look back at this talk by Elder Oaks in the same light some day. 

[Teancum]

Here is the statement I referred to:

 

 

The First Presidency on the Rights of the Negro

 

December 15, 1969

To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.

Dear Brethren:

In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.

First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by "wise men" whom God raised up for this "very purpose," and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended "for the rights and protection" of all mankind.

In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is "not right that any man should be in bondage one to another." These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church's deep and historic concern with man's free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.

It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.

However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.

This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to [p.223]join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.

A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, "The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God....

"Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man's mortal existence, extending back to man's pre-existent state."

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

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.

We recognize that those who do not accept the principle of modern revelation may oppose our point of view. We repeat that such would not wish for membership in the Church, and therefore the question of priesthood should hold no interest for them. Without prejudice they should grant us the privilege afforded under the Constitution to exercise our [p.224]chosen form of religion just as we must grant all others a similar privilege. They must recognize that the question of bestowing or withholding priesthood in the Church is a matter of religion and not a matter of Constitutional right.

We extend the hand of friendship to men everywhere and the hand of fellowship to all who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein.

We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in His wisdom and in His tender mercy.

Meanwhile we must strive harder to emulate His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose new commandment it was that we should love one another. In developing that love and concern for one another, while awaiting revelations yet to come, let us hope that with respect to these religious differences, we may gain reinforcement for understanding and appreciation for such differences. They challenge our common similarities, as children of one Father, to enlarge the out-reachings of our divine souls.

Faithfully your brethren,
The First Presidency
By Hugh B. Brown
N. Eldon Tanner

 

[Teancum]

So my point is what we see above is a similar retrenchment.  A statement that argues for the status quo, just like Oaks did. The 1969 statement came as a result of outside pressure.  9 years later the Church did a 180.  More recently the Church tossed a lot of what this FP statement says right under the bus as speculation and  theory.

 

The church can do it again.

[jwhitlock]

Sort of reminds me of the various things said and statements issues during the civil rights movement and President McKay's adminisration.  Read the chapter in the Prince bio of Mckay on the priesthood restriction on for those of African descent.  Oaks talks reminds me a lot of a statement Harold B Lee pushed through behind Mckay's back (He was ill) and Lee pressured President Brown to sign on.  We may look back at this talk by Elder Oaks in the same light some day. 

 

"Sort of" is right; however, it doesn't go any further than that.

 

The significant difference, of course, is that the statements about blacks and the priesthood specifically left open the expectation that the policy would change at some point. And there was always the expectation that the policy ->would<- be changed at some point.

 

That same expectation is absent from Elder Oaks' talk.

[ERMD]

The difference between the 1969 statement and today is that it was fully acknowledged that at some future date the right to hold the priesthood would be extended to all worthy men.

ETA: jwhitlock made the same point

Edited April 6, 2014 by ERMD

[webbles]

Here is the statement I referred to:

One problem I have trying to compare these two statements (the First Presidency statement of 1969 and Elder Oaks) is that in the First Presidency letter, there are multiple places were it talks about how it will change at some future date:

 

 

its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation

 

 

were not yet to receive the priesthood

 

 

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

 

 

Until God reveals His will in this matter,

 

 

the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation

 

As far as I can tell, Elder Oaks gave no such statement.  I also don't see any such statement relating with women and the priesthood.  So comparing the two situations is comparing apples to oranges.

 

Edit to add: apparently jwhitlock and ERMD all had the same thought and beat me to it

Edited April 6, 2014 by webbles

[jchristopher]

http://goo.gl/Be1OK2 I think some of the people on this thread need to read or reread this talk by Elder Hales. When speaking at GC, the general authorities of the church act in their official priesthood capacities and with authority to the general membership. They are not just giving inspirational talks, the words they speak are prepared by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words are the words of The Lord.

[Teancum]

Yes I understand that the FP statement left open the idea of black people receiving the priesthood. Oaks did not for women.  However keep something else in mind.  This is a conference talk. THat is it.  It has no binding impact if a future FP claims a revelation, which is what it will take, and gives women the priesthood.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Teancum

[why me]

Yes I understand that the FP statement left open the idea of black people receiving the priesthood. Oaks did not for women.  However keep something else in mind.  This is a conference talk. THat is it.  It has no bidinng impact if a future FP claims a revelation, which is what it will take, and gives women the priesthood.

This would have been a great opportunity to leave the door open. But he chose to close the door. I am sure that there was a reason to do so. He could have softened what he said but he didn't. And this means the future does not bode well for the ordination of women in the near future. If the church is ever seen as caving in to social pressure from a radical feminist organization, the membership of the church would fall in many parts of the world: africa, russia and latin america to name a few areas where the effect would not be good.

[Teancum]

Welll Whyme your speculation is as good as mine. But here is mine. I don't think women will receive the priesthood in the next 25 years at least.  Too bad. There is nothing in the scripture that restricts it from them.  My guess is JS was gettting ready to give women the priesthood.  Oaks talks used only his legalize and legal reasoning and quotes from prior leaders. No quote from canon at all, least that I can recall. I will be happy to be corrected if when the print version comes out there are scripture references. 

[ERMD]

Yes I understand that the FP statement left open the idea of black people receiving the priesthood. Oaks did not for women.  However keep something else in mind.  This is a conference talk. THat is it.  It has no binding impact if a future FP claims a revelation, which is what it will take, and gives women the priesthood.

"If..."

That is a very small word upon which to hang a hope or an argument.

[Teancum]

Well sure ERMD. IF!   Would you oppose such a change?  I imagine there were a lot of people saying the same thing in 1965.

[The Nehor]

I just do not understand OW:

Do they believe ordination is coming and they think God needs their help to convince the prophets to pray for it in effect denigrating the very authority they seek

Think that they get special credit for being ahead of the curve like the Nephites who correctly saw the end of the Law of Moses looming and decided it was virtuous to be ahead of the prophets?

Or see this as some kind of feminist goal that must be achieved just because it looks good?

[Teancum]

I just do not understand OW:

Do they believe ordination is coming and they think God needs their help to convince the prophets to pray for it in effect denigrating the very authority they seek

Think that they get special credit for being ahead of the curve like the Nephites who correctly saw the end of the Law of Moses looming and decided it was virtuous to be ahead of the prophets?

Or see this as some kind of feminist goal that must be achieved just because it looks good?

  A number of years ago Pres Hinckley said that the women of the Church apparently were not interested in the priesthood and that they were not agitating for it. OW apparently decided it was time for some of them to agitate.

[The Nehor]

A number of years ago Pres Hinckley said that the women of the Church apparently were not interested in the priesthood and that they were not agitating for it. OW apparently decided it was time for some of them to agitate.

So now a tiny minority of women in the church, bolstering their numbers with less-actives and nonmembers, are now agitating. Sadly for them President Hinckley did not suggest that if people did agitate that they would get what they want.

[Teancum]

So now a tiny minority of women in the church, bolstering their numbers with less-actives and nonmembers, are now agitating. Sadly for them President Hinckley did not suggest that if people did agitate that they would get what they want.

 

 

It all starts somewhere. I think these women and those who support them are brave to stand up and be counted for their convictions.  And I will be surprised if the church gives any of them the boot.

[CV75]

Not much wiggle room there.

 

I don't think he could be any clearer.

Agreed: let's not "sleep through the Restoration" (Elder Uchtdorf) by dreaming up stuff to "restore" or "reveal".

Edited April 6, 2014 by CV75

[The Nehor]

It all starts somewhere. I think these women and those who support them are brave to stand up and be counted for their convictions.  And I will be surprised if the church gives any of them the boot.

And I think that on the good, better, best scale this activity falls under badder.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well sure ERMD. IF!   Would you oppose such a change?  I imagine there were a lot of people saying the same thing in 1965.

What happened in 1965?

[Teancum]

What happened in 1965?

 

 

I am equating this position to the civil rights era, blacks and the priesthood and speculation about whether or not the restriction would be lifter sooner or later.   A lot of people were saying IF and WHEN back then too.

[Calm]

Edit to add: apparently jwhitlock and ERMD all had the same thought and beat me to it

But you provided documentation.

Edited April 6, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

My guess is JS was gettting ready to give women the priesthood. 

He had over two years to give them it, there are indications that he was aware that his time was limited (he made sure the 12 had the keys they needed), so what leads you to guess he was going to give it to them but didn't get the chance (and given your reasoning on the other thread that God could have prevented the lack due to his omnipotence, doesn't that mean with your reasoning God is satisfied with the state of affairs?)

I am very open to the idea that JS was going to give the Priesthood to women, just would like to know what you see as evidence.

[bluebell]

He had over two years to give them it, there are indications that he was aware that his time was limited (he made sure the 12 had the keys they needed), so what leads you to guess he was going to give it to them but didn't get the chance (and given your reasoning on the other thread that God could have prevented the lack due to his omnipotence, doesn't that mean with your reasoning God is satisfied with the state of affairs?)

I am very open to the idea that JS was going to give the Priesthood to women, just would like to know what you see as evidence.

Also, JS recorded revelations received in regards to ordaining and organizing men in regards to the priesthood.

It makes little sense that he would have been getting ready to ordain and organize women without any revelation guiding him in doing so.

[ERMD]

Well sure ERMD. IF!   Would you oppose such a change?  I imagine there were a lot of people saying the same thing in 1965.

Anyone can say, "If (fill in the blank), then the Church will be correct, or I will agree, or all will be well."

Seeds of apostasy.