Of Semantics, Fertility Goddesses, And Such

[Stone holm]

Listening to the firestorm on blog sites and social media over certain Conference talks of the late, am impressed that the world increasingly takes note of what our leaders say. I remember a few years back at a Stake Conference where Elder Oaks hitched up his pants and after firing a slur off at Vermonters who he did not realize were in the audience, launched into a semantical analysis of the distinction between the Holy Ghost and the Gift of the Holy Ghost worthy of the best oratorical skills of a Southern lawyer. I recalled that excursion in semantics as I listened to his latest semantical analysis of the distinction between Priesthood Keys and Priesthood Authority. It was I am sure a comforting message to those benighted souls who were trying to find their car in the overcrowded nearby parking lots.

We seem to be hearing these types of definitional sermons a lot these days as we struggle with Victorian era gender role assignments, and classification of women in the role of fertility goddesses. A little sugar helps the medicine go down, or as they say in my profession if you can't win with substance dazzle with your footwork. What I am not sure of is whether this style preaching is appreciated by anyone not in the choir. Do we feel it an adequate response to the OW banging at the gates, or would no response at all have been more appropriate?

[stemelbow]

I have no answer for you, but I think the distinction between priesthood keys and authority helpfully explained by him. 

[CV75]

Listening to the firestorm on blog sites and social media over certain Conference talks of the late, am impressed that the world increasingly takes note of what our leaders say. I remember a few years back at a Stake Conference where Elder Oaks hitched up his pants and after firing a slur off at Vermonters who he did not realize were in the audience, launched into a semantical analysis of the distinction between the Holy Ghost and the Gift of the Holy Ghost worthy of the best oratorical skills of a Southern lawyer. I recalled that excursion in semantics as I listened to his latest semantical analysis of the distinction between Priesthood Keys and Priesthood Authority. It was I am sure a comforting message to those benighted souls who were trying to find their car in the overcrowded nearby parking lots.

We seem to be hearing these types of definitional sermons a lot these days as we struggle with Victorian era gender role assignments, and classification of women in the role of fertility goddesses. A little sugar helps the medicine go down, or as they say in my profession if you can't win with substance dazzle with your footwork. What I am not sure of is whether this style preaching is appreciated by anyone not in the choir. Do we feel it an adequate response to the OW banging at the gates, or would no response at all have been more appropriate?

I'm not sure if your question has more to do with being insulted by Elder Oaks (how long ago?) or how applicable his message was to the OW organization's mission. In either case, his style seemed rather plain to me, and I can appreciate that, but I don't think that's a function of my being part of the choir.

 

I myself have explained the difference between the Holy Ghost and the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and the difference between Keys, Authority (and other aspects) of the Priesthood, but generally only to those who had asked me a question. Maybe once or twice on this board in conversation. These can be important distinctions for some people and understanding them helps them serve the Lord and His children better. My style? Depends, I guess.

 

Are you wanting to discuss the impact of style on message, and vice-versa?

 

Does it really matter if General Conference talks are a response to specific questions by specific people or groups, or if they are inspired to answer the unpoken or yet-unkown questions?

 

If you're referring to OW "banging" at the gates Saturday evening (were they actually banging?!) I think the group that was present got an adequate response at the time, irrespective of Elder Oak's talk. But if any from OW was listening and could appreciate his message (regardless of his style), are they then part of the choir anyway?

[bluebell]

I'm obviously not understanding what you are saying because I don't really see your point.

I get that you have no respect for Elder Oaks and don't like him. That was clear and supported by the anecdot you began the OP with.

But I don't see that you've presented any evidence to support your idea that his conference talk was all glossy semantics that only "the choir" appreciated (who is the choir anyway?).

Can you elaborate?

[teddyaware]

Listening to the firestorm on blog sites and social media over certain Conference talks of the late, am impressed that the world increasingly takes note of what our leaders say. I remember a few years back at a Stake Conference where Elder Oaks hitched up his pants and after firing a slur off at Vermonters who he did not realize were in the audience, launched into a semantical analysis of the distinction between the Holy Ghost and the Gift of the Holy Ghost worthy of the best oratorical skills of a Southern lawyer. I recalled that excursion in semantics as I listened to his latest semantical analysis of the distinction between Priesthood Keys and Priesthood Authority. It was I am sure a comforting message to those benighted souls who were trying to find their car in the overcrowded nearby parking lots.

We seem to be hearing these types of definitional sermons a lot these days as we struggle with Victorian era gender role assignments, and classification of women in the role of fertility goddesses. A little sugar helps the medicine go down, or as they say in my profession if you can't win with substance dazzle with your footwork. What I am not sure of is whether this style preaching is appreciated by anyone not in the choir. Do we feel it an adequate response to the OW banging at the gates, or would no response at all have been more appropriate?

As sure as night follows day, the words of the prophets are always going anger those who are of the world. So it's either say what has to be said, therefore angering the world, or withhold vital knowledge from the members of the Church so as to not anger the world. Elder Oaks graciously gave the OW people the official Church answer to their concerns they were seeking. They can now study his words and apply them in their lives, or they can reject his words and press on in their quest for priesthood ordination. in spite of the fact that the answer was no.

Edited April 10, 2014 by teddyaware

[Stone holm]

As sure as night follows day, the words of the prophets are always going anger those who are of the world. So it's either say what has to be said, therefore angering the world, or withhold vital knowledge from the members of the Church so as to not anger the world. Elder Oaks graciously gave the OW people the official Church answer to their concerns they were seeking. They can now study his words and apply them in their lives, or they can reject his words and press on in their quest for priesthood ordination. in spite of the fact that the answer was no.

 

I agree, I think those are their options.  I am not sure that "of the world" and "the world", though are necessarily synonymous.  And I agree that definitional expositions are sometimes important as a matter of clarifying what is being referred to.  That is the case with the definitional discussion of the distinction between the "gift of the Holy Ghost" and "the Holy Ghost".  Definitional sermons given in lieu of or veiling substance can be...for lack of a better phrase, lacking in substance.  I am not sure, however, that Elder Oaks' sermon can be said to have been completely lacking in substance.  Instead, it was more of a decorative covering for substance to the extent that it was considered a response to OW.

[stemelbow]

As sure as night follows day, the words of the prophets are always going anger those who are of the world. So it's either say what has to be said, therefore angering the world, or withhold vital knowledge from the members of the Church so as to not anger the world. Elder Oaks graciously gave the OW people the official Church answer to their concerns they were seeking. They can now study his words and apply them in their lives, or they can reject his words and press on in their quest for priesthood ordination. in spite of the fact that the answer was no.

 

Just to be clear, the world largely doesn't hear any of their words.  So it's hard to confirm that their words anger the world.  Indeed most of the world doesn't even know they are out there speaking about anything. 

[Stone holm]

I'm obviously not understanding what you are saying because I don't really see your point.

I get that you have no respect for Elder Oaks and don't like him. That was clear and supported by the anecdot you began the OP with.

But I don't see that you've presented any evidence to support your idea that his conference talk was all glossy semantics that only "the choir" appreciated (who is the choir anyway?).

Can you elaborate?

 

How did I say that his semantics were "glossy"?  His argument is that there is a difference between keys and authority.  If you are in the Church, and you ride in a car [Church] you benefit from the power of the key because it is what starts the car.  And you may assist in the journey, by keeping the other occupants [kids] from getting to rowdy, you may actually be blessed to help create passengers [child bearing], etc.  But if the question is who has access to the keys, well just saying that men have keys and women don't, and that is just the way it is -- well that is a definitional argument.  It is just a declaration of the way things are.  To say focus on your responsibilities rather than your privileges, is on the one hand commendable because if emphasizes the need to serve others (who can argue against that -- certainly not me), but it is also a way of saying you have your place so stick to it.  For blacks in America, in certain parts of the country their place was the back of the bus.  When I was a young person in high school, my female classmates could not take shop -- they had to take home economics, they couldn't participate in varsity athletics they could be cheerleaders -- now they all had school spirit, but the keys to the shop and locker rooms were beyond their grasp. The most they could do was focus on their responsibilities which were learn to cook, sew, and cheer on the boys.  Now fortunately, my daughter who is now a physician could take shop and she participated in athletics just like her brothers.  Nobody cut her off at the pass.

[teddyaware]

Just to be clear, the world largely doesn't hear any of their words.  So it's hard to confirm that their words anger the world.  Indeed most of the world doesn't even know they are out there speaking about anything.

I was referring primarily to members of the Church who are worldly and of the world. These are the kinds of members who find it easy to ridicule and put aside the counsel of the Lord's living oracles on earth.

"2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? (1 Corinthians 3)

[CV75]

I agree, I think those are their options.  I am not sure that "of the world" and "the world", though are necessarily synonymous.  And I agree that definitional expositions are sometimes important as a matter of clarifying what is being referred to.  That is the case with the definitional discussion of the distinction between the "gift of the Holy Ghost" and "the Holy Ghost".  Definitional sermons given in lieu of or veiling substance can be...for lack of a better phrase, lacking in substance.  I am not sure, however, that Elder Oaks' sermon can be said to have been completely lacking in substance.  Instead, it was more of a decorative covering for substance to the extent that it was considered a response to OW.

Are you saying he delivered his message in a style that veiled a hardly substantive content? Please describe the style, which parts were not substantive, and which parts were veiled. It is in print now so that should be an easy task.

 

I think it can be considered in many ways, including a response to OW (for those who take it as such) and a valuable lesson to all the members across the world who know nothing/could care less about OW (for those who take it as such).

 

Since you are focused on OW, how do you think it is a response to that group?

[Stone holm]

Are you saying he delivered his message in a style that veiled a hardly substantive content? Please describe the style, which parts were not substantive, and which parts were veiled. It is in print now so that should be an easy task.

 

I think it can be considered in many ways, including a response to OW (for those who take it as such) and a valuable lesson to all the members across the world who know nothing/could care less about OW (for those who take it as such).

 

Since you are focused on OW, how do you think it is a response to that group?

I am not sure it was a response, although many have viewed it to be. I feel the substance was primarily a reiteration of the Declaration, that women have certain roles and instead of questioning their roles they should pay attention to fulfilling those roles. A noble calling. The only gender , however, which may hold the keys until Kingdom Come are men. To a certain extent the sermon was reminiscent of the writings of Bruce R McKonkie about when those of African descent would receive keys.

[Tacenda]

How did I say that his semantics were "glossy"? His argument is that there is a difference between keys and authority. If you are in the Church, and you ride in a car [Church] you benefit from the power of the key because it is what starts the car. And you may assist in the journey, by keeping the other occupants [kids] from getting to rowdy, you may actually be blessed to help create passengers [child bearing], etc. But if the question is who has access to the keys, well just saying that men have keys and women don't, and that is just the way it is -- well that is a definitional argument. It is just a declaration of the way things are. To say focus on your responsibilities rather than your privileges, is on the one hand commendable because if emphasizes the need to serve others (who can argue against that -- certainly not me), but it is also a way of saying you have your place so stick to it. For blacks in America, in certain parts of the country their place was the back of the bus. When I was a young person in high school, my female classmates could not take shop -- they had to take home economics, they couldn't participate in varsity athletics they could be cheerleaders -- now they all had school spirit, but the keys to the shop and locker rooms were beyond their grasp. The most they could do was focus on their responsibilities which were learn to cook, sew, and cheer on the boys. Now fortunately, my daughter who is now a physician could take shop and she participated in athletics just like her brothers. Nobody cut her off at the pass.

Great analogy...I hope the leaders take it into account and atleast go to the LordGod about it. Haven't heard that they have yet.

[bluebell]

How did I say that his semantics were "glossy"?  His argument is that there is a difference between keys and authority.  If you are in the Church, and you ride in a car [Church] you benefit from the power of the key because it is what starts the car.  And you may assist in the journey, by keeping the other occupants [kids] from getting to rowdy, you may actually be blessed to help create passengers [child bearing], etc.  But if the question is who has access to the keys, well just saying that men have keys and women don't, and that is just the way it is -- well that is a definitional argument.  It is just a declaration of the way things are.  To say focus on your responsibilities rather than your privileges, is on the one hand commendable because if emphasizes the need to serve others (who can argue against that -- certainly not me), but it is also a way of saying you have your place so stick to it.  For blacks in America, in certain parts of the country their place was the back of the bus.  When I was a young person in high school, my female classmates could not take shop -- they had to take home economics, they couldn't participate in varsity athletics they could be cheerleaders -- now they all had school spirit, but the keys to the shop and locker rooms were beyond their grasp. The most they could do was focus on their responsibilities which were learn to cook, sew, and cheer on the boys.  Now fortunately, my daughter who is now a physician could take shop and she participated in athletics just like her brothers.  Nobody cut her off at the pass.

 

By 'glossy' i meant that you seemed to be saying that his talk was shiny and pretty on the outside but ultimately lacking in any real substance.

[stemelbow]

I was referring primarily to members of the Church who are worldly and of the world. These are the kinds of members who find it easy to ridicule and put aside the counsel of the Lord's living oracles on earth.

"2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? (1 Corinthians 3)

 

In your view if a member ridicules or puts aside the counsel of the Lord's living oracles than the member is worldly?  I'm not sure I've seen a member do any of that.  Which members are these? 

 

I agree with the scripture you left, but I don't see any connection to your comments. 

[ksfisher]

Great analogy...I hope the leaders take it into account and atleast go to the LordGod about it. Haven't heard that they have yet.

 

A couple of thoughts on this.

 

First, we don't know that the brethren haven't gone to the Lord on this matter.

 

Second, do we need a "Thus saith the Lord" kind of response in this case?  If the brethren say that the priesthood is confered upon males, which Elder Oaks did, should we be saying "I don't believe you, I need an answer directly from God."  This would seem to demonstrate to the Lord that we don't trust his servants. 

 

I believe that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are very much in tune with the needs of the members of the church and that they are constantly seeking guidance from the Lord.

[stemelbow]

A couple of thoughts on this.

 

First, we don't know that the brethren haven't gone to the Lord on this matter.

 

Second, do we need a "Thus saith the Lord" kind of response in this case?  If the brethren say that the priesthood is confered upon males, which Elder Oaks did, should we be saying "I don't believe you, I need an answer directly from God."  This would seem to demonstrate to the Lord that we don't trust his servants. 

 

I believe that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are very much in tune with the needs of the members of the church and that they are constantly seeking guidance from the Lord.

 

1st - we don't know that they have.  if they have it's probably helpful to those who are pushing for women's ordination to know that they have. 

2nd -  I think a "Thus saith the Lord" kind of response could satisfy some, at least.  It's not a matter of trusting the servants, though.  It's a matter of trusting assumptions, or what appears to be as much.  I think it's fair and good to always be ready to think things through, test what we're told, and question things from time to time.  I'd say we're expected to do as much.  But that doesn't mean you can't also trust His servants. 

[ksfisher]

1st - we don't know that they have.  if they have it's probably helpful to those who are pushing for women's ordination to know that they have. 

2nd -  I think a "Thus saith the Lord" kind of response could satisfy some, at least.  It's not a matter of trusting the servants, though.  It's a matter of trusting assumptions, or what appears to be as much.  I think it's fair and good to always be ready to think things through, test what we're told, and question things from time to time.  I'd say we're expected to do as much.  But that doesn't mean you can't also trust His servants. 

 

I think it is a matter of trust.  Do we trush those whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators?  If we don't believe Elder Oaks when he says that it is "only men who will hold offices in the priesthood" would we believe it if President Monson said the same thing?  If an angel appeared would we murmur like Laman and Lemuel afterward?

 

I believe that we are seek our own testimony of what the prophets teach us, but until we receive that personal testimony we should trush that the Lord's appointed watchmen are doing their job. 

[Stone holm]

By 'glossy' i meant that you seemed to be saying that his talk was shiny and pretty on the outside but ultimately lacking in any real substance.

 

I don't think that his talk was shiny or pretty on the outside at all.  The substance, however, was a little obscured by the semantical definitional verbiage.  The substance was, women you aren't going to get the Priesthood before Kingdom Come -- you can benefit and share in a limited indirect way its authority because everything we do in the Church is by direction of the Priesthood, but the keys are firmly in the grasp of the males and that is the way it is -- so go focus on Relief Society, Primary, and taking care of your husband and children, and attend the Temple often because that is the only place where you are going to be allowed any individualized access to performing ordinances -- and quit asking for more.  Thank you very please, now back to discussing the difference between Priesthood Keys and Priesthood Authority.

[Stone holm]

I think it is a matter of trust.  Do we trush those whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators?  If we don't believe Elder Oaks when he says that it is "only men who will hold offices in the priesthood" would we believe it if President Monson said the same thing?  If an angel appeared would we murmur like Laman and Lemuel afterward?

 

I believe that we are seek our own testimony of what the prophets teach us, but until we receive that personal testimony we should trush that the Lord's appointed watchmen are doing their job. 

 

Possibly, but I still remember a good friend who was inactive in the Church for decades waiting until 1978.  He stayed single all those years because it was unlikely that he would find a woman of his race that would agree with his religious views, and inactive because his ability to do so many things was so severely limited.  The last time I encountered him it was when his hand appeared before I entered the Celestial Room in the Chicago Temple.  And I wondered if it was the Lord or Harold B. Lee who had kept him waiting all those years.  So excuse me if I sometimes wonder about the job that is being done from time to time.

[stemelbow]

Possibly, but I still remember a good friend who was inactive in the Church for decades waiting until 1978.  He stayed single all those years because it was unlikely that he would find a woman of his race that would agree with his religious views, and inactive because his ability to do so many things was so severely limited.  The last time I encountered him it was when his hand appeared before I entered the Celestial Room in the Chicago Temple.  And I wondered if it was the Lord or Harold B. Lee who had kept him waiting all those years.  So excuse me if I sometimes wonder about the job that is being done from time to time.

 

We need to trust that we too can be inspired to offer challenges from time to time.  We're not supposed to just sit back and roll with everything told us are we?  It wasn't all the long ago when the leaders were teaching us falsehoods regarding the priesthood ban.  If there were plenty more lowry Nelson's perhaps more truth would have been revealed on that matter much sooner.

[ksfisher]

Possibly, but I still remember a good friend who was inactive in the Church for decades waiting until 1978.  He stayed single all those years because it was unlikely that he would find a woman of his race that would agree with his religious views, and inactive because his ability to do so many things was so severely limited.  The last time I encountered him it was when his hand appeared before I entered the Celestial Room in the Chicago Temple.  And I wondered if it was the Lord or Harold B. Lee who had kept him waiting all those years.  So excuse me if I sometimes wonder about the job that is being done from time to time.

 

So you are blaming an apostle for your friends inactivity?  Is your friend blaming Harold B Lee as well?  Is the Lord?

[BCSpace]

I remember a few years back at a Stake Conference where Elder Oaks hitched up his pants and after firing a slur off at Vermonters who he did not realize were in the audience

 

 

Did he apologize for saying last year that 90% of you were going to hell and corrected it to 95%?

 

[Stone holm]

So you are blaming an apostle for your friends inactivity?  Is your friend blaming Harold B Lee as well?  Is the Lord?

 

No I am blaming his inactivity on the fact that he was black.  And I am blaming Harold B. Lee for part of the delay, because the Lord had to raise up another prophet especially prepared to get the ban lifted.  Given at least one Apostle was running around inferring the blacks were all communists for supporting the Civil Rights Movement -- yeah, I'll say we  should from time to time wonder if the watchers are doing their job.

[Stone holm]

Did he apologize for saying last year that 90% of you were going to hell and corrected it to 95%?

 

 

No. I'll leave that for you BC Space.

[USU78]

..I hope the leaders take it into account and atleast go to the LordGod about it. Haven't heard that they have yet.

so just what assumptions are you working from here? That, as a matter of course, no Mormon leader ever prayed?