Elder Ballard Speaks To The Young Adults About Three Things

[cinepro]

Today, we had Elder Oaks speak to my stake in a "special Stake Conference".  He started off by mentioning that Elder Ballard (his seatmate in the Q12 for 29 years) was speaking in a broadcast for the young adults tonight, and strongly encouraged all young single adults to attend that meeting, because he had read the talk Elder Ballard had prepared and it was "exceptional", and Elder Ballard "really tells it like it is". 

Well, this piqued my curiosity, and the talk is now online.  In it, Elder Ballard discusses three main subjects:

 

1. The Use of Technology

2. Combating Pornography

3. The Doctrine of Marriage

 

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/watch/ces-devotionals/2014/05?lang=eng

(the talk kicks into gear at 17:45 in the broadcast)

 

It's a very interesting talk.  If you heard it (or listen to it), did you hear anything new?

 

 

(I will also mention that we got to the chapel about 45 minutes early and were seated in nearly the back of the cultural hall.  About 30 minutes before the meeting started, I saw people in front of me excitedly pull out their phones and start taking video and pictures.  I thought that was odd, because even if Elder Oaks was sitting on the stand, it was too far to get a decent picture.  It turns out Elder Oaks was making his way through the cultural hall, shaking everyone's hand and welcoming us to conference.  My daughters hurried over and shook his hand, and I thought how special that memory will be for them.  Then, to my surprise, Elder Oaks stretched over and extended his hand towards me.  I shook his hand and he gave me a smile and said "Welcome to conference!"  Even in my jaded state of being, I think that was pretty cool.)

Edited May 5, 2014 by cinepro

[Rivers]

Then, to my surprise, Elder Oaks stretched over and extended his hand towards me. I shook his hand and he gave me a smile and said "Welcome to conference!" Even in my jaded state of being, I think that was pretty cool.)

Edited May 5, 2014 by Rivers

[Rivers]

duplicate

Edited May 5, 2014 by Rivers

[Duncan]

I like the idea of that anyone can and should visit the Temple grounds. I agree with the idea of combating pornography and I am against it I just don't buy or understand this idea of re-wiring the brain, if you are having regular sex with your spouse does your brain send different chemicals to make that happen? the male body for example reacts the same way if something is real or in fantasy land, why is one more addicting then another? we never ever talk about regular intimacy as being naturally addictive yet porn is this plague sweeping the world and stuff. I wish they would just say why God allows homosexuality, created it or where it comes from. It's easy to say as a straight man like me or Elder Ballard advice that we never have to live with the consequences of. What advice can I give a homosexual that I have to live with also? If marriage was an opportunity for me then all the relationship stuff I can do and enjoy but if you are a gay person in the Church you can't do any of it and frankly I am not one bit surprised so many leave the Church, what hope do they have here?maybe they'll change in the next life? do the scriptures say anything about that? Why would God give someone homosexuality only to change them later? isn't the same spirit that you have when you die the same that you go into the spirit world with? are you supposed to want to change but can't until you die? that seems crazy!, what does he expect them to do?

[Paddy]

Cinepro

I thought that he gave a great talk. The advise to make technology your servant and not let it be your master was good. Also the advise to find quiet time for spiritual things was timely.

I got the impression that he was suggesting that any regular use of pornography equated to an additiction was a bit of a stretch but I think he was using that as a way to express how much he thought porn was destructive.

I was also interested in his appeal to The Family a Proclamation to talk about marriage and SSA. Regardless of elder Pakers change to the conference address that minimised the revelatory origin of the proclamation, it was certainly used by Ballard as an authoritative document and in that sense it seems that it has gone from a proclamation to canon?

Just my thoughts on what was a great address

[Bikeemikey]

Cinepro

I thought that he gave a great talk. The advise to make technology your servant and not let it be your master was good. Also the advise to find quiet time for spiritual things was timely.

I got the impression that he was suggesting that any regular use of pornography equated to an additiction was a bit of a stretch but I think he was using that as a way to express how much he thought porn was destructive.

I was also interested in his appeal to The Family a Proclamation to talk about marriage and SSA. Regardless of elder Pakers change to the conference address that minimised the revelatory origin of the proclamation, it was certainly used by Ballard as an authoritative document and in that sense it seems that it has gone from a proclamation to canon?

Just my thoughts on what was a great address

Can you share the source for packers change to the conference address that minimized the revelatory nature of the proclamation.

It may be in the link already shared, I haven't had a chance to get through it all yet.

Thanks.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[CV75]

I agree with the idea of combating pornography and I am against it I just don't buy or understand this idea of re-wiring the brain, if you are having regular sex with your spouse does your brain send different chemicals to make that happen?

 

 

I got the impression that he was suggesting that any regular use of pornography equated to an additiction was a bit of a stretch but I think he was using that as a way to express how much he thought porn was destructive.

Some quick thoughts (didn’t see the link):

I think the “rewiring” has to do with a dependency (a kind of addiction) on certain kinds of images with an attendant lack of interpersonal intimacy in order to function on a physical level. Marital relations are supposed to be so much more than that. The wiring of the brains of healthy couples allows an increase in intimacy as circumstances permit in the physical, emotional, social, spiritual and other dimensions of the marriage over time, without depending on artificial substitutes and distractions from the real (and someday exalted) individuals they are sealed to.

[CV75]

I wish they would just say why God allows homosexuality

As you know, there is an abundance of material on this subject in many a thread!

I think we all have aspects of our person that struggle or conflict with the some ideals of the Gospel and that remain a mystery, especially those areas we might consider to be exceptionally and uniquely unfair, or even that we don't think warrant changing. We don't know the why, how, why, etc. But there is hope in Christ, if we will remain true and faithful and embrace the mystery of promsied resolution just as (or more strongly than) we have the mystery of those aspects.

Edited May 5, 2014 by CV75

[Duncan]

As you know, there is an abundance of material on this subject in many a thread!

I think we all have aspects of our person that struggle or conflict with the some ideals of the Gospel and that remain a mystery, especially those areas we might consider to be exceptionally and uniquely unfair, or even that we don't think warrant changing. We don't know the why, how, why, etc. But there is hope in Christ, if we will remain true and faithful and embrace the mystery of promsied resolution just as (or more strongly than) we have the mystery of those aspects.

 

 

I get that and seems okay I just wonder what God expects a homosexual to do in life, LDS or not. Honestly if I had a gay friend I don't think I would refer them to the missionaries, just based on what they would expect in the Church and what other gay friends got out of the Church when they were in. 

Edited May 5, 2014 by Duncan

[Mystery Meat]

I like the idea of that anyone can and should visit the Temple grounds. I agree with the idea of combating pornography and I am against it I just don't buy or understand this idea of re-wiring the brain, if you are having regular sex with your spouse does your brain send different chemicals to make that happen? the male body for example reacts the same way if something is real or in fantasy land, why is one more addicting then another? we never ever talk about regular intimacy as being naturally addictive yet porn is this plague sweeping the world and stuff. I wish they would just say why God allows homosexuality, created it or where it comes from. It's easy to say as a straight man like me or Elder Ballard advice that we never have to live with the consequences of. What advice can I give a homosexual that I have to live with also? If marriage was an opportunity for me then all the relationship stuff I can do and enjoy but if you are a gay person in the Church you can't do any of it and frankly I am not one bit surprised so many leave the Church, what hope do they have here?maybe they'll change in the next life? do the scriptures say anything about that? Why would God give someone homosexuality only to change them later? isn't the same spirit that you have when you die the same that you go into the spirit world with? are you supposed to want to change but can't until you die? that seems crazy!, what does he expect them to do?

 

As an admitted former porn consumer, allow me to answer your question. Porn does rewire your brain. It is true that we have evolved as a species to enjoy sex. For as long as there has been men and women, sex has been one of the strongest drives we have. And for just about as long there has been porn in one form or another. In the 1900's pinup girls, morphed into playboy, which morphed into adult movies (either in theaters or at home with the advent of VHS). Then along came the internet. Porn consumption was more accessible, but even still its damaging re-wiring effects were as yet unrealized.

 

High-speed internet changed EVERYTHING. With incredibly fast internet speeds, a man (or woman) can, in effect, go through dozens of on screen sexual partners in a matter of minutes. There are websites out there that are designed to facilitate very fast transition from one steamy video to another. In fact, many young men spend hours watching a minute or two of one video before losing interest and moving on to the next. New sexual partners (in real life and in the virtual world) releases abundant amounts of dopamine to the brain. Refraction time (or in other words, recovery time) goes down when you introduce new sexual conquests. So in effect, what porn, and not just any porn--we are talking about high-speed, full HD, doctored, dolled-up, and surgically altered men and women internet porn, does is it starts to reward the brain for having dozens (if not more) virtual sexual encounters in a few hours (if not less). This leads to ED, people preferring porn that doesn't match their sexual orientation, or viewing harder and more violent forms of pornography.

 

The effects of porn vary from person to person (thankfully for me), but for all it rewires the brain to one extent or another.  

[Duncan]

As an admitted former porn consumer, allow me to answer your question. Porn does rewire your brain. It is true that we have evolved as a species to enjoy sex. For as long as there has been men and women, sex has been one of the strongest drives we have. And for just about as long there has been porn in one form or another. In the 1900's pinup girls, morphed into playboy, which morphed into adult movies (either in theaters or at home with the advent of VHS). Then along came the internet. Porn consumption was more accessible, but even still its damaging re-wiring effects were as yet unrealized.

 

High-speed internet changed EVERYTHING. With incredibly fast internet speeds, a man (or woman) can, in effect, go through dozens of on screen sexual partners in a matter of minutes. There are websites out there that are designed to facilitate very fast transition from one steamy video to another. In fact, many young men spend hours watching a minute or two of one video before losing interest and moving on to the next. New sexual partners (in real life and in the virtual world) releases abundant amounts of dopamine to the brain. Refraction time (or in other words, recovery time) goes down when you introduce new sexual conquests. So in effect, what porn, and not just any porn--we are talking about high-speed, full HD, doctored, dolled-up, and surgically altered men and women internet porn, does is it starts to reward the brain for having dozens (if not more) virtual sexual encounters in a few hours (if not less). This leads to ED, people preferring porn that doesn't match their sexual orientation, or viewing harder and more violent forms of pornography.

 

The effects of porn vary from person to person (thankfully for me), but for all it rewires the brain to one extent or another.  

 

 

thank you for sharing that! I think I had heard once that your brain can be re-rewired! it bounces back from these types of events. I just wonder what the brain does on regular sex, why do men cheat, multiple times are they addicts like a porn addict?

[Mystery Meat]

thank you for sharing that! I think I had heard once that your brain can be re-rewired! it bounces back from these types of events. I just wonder what the brain does on regular sex, why do men cheat, multiple times are they addicts like a porn addict?

 

That I don't have an answer to. I do know men in particular are hard wired to want new sexual partners (which I alluded to in the refraction/recover rates for men). Chalk it up to the natural man.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Can you share the source for packers change to the conference address that minimized the revelatory nature of the proclamation.

It may be in the link already shared, I haven't had a chance to get through it all yet.

Thanks.

Bikeemikey - you can read Johanna Brooks take on it here: http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/3519/controversial_lds_conference_talk_edited_for_publication

 

I don't believe the proclamation to be a revelation (in the sense of the experience that precipitated OD2 or other sections of the doctrine and covenants), rather it summarizes the current thinking of church leaders on the subject. I think this is what Elder Packer's correction is getting at. At the same time, just because it is not a revelation doesn't mean that it is not an "authoritative document" or won't be canonized at some point. Clearly, the proclamation represents the current official doctrine of the church on the matter.

[Senator]

  Then, to my surprise, Elder Oaks stretched over and extended his hand towards me.  I shook his hand and he gave me a smile and said "Welcome to conference!"  Even in my jaded state of being, I think that was pretty cool.)

 

Did he know he was shaking hands with the devil?

[Scott Lloyd]

Can you share the source for packers change to the conference address that minimized the revelatory nature of the proclamation.

It may be in the link already shared, I haven't had a chance to get through it all yet.

Thanks.

An excellent talk all around, but this statement from Elder Ballard's address struck me:

 

[After quoting from the proclamation on the family]:

I am one who joined in that warning. As one of the watchmen on the tower, I am responsible to “blow the trumpet, and warn the people.” This evening, I have been bold and raised the warning voice. I do so because I love you and want you to understand we must face the Lord and keep His commandments. That is my duty.

. See Ezekiel 33:1–9.

 

I was impressed, because Elder Ballard is one of the apostles of today who were alive at the time the proclamation was issued. This amounts to his personal affirmation -- a stamp of authenticity, if you will.

 

I wonder how explicit and bold the Brethren are going to have to be before some elements in the Church begin to divest themselves of the notion that the Church leaders will eventually come around and repeal the Lord's law of chastity.

 

Edited to add:

 

Also, Elder Ballard quoted the official statement from the First Presidency that was sent out to local leaders in January and was publicized on lds.org. The letter reads, in part:

 

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review and teach Church members the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

Just as those who promote same-sex marriage are entitled to civility, the same is true for those who oppose it. The Church insists on its leaders’ and members’ constitutionally protected right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution. The Church is also entitled to maintain its standards of moral conduct and good standing for members.

Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same-sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there.

 

Edited May 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Mystery Meat]

 

An excellent talk all around, but this statement from Elder Ballard's address struck me:

 

I was impressed, because Elder Ballard is one of the apostles who were still alive at the time the proclamation was issued. This amounts to his personal affirmation -- a stamp of authenticity, if you will.

 

I wonder how explicit and bold the Brethren are going to have to be before some elements in the Church begin to divest themselves of the notion that the Church leaders will eventually come around and repeal the Lord's law of chastity.

 

 

 

Only time will suffice. If (and I believe there is no if about it) 25 years from now the Church has the same stance on SSM as it does now, people will start to accept the reality that the Church (aka the Lord) is not changing. I also assume that many members will leave because of it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Another part of the address I really liked was the pep talk Elder Ballard gave the young people about defending the Kingdom and the Church:

 

 

I know some of you worry about being misjudged, ridiculed, and even harassed if you stand up for Heavenly Father and the Lord Jesus Christ and the Church. I understand your concerns. ...

 

My dear beloved young friends, don’t worry about those in the large and spacious building. Nephi saw that they would mock and point “their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.” Don’t be like those who “after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.”[ii]

You are a great and important generation, and this is a great time to be alive! The future is bright. Say to yourself, “I am helping the Lord as I reach out to share my testimony and to teach the truths God has revealed in the last days.”

Now, you have an opportunity to use all of this social media wisely to share what you have learned and felt, perhaps even tonight. Remember that there is a proper time and place for you to use social media, and sharing your thoughts and testimony of the things you are learning and feeling is one of those times.

. 1 Nephi 8:27.

[ii]. 1 Nephi 8:28.

 

Edited May 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Paddy]

Can you share the source for packers change to the conference address that minimized the revelatory nature of the proclamation.

It may be in the link already shared, I haven't had a chance to get through it all yet.

Thanks.

Here is another source. See the second last paragraph of the article.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50440474-76/packer-church-speech-lds.html.csp

[Paddy]

The other thing I thought was cool about his talk was that he used the phrase "as an apostle of Jesus Christ ....". I don't get to see or listen to apostle speak outside of general conference very often. Is this a common phrase they use? Do they make an appeal to their position as apostle often??

[Scott Lloyd]

Bikeemikey - you can read Johanna Brooks take on it here: http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/3519/controversial_lds_conference_talk_edited_for_publication

 

I don't believe the proclamation to be a revelation (in the sense of the experience that precipitated OD2 or other sections of the doctrine and covenants), rather it summarizes the current thinking of church leaders on the subject. I think this is what Elder Packer's correction is getting at. At the same time, just because it is not a revelation doesn't mean that it is not an "authoritative document" or won't be canonized at some point. Clearly, the proclamation represents the current official doctrine of the church on the matter.

I've raised this point before, but I draw a distinction between the content of the proclamation and the act of issuing it.

 

It is true that the proclamation does not really contain new doctrine and, perhaps in that sense, may be considered more of a reaffirmation than a revelation.

 

However, the unusual act itself of drafting the proclamation and publishing it to the world may very well have been prompted by inspiration or revelation from God -- a new revelation, as it were.

 

In fact, it's my fervent belief that it was.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The other thing I thought was cool about his talk was that he used the phrase "as an apostle of Jesus Christ ....". I don't get to see or listen to apostle speak outside of general conference very often. Is this a common phrase they use? Do they make an appeal to their position as apostle often??

I have occasion quite frequently to see apostles speak outside of general conference. Frequently, at the close of an address, the speaker will pronounce an apostolic blessing upon the congregation or group to whom he is speaking. It is a solemn moment when that happens, and always very meaningful to the listeners. He will do it by virtue of the authority that he holds.

 

I would certainly regard that as their speaking as apostles of the Lord.

[Paddy]

I've raised this point before, but I draw a distinction between the content of the proclamation and the act of issuing it.

It is true that the proclamation does not really contain new doctrine and, perhaps in that sense, may not be considered revelation.

However, the act itself of drafting the proclamation and publishing it to the world may very well have been prompted by inspiration or revelation from God -- a new revelation, as it were.

In fact, it's my fervent belief that it was.

Scott

These are pretty much thoughts as well. And regardless of its status as a revelation or not, it is appealed to as authoritative often enough to raise its status to nearly canonical. I suspect it may be added to our canon at some future point.

[cinepro]

Did he know he was shaking hands with the devil?

 

A few years ago, my wife and I met Louis Zamperini (the guy in the book "Unbroken").  In that book, he tells the story of his trip to the Berlin Olympics 1936, and his experience shaking Hitler's hand after one of his races.  After shaking Louis' hand, I joked to my wife "Now I've shaken the hand of the man who shook Hitler's hand!" (a joke about an old Church video you might remember).

 

So after shaking Elder Oaks' hand, I joked to my wife that I should have told him "Elder Oaks, now you've shaken the hand of the man who shook the hand of the man who shook Hitler's hand".  Which would have to be the oddest thing he'd hear all day. 

Edited May 5, 2014 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott

These are pretty much thoughts as well. And regardless of its status as a revelation or not, it is appealed to as authoritative often enough to raise its status to nearly canonical. I suspect it may be added to our canon at some future point.

I'm confident that it will be.

[cinepro]

Scott

These are pretty much thoughts as well. And regardless of its status as a revelation or not, it is appealed to as authoritative often enough to raise its status to nearly canonical. I suspect it may be added to our canon at some future point.

 

During Elder Oaks' talk, he focused some of his remarks on a few of the Articles of Faith.  I was surprised when he pulled out a piece of paper and read the third Article of Faith from it.  I'm thinking "Really, you don't have that memorized?" 

 

But then I thought about what it must be like as an apostle, where you might recite something from memory but mix up a word or two, and then the congregation is thinking that you were correcting the scripture using your authority as they mark the new version in their scriptures.