Elder Oaks on opposition

[Scott Lloyd]

Juliann has already made note of this on another thread, but Elder Oaks had a couple of noteworthy statements on opposition.

In the context of discussing how Satan increases opposition commensurate with an increase in the faith and strength of the Church and its members, he said:

Quote

Some of this opposition even comes from Church members. Some who use personal reasoning or wisdom to resist prophetic direction give themselves a label borrowed from elected bodies -- "the loyal opposition." How ever appropriate for a democracy, there is no warrant for this concept in the government of God's kingdom, where questions are honored but opposition is not."

The other noteworthy quote is this:

Quote

The Church is making great efforts to be transparent with the records we have, but after all we can publish our members are sometimes left with basic questions that cannot be resolved by study. This is the church history version of "opposition in all things." Some things can only be learned by faith (D&C 88:118). Our ultimate reliance must be faith in the witness we have received from the Holy Ghost.

 

[The Nehor]

I had a twisted smile when I heard that and knew it would show up here very quickly. Just wait until I get my popcorn and ICEE before everyone gets started.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Pretty sad. If they were confident in their position, they wouldn't need to promote this kind of authoritarianism. 

[Calm]

Maybe, Jeremy, they are concerned about the souls that could be harmed.

[BCSpace]

The "loyal opposition" has no faith or belief in the prophets, or inspiration, or even God, at all given that they believe doctrine is based on noise or numbers or popularity.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” -- President J. Reuben Clark.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

Pretty sad. If they were confident in their position, they wouldn't need to promote this kind of authoritarianism. 

It is not being authoritarian to resist opposition. It is only being prudent.

[rodheadlee]

4 minutes ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” -- President J. Reuben Clark.

Opposition is not investigation.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” -- President J. Reuben Clark.

This quote isn't relevant because Cal wasn't speaking of investigation and neither was elder Oaks. 

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Sigh. 

If, after investigation, one comes to the conclusion that the Church is teaching untruths, one has to have the freedom to oppose given policies or whatever, or the entire thing is just theater. If, before the Priesthood revelation, someone investigated the history and came to the conclusion that it [edit: the ban] was not from God, what were they supposed to do? Just go along with systemic unfairnesses and inequalities based on falsities perpetuated by the unquestioning culture? The untruth of racism needed to be harmed, but if it had been up to, say, Brigham Young, it certainly wouldn't have been. This is the problem with the authoritarianism Oaks loves to propound. 

Edited April 3, 2016 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

Sigh. 

If, after investigation, one comes to the conclusion that the Church is teaching untruths, one has to have the freedom to oppose given policies or whatever, or the entire thing is just theater.

You always have that freedom -- but not necessarily while enjoying the fellowship and full privileges of membership.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

Sigh. 

If, after investigation, one comes to the conclusion that the Church is teaching untruths, one has to have the freedom to oppose given policies or whatever, or the entire thing is just theater. If, before the Priesthood revelation, someone investigated the history and came to the conclusion that it was not from God, what were they supposed to do?

Leave.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

That's exactly my point. Oaks uses the threat of disfellowship or excommunication - ie, denying people the supposedly 'saving' ordinances that allow them to be sealed to their families for eternity - to attempt to silence opposition. This is pure, textbook religious authoritarianism. This is pure emotional manipulation and extortion. This is preying on the fears of others. 

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

Sigh. 

If, after investigation, one comes to the conclusion that the Church is teaching untruths, one has to have the freedom to oppose given policies or whatever, or the entire thing is just theater. If, before the Priesthood revelation, someone investigated the history and came to the conclusion that it was not from God, what were they supposed to do? Just go along with systemic unfairnesses and inequalities based on falsities perpetuated by the unquestioning culture? The untruth of racism needed to be harmed, but if it had been up to, say, Brigham Young, it certainly wouldn't have been. This is the problem with the authoritarianism Oaks loves to propound. 

If someone comes to the conclusion that the church is not God's church and isn't teaching His gospel they need to leave. 

Why would they stay?

[BCSpace]

10 minutes ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

That's exactly my point. Oaks uses the threat of disfellowship or excommunication - ie, denying people the supposedly 'saving' ordinances that allow them to be sealed to their families for eternity - to attempt to silence opposition. This is pure, textbook religious authoritarianism. This is pure emotional manipulation and extortion. This is preying on the fears of others. 

I don't get that impression at all from anything he says, but consider two things:

1. The Church publishes what he says and therefore what he says is official doctrine and the Church agrees with it just as much as anything your 'favorite' Apostles say. This is something a lot of people don't get.  It's like other christians accepting only the words of Paul or Jesus out of the Bible.  Ultimately, one must accept the words of ALL the prophets, not just the ones that happen to scratch our itching ears.

2. The Church is a private organization, not a government, and therefore you are free to believe it and associate with it as you will.  Hence, it is impossible for the Church to be "authoritarian".  The Church does not exercise, nor does it have, any authority over you.

Edited April 3, 2016 by BCSpace
Addendum

[rodheadlee]

11 minutes ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

Sigh. 

If, after investigation, one comes to the conclusion that the Church is teaching untruths, one has to have the freedom to oppose given policies or whatever, or the entire thing is just theater. If, before the Priesthood revelation, someone investigated the history and came to the conclusion that it was not from God, what were they supposed to do? Just go along with systemic unfairnesses and inequalities based on falsities perpetuated by the unquestioning culture? The untruth of racism needed to be harmed, but if it had been up to, say, Brigham Young, it certainly wouldn't have been. This is the problem with the authoritarianism Oaks loves to propound. 

Live your life accordingly. Minister to those under your stewardship as directed by the Holy Spirit. Pray mightily that your understanding will be increased or that these perceived wrongs will be righted. Railing on the Lord's chosen Prophet and apostles is not going to fix anything.

[Nevo]

Elder Oaks's comments today were no surprise. He's said similar things before. Criticizing leaders is always wrong, even if the criticism is true, etc. "My church, right or wrong" has always been his position. Myself, I'm not so sure that principled dissent (as opposed to mere fault-finding) is never appropriate in the government of God's kingdom. I think it's possible to be a loyal member and disagree with certain policies of the Church, whether past or present. I am grateful for President George Albert Smith's affirmation that "the Church gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him."
 

Quote

The Duke of Norfolk: Oh confound all this. I'm not a scholar, I don't know whether the marriage was lawful or not but dammit, Thomas, look at these names! Why can't you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!

Sir Thomas More: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

— Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons

 

Edited April 3, 2016 by Nevo

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Elder Oaks's comments today were no surprise. He's said similar things before. Criticizing leaders is always wrong, even if the criticism is true, etc. "My church, right or wrong" has always been his position. Myself, I'm not so sure that principled dissent (as opposed to mere fault-finding) is never appropriate in the government of God's kingdom. I think it's possible to be a loyal member and disagree with certain policies of the Church, whether past or present. I am grateful for President George Albert Smith's affirmation that "the Church gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him."

 

Not sure that's the same thing as the "loyal opposition" concept as some express it or try to apply it to the Church.

And be it known that Elder Oaks is not the first Church leader to make such a statement about "loyal opposition." President James E. Faust (a rare bird among the hierarchy because he was a Democrat) did so in a conference sermon a generation or so ago.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

7 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Elder Oaks's comments today were no surprise. He's said similar things before. Criticizing leaders is always wrong, even if the criticism is true, etc. "My church, right or wrong" has always been his position. Myself, I'm not so sure that principled dissent (as opposed to mere fault-finding) is never appropriate in the government of God's kingdom. I think it's possible to be a loyal member and disagree with certain policies of the Church, whether past or present. I am grateful for President George Albert Smith's affirmation that "the Church gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him."

 

 

Such need to be keen to voice their dissent in the form of a question.😉

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Senator said:

Such need to be keen to voice their dissent in the form of a question.😉

You mean passive-aggressiveness?

 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Elder Oaks's comments today were no surprise. He's said similar things before. Criticizing leaders is always wrong, even if the criticism is true, etc. "My church, right or wrong" has always been his position. Myself, I'm not so sure that principled dissent (as opposed to mere fault-finding) is never appropriate in the government of God's kingdom. I think it's possible to be a loyal member and disagree with certain policies of the Church, whether past or present. I am grateful for President George Albert Smith's affirmation that "the Church gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him."
 

 

That's a great quote by Pres. Smith. I don't see it as contradicting elder Oaks at all. 

[CMZ]

1 hour ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

That's exactly my point. Oaks uses the threat of disfellowship or excommunication - ie, denying people the supposedly 'saving' ordinances that allow them to be sealed to their families for eternity - to attempt to silence opposition. This is pure, textbook religious authoritarianism. This is pure emotional manipulation and extortion. This is preying on the fears of others. 

Are there people who want to oppose the Church who also want saving ordinances from the Church? Is that a thing?

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

That's exactly my point. Oaks uses the threat of disfellowship or excommunication - ie, denying people the supposedly 'saving' ordinances that allow them to be sealed to their families for eternity - to attempt to silence opposition. This is pure, textbook religious authoritarianism. This is pure emotional manipulation and extortion. This is preying on the fears of others. 

No it is simply establishing a truth that the Church holds that the Church is a kingdom lead by a King (Jesus) and is not a democracy or popularity poll organization.  Opposition to the Lord automatically places one salvation at risk.  Some people may oppose the leadership of the Church thinking that their opposition is simply at the Church leadership and not the Lord but that might not be the case.  We have our agency to accept or reject the Church.  Our agency does not include demanding the Church change or conform itself into something we like.  No member is that important to God.

[Senator]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You mean passive-aggressiveness?

 

Not necessarily 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Senator said:

Not necessarily 

I think there's a difference between asking questions to resolve one's own concerns or lack of understanding and asking them with adversarial intent.