Elder Oaks on opposition

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour 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."
 

 

Disagreeing with a policy of the Church is one thing.  Taking that disagreement and then going on a crusade to cause change or build dissent in the Church is the problem.  I may not agree with every little thing the Church does but at the end of the day I still sustain the GA and always keep myself open that I may be wrong in my disagreement. 

[Senator]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

Exactly 

That's why I said "not necessarily "

[Bobbieaware]

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. 

I could cite scores of quotations from the scriptures where the prophets and apostles have issued the same kinds of warnings, only stated in much harsher terms. So I guess it's par for the course for prophets to anger those who don't believe the prophets are called of God. Do these folks not realize this is one of the oldest and most recurrent themes in the scriptures? It's strange because each time the prophets warn the rebellious, those who take the truth to be hard act like it"s a unique outrage that hasn't happened thousands of other times throughout sacred history.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

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.

One always has the freedom, and one is always allowed to be mistaken.

[The Nehor]

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. 

So these heretics who believe the brethren are frauds are worried that the sealing power is real and they will lose their family.....despite the fact that the power is declared to be predicated on obedience and so even if it is real it would not work anyways.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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:

The other noteworthy quote is this:

 

1:  This presupposes Satan is a real being.  Evidence of such a being it scarce.

2:  The comment about loyal opposition really means "So what we say and don't vocally ask questions or express doubts."   One may wonder why outsiders view the LDS Church as a border line cult.  This approach certainly raises such a question as reasonable to discuss.

3: the conclusion is just have faith.  Faith seems to be the answer for most things religious when there is not evidence and the rational result may be to reject the religious paradigm of "just have faith."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Opposition is not investigation.

Tell that to President Clark.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

1:  This presupposes Satan is a real being.  Evidence of such a being it scarce.

2:  The comment about loyal opposition really means "So what we say and don't vocally ask questions or express doubts."   One may wonder why outsiders view the LDS Church as a border line cult.  This approach certainly raises such a question as reasonable to discuss.

3: the conclusion is just have faith.  Faith seems to be the answer for most things religious when there is not evidence and the rational result may be to reject the religious paradigm of "just have faith."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1-the LDS church is a religious organization. It should be a given that the apostles and membership in general believe certain religious doctrines are true regardless of the lack of facts.  If someone doesn't agree that's fine, but obviously the "that can't be proven" argument is going to hold zero weight and is completely irrelevant in discussions with religious people. 

2-why do you think you have the ability or authority to determine what elder oaks "really means"?  That's not how I personally interpreted his words. 

3-see point number 1. 

[CMZ]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

: the conclusion is just have faith.  Faith seems to be the answer for most things religious when there is not evidence and the rational result may be to reject the religious paradigm of "just have faith."

This leaves out that the Church is constantly affirming that members can receive confirming personal revelation of what the prophets say.

[CMZ]

Quote

This Church relies on individual testimony. Each must earn his own testimony. It is then that you can stand and say, as I can say, that I know that God lives, that He is our Father, that we have a child-parent relationship with Him. I know that He is close, that we can go to Him and appeal, and then, if we will be obedient and listen and use every resource, we will have an answer to our prayers.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/08/self-reliance?lang=eng

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

1-the LDS church is a religious organization. It should be a given that the apostles and membership in general believe certain religious doctrines are true regardless of the lack of facts.  If someone doesn't agree that's fine, but obviously the "that can't be proven" argument is going to hold zero weight and is completely irrelevant in discussions with religious people. 

2-why do you think you have the ability or authority to determine what elder oaks "really means"?  That's not how I personally interpreted his words. 

3-see point number 1. 

1:  Yes I know this.  Just because a Church and its adherents believe something does not make it so. You certainly reject much of what other world wide religious adherents believe do you not?  Do you offer them the same position that you promote in point 1 above?  Do you offer this to Catholics, Evangelicals, Islam or Buddhists?

2:  I have no more or less authority than Elder Oaks or anyone else. I just offered my view.  But I do not think Elder Oaks has anymore special authority than you or me.  But I do think he has authority as far as the LDS Church is concerned.

3:  Faith is always the answer when there is little to no evidence to back up a truth claim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CMZ]

 

Quote

He that wishes to know [if] Mormonism [is the] word of Lord [or have] knowledge for himself whether Brother [Brigham is a] prophet [or whether] these are the servants of [the] Lord [and] this is the work of the Lord and his kingdom, let them live Mormonism—and they shall know it!

This is the only way. [You] can't know it any other way.

I may know it for myself … [Can] I prove [to] every man and woman the same?

I can't know it for [the] rest of you. No one can learn it for another. Every man has to learn it for themselves and profess its own testimony for itself to all living.

https://history.lds.org/article/lost-sermons-erastus-snow-danish-mission?lang=eng

Edited April 4, 2016 by CMZ

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

1:  Yes I know this.  Just because a Church and its adherents believe something does not make it so. You certainly reject much of what other world wide religious adherents believe do you not?  Do you offer them the same position that you promote in point 1 above?  Do you offer this to Catholics, Evangelicals, Islam or Buddhists?

2:  I have no more or less authority than Elder Oaks or anyone else. I just offered my view.  But I do not think Elder Oaks has anymore special authority than you or me.  But I do think he has authority as far as the LDS Church is concerned.

3:  Faith is always the answer when there is little to no evidence to back up a truth claim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1-obviously, but if I am in a discussion with someone about their beliefs, I'm not going to pretend that my not agreeing with them is going to be at all relevant to the conversation.  

2-you have way less authority than elder oaks when it comes to the meaning of what HE said, right?

But my point was that while you can certainly state your beliefs or opinions on what someone means, the second you claim your interpretation as fact you've crossed the line.  You can't know he meant what you said he meant before, and I'm sure you realize that.

3-if course it is!  This is a religious board and we are talking about religious doctrines.  Being annoyed about that is the equivalent of me going to a board for philosophers and then being annoyed that they are always quoting Plato.  

Like I said before, some things are a given when talking to certain groups of people.  You don't have to agree with the given, but you can't expect it not to hold the weight that it does for the group.

 

[salgare]

Quote 1 where's the filth columnist hunter when he's been called back into action?  Lots of wolf's in sheep's clothing to hunt down!

Quote 2: Try being transparent with the money.  Yea right.

[stemelbow]

I look forward to open discussion about some of the very things Elder Oaks brought up.  Someday, I suppose.  We will see sometime down the road that we were wrong about something very important.  That's where we are now regarding the priesthood ban, for instance.  I do believe the Church is better off treating it's members as contributors rather than as brains that the leaders must fear.  It feels like open thoughtful discussion is less likely thanks to Elder Oaks' talk.  But we will see,  Some day he'll be proven wrong, just as many leaders from the past have been.  The members will be held back while God works on the individual.  What a tough spot we find ourselves in, really. 

[sjdawg]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

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?

That is why I left.   Some people suggested I should stay because "it is a good life" but that seemed pointless to me.  

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

That is why I left.   Some people suggested I should stay because "it is a good life" but that seemed pointless to me.  

I think the church is a good life, but I can't imagine that it is fulfilling to devote oneself to something you believe is ultimately a lie. 

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours 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. ...
 

 

So, you think Elder Oaks thinks this is his church, huh?  Perhaps that's part of your problem.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the church is a good life, but I can't imagine that it is fulfilling to devote oneself to something you believe is ultimately a lie. 

Especially if one's intent is to seize control and refashion it according to one's own desires and preferences. Such an objective is destined to result in failure, frustration, and perhaps conflict and resentment. 

[sjdawg]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Especially if one's intent is to seize control and refashion it according to one's own desires and preferences. Such an objective is destined to result in failure, frustration, and perhaps conflict and resentment. 

Who has this intent?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

Quote 1 where's the filth columnist hunter when he's been called back into action?  Lots of wolf's in sheep's clothing to hunt down!

Quote 2: Try being transparent with the money.  Yea right.

How about being more transparent with the meaning of your posts? What in the world is a "filth columnist hunter"?

[Nevo]

52 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So, you think Elder Oaks thinks this is his church, huh?  Perhaps that's part of your problem.

Of course he does. He said as much a few days ago: "Since this audience contains many who are not members of my Church..." (http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/03/a-mormon-perspective-on-religious-freedom)

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Of course he does. He said as much a few days ago: "Since this audience contains many who are not members of my Church..." (http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/03/a-mormon-perspective-on-religious-freedom)

Give us a break!

It is his church in the same sense that the United States is his country or that Utah is his home state.

Or that God the Father is his God and Jesus Christ is his Savior and Redeemer.

That is to say it is his church because he belongs to it, not the other way around. 

Edited April 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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:

The other noteworthy quote is this:

 

Ironically, 'loyal opposition' is the phrase I've used to describe my counsellors when I've serve as a president in various capacities in the church  I think the term is quite apt in describing their role to be one with me in the presidency while at the same time objecting (in the proper course) to the dumb mistakes I frequently make  

Oaks is correct if his words are narrowly tailored to refer to opposition to the church itself. Unfortunately, most members I know will misinterpret his words and apply them to anyone who questions a church teaching, even though Oaks expressly says that questioning is not forbidden. 

And I disagree with Oaks' reading of D&C 88:118. Just as faith and works cannot be separated, so too faith and study. Nothing is learned by study without faith. So too nothing is learned by faith without study. To the degree he is suggesting that some learning comes purely by faith, i respectfully disagree with elder Oaks. 

[Buckeye]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Give us a break!

It is his church in the same sense that the United States is his country or that Utah is his home state.

Or that God the Father is his God and Jesus Christ is his Savior and Redeemer.

That is to say it is his church because he belongs to it, not the other way around. 

This is a good point Scott. It's also why many people still choose to identify as Mormon even if they are no longer formal members of the LDS church. The church body is still their home and the church language their native tongue, even if they're currently ex-pats.