Kenngo1969 Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 7 hours 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) I thought you were much more intelligent than that, and that you were interested in good-faith dialogue with your interlocutors. Perhaps I was mistaken on both counts. Going forward, I will be sure to read your posts with a much more more jaundiced eye.
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 15 hours 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. Investigating is fine. Pinning you faith on speculations from lack of evidence is something else.
Popular Post Buckeye Posted April 4, 2016 Popular Post Posted April 4, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, stemelbow said: 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. Well, on one point we may already be ready to acknowledge a mistake. The following quote comes from a website that is typically critical of the church, but their quotation tracks closely to my notes from Elder Oaks' address (if others have better notes please do correct me): God rarely infringes on the agency of any of his children by intervening against some for the relief of others.... He does not prevent all disasters...he does blunt their effects, as he did with the terrorist bombing that took so many lives in the Brussels airport but only injured our four missionaries. Through all mortal opposition we have God’s assurance that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain. —Dallin H. Oaks, Sunday afternoon session I believe this teaching is erroneous and harmful. I'm not rejecting Elder Oaks or his authority. But I do reject the notion that God acted to blunt the effects of the terrorist bombings on LDS missionaries, but did not act to blunt the effects for others. I'm certainly happy that our missionaries survived (the younger sister was headed to my home mission and I hope she is still able to gather "to the Ohio"). But to suggest that the survivors were favored over the dead is (1) without any factual support and (2) deeply hurtful. This notion also "makes reason stare" when one considers how many times a missionary is killed in a situation where nonmembers are spared. Here are just a few recent examples: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865647356/LDS-sister-missionary-from-Kaysville-killed-in-Pennsylvania-crash.html?pg=all http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865629744/One-LDS-missionary-killed-another-injured-in-Atlanta-car-accident.html?pg=all http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865609430/3-Mormon-missionaries-die-in-2-separate-incidents.html?pg=all Thankfully, the DN write up of Elder Oaks' address cuts out the hurtful teaching: Elder Oaks added that God rarely infringes on the agency of His children by intervening against some for the relief of others. But He does ease their burdens and gives them the strength to bear such burdens. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865651483/Elder-Dallin-H-Oaks-Opposition-in-All-Things.html?pg=all I will not be surprised if the final published conference address reflects a similar revision. EDIT TO ADD: I've listened again to the audio of the address found on the Church's website: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/04/media/session_5_talk_7/4829550389001?lang=eng. Beginning around 14:20, the remarks are: "He does not prevent all disasters but he does answer our prayers as He did with the uniquely powerful cyclone that threatened to prevent the dedication of the temple in Fiji. Or he does blunt their effects as he did with the terrorist bombing that took so many lives in the Brussels airport but only injured our four missionaries." So the website that I quoted above did accurately report the statement, though they took out some portions. Edited April 4, 2016 by Buckeye 6
JLHPROF Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 10 minutes ago, Buckeye said: I will not be surprised if the final published conference address is similarly revised. Revising a talk before publication? That never happens...oh, wait. 2
Storm Rider Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 8 minutes ago, Buckeye said: Well, on one point we may already be ready to acknowledge a mistake. The following quote comes from a website that is typically critical of the church, but their quotation tracks close to my notes from Elder Oaks' address (if others have been notes please do correct me): God rarely infringes on the agency of any of his children by intervening against some for the relief of others.... He does not prevent all disasters...he does blunt their effects, as he did with the terrorist bombing that took so many lives in the Brussels airport but only injured our four missionaries. Through all mortal opposition we have God’s assurance that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain. —Dallin H. Oaks, Sunday afternoon session I believe this teaching is erroneous and harmful. I'm not rejecting Elder Oaks or his authority. But I do reject the notion that God acted to blunt the effects of the terrorist bombings on LDS missionaries, but did not act to blunt the effects for others. I'm certainly happy that our missionaries survived (the younger sister was headed to my home mission and I hope she is still able to gather "to the Ohio"). But to suggest that the survivors were favored over the dead is (1) without any factual support and (2) deeply hurtful. This notion also "makes reason stare" when one considers how many times a missionary is killed in a situation where nonmembers are spared. Here are just a few recent examples: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865647356/LDS-sister-missionary-from-Kaysville-killed-in-Pennsylvania-crash.html?pg=all http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865629744/One-LDS-missionary-killed-another-injured-in-Atlanta-car-accident.html?pg=all http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865609430/3-Mormon-missionaries-die-in-2-separate-incidents.html?pg=all Thankfully, the DN write up of Elder Oaks' address cuts out the hurtful teaching: Elder Oaks added that God rarely infringes on the agency of His children by intervening against some for the relief of others. But He does ease their burdens and gives them the strength to bear such burdens. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865651483/Elder-Dallin-H-Oaks-Opposition-in-All-Things.html?pg=all I will not be surprised if the final published conference address is similarly revised. Deeply hurtful? I have really had enough about people thinking they were "deeply hurt". Grow up - this world, God, and his Church are not here to make you feel good. Gads, what a pansy way of living life - I am deeply hurt everyone gather round and comfort me. Oh, Lord help me or my feelings will be hurt. Gads, untwist those panties and grow up. On a more serious note, missionaries have died and missionaries have lived. When they live we thank God and when they die we thank God they have returned to him. I do believe that God intervenes in our lives, but only rarely. His intervention is daily a daily occurrence. I am not talking about daily prayers and sensing the Spirit, but about direct intervention. God does blunt the effects of some natural disasters for some people - regardless of what happens there seems to be great wisdom in thanking God and maintaining a grateful heart. I was appreciated his talk and I thought it was excellent. However, I acknowledge that for his topic I don't have a lot of quills spread out like a porcupine just waiting to be offended. For me he was speaking to the choir. This thread and the kinds of comments made reminds me of the old Buddhist master and the lesson he taught his three students. While walking the master bend down and uprooted a rose plant that had a single branch with a blooming rose. He turned to his disciples and asked what they saw when looking at the plant. The first said, "Oh it is so dirty with all the soil on the roots." The second said, "Look at how many sharp thorns are on the stem." The third said, "What a beautiful flower." The master turned to the first student and shook off all the soil into his hand; to the second he stripped the plant of the thorns and placed them in his hand, to the third he gave the rose plant. He then said you each have received what you looked for and your lives will be the same. 3
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 13 hours 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. You are free to believe or not believe the Truth Claims of the Church. But it is inconsistent to say you believe its Truth Claims, and then argue against them. a. Such is everyone's right. SEE Article of Faith 11. 11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. b. What do you mean by position? 2. The only authority you have is over what you believe. a. Opinions and navels come to mind. b.. As a General Authority Elder Oaks can speak for the Church. c. No one has said otherwise. 3. Depends on what you mean by evidence.
consiglieri Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 16 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: I was surprised to hear Elder Oaks say that some things about Church history (what Joseph Smith did or did not do), "that cannot be resolved by study." This is a far cry from the earlier messages we have heard at General Conference that if we have questions about Church history, it is because we haven't studied enough.
consiglieri Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: It is not being authoritarian to resist opposition. It is only being prudent. I have to admit it was funny to hear Elder Oaks teach that there must be opposition in all things, only not in the LDS Church. That puts the LDS Church out of the category of "all things." Making the LDS Church nothing. Nice work, Elder Oaks!
Buckeye Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: Deeply hurtful? I have really had enough about people thinking they were "deeply hurt". Grow up - this world, God, and his Church are not here to make you feel good. Gads, what a pansy way of living life - I am deeply hurt everyone gather round and comfort me. Oh, Lord help me or my feelings will be hurt. Gads, untwist those panties and grow up. On a more serious note, missionaries have died and missionaries have lived. When they live we thank God and when they die we thank God they have returned to him. I do believe that God intervenes in our lives, but only rarely. His intervention is daily a daily occurrence. I am not talking about daily prayers and sensing the Spirit, but about direct intervention. God does blunt the effects of some natural disasters for some people - regardless of what happens there seems to be great wisdom in thanking God and maintaining a grateful heart. I was appreciated his talk and I thought it was excellent. However, I acknowledge that for his topic I don't have a lot of quills spread out like a porcupine just waiting to be offended. For me he was speaking to the choir. This thread and the kinds of comments made reminds me of the old Buddhist master and the lesson he taught his three students. While walking the master bend down and uprooted a rose plant that had a single branch with a blooming rose. He turned to his disciples and asked what they saw when looking at the plant. The first said, "Oh it is so dirty with all the soil on the roots." The second said, "Look at how many sharp thorns are on the stem." The third said, "What a beautiful flower." The master turned to the first student and shook off all the soil into his hand; to the second he stripped the plant of the thorns and placed them in his hand, to the third he gave the rose plant. He then said you each have received what you looked for and your lives will be the same. Mock all you want. But when I arrived at work today and my co-worker asked "what did you do this weekend" and I said "I participated in a worldwide conference for my church where we learned that God favored the mormon missionaries (who lived) over his other children at the Brussel's bombing (who died)" .... well, let's just say that accurately reporting what a PSR taught was not particularly conducive to my friend wanting to learn more about the church. Oh, wait. Thankfully I had more sense than that. I censored the apostle's remarks and so my friend still has fairly good feelings about the LDS church. Elder Oaks is a good man. He certainly makes fewer mistakes than I would in his position. But this teaching is hurtful. I believe he was focused on the blessing that came to the missionaries who survived. But unfortunately, the way he explained their blessing strongly suggested that other children of God - nonmembers, and even missionaries in other situations - were not as favored. That is a hurtful suggestion and one that none us has grounds to make. Edited April 4, 2016 by Buckeye 3
HappyJackWagon Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: It is not being authoritarian to resist opposition. It is only being prudent. If there can be no loyal opposition there can be no legitimate reason for opposition for any reason. Even Elder Oaks can't really mean it as definitively as he said it. If he did, the church wouldn't even bother asking for an opposing vote. Loyal opposition means that someone is opposing something the church or its leaders are doing or proposing because they care about the welfare of the church. In other words, there are good intentions for opposing an action. Leaders may not always appreciate those intentions but the attitude of the person opposing is a desire to serve and protect the church, even from its own policies or processes on occasion. For example, would it be moral to sustain a leader for whom we have personal knowledge of malfeasance? Would we sustain a known child molester working in the nursery? Of course not. That would be absurd. Yet, if we take Elder Oaks at his word, there is no loyal reason to oppose the action of the leader. Some might suggest that the person talk to the priesthood leader and share concerns, which is fine, but priesthood leaders don't always listen to those concerns. Maybe the priesthood leader feels the child molester has sufficiently repented and is worthy to teach the nursery. By opposing publicly in that kind of situation I would likely receive the ire of the leader yet I would actually be loyal to the church and the membership by making them aware of a problem. BTW- I have personal experience in which a member did not speak up when a man who he knew had molested his daughter was called into the nursery. His reasoning was that the leader who called him would be responsible to God and that the member was responsible to sustain the leader. This is an example of disloyal sustaining. Loyal opposition would have been much better. He sustained the leader at the expense of the church. That is immoral. 4
Nevo Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 15 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. 9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: So, you think Elder Oaks thinks this is his church, huh? Perhaps that's part of your problem. 7 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. Thanks, Scott, for pointing out the obvious to Ken. Hopefully everything's clear now. 2
consiglieri Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 9 minutes ago, Buckeye said: Mock all you want. But when I arrived at work today and my co-worker asked "what did you do this weekend" and I said "I participated in a worldwide conference for my church where we learned that God favored the mormon missionaries (who lived) over his other children at the Brussel's bombing (who died)" .... well, let's just say that accurately reporting what a PSR taught was not particularly conducive to my friend wanting to learn more about the church. Oh, wait. Thankfully I had more sense than that. I censored the apostle's remarks and so my friend still has fairly good feelings about the LDS church. Elder Oaks is a good man. He certainly makes fewer mistakes than I would in his position. But this teaching is hurtful. I believe he was focused on the blessing that came to the missionaries who survived. But unfortunately, the way he explained their blessing strongly suggested that other children of God - nonmembers, and even missionaries in other situations - were not as favored. That is a hurtful suggestion and one that none us has grounds to make. What does it say about a Church when you have to consciously edit statements by Apostles of Jesus Christ so as not to offend others into not wanting to hear more?
HappyJackWagon Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 (edited) 25 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I have to admit it was funny to hear Elder Oaks teach that there must be opposition in all things, only not in the LDS Church. That puts the LDS Church out of the category of "all things." Making the LDS Church nothing. Nice work, Elder Oaks! This is actually quite consistent for Oaks. He also believes that religious liberty means that no one can discriminate against protected classes except the church. The church is often an exception for him. The church is also exempted from offering apologies. Edited April 4, 2016 by HappyJackWagon
consiglieri Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 Just now, HappyJackWagon said: This is actually quite consistent for Oaks. He also believes that religious liberty means that no one can discriminate against protected classes except the church. The church is often an exception for him. I am thinking maybe Elder Oaks has a private bet going on how many fundamental LDS doctrines he can subvert during his tenure.
consiglieri Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: If there can be no loyal opposition there can be no legitimate reason for opposition for any reason. Even Elder Oaks can't really mean it as definitively as he said it. If he did, the church wouldn't even bother asking for an opposing vote. Speaking of loyal opposition, I loved Elder Andersen's talk in which he made clear his opposition to the new policy as it relates to children. Did anybody else catch that? https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/04/media/session_2_talk_7/4828468030001?lang=eng
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 18 minutes ago, Buckeye said: Mock all you want. But when I arrived at work today and my co-worker asked "what did you do this weekend" and I said "I participated in a worldwide conference for my church where we learned that God favored the mormon missionaries (who lived) over his other children at the Brussel's bombing (who died)" .... well, let's just say that accurately reporting what a PSR taught was not particularly conducive to my friend wanting to learn more about the church. Oh, wait. Thankfully I had more sense than that. I censored the apostle's remarks and so my friend still has fairly good feelings about the LDS church. Elder Oaks is a good man. He certainly makes fewer mistakes than I would in his position. But this teaching is hurtful. I believe he was focused on the blessing that came to the missionaries who survived. But unfortunately, the way he explained their blessing strongly suggested that other children of God - nonmembers, and even missionaries in other situations - were not as favored. That is a hurtful suggestion and one that none us has grounds to make. Why did some die, and some live. We don't know, but believe God will wipe away every tear.
Buckeye Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 7 minutes ago, consiglieri said: What does it say about a Church when you have to consciously edit statements by Apostles of Jesus Christ so as not to offend others into not wanting to hear more? Hopefully in this instance the final remarks will be self-censored and I won't have to. Seriously, though, I find myself censoring fewer things from church leaders than I do from my family (especially the Glenn Beck contingent ). For me and my family, the Church is the very best place for us to grow towards God. Except for egregious comments (and this one from Elder Oaks was far from that), I'm actually grateful that my children can be exposed to some degree of error so that they can develop their own sense of morality. Oaks' remarks were actually about the need for opposition. I agree with him on that. I'm a descendant of slave-owners who believes that heaven will be made of family. So I'm pretty comfortable picking out the wheat from the tares in my relationships.
Buckeye Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 31 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I have to admit it was funny to hear Elder Oaks teach that there must be opposition in all things, only not in the LDS Church. That puts the LDS Church out of the category of "all things." Making the LDS Church nothing. Nice work, Elder Oaks! For some reason I can't give you a rep point, but this is quite astute. Kudos! 1
HappyJackWagon Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 3 minutes ago, Buckeye said: Oaks' remarks were actually about the need for opposition. I agree with him on that. It's ironic that his talk was about the need for opposition in all things...except the church. It's apparently impossible to oppose the church or leaders for any legitimate or loyal reason.
Buckeye Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 Just now, HappyJackWagon said: It's ironic that his talk was about the need for opposition in all things...except the church. It's apparently impossible to oppose the church or leaders for any legitimate or loyal reason. I tell my kids to eat their veggies at the same dinner in which I push mine to the side.
Nevo Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: I thought you were much more intelligent than that, and that you were interested in good-faith dialogue with your interlocutors. Perhaps I was mistaken on both counts. Going forward, I will be sure to read your posts with a much more more jaundiced eye. Generally, for good-faith dialogue, both parties need to respond to what the other is actually saying and not twist their words to score points. When I said that Dallin Oaks's philosophy is "my church, right or wrong" I thought the allusion to "my country, right or wrong" was clear and that people would get that I wasn't directly quoting Oaks or attributing to Oaks the belief that he, rather than Jesus Christ, was the head of the Church. I think you knew this too. So your snide reply—"So, you think Elder Oaks thinks this is his church, huh? Perhaps that's part of your problem"—struck me as a distinctly bad-faith reading of my post. Unfortunately, I responded in kind when I probably should have just ignored your cheap shot. Edited April 4, 2016 by Nevo 3
HappyJackWagon Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 3 minutes ago, Buckeye said: I tell my kids to eat their veggies at the same dinner in which I push mine to the side. Yes- you've identified a double standard. Now we just have to decide whether or not we feel the Oaks/church double standard is acceptable.
bluebell Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: It's ironic that his talk was about the need for opposition in all things...except the church. It's apparently impossible to oppose the church or leaders for any legitimate or loyal reason. I think you've misunderstood the principle he was teaching. 2
bluebell Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 32 minutes ago, Nevo said: Generally, for good-faith dialogue, both parties need to respond to what the other is actually saying and not twist their words to score points. When I said that Dallin Oaks's philosophy is "my church, right or wrong" I thought the allusion to "my country, right or wrong" was clear and that people would get that I wasn't directly quoting Oaks or attributing to Oaks the belief that he, rather than Jesus Christ, was the head of the Church. I think you knew this too. So your snide reply—"So, you think Elder Oaks thinks this is his church, huh? Perhaps that's part of your problem"—struck me as a distinctly bad-faith reading of my post. Unfortunately, I responded in kind when I probably should have just ignored your cheap shot. I sincerely did not understand your meaning correctly so I'm glad you have clarified.
rockpond Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 18 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: I haven't read the entire thread but my thought was: Who is claiming to be "loyal opposition"?
Recommended Posts