Elder Oaks on opposition

[ERayR]

18 hours 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 [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. 

If you come to the conclusion the Church is teaching untruths you do have the freedom to oppose.  It takes the form of walking away and finding something that espouses your version of the truth.  It is not as if you are required to be a member.   Why do you insist on imposing your version of the "truth" on the rest of us.

[ERMD]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

 

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.

 

CFR

[Storm Rider]

1 hour 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.

Yup, bucko you missed the entire talk.  Here is your handful of thorns.  You will reap what you sow and you will reap what you want to harvest.  Hope that continues to work for you.  

 

[Senator]

4 minutes ago, ERayR said:

If you come to the conclusion the Church is teaching untruths you do have the freedom to oppose.  It takes the form of walking away and finding something that espouses your version of the truth.  It is not as if you are required to be a member.   Why do you insist on imposing your version of the "truth" on the rest of us.

Is he not allowed to say anything during the process?

[ERayR]

10 hours ago, Senator said:

Is he not allowed to say anything during the process?

Head slap.  In the face of such inanity I bow out.  I have better things to do today than joust with fools.

That will save me from removing you for name calling.

[Buckeye]

8 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Yup, bucko you missed the entire talk.  Here is your handful of thorns.  You will reap what you sow and you will reap what you want to harvest.  Hope that continues to work for you.  

 

So we're agreed that the statement regarding Brussels is a "handful of thorns"? If so, I'm happy to move on and focus on the many positive parts of the talk. For example, if the talk is used as a lesson for my HP group or a youth group I sit with, I would have no problem finding many good things to discuss. And, in the event that the discussion touched on the hurtful remarks about Brussels, I would prepared to ask a few hard questions along the lines of my earlier post and hope that everyone would agree to move on to better issues.

 

Edited April 4, 2016 by Buckeye

[Senator]

20 minutes ago, ERayR said:

Head slap.  In the face of such inanity I bow out.  I have better things to do today than joust with fools.

A drive-by insult

Nice

It was an honest question.

Look, I do not like what Jeremy has said, nor do I agree with him. But I have no problem allowing him to express himself, and even having him do so without considering it an imposition on me.

[Calm]

I heard and read Elder Oaks' comments as saying the entire attack on Brussels was blunted, implying that the effect the terrorists wanted was not fully achieved.  It was not only LDS missionaries who were protected.  And I think "blunting" can refer to emotional suffering as well as physical.

As one who believes in paradise, I don't see death as a curse or the worse thing that can happen to a person, though the death of a loved one is close up there.  So is seeing them hurt and suffering and not being able to do anything about it.

The missionaries' lives have been altered.  Perhaps God's hand in their lives is not that they are alive, but that they are able to not be emotionally crippled by the experience.  And perhaps the same thing is happening in many of the lives of those who survived and those who lost loved ones.

It is, of course, all a matter of faith.  Being able to see how God might be working in the lives of those suffering doesn't mean he is.  We can only truly judge from our own personal experience and even then we could choose to see it differently.  If there are ultimate answers, we are required to wait for them.

[bluebell]

1 hour 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.

In these kinds of situations, this poem is a good reminder to me of my goal as a listener at conference (or at sacrament meeting).

Oh, the comfort— 
    the inexpressible comfort of feeling safe with a person— 
    having neither to weigh thoughts nor measure words, 
    but pouring them all right out, 
    just as they are, 
    chaff and grain together; 
    certain that a faithful hand will take and sift them, 
    keep what is worth keeping, 
    and then with the breath of kindness blow the rest away.

I'm sure that Elder Oaks knows better than to feel safe with every listener of conference (many are not 'friends', after all) and I'm also sure that all speakers try very diligently to weigh their thoughts and measure their words, but because we are all human there will always be some chaff that comes out with the grain when we speak.

How awesome would it be if we (believing members) could all be faithful friends to those who speak at conference, sifting their words with kindness and being a safe harbor for their thoughts and expressions of faith, understanding what is worth keeping, and letting what isn't go without having to point it out first.

We would all be much less hurt or offended by innocent (and therefore mostly irrelevant) errors in words said poorly but with no guile.  And the spirit that would be with us could we ever be that charitable and united would be amazing!

I don't often succeed in being that kind of a friend, but it's my goal.  Hopefully some day i'll get there.

[Okrahomer]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

In these kinds of situations, this poem is a good reminder to me of my goal as a listener at conference (or at sacrament meeting).

Oh, the comfort— 
    the inexpressible comfort of feeling safe with a person— 
    having neither to weigh thoughts nor measure words, 
    but pouring them all right out, 
    just as they are, 
    chaff and grain together; 
    certain that a faithful hand will take and sift them, 
    keep what is worth keeping, 
    and then with the breath of kindness blow the rest away.

I'm sure that Elder Oaks knows better than to feel safe with every listener of conference (many are not 'friends', after all) and I'm also sure that all speakers try very diligently to weigh their thoughts and measure their words, but because we are all human there will always be some chaff that comes out with the grain when we speak.

How awesome would it be if we (believing members) could all be faithful friends to those who speak at conference, sifting their words with kindness and being a safe harbor for their thoughts and expressions of faith, understanding what is worth keeping, and letting what isn't go without having to point it out first.

We would all be much less hurt or offended by innocent (and therefore mostly irrelevant) errors in words said poorly but with no guile.  And the spirit that would be with us could we ever be that charitable and united would be amazing!

I don't often succeed in being that kind of a friend, but it's my goal.  Hopefully some day i'll get there.

Wonderful!  Spot on!  Many, many rep points (if I could.) 

[Jeanne]

2 hours 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?

I found out about changes in publications just a few years ago..I had already resigned..but my heart just sank again about this.  I had to ask myself if there was anything left that I could have hung on to in my past.  Sometimes changes are perceived as deceptions and I am so frustrated for the people that I love who remain.

[RevTestament]

2 hours 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.

I invite you to reevaluate your thinking here Buckeye. I think the evidence shows that God has always helped those who love Him. Did God help Moses and Israel over Egypt? Did God help David over Goliath? Did Jesus heal everybody, or those who had faith? While God may not have helped those missionaries simply because they are LDS, I believe it is certainly within historical precedent that He shielded them or guided them because they love and serve Him vs others in the crowd who may not even be Christian. Do you really feel it is abhorrent for God to help and guide those who love and serve Him? If so, I would think you would have great trouble with much of scripture....

I personally believe some have a plan for them, and that as long as they are following God, He will protect them until their job is done. Not all are called because not all will follow.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I found out about changes in publications just a few years ago..I had already resigned..but my heart just sank again about this.  I had to ask myself if there was anything left that I could have hung on to in my past.  Sometimes changes are perceived as deceptions and I am so frustrated for the people that I love who remain.

Given the number of times that you have had to edit your own words or change your own conclusions (and they are not more than the times i've had to or should have done it with my own words, for sure!) you would think that you would have more compassion and charity for people trying to speak to every single culture and person in the entire world in a way that is meaningful to them.

 

Edited April 4, 2016 by bluebell

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Given the number of times that you have had to edit your own words or change your own conclusions (and they are not more than the times i've had to or should have done it with my own words, for sure!) you would think that you would have more compassion and charity for people trying to speak to every single culture and person in the entire world.

 

Yours and my own editing doesn't affect an entire church and its proclaimed truthfulness and professed scripture.  We are stating our feelings and opinions here. 

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Given the number of times that you have had to edit your own words or change your own conclusions (and they are not more than the times i've had to or should have done it with my own words, for sure!) you would think that you would have more compassion and charity for people trying to speak to every single culture and person in the entire world.

 

That reminds me, I did sort of wince when Elder Holland as the last speaker mentioned how he knew he was standing between a lot of the members and the ice cream they were looking forward to eating as soon as conference was done.

I think that was doubtless funny to the members in the General Conference Center, but wondered how it might play in other parts of the world.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Yours and my own editing doesn't affect an entire church and its proclaimed truthfulness and professed scripture.  We are stating our feelings and opinions here. 

It does affect individual people though, and we can cause a lot of damage here if we aren't careful, to ourselves and to others.

My point though is that you and i know how hard it is to speak and make no mistakes, or even just to be understood correctly.   It's impossible to never make any mistakes or need to clarify or reword something so it's easily understood correctly.  Church leaders are just as human as we are.  

If we hope that people are charitable with our shortcomings then we need to be charitable with others.  We can't want mercy for ourselves and then go around calling for justice for everyone else.  

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

That reminds me, I did sort of wince when Elder Holland as the last speaker mentioned how he knew he was standing between a lot of the members and the ice cream they were looking forward to eating as soon as conference was done.

I think that was doubtless funny to the members in the General Conference Center, but wondered how it might play in other parts of the world.

I'm sure there is a lot lost in translation when it comes to humor.

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

Wonderful!  Spot on!  Many, many rep points (if I could.) 

This reminds me, I should cite the author of the poem.  It was written by Dinah Maria Mulock Craik.

[Jeanne]

Just now, bluebell said:

It does affect individual people though, and we can cause a lot of damage here if we aren't careful, to ourselves and to others.

My point though is that you and i know how hard it is to speak and make no mistakes, or even just to be understood correctly.   It's impossible to never make any mistakes or need to clarify or reword something so it's easily understood correctly.  Church leaders are just as human as we are.  

If we hope that people are charitable with our shortcomings then we need to be charitable with others.  We can't want mercy for ourselves and then go around calling for justice for everyone else.  

Sometimes I think that if you are post mormon, being charitable and honest doesn't mix.  I admit that I have a hard time, but I try.

You and I in our thoughts on this board (including our edits) are not claiming to be apostles or prophets.  Mistakes are human and though we may differ, respect and love for others still exist (IMO) or at least I hope so.  If there were thoughts on this board that were all of some sort of sameness, whatever would we learn?  Justice is sometimes found in a world of compromise.  Just know that I love and respect you.

Hugs, Jeanne

BTW:    I almost had to edit again...I put "Jugs, Jeanne"  Ouch!

[ksfisher]

37 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Yours and my own editing doesn't affect an entire church and its proclaimed truthfulness and professed scripture.  We are stating our feelings and opinions here. 

What if a speaker misspeaks?  Such as this conference when President Monson said Chinese Cat, when he meant Cheshire Cat.  Should that unintentional error stand?

How about if the speaker, after the conference, realizes with the change of a couple of words he or she could make what was being said much clearer?  Shouldn't we make those changes?

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

What if a speaker misspeaks?  Such as this conference when President Monson said Chinese Cat, when he meant Cheshire Cat.  Should that unintentional error stand?

How about if the speaker, after the conference, realizes with the change of a couple of words he or she could make what was being said much clearer?  Shouldn't we make those changes?

Oh...common sense will always rule the day!

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

BTW:    I almost had to edit again...I put "Jugs, Jeanne"  Ouch!

[ERMD]

53 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

That reminds me, I did sort of wince when Elder Holland as the last speaker mentioned how he knew he was standing between a lot of the members and the ice cream they were looking forward to eating as soon as conference was done.

I think that was doubtless funny to the members in the General Conference Center, but wondered how it might play in other parts of the world.

Or to the diabetics.  I'm sure irreparable harm was done to them.  How, oh how will they ever cope?

[consiglieri]

6 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Or to the diabetics.  I'm sure irreparable harm was done to them.  How, oh how will they ever cope?

I was thinking more about parts of the world where it is a day-long struggle just to get a few scraps of food on the table for the family to eat.

[Storm Rider]

3 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Or to the diabetics.  I'm sure irreparable harm was done to them.  How, oh how will they ever cope?

They were deeply, deeply wounded - their feelings were crushed by such a blatant disregard of their medical challenges, heartaches, and trials.  Of course, those who don't eat ice cream after were just destroyed because an apostle of Jesus Christ did not care about their feelings or participation in this activity.  Then all those who have never heard of ice cream were mortified that they were cast off like cheap chattel and their hearts were obliterated and mashed to a pulp, beyond recognition for being absolutely dismissed from the group.  All in all it was a heartless, mean-spirited talk and General Conference.  I really just don't know how I can go on.