Elder Oaks on opposition

[Buckeye]

7 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

How do you come to call yourself a Latter-Day Saint with such a myopic, short-sided view of existence? As if the mortal realm is the only existence there is?

Even New Ager Richard Bach had a broader perspective on suffering than you. From his book Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah:

The mark of your ignorance is the depth of your belief in injustice and tragedy. What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the master calls a butterfly.

You're going to die a horrible death, remember. It's all good training, and you'll enjoy it more if you keep the facts in mind.

Take your dying with some seriousness, however. Laughing on the way to your execution is not generally understood by less advanced lifeforms, and they'll call you crazy.

Consig can answer for himself about his identity, but I, for one, am very glad to call him a Latter-Day Saint. And I think better men than me would agree:

 

Quote

 

Let us reach out with love and kindness to those who would revile against us—and there are some, as Elder Ashton has indicated. I think frequently of the words of Edwin Markham as he put them in that little verse:

He drew a circle that shut me out—

Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.

But Love and I had the wit to win:

We drew a circle that took him in!

 

-Gordon B. Hinckley (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1982/10/reach-out-in-love-and-kindness?lang=eng)

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

I might question something the Brethren, on the general or local level, have said or done.   I might disagree with it on some level.  But then, I might wonder whether the questioning and disagreement arise from a difference in perspective and/or in priorities.  (Admittedly, my experience with general leaders nearly is non-existent, while my experience with their local counterparts is much more extensive.)  Long experience in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has convinced me, however, that such decisions and statements are not made in haste, ill-advisedly, without due deliberation, or stemming from improper motives.  That experience has convinced me that they have my best interests, as well as those of the Church of Jesus Christ as a whole, at heart.  So when I'm tempted to question a decision or statement, the first question I ask myself is, "Ken, are you seeing this as it is, or are you seeing it as you are?"  Of all of the people whose motives for what they say and do I could question ... actors, politicians, athletes, those who are "famous for being famous," even some family members and friends ... leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ, of which I believe God ultimately is at the helm, seem pretty far down the list.  As others have pointed out, though, stoking grievances (real or imagined) is much more fashionable.  I simply don't know what I'm missing.

Your mileage might vary.

[Kenngo1969]

Buckeye,

I have no problem agreeing with your general proposition that we should strive to make peace and to get along as well as possible with others, whatever our differing perspectives and the disagreements that might spring therefrom.  Fortunately, I have no mantle that forces me to make these judgments on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but there do seem to be some fundamental, bedrock principles upon which members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must agree to remain members in good standing of the organization.  By analogy, while my political views are somewhat eclectic, and while I've never voted a straight-party ticket in my life, there are reasons good and sound why I would feel less at home in certain organizations and in certain gatherings than in others.  (To put it less obliquely, I'm not a card-carrying Democrat for a reason. )

[consiglieri]

9 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

How do you come to call yourself a Latter-Day Saint with such a myopic, short-sided view of existence?

How do I call myself a Latter-day Saint when I do not attribute to God's intervention four Mormon missionaries escaping with their lives from a blast that killed many others?

That is the question.

 

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

How do I call myself a Latter-day Saint when I do not attribute to God's intervention four Mormon missionaries escaping with their lives from a blast that killed many others?

That is the question.

 

Not to mention, many other LDS missionaries have died in various accidents over the last few years. Imagine how their parents felt hearing that God intervened for those four but not for their children. 

[Kenngo1969]

20 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I have a problem believing in a God who "blunts" terrorist attacks but does not prevent them.

Or a God who is so busy protecting LDS missionaries during the blast that he overlooks the safety of non-Mormons at the airport.

I get your cynicism.  If the Rules of Evidence, as it were, had led me to admit, to exclude, and to weigh evidence as you have, I might well reach the same conclusions you have.  But we're all our own triers of fact with respect to matters of faith.  Each of us must make his own decisions about what to admit, what to exclude, and how to weigh the evidence we do admit.

One of the people injured in that attack is a rather close friend of mine.  We were close enough for me to spend more than a few minutes on more than a few occasions in his office as a teenager unburdening my then-teenage-angst-ridden soul.  If I saw him tomorrow, we likely would pick up right where we left off last.  I doubt he would agree with your conclusion that God somehow "overlooks the safety of non-Mormons" ... at the Brussels airport or anywhere else.  I have an Op-Ed coming out in today's edition of the local semiweekly in our former city of residence positing a few conclusions believers (and others) might draw from incidents such as this.  (Hint: "God loves Mormons best" isn't one of them. )

I don't presume to know the inscrutable mind and will of the Lord of the Universe.  I have my own reasons, trivial though they might be in comparison to the matters we're discussing here, why I might be tempted to shake my widdo fists and stomp my widdo feet at how unfair the Lord of the Universe is being.  But whatever else God is or is not, He's also a Sovereign.  Because He's a sovereign, He chooses to intervene (or not) based on what will best suit His purposes (many of which are, perhaps, unfathomable to us).  I believe God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving.  Because I believe He possesses the second and the third of those attributes, I believe I still can trust Him, however bewildered I might be tempted to become at how he chooses to wield the first of those attributes (or not).

Something about falling sparrows, and who notices them, comes to mind.

Your mileage likely varies.  I wish  you well.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, Gray said:

Not to mention, many other LDS missionaries have died in various accidents over the last few years. Imagine how their parents felt hearing that God intervened for those four but not for their children. 

I would feel petty if I felt that way. If I suffer a loss and get mad because God prevents another's loss preventing their suffering that would make me a terrible person.

[cinepro]

On 4/5/2016 at 10:17 PM, flameburns623 said:

How do you come to call yourself a Latter-Day Saint with such a myopic, short-sided view of existence? As if the mortal realm is the only existence there is?

 

Don't get mad at Consig; it's the Church that gets to define who is and isn't a Latter-day Saint.  And apparently they're happy to call someone a Latter-day Saint if they have at some point in their lives gotten baptized, and the Church hasn't been notified of their death (and it hasn't been 110 years since the date of their birth). And they haven't resigned or been ex-communicated.

As far as I can tell, the scope of a person's view of existence doesn't really factor into the equation once they're baptized (and unless the Church wants to ex them.)

So that's how.

[busybee]

On 04/04/2016 at 5:41 PM, 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.

Out of rep points

[busybee]

On 04/04/2016 at 6:58 PM, Storm Rider said:

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.  

Nice 

[stemelbow]

22 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I might question something the Brethren, on the general or local level, have said or done.   I might disagree with it on some level.  But then, I might wonder whether the questioning and disagreement arise from a difference in perspective and/or in priorities.  (Admittedly, my experience with general leaders nearly is non-existent, while my experience with their local counterparts is much more extensive.)  Long experience in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has convinced me, however, that such decisions and statements are not made in haste, ill-advisedly, without due deliberation, or stemming from improper motives.  That experience has convinced me that they have my best interests, as well as those of the Church of Jesus Christ as a whole, at heart.  So when I'm tempted to question a decision or statement, the first question I ask myself is, "Ken, are you seeing this as it is, or are you seeing it as you are?"  Of all of the people whose motives for what they say and do I could question ... actors, politicians, athletes, those who are "famous for being famous," even some family members and friends ... leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ, of which I believe God ultimately is at the helm, seem pretty far down the list.  As others have pointed out, though, stoking grievances (real or imagined) is much more fashionable.  I simply don't know what I'm missing.

Your mileage might vary.

IT's naive to assume the loyal opposition don't go through the same steps when they find themselves disagreeing. 

[flameburns623]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

Don't get mad at Consig; it's the Church that gets to define who is and isn't a Latter-day Saint.  And apparently they're happy to call someone a Latter-day Saint if they have at some point in their lives gotten baptized, and the Church hasn't been notified of their death (and it hasn't been 110 years since the date of their birth). And they haven't resigned or been ex-communicated.

As far as I can tell, the scope of a person's view of existence doesn't really factor into the equation once they're baptized (and unless the Church wants to ex them.)

So that's how.

I'm not mad at the poor guy.

I am puzzled at him.

He has no apparent faith.

He radiates bitterness and acrimony towards Mormonism.

He has no particular esteem for the Church or it's representatives.

He has some power to walk away from it all unless and untill he is ready to come back. 

Yet here he is. I don't understand it.

He has my prayers and best wishes.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, flameburns623 said:

I'm not mad at the poor guy.

I am puzzled at him.

He has no apparent faith.

He radiates bitterness and acrimony towards Mormonism.

He has no particular esteem for the Church or it's representatives.

He has some power to walk away from it all unless and untill he is ready to come back. 

Yet here he is. I don't understand it.

He has my prayers and best wishes.

That's an awful lot of judgment.

If you don't understand I would recommend a lot of study. Perhaps you could start by reading Patrick Mason's- Planted.

[Gray]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I would feel petty if I felt that way. If I suffer a loss and get mad because God prevents another's loss preventing their suffering that would make me a terrible person.

I'm not sure you really get it, Nehor. 

[halconero]

1 hour ago, flameburns623 said:

I'm not mad at the poor guy.

I am puzzled at him.

He has no apparent faith.

He radiates bitterness and acrimony towards Mormonism.

He has no particular esteem for the Church or it's representatives.

He has some power to walk away from it all unless and untill he is ready to come back. 

Yet here he is. I don't understand it.

He has my prayers and best wishes.

To paraphrase Brigham Young, "Don't understand people as you understand them, understand them as they understand themselves."

There was a time where what could be termed a "traditional" testimony of the Gospel and the Church that preaches it was struggling, though it has since been invigorated with the deepest of feelings and increase in knowledge. Even so, during that time of struggle I still had a deep connection with the Mormon paradigm of thought, its rich and sometimes controversial history, and the values it instilled in me with regards to humanism and compassionate atonement. I suspect that there are many who, though their testimony of the Church and its leaders is pretty much nil, hold on to that connection for the personal value it has in them.

[flameburns623]

29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's an awful lot of judgment.

If you don't understand I would recommend a lot of study. Perhaps you could start by reading Patrick Mason's- Planted.

I have not judged the man one iota. Sorry if it seems I have.

I have commented on the tone and timbre of one of his posts. And the fact that he is posting here, or anywhere, given how he obviously feels.

I own Mason's book. It has no bearing on any of this.

One of my brothers walked away from church in the middle 1970's.

Just. Walked. Away.

No explanation. No apparent anger. No conversation about it whatever. Not even with his wife.

Another brother did the same thing about twelve years ago. After having been both a deacon and later an elder in a church where those positions take some years to earn.

When the head elder came to see him, my brother reportedly was all smiles and warmth and friendliness. And completely stonewalled any attempt to talk about anything to do with God or Church or religion.

His basic response was the same then as now: "If I want to talk about anything, I will. If I want to go th church, I know where it is". And neither of my brothers ever have. 

But they don't needle others for believing, or for going to church. They have simply unplugged themselves and moved on.

Consglieri's behavior is incongruent with his apparent feelings toward faith. I am puzzled by it.

[HappyJackWagon]

38 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

I have not judged the man one iota. Sorry if it seems I have.

Judgment must mean something very different to you than it does to me.

These are judgment statements- You may even be right. I don't know. But labeling someone else has having no faith, being bitter etc is judgment.

"He has no apparent faith.

He radiates bitterness and acrimony towards Mormonism.

He has no particular esteem for the Church or it's representatives."

I have commented on the tone and timbre of one of his posts. And the fact that he is posting here, or anywhere, given how he obviously feels.

I own Mason's book. It has no bearing on any of this.

Great. Have you read it? If you have, you may want to read again as it is a bridge between the orthodox believer and the doubter which hopefully adds context and understanding so the two can relate and communicate better.

Consglieri's behavior is incongruent with his apparent feelings toward faith. I am puzzled by it.

It's fine to be puzzled but you are passing judgment.

 

[Bobbieaware]

On April 4, 2016 at 10:28 AM, 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.

It appears you believe the average parents of LDS missionaries are ignoramuses when it comes to the scriptures. The scriptures make it clear that there are times when, in his infinite wisdom, the Lord will intervene to save life, and there are other times when he chooses not to do so. But it's also clear that when the Lord chooses not to intervene, as it was in the case of his Only Begotten Son, that doesn't mean the reason why he didn't intervene is because of unworthiness on the part of those who die or sustain injury. Why should the parents of a missionary who dies in the field feel hurt or harbor resentment toward the Lord -- or Elder Oaks -- when the scriptures are filled with many accounts like the following:

 8 And they (the wicked people of the city of Ammonihah) brought their wives and children together, and whosoever believed or had been taught to believe in the word of God they caused that they should be cast into the fire; and they also brought forth their records which contained the holy scriptures, and cast them into the fire also, that they might be burned and destroyed by fire.

 9 And it came to pass that they took Alma and Amulek, and carried them forth to the place of martyrdom, that they might witness the destruction of those who were consumed by fire.

 10 And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.

 11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day. (Alma 14)

Please note that not long after witnessing this horrible scene of martyrdom, for his own purposes the Lord miraculously delivered Alma and Amulek from certain death.  Even so, I'm sure that the martyrs who were burned and received up into glory were not angry with the Lord when he forbade Alma to use the power of God to save their earthly lives. If the parents of missionaries who die in the field are spiritually mature and well-acquainted with the scriptures, there is no reason to be offended by Elder Oaks' remarks. But since you've  already said you don't believe in miracles, and therefore most likely don't believe the Book of Mormon's many accounts of miraculous divine interventions, it can be understood that from your point of view the parents of missionaries who have died in the field do have a good reason to be offended by Elder Oaks' remark. We'll just agree to disagree. 

 

Edited April 6, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure you really get it, Nehor. 

No, I do. You are wanting God to do everything you want. He doesn't.

[Gray]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, I do. You are wanting God to do everything you want. He doesn't.

What it's like to be a parent cannot be understood academically or even empathetically. It is experiential knowledge. 

Edited April 6, 2016 by Gray

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

IT's naive to assume the loyal opposition don't go through the same steps when they find themselves disagreeing. 

OK.

I suppose any two members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can disagree about whether any given decision or statement was made in haste, ill-advisedly, without due deliberation, or stemming from improper motives, or about whether Church leaders have the best interests of individual members and of the Church of Jesus Christ as a whole at heart. Or, I suppose one member can say, “Yes, I know this decision or statement wasn't made in haste, ill-advisedly, without due deliberation, or without my best interests or those of the Church as a whole at heart, therefore . . .” while another member can say, “Yes, I know this decision was made with due consideration of all of those criteria, however . . .” It's not for me to question whether the latter decision is made in good faith, as much as I wonder how that could be possible; I suppose there's at least one universe in an infinite number of possible universes in which that could be so. To each, his own. I wish you well.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I have not judged the man one iota. Sorry if it seems I have.

Judgment must mean something very different to you than it does to me.

These are judgment statements- You may even be right. I don't know. But labeling someone else has having no faith, being bitter etc is judgment.

"He has no apparent faith.

He radiates bitterness and acrimony towards Mormonism.

He has no particular esteem for the Church or it's representatives."

I have commented on the tone and timbre of one of his posts. And the fact that he is posting here, or anywhere, given how he obviously feels.

I own Mason's book. It has no bearing on any of this.

Great. Have you read it? If you have, you may want to read again as it is a bridge between the orthodox believer and the doubter which hopefully adds context and understanding so the two can relate and communicate better.

Consglieri's behavior is incongruent with his apparent feelings toward faith. I am puzzled by it.

It's fine to be puzzled but you are passing judgment.

Here again, we have the ironic spectacle of someone passing judgment on someone for (allegedly) passing judgment.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

I'm not mad at the poor guy.

I am puzzled at him.

He has no apparent faith.

He radiates bitterness and acrimony towards Mormonism.

He has no particular esteem for the Church or it's representatives.

He has some power to walk away from it all unless and untill he is ready to come back. 

Yet here he is. I don't understand it.

He has my prayers and best wishes.

I think he perceives faults which he wants everyone else to know about. Men have faults, and therefore leaders have faults, and church leaders have faults, and the "church" has faults. Jesus said to do what the pharisees said since they were in Moses' seat, but not to do what they do because they were hypocrites who loved to promulgate rules, and apparently liked "tripping up" people on the rules, and liked ruling over the people. Their hearts were not following the rules for the right reasons. The gist of it is the law is really an internal thing between the Lord and His disciple - He does not want it to be used so that one people following the rules feels more righteous or important than others - that is not the purpose of the law. The Lord expects His leaders to be the most humble among His people, and not to lift themselves up in  pride - Hence the foot washing ceremony. I believe it is important to remember not to expect perfection from Church leaders. Those who only see faults are not doing a service to the Church. There will always be faults to see, because men will always have faults. Why not point out the many wonderful things about the church? Even non-members see many wonderful things about the Church. Why not share stories about the many miracles in the Church? The many beautiful testimony stories in this Church are a wonderful thing to share. I wonder how Consig will feel when he stands before the Lord and tries to explain why he considers himself a member of the His Church, but only chose to share faults. Being a critic is a fairly easy thing to do. Being a force for good and change doesn't usually bring any attention, and is not so easy because it involves doing(other than just moving one's mouth muscles). 

[Teancum]

On ‎4‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 8:55 PM, JLHPROF said:

Very true.

Additionally, God is more concerned about our eternal well-being (his work being to bring to pass our immortality and eternal life).
Growing faith, responding to prayers of faith, and allowing us to use our faith through trials and sacrifice and suffering.

But mortal death is an unavoidable part of life that we all go through and God will decide when it is time for his children to return home and the method.  That is not cruel.

 

Well some of the ways people exit this life are extremely cruel.  So many of the conditions many live in are extremely cruel. 

But I have some to the conclusion that people who rely on some faith system that puts it all in God's hands and people who perhaps believe the problem of suffering and evil speak loudly to the unlikely existence of a God being will never be able to communicate and agree.  So I try less and less. 

I want to believe in a benevolent, loving, kind, just, merciful and holy God.  But the problem of evil and suffering and examining it rationally without just going on faith for me at least speaks loudly against the existence of such a being.

Still I pray in hopes that such a being hears my prayers and leads me in the path I should be in.

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

I'm not mad at the poor guy.

I am puzzled at him.

He has no apparent faith.

He radiates bitterness and acrimony towards Mormonism.

He has no particular esteem for the Church or it's representatives.

He has some power to walk away from it all unless and untill he is ready to come back. 

Yet here he is. I don't understand it.

He has my prayers and best wishes.

When I read Ehrman's opening chapter in the book God's Problem he noted that the questions about pain, suffering and evil and whether there is a God there in charge of it all, and whether the Bible (or other claimed revealed scripture) answer these issues adequately.  For him it no longer did and thus his faith in Evangelical Christianity was lost.  His wife on the other hand is quite fine with her simple faith and the questions that he struggles with she does not.

This resonated with me.  I relate to Ehrman's journey.  My wife is like his.  She just does not ask or seem troubled by these hard questions.  Other of my LDS friends that I talk to are similar.  Others struggle with them but default to the faith of their religion. Others, though few lean more to where I am at and where Bart Ehrman is at.

That does not make us better or worse than those who default to faith and being satisfied that there won't be answers till later.  Nor does it make the person who can default to faith better or worse. 

It just is.  We are all different.