Elder Oaks on Loyal Opposition

[Russell C McGregor]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Given everyone's different interpretations and a lot of "maybe he means" here, why did he just say what he means; especially in conference?  How can the church membership understand his guidance if it is not clear?

Actually I think it's fairly clear. I think he's merely acknowledging, in passing, the rather uncontroversial fact that there is no such thing as a "loyal opposition" in the Church.

The only ones who aren't clear about that are those who imagine that there is such a thing -- and they're part of it.

[juliann]

10 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I wrote up my analysis of what I think Elder Oaks meant here http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/elder-dallin-h-oaks-opposition-in-all-things/

Summary: I think he meant the term "loyal opposition" to mean something much more specific and narrow than people are taking.  I don't think he's talking about questioning or disagreeing.  I think he's talking about an organized effort to oppose the church.

I've gotten some harsh feedback by some critics that think I'm twisting Oaks' words, and that he did mean it to include any disagreement.  What do you guys think?

I have noticed that when the Church does come out with really good stuff, the critics become almost petty. I think that was most evident with them having to reach for anything to criticize using the talk about the keys. It was actually a good analogy to explain a rather vague concept so what do they do?  Rather than comparing car keys to priesthood keys it was made into a talk about praying to find lost keys. Yet there was not one mention of praying to find keys in the talk. 

I don't think it is much different in the above instance. I don't see loyal opposition as a self-description near as much as I used to. I never saw it used by those who supported what the Church was doing, it was always used in the context of publicly criticizing the Church. Does anyone consider someone who goes on FB to broadcast unkind and unflattering things about you a loyal friend? Of course not. I always considered the term silly and transparent. Oaks is merely calling them out on mislabeling anti-Church activity.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I don't know if I'm one of the petty critics, but my criticism was based on the moment when Stevenson claimed that "later that evening I did miraculously find the keys that had fallen out of my pocket on the mountain. The Lord has shown us that He will not leave us standing in the bitter cold without keys or authority to lead us safely home to Him." 

This talk came directly after Hallstrom's, who claimed that God "allows some earthly suffering because He knows it will bless us, like a refiner’s fire, to become like Him and to gain our eternal inheritance," and contextualized his visit to Liberia by saying that "the dreaded Ebola disease killed nearly 5,000 people there during the latest outbreak. We were the first group of Church leaders from outside the area to visit Monrovia, the capital city, since the World Health Organization declared it safe to do so after the Ebola crisis." 

So the representatives of God, who claim to have a healing power in the Priesthood (which implicitly acknowledges that suffering is negative, and being healed is a positive), wait around until a secular organization says it's safe for them to travel, and meanwhile God is busy miraculously finding lost keys while thousands of innocents suffer in obscene ways. 

[Russell C McGregor]

1 minute ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

I don't know if I'm one of the petty critics, but my criticism was based on the moment when Stevenson claimed that "later that evening I did miraculously find the keys that had fallen out of my pocket on the mountain. The Lord has shown us that He will not leave us standing in the bitter cold without keys or authority to lead us safely home to Him." 

This talk came directly after Hallstrom's, who claimed that God "allows some earthly suffering because He knows it will bless us, like a refiner’s fire, to become like Him and to gain our eternal inheritance," and contextualized his visit to Liberia by saying that "the dreaded Ebola disease killed nearly 5,000 people there during the latest outbreak. We were the first group of Church leaders from outside the area to visit Monrovia, the capital city, since the World Health Organization declared it safe to do so after the Ebola crisis." 

So the representatives of God, who claim to have a healing power in the Priesthood (which implicitly acknowledges that suffering is negative, and being healed is a positive), wait around until a secular organization says it's safe for them to travel, and meanwhile God is busy miraculously finding lost keys while thousands of innocents suffer in obscene ways. 

So you rail about Elder Stevenson's talk, which he wrote when he didn't know who he would follow or what their topic would be?

And then you criticise the leaders of the Church for obeying international travel directives?

And you wonder if your criticisms are petty?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

So you rail about Elder Stevenson's talk, which he wrote when he didn't know who he would follow or what their topic would be?

And then you criticise the leaders of the Church for obeying international travel directives?

And you wonder if your criticisms are petty?

 

I should note here that Elder Stevenson's talk was prepared for delivery at last October's general conference but was pre-empted when Elder Stevenson, along with two other men, was called as one of the newest members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. His conference sermon topic was thus changed at the last minute to be appropriate to the occasion of his new calling.

The talk about the keys was thus put on the shelf until it could be delivered at the next general conference -- this general conference.

I know this because, like other news media representatives covering the conference, I was given an advance copy last October of the talk Elder Stevenson was to have delivered then but ended up being saved for delivery at this conference.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, juliann said:

I have noticed that when the Church does come out with really good stuff, the critics become almost petty. I think that was most evident with them having to reach for anything to criticize using the talk about the keys. It was actually a good analogy to explain a rather vague concept so what do they do?  Rather than comparing car keys to priesthood keys it was made into a talk about praying to find lost keys. Yet there was not one mention of praying to find keys in the talk. 

 

The first time I read a criticism of the talk about the keys, the first thought that ran through my mind was, "You really, really don't get it, do you?"

[Buckeye]

On 4/12/2016 at 0:05 PM, churchistrue said:

I wrote up my analysis of what I think Elder Oaks meant here http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/elder-dallin-h-oaks-opposition-in-all-things/

Summary: I think he meant the term "loyal opposition" to mean something much more specific and narrow than people are taking.  I don't think he's talking about questioning or disagreeing.  I think he's talking about an organized effort to oppose the church.

I've gotten some harsh feedback by some critics that think I'm twisting Oaks' words, and that he did mean it to include any disagreement.  What do you guys think?

Here's how I responded to an earlier thread on the same conference address. So I think we're on the same page.

 

Quote

 

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. 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67350-elder-oaks-on-opposition/?page=2