Scrutinizing general conference

[JLHPROF]

46 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wasn't referring to "individual exceptions".

Oaks had no problem using a conference address to go after the group of members who believe in gay marriage.  How big is that group?

According to some surveys, as high as 25%.
 

[kiwi57]

59 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wasn't referring to "individual exceptions".

Oaks

Who?

Oh, you must mean Elder Oaks.

Got it.

59 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wasn't referring to "individual exceptions".

Oaks had no problem using a conference address to go after the group of members who believe in gay marriage.  How big is that group?

How big? I don't know.

It might be easier to work out how much notice they expect everyone to take of them.

 

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I wasn't referring to "individual exceptions".

 

I think that publicity and media coverage (especially given the proliferation of sources outside traditional media outlets such as newspaper, radio, and television, such as blogs, twitter, and other social media) tends to distort the nature and extent of challenges experienced by those who deal with same-sex attraction.  I'm not downplaying the size or the nature of the challenges experienced by those who deal with same-sex attraction, but I do think that it's also important to not overstate the problem.  Yes, everyone should be as sympathetic as he can be to anyone who deals with same-sex attraction, but the same is true of everyone who deals with any problem or challenge: Join the world!  (See 2 Nephi 2:11, along with the rest of the chapter.)  

But those who deal with same-sex attraction are still a relatively small (indeed, I'm tempted to use the word miniscule) minority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as well as in the population as a whole.  By no means am I insensitive to their plight, but when it comes to having their individual needs met by general preaching, they can do the same thing that anyone else seeking inspiration as to how to deal with any challenge can do: They can invite the Holy Spirit into their lives to bless them with inspiration which will tailor how to apply general preaching to their own, unique, individual circumstances.  

And in any event, whether one of the brethren gives an address titled To The Gays and Lesbians of the Church in General Conference any time soon or not, there are still plenty of resources approved by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to which those in that situation can turn if they are seeking resources for how to deal with their challenges while still remaining faithful to their covenants and to the teachings of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  See, e.g., https://mormonandgay.lds.org/.  But, of course, with you and with those of your ilk, that's not the real issue, is it?  The only way the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can address the issue to your satisfaction would be if it were to abandon the law of chastity and its teaching that only marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.   

Quote

Oaks had no problem using a conference address to go after the group of members who believe in gay marriage.  How big is that group?

You have an interesting take on Elder Oaks's address.  Traditional marriage is only one of several issues addressed in The Family: A Proclamation to the World.  If Elder Oaks had wanted to convey the message that the main reason the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve issued the Proclamation was so that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints then would have standing to intervene in court regarding the gay marriage issue, that would have taken a mere sentence or two, or perhaps a paragraph, at most.  He certainly wouldn't need to devote a whole General Conference address to it.

Personally, I found Elder Oaks's more detailed description of how The Proclamation came about enlightening. I find it illuminating and reassuring to know that, apart from the number of people involved, in many ways, the processes for seeking revelation, for obtaining truth, for discerning the Lord's will, and so on (including the formulas given in such Scriptures as Doctrine & Covenants 6:22-23, Doctrine & Covenants 8:2-3, Doctrine & Covenants 9:7-9) work on a collective, Church-wide, institutional level in much the same way that they (are supposed to) work on an individual level. Your mileage obviously varies.  To each, his own, I suppose (though I do think you owe Elder Oaks's remarks a more charitable reading, whether you give them that reading is entirely up to you).

Quote

But I don't not [sic] see evidence that they have a profound understanding of all these issues.

Alas, if only that were something more than a grammatical/typographical error!  

 

And Elder Oaks is only one member of the Quorum, even given, arguendo, that there is good reason to question his understanding of the issues of having same-sex attraction, of gay marriage, and of related issues, do you really think the same is true of Elder D. Todd Christofferson, whose brother, Tom, describes himself as a "happy [faithful] gay Mormon"?  (See https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865688689/Gay-brother-of-Mormon-apostle-shares-his-spiritual-journey.html and https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46175330&nid=1016, both links last accessed October 16, 2017).  If so, then, in my mind, that simply further illustrates the real problem, which is that many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints want the Church to jettison its commitment to traditional marriage and to the law of chastity.

 

Edited October 17, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[kiwi57]

On 10/16/2017 at 10:22 AM, rockpond said:

Considering that this is a global church, those 15 men are relatively similar in their background.  If we extend Nelson's logic, would we have access to even greater revelation if there was more diversity in the quorum?  If not, why not?

Because the ultimate source of revelation is not the people in the room.

Did you really not know that?

 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Well, to hear progressives tell it, it is almost every single youth and millennial in the Church. And submission to the tidal wave of social change and opinion is inevitable.

Even allowing that this is overblown, do you believe he is addressing what any of us would call a significant number of members? 

I would. 

To hear “conservatives” tell it you’d think that there are very few who believe that the church should change its position on gay marriage.  Just trying to keep up with the consensus here on the board. 

Either way, I think the number of members who are searching for the place of LGBT persons in the Plan and the Proclamation is significant enough to warrant a conference address.  Do you disagree?

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I think that publicity and media coverage (especially given the proliferation of sources outside traditional media outlets such as newspaper, radio, and television, such as blogs, twitter, and other social media) tends to distort the nature and extent of challenges experienced by those who deal with same-sex attraction.  I'm not downplaying the size or the nature of the challenges experienced by those who deal with same-sex attraction, but I do think that it's also important to not overstate the problem.  Yes, everyone should be as sympathetic as he can be to anyone who deals with same-sex attraction, but the same is true of everyone who deals with any problem or challenge: Join the world!  (See 2 Nephi 2:11, along with the rest of the chapter.)  

But those who deal with same-sex attraction are still a relatively small (indeed, I'm tempted to use the word miniscule) minority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as well as in the population as a whole.  By no means am I insensitive to their plight, but when it comes to having their individual needs met by general preaching, they can do the same thing that anyone else seeking inspiration as to how to deal with any challenge can do: They can invite the Holy Spirit into their lives to bless them with inspiration which will tailor how to apply general preaching to their own, unique, individual circumstances.  

And in any event, whether one of the brethren gives an address titled To The Gays and Lesbians of the Church in General Conference any time soon or not, there are still plenty of resources approved by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to which those in that situation can turn if they are seeking resources for how to deal with their challenges while still remaining faithful to their covenants and to the teachings of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  See, e.g., https://mormonandgay.lds.org/.  But, of course, with you and with those of your ilk, that's not the real issue, is it?  The only way the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can address the issue to your satisfaction would be if it were to abandon the law of chastity and its teaching that only marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.   

You have an interesting take on Elder Oaks's address.  Traditional marriage is only one of several issues addressed in The Family: A Proclamation to the World.  If Elder Oaks had wanted to convey the message that the main reason the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve issued the Proclamation was so that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints then would have standing to intervene in court regarding the gay marriage issue, that would have taken a mere sentence or two, or perhaps a paragraph, at most.  He certainly wouldn't need to devote a whole General Conference address to it.

Personally, I found Elder Oaks's more detailed description of how The Proclamation came about enlightening. I find it illuminating and reassuring to know that, apart from the number of people involved, in many ways, the processes for seeking revelation, for obtaining truth, for discerning the Lord's will, and so on (including the formulas given in such Scriptures as Doctrine & Covenants 6:22-23, Doctrine & Covenants 8:2-3, Doctrine & Covenants 9:7-9) work on a collective, Church-wide, institutional level in much the same way that they (are supposed to) work on an individual level. Your mileage obviously varies.  To each, his own, I suppose (though I do think you owe Elder Oaks's remarks a more charitable reading, whether you give them that reading is entirely up to you).

Alas, if only that were something more than a grammatical/typographical error!  

 

And Elder Oaks is only one member of the Quorum, even given, arguendo, that there is good reason to question his understanding of the issues of having same-sex attraction, of gay marriage, and of related issues, do you really think the same is true of Elder D. Todd Christofferson, whose brother, Tom, describes himself as a "happy [faithful] gay Mormon"?  (See https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865688689/Gay-brother-of-Mormon-apostle-shares-his-spiritual-journey.html and https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46175330&nid=1016, both links last accessed October 16, 2017).  If so, then, in my mind, that simply further illustrates the real problem, which is that many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints want the Church to jettison its commitment to traditional marriage and to the law of chastity.

 

As I said, I don't see evidence that the FP and Q12 have a profound understanding of these issues.  I stand by that despite Tom Christofferson's book and the mormonandgay.lds.org website.  The most recent example is Oaks' conference address that I and many other members felt was very hurtful.  I'm sure you might be thinking:  "the wicked take the truth to be hard" (1 Ne 16) and that's your prerogative but since I know I'm not "wicked", I take Oaks' otherwise well-meaning talk to be reflective of a lack of understanding regarding the feelings of a certain group of faithful members.  That same misunderstanding is often reflected on these threads so I know it's not uncommon.  (By the way, what did you mean when you said "those of your ilk"?)

You seem satisfied with what they have taught regarding the issues of homosexuality and faith crises so that's great. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Because the ultimate source of revelation is not the people in the room.

Did you really not know that?

 

I believe I've been arguing for many pages on this thread that revelation ought to come from somewhere outside those people in the room.  If you've followed my posts, you know that.

The argument I was countering is that unanimity = revelation.  It sounds like you don't believe that either since you just stated that the source needs to be outside of the room.

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As I said, I don't see evidence that the FP and Q12 have a profound understanding of these issues.  I stand by that despite Tom Christofferson's book and the mormonandgay.lds.org website.  The most recent example is Oaks' conference address that I and many other members felt was very hurtful.  I'm sure you might be thinking:  "the wicked take the truth to be hard" (1 Ne 16) and that's your prerogative but since I know I'm not "wicked", I take Oaks' otherwise well-meaning talk to be reflective of a lack of understanding regarding the feelings of a certain group of faithful members.  That same misunderstanding is often reflected on these threads so I know it's not uncommon.  (By the way, what did you mean when you said "those of your ilk"?)

You seem satisfied with what they have taught regarding the issues of homosexuality and faith crises so that's great. 

What did you find hurtful?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

What did you find hurtful?

It's too tender of an issue for me to open up about it on here with so many who are ready to pick it apart.  Nobody needs to believe me.  

[rongo]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Either way, I think the number of members who are searching for the place of LGBT persons in the Plan and the Proclamation is significant enough to warrant a conference address.  Do you disagree?

I absolutely agree. I would love to hear a conference talk directly addressing this, as opposed to the usual "doctrine/principle" approach. And, I would like Elder Oaks to give it . . .  

To hear “conservatives” tell it you’d think that there are very few who believe that the church should change its position on gay marriage.  Just trying to keep up with the consensus here on the board.

1) What do you think the conservative/liberal split is among the 3-4 million active North American members? 50/50? 75/25? 95/5? 

2) How many of the active conservative members do you think "believe that the Church should change its position on gay marriage?" I'll grant you that most of the liberal active members do, and almost all of the inactive liberal ones.  

This is at the heart of where the "Scott Lloyd vs. liberal Mormon" countdown clocks meets the road. Yes, there are liberal Mormons who are embarrassed by the conservative culture in the Church. Despite their insistence that social momentum will inevitably significantly change things in the Church, the fact is that the current bishops and stake presidents are the pool from which the new Seventies and Apostles will be drawn from. And, it is overwhelmingly conservative, traditional men who are on the short lists to replace these bishops and stake presidents. Bill Reel-types are very rarely called into leadership positions, and they frequently don't serve for a full 5-10 years in the rare cases where they get a shot to "be the change" (and the pendulum swings back in response to their tenure). 

Our system is insulated against "social justice" change from within. It's what the full-tithe paying and attending and actively serving members think and believe that matters, not what Jana Reiss or Gina Colvin or Bill Reel think. Their influence among the 98%+ who pay tithing and attend church is non-existent.

 

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The most recent example is Oaks' conference address that I and many other members felt was very hurtful.  

I know you just said you wouldn't be commenting on this, and that's okay. But my initial thought was what I just heard from two seventies, one of whom is very senior and prominent. We were told that the four-year priesthood leadership conferences were synced so that the same message and counsel is being taught worldwide, to make sure we're on the same page. We were just told a month ago (and this part is near verbatim --- I was very struck by it and wrote it down as nearly verbatim as I could at the time):

"Marriage is under attack. Let me be very, very clear. The Church is not in any way anti-gay. The Church is very clearly pro-traditional marriage. This will never change. We are losing and maybe have already lost the concept of the word family in society, as it is being diluted down to fit other definitions. In everything, teach the ideal of the traditional family. Some can’t or won’t have a traditional family --- we understand that --- but we shouldn’t water down doctrine so that people in non-traditional family situations don’t feel bad."

I understand that some find this to be hurtful, though I don't understand why. I think the Brethren are all united on this, and are committed to ensuring that they remain so, in favor of the conservative "default setting." 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I absolutely agree. I would love to hear a conference talk directly addressing this, as opposed to the usual "doctrine/principle" approach. And, I would like Elder Oaks to give it . . .  

 

 

1) What do you think the conservative/liberal split is among the 3-4 million active North American members? 50/50? 75/25? 95/5? 

2) How many of the active conservative members do you think "believe that the Church should change its position on gay marriage?" I'll grant you that most of the liberal active members do, and almost all of the inactive liberal ones.  

This is at the heart of where the "Scott Lloyd vs. liberal Mormon" countdown clocks meets the road. Yes, there are liberal Mormons who are embarrassed by the conservative culture in the Church. Despite their insistence that social momentum will inevitably significantly change things in the Church, the fact is that the current bishops and stake presidents are the pool from which the new Seventies and Apostles will be drawn from. And, it is overwhelmingly conservative, traditional men who are on the short lists to replace these bishops and stake presidents. Bill Reel-types are very rarely called into leadership positions, and they frequently don't serve for a full 5-10 years in the rare cases where they get a shot to "be the change" (and the pendulum swings back in response to their tenure). 

Our system is insulated against "social justice" change from within. It's what the full-tithe paying and attending and actively serving members think and believe that matters, not what Jana Reiss or Gina Colvin or Bill Reel think. Their influence among the 98%+ who pay tithing and attend church is non-existent.

 

I disagree with the premise of the questions as I think it's a gross oversimplification to try to lump members into conservative and liberal/progressive labels.  That's why I used quotes when I responded to you with that term.  I think it is used to imply, like Oaks did, that members who believe we are wrong on the doctrine of homosexuality in God's plan, are somehow just being swayed by society or culture or politics.  And that's not an accurate assessment of everyone (it could be for some but I don't think it is even true for a majority of that population of individuals).

I do certainly agree that our system is insulated from activists and "social justice".  Nowhere was that more clear than in how long it took us to drop a racist policy so long after the civil rights movement.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

I know you just said you wouldn't be commenting on this, and that's okay. But my initial thought was what I just heard from two seventies, one of whom is very senior and prominent. We were told that the four-year priesthood leadership conferences were synced so that the same message and counsel is being taught worldwide, to make sure we're on the same page. We were just told a month ago (and this part is near verbatim --- I was very struck by it and wrote it down as nearly verbatim as I could at the time):

"Marriage is under attack. Let me be very, very clear. The Church is not in any way anti-gay. The Church is very clearly pro-traditional marriage. This will never change. We are losing and maybe have already lost the concept of the word family in society, as it is being diluted down to fit other definitions. In everything, teach the ideal of the traditional family. Some can’t or won’t have a traditional family --- we understand that --- but we shouldn’t water down doctrine so that people in non-traditional family situations don’t feel bad."

I understand that some find this to be hurtful, though I don't understand why. I think the Brethren are all united on this, and are committed to ensuring that they remain so, in favor of the conservative "default setting." 

1.  I keep hearing that marriage is under attack.  Who is attacking it?  In what way is it under attack?  Did they address that in the conference?

2. The Church can keep saying it is anti-gay but words and actions speak the loudest.  And the church is a mixed bag.  I do acknowledge the good LGBT ministry that our church has done - it is there and I don't want to discount it.  But, we seem to alternate between kind outreach and policies/teachings that certainly feel "anti-gay" to our LGBT brothers/sisters and many of their loved ones.

p.s.  I don't consider Oaks' address to be simply "pro-traditional marriage".  He squarely came after gay marriage and those who support it.  That puts his talk in the "anti-gay" column regardless of how he'd like to couch it.

[Rain]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

It's too tender of an issue for me to open up about it on here with so many who are ready to pick it apart.  Nobody needs to believe me.  

I would really like to understand so I would like it if you would pm me about it, but would understand if you didn't. 

Edited October 17, 2017 by Rain

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, rongo said:

It's what the full-tithe paying and attending and actively serving members think and believe that matters ...

Actually, it is decidedly not what I think and believe that matters. I don't pay a full tithe and attend church and actively serve in my callings so that somehow what I already think and believe becomes ascendant.

The absolute centre of the gospel of Jesus Christ is the atonement, and the foundation of the atonement is that what we think and believe and do and say and become and desire are often very, very wrong.

This is why, as I noted in this forum earlier this year, the common message of each anti-Christ in the Book of Mormon seems to have been that people are somehow perfect 'just the way they are'. If that were true, there would be zero need for an atonement or a Saviour (hence the label 'anti-Christ').

Consider the following:

Quote

Korihor: 'Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so. And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men ... and whatsoever a man did was no crime'.

Nehor: 'And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life'.

Sherem: 'I fear lest I have committed the unpardonable sin, for I have lied unto God; for I denied the Christ, and said that I believed the scriptures'. (Note the concern expressed earlier by the prophet Jacob in speaking with Sherem: 'I know if there should be no atonement made all mankind must be lost'. Also note what the chastened Sherem chose to address: 'And he spake of hell, and of eternity, and of eternal punishment'.)

So why do I belong to and earnestly engage with the Church of Jesus Christ? Specifically so that I can be corrected. So that my thoughts and beliefs and words and actions can be refined to match what God Himself thinks and does. So that -- through the mighty change of heart -- my desires are not left intact in any area where they are not in harmony with what the Almighty God of Heaven understands is best for His children in general and for me in particular.

I work in a political sphere and have done so now for 11 months. I'm just not interested in my spiritual life being part of some 'contest of ideas' in the way the world views that process. If I'm wrong -- and I often am -- then I want to be corrected. I also understand that if the Lord corrected everything I've got wrong in a single go, it would probably literally kill me, so I'm also grateful that He patiently works with us over the course of a lifetime to refine us enough to be able to take us home and continue the process there.

From my perspective -- and based upon my personal experience -- prophets play an essential role in this process. As I termed them earlier in this thread, they are chosen by God specifically to be 'pesky'. They annoy us when we feel comfortable. They are a threat to us when we feel smug. They scold us when we choose the easy path of succumbing to the natural man. They keep saying the same thing over and over again till we either get it or get sick of them. The scriptures, I think, make it abundantly clear what happens to people who don't let themselves be pestered by the prophets. I love that we have them. I revel in the correction. It is my personal witness that when I hearken to the living oracles of God, everything works.

And as a consequence, I know precisely where I fit into the plan.

Am I there yet? Nope, not even close. But the Lord has assured me personally that He wasn't kidding when He said He is mighty to save. I trust him and seek to be loyal to him (faith). I know what He has already done for me and therefore fully expect much more to come (hope).

Edited October 17, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

As I said, I don't see evidence that the FP and Q12 have a profound understanding of these issues.  

Okay.

Quote

I stand by that despite Tom Christofferson's book and the mormonandgay.lds.org website.

Okay.

Quote

The most recent example is Oaks' conference address that I and many other members felt was very hurtful.

Okay.  I don't see how anyone who makes even a minimal effort to read Elder Oaks's address charitably can reach the conclusions you and others apparently have reached regarding it, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree about the hurtfulness of Elder Oaks's remarks, about his intent, and so on.  

Quote

I'm sure you might be thinking:  "the wicked take the truth to be hard" (1 Ne 16)

 ...

I think it's fairly clear that we have a profound disagreement on the approach of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to this issue, but I'm also broad-minded enough to realize that one's perspective is heavily influenced by what evidence he chooses to admit, what evidence he chooses to exclude, how much weight he chooses to give to any particular piece of evidence he chooses to admit, and so on.  Respectively, we have chosen to admit, to exclude, and to weigh the evidence on this particular issue differently.  That said, any disagreement I have with you is not personal.

Quote

... and that's your prerogative but since I know I'm not "wicked"

I don't think that, so unless you're only interested in setting up your own straw men, which you then can pulverize to your heart's content ...

 

Quote

I take Oaks' otherwise well-meaning talk to be reflective of a lack of understanding regarding the feelings of a certain group of faithful members.

Hmmm.  In what way do you think Elder Oaks's talk was well-meaning?  With due respect, nothing you've written convinces me that you're willing to give him the benefit of any doubt.  (I'm not saying you're totally unwilling to do that, I'm simply saying that I haven't seen any evidence of such willingness thus far on this thread.)

Quote

That same misunderstanding is often reflected on these threads so I know it's not uncommon.

What "misunderstanding" is that?  The refusal of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders to capitulate on the law of chastity and/or on its teaching that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God? 

Quote

(By the way, what did you mean when you said "those of your ilk"?) 

Those who believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must, and one day will, capitulate on its teachings that sex outside of marriage is wrong and that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.

Quote

You seem satisfied with what they have taught regarding the issues of homosexuality and faith crises so that's great. 

Actually, I think you might be surprised that even the uber-orthodox, anti-heterodox moi doesn't necessarily march completely in lockstep with the Brethren on all issues surrounding what it means to be gay or lesbian.  For instance, at least one of the Brethren has taught that same-sex inclinations will be overcome in the resurrection.  I don't think that's necessarily a tortured reading of The Family: A Proclamation to the World, but, on the other hand, the response of some on this board has been, "Nope, sorry.  I won't want to be straight in the next life, either."  And my response to that has always been, "OK, whatever happens to us in the next life, I don't think the Omniscient, Omnipotent, All-Loving Lord of the Universe is going to have to tell any of us, if we're faithful, 'Look, I know you were expecting something more, or something better, or at least something ... different, and I know this means that it sucks to be you, but ... sorry.   This is the best I could do.'"  And I'm not as sanguine as Elder Oaks apparently is that the Obergefell v. Hodges majority's "magnanimous" grant that the devout may continue to "believe" and to "teach" as they wish about gay marriage won't result, eventually, in an even more significant further narrowing of the Free Exercise clause.

So, there you have it.  Congratulations, Rockpond!  In all of the years I've spent on this Board and on its predecessors, as many times as many others might have attempted this feat, actually, you are the person who has finally unmasked me for what I really am!  I'm a Rank, Raving Apostate!  

Edited October 17, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

I would really like to understand so I would lI've it if you would pm me about it, but would understand if you didn't. 

Okay.... I'll try.

It was hurtful because Oaks questioned my conversion because the whisperings of the Spirit and personal revelation have led me to believe differently than him.  He is attempting to create a litmus test for faithful membership.  His address attacks the marriages of people I care about.  And he attempts to elevate the Proclamation to the status of the Lord's revealed will while failing to offer anything to my LGBT brothers and sisters in the gospel.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.  I don't see how anyone who makes even a minimal effort to read Elder Oaks's address charitably can reach the conclusions you and others apparently have reached regarding it, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree about the hurtfulness of Elder Oaks's remarks, about his intent, and so on.  

 ...

I think it's fairly clear that we have a profound disagreement on the approach of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to this issue, but I'm also broad-minded enough to realize that one's perspective is heavily influenced by what evidence he chooses to admit, what evidence he chooses to exclude, how much weight he chooses to give to any particular piece of evidence he chooses to admit, and so on.  Respectively, we have chosen to admit, to exclude, and to weigh the evidence on this particular issue differently.  That said, any disagreement I have with you is not personal.

I don't think that, so unless you're only interested in setting up your own straw men, which you then can pulverize to your heart's content ...

 

Hmmm.  In what way do you think Elder Oaks's talk was well-meaning?  With due respect, nothing you've written convinces me that you're willing to give him the benefit of any doubt.  (I'm not saying you're totally unwilling to do that, I'm simply saying that I haven't seen any evidence of such willingness thus far on this thread.)

What "misunderstanding" is that?  The refusal of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders to capitulate on the law of chastity and/or on its teaching that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God? 

Those who believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must, and one day will, capitulate on its teachings that sex outside of marriage is wrong and that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.

Actually, I think you might be surprised that even the uber-orthodox, anti-heterodox moi doesn't necessarily march completely in lockstep with the Brethren on all issues surrounding what it means to be gay or lesbian.  For instance, at least one of the Brethren has taught that same-sex inclinations will be overcome in the resurrection.  I don't think that's necessarily a tortured reading of The Family: A Proclamation to the World, but, on the other hand, the response of some on this board has been, "Nope, sorry.  I won't want to be straight in the next life, either."  And my response to that has always been, "OK, whatever happens to us in the next life, I don't think the Omniscient, Omnipotent, All-Loving Lord of the Universe is going to have to tell any of us, if we're faithful, 'Look, I know you were expecting something more, or something better, or at least something ... different, and I know this means that it sucks to be you, but ... sorry.   This is the best I could do.'"  And I'm not as sanguine as Elder Oaks apparently is that the Obergefell v. Hodges majority's "magnanimous" grant that the devout may continue to "believe" and to "teach" as they wish about gay marriage won't result, eventually, in an even more significant further narrowing of the Free Exercise clause.

So, there you have it.  I'm a Rank, Raving Apostate!  

Why was his address well-meaning?  Because I think he sincerely and faithfully believes in what he is teaching.  I don't doubt that he believes he is doing the will of the Lord who he serves with great dedication.

What is the misunderstanding?  That my position on homosexuality and gay marriage is a result of being persuaded by the ways of the world rather than my understanding of the plan of salvation that is based in decades of study, pondering, and prayer.

[Rain]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay.... I'll try.

It was hurtful because Oaks questioned my conversion because the whisperings of the Spirit and personal revelation have led me to believe differently than him.  He is attempting to create a litmus test for faithful membership.  His address attacks the marriages of people I care about.  And he attempts to elevate the Proclamation to the status of the Lord's revealed will while failing to offer anything to my LGBT brothers and sisters in the gospel.

Thank you. I meant specific things he said, but now I understand why you didnt want to share.  It gave me more insight than I would have had.

I am so afraid this is going to come out as trying to change you or tell you you are wrong, but really I am just trying to understand so I get if you don't want to participate with what I ask next I understand. 

Assuming the things he said were correct (and I get that you don't) would you have written it differently? How so if that is the case? 

To everyone else - out of respect please leave this alone. His feelings are not up for debate. Neither is the way he understands it. At this moment I want to "see" him. 

[Meerkat]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Okay.... I'll try.

It was hurtful because Oaks questioned my conversion because the whisperings of the Spirit and personal revelation have led me to believe differently than him.  He is attempting to create a litmus test for faithful membership.  His address attacks the marriages of people I care about.  And he attempts to elevate the Proclamation to the status of the Lord's revealed will while failing to offer anything to my LGBT brothers and sisters in the gospel.

I understand Rain's request to stay away from this.  I posted prior to reading that request, and know my full post has been sent directly to Rockpond. When we suggest that the Brethren fail to offer anything to our LGBT brothers and sisters in the gospel, I believe we are missing the very real promises that are available to everyone.  He offers what God offers to all of us-- a Celestial reward for the obedient, as hard as that life may be-- and it is a hard path for everyone.  I agree it would appear harder for some than for others.  This is what President Hinckley said, introducing the Family Proclamation:

“With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn.”⁹

I testify that the proclamation on the family is a statement of eternal truth, the will of the Lord for His children who seek eternal life. It has been the basis of Church teaching and practice for the last 22 years and will continue so for the future. Consider it as such, teach it, live by it, and you will be blessed as you press forward toward eternal life."  That was a quotation from Elder Oakes' talk.

That is the hope that I have.  That is the hope that is available for all of God's children who will do their best to keep the Commandments and not act on the sinful enticements that come to each of us.  That includes everyone, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation.  We live in a fallen world.  We can't ignore sin and try to call it something else.  If we do that, we become Korihors, Nehors and Sherems ourselves, and we do it at our own peril.  Yes, Rain, we do need to be sensitive to all good people who struggle with their faith and temptations.  We need to be loving and forgiving, if that is what we want for ourselves.  This is our time to work on overcoming our fallen natures.  With the help of Jesus Christ and His great Atoning sacrifice for us, we can.  No offense is intended for anyone.  I'm a sinner just like you, Rockpond, and your LGBT friends.  Our goal is to become Holy, as He is.

In our family support group, we recite the full version of Reinhold Neibuhr's "Serenity Prayer."  I love the entire prayer.  But the second stanza is particularly meaningful to me.  I see it as a formula for living and overcoming our sinful natures.  I see it as a pathway to hope and Eternal Life in the Celestial Kingdom:

Serenity Prayer

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.
Amen.

--Reinhold Niebuhr

Edited October 17, 2017 by Meerkat

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Actually, it is decidedly not what I think and believe that matters. I don't pay a full tithe and attend church and actively serve in my callings so that somehow what I already think and believe becomes ascendant.

The absolute centre of the gospel of Jesus Christ is the atonement, and the foundation of the atonement is that what we think and believe and do and say and become and desire are often very, very wrong.

This is why, as I noted in this forum earlier this year, the common message of each anti-Christ in the Book of Mormon seems to have been that people are somehow perfect 'just the way they are'. If that were true, there would be zero need for an atonement or a Saviour (hence the label 'anti-Christ).

Consider the following:

So why do I belong to and earnestly engage with the Church of Jesus Christ? Specifically so that I can be corrected. So that my thoughts and beliefs and words and actions can be refined to match what God Himself thinks and does. So that -- through the mighty change of heart -- my desires are not left intact in any area where they are not in harmony with what the Almighty God of Heaven understands is best for His children in general and for me in particular.

I work in a political sphere and have done so now for 11 months. I'm just not interested in my spiritual life being part of some 'contest of ideas' in the way the world views that process. If I'm wrong -- and I often am -- then I want to be corrected. I also understand that if the Lord corrected everything I've got wrong in a single go, it would probably literally kill me, so I'm also grateful that He patiently works with us over the course of a lifetime to refine us enough to be able to take us home and continue the process there.

From my perspective -- and based upon my personal experience -- prophets play an essential role in this process. As I termed them earlier in this thread, they are chosen by God specifically to be 'pesky'. They annoy us when we feel comfortable. They are a threat to us when we feel smug. They scold us when we choose the easy path of succumbing to the natural man. They keep saying the same thing over and over again till we either get it or get sick of them. The scriptures, I think, make it abundantly clear what happens to people who don't let themselves be pestered by the prophets. I love that we have them. I revel in the correction. It is my personal witness that when I hearken to the living oracles of God, everything works.

And as a consequence, I know precisely where I fit into the plan.

Am I there yet? Nope, not even close. But the Lord has assured me personally that He wasn't kidding when He said He is mighty to save. I trust him and seek to be loyal to him (faith). I know what He has already done for me and therefore fully expect much more to come (hope).

Thank you for your excellent post.  I loved the way you expressed your thoughts here.  They resonate with me.  I would buy your book!

[rongo]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

Assuming the things he said were correct (and I get that you don't) would you have written it differently?

Or, put another way: how could Elder Oaks have taught the Church's doctrine and the principles in the Proclamation without being hurtful --- while remaining true to the Church's doctrine?

Honest question. 

It seems to me that the only way to do that, in the eyes of those hurt by it, is to not have done it at all. I would genuinely be interested in ideas from those who find it hurtful --- how the Church can teach the Church's doctrine on homosexuality and gay marriage (including that this will not change), without teaching that the Church has been wrong and that this could/will change.

I don't think it can be done. I think this is a genuine impasse. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Or, put another way: how could Elder Oaks have taught the Church's doctrine and the principles in the Proclamation without being hurtful --- while remaining true to the Church's doctrine?

Honest question. 

It seems to me that the only way to do that, in the eyes of those hurt by it, is to not have done it at all. I would genuinely be interested in ideas from those who find it hurtful --- how the Church can teach the Church's doctrine on homosexuality and gay marriage (including that this will not change), without teaching that the Church has been wrong and that this could/will change.

I don't think it can be done. I think this is a genuine impasse. 

You're right that we cannot completely avoid hurt when talking about differences in experience, belief etc. The same is true when we talk about becoming moms or eternal families with divorce present etc, but as someone who once struggled to have children I know there are ways to talk that lessens that hurt and have compassion for those that hurt, while still saying what needs to be said.

I think there is something that can be learned from the rockponds of the world even if there are differences in belief. 

Edited October 17, 2017 by Rain

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

Why was his address well-meaning?  Because I think he sincerely and faithfully believes in what he is teaching.  I don't doubt that he believes he is doing the will of the Lord who he serves with great dedication.

Okay.  Personally, if I were in the position of having to decide how much offense to take or how much to allow myself to be hurt by someone I believe means well, I might tell myself that since the person means well, how much I'm hurt by anything he might say or do is entirely up to me, but perhaps that's just me.  To each, his or her own. I certainly bear you no ill will, if that needs to be said.

Quote

What is the misunderstanding?  That my position on homosexuality and gay marriage is a result of being persuaded by the ways of the world rather than my understanding of the plan of salvation that is based in decades of study, pondering, and prayer.

This is a tougher one, because it's the province of the prophets and apostles ... indeed, it is their solemn duty ... to declare the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I have absolutely no doubt that you're completely sincere in a personal interpretation which is at odds with that.  (Speaking solely for myself, I have been, wrong, albeit sincerely so, more times than I can count.)  I wish you well.

[rongo]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Actually, it is decidedly not what I think and believe that matters. I don't pay a full tithe and attend church and actively serve in my callings so that somehow what I already think and believe becomes ascendant.

No, neither do I or anyone else. That's not why we do what we do. I get what you're saying here, but what I was referring to was more of the meta- / big picture view. From a practical standpoint, all other things set aside, when an overwhelming super-majority of the attending and tithe-paying members are oriented in one direction, and a super-minority (many of whom are not fully active in the Church, and are publicly critical of certain aspects) want change to occur that is directly opposed to the orientation of the active supermajority ---- it isn't going to happen. Just from a practical standpoint.

As you point out, this is not why we serve. It's just the state of things. That was my point.

And it's compounded by the fact that the men who are in the short pool considered for bishop and stake president positions are almost exclusively lock, stock, and barrel in alignment with the dominant supermajority position. Gadfly, swim against the current, activist types who vocally want the Church to make major changes are typically self-selected out of this pool where, in significant enough numbers, groundswell grassroots change could happen.