Pres. Oaks talk - Be One event

[hope_for_things]

I would like to hear what others thought about President Oaks talk from the Be One event.  There are a few sections that concerned me personally, and I'm wondering how others read these sections, and if there may be a more charitable reading.   Here are the portions I wanted to discuss.  

Quote

I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them. As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray—as promised from the beginning of these restrictions—that the day would come when all would enjoy the blessings of priesthood and temple. Now that day had come, and I wept for joy.

The language he used here seems like a step back from the language in the Gospel topics essay on Race and the Priesthood.  His reasoning seems to be that the reasons given for the restriction were the problem, and not the restriction itself.  He takes a position that God commanded the restriction, but that we just don't know why it was commanded, and that he will be loyal to leaders by not criticizing the restriction.  I have a big problem with this reasoning.  He seems to be ignoring the elephant in the room that the restriction was formed in the context of racism and racist traditions in broader Christian society, which the essay clearly expounds on, but Oaks ignores.  He seems to be condoning the priesthood ban here.  Thoughts?  

Quote

Institutionally, the Church reacted swiftly to the revelation on the priesthood. Ordinations and temple recommends came immediately. The reasons that had been given to try to explain the prior restrictions on members of African ancestry—even those previously voiced by revered Church leaders—were promptly and publicly disavowed. 

I would like to issue a CFR to President Oaks on this statement.  I see no evidence to support it, so if any of you have a clue what he's talking about with respect to asserting that the reasons for the priesthood ban were promptly and publicly disavowed, I'd love to see it.  These same reasons were taught to me growing up in seminary and in the mission field where I served in the US south.  I'm a generation X person who was too young to know about any of these reasons prior to 1978 because I was only 4 years old at that time.  So all the racist reasoning I learned was from people teaching it too me after 1978.  

Quote

As we look to the future, one of the most important effects of the revelation on the priesthood is its divine call to abandon attitudes of prejudice against any group of God’s children. Racism is probably the most familiar source of prejudice today, and we are all called to repent of that. But throughout history, many groups of God’s children are or have been persecuted or disadvantaged by prejudices, such as those based on ethnicity or culture or nationality or education or economic circumstances.

Why didn't he mention prejudices based on sexual orientation, or gender, or gender orientation?  Was he intentionally leaving out the LGBT community here?  

Quote

As President Russell M. Nelson said following our recent meeting with the national officers of the NAACP: "Together we invite all people, organizations, and governments to work with greater civility, eliminating prejudice of all kinds."  Even as we unite to abandon all attitudes and practices of prejudice, we should remember that it is not prejudice for the Church to insist on certain rules in furtherance of the Lord's requirement of worthiness to enter a temple.  

The President Nelson statement expressing the goal to "eliminating prejudice of all kinds" would seemingly be a great goal for the church.  But then President Oaks tries to qualify that goal with his statement to "remember that it is not prejudice for the Church to insist on certain rules".  Isn't this just another way of justifying certain prejudices?  Some prejudices are justified because God created these rules, so since God created these rules, then it doesn't count as a prejudice.  This seems like what he's trying to say.  Thoughts?  

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/president-oaks-remarks-worldwide-priesthood-celebration

Edited June 4, 2018 by hope_for_things

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Why didn't he mention prejudices based on sexual orientation, or gender, or gender orientation?  Was he intentionally leaving out the LGBT community here?  

 

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/president-oaks-remarks-worldwide-priesthood-celebration

 

To be fair, he also left out  religion, disability, age and other possible areas of discrimination.  So it obviously wasn't meant to be an inclusive list.

 

Quote

Isn't this just another way of justifying certain prejudices?  Some prejudices are justified because God created these rules, so since God created these rules, then it doesn't count as a prejudice.  This seems like what he's trying to say.  Thoughts?  

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/president-oaks-remarks-worldwide-priesthood-celebration

I don't think that's what he's trying to say.  I think that's exactly what he is clearly saying (and what the Church has always claimed).    I mean, if God came to you and commanded you to be prejudiced against a certain group of people, what would you do?

Edited June 4, 2018 by cinepro

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, cinepro said:

To be fair, he also left out  religion, disability, age and other possible areas of discrimination.  So it obviously wasn't meant to be an inclusive list.

True, it could have been more complete, however, it seems awfully convenience to avoid discussing those items specifically.  

21 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I don't think that's what he's trying to say.  I think that's exactly what he is clearly saying (and what the Church has always claimed).    I mean, if God came to you and commanded you to be prejudiced against a certain group of people, what would you do?

I think you're right.  And if God came to me and said that, I would seriously question whether it was God at all.  And this is the strange thing, we have no record anywhere that any church leader claims such an experience with God.  In fact, we have ample evidence to suggest that church leaders were just parroting the racist theories of their culture and still President Oaks wants to claim this prejudice is God commanded.   I find this very sad.  

[mapman]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I would like to issue a CFR to President Oaks on this statement.  I see no evidence to support it, so if any of you have a clue what he's talking about with respect to asserting that the reasons for the priesthood ban were promptly and publicly disavowed, I'd love to see it.  These same reasons were taught to me growing up in seminary and in the mission field where I served in the US south.  I'm a generation X person who was too young to know about any of these reasons prior to 1978 because I was only 4 years old at that time.  So all the racist reasoning I learned was from people teaching it too me after 1978.

I think he is likely referring to this part of Bruce R. McConkie's 18 August 1978 BYU devotional:

"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more." (https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_alike-unto-god-2/)

Whether Elder McConkie's talk was effective in dispelling racist theories I think is debatable.

[Scott Lloyd]

How many separate threads are going to be opened on this subject? 

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

True, it could have been more complete, however, it seems awfully convenience to avoid discussing those items specifically.  

I think you're right.  And if God came to me and said that, I would seriously question whether it was God at all.  And this is the strange thing, we have no record anywhere that any church leader claims such an experience with God.  In fact, we have ample evidence to suggest that church leaders were just parroting the racist theories of their culture and still President Oaks wants to claim this prejudice is God commanded.   I find this very sad.  

This stuck out to me as well. I agree with you that he seems to be walking back the possibility of racism being behind the ban while still giving himself enough wiggle room to share that he was uncomfortable with the ban, and didn't understand it, yet still remained loyal. That is called playing all sides. It sounded to me like a statement a politician would make.

I wonder if he is using himself as an example for how members should behave. Study and pray for confirmation that a teaching of church leaders is true, but even if you don't get that confirmation, be loyal to the church leader anyway. Personally, I don't think that's a great example to follow.

[Gray]

 

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I would like to hear what others thought about President Oaks talk from the Be One event.  There are a few sections that concerned me personally, and I'm wondering how others read these sections, and if there may be a more charitable reading.   Here are the portions I wanted to discuss.  

The language he used here seems like a step back from the language in the Gospel topics essay on Race and the Priesthood.  His reasoning seems to be that the reasons given for the restriction were the problem, and not the restriction itself.  He takes a position that God commanded the restriction, but that we just don't know why it was commanded, and that he will be loyal to leaders by not criticizing the restriction.  I have a big problem with this reasoning.  He seems to be ignoring the elephant in the room that the restriction was formed in the context of racism and racist traditions in broader Christian society, which the essay clearly expounds on, but Oaks ignores.  He seems to be condoning the priesthood ban here.  Thoughts?   

 

That's what it sounds to me like he was trying to insinuate. It would be nice if the church would come out with an official position on whether or not, as an institution, the position is that the ban was commanded by God.

 

Quote

I would like to issue a CFR to President Oaks on this statement.  I see no evidence to support it, so if any of you have a clue what he's talking about with respect to asserting that the reasons for the priesthood ban were promptly and publicly disavowed, I'd love to see it.  These same reasons were taught to me growing up in seminary and in the mission field where I served in the US south.  I'm a generation X person who was too young to know about any of these reasons prior to 1978 because I was only 4 years old at that time.  So all the racist reasoning I learned was from people teaching it too me after 1978.  

I don't know of anything to support that either. I was born just before the ban ended, and I grew up hearing all the usual justifications for the ban. It wasn't until the last 10 years or so, as far as I know, that the church started disavowing those things.

 

Quote

 But then President Oaks tries to qualify that goal with his statement to "remember that it is not prejudice for the Church to insist on certain rules".  Isn't this just another way of justifying certain prejudices? 

This is called "special pleading"

Edited June 4, 2018 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I would like to hear what others thought about President Oaks talk from the Be One event.  There are a few sections that concerned me personally, and I'm wondering how others read these sections, and if there may be a more charitable reading.   Here are the portions I wanted to discuss.  

The language he used here seems like a step back from the language in the Gospel topics essay on Race and the Priesthood.  His reasoning seems to be that the reasons given for the restriction were the problem, and not the restriction itself.  He takes a position that God commanded the restriction, but that we just don't know why it was commanded, and that he will be loyal to leaders by not criticizing the restriction.  I have a big problem with this reasoning.  He seems to be ignoring the elephant in the room that the restriction was formed in the context of racism and racist traditions in broader Christian society, which the essay clearly expounds on, but Oaks ignores.  He seems to be condoning the priesthood ban here.  Thoughts?  

 

So we are to privilege your word above that of a member of the First Presidency regarding the position of the Church and the proper understanding of “the Gospel topics essay on Race and the Priesthood.“

I think not. 

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, mapman said:

I think he is likely referring to this part of Bruce R. McConkie's 18 August 1978 BYU devotional:

"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more." (https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_alike-unto-god-2/)

Whether Elder McConkie's talk was effective in dispelling racist theories I think is debatable.

How does one talk at a BYU devotional count as "promptly and publicly disavowing" the racist teachings of past church leaders?  If this is the evidence he uses to support that statement, then its severely lacking.  Lest we forget the past racist teachings were made in general conference, and official first presidency letters.  These teachings were wide spread, and one BYU devotional doesn't erase the past teachings.  

Also, McConkie doesn't explicitly disavow the old teachings, he just said they don't matter anymore and we should forget about them and move forward.  But thats short of a disavowal in my book.  McConkie was also one of the promoters of these racist theories in the past, he wrote books in which he perpetuated these ideas.  Did he ever write another book to disavow his old ideas, or was this one talk at BYU his attempt to erase all his old teachings.  Its very frustrating to think that he may have believed his one isolated BYU talk somehow made up for all the past harm his own public teachings had caused.  

Interestingly, I listened to an interview where a historian (Matt Harris) claims that McConkie was the author of the 1978 statement that is canonized in the D&C as official declaration #2. In case you're interested, this was news to me if its correct.  

https://gospeltangents.com/2018/06/01/bruce-r-mcconkie-wrote-official-declaration-2/

 

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How many separate threads are going to be opened on this subject? 

I'm only aware of one other thread talking about the Be One event, but I wanted to focus in on Oaks talk specifically, so I opened another thread.  

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This stuck out to me as well. I agree with you that he seems to be walking back the possibility of racism being behind the ban while still giving himself enough wiggle room to share that he was uncomfortable with the ban, and didn't understand it, yet still remained loyal. That is called playing all sides. It sounded to me like a statement a politician would make.

I wonder if he is using himself as an example for how members should behave. Study and pray for confirmation that a teaching of church leaders is true, but even if you don't get that confirmation, be loyal to the church leader anyway. Personally, I don't think that's a great example to follow.

I have to admit that his way of speaking in recent years has really bothered me.  My impression is that he's very careful with his words and that he is attempting to draw boundaries around subjects and essentially create and clarify positions in a way that clarifies the church's position, which should be a good thing except the way he articulates these ideas is so declarative, it comes across as this is the way things are in an authoritative matter, instead of this his opinion and how he views things.  

I think it likely that he believes that loyalty to church authority and church leaders is paramount and that it is more important to support than the morality of the actual church teachings.  There is an assumption that God is in charge of everything.  I think its essentially an infallibility doctrine that supposedly we don't have, yet it is manifest by the actions and beliefs of many including President Oaks.  

[mapman]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How does one talk at a BYU devotional count as "promptly and publicly disavowing" the racist teachings of past church leaders?  If this is the evidence he uses to support that statement, then its severely lacking.  Lest we forget the past racist teachings were made in general conference, and official first presidency letters.  These teachings were wide spread, and one BYU devotional doesn't erase the past teachings.  

Also, McConkie doesn't explicitly disavow the old teachings, he just said they don't matter anymore and we should forget about them and move forward.  But thats short of a disavowal in my book.  McConkie was also one of the promoters of these racist theories in the past, he wrote books in which he perpetuated these ideas.  Did he ever write another book to disavow his old ideas, or was this one talk at BYU his attempt to erase all his old teachings.  Its very frustrating to think that he may have believed his one isolated BYU talk somehow made up for all the past harm his own public teachings had caused.  

Interestingly, I listened to an interview where a historian (Matt Harris) claims that McConkie was the author of the 1978 statement that is canonized in the D&C as official declaration #2. In case you're interested, this was news to me if its correct.  

https://gospeltangents.com/2018/06/01/bruce-r-mcconkie-wrote-official-declaration-2/

 

I agree with you, but I can't think of anything else Pres. Oaks could have been referring to. I think it's pretty clear that Pres. Oaks' idea of an acceptable response to the priesthood ban is different than a lot of other people's.

Thanks for the link, I hadn't heard about that before!

Edited June 4, 2018 by mapman

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's what it sounds to me like he was trying to insinuate. It would be nice if the church would come out with an official position on whether or not, as an institution, the position is that the ban was commended from God.

I kind of thought that they did with the gospel topics essay because the wording in there is so clear.  But when you have a member of the first presidency making statements like this, it makes it hard to argue that a gospel topics essay which never gets talked about in general conference takes precedence over what an actual leader says in a talk.  

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't know of anything to support that either. I was born just before the ban ended, and I grew up hearing all the usual justifications for the ban. It wasn't until the last 10 years or so, as far as I know, that the church started disavowing those things.

Yes, totally agree, this is my experience exactly.  

 

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So we are to privilege your word above that of a member of the First Presidency regarding the position of the Church and the proper understanding of “the Gospel topics essay on Race and the Priesthood.“

I think not. 

If you disagree with how I've interpreted the talk or the gospel topics essay, please explain how you see it differently.   I'm not appealing to my authority or President Oaks authority.  I don't think appeals to authority have anything to do with how an essay is written or how a talk is given.   We have both of these in writing and can analyze them and discuss.  

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, mapman said:

I agree with you, but I can't think of anything else Elder Oaks could have been referring to. I think it's pretty clear that Elder Oaks' idea of an acceptable response to the priesthood ban is different than a lot of other people's.

If that is what he was referring to, then its a gross overstatement at the least and probably an outright falsehood to say that the church "promptly and publicly disavowed" those theories. 

We have people in the church today that still believe in these old theories.  Its crazy how out of touch it seems like these leaders are sometimes. 

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I mean, if God came to you and commanded you to be prejudiced against a certain group of people, what would you do?

I would wonder if the being who was commanding me was pretending to be God.

[theplains]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I would like to issue a CFR to President Oaks on this statement.  I see no evidence to support it, so if any of you have a clue what he's talking about with respect to asserting that the reasons for the priesthood ban were promptly and publicly disavowed, I'd love to see it. 

Read chapters 15 and 16 of The Way to Perfection by Joseph Fielding Smith  It's still available from some booksellers.
It explains it pretty well.

Jim

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, theplains said:

Read chapters 15 and 16 of The Way to Perfection by Joseph Fielding Smith  It's still available from some booksellers.
It explains it pretty well.

Jim

Could you explain how a book written before 1978 is going to be evidence for the church promptly and publicly disavowing racist theories after the 1978 revelation?  

[nuclearfuels]

I'm excited about this!

If prior views of Church leadership are being re-examined as they have been since at least the time David O. Mckay was the Prophet, then we got a whole lot more updates coming.

As for how President Oaks words things, Yeah- his training and career were in the legal field; Matthew was a tax collector and Luke was a physician (his text in the New Testament is more descriptive and sequence-based than other Apostles adn Prophets in the NT); I imagine God calls people to positions such as prophets and apostles regardless of the jobs they had prior to those callings.

Edited June 4, 2018 by nuclearfuels

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If you disagree with how I've interpreted the talk or the gospel topics essay, please explain how you see it differently.   I'm not appealing to my authority or President Oaks authority.  I don't think appeals to authority have anything to do with how an essay is written or how a talk is given.   We have both of these in writing and can analyze them and discuss.  

By virtue of his position, a member of the First Presidency has proprietary authority to enunciate the position of the Church; you have no such authority, any more than you would have supreme authority above the Pope to define Catholicism. 

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By virtue of his position, a member of the First Presidency has proprietary authority to enunciate the position of the Church; you have no such authority, any more than you would have supreme authority above the Pope to define Catholicism. 

I don't think you're correct on that assertion.  Recent conference talks have been given to express that one member of the 15 does not represent the doctrines of the church as a whole.  Also this newsroom statement would contradict your assertion as well. 

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Quote

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. 

I think authoritative claims are irrelevant to what I'm trying to discuss which is the words of President Oaks, and the words of the topics essay.  I don't care about appeals to authority here.  

 

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

I'm excited about this!

If prior views of Church leadership are being re-examined as they have been since at least the time David O. Mckay was the Prophet, then we got a whole lot more updates coming.

As for how President Oaks words things, Yeah- his training and career were in the legal field; Matthew was a tax collector and Luke was a physician (his text in the New Testament is more descriptive and sequence-based than other Apostles adn Prophets in the NT); I imagine God calls people to positions such as prophets and apostles regardless of the jobs they had prior to those callings.

I think we'll certainly see evolution happening in the future, the question is whether the messages from the church are going in the best direction for society and for the membership.  I think President Oaks statements represent a step backwards, not a step forwards.  

[nuclearfuels]

Well, respectfully I disagree.

Not sure I'd prefer to support a prophet like Joshua who was commanded to kill all the men, women, children, and animals in many cities.

I'd rather not be on the Hill Cumorah fighting to save a dying people (Nephites) in support of God and His then-Prophet.

Ditto for Lehi and the Brother of Jared. I'm good following who I follow.

Honestly, if I went through what the early pioneers did, and was told the Salt Lake Valley was "the place," that wouldn't have worked out well for me.

Jonah totally bailed on his calling and then after doing it, prayed for death.

Moses also prayed for death, after he and his crew were let out of Egypt.

Elisha had some youth torn apart for making fun of him -

2 Kings 2:23

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The President Nelson statement expressing the goal to "eliminating prejudice of all kinds" would seemingly be a great goal for the church.  But then President Oaks tries to qualify that goal with his statement to "remember that it is not prejudice for the Church to insist on certain rules".  Isn't this just another way of justifying certain prejudices?  Some prejudices are justified because God created these rules, so since God created these rules, then it doesn't count as a prejudice.  This seems like what he's trying to say.  Thoughts?  

I think Oaks and Nelson are trying prevent prejudice against people while maintaining that certain acts are prohibited and have consequences. There's a blurry ground for things short of fornication but that involve same sex acts which they've not really done well addressing. However I do think that they've earnestly tried to be more accepting towards LGBT members. For perhaps understandable reasons many LGBT don't think one can accept them without accepting as legitimate same sex sex.

Whether Nelson and Oaks can successfully convince members not to be prejudice while still condemning gay acts remains to be seen. 

15 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Not sure I'd prefer to support a prophet like Joshua who was commanded to kill all the men, women, children, and animals in many cities.

For the record there are pretty compelling reasons to be distrustful of many accounts in the Old Testament - particularly the period from before Hezekiah. Most likely they were written or at least edited & redacted after the exile. So when you encounter things like this a bit of skepticism is in order. 

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by clarkgoble

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, mapman said:

I think he is likely referring to this part of Bruce R. McConkie's 18 August 1978 BYU devotional:

"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more." (https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_alike-unto-god-2/)

Whether Elder McConkie's talk was effective in dispelling racist theories I think is debatable.

Elder McConkie was not even talking about racist folklore which he continued to spread via Mormon Doctrine until he died. He was referring to statements regarding timing. If this is what Elder Oaks was referring to, it doesn’t speak well for Oaks.