Pres. Oaks talk - Be One event

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Because followers of Jesus or John didn't control the operations within the temple of Jerusalem.

That is debatable.  Consider how many of the "Christians" in those days were also "Jews".  

I believe they could have arranged to use the baptismal font to baptize their dead, and maybe also some of those who were still living.  They used that font for something.

Consider how a baptism looks to a bystander who may not know the name of the person who is being baptized or whether or not that person is acting as a proxy.

 

2 hours ago, Gray said:

 

Of course - mikvah. However, there is no evidence they performed it for the dead, and indeed, it wouldn't have made sense in Jewish theology to perform that ritual for the dead. It was done to make the living ritually pure, it had nothing to do with eternal salvation. The baptism of John had a different political significance (more of a preparation for the eschaton and the expulsion of the Roman occupiers), and the baptism of the later Christians meant something else again.  It's unclear which group exactly was performing baptisms for the dead. But in order for baptism of the dead to make any kind of theological sense, they would have had to have come to view the ritual as a kind of gate-keeping ordinance related to eternal salvation. And that doctrine took time to develop.

Like I said, our understanding of what baptism is a restoration of how people in the past previously understood it.  And that understanding didn't begin in mortal days of our Lord and Savior, and it didn't begin in the days of Aaron or Levi, either.

This thing we do now goes all the say back to Adam and Eve, and possibly even before them.

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, CMZ said:

21 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

That connection is not in the NT, thats my point.  The D&C was written in the 19th century.  I'm wondering if there is any ancient evidence for baptisms for the dead being connected to a temple ritual.  

This is one of the reasons why there was a restoration: because some knowledge was lost.

Well, this is the frustrating part of trying to have a discussion.  You can't make a claim that something is in the NT, and then when I ask for you to show that evidence, you say that it might have been in the NT originally, but that those elements were lost. 

Then I will ask, what evidence do you have to support that this specific connection of baptisms for the dead with temple ritual in the NT was specifically lost.  

And if your answer is, well, this person in the 19th century said that the original NT was missing components that were important.  And you've concluded that this means there was a NT connection between baptism for the dead and the NT because its possible that this was one of the missing things the person in the 19th century said about the NT.  

And my final answer will be, then you have ZERO evidence to actually support your NT connections claim.  

 

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, CMZ said:

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

But do you excuse the church and it’s leaders from any responsibility and accountability?  

No leader alive now created the ban. As far as prior ones go we don't have available all relevant information. We have some, yes, but not all. If we feel like we want to force Brigham Young or whoever else to apologize we may as well also try to pressure Jesus Christ himself for feeling that there was a time, a phase, a period, when the Gospel was only supposed to go to the House of Israel before it could subsequently also go to the Gentiles. He even went so far as to pretty much call a Gentile woman a dog before granting her a blessing belief and faithfulness.

Many governments and institutions the world wide have apologized for wrongs done in the past.  Mormons even offered an apology for MMM in recent years.  Its part of the healing process and important since we still have racism in our church culture today.  

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That is debatable.  Consider how many of the "Christians" in those days were also "Jews".  

No, it's not debatable. Being Jewish doesn't put you in charge of the inner operations of the temple. Jesus was Jewish but he was not an insider. His followers were peasants, not priests.

 

13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I believe they could have arranged to use the baptismal font to baptize their dead, and maybe also some of those who were still living.  They used that font for something.

Consider how a baptism looks to a bystander who may not know the name of the person who is being baptized or whether or not that person is acting as a proxy.

This is implausible speculation.

 

 

[CMZ]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Many governments and institutions the world wide have apologized for wrongs done in the past.  Mormons even offered an apology for MMM in recent years.  Its part of the healing process and important since we still have racism in our church culture today.  

If an apology was issued then would everyone drop the matter and move on?

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, it's not debatable. Being Jewish doesn't put you in charge of the inner operations of the temple. Jesus was Jewish but he was not an insider. His followers were peasants, not priests.

I don't think you're considering what some of their positions were as Jews.  Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin, and I believe other Jews with authority in the Jewish religion became Christians too.

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

This is implausible speculation.

 

 

In your opinion.

[CMZ]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, this is the frustrating part of trying to have a discussion.  You can't make a claim that something is in the NT, and then when I ask for you to show that evidence, you say that it might have been in the NT originally, but that those elements were lost. 

Then I will ask, what evidence do you have to support that this specific connection of baptisms for the dead with temple ritual in the NT was specifically lost.  

And if your answer is, well, this person in the 19th century said that the original NT was missing components that were important.  And you've concluded that this means there was a NT connection between baptism for the dead and the NT because its possible that this was one of the missing things the person in the 19th century said about the NT.  

And my final answer will be, then you have ZERO evidence to actually support your NT connections claim.  

 

We can believe things were restored or not. If they were then it means some gaps regarding our knowledge of the past will be filled in. 1 Kings mentions a temple with a baptismal font and 1 Corinthians mentions baptisms for the dead. In the Restored Church we are not required for the Bible to plainly spell something it for us to accept it as a gospel principle. A principle may be spelled out in the Bible, or it may be hinted at, or it may not be mentioned at all. The Bible is amazing for what it is and more people should read it and read it more often. But it's not the one thing we are reliant on. If you feel that a principle is not valid unless it's spelled out as plain as day in the Bible then you are free to do so.

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, CMZ said:

If an apology was issued then would everyone drop the matter and move on?

No

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Many governments and institutions the world wide have apologized for wrongs done in the past.  Mormons even offered an apology for MMM in recent years.  Its part of the healing process and important since we still have racism in our church culture today.  

Notwithstanding inaccurate media reports, the Church did not “apologize” for Mountain Meadows. It condemned and expressed “profound regret” for the massacre perpetrated by those on site, but that’s not the same thing as an apology, which connotes acceptance of blame and culpability. No one living today can do that, and the Church as an institution is not to blame. 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You seem so often to lack the milk of human kindness that it is obvious to me that you are willing to pillory persons you think are too highly placed to allow them any human limitations.  You even allow the false tradition of infallibility to apply (which is indeed a "toxic idea"), without reflecting on just how unfair that is to the flawed men you apply it too.  Why the grandiose expectations?  No one could ever live up to them . . .  Is there no room for kindness and forgiveness?   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2JXAgZybOE ,

 

These times are so uncertain
There's a yearning undefined
People filled with rage
We all need a little tenderness
How can love survive in such a graceless age?
Ah, the trust and self-assurance that lead to happiness
They're the very things we kill, I guess

This seems to me just a misunderstanding of my perspective completely, misreading my attitude and outlook on life and an overt sensitivity that you seem to have about criticism of church leaders.  I don't expect perfection of leaders, quite the opposite, I expect flawed leaders.  And I also think we should hold these leaders accountable, we should have a certain amount of transparency and that if current leaders are making significant mistakes they should be replaced.  I think where much is given much is required especially for leaders of large institutions.  

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

False.  Of course he said explicitly that that was the way he used to view things, and that he determined then to simply accept the policies in place (a faith position).

Perhaps I am not understanding what you are alleging here.  Oaks clearly recalled his feelings and actions in the 1960s when he was teaching law in Chicago, and working in Washington, DC.  It was then that he determined that he could find no confirmation of the truth of the various reasons he had heard for the priesthood ban.  This is not a statement on his later views.

He was Pres of BYU when he heard about the June 1978 revelation, and he gave his personal account of weeping on that mound of dirt.  It is as though he never wrote any of that, or his subsequent comments on the public disavowal of the previous "reasons."  The differences you ignore are like night and day.  Why?

I'm evaluating his statements from the Be One talk specifically, and what he said in that talk.  I don't see anything in the talk that would indicate that his views align with the 2013 gospel topics essay, and I see evidence he views things differently.  

As for him weeping when the ban was lifted, I have no doubt that he did.  I'm sure he was very grateful for the change.  His perspective was that God had commanded the ban, and that he had determined he would support the church and its leaders, even though he didn't understand why the ban was in place and he wasn't comfortable with the "reasons" given for the ban.  So of course he was happy when it was lifted.  

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again you have missed the main point:  Oaks reflects on his feelings and actions in the 1960s, and there is nothing unusual about those feelings and actions.  Yet you take those feelings and actions in the 60s and expect them to fit the later post-2013 Essay statements.  I still don't understand why you would make that sort of invidious comparison of incommensurables.  It is as though you are unable to separate before and after 1978.  You have yet to address this fatal flaw in your approach.

It would be a fatal flaw in the talk if Oaks has a different view of things today and failed to express this in his talk.  Its not a flaw in my analysis though.  Its also a flaw in your responses because you still haven't produced any evidence showing that Oaks' views today differ from those expressed in this talk.  

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Evil is so banal that it becomes the norm, and is so easily excused by those doing the evil.  All manner of stories are invented to cover evil actions, along with the notion that "everyone else is doing it."  Any of us might be caught up in the mob, without even realizing the implications or consequenses.  Only my family tradition of abolitionism and Underground Railroad work assures me that I can make the decision to be different from the mob.

I think its very important to try and prepare ourselves for taking actions against those things we find morally problematic and be willing to go against the grain to support principles.   At the same time, I try to listen to multiple different perspectives to make sure I'm understanding as much as I can on any issue as possible.  Another reason why I interact on this message board with many different perspectives that tend to be divergent from my own.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

The fact that some people understand words differently doesn't mean they can't arrive at the same understanding.  It may just take more time to come to be able to understand what each person is saying, and what each person means when they say something.

Even if you and I didn't speak the same language, English, and even if we didn't understand at least one definition for each English word that we understand, we could still arrive at the same understanding, on some level, at some point in time, in the real world.

Heh, you seem to be too quick to throw in the towel and say that it can't be done.  You're throwing up road blocks.  And you think it is "I" who has proven "your" theory?  Try just a little bit harder to come to some kind of understanding with me, bro.

Ok, let me explain why I'm comfortable with people calling JS a prophet and see if you understand my perspective.  

I consider JS a prophet for two primary reasons.  One is that he was pushing the boundaries of his surrounding religious culture to into new directions and innovating and creating a new movement that often rubbed those around him wrong and broke with a lot of the traditions and trends in his culture.  Secondly Joseph was charismatic as a leader, he garnered followers who were wiling to drop their old traditions and lifestyles and follow him.  

Now both of those key points I believe are factually accurate about JS, and don't have anything to do with moral value judgments or whether his theological innovations were unique.  Also, I'm not even approaching the territory of whether or not God inspired Joseph.  

So if we were to attempt your experiment the way I think you're trying to approach this.  I would be trying to find out if JS was inspired by God and I don't even believe God is an external force.  I think God is something each individual has evolved to experience internally, its like trying to explain love or how you feel about a piece of art.  I'm essentially asking myself how I feel about JS, and I just explained to you how I'm comfortable with the label of prophet for JS.  

So I pray and I feel good with the idea of calling JS a prophet because that already aligns with my thinking.  You pray, you get the same good feeling.  We both got the same answer then, that means we both know that JS is a prophet and this confirms that God is real and that God can objectively answer questions about the nature of the universe including the nature of historical figures and events.  Right?  

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CMZ said:

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Many governments and institutions the world wide have apologized for wrongs done in the past.  Mormons even offered an apology for MMM in recent years.  Its part of the healing process and important since we still have racism in our church culture today.  

If an apology was issued then would everyone drop the matter and move on?

No, of course not, but It would be one big step in the right direction.  The complexities of life consist of much more than just one correct choice, they require our constant engagement and vigilance to keep improving and making more correct choices and fixing the problems that we cause from our mistakes.  

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

No, of course not, but It would be one big step in the right direction.  The complexities of life consist of much more than just one correct choice, they require our constant engagement and vigilance to keep improving and making more correct choices and fixing the problems that we cause from our mistakes.  

I agree that it would help if we and our Church leaders expressed sorrow, like saying "I'm sorry", that there was ever a restriction on the priesthood or particular blessings associated with receiving priesthood callings and opportunities to be of service to other people.

And I believe many members and Church leaders have already done that.  For those who haven't, yet, maybe now is the time to do it.

I have, already, but I'll do it again.  I feel sorrow about that, and I wish it never had to have happen.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CMZ said:

1 Kings mentions a temple with a baptismal font

It does not say anything about a baptismal font.  I already responded to this claim of yours from earlier.  Please provide evidence that the 1 Kings reference had anything to do with baptism.  This is an anachronistic reading on your part.  

1 hour ago, CMZ said:

In the Restored Church we are not required for the Bible to plainly spell something it for us to accept it as a gospel principle. A principle may be spelled out in the Bible, or it may be hinted at, or it may not be mentioned at all. The Bible is amazing for what it is and more people should read it and read it more often. But it's not the one thing we are reliant on. If you feel that a principle is not valid unless it's spelled out as plain as day in the Bible then you are free to do so.

Its fine that Mormonism is creating a new tradition with baptism for the dead in the temple.  Its fine that Mormonism claims this is a restoration of an ancient practice.  I have no problem with people making these claims from a religious/faith perspective.  But you cross the line when you assert that evidence for this claim is found specifically in the NT, and its just not.  That's completely false.  Lets be accurate about specific claims of what verses in the NT say.  It doesn't say anything about a temple ritual when it comes to baptisms for the dead. 

[hope_for_things]

58 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Notwithstanding inaccurate media reports, the Church did not “apologize” for Mountain Meadows. It condemned and expressed “profound regret” for the massacre perpetrated by those on site, by that’s not the same thing as an apology, which connotes acceptance of blame and culpability. No one living today can do that, and the Church as an institution is not to blame. 

Good point, it wasn't a full on apology, it was better than past attempts to acknowledge wrong doing, and the church has come a long way since earlier days of deflection, denial and blame for the MMM, but it wasn't a really healthy apology.  So the church has a ways to go even on the MMM to get better and give really good apologies.  The restoration is ongoing....

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

It does not say anything about a baptismal font.  I already responded to this claim of yours from earlier.  Please provide evidence that the 1 Kings reference had anything to do with baptism.  This is an anachronistic reading on your part.  

Its fine that Mormonism is creating a new tradition with baptism for the dead in the temple.  Its fine that Mormonism claims this is a restoration of an ancient practice.  I have no problem with people making these claims from a religious/faith perspective.  But you cross the line when you assert that evidence for this claim is found specifically in the NT, and its just not.  That's completely false.  Lets be accurate about specific claims of what verses in the NT say.  It doesn't say anything about a temple ritual when it comes to baptisms for the dead. 

The reference in 1 Kings gives a description of a "laver" that was used for "washings".  Baptism is a Greek word so you wouldn't find it in 1 Kings unless someone was inspired and interested in translating that text into Greek.

We are inspired and interested in doing that for you, hope, but no we can not coerce you into believing what we have told you.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I agree that it would help if we and our Church leaders expressed sorrow, like saying "I'm sorry", that there was ever a restriction on the priesthood or particular blessings associated with receiving priesthood callings and opportunities to be of service to other people.

And I believe many members and Church leaders have already done that.  For those who haven't, yet, maybe now is the time to do it.

I have, already, but I'll do it again.  I feel sorrow about that, and I wish it never had to have happen.

I think a complete and contrite apology is needed more than just expressing sorrow.  I imagine the church is worried about legal ramifications, but I think they should choose the right and let the consequence follow.  I suspect they have enough money to pay for any legal consequences.  

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The reference in 1 Kings gives a description of a "laver" that was used for "washings".  Baptism is a Greek word so you wouldn't find it in 1 Kings unless someone was inspired and interested in translating that text into Greek.

We are inspired and interested in doing that for you, hope, but no we can not coerce you into believing what we have told you.

No coercion needed.  I'll believe evidence if it's presented.  The problem is that people are reading things into the text that aren't there.  Baptism didn't exist during the time 1 Kings was written.  

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think a complete and contrite apology is needed more than just expressing sorrow.  I imagine the church is worried about legal ramifications, but I think they should choose the right and let the consequence follow.  I suspect they have enough money to pay for any legal consequences.  

Now I think you're being unreasonable.  So sue me.

[hope_for_things]

Just now, Ahab said:

Now I think you're being unreasonable.  So sue me.

Unreasonable because church leaders today are too entrenched and stubborn to issue such an apology?  Why unreasonable?  

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Unreasonable because church leaders today are too entrenched and stubborn to issue such an apology?  Why unreasonable?  

Unreasonable because you seem to think I wasn't offering a complete and contrite apology.  Or that I could speak for every other Church member.  Or that there is someone in the Church who can speak for every other member.

The President of our Church may speak for the Lord, sometimes, when he is so inspired.  He then has the authority of the Lord to do that.  But at no time has any President or apostle or other member ever had the authority to speak for every other member.

Think of the inactives who disagree with what a President of the Church, or an apostle, has said.  And contrast that to what some other member who believes them may say.

That's why.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good point, it wasn't a full on apology, it was better than past attempts to acknowledge wrong doing, and the church has come a long way since earlier days of deflection, denial and blame for the MMM, but it wasn't a really healthy apology.  So the church has a ways to go even on the MMM to get better and give really good apologies.  The restoration is ongoing....

It does not serve justice to demand a “full-on apology” the way you seem to understand that term, i.e. acceptance of blame and culpability. You have not explained why you think anyone alive today is culpable for mass killings committed in 1857.  You have not explained why you think the Church as an institution is to blame for mass killings when it teaches against such things and when the Church president at the time sent explicit instructions — which arrived too late — for the settlers not to interfere with or molest the travelers who were coming through the territory. 

So I’ll pose the same question to you as I did to someone else. If you’re assigning blame to people who love today for mass murders that occurred in 1857, what do you think should happen to them? Should they go to prison? Should they be executed? 

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Unreasonable because you seem to think I wasn't offering a complete and contrite apology.  Or that I could speak for every other Church member.  Or that there is someone in the Church who can speak for every other member.

The President of our Church may speak for the Lord, sometimes, when he is so inspired.  He then has the authority of the Lord to do that.  But at no time has any President or apostle or other member ever had the authority to speak for every other member.

Think of the inactives who disagree with what a President of the Church, or an apostle, has said.  And contrast that to what some other member who believes them may say.

That's why.

I'm not asking for an apology from you, not sure where you got that idea.  I do want a full apology from current church leaders.  They do represent the church publicly, and can speak for and on behalf of the church and its people.  Whether every member agrees with them or not is up to each individual member.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Blank

Edited June 7, 2018 by Scott Lloyd