Pres. Oaks talk - Be One event

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Is it racism to recognize based on scientific studies that most types of interracial marriages have higher divorce rates than most noninterracial marriages?

I don't think that would be considered racism because you aren't favoring one race over another or saying one particular race is inferior.  

But, I think one possible response is that society's prejudices against minorities and interracial marriage could be a contributing factor to the higher divorce rate.  I'm not sure if there is science to support that.

[Gray]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I've read about some ancient purification rituals that some scholars think go back a couple centuries prior to the C.E.  Purification seems to have been an important religious ritual idea for sure.  But from what I've read there is quite a bit of debate as to whether or not this could be considered baptism, especially the further back you go.  

Gray, are you aware of evidence from scholars that argue that baptisms were happening as far back as 1 Kings, because that was probably written in the 7th - 6th centuries B.C.E.  I'd be interested in reading more about it, and I'm open to correction on this idea if compelling evidence can be presented.  

I'm not really sure how old it is. Leviticus mentions the need for a bathing ritual after certain events. How far back that really goes, I don't know.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Oh yes he did.https://www.ldschurchnews.com/latest/2018-06-01/president-oaks-full-remarks-from-the-lds-churchs-be-one-celebration-47280

. 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. 

But maybe you will put a spin on it and say he meant other commandments. Hope not.

I guess you missed the point also, Tacenda:  He was describing his thoughts during the 1960s when he was teaching law in Chicago and working in Washington, DC.  He was adopting a very common POV among the faithful.  You and I may have a different opinion, but we are not entitled to insist that he must think like us.  For example, I think that God frequently gives reasons for his judgments, and that one need only read Scripture to see that that is so.  However, Oaks is a jurist, not a biblical scholar.  So maybe he simply isn't aware of the actual nature of the Lords' instructions to his servants.  After all, he was merely a law professor when he came to that conclusion.  That doesn't tell us what he thinks now -- precisely the problem you and hope have in deciding that his opinions in the 1960s must be his current opinions as an apostle of the Lord.  I suspect that a man can change some of his views over time.  Don't you?

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess you missed the point also, Tacenda:  He was describing his thoughts during the 1960s when he was teaching law in Chicago and working in Washington, DC.

For what it may be worth, I think Pres Oaks's words are as clear as Tacenda does. Your repeated statements in this thread sound, to me, like special pleading. I'm not buying it.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

For what it may be worth, I think Pres Oaks's words are as clear as Tacenda does. Your repeated statements in this thread sound, to me, like special pleading. I'm not buying it.

I'm still trying to figure out what is meant by you when you say "special pleading".  I know it's a technical legal term, but what does it mean to you in this context?

As for the ban, as a non-lawyer I read the various arguments for the ban that were promulgated over the years, and I came to pretty much the same conclusion that Oaks came to: that they were all bollocks.  Pardon my French.  Even when some GA's used some of the arguments I thought they were specious, and a grasping at straws.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I'm still trying to figure out what is meant by you when you say "special pleading".

In short, it strikes me that Robert has come up with his own interpretation of Pres Oaks's words, one that satisfies his preferred explanation of past priesthood restrictions but which ignores what Pres Oaks seems genuinely to have been saying.

[hope_for_things]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess you missed the point also, Tacenda:  He was describing his thoughts during the 1960s when he was teaching law in Chicago and working in Washington, DC.  He was adopting a very common POV among the faithful.  You and I may have a different opinion, but we are not entitled to insist that he must think like us.  For example, I think that God frequently gives reasons for his judgments, and that one need only read Scripture to see that that is so.  However, Oaks is a jurist, not a biblical scholar.  So maybe he simply isn't aware of the actual nature of the Lords' instructions to his servants.  After all, he was merely a law professor when he came to that conclusion.  That doesn't tell us what he thinks now -- precisely the problem you and hope have in deciding that his opinions in the 1960s must be his current opinions as an apostle of the Lord.  I suspect that a man can change some of his views over time.  Don't you?

So if Oaks words in this talk represent how he thought way back then.  What evidence do you have to support the claim that he thinks differently now?  

[Ahab]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Ahab, I asked if you agreed that you had no evidence from the OT to support baptism and you said No.  

Meaning I do not agree that I have no evidence from the OT to support baptism and that I do see evidence in the OT that supports my idea that people were being baptized in OT times.  Scriptures in the OT that describe what I now know was a baptismal font, for example.  And the fact that you don't agree that was a baptismal font doesn't mean I can't still see that scripture as evidence to support what I'm saying.

 

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You’ll need to correct this statement then, because this statement is telling me that you have evidence from the OT to support you claim of baptisms during that time period.  

It's not  my statement that needs correction, but rather your misunderstanding of my statement.  I hope what I said about helps you to clear that up.

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I was willing to accept broader evidence from ancient sources outside the OT as well, but you’re now saying you never made this claim.  

Meaning that I never claimed that I had ancient sources, other than what we now have through the restoration of older scriptures and documents which you likely consider to be modern revelation, rather than a restoration of ancient sources.

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You need to either correct this earlier statement or provide the evidence to satisfy this CFR.

Again I think you simply misunderstood me.

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 

As for the CFR with respect to a temple connection between baptism for the dead and a temple ritual, reading through your responses I can’t find a clear statements from you claiming this evidence exists.  The statements that are more clear making that claim are from CMZ, so I’ll retract that CFR and if CMZ decides to join back in and continues to assert this claim, I’ll address at the point.

I claimed that evidence exists in what we now have which tell us the purpose of temples.  Our Lord has told us that baptism for the dead is a temple ritual, meaning it is something that should happen in a temple dedicated to the Lord for us to help him with his work of salvation. 

In D&C 128, for example, our Lord through Joseph Smith told us that the keys to bind in heaven what is bound on this Earth have always been held by his people whenever he had some people on Earth.  His people referring to people who are members of his Church.  In that same section our Lord also told us that Elijah had restored the keys relative to baptism for the dead, meaning that Elijah had them as well as the power/authority to restore them to us in our day.  Restoring them to us in our day from the days when he had held them, back in the days when he had lived as a mortal on this Earth.  We also know that Elijah appeared to Peter, James and John back in the days when our Lord lived as a mortal on this Earth. So with our knowledge that he held those keys and that our Lord had told Peter he would give him those keys we now know what those keys were and what they were for.  Moses had also given keys to Peter, James and John, as well as to Joseph Smith in his day. So now we know that baptism for the dead is temple ritual, and how that temple ritual was passed on to us as something we should do in temples..

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The frustrating thing with respect to your replies, is I’m asking for very specific evidence on very specific claims.  At the same time, I’m totally understanding of people having faith claims about modern statements by church leaders, that’s fine.  But when people start making the claim that those modern revelations have a specific historical antecedent, then I’d like to see evidence to support that.  

Maybe you should just try to keep in mind that much of our modern revelation is a restoration of what was known by people who lived in historical times, before us, which has been passed on to us in our day.  With Some of it going all the way back to Adam and Eve.

Or at least that is what we LDS claim much of our modern revelation is.  If you don't believe that, just understand that we do.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

So if Oaks words in this talk represent how he thought way back then.  What evidence do you have to support the claim that he thinks differently now?  

I thought that his coming to the stark realization that the ban was over as he sat with his two sons weeping on that mound of dirt in June 1978, along with his own reflection on the fact that the old stories had been publicly disavowed (which you don't believe took place), indicate to me that he sees things far differently now.  I don't know how strongly Elder McConkie's comments at BYU in August 1978 impacted Oaks, but I am sure that BYU Pres Oaks was on the dais as McConkie delivered those powerful and unsparing comments.  Those events must have revolutionized Oaks' much earlier opinions from when he was in Chicago and Wash, DC.

Takes me back to a time when I was a very young BYU undergraduate back in 1964 when one of my roommates was an ardent racist who constantly quoted Brigham Young to people in order to convince them that negroes were inferior, etc.  He even published his opinion in poetic form in the Daily Universe student newspaper.  I thought of him especially when reading McConkie's words.  I still wonder whether he apostatized over the matter, because I know that not all members were able to stomach the new policy -- which really took us back to the old policy in the days of Joseph Smith, when Black men could be ordained.

Oddly enough, that same roommate loved to read and quiote Orson Pratt's The Seer, apparently unaware of Orson's views on race, which were the opposite of Brother Brigham.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

For what it may be worth, I think Pres Oaks's words are as clear as Tacenda does. Your repeated statements in this thread sound, to me, like special pleading. I'm not buying it.

Well, at least we agree on some other things on this board, and we likely agree that racism is wrong.  That is pretty good special pleading.

[blueglass]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

So if Oaks words in this talk represent how he thought way back then.  What evidence do you have to support the claim that he thinks differently now?  

Here's a transcript of his interview with an AP reporter from 1988 at the tenth anniversary.  His views have not changed much if at all in 30 years.   The AP reporter asks these apostles about the 1969 vote to overturn the ban and they sound at a loss as to what to think of it. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/q6b6uxiwe6oj7dg/Oaks Maxwell AP interview_ProvoDailyHerald_5June1988.docx?dl=0

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, at least we agree on some other things on this board, and we likely agree that racism is wrong.  That is pretty good special pleading.

I think Pres. Oaks and the first presidencie's hands are tied. He can't fully admit that a prophet is wrong and that the prophets after didn't know it was wrong and this was the most gentle way for him to say that the ban was from God. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

Here's a transcript of his interview with an AP reporter from 1988 at the tenth anniversary.  His views have not changed much if at all in 30 years.   The AP reporter asks these apostles about the 1969 vote to overturn the ban and they sound at a loss as to what to think of it. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/q6b6uxiwe6oj7dg/Oaks Maxwell AP interview_ProvoDailyHerald_5June1988.docx?dl=0

That was fascinating to read.  Thank you for sharing it.  

I agree, it doesn't seem that Pres. Oaks' views have changed much in 30 years.

He does seem to view the ban as a commandment from the Lord given to the prophet.  And he prioritized following the prophet regardless of the fact that he felt the reasons being provided were wrong.  I don't entirely agree with his thoughts on this matter but I think his 1-June address and this AP interview give a lot of insight into his approach.

I also think his caution against trying to put reasons to the Lord's commands (even reasons we feel we can find in scripture) is worthy of pondering.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, blueglass said:

It's like there is this war between correlation and scholarship within the church itself.  Leadership pushes a fake irresponsible rationale of "we don't know" through correlation and CES and throws the essays into footnotes.  The phrase "we don't know" is not found anywhere in the race and priesthood essay.  Yet it was added to the new OD2 introduction which is really bad - which is one reason it keeps getting perpetuated like in the June 2018 Ensign.  The ensign/liahona circulates all over the globe so we're perpetuating the problem another generation.  Then we have the OD2 lesson for our seminary kids updated which again includes more of these "we don't know" lies.  A few citations from lesson 157 [Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual (2013)]

"Point out that students may be asked why the Church did not ordain men of African descent to the priesthood for a time. Invite them to consider how they might answer this question.

Affirm that it is appropriate to explain to others that we do not know why the priesthood restriction began."

 When responding to difficult questions the lesson even praises the we don't know answer as a sign of righteous humility.  "[A teacher] should have the humility to say, ‘I don’t know.’ Often that will be the only true answer” (Teach Ye Diligently [1975], 65)"

At the end it quotes Oaks again on the Lord's unknowable mysteries and lack of reasons from a talk he gave way back in 1988 which he repeated nearly verbatim at the June1 2018 celebration.  He's been giving these talks for awhile so he doesn't have to read Reeve or Harris, or any new historical scholarship.  He just has to pull up words from his old 10th anniversary talk in 1988 and there you go!

"Official Declaration 2. Avoid attaching man-made reasons to God’s revelations
“In a 1988 interview on the tenth anniversary of the revelation on the priesthood, [Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] explained [his] attitude toward attempts to supply mortal reasons for divine revelation:  “‘If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, “Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,” you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. "

 

 

The phrase “we don’t know” may not be in the essay, but that is the clear impression conveyed regarding the Church’s stance. As much as people may want to read it into the essay, there is nothing in there to justify the conclusion that perpetuation of the ban until 1978 was contrary to the will of God. On the other hand, the fact that President Kimball (and others before him) has to plead with the Lord so long and hard for direction and ultimate permission to lift the ban argues compellingly against that conclusion. 

[Teancum]

On 6/4/2018 at 5:14 PM, 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. 

Scott

This is fine for those who have an unwavering faith and devotion to whatever seems to come from the LDS Church leadership.  But the questions asked that you responded to were good questions.  How does your simple dismissal above solve anything or create a dialogue on the issue?

[Teancum]

On 6/4/2018 at 6:11 PM, 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. 

And that doesn't mean that at times what the say is not contradictory nor does it make it true.

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

18 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Ahab, I asked if you agreed that you had no evidence from the OT to support baptism and you said No.  

Meaning I do not agree that I have no evidence from the OT to support baptism and that I do see evidence in the OT that supports my idea that people were being baptized in OT times.  Scriptures in the OT that describe what I now know was a baptismal font, for example.  And the fact that you don't agree that was a baptismal font doesn't mean I can't still see that scripture as evidence to support what I'm saying.

If you claim to have OT evidence for baptism, then to satisfy my CFR you need to produce that evidence.  If you’re referring to 1 Kings again, then we’ve already discussed that it says nothing about baptism in that scripture, it doesn’t use the word font either.  Here is some commentary on these verses in 1 Kings 7:23-26 from my NRSV Jewish Study Bible.  

Quote

The elevated tank provided water under pressure so that the priests could wash conveniently without having to draw water from Temple cisterns (2 Chron. 4:6).  The text does not indicate how water was released from the tank or how it was filled.  The tank’s design, mounted on the back of twelve oxen, actually bulls, facing the cardinal points of the compass, may have been symbolically meaningful.  A comparison of the tank’s diameter and circumference indicates that the author used 3 as the value of pi.  Assuming the correctness of the diameter, the circumference was almost 31.5 cubits.    27-39: Hiram also made ten lavers and ten intricately designed rolling stands for the washing of sacrificial parts.  The inclusion of mythical cherubs along with bulls and lions in the side frames of the stands suggests that they too conveyed some symbolic message.  

So just to be clear, is your only evidence for baptism in the OT, the above verses, which don’t actually say anything about baptism at all?  

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

I claimed that evidence exists in what we now have which tell us the purpose of temples.  Our Lord has told us that baptism for the dead is a temple ritual, meaning it is something that should happen in a temple dedicated to the Lord for us to help him with his work of salvation. 

In D&C 128, for example, our Lord through Joseph Smith told us that the keys to bind in heaven what is bound on this Earth have always been held by his people whenever he had some people on Earth.  His people referring to people who are members of his Church.  In that same section our Lord also told us that Elijah had restored the keys relative to baptism for the dead, meaning that Elijah had them as well as the power/authority to restore them to us in our day.  Restoring them to us in our day from the days when he had held them, back in the days when he had lived as a mortal on this Earth.  We also know that Elijah appeared to Peter, James and John back in the days when our Lord lived as a mortal on this Earth. So with our knowledge that he held those keys and that our Lord had told Peter he would give him those keys we now know what those keys were and what they were for.  Moses had also given keys to Peter, James and John, as well as to Joseph Smith in his day. So now we know that baptism for the dead is temple ritual, and how that temple ritual was passed on to us as something we should do in temples..

Thanks for clarifying.  The evidence you have is not ancient and is not from the NT.  It comes from Joseph Smith in the 19th century.  And I understand that Joseph Smith is claiming that this knowledge he received is restoring ancient practices, I totally understand that, I am a knowledgeable Mormon.  You just need to be clear about what evidence you are claiming.   That’s what got so confusing.  

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Maybe you should just try to keep in mind that much of our modern revelation is a restoration of what was known by people who lived in historical times, before us, which has been passed on to us in our day.  With Some of it going all the way back to Adam and Eve.

 Or at least that is what we LDS claim much of our modern revelation is.  If you don't believe that, just understand that we do.

I totally get the correlated Mormon narrative.  The problem that I have with what you stated, is you didn’t just make a claim that modern revelation has revealed this knowledge, you made the claim that this knowledge is found in the OT or NT, and for that kind of a claim you need to provide evidence from the NT or the OT to support the claim.  Which you haven’t done.  You can claim the information was in the OT or NT originally and that its been lost, that is fine, that is a claim we can’t test and validate, but has to be taken on faith. 

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I thought that his coming to the stark realization that the ban was over as he sat with his two sons weeping on that mound of dirt in June 1978, along with his own reflection on the fact that the old stories had been publicly disavowed (which you don't believe took place), indicate to me that he sees things far differently now.  I don't know how strongly Elder McConkie's comments at BYU in August 1978 impacted Oaks, but I am sure that BYU Pres Oaks was on the dais as McConkie delivered those powerful and unsparing comments.  Those events must have revolutionized Oaks' much earlier opinions from when he was in Chicago and Wash, DC.

The reasons for the ban were disavowed, thanks to modern scholarship by historians, not thanks to any church leaders, and Oaks makes the distinction between the reasons and the ban itself in his talk.  Also, his claim that these reasons were disavowed publicly and promptly is laughable as I’ve already pointed out.  

Did you happen to listen to Dr. Paul Reeve’s interview on Radiowest that I linked to earlier?  He also was disappointed with this statement of Oaks, and he even made a statement that I thought was quite interesting, he thinks that the disavowal statement in the gospel topics essay also applies to the ban, and not just the theories for it.  This supports an argument I’ve been making for a few years now and debated with multiple people about on this message board.  That the statement in the essay disavows all racism in the past, and that includes the racism of the ban itself. 

As for your speculation about how the McConkie talk must have influenced Oaks, or if Oaks was even referring to the McConkie talk, or if Oaks has a different opinion today than he had back in 1978, its just speculative mind reading on your part, this is not evidence, its conjecture.  

[Ahab]

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If you claim to have OT evidence for baptism, then to satisfy my CFR you need to produce that evidence.  If you’re referring to 1 Kings again, then we’ve already discussed that it says nothing about baptism in that scripture, it doesn’t use the word font either.  Here is some commentary on these verses in 1 Kings 7:23-26 from my NRSV Jewish Study Bible.  

I do, and I did.  Yes I was referring to the 1 Kings scriptures, again.  if by saying "we've already discussed that" you mean that I have told you I see those scriptures as evidence of a baptismal font used for baptism back then, and you telling me it's not and it wasn't, then you should understand that no matter how many times we've already discussed this that I still haven't changed my mind that it does describe a baptismal font used for baptism regardless of the fact that you don't agree with me that it does.  The font described in 1 Kings also describes the baptismal font for the dead in the Portland Oregon temple I visit. regardless of what the NSRV Jewish Study Bible says too!

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

So just to be clear, is your only evidence for baptism in the OT, the above verses, which don’t actually say anything about baptism at all?

No, there are a few others that refer to the same thing.  See 2 Chr. 4:7; Isa. 1:16; 48:1; Jer. 52:20; Zech. 13:1, if by "in the OT" you're referring to scriptures in the OT.  They describe what we now know was a baptismal font, according to the word of the Lord in modern scripture.

 

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The evidence you have is not ancient and is not from the NT.  It comes from Joseph Smith in the 19th century.  And I understand that Joseph Smith is claiming that this knowledge he received is restoring ancient practices, I totally understand that, I am a knowledgeable Mormon.  You just need to be clear about what evidence you are claiming.   That’s what got so confusing.

I was trying to be clear.  I think some of the confusion came from us talking about things that happened in OT times, back in those days, and we have knowledge of that from not only OT scriptures but also modern revelation from our Lord about that. 

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 I totally get the correlated Mormon narrative.  The problem that I have with what you stated, is you didn’t just make a claim that modern revelation has revealed this knowledge, you made the claim that this knowledge is found in the OT or NT, and for that kind of a claim you need to provide evidence from the NT or the OT to support the claim.  Which you haven’t done.  You can claim the information was in the OT or NT originally and that its been lost, that is fine, that is a claim we can’t test and validate, but has to be taken on faith. 

There are scriptures in the OT and NT which refer to baptism or baptismal fonts, although not in as much detail as we have now through other sources.  The evidence I supported from the OT and NT was not meant to be all inclusive, but they are evidence that baptism existed back then as long as someone correctly understands what those things are or were used for.  And, please, a modern Jewish Study Bible will not always give you the correct information about the true Jewish religion because the modern "Jewish" religion, as they call it, is about as corrupt as what is called modern "Christianity".

[blueglass]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The phrase “we don’t know” may not be in the essay, but that is the clear impression conveyed regarding the Church’s stance. As much as people may want to read it into the essay, there is nothing in there to justify the conclusion that perpetuation of the ban until 1978 was contrary to the will of God. On the other hand, the fact that President Kimball (and others before him) has to plead with the Lord so long and hard for direction and ultimate permission to lift the ban argues compellingly against that conclusion. 

"we don't know" is a position of laziness.  "seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith."  D&C88:118.  If we do no studying and simply inquire of the Lord then we will fail.  "you took no thought save it was to ask me."  D&Cov9:7.  It is exemplary of the position of laman and lemuel who said, "Behold, we cannot understand the words which our father hath spoken concerning the natural branches of the olive-tree, and also concerning the Gentiles.    8 And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord?  9 And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us. " 

"10 Wherefore, come ye unto it, and with him that cometh I will reason as with men in days of old, and I will show unto you my strong reasoning." D&Cov 45:10

To clutch to the "we don't know" position is to give Harold B. Lee a high five when he said in his April 1961 talk rebuking historians, "Somehow a little lapse or a little failure to research properly they had reached a conclusion that they had wanted to reach - to make it appear as though something had been done away a way back that we have departed from and therefore ought to be set in order." 

There are no reputable scholars who support this 1969 "we don't know" position.  At least the 1949 first presidency statement although not in agreement with the Lord was in agreement with Brigham Young.  As Edward Kimball wrote, "For Brigham Young, the matter was uncomplicated."  

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The reasons for the ban were disavowed, thanks to modern scholarship by historians, not thanks to any church leaders, and Oaks makes the distinction between the reasons and the ban itself in his talk.  Also, his claim that these reasons were disavowed publicly and promptly is laughable as I’ve already pointed out.  

I have specifically acknowledged that you do not believe that there was any prompt public disavowal.  I took McConkie's comments as a direct and powerful disavowal, and I was very happy to hear him say that.  Bear in mind that I have always been unsparing in my criticism of the racist stories spread by so many Mormons (and non-Mormons), and did not approve in any way of McConkie's pre-1978 version of the status of the negro..  Indeed, if anything, I sided with the views of Jerald Tanner on racism and LDS tradition.  So it may all seem laughable to you that I consider McConkie's comments to be an immediate and public disavowal, but you may not be looking at it from my POV at all.  Nor from Pres Oaks' likely POV (which is far more restrained than mine).

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Did you happen to listen to Dr. Paul Reeve’s interview on Radiowest that I linked to earlier?  He also was disappointed with this statement of Oaks, and he even made a statement that I thought was quite interesting, he thinks that the disavowal statement in the gospel topics essay also applies to the ban, and not just the theories for it.  This supports an argument I’ve been making for a few years now and debated with multiple people about on this message board.  That the statement in the essay disavows all racism in the past, and that includes the racism of the ban itself. 

Doug Fabrizio has had a number of guests on this subject recently, including Gregory Prince (the biographer of McKay), and I have heard several claims of "fake apology" applied to the Be One celebration -- which I do not believe was conceived of as an apology of any kind, so I reject that nonsensical claim.  However, I am glad that they are freely discussing it.  Can't hurt to throw more light on the issue.  I do agree with you that "the statement in the essay disavows all racism in the past, and that includes the racism of the ban itself."  One can read a lot of meaning between the lines.

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

As for your speculation about how the McConkie talk must have influenced Oaks, or if Oaks was even referring to the McConkie talk, or if Oaks has a different opinion today than he had back in 1978, its just speculative mind reading on your part, this is not evidence, its conjecture.  

Yes, it is a conjecture on my part.  Oaks didn't say what he was referring to.  Perhaps he only had the Essay in mind.  However, it is a demonstrable fact that he was on the dais when Elder McConkie delivered his extraordinary comments, and I see no reason to doubt that he was powerfully affected by them -- I certainly was.  You prefer to take a minimalist position, but that does not invalidate my soundly-based conjecture.  That is not the same as mind reading, but is based on good evidence.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The phrase “we don’t know” may not be in the essay, but that is the clear impression conveyed regarding the Church’s stance. As much as people may want to read it into the essay, there is nothing in there to justify the conclusion that perpetuation of the ban until 1978 was contrary to the will of God. On the other hand, the fact that President Kimball (and others before him) has to plead with the Lord so long and hard for direction and ultimate permission to lift the ban argues compellingly against that conclusion. 

I take the view that the Mormon people themselves were the reason why the Lord took so long to speak and to come forth with a revelation on the subject. That is, owing to their failure to take seriously that part of the Gospel, and to live it, prevented the Lord from providing direction.  The failures of ancient Israel had that same effect.  The people simply were not yet ready.  However, that is just speculation on my part.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think Pres. Oaks and the first presidencie's hands are tied. He can't fully admit that a prophet is wrong and that the prophets after didn't know it was wrong and this was the most gentle way for him to say that the ban was from God. 

There may be several things that Oaks is reticent to say, but I don't think that he believes that the ban was from God -- for the same reasons that I don't believe it.  Yes, he may feel that his hands (or tongue) are tied due to the high position he holds.  Just observe how closely every word or lack of word from Oaks is interpreted on this board.  He can't win for losing.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There may be several things that Oaks is reticent to say, but I don't think that he believes that the ban was from God -- for the same reasons that I don't believe it.  Yes, he may feel that his hands (or tongue) are tied due to the high position he holds.  Just observe how closely every word or lack of word from Oaks is interpreted on this board.  He can't win for losing.

But doesn't that give you pause,  if what you say is correct then that means so many prophets were wrong and adds to the list of revelations not being true, which means we have a lot of false prophets to beware of. 

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I take the view that the Mormon people themselves were the reason why the Lord took so long to speak and to come forth with a revelation on the subject. That is, owing to their failure to take seriously that part of the Gospel, and to live it, prevented the Lord from providing direction.  The failures of ancient Israel had that same effect.  The people simply were not yet ready.  However, that is just speculation on my part.

I agree that was part of it, but many people outside of the Church would not have been ready for it yet, either, so I believe our Lord was waiting for a time when it would be accepted more by all people, generally.

Some people don't seem to realize that just because Presidents of the Church wanted to end the restrictions sooner, that wasn't the only factor they had to consider.

I remember the 1970's being a time when Affirmative Action was getting a lot of criticism.  So the general population didn't look ready to me so much in the 1970's.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed in 1968 for trying to bring about civil rights.   So it was 10 years from that time before the restrictions were lifted.

That helps to put it into context for me.  I lived back then, born in 1961, and I saw and still remember some of what I saw about how black people were viewed and treated by the general population.. I lived in Texas, in or near black neighborhoods.  We moved around.

I think many young people today just have a hard time imagining why it would have taken so long to view people by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin.  Of course the change in view should have happened sooner, but it didn't.  It just didn't.