Pres. Oaks talk - Be One event

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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. 

As noted above McConkie was not referencing racist folklore in these comments. As evidenced by the updated Mormon Doctrine which remained in print until recently. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.   

Yes, totally agree, this is my experience exactly.  

 

I think the gospel topics essay was worded to appeal to the various positions of multiple GAs. But it's been clear for a long time that Pres. Oaks is one of the hardliners on the issue, even if his rhetoric has softened as of late.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

As noted above McConkie was not referencing racist folklore in these comments. As evidenced by the updated Mormon Doctrine which remained in print until recently. 

For reference (from the 1978 updated version of Mormon Doctrine):

However, in a broad general sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and 
when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and 
proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been 
cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom 
the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry. 

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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. 

Why even maintain this distinction at all?  It seems you can’t profess to be accepting of gay people if you view their sexual relationships as fundamentally sinful.  

I’m just reading Devery Anderson’s book on the Development of LDS Temple Worship and it’s astounding about the different views church leaders and members had in the 19th century on the subject of sex.  They actually viewed a person as unworthy to enter the temple if they had had sexual relations with their wife within 7 days of when they would enter the temple.  Or a woman being on her memstral cycle couldn’t attend.  I can only imagine what those recommend interviews were like.  

46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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. 

Also we should consider that the author may have intended these moral conundrums as a learning opportunity to show that professessing to be following God is not sufficient ethical justification.  

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

As noted above McConkie was not referencing racist folklore in these comments. As evidenced by the updated Mormon Doctrine which remained in print until recently. 

So, question.  Was an updated edition of Mormon Doctrine released after the 1978 revelation, and did it still contain racist ideology?  

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think the gospel topics essay was worded to appeal to the various positions of multiple GAs. But it's been clear for a long time that Pres. Oaks is one of the hardliners on the issue, even if his rhetoric has softened as of late.

I worry that his new position of power will bring out his more strident side.  

[clarkgoble]

45 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think the gospel topics essay was worded to appeal to the various positions of multiple GAs. But it's been clear for a long time that Pres. Oaks is one of the hardliners on the issue, even if his rhetoric has softened as of late.

It's interesting as in the 90's he was considered among the most progressive giving talks saying homosexuality was innate and not a choice and breaking with most of the (then) common views. It's not clear to me that others of the GAs significantly differ with him though. At least back in the days of Oaks and Packer fights you'd find snide comments or talks that clearly taught opposing views. You don't see anything like that right now that I can see.

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

So, question.  Was an updated edition of Mormon Doctrine released after the 1978 revelation, and did it still contain racist ideology?  

He eliminated some racist lore but some remained. But then let's be honest. There were lots of problems with Mormon Doctrine which had too much reliance on public sermons by prophets that caught on rather than a focus on uncontested revelations.

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Also we should consider that the author may have intended these moral conundrums as a learning opportunity to show that professessing to be following God is not sufficient ethical justification.  

I'm skeptical that works for the particular passage in Joshua you referred to. More likely it was later groups trying to emphasize Jewish domination of the Canaanite region which likely was false according to the archaeological record.

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For reference (from the 1978 updated version of Mormon Doctrine):

However, in a broad general sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and 
when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and 
proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been 
cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom 
the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry. 

Thanks for this.  I think there were many of the Apostles after 1978 that we’re still against interracial marriage publicly.  

They had racist views still lingering and I think many of these views are still present in the church today and have not been clearly and promptly disavowed as was claimed.  

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Why even maintain this distinction at all?  It seems you can’t profess to be accepting of gay people if you view their sexual relationships as fundamentally sinful.

Well not everyone agrees with that. The act/person distinction seems a pretty useful one.

Quote

I’m just reading Devery Anderson’s book on the Development of LDS Temple Worship and it’s astounding about the different views church leaders and members had in the 19th century on the subject of sex.  They actually viewed a person as unworthy to enter the temple if they had had sexual relations with their wife within 7 days of when they would enter the temple.  Or a woman being on her memstral cycle couldn’t attend.  I can only imagine what those recommend interviews were like.

Some of those arise out of the Old Testament as I'm sure you know. I don't think they apply, but I can certainly understand people being confused upon the issue.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for this.  I think there were many of the Apostles after 1978 that we’re still against interracial marriage publicly.  

They had racist views still lingering and I think many of these views are still present in the church today and have not been clearly and promptly disavowed as was claimed.  

So, I would define the word “many” as meaning more than a few. 

Assuming that a few means, say, from three to eight, can you document say, eight or more men who held the calling of apostle after 1978 who took a public stance against interracial marriage and had otherwise assorted racist views?  We’ll call this a CFR. 

By the way, I’m not just talking about optional advice to marry within one’s own culture or socio-ecomic group so as to give the marriage the optimum chance of success. I’m interpreting your remark to mean a hard-line moral stance in opposition to interracial marriage. 

I’m thinking a few days would be enough to accomplish this if it is as obvious as you make it seem. But I’ll give you a couple of weeks as a time cushion. 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

... 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

On the gay issue, he sees that as a way of BEHAVING not BEING and so it is not "prejudice" or discrimination, for him gay behavior is a voluntary sinful state, nothing at all like being born as the member of a certain race.

He does not accept that people are "born gay", so in those circumstances it is NOT "prejudice"

You can disagree with his paradigm but WITHIN that paradigm, he is correct.

So it is not a justification for prejudice, for him, but it is to you.

Relativism cuts both ways 

If sin is relative, what defines it is an individual judgement.

If there are no absolutes, there are no absolutes, so neither if you have a case.

Of course he sees absolutes where you do not.

Again, relativism cuts both ways!

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

...............................................

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,

He takes no such position.  He is reflecting on his attempts to understand why the restrictions existed, saying frankly that he could find no confirmation of the truth of those explanations (the same problem David O. McKay found).  Thus, he decided to put his lack of knowledge in abeyance and to simply follow Church policy in the interim.  You might call that a faith position.

Quote

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.  ...................

He is not condoning it at all.  Just like David O. McKay he is placing his lack of knowledge in abeyance until instructed directly by the Lord.  Joseph Fielding Smith took the same position.  This is not at all an unusual position for Mormons to have taken back in those days.

Quote

I would like to issue a CFR to President Oaks on this statement.  I see no evidence to support it, ................

Since Oaks is not here to respond to your CFR, consider simply one Apostle's direct, public response to the new revelation:

Quote

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.... It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year.  Bruce McConkie, "All Are Alike Unto God," BYU address, Aug 18, 1978.  Online at https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_alike-unto-god-2/ .

Quote

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

He was dealing specifically with the race issue and with the pre-1978 restrictions.  The other issues were not part of his discussion.

Quote

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

Pres. Oaks is referring to the basic moral rules of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which may not always agree with what is publicly popular and acceptable.  If one cannot abide by those rules, one cannot be a member of the LDS Church.  That is indeed restrictive.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well not everyone agrees with that. The act/person distinction seems a pretty useful one.

Many people, myself included find this reasoning very morally problematic.  

30 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Some of those arise out of the Old Testament as I'm sure you know. I don't think they apply, but I can certainly understand people being confused upon the issue.

Yes, and we can trace all kinds unethical teachings to some ancient tradition, including racism and slavery.  So when a modern church leader professes the source of these traditions was God, that’s when we have a problem.  

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So, I would define the word “many” as meaning more than a few. 

Assuming that a few means, say, from three to eight, can you document say, eight or more men who held the calling of apostle after 1978 who took a public stance against interracial marriage and had otherwise assorted racist views?  We’ll call this a CFR. 

By the way, I’m not just talking about optional advice to marry within one’s own culture or socio-ecomic group so as to give the marriage the optimum chance of success. I’m interpreting your remark to mean a hard-line moral stance in opposition to interracial marriage. 

I’m thinking a few days would be enough to accomplish this if it is as obvious as you make it seem. But I’ll give you a couple of weeks as a time cushion. 

I’ll be happy to look for supporting evidence.  I did say “I think” for a reason because I’m pretty sure not every Apostle made comments either way on this subject.  However if I can find 3 apostles who did make comments against interracial marriage, but no apostles in favor of it, it’s somewhat safe to assume that apostles who made no public comments on the topic were more likely against it than for it.

Also, you’re setting the bar high on what you’d consider supporting evidence.  But you don’t get to request a CFR and also define what constitutes the terms.  I’ll provide what evidence I can find, and I think it will be interesting to review.   If I can’t find anything I’ll adjust my earlier comment as the rules require.  

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

On the gay issue, he sees that as a way of BEHAVING not BEING and so it is not "prejudice" or discrimination, for him gay behavior is a voluntary sinful state, nothing at all like being born as the member of a certain race.

He does not accept that people are "born gay", so in those circumstances it is NOT "prejudice"

But the church already admitted people are born gay on their very website when they first launched Mormons and gays.  All the science supports this as well.  The church has essentially walked away from this old myth.  You are suggesting Oaks still believes it?  That’s hard for me to imagine.  

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Relativism cuts both ways 

 If sin is relative, what defines it is an individual judgement.

If there are no absolutes, there are no absolutes, so neither if you have a case. 

Of course he sees absolutes where you do not.

Again, relativism cuts both ways!

I can’t claim absolute certitude on anything, even relativism.  So from a pragmatist perspective we should operate from a position that affords the maximum good for the most people and that also reduces suffering.  On those fronts Oak’s position fails the test.  

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He takes no such position.  He is reflecting on his attempts to understand why the restrictions existed, saying frankly that he could find no confirmation of the truth of those explanations (the same problem David O. McKay found).  Thus, he decided to put his lack of knowledge in abeyance and to simply follow Church policy in the interim.  You might call that a faith position.

Look again at the specific wording Oaks uses.  “the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants.”  So he’s saying the ban was a commandment, but that we don’t have a good reason for it.  

26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He is not condoning it at all.  Just like David O. McKay he is placing his lack of knowledge in abeyance until instructed directly by the Lord.  Joseph Fielding Smith took the same position.  This is not at all an unusual position for Mormons to have taken back in those days.

His current position seems to be behind the times, yes perhaps in line with church leaders from 50-70 years ago, but out of step with the Gospel topics essay and current more inclusive rhetoric we’ve heard in recent years.  Thats my reading, but perhaps I’m over thinking this.  

29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Pres. Oaks is referring to the basic moral rules of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which may not always agree with what is publicly popular and acceptable.  If one cannot abide by those rules, one cannot be a member of the LDS Church.  That is indeed restrictive.

I agree that this is what Oaks is claiming.  Essentially a moral authority to practice certain kinds of prejudice.  It’s not consistent with the statement from Nelson that contained no qualifiers.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But the church already admitted people are born gay on their very website when they first launched Mormons and gays.  All the science supports this as well.

CFR on both claims.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

But the church already admitted people are born gay on their very website when they first launched Mormons and gays.  All the science supports this as well.  

CFR that the Church admitted people are born gay.

CFR that science supports this.

 

ETA: looks like Hamba beat me to it. 

Edited June 5, 2018 by kllindley

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I’ll be happy to look for supporting evidence.  I did say “I think” for a reason because I’m pretty sure not every Apostle made comments either way on this subject.  However if I can find 3 apostles who did make comments against interracial marriage, but no apostles in favor of it, it’s somewhat safe to assume that apostles who made no public comments on the topic were more likely against it than for it.

Also, you’re setting the bar high on what you’d consider supporting evidence.  But you don’t get to request a CFR and also define what constitutes the terms.  I’ll provide what evidence I can find, and I think it will be interesting to review.   If I can’t find anything I’ll adjust my earlier comment as the rules require.  

You used quite hardened terms when you asserted “many” apostles after 1978 were “against interracial marriage publicly” and then added that they harbored racist attitudes.  I think in a normative sense such language conveys staunch opposition, not merely misgivings arising from the socio-economic climate of the times. 

Also, three doesn’t mean “many” by any reasonable or normative definition of the word. You don’t get to identify three and then extrapolate that there may have been others just to rescue a rash assertion about there having been many. Either you can substantiate it or you can’t. 

But with that, I’ll stand by and see what you come up with. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Also, three doesn’t mean “many” by any reasonable or normative definition of the word. You don’t get to identify three and then extrapolate that there may have been others just to rescue a rash assertion about there having been many. Either you can substantiate it or you can’t. 

I just didn’t like the gotcha kind of vibe I’m reading between the lines in your CFR.  At any rate, I respect the process and will see what I can find.   

[Gray]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I worry that his new position of power will bring out his more strident side.  

My observation is that it hasn't so far. He seems relatively subdued compared to 10 years ago.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

But the church already admitted people are born gay on their very website when they first launched Mormons and gays.  All the science supports this as well.  The church has essentially walked away from this old myth.  You are suggesting Oaks still believes it?  That’s hard for me to imagine.  

Well he certainly thinks acting on these temptations if one was born with the temptations or not- is sinful.  Perhaps that is a clearer statement than I made earlier.  Theologically we are all born "fallen" and as a "natural man" and are here to overcome those temptations

Of course though we still have the issue of deciding ourselves whether or not homosexual behavior is sinful.  That is still the issue on which any kind of objective evidence becomes irrelevant as is the case with all moral decisions about what is right or wrong.

Quote

I can’t claim absolute certitude on anything, even relativism.  So from a pragmatist perspective we should operate from a position that affords the maximum good for the most people and that also reduces suffering.  On those fronts Oak’s position fails the test.  

Well that first sentence might have some problems with it. 

Surely you believe the earth is roughly spherical and are pretty darn certain about it?  I think maybe you are talking about moral and other issues like that?  And no one is absolutely certain about relativism because that would be contradictory.

Utilitarianism seems to be what you are advocating perhaps a bit like JS Mill but defining "maximum good for the most people" can prove difficult to define.  Some might say that would be bringing everyone to the Celestial Kingdom for example. 

We still have the problem of defining "good" either way, so we still have the problem of competing paradigms and no one being right or wrong.

And that includes the proposition that "Prejudice is wrong" if IF one could show it is "prejudice".  I mean I am definitely prejudiced against cancer and cancer cells are "born that way" too- is that wrong?

I am just trying to make the point that indignation about these issues and presuming that one is right and another is wrong is perhaps unjustified and demonstrates more certainty about one's one position than is warranted logically

To me it shows prejudice against other paradigms when really there is no objective way of picking between the allegedly "wrong" paradigm

Righteous indignation is usually what follows and total dogmatism which in my opinion is no better than dogmatism from the other side.

Edited June 5, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Look again at the specific wording Oaks uses.  “the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants.”  So he’s saying the ban was a commandment, but that we don’t have a good reason for it.  

I am well familiar with Oaks' words from last Friday, and I was the first to quote him on this board.  You have taken one phrase out of context..  Just because Oaks gives a rule of thumb (“the Lord rarely gives reasons") does not mean that he is using it as a positive declaration that Church actions were justified by god in that instance.  He already said that he did not know, and that he could find no confirmation of the truth of the restrictive policy reasons given.  That is a statement of his ignorance, not assurance (as you would have it by selectively quoting).

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

His current position seems to be behind the times, yes perhaps in line with church leaders from 50-70 years ago, but out of step with the Gospel topics essay and current more inclusive rhetoric we’ve heard in recent years.  Thats my reading, but perhaps I’m over thinking this.  

I found nothing in his statement behind the times, and the quotes I provided were certainly very up to date and even avant garde.  Maybe you should go back and reread his words.  Carefully.  Do I really have to quote the relevant lines for you?

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that this is what Oaks is claiming.  Essentially a moral authority to practice certain kinds of prejudice.  It’s not consistent with the statement from Nelson that contained no qualifiers.  

You are mistaken.  Prejudice is unreasoning and unfair.  The moral authority of the Gospel is exactly the opposite.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

But the church already admitted people are born gay on their very website when they first launched Mormons and gays.  All the science supports this as well.  The church has essentially walked away from this old myth.  You are suggesting Oaks still believes it?  That’s hard for me to imagine.

Sounds to me like the LDS Church should be congratulated on accepting current science on the etiology of homosexuality and heterosexuality.  Did Oaks comment directly on the science now being accepted?  We probably need to look closely at the dates of various statements by the Brethren.

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I can’t claim absolute certitude on anything, even relativism.  So from a pragmatist perspective we should operate from a position that affords the maximum good for the most people and that also reduces suffering.  On those fronts Oak’s position fails the test.  

Suffering is as much a part of life as joy.  The Law of Opposites merely declares the facts of life.  The choices we  make will have a powerful effect on which path we travel, a path of greater suffering, or one of less suffering.  The Gospel is merely one among many choices.   Which one is the most advantageous to humankind?  Oaks is only a failure if one rejects the Gospel method.  Value judgments determine which path seems best, and that is a relative matter.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's interesting as in the 90's he was considered among the most progressive giving talks saying homosexuality was innate and not a choice and breaking with most of the (then) common views. It's not clear to me that others of the GAs significantly differ with him though. At least back in the days of Oaks and Packer fights you'd find snide comments or talks that clearly taught opposing views. You don't see anything like that right now that I can see.

I was not aware of that- if it is not too much of a hassle could you show an example of that?  No biggie- I was just not aware of these issues in the 90's being buried in the real estate business with no time to breathe, and the wolf at the door with 4 little kids.    I dont even know where to start looking!