Pres. Oaks talk - Be One event

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Well said!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 hours 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.  

The same issue of the Deseret News that announced the end of the ban ran an article headlined: “Interracial marriage discouraged"

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19780617&id=_RxVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YIADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5866,5012493

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

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!

 

Here’s his famous talk on it. It seem anything but progressive today but the mainstream views in 1995 were quite different such that even Clinton supported NOMA at the time. So to say that inclinations weren’t chosen was quite radical.

https://shrtm.nu/3U2B

The bit about Oaks and Packer is best known from the Steve Benson and September Six issue. Although there were lots of other rumors and hints of some tensions that are probably harder to track down now.

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/093-67-72.pdf

 

Edited June 5, 2018 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Here’s his famous talk on it. It seem anything but progressive today but the mainstream views in 1995 were quite different such that even Clinton supported NOMA at the time. So to say that inclinations weren’t chosen was quite radical.

https://shrtm.nu/3U2B

The bit about Oaks and Packer is best known from the Steve Benson and September Six issue. Although there were lots of other rumors and hints of some tensions that are probably harder to track down now.

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/093-67-72.pdf

 

Hey thanks, I will check em out!

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

CFR on both claims.

 

12 hours ago, kllindley said:

CFR that the Church admitted people are born gay.

CFR that science supports this.

 

ETA: looks like Hamba beat me to it. 

For the first claim, where has the church said that people are born gay.  The first time I came across this, it was on the old Mormonsandgays.org website, which has since been retired and replaced with Mormonandgay.org.  I'll give both the old quote and the new quote.  

Quote

The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

Quote

While same-sex attraction is not a sin, it can be a challenge. While one may not have chosen to have these feelings, he or she can commit to keep God’s commandments.

I found a few other quotes, thanks to Bryce Cook's great essay on this topic that I used for convenience.  

Quote

Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them.” (Ballard, “The Lord Needs You Now,” Ensign, Sep 2015, also cited in mormonandgay.org, “Church Teachings”

Quote

Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault…” (Oaks, “Same-Gender Attraction,” Ensign, October 1995

For the second CFR, what sciences support my statement.  I'm not an expert or a scientist.  But I'm linking to supportive scientific studies.  While I believe all the credible scientific studies show that this orientation is primarily biologically driven, I also think there is a spectrum and differences in how individuals express their gender orientation.  

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/495588

http://www.apa.org/about/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/01/can-you-be-gay-by-choice/

 

 

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

I don't think homosexual behavior is any more sinful than heterosexual behavior.  Sin is about context, and that speaks to your earlier point about relativity.  The context of the behavior can be sinful based on how it impacts the humans involved and the broader world they inhabit. 

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

Well, I agree with much of this.  We have to define what good is and have those conversations as a society to determine how to interact and what to value.  When it comes to prejudice, I was contrasting the statement Nelson made with the qualifications Oaks added.  I'm thinking of the kinds of social/cultural prejudice primarily, but if you expand it into cancer cells, I too am prejudice against their existence.  

I agree that there isn't an objective way of picking between paradigms, this is where the conversation has to happen, and the critical arguments need to be made and debated and remade over again.  I try to be leery of dogmatism on all sides as well.  

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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).

What Oaks says he didn't know and could find no confirmation about were the "reasons" for the ban specifically.  But he still had confidence that leaders were commanded to implement the ban, he just didn't have confidence in the reasons.  I think its a pretty clear reading of what he said. 

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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?

First you say that Oaks agrees with McKay and JFS, and now you say he's up to date, so those two statements contradict each other.  Either he's in step with leaders from 50-70 years ago or he's in step with current LDS thought.  I don't see it.  I expressed that I think he's out of step with the LDS topics essay and why.  You'd have to explain why he's not, which you haven't done.  

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Quote

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.

I don't see how I'm mistaken here.  Oaks made a claim that prejudice is limited and put qualifiers on it, and Nelson didn't say anything like that in his statement.  What you personally believe about the Gospel is a different topic all together.  And prejudice is just (pre judgement) so its not unreasoned necessarily, there are many reasoned prejudices out there.  It might be unfair though and that is why I'm criticizing Oaks' qualifying rules, because those rules are certainly unfair.  But from Oaks' perspective this unfair relationship is justified because God commanded it.  I don't find that kind of dogma very healthy for society.  

 

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Way to late to the party to get any congratulations.  Its more like, well you finally showed up, its about time! 

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Agreed that suffering is a part of life, so what should we do about that, should we seek to create more suffering?  "The Gospel" isn't a choice, its an ideology that differs in great orders of magnitude according to the many various interpretations and personalities of each individual.  Each interpretation has its pros and cons, so thats much too broad of a claim to make.  We have to focus on specifics, and Oaks made a specific claim that certain types of prejudice shouldn't be called prejudice because they are commandment/rules from God.  Anyone that makes the God claim, can justify any immoral behavior that the human mind can imagine.  If God commands it, you can do anything.  I don't find this persuasive or moral. 

I agree with making value judgments, and that is what I'm calling for.  An actual appraisal of the prejudice against the LGBT community that Oaks and other church leaders want to perpetuate.  I see this prejudice as having a negative impact on society as a whole and church members as well.  Appeals to authority are not value judgments, they are an attempt to play a trump card with no actual substance. 

 

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The same issue of the Deseret News that announced the end of the ban ran an article headlined: “Interracial marriage discouraged"

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19780617&id=_RxVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YIADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5866,5012493

Ahh, thanks much Seeking.  I'll add this to the list.  Very interesting that the Church's newspaper was willing to say such a thing.  Just another item to add to the future list of grievances that the church needs to institutionally apologize for.  

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

 

For the first claim, where has the church said that people are born gay.  The first time I came across this, it was on the old Mormonsandgays.org website, which has since been retired and replaced with Mormonandgay.org.  I'll give both the old quote and the new quote.  

I found a few other quotes, thanks to Bryce Cook's great essay on this topic that I used for convenience.  

For the second CFR, what sciences support my statement.  I'm not an expert or a scientist.  But I'm linking to supportive scientific studies.  While I believe all the credible scientific studies show that this orientation is primarily biologically driven, I also think there is a spectrum and differences in how individuals express their gender orientation.  

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/495588

http://www.apa.org/about/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/01/can-you-be-gay-by-choice/

 

 

Those quotes don't remotely substantiate your two claims. Thanks for replying so that it is clear and on record that you can't back up those assertions. I'll consider your claims retracted.

[rockpond]

It's discouraging to me to have President Oaks make the false disavowal claim.  Even today the disavowals that have been issued are vague and not widely published so as to allow some members to hold onto false teachings from our past.

On the positive side, I appreciate his acknowledgment that we operated with limited understanding (apparently for over a hundred years).  It confirms my belief that even today we still operate with a limited understanding on other issues... the restoration continues.

[clarkgoble]

50 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What Oaks says he didn't know and could find no confirmation about were the "reasons" for the ban specifically.  But he still had confidence that leaders were commanded to implement the ban, he just didn't have confidence in the reasons.  I think its a pretty clear reading of what he said. 

I'm not sure that's accurate. I think his point is more about continuing the ban and he's probably primarily referring to why some apostles from 1948 - 1978 felt impressed not to end it then. That says nothing about whether Brigham Young was commanded to implement the ban. A subtle but pretty significant difference.

Of course even that position is pretty controversial and there were many people at the meeting on Friday rather upset by Oaks comments.

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

We have to focus on specifics, and Oaks made a specific claim that certain types of prejudice shouldn't be called prejudice because they are commandment/rules from God.  Anyone that makes the God claim, can justify any immoral behavior that the human mind can imagine.  If God commands it, you can do anything.  I don't find this persuasive or moral.

I suspect Oaks is thinking of something like a lineage based priesthood limited to the sons of Aaron. It seems hard to simply ignore things like that. I'm not sure the way he phrased things was particularly graceful. But I think to assume that the only answer ever is full egalitarianism with no differences seems deeply problematic as well. I rather suspect Oaks is also thinking of current ecclesiastical priesthood where men and women are differentiated. Again, something I'm sure many here disagree with. But it does seem exactly the sort of thing Oaks is concerned with.

I think there's a common assumption culturally today that any difference is immoral. I just can't find myself agreeing with that even if it's not hard to find prejudices that are immoral.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

For the first claim, where has the church said that people are born gay.  

They don't say "born gay" but Oaks starting in 1995 in the Ensign shifted the Church position. I think "born gay" is too simplistic but there's certainly a genetic component to homosexuality along with environmental factors.

https://shrtm.nu/3U2B

Trying to say someone's born gay or not seems overly reductive. However the bigger question is whether by sheer force of will someone who is gay can cease to be gay and that seems incorrect.

Edited June 5, 2018 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Those quotes don't remotely substantiate your two claims. Thanks for replying so that it is clear and on record that you can't back up those assertions. I'll consider your claims retracted.

In what way do the quotes and links I provided not support my earlier statement?  

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure that's accurate. I think his point is more about continuing the ban and he's probably primarily referring to why some apostles from 1948 - 1978 felt impressed not to end it then. That says nothing about whether Brigham Young was commanded to implement the ban. A subtle but pretty significant difference.

Of course even that position is pretty controversial and there were many people at the meeting on Friday rather upset by Oaks comments.

Clark, can you help me understand this better, I'm re-reading the quote from Oaks, and its not clear to me what you mean by continuing the ban or not ending it.  Are you saying that when he says "the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants." that the commandment or directions he's referring to are directions that weren't given to McKay or other church leaders in the 20th century to end the ban? 

In essence that Oaks is open to the idea that the ban itself was a mistake, but that God had a reason for not eliminating it sooner than 1978, and that God was specifically guiding the predecessors of Kimball in the 20th century to not remove the ban because God had a reason for keeping it in place even if God didn't command the ban originally?  

25 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I suspect Oaks is thinking of something like a lineage based priesthood limited to the sons of Aaron. It seems hard to simply ignore things like that. I'm not sure the way he phrased things was particularly graceful. But I think to assume that the only answer ever is full egalitarianism with no differences seems deeply problematic as well. I rather suspect Oaks is also thinking of current ecclesiastical priesthood where men and women are differentiated. Again, something I'm sure many here disagree with. But it does seem exactly the sort of thing Oaks is concerned with.

I think there's a common assumption culturally today that any difference is immoral. I just can't find myself agreeing with that even if it's not hard to find prejudices that are immoral.

Through a modern lens the lineage based priesthood idea is racist as well.  Any preference based on race or ethnicity is problematic through a contemporary lens.  There are many traditions from hundreds or thousands of years ago that we consider immoral today.  Appeals to some ancient tradition don't change the fact that something is prejudice or not.  

Women being restricted from the priesthood is sexist and many people, myself included, have a huge problem with that as well.  

29 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

They don't say "born gay" but Oaks starting in 1995 in the Ensign shifted the Church position. I think "born gay" is too simplistic but there's certainly a genetic component to homosexuality along with environmental factors.

https://shrtm.nu/3U2B

Trying to say someone's born gay or not seems overly reductive. However the bigger question is whether by sheer force of will someone who is gay can cease to be gay and that seems incorrect.

My first statement was a very simple sentence and I agree that just saying born gay is too simplistic.  But those statements from the church, including Oaks statements show that there was a shift by church leaders away from this being a choice to language that this isn't a choice.  The driving factor being the science on this topic showing biological components to this orientation.  

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

In essence that Oaks is open to the idea that the ban itself was a mistake, but that God had a reason for not eliminating it sooner than 1978, and that God was specifically guiding the predecessors of Kimball in the 20th century to not remove the ban because God had a reason for keeping it in place even if God didn't command the ban originally? 

I'm saying that's a possible way of reading his comments - a likely one in my opinion. Without him clarifying I don't think you can reject that reading.

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Through a modern lens the lineage based priesthood idea is racist as well.  Any preference based on race or ethnicity is problematic through a contemporary lens.  There are many traditions from hundreds or thousands of years ago that we consider immoral today.  Appeals to some ancient tradition don't change the fact that something is prejudice or not.  

And that's more or less Oaks point - that it's hard to reconcile the universal contemporary view with what God directed. Some just want to throw out everything in the Old Testament while many - even those open to lots of OT mistakes - see that as pretty hard to justify. If contemporary views always trump scripture, then effectively one is just a secular humanist.

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

My first statement was a very simple sentence and I agree that just saying born gay is too simplistic.  But those statements from the church, including Oaks statements show that there was a shift by church leaders away from this being a choice to language that this isn't a choice.  The driving factor being the science on this topic showing biological components to this orientation.  

Yes. Oaks was pretty key in moving the apostles to that view in the early 90's to the point that article was published. The shift away from "it's a choice" was pretty significant.

[HappyJackWagon]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

In what way do the quotes and links I provided not support my earlier statement?  

Thanks for fighting a good fight here. He's just trolling you and trying to shut you up by inundating you with CFR's. That's kind of what he does so don't take the bait.

It seems very clear that the church and its leaders once taught racist doctrines and supported a racist ban. Some may choose to argue that the racism was justified because God ordered it, but I choose to believe that they were working off incomplete/insufficient knowledge, they just couldn't recognize their limitations at the time. Similarly, I don't think current leaders/members who teach against LGBT rights and/or the natural presence of SSA amongst humankind recognize the limitations of the socio-cultural knowledge they cling to.

We all cling to incorrect knowledge and information as if it is truth written by the finger of God but the unabashed appeals to the authority of leaders for absolute truth lacks humility and reason. I have my opinions but I'm not prideful enough to think I have it all figured out and know the absolute truth like so many seem to. Nor do I think it is wise to put faith in any person or group of people claiming to know the absolute truth.

[kllindley]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for fighting a good fight here. He's just trolling you and trying to shut you up by inundating you with CFR's. That's kind of what he does so don't take the bait.

Ummmm, I'm trolling? 

Despite your willingness to attribute such motives to me, I have absolutely no interest in shutting people up. My motivation is to have a conversation where we are honest about the facts. Calling out two (2) claims that are not true, but are presented as factual is not inundating with CFRs.

As for the personal claim that "That's kind of what he does," do you have any proof that I've done that before? Let alone that such behavior is a pattern? 

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

  16 hours 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.  

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We’ll call this a CFR. 

 

Ok, so here is what I've found so far.  

1. The 1978 Mormon Doctrine quote from Seeking Understanding that prompted my response and started this inquiry show McConkie views. 

2. Legrand Richards interview after the 1978 revelation  -

Quote

WALTERS: Intermarriage, is that in view too?

RICHARDS: Well, no. Never before this decision was reached we’ve always recommended that people live within their own race – the Japanese ought to marry Japanese, the Chinese ought to marry Chinese, Hawaiians ought to marry Hawaiians and the colored people ought to marry colored.

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/the-legrand-richards-interview/

3. The Deseret News article from June 17, 1978 that SeekingUnderstanding linked to. 

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19780617&id=_RxVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YIADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5866,5012493

4. There was an Aaronic Priesthood manual, first published in 1996, and only discontinued in 2013, where President Kimball said "We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally."  Now, according to wikipedia this quote is also still in use in a 2003 Institute manual on the topic of Marriage and Eternity.  But I couldn't find it through their online link in that institute manual.  I did find a quote in the institute manual that says “The difficulties and hazards of marriage are greatly increased where backgrounds are different” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 302)  So then I tried to track down the Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball and there is no page 302 in that book as it only goes up to page 271.  So I'm not sure where they are referencing this, but apparently the original quote from Kimball and an address he gave at BYU in 1976 has been scrubbed from the current institute manual as well.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

I'm still looking for more references and I'll update as I find them, but this is what I have so far to represent teachings from the church and its leaders on the topic of interracial marriage after the 1978 revelation.  

 

[kllindley]

50 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

In what way do the quotes and links I provided not support my earlier statement?  

You said that the Church admitted that people are born gay. I don't believe it ever has. I know and am very familiar with the teaching that the Church became much more clear about homosexual attractions not being sinful or chosen. That does not equal being born gay. You act like the only alternative to choosing homosexual attraction must be born gay. It isn't. In logic: (not A) does not equal B. 

It seems you admit this later when you say:

37 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

My first statement was a very simple sentence and I agree that just saying born gay is too simplistic. 

So simplistic that the Church hasn't said it. 

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

For the second CFR, what sciences support my statement.  I'm not an expert or a scientist.  But I'm linking to supportive scientific studies.  While I believe all the credible scientific studies show that this orientation is primarily biologically driven, I also think there is a spectrum and differences in how individuals express their gender orientation.  

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/495588

http://www.apa.org/about/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/01/can-you-be-gay-by-choice/

The first article shows a 50% correlation of homosexuality in identical twin pairs. In a biologically determined traits that correlation should be 100%. The fact that the incidence I'm identical twins is higher than in fraternal and non twin pairs does indeed suggest a genetic component.

The second is a position statement that homosexuality is normal and non-pathological. It doesn't say anything about etiology, or cause. 

Did you even read the third. It argues that being gay is in fact a choice of identity, regardless of the unchosen nature of attractions. 

The current position of science is that sexual orientation is:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

....................  We have to focus on specifics, and Oaks made a specific claim that certain types of prejudice shouldn't be called prejudice because they are commandment/rules from God. 

He probably takes that position precisely because there are people like you who claim that anything becomes "prejudice" if they don't like it.  Anyone can take the position that good is really bad, and that bad is really good, without seeing clearly that these are knee-jerk responses, not thoughtful responses.  That is the Orwellian nightmare which we see being acted out right now in our nation's capital.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Anyone that makes the God claim, can justify any immoral behavior that the human mind can imagine.  If God commands it, you can do anything.  I don't find this persuasive or moral. 

I don't either, but then you don't offer a real alternative to empty God claims -- which I think requires an actual knowledge of history, literature, faith, and logic.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with making value judgments, and that is what I'm calling for.  An actual appraisal of the prejudice against the LGBT community that Oaks and other church leaders want to perpetuate.  I see this prejudice as having a negative impact on society as a whole and church members as well.  Appeals to authority are not value judgments, they are an attempt to play a trump card with no actual substance. 

Those who love or hate this or that group are making value judgments.  The various interpretations of Holy Writ are value judgments.  Even an appeal to authority is a value judgment by someone who thinks that he understands what God wants.  The problem with value judgments is that they are infinite in variety and scope, and they are relative.  Yet all of us make value judgments about what is best, what is right, etc.  You clearly do not understand what a value judgment is, and you don't understand that there is no accounting for taste.  It might be helpful if you could describe for us what bases you have for whatever judgments you make.  Are they logical?  Do they comport with actual history?  With science?  How deeply and broadly do your efforts to get it right go?  What kind of commitment to truth do you really have?  Are you willing to jettison bad logic, bad history, and bad faith?  The typical high school student headed for college has to be prepared to change is several dynamic ways as he learns new critical thinking skills, new data sets, and some broader opinions than he has theretofore encountered.  It's called "growing up," and not everyone does it.  Some prefer to wallow in their traditional squalor.  After all, it is familiar and has many adherents -- thus making it comfortable.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What Oaks says he didn't know and could find no confirmation about were the "reasons" for the ban specifically.

Correct.  You got that much right.

Quote

  But he still had confidence that leaders were commanded to implement the ban, he just didn't have confidence in the reasons.  I think its a pretty clear reading of what he said. 

False.  He said no such thing.  What he said was that (like McKay & Joseph Fielding Smith) he would follow the current policy.  That is a faith position which does not pass judgment on whether previous leaders had made correct decisions.  When we take that in context with his other remarks (weeping on that pile of dirt, telling us that those previous opinions were fully disavowed, etc.) tells where his heart was all along.  You deliberately ignored that part.

Quote

First you say that Oaks agrees with McKay and JFS, and now you say he's up to date, so those two statements contradict each other.  Either he's in step with leaders from 50-70 years ago or he's in step with current LDS thought.  I don't see it.  I expressed that I think he's out of step with the LDS topics essay and why.  You'd have to explain why he's not, which you haven't done. 

Oaks, McKay, and Joseph Fielding Smith all agreed that they could find no basis for the reasons given for the priesthood ban, and that therefore a revelation was needed to show the will of the Lord.  It is a position of humility, and Oaks was taking that position at about the same time that McKay & Smith were thinking the same thing.  As I explained already to you, that is called a position of faith which accepts the status quo -- even though one is uncomfortable with it.  You have bollixed the chronology here, as well as the facts about what was believed by these men.

The LDS topics essay comes after June 1978.  Decades after.  Naturally it does not reflect what these men were thinking back in the 1960s.  Why would it?  The Essay was written in light of the new information available in the 1978 revelation.  You need to apply some logic to your analysis.  It's called being fair.

Quote

I don't see how I'm mistaken here.  Oaks made a claim that prejudice is limited and put qualifiers on it, and Nelson didn't say anything like that in his statement.  What you personally believe about the Gospel is a different topic all together.  And prejudice is just (pre judgement) so its not unreasoned necessarily, there are many reasoned prejudices out there.  It might be unfair though and that is why I'm criticizing Oaks' qualifying rules, because those rules are certainly unfair.  But from Oaks' perspective this unfair relationship is justified because God commanded it.  I don't find that kind of dogma very healthy for society.  

Perhaps you were not in English class the day they taught what "prejudice"means, or you were just not paying attention, but you clearly do not understand the meaning of the word.  If you cannot even understand simple English, then it is no surprise that you misinterpret what Oaks has said.  And that is of a piece with the other misstatements which you make about him (above).  You apparently have an apriori dogmatic belief that Oaks will be wrong even before he speaks.  I usually wait until after someone speaks before I pass judgment,.  You  might try that.  It's called being fair and impartial.

Please stop the personal insults!

[Ahab]

23 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?  

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.  

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

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

Felt to me like he wants us all to abandon any personal prejudices we may have against anything and anybody, and that is isn't prejudiced to be in favor of our Lord's will or against what our Lord is against.

As someone who loves LGBTs and can equate with them on some level I can see that there is some prejudiced animosity towards them which our Lord would have us discard.  We can love all sinners while hating their sins. And yes we should always be against sin.

[CMZ]

23 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, 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? 

He is saying that he himself was not comfortable with the ban but that he did not have the power to change it himself. He studied possible reasons and none seemed to fully answer it. He also distinctly mentioned exchanging expressions of joy with Elder Packer when the news was shared of the ban being lifted. This does not sound like something coming from racist men.

Very few people seem to truly understand the ban. As long as some insist that the only possible explanation for it was racism then they will never understand what was truly at play. The reasons can be found through intensive, broad and deep gospel study. This month's Ensign has an article about OD2 with the following editor's note at the end: "This article is not meant to be a comprehensive explanation of Official Declaration 2, only a starting point for your own study."

[CMZ]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, so here is what I've found so far.  

1. The 1978 Mormon Doctrine quote from Seeking Understanding that prompted my response and started this inquiry show McConkie views. 

2. Legrand Richards interview after the 1978 revelation  -

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/the-legrand-richards-interview/

3. The Deseret News article from June 17, 1978 that SeekingUnderstanding linked to. 

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19780617&id=_RxVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YIADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5866,5012493

4. There was an Aaronic Priesthood manual, first published in 1996, and only discontinued in 2013, where President Kimball said "We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally."  Now, according to wikipedia this quote is also still in use in a 2003 Institute manual on the topic of Marriage and Eternity.  But I couldn't find it through their online link in that institute manual.  I did find a quote in the institute manual that says “The difficulties and hazards of marriage are greatly increased where backgrounds are different” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 302)  So then I tried to track down the Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball and there is no page 302 in that book as it only goes up to page 271.  So I'm not sure where they are referencing this, but apparently the original quote from Kimball and an address he gave at BYU in 1976 has been scrubbed from the current institute manual as well.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

I'm still looking for more references and I'll update as I find them, but this is what I have so far to represent teachings from the church and its leaders on the topic of interracial marriage after the 1978 revelation.  

 

In your research you should come across the quote by President Kimball where he said that the counsel generally to marry within your own race was not about aiming to protect people of one race from another. There were good reasons behind this general counsel. I believe he also said that they weren't condemning Church members in interracial marriages. Which is good since I'm in one.