Pres. Oaks talk - Be One event

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Considering that I've never heard of this theory that you've articulated here before, and I consider myself fairly aware of discussions on this topic as I follow online Mormonism and historical Mormonism, I think my reading of Oaks is much more likely than creative reading that you've constructed here.  

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

The huge problem here is the assumption that an ancient tradition and a modern interpretation of that tradition (Oaks interpretation) is representative of the divine will.  I find that assumption quite presumptuous myself, especially considering what we've learned from historians and critical biblical scholars.  The most likely scenario is one where Oaks or any other naive modern reader is likely misrepresenting not only the original author's intentions, but God's will as well, and this ought to give us a great deal of humility before making any claims as to what God directed in the past or in the present.  

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Yes, thank you, thats the main point I was trying to make.  I think some individuals on this message board don't acknowledge any evolution with respect to the church's position on this topic, but I think the evidence shows otherwise.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours 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.

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.

Thanks Happy.  I agree with you here, and I like the emphasis that we need to keep a measure of humility with respect to things we cling to.  We all have blind spots and we should seek to be continually learning so that we can get a better understanding.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

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:

So simplistic that the Church hasn't said it. 

Well, the one quote from Oaks suggests that perhaps they were "inborn".  The other quotes I provided that eliminate the possibility that this orientation is a choice and also imply that this is biological, and that's what I was getting at with the born gay statement.  I'm not making a strong claim that everything that makes a person Gay happens in the womb, that's not what I'm saying at all.  I also further clarified that there are many factors involved and that there is a spectrum of orientation out there.  I'm not sure what else you want from me at this point as I've provided quotes and further clarified my statements.  

[CMZ]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

We all have blind spots and we should seek to be continually learning so that we can get a better understanding.  

Hey, just what the Church teaches! 😁

[CMZ]

If the ban could be explained by absolutely nothing other than racism then it wouldn't have needed a revelation to remove it. President McKay or whoever else could have just said, "Okay, ban, you don't exist anymore." But they strongly felt like such was not the case even when they wanted to remove it. This is an extremely cogent point that gets little notice.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

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."

I have no problem with that quote you've extracted whatsoever, as its very compatible with my understanding as well.  Just to restate and for clarity purposes, my very short statement about people being born gay was to emphasize that its not a choice.  It wasn't to make a strong claim that there are no environmental factors.  Environmental factors include factors in the womb and epigenetic factors and all kinds of influencing factors.  I'm not claiming a consensus on this topic either, there rarely is a scientific consensus on any topic.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Well, its not just me that considers LGBT individuals as having been the target of prejudice.  The church has officially sponsored legislation in Utah to protect this group against certain types of prejudice. However, Oaks wants to draw a line in the sand and define what counts as prejudice, and i would argue disagreeing with this line in the sand is an example of an Orwellian nightmare, I doubt that Orwell would agree with Oaks on this, but is rather just out of touch with the direction that society is going.  

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I argued in my OP that Oaks is out of sync with the quote from Nelson.  I just added in this reply that he's also out of touch with the Church's attempts to help the LGBT community and build bridges there.  I think his claim is out of sync with core gospel principles to reach out to the marginalized with love and to accept all people as part of the body of Christ.  I have also commented in other replies on this same thread that its disingenuous to tell people that have a particular sexual orientation that isn't a choice, and then to tell them they have to choose to not have fulfilling sexual monogamous relationships.  This is a double standard and is inherently unfair and unnecessary.  

Actually, I think your accusation here should actually be turned back your way, as you've made no argument to support Oaks' statement other than to repeat the efficacy of the appeal to authority idea.  

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I agree with your assessment about value judgments and I think those questions are fair questions that would be interesting to discuss on an equal playing field.  If you are willing to articulate ideas with respect to each of those questions as well, then I'll be happy to engage in a thoughtful exchange.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

You keep asserting that he didn't say this, but you haven't shown any evidence from text of Oaks talk to substantiate this claim of yours.  He never mentions McKay and JFS in his talk, you have not evidence to support your reading of the words.  

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I think your reading is flawed here.  I agree that Oaks is likely repeating the past logic from leaders like McKay and JFS.  But why is he doing this when we have the gospel topics essay which certainly Oaks should be familiar with.  Shouldn't his views align with the views in that essay?  

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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!

Thanks mods.  

As for waiting until Oaks speaks, thats exactly what I did, because he did speak at the Be One event, and his words have been published, and now we're having a discussion about what he said.  Sounds fair to me.  

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, its not just me that considers LGBT individuals as having been the target of prejudice.  The church has officially sponsored legislation in Utah to protect this group against certain types of prejudice. However, Oaks wants to draw a line in the sand and define what counts as prejudice, and i would argue disagreeing with this line in the sand is an example of an Orwellian nightmare, I doubt that Orwell would agree with Oaks on this, but is rather just out of touch with the direction that society is going.  

I argued in my OP that Oaks is out of sync with the quote from Nelson.  I just added in this reply that he's also out of touch with the Church's attempts to help the LGBT community and build bridges there.  I think his claim is out of sync with core gospel principles to reach out to the marginalized with love and to accept all people as part of the body of Christ.  I have also commented in other replies on this same thread that its disingenuous to tell people that have a particular sexual orientation that isn't a choice, and then to tell them they have to choose to not have fulfilling sexual monogamous relationships.  This is a double standard and is inherently unfair and unnecessary.  

Actually, I think your accusation here should actually be turned back your way, as you've made no argument to support Oaks' statement other than to repeat the efficacy of the appeal to authority idea.  

I agree with your assessment about value judgments and I think those questions are fair questions that would be interesting to discuss on an equal playing field.  If you are willing to articulate ideas with respect to each of those questions as well, then I'll be happy to engage in a thoughtful exchange.  

The line in the sand, so to speak, is between what society considers morally acceptable and what the Lord considers morally acceptable.  We should strive to be on the Lord's side of the line while trying to show LGBTQs that we love them even when we see they are on the wrong side of the line.  We hate or at least should hate all sin, but we can always love every sinner.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

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.

I think he wants us to abandon certain prejudices, but to retain others that he believes are the same prejudices that God holds.  He also wants us to not call those things prejudice, because if God holds them, they can't be prejudice by definition according to the logic Oaks is using.  

I don't agree with this logic.  I actually think Oaks is moving in a direction here that is more strident than the recent efforts the church has been trying to make to mend past wounds with this community and to try and be more loving and accepting. 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I think he wants us to abandon certain prejudices, but to retain others that he believes are the same prejudices that God holds.  He also wants us to not call those things prejudice, because if God holds them, they can't be prejudice by definition according to the logic Oaks is using.  

I don't agree with this logic.  I actually think Oaks is moving in a direction here that is more strident than the recent efforts the church has been trying to make to mend past wounds with this community and to try and be more loving and accepting. 

Looks to me like you're using the word prejudices to mean preferences.  I can work with that even while not agreeing with it.

Yes, I agree that Oaks wants us to abandon any preferences we have that are not good (any that God does not have) while retaining the preferences we have that God also holds (those he agrees with).

Seems to me to be pretty much the same message the Church has always wanted to proclaim.  CTR, rather than anything God doesn't agree with.

[CMZ]

Quote

As those closest to me know, in my life I have had relationships with both men and women. I have loved and had romantic encounters with men throughout my life, and I choose now to live as a gay man.

http://time.com/5002176/kevin-spacey-anthony-rapp-statement/ (emphasis added)

 

[blueglass]

On 6/4/2018 at 2:53 PM, hope_for_things said:

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

In gospel principles class just this sunday the topic was prophets.  We read amos 3:7 about prophets and the Lord would do nothing save he reveals his sod to the prophets.  All I could say on this one was that I didn't believe that God took a vacation during the apostasy.  In a similar manner for me I believe God was working hard to prevent and overthrow the ban but prophets and apostles were not listening.  They shut out God, listened to and adopted the false teachings of man, and then twisted revealed doctrine to hedge up and thwart the work of God.  The long promised day for the priesthood and temple blessings to be extended to all was when Elijah Abel was ordained on March 3, 1836.  This was the Lord's plan and will.  Everything that followed to prevent the Lord from continuing on this plan was a huge catastrophe.  

As our stake president was in our class and visiting, I was curious where the direction would go when our teacher then followed the lesson manual and began pounding the pulpit on the next part of the lesson which discussed Wilford Woodruff's quote, “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. "  Teacher asked how we can know if we should follow the prophet and that he is indeed teaching the truth.  My last comment here was that we need the spirit of discernment to know if the prophet is speaking the Lord's will and truth or not.  I then gave the example of how prophets invented folk doctrines to prevent blacks from receiving temple ordinances as it says in the race and priesthood essay.  THe stake president then refuted me and said that was not true, and that we need to just follow the prophet.  The teacher nodded his head, and said the prophet will never lead us astray and never has and will never teach false doctrine.  Then the class ended.  

Here is Brigham Young's response to "dough heads" in which he calls for the body of the saints to rise up in revolution and if they don't they're "careless and unconcerned".  

SLC 3rd ward, June 23, 1874: “I have often said to the Latter-day Saints — ‘Live so that you will know whether I teach you truth or not.’ Suppose you are careless and unconcerned, and give way to the spirit of the world, and I am led, likewise, to preach the things of this world and to accept things that are not of God, how easy it would be for me to lead you astray!”

Edited June 5, 2018 by blueglass

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, blueglass said:

In gospel principles class just this sunday the topic was prophets.  We read amos 3:7 about prophets and the Lord would do nothing save he reveals his sod to the prophets.  All I could say on this one was that I didn't believe that God took a vacation during the apostasy.  In a similar manner for me I believe God was working hard to prevent and overthrow the ban but prophets and apostles were not listening.  They shut out God, listened to and adopted the false teachings of man, and then twisted revealed doctrine to hedge up and thwart the work of God.  The long promised day for the priesthood and temple blessings to be extended to all was when Elijah Abel was ordained on March 3, 1836.  This was the Lord's plan and will.  Everything that followed to prevent the Lord from continuing on this plan was a huge catastrophe.  

As our stake president was in our class and visiting, I was curious where the direction would go when our teacher then followed the lesson manual and began pounding the pulpit on next part of the lesson which discussed Wilford Woodruff's quote, “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. "  Teacher asked how we can know if we should follow the prophet and that he is indeed teaching the truth.  My last comment here was that we need the spirit of discernment to know if the prophet is speaking the Lord's will and truth or not.  I then gave the example of how prophets invented folk doctrines to prevent blacks from receiving temple ordinances as it says in the race and priesthood essay.  THe stake president then refuted me and said that was not true, and that we need to just follow the prophet.  The teacher nodded his head, and said the prophet will never lead us astray and never has and will never teach false doctrine.  Then the class ended.  

Here is Brigham Young's response to "dough heads" in which he calls for the body of the saints to rise up in revolution and if they don't they're "careless and unconcerned".  

SLC 3rd ward, June 23, 1874 where he said: “I have often said to the Latter-day Saints — ‘Live so that you will know whether I teach you truth or not.’ Suppose you are careless and unconcerned, and give way to the spirit of the world, and I am led, likewise, to preach the things of this world and to accept things that are not of God, how easy it would be for me to lead you astray!”

Sure, we should always follow the "prophet", but I've noticed that many members don't seem to understand that an apostle or a President of the Church isn't always speaking as a prophet.  But, yes, always follow the "prophet" whoever the "prophet" is, because prophets by definition are always speaking for the Lord to say what our Lord has revealed to them.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CMZ said:

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."

What you propose sounds plausible for how Oaks views what he expressed.  However, I think you're missing that component of him not questioning the ban itself, and his viewing it as a prior commandment from God and direction to prior prophets.  That underlying assumption, and that this orientation represents a loyalty to God and past church leaders is representative of why he didn't question the ban itself, only the reasoning given for the ban or the theories put forward.  

I don't believe you can separate the ban from the theories, since they were both perpetuated and promoted by prophetic leadership.  I think if one is flawed (the reasons given) then at the very least you have to allow for the possibility that the other is flawed as well.  Personally, I believe both were seriously flawed.  

But I would like to also understand what you mean when you suggest that deep gospel study will explain the reasons for the this ban.  Are you willing to explain what you mean here, and how this study will clarify the issue?  

[CMZ]

8 minutes ago, blueglass said:

In gospel principles class just this sunday the topic was prophets.  We read amos 3:7 about prophets and the Lord would do nothing save he reveals his sod to the prophets.  All I could say on this one was that I didn't believe that God took a vacation during the apostasy.  In a similar manner for me I believe God was working hard to prevent and overthrow the ban but prophets and apostles were not listening.  They shut out God, listened to and adopted the false teachings of man, and then twisted revealed doctrine to hedge up and thwart the work of God.

This does not jibe with the fact that several prophets desperately wanted to remove the ban and prayed fervently over it yet felt that the answer was that the time had not yet come.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CMZ said:

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.

Good points, I think those additional statements by Kimball show that he had some discomfort with this concept at that time, and he was attempting to soften the language around this concept.  

[Jeanne]

27 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The line in the sand, so to speak, is between what society considers morally acceptable and what the Lord considers morally acceptable.  We should strive to be on the Lord's side of the line while trying to show LGBTQs that we love them even when we see they are on the wrong side of the line.  We hate or at least should hate all sin, but we can always love every sinner.

This is all a cop out...how in the world do you hate sin...and love the sinner?  great for an ego..but not much else.  When you love you love a whole person as they are..they are not perfect but they can love you..when you are not perfect.

[blueglass]

27 minutes ago, CMZ said:

This does not jibe with the fact that several prophets desperately wanted to remove the ban and prayed fervently over it yet felt that the answer was that the time had not yet come.

This is where Lester Bush's historic paper from 1973 helped break apart the falsehood which had concretized the false doctrine barnacles that had grown.  Look my point is that it is a cooperative work between the body of the saints, the prophets and leaders, and the Lord.  For example on race the Lord called up and inspired true prophets to fight against the false doctrines of the leaders of the ecclesiastical priesthood.  As President Monson quoted in conference (west point cadet prayer), "Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to be content with a half truth when the whole can be won." The true prophetic voices of Orson Pratt, Lowry Nelson, Stuart Udall, Sterling McMurrin, Hugh B. Brown, Mildred Calderwood McKay, Lester Bush, Spencer Kimball, cried out to proclaim the truth as they each called for the removal of the bad branches of the olive tree. The revelation they received was pure light from heaven, brave strength spoken to power. When we pray for the gift of discernment and inspiration from heaven and receive lying whispers and words of weakness such as , "So do I", or "there has been no answer", or "not yet", or "leave the subject alone" (Prince, DOM and the rise of modern mormonism pgs 103-104) we need to relentlessly fight through to get the actual revealed truth.

Edited June 5, 2018 by blueglass

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

This is all a cop out...how in the world do you hate sin...and love the sinner?  great for an ego..but not much else.  When you love you love a whole person as they are..they are not perfect but they can love you..when you are not perfect.

No, when I love I accept the good within a person and their potential to be better while doing whatever I can to help them to be better and overcome any problems they have.

I see their flaws as well as their good points and rather than just accepting their flaws as a part of themselves which some people think  they can't change I see their potential to overcome any problem they have.

See better now?  I just showed love to you by pointing out the problem I saw in your reasoning.  Now you can overcome your error by accepting what I said to correct you.  It's easy.  Try it and see.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CMZ said:

Hey, just what the Church teaches! 😁

As President Hinckley infamously stated when asked about our doctrine of God the Father once being a man said:

Quote

I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it

[hope_for_things]

36 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The line in the sand, so to speak, is between what society considers morally acceptable and what the Lord considers morally acceptable.  We should strive to be on the Lord's side of the line while trying to show LGBTQs that we love them even when we see they are on the wrong side of the line.  We hate or at least should hate all sin, but we can always love every sinner.

Yes, I think you're expressing what Oaks believes as well.  The assumption being that Oaks knows exactly what God's opinion is on this topic.  And this appeal to authority then is used as justification for prejudice against the LGBT community and anyone else that disagrees.  

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, CMZ said:

This does not jibe with the fact that several prophets desperately wanted to remove the ban and prayed fervently over it yet felt that the answer was that the time had not yet come.

Was it not the time because God still wanted to keep black people out of the temple and prevent them from holding the priesthood while letting church members believe false teachings about the curse of Cain and premortal lack of valiancy.  Or...

Could it have been that the Apostles and members weren't quite ready to accept what the Lord wanted?

[Ahab]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I think you're expressing what Oaks believes as well.  The assumption being that Oaks knows exactly what God's opinion is on this topic.  And this appeal to authority then is used as justification for prejudice against the LGBT community and anyone else that disagrees.  

Just to be clear, which topic are you referring to when you say there is an assumption that Oaks knows exactly what God's opinion is on this topic?

I'm sure he's as sure as most people are sure about whatever they are sure of, and I'm sure that includes him being sure that God has assured him of what he is sure of.

And I think we should all strive to receive God's assurances about whatever God is sure of and stick to what God assures us is both good and true.

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Looks to me like you're using the word prejudices to mean preferences.  I can work with that even while not agreeing with it.

Yes, I agree that Oaks wants us to abandon any preferences we have that are not good (any that God does not have) while retaining the preferences we have that God also holds (those he agrees with).

Seems to me to be pretty much the same message the Church has always wanted to proclaim.  CTR, rather than anything God doesn't agree with.

Well, the word prejudice has a straightforward dictionary definition.  Oaks knows this as well, that is why he specifically is trying to qualify when people use this word when he said, "Even as we unite to abandon all attitudes and practices of prejudice, we should remember that it is not prejudice for the Church to insist on certain rules."  

So essentially its prejudice, but its really not prejudice because Oaks believes God commanded or created rules that justify this prejudice, so it doesn't count as prejudice because it aligns with God's will.  

Preferences would imply choice again, and I already provided multiple quotes where the church is no longer making this claim.  I think your argument that these are preferences is out of step with the church's official position on this topic.