Pres. Oaks talk - Be One event

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

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.

Did I mention ego?  Read your last sentence..was that intentional and was I supposed to feel the love?

[blueglass]

16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

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.

We need the gift of discernment to sift through the statements of leaders.  We can compare against the purest light of truth - the gospel and mission statements of the church.  For example, when receiving the first presidency letter from Aug 17, 1949 the saints could in effect take the words and then figuratively try to etch these on the Tree of 1 Nephi 11:21, to see if the words bring enlightenment and joy -  to see if it moves us to goodness, beauty, and truth, "Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things."  If it does not and certainly the Aug 17, 1949 was pure garbage then we should reject it - call upon others to and overthrow the falsehoods with the full influence and power of the body of the saints.   On "dough heads" I was referring to JS quote (Council of Fifty, Minutes, Mar. 10, 1844, in JSP, CFM:39.)  https://history.lds.org/article/council-of-fifty-minutes-joseph-smith-papers?lang=eng

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

 

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

To be clear: I would not have issued a CFR or batted an eye at your initial comments if you had said "Even the Church teaches that homosexual feelings are not chosen and may very well have a biological component and the science supports biological elements to sexual orientation."  

[CMZ]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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?  

The whole tone and tenor of his talk was that he was uncomfortable with the ban and no explanation he had heard proposed for it back then seemed to fully answer it and that he wept for joy when he found out the ban was lifted (all of which I think matches the attitudes of many members back at that time). In the midst of his uncertainty he felt that the best course of action was to stick with the fact that recent presidents had wanted to remove the ban but felt against their own personal wishes that the time had not yet come. We do indeed have some historical information about how the ban began, but I don't think we have all the information that would help us understand it. In light of that I think everyone needs to ease up on their interpretations somewhat. The ban began in vagary but ended in clarity. If the Church isn't true the whole entire issue is one big moot point. If it is then blacks (any who have ever or will ever live on this earth) are still getting far more blessings from it than from any other church. So, in the long run there really is no complaint.

Yes, extensive gospel study will help one understand the "ban" better. As I mentioned earlier this month's Ensign hints at the same thing. It is basically saying, "We are giving some information here, but not everything. But you can learn more through individual study." Each person has to go about it their own way. Some of my understanding of it comes from certain books I have read. Some of it comes from a talk Elder Holland gave at a meeting I was at on my mission. Some of it comes through pondering on and praying over the matter over time.

Edited June 5, 2018 by CMZ

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I just looked up the word prejudice and found this:

preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

"English prejudice against foreigners" ·

"ingrained religious prejudices"

synonyms: preconceived idea · preconception · preconceived notion · prejudgment

 

So when Oaks said "Even as we unite to abandon all attitudes and practices of prejudice",. I think he was referring to abandoning any opinions that are not based on reason or actual experience, including experiences of God revealing his will to us, personally.

 

Means it's not prejudice... look at the definition again... to stick to what is based on reason and actual experiences.

 

Let's see if we can just do that.  Shall we?

 

[CMZ]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

Yep, and he also clarified later that he was taking into account the audience he was speaking to.

[hope_for_things]

37 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 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!”

You're awesome, very proud of you for such bold yet kind additions to your class.  I wish I could have been there to support you and to enjoy the opportunity for everyone to learn from your experiences and wisdom.  

I find it so sad that correlation has hurt our culture so much as to value allegiance to a particular narrative over actual consideration of history and the ways we can learn from history to try and be a better people.  Your Stake President failed by not knowing the essays well enough to support you.  This is a perfect example of something I've had multiple conversations with my local leaders about.  The need to become very familiar with these essays so that they can represent the current position of the church and not perpetuate the myths of the past.  

Keep up the good fight.  

[CMZ]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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?

A third option not mentioned.

[rockpond]

Just now, CMZ said:

A third option not mentioned.

And what would that be?

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Did I mention ego?  Read your last sentence..was that intentional and was I supposed to feel the love?

Yeah.  I'm guessing you didn't feel it.

To me, love means to accept and embrace.  Hate means to discard and abandon. 

When you love something or someone you want to nurture them or help them.  To keep it or them safe. 

I don't want you to feel that I accept what I see as a bad thing, but that bad thing isn't you.  It's just a bad idea you have now.

[CMZ]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And what would that be?

I don't want to deprive you of being able to find it through your own personal study. When you do it will all make sense.

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

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.

On the topic that certain kinds of prejudice aren't really prejudice according to Oaks, because they God approved of these via commandment.   Oaks unfortunately doesn't make any specific claims, but I expect he was talking about LGBT issues as he mentioned rules to enter the temple.  

I'm pretty sure that Oaks is sure as well, and I'm fairly sure that I disagree with him.  

[rockpond]

Just now, CMZ said:

I don't want to deprive you of being able to find it through your own personal study. When you do it will all make sense.

I’ve done my own extensive personal study, pondering and prayer.  I already know the answer.  I was curious about your thoughts.  What is this third option?

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, kllindley said:

 

To be clear: I would not have issued a CFR or batted an eye at your initial comments if you had said "Even the Church teaches that homosexual feelings are not chosen and may very well have a biological component and the science supports biological elements to sexual orientation."  

No worries, short responses like the one I originally gave are often too reductionist, and in this case I could have been more clear with that original statement.  

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

On the topic that certain kinds of prejudice aren't really prejudice according to Oaks, because they God approved of these via commandment.   Oaks unfortunately doesn't make any specific claims, but I expect he was talking about LGBT issues as he mentioned rules to enter the temple.  

I'm pretty sure that Oaks is sure as well, and I'm fairly sure that I disagree with him.  

I'm pretty sure I've explained this to you, correctly, and yet you still go on in your error, as I see you.  Look again at a correct definition of what the word "prejudice" refers to.  I'm wondering, not sure, of how long you're going to remain in your error.

[CMZ]

Quote

The media have been kind and generous to us. This past year of pioneer celebrations has resulted in very extensive, favorable press coverage. There have been a few things we wish might have been different. I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that’s to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1997/10/drawing-nearer-to-the-lord?lang=eng

 

Edited June 5, 2018 by CMZ

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, CMZ said:

The whole tone and tenor of his talk was that he was uncomfortable with the ban and no explanation he had heard proposed for it back then seemed to fully answer it and that he wept for joy when he found out the ban was lifted (all of which I think matches the attitudes of many members back at that time). In the midst of his uncertainty he felt that the best course of action was to stick with the fact that recent presidents had wanted to remove the ban but felt against their own personal wishes that the time had not yet come. We do indeed have some historical information about how the ban began, but I don't think we have all the information that would help us understand it. In light of that I think everyone needs to ease up on their interpretations somewhat. The ban began in vagary but ended in clarity. If the Church isn't true the whole entire issue is one big moot point. If it is then blacks (any who have ever or will ever live on this earth) are still getting far more blessings from it than from any other church. So, in the long run there really is no complaint.

Yes, extensive gospel study will help one understand the "ban" better. As I mentioned earlier this month's Ensign hints at the same thing. It is basically saying, "We are giving some information here, but not everything. But you can learn more through individual study." Each person has to go about it their own way. Some of my understanding of it comes from certain books I have read. Some of it comes from a talk Elder Holland gave at a meeting I was at on my mission. Some of it comes through pondering on and praying over the matter over time.

Its interesting that you got that tone from his talk.  I'm probably a little more critical of President Oaks than some of the other leaders.  His tone came across to me as trying to define terms and articulate his views about the ban in a way that actually was less charitable and represented a step backwards from my view.  I think he could have done a much better job just quoting large portions from the topics essay on this subject.  

I don't agree that the ban began in vagary, I think we have enough detail about the context of when the ban began.  We don't have any revelation or claim to a revelation to support the ban.  We do have a lot of historical racist myths to support the origins for the ban. 

If God was behind the ban, that makes God a racist by definition.  Some would say this is God's prerogative, and I would say this makes for a God not worthy of worship.  If you assume that God is perfect and all knowing, if God is also a racist then this is a very dangerous and demented God.  

In the long run I don't think the church can stand on this idea that the ban was sanctioned by God, as I haven't heard any articulations of the implications of this idea that are compatible with the church's teachings about the nature of God.  

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I just looked up the word prejudice and found this:

preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

"English prejudice against foreigners" ·

"ingrained religious prejudices"

synonyms: preconceived idea · preconception · preconceived notion · prejudgment

 

So when Oaks said "Even as we unite to abandon all attitudes and practices of prejudice",. I think he was referring to abandoning any opinions that are not based on reason or actual experience, including experiences of God revealing his will to us, personally.

 

Means it's not prejudice... look at the definition again... to stick to what is based on reason and actual experiences.

 

Let's see if we can just do that.  Shall we?

 

But Oaks did not claim to have received God's will on this subject at all.  In fact, earlier in his talk he explicitly said he studied and prayed for understanding and felt no confirmation about the reasons for the ban.  What he then says he learned through prayer was that the Lord rarely gives reasons for commandments to church leaders.  So in essence his actual experience with God was that he should just trust that prior leaders were correct in implementing the ban.  To me there is a big difference here.  

I don't think Oaks is asserting reason in this case or actual experience.  His experience is a conviction that loyalty to church leaders is priority number one, even if that loyalty causes him to back the church's prejudiced policies and practices.  At least that's how I'm interpreting him.  

 

[CMZ]

If the Church isn't true the whole entire issue is one big moot point and blacks were spared being offered a false priesthood. If it is then blacks (any who have ever or will ever live on this earth) are still getting far more blessings from it than from any other church. Given the preceding what is the complaint?

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Yep, and he also clarified later that he was taking into account the audience he was speaking to.

Right, because he wouldn't want to admit actual church teachings on that subject to the broader society.  He would have made a good politician.  (I like Hinckley btw, he's one of my favorite leaders, but he wasn't perfect)

[CMZ]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

We don't have any revelation or claim to a revelation to support the ban.

That's what I'm getting at: We may not have all relevant historical documents. Hard to see God as racist if he is offering eternal life, the greatest of all gifts, to all his children who ever lived on the earth regardless of race. Why aren't we complaining about all the people who didn't get to go to the temple and receive saving and exalting ordinances during the apostasy? Those people were of every single race. Why aren't the detractors here sticking up for all those people? A lot of these things related to the gospel have timing aspects to them.

Edited June 5, 2018 by CMZ

[CMZ]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

(I like Hinckley btw, he's one of my favorite leaders, but he wasn't perfect)

I think he would agree with you.

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm pretty sure I've explained this to you, correctly, and yet you still go on in your error, as I see you.  Look again at a correct definition of what the word "prejudice" refers to.  I'm wondering, not sure, of how long you're going to remain in your error.

I guess we'll have to disagree about who's in error then.  

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, CMZ said:

That's what I'm getting at: We may not have all relevant historical documents. Hard to see God as racist if he is offering eternal life, the greatest of all gifts, to all his children who ever lived on the earth regardless of race. Why aren't we complaining about all the people who didn't get to go to the temple and receive saving and exalting ordinances during the apostasy? Those people were of every single race.

This is a silly apologetic claim.  We don't even have a historical hint that there was a revelation to support the ban.  We do have a lot of historical evidence to the contrary.  

I'm not saying God is a racist.  I'm accusing people that claim that God is the author of the ban of creating a racist God.  

The apostasy narrative is one of many narratives taught by correlated Mormonism that are problematic because of their implications for the kind of God they create.  Not to mention a completely inaccurate reading of history and theology.  I suggest this book on that topic.  

https://www.amazon.com/Standing-Apart-Historical-Consciousness-Apostasy/dp/0199348146/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1528232560&sr=8-1&keywords=standing+apart

 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But Oaks did not claim to have received God's will on this subject at all.  In fact, earlier in his talk he explicitly said he studied and prayed for understanding and felt no confirmation about the reasons for the ban.  What he then says he learned through prayer was that the Lord rarely gives reasons for commandments to church leaders.  So in essence his actual experience with God was that he should just trust that prior leaders were correct in implementing the ban.  To me there is a big difference here.  

I don't think Oaks is asserting reason in this case or actual experience.  His experience is a conviction that loyalty to church leaders is priority number one, even if that loyalty causes him to back the church's prejudiced policies and practices.  At least that's how I'm interpreting him.  

 

I'm interpreting him as someone who had a personal testimony from God on some issues and as someone who worked personally and frequently with some apostles and presidents of the Lord's church who he upheld as prophets, seers and revelators to the Lord's church based on his own personal testimony from God that they were.. 

Not that he knew everything that they knew, as well as they did, but as someone who had enough faith/assurances from the Lord about them and their callings.

I try to learn as much as I can but I figure they know some things that I don't know yet, too, and I regard them as honorable men who are doing their best to follow the Lord's revelations to them.