Pres. Oaks talk - Be One event

[CMZ]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So you think that the ban was God's will?  He wanted black people to be denied the blessings of the temple for over a hundred years?

It's not about him "wanting" that. (This is like asking if he "wanted" his Son to suffer.) It is about him creating a situation that would bring salvation to the greatest number of people. Even if some of the moments in the overall saga were uncomfortable.

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Even if some of the moments in the overall saga were uncomfortable.

It's interesting to me what happens when the God who, from the recorded beginning of His interactions with His children, has honoured the process of 'waiting upon' Him bumps into 21st-century expectations that God, if He exists, must share our devotion to the immediate gratification of every desire.

As one whose life so far does not match my righteous desires in eternally important ways, I find great satisfaction in remembering that I am a spiritual descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- each one of whom was refined and blessed as he patiently and faithfully waited for the fulfilment of promised blessings.

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, CMZ said:

It's not about him "wanting" that. (This is like asking if he "wanted" his Son to suffer.) It is about him creating a situation that would bring salvation to the greatest number of people. Even if some of the moments in the overall saga were uncomfortable.

So denying the priesthood and temple acces to persons of African descent was a necessary move to bring salvation to the maximum number of God’s children?

It’s a fair explanation, but why?

[Storm Rider]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So denying the priesthood and temple acces to persons of African descent was a necessary move to bring salvation to the maximum number of God’s children?

It’s a fair explanation, but why?

I don't think there is an answer. Why did God only reveal himself as God to a small group in present-day Israel? Why did God only allow a select group to hold the priesthood?  

Humans are notorious for thinking they are the first and last where thought is concerned; that only they can conceive of what is right and what is wrong.  God is not limited by humanity's understanding, comprehension, or intelligence.  God's ways are not our ways.  I think if humans could act as God and create a world it would self-destruct because of our foolish concepts of love (the most overused word by humans).  

Sometimes, if not all the time, it is better to step back and admit that we are not in control and that God remains in control and his Will will not be denied. 

[Gray]

7 hours ago, CMZ said:

It's not about him "wanting" that. (This is like asking if he "wanted" his Son to suffer.) It is about him creating a situation that would bring salvation to the greatest number of people. Even if some of the moments in the overall saga were uncomfortable.

If that were the goal with the priesthood ban, polygamy becomes hard to explain. If the plan was to exclude black people to mollify the white racists, it didn't work because Mormons were still seen in a negative light due to polygamy.

[rockpond]

38 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't think there is an answer. Why did God only reveal himself as God to a small group in present-day Israel? Why did God only allow a select group to hold the priesthood?  

Humans are notorious for thinking they are the first and last where thought is concerned; that only they can conceive of what is right and what is wrong.  God is not limited by humanity's understanding, comprehension, or intelligence.  God's ways are not our ways.  I think if humans could act as God and create a world it would self-destruct because of our foolish concepts of love (the most overused word by humans).  

Sometimes, if not all the time, it is better to step back and admit that we are not in control and that God remains in control and his Will will not be denied. 

I agree that God’s ways are not our ways and that God, not us, is in control. 

In this particular case, however, ascribing the ban to God puts His actions in counter to what we’ve been taught of his nature and the principles of the gospel.  

And why do some want to attribute the ban to divine origin?  Is it because placing it in the godly mystery bucket relieves us of the difficulty of accepting the scope of our prophetic fallibility and human error within our one true church?

For me, pinning this on God, when there is no evidence for such, is to satisfy a vain ambition that the Church didn’t, for a time, go astray. 

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Essay comes much later, and Oaks' views do align with them fully and completely.  I don't understand where you see the disjuncture. 

I don't think Oaks' words align with the essay.  His view that God doesn't give reasons for every commandment is found nowhere in the gospel topics essay, and is the church's earlier stance that public figures were claiming before the essay was released.  This idea that we just don't know why the ban was implemented was the official talking point stance of the church for many years, but that changed when the essay was released and the scholarship that had been done started to be officially acknowledged and incorporated into an institutional message in the form of the essay. 

Oaks talks about the "reasons" for the ban.  The essay calls these "theories" which is a better word because it implies people making them up.  The essays says the following.  

Quote

Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

The talk by Oaks has a different tone and different way of explaining things, that I'm sure is unique to his perspective, but its also out of line with the way things are positioned in the essay.  

 

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, CMZ said:

Lovin' the Dumb & Dumber reference. With any historical topic there's a chance ("Like one in a hundred?") that more information on it could be forthcoming. No, I'm not saying we have to hold our breath waiting for some wonderfully revealing document of a revelation that will explain it all. If it happened I wouldn't be against it, but neither am I waiting for it. Waiting around for some apology doesn't mean much of anything when nobody alive today had anything to do with instituting the ban. What good is forcing apologies from people who weren't fans of the ban going to do? Is it going to somehow make the temple ordinances for blacks even more effective?

As far as the Apostasy thing goes thanks for the reference. It kind of isn't relevant to this discussion because my point was more about there being a lack of temples that anyone could go to for about 1400 years. So, for approximately 14 centuries not a single family could go to a temple and get sealed by priesthood authority. Why aren't people up in arms about that? Why aren't people pressing Nelson and Oaks to apologize for that? Ultimately, it doesn't matter because they can still have those ordinances performed for them. If some more recent prophet had nothing to do with the ban and wanted it to be lifted and prayed to know if it could be lifted but got a strong impression that the time had not yet come then that is not racism. Racism in no way explains that set of circumstances. So anyone stuck on the thought that racism is the only possible thing that could explain the ban will never realize the actual truth behind it.

I think an apology is not only needed, but its desperately needed.  I think one of the things the fake apology showed us is just how important getting some accountability in the form of institutional acknowledgement for past crimes can be to those who've been systematically oppressed.  The good it can do is it can help heal wounds and build trust and it can help us atone for the wrongs of the past, even if those past leaders aren't alive today.  I think it would also help current leaders and members to better understand and empathize with other races and hopefully that would lead to changes in the culture and in the systems of the church to be more equitable today.  

As far as temples are concerned, the modern Mormon temple rites with their connection to modern masonry are unique and we don't have any reason to believe these rituals existed in any similar form anciently.  They certainly had rituals, but I'm talking about specific things like the endowment and temple sealing rituals.  I think the only ancient rituals that might have some modern parallel would be washing and anointing.  

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I thought that Oaks' address dealt exclusively with the 40-year anniversary of the 1978 revelation and his own personal responses to the priesthood ban issue.  Perhaps you could indicate to me (1) where the LGBTQI issues come into his comments, and (2) why you hate Oaks.  I don't understand either of those stances that you take.  When I analyze what someone says, I try to separate that analysis from how I may feel personally about the person.  Being fair and impartial is very important.

You should re-read my OP and you'll find the answer to #1.  As for #2, I don't hate Oaks, and never said I hated Oaks.  You take my honesty in other comments where I admit in self reflection to perhaps being more critical of Oaks than I am of other leaders, and you exaggerate that into hate?  This doesn't sound fair and impartial to me.  

[Storm Rider]

48 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree that God’s ways are not our ways and that God, not us, is in control. 

In this particular case, however, ascribing the ban to God puts His actions in counter to what we’ve been taught of his nature and the principles of the gospel.  

And why do some want to attribute the ban to divine origin?  Is it because placing it in the godly mystery bucket relieves us of the difficulty of accepting the scope of our prophetic fallibility and human error within our one true church?

For me, pinning this on God, when there is no evidence for such, is to satisfy a vain ambition that the Church didn’t, for a time, go astray. 

Rock, I don't ascribe this ban to God.  I ascribe it to man, but I believe that God takes every action to fulfill is will.  Human error is a given; if humans are involved there is error. The problem is thinking that because there is error God cannot correct it or balance the wrong.  This type of thinking is limited to mortality and its base assumption is there is no eternity. As you already know, God is eternal and he works on an eternal scheme.  

You think that pinning on human error somehow limits or cures the error.  It doesn't and never will.  You think the pain can somehow be removed from both the discovery and declaration that humans err.  It won't and never will.  Having faith that whatever pain is caused can be healed by our faith in God is the answer and always will be.  Having faith that no human error will stop God's will or that those who suffer will be uplifted removes the confusion and pain.

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, CMZ said:

Looking over the Amazon page for this book. It does sound interesting. From what people there are saying about it the book combats the idea that we must think of all Christianity before Joseph Smith came along as entirely evil and without worth. Well, fortunately I don't believe that way either. There have been many teachings in the Church honoring the things that led to the Restoration. Yes, there were many things of worth still around. But it doesn't mean a restoration was not needed.

It is an eye opening book, and I think you'd learn a lot by reading it.  Did you listen to the BYU podcast with a couple of the authors yet?  There was another podcast that is longer that I can find the link to if you liked what you heard on the BYU one, let me know and I'll find the link.  

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Rock, I don't ascribe this ban to God.  I ascribe it to man, but I believe that God takes every action to fulfill is will.  Human error is a given; if humans are involved there is error. The problem is thinking that because there is error God cannot correct it or balance the wrong.  This type of thinking is limited to mortality and its base assumption is there is no eternity. As you already know, God is eternal and he works on an eternal scheme.  

You think that pinning on human error somehow limits or cures the error.  It doesn't and never will.  You think the pain can somehow be removed from both the discovery and declaration that humans err.  It won't and never will.  Having faith that whatever pain is caused can be healed by our faith in God is the answer and always will be.  Having faith that no human error will stop God's will or that those who suffer will be uplifted removes the confusion and pain.

This is an interesting line of thinking.  I think there are some benefits to this way of seeing things, perhaps it helps a person not to overreact to hardships that happen in life.   But I have a question.   If God will right all the wrongs and correct for all the pain and mistakes caused by human errors, then what's the point of us worrying about making good choices or righting wrongs here in mortality.  God's got it covered, so why should I or anyone else want to do good your scenario, if God will clean up the mess, whats to motivate us humans to make this world a better place?  

[rockpond]

55 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Rock, I don't ascribe this ban to God.  I ascribe it to man, but I believe that God takes every action to fulfill is will.  Human error is a given; if humans are involved there is error. The problem is thinking that because there is error God cannot correct it or balance the wrong.  This type of thinking is limited to mortality and its base assumption is there is no eternity. As you already know, God is eternal and he works on an eternal scheme.  

You think that pinning on human error somehow limits or cures the error.  It doesn't and never will.  You think the pain can somehow be removed from both the discovery and declaration that humans err.  It won't and never will.  Having faith that whatever pain is caused can be healed by our faith in God is the answer and always will be.  Having faith that no human error will stop God's will or that those who suffer will be uplifted removes the confusion and pain.

I fully agree with what you written above with the exception of the two sentences that begin with “You think...”.  You are incorrect and shouldn’t be claiming knowledge as to what I think.  Kindly retract. 

[CMZ]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

If that were the goal with the priesthood ban, polygamy becomes hard to explain. If the plan was to exclude black people to mollify the white racists, it didn't work because Mormons were still seen in a negative light due to polygamy.

I've never been a big fan of the idea that blacks couldn't hold the priesthood until whites were ready for them to. That could be one of the theories that President Oaks said we could consider disavowed.

[CMZ]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

This is an interesting line of thinking.  I think there are some benefits to this way of seeing things, perhaps it helps a person not to overreact to hardships that happen in life.   But I have a question.   If God will right all the wrongs and correct for all the pain and mistakes caused by human errors, then what's the point of us worrying about making good choices or righting wrongs here in mortality.  God's got it covered, so why should I or anyone else want to do good your scenario, if God will clean up the mess, whats to motivate us humans to make this world a better place?  

Making the world a better place earlier than it could be is a great idea. And we are asked as individuals to keep commandments because doing so develops us into better people. Waiting for God to "fix" all things deprives us of that development.

[CMZ]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

As far as temples are concerned, the modern Mormon temple rites with their connection to modern masonry are unique and we don't have any reason to believe these rituals existed in any similar form anciently.  They certainly had rituals, but I'm talking about specific things like the endowment and temple sealing rituals.  I think the only ancient rituals that might have some modern parallel would be washing and anointing.  

Remember as one example that the New Testament references baptism for the dead.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

This is an interesting line of thinking.  I think there are some benefits to this way of seeing things, perhaps it helps a person not to overreact to hardships that happen in life.   But I have a question.   If God will right all the wrongs and correct for all the pain and mistakes caused by human errors, then what's the point of us worrying about making good choices or righting wrongs here in mortality.  God's got it covered, so why should I or anyone else want to do good your scenario, if God will clean up the mess, whats to motivate us humans to make this world a better place?  

Why do something without any errors when God can and will correct our errors?  So that God doesn't need to correct our errors and can instead rejoice that we did something right !!!

It feels good when I do something good and right, whenever I do that, rather than having to experience an OOPS! moment and having to wait for God to correct it.

[CMZ]

While it doesn't cover every single point possible on this topic this talk by Elder Sitati does teach some of the principles relevant to what we are discussing. I'll include just a little bit:

 

Quote

 

The love of our Father in Heaven has been evident as the way has been opened for all living and dead of every nation, now and in the future, to receive exaltation in His presence, according to the exercise of their agency. The standard is the same, and the blessing is the same for all. God has reaffirmed that He is no respecter of persons.

The gospel has gone forth on the earth in a pattern that ensures that God’s purposes to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man are fulfilled.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/blessings-of-the-gospel-available-to-all?lang=eng

 

There is other pertinent information in there. While I realized as Elder Sitati was giving this talk in 2009 that it showed that he understood the actual reasoning behind the blacks and the priesthood situation (even though he doesn't explicitly state that that is what he is partially explaining) I am seeing even more relevant points in there now as I look it over again.

Edited June 6, 2018 by CMZ

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Making the world a better place earlier than it could be is a great idea. And we are asked as individuals to keep commandments because doing so develops us into better people. Waiting for God to "fix" all things deprives us of that development.

I agree, but I'm wondering how this fits into the model that Storm Rider articulated, which sounded to me like he was saying its no big deal that the church had the racist priesthood & temple access and teaching history, because God will make up for all that and use it for good in the long run.  

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Remember as one example that the New Testament references baptism for the dead.

I don't recall any connection to temple ritual in that NT reference.  

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Why do something without any errors when God can and will correct our errors?  So that God doesn't need to correct our errors and can instead rejoice that we did something right !!!

It feels good when I do something good and right, whenever I do that, rather than having to experience an OOPS! moment and having to wait for God to correct it.

So are you suggesting that when we as humans make errors, that God is responsible for correcting these errors for us?  What level of accountability and responsibility do we have for the mistakes we make?  Is the only reason to avoid making a mistake so that we don't cause a mess for God to have to clean up?  

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't recall any connection to temple ritual in that NT reference.  

That may be because you just don't know where they were doing baptisms for their dead.  Which would point to your ignorance, rather than forgetfulness.

[CMZ]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't recall any connection to temple ritual in that NT reference.  

Well, if the Bible how it currently stands is your only reference...

[rockpond]

38 minutes ago, CMZ said:

While it doesn't cover every single point possible on this topic this talk by Elder Sitati does teach some of the principles relevant to what we are discussing. I'll include just a little bit:

 

There is other pertinent information in there. While I realized as Elder Sitati was giving this talk in 2009 that it showed that he understood the actual reasoning behind the blacks and the priesthood situation (even though he doesn't explicitly state that that is what he is partially explaining) I am seeing even more relevant points in there now as I look it over again.

So if you realized that Elder Sitati understood the "actual reasoning behind the blacks and the priesthood situation" what is that "actual reasoning"?

[hope_for_things]

34 minutes ago, CMZ said:

While it doesn't cover every single point possible on this topic this talk by Elder Sitati does teach some of the principles relevant to what we are discussing. I'll include just a little bit:

 

There is other pertinent information in there. While I realized as Elder Sitati was giving this talk in 2009 that it showed that he understood the actual reasoning behind the blacks and the priesthood situation (even though he doesn't explicitly state that that is what he is partially explaining) I am seeing even more relevant points in there now as I look it over again.

Ohh...  now I think I finally get what you're saying.  You're making the claim that temple ordinances basically make up for any discrimination that can happen on earth.  The theology in Mormonism that everyone will have a chance to be saved regardless their circumstances, a kind of universalism that no matter the poor choices and circumstances people endure in mortality, there will be some kind of heavenly reckoning that affords every individual a fair process to have that opportunity to be saved in the end and atone for their mistakes.  

So essentially, Mormon temple theology erases the consequences of racism?  Is this the deeper understanding that you were alluding too?