Pres. Oaks talk - Be One event

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

12 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.

Wait, I'm ignorant because i pointed out that the NT reference doesn't have any connection to temples.  If it does and I missed it, please let me know.  Otherwise, your speculation that it might be somehow connected is not based on any evidence from the NT.  

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, CMZ said:

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

Do you have any other ancient evidence that baptisms for the dead were connected to Israelite temple worship?  I'm open to looking at the evidence if there is any.  

[CMZ]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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?  

Well, you're insisting on reading racism into it (which you have the right to do). I don't know about the exact wording of what you're saying but, yes, in a sense Mormon theology posits that God will make up for all sorts of less-than-ideal situations that occurred in messy mortality. You seem well-read enough that I didn't know that idea would be new to you.

[CMZ]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Do you have any other ancient evidence that baptisms for the dead were connected to Israelite temple worship?  I'm open to looking at the evidence if there is any.  

We don't have information on every single thing that has ever occurred. This is why there has been a restoration. However, in my rush to get to work I will point you to 1 Kings 7: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-kgs/7?lang=eng

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Wait, I'm ignorant because i pointed out that the NT reference doesn't have any connection to temples.  If it does and I missed it, please let me know.  Otherwise, your speculation that it might be somehow connected is not based on any evidence from the NT.  

My point was that there is a connection to temple ritual in that NT reference, based on  the fact that that ordinance is a temple ordinance, as our Lord has told us.

Try looking for more connections to the Lord rather than limiting yourself to only the Bible or the NT.

[CMZ]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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

The talk is there for anyone to read.

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Well, you're insisting on reading racism into it (which you have the right to do). I don't know about the exact wording of what you're saying but, yes, in a sense Mormon theology posits that God will make up for all sorts of less-than-ideal situations that occurred in messy mortality. You seem well-read enough that I didn't know that idea would be new to you.

The talk by Oaks was specifically about this issue of the priesthood & temple ban, and I thought you were saying that the cause for the ban was not racism and that a deeper understanding of Mormon doctrine explained this point.  I still think the ban was caused by racist ideas of early church leaders.  

Yes, I'm aware of temple theology as a Mormon myself who has attended the temple, I understand the theology, I just don't think it excuses racism in the past or in the present.  I'm trying to understand better what you're trying to say here.  

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, CMZ said:

We don't have information on every single thing that has ever occurred. This is why there has been a restoration. However, in my rush to get to work I will point you to 1 Kings 7: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-kgs/7?lang=eng

Its that whole absence of evidence thinking for the NT.  

For the description of the temple in 1 Kings, I'm not aware of any scholarship that has supported the idea that this feature was a baptismal font.  There is some debate on whether baptism even existed until just prior to the NT time period.  Of course water has been used for much longer in religious rituals and purification was a concept that definitely preceded the NT time period.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_baptism

[hope_for_things]

32 minutes ago, Ahab said:

My point was that there is a connection to temple ritual in that NT reference, based on  the fact that that ordinance is a temple ordinance, as our Lord has told us.

Try looking for more connections to the Lord rather than limiting yourself to only the Bible or the NT.

Huh?   There is nothing in that verse in the NT that says anything about a temple anywhere that I can see.  Can you please show me specifically what that connection is?  

[rockpond]

44 minutes ago, CMZ said:

The talk is there for anyone to read.

So you don't know, do you?

I've read the talk.  I don't see what you claim to see in it.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Huh?   There is nothing in that verse in the NT that says anything about a temple anywhere that I can see.  Can you please show me specifically what that connection is?  

The scripture, 1 Corinthians 15:29, refers to people being baptized for their dead.  Paul asks: what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?”

The connection of that ordinance to the temple is in the fact that that ordinance is a temple ordinance, as our Lord has told us.  See D&C 128.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The scripture, 1 Corinthians 15:29, refers to people being baptized for their dead.  Paul asks: what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?”

The connection of that ordinance to the temple is in the fact that that ordinance is a temple ordinance, as our Lord has told us.  See D&C 128.

That connection is not in the NT, thats my point.  The D&C was written in the 19th century.  I'm wondering if there is any ancient evidence for baptisms for the dead being connected to a temple ritual.  

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You should re-read my OP and you'll find the answer to #1.

You are obviously referring to the following quotes of Oaks and your comments on them demanding that he cover all possible forms of prejudice in systematic fashion:

Quote

You quote and comment:

As we look to the future, one of the most important effects of the revelation on the priesthood is its divine call to abandon attitudes of prejudice against any group of God’s children. Racism is probably the most familiar source of prejudice today, and we are all called to repent of that. But throughout history, many groups of God’s children are or have been persecuted or disadvantaged by prejudices, such as those based on ethnicity or culture or nationality or education or economic circumstances.

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

  As President Russell M. Nelson said following our recent meeting with the national officers of the NAACP: "Together we invite all people, organizations, and governments to work with greater civility, eliminating prejudice of all kinds."  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 in furtherance of the Lord's requirement of worthiness to enter a temple.  

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?  

Quote

  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.  

I am also more critical of Oaks than of other leaders, but I try to apply that judgment sparingly and based only on fair appraisals.  Not sure it is fair to readily find fault, without considering what Oaks' purpose may have been in composing his address.  The fact that something seems left out (something you would like to include) may not reflect a deliberate absence.  Should we all be judged on such evanescent standards?  Could any of us survive such close scrutiny?

I detected your animus for Oaks, and you admit to being more critical of him than of others.  Perhaps he does have mens rea, but how could we really know that?

Edited June 6, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

That connection is not in the NT, thats my point.  The D&C was written in the 19th century.  I'm wondering if there is any ancient evidence for baptisms for the dead being connected to a temple ritual.  

The connection is there for you to see using any scriptures you can use to see it.  The scriptures don't need to be ancient.  They just need to be scripture.  And the connection you should look for, that I am talking about, is between temples and baptisms for the dead.

Ask the Lord if there is any connection between temples and baptisms for the dead,. and then with a prayer in your heart look for any scripture (inspired writings) that show a connection between temples and baptisms for the dead.  :Look with pure intent.  It is not a game.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

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.  

Once again, as I have already pointed out several times (to no affect), you are aligning Oaks' thoughts in the the 1960s with an Essay from a generation later -- as though they need to be saying the same thing.  Why would you do that?  One should clearly note that his views today align with that Essay, and that his views in the 60s clearly did not -- nor should they.  How do you justify this comparison of incommensurables?  All allocations of guilt should be based on fair appraisals and Christian kindness.  You object to me passing harsh judgments upon you, and yet you do exactly that on Oaks.  Maybe we both need to repent.  So I apologize for too readily finding fault with your views, for example attributing "hate" to you when you were merely being more critical than you would be toward others.

Had I lived in Brigham Young's day, I would have been critical of his racist views, and he might have objected that he was applying the judgments of God -- and consequently have punished me (just as he did Orson Pratt).  I am sure that he would have been very annoyed.  Yet I would have considered him to be a true prophet of God, and have calmly accepted his punishments (just as Orson did).

Edited June 6, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, rockpond said:

Where is the 1978 public disavowal of the previously taught reasons for the ban?

Earlier in this thread I quoted Elder McConkie's stark comments in his Aug 1978 BYU address on that.  He is also supposedly the author of OD2.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Earlier in this thread I quoted Elder McConkie's stark comments in his Aug 1978 BYU address on that.  He is also supposedly the author of OD2.

This statement (bold added by me):

"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

Is the statement you feel is a public disavowal of the previously taught reasons for the ban?

I don't see a statement that is so limited in scope (and limited in delivery) as a public disavowal by the church of the previously taught reasons for the ban.

It speaks to the timing, not the reasoning.  It was delivered by a member of the quorum, not by the prophet.  And, it was given in a BYU devotional, not to the church membership at large (I'll retract this one if someone is aware of it being published somewhere else).

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

Maybe so.  God does allow certain allowances if a temple can't be built just as in the early part of the LDS Church.  If a temple can be built and is built, then it is to be done there. 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are obviously referring to the following quotes of Oaks and your comments on them demanding that he cover all possible forms of prejudice in systematic fashion:

Here we go again with the inaccurate hyperbole...

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am also more critical of Oaks than of other leaders, but I try to apply that judgment sparingly and based only on fair appraisals.  Not sure it is fair to readily find fault, without considering what Oaks' purpose may have been in composing his address.  The fact that something seems left out (something you would like to include) may not reflect a deliberate absence.  Should we all be judged on such evanescent standards?  Could any of us survive such close scrutiny?

I detected your animus for Oaks, and you admit to being more critical of him than of others.  Perhaps he does have mens rea, but how could we really know that?

Yes, I agree with trying to give fair appraisals, this was stated in my OP, I'm asking for input on my critiques.  I don't think I'm readily finding fault, I have pointed critiques of certain sections of his talk, and the overall tone.  I agree in the section talking about forms of prejudice that the absence of things like LGBT and gender prejudice might have just been an oversight without any intent, but it also might have been intentional.    

Should a leader of a large institution be subject to such scrutiny?  Yes, I think so.  I think we need should scrutinize our leaders and hold them accountable, whether thats government, religious, media, business, any leaders in positions of power should have their actions and their words subject to close scrutiny, absolutely.  Especially in the Mormon church where these leaders are appointed for life and our tradition has toxic ideas like the leaders won't lead us astray.  

I doubt you "detected anything" I freely offered information myself without any prompting that I've been extra critical of Oaks in recent years.   But that criticism I do not characterize as hate or animus.  This is another attempt by yourself to misrepresent me, which seems to be a disrespectful trend from you of late, and I'd appreciate it if that would stop.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

The connection is there for you to see using any scriptures you can use to see it.  The scriptures don't need to be ancient.  They just need to be scripture.  And the connection you should look for, that I am talking about, is between temples and baptisms for the dead.

Ask the Lord if there is any connection between temples and baptisms for the dead,. and then with a prayer in your heart look for any scripture (inspired writings) that show a connection between temples and baptisms for the dead.  :Look with pure intent.  It is not a game.

If there is evidence of this connection in the NT, you'll have to provide proof via actual scriptures that talk about baptisms for the dead and a temple ritual connection from the NT.  That is what I'm asking for.  

As for modern scriptures, thats a whole different subject all together.  You could write something today claiming that baptisms for the dead were performed in temples in ancient Israel, and call those writings scripture.  That doesn't make this claim historically accurate, but it does make what you wrote scripture for you.  

I don't believe God tells people factual details about history.  God is an experience that individuals have, it is a powerful and personal experience, but it has never been an accurate way of confirming facts about the past or facts about the future.  I've seen no compelling evidence to empirically support this idea.  

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

This statement (bold added by me):

"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

Is the statement you feel is a public disavowal of the previously taught reasons for the ban?

I don't see a statement that is so limited in scope (and limited in delivery) as a public disavowal by the church of the previously taught reasons for the ban.

It speaks to the timing, not the reasoning.  It was delivered by a member of the quorum, not by the prophet.  And, it was given in a BYU devotional, not to the church membership at large (I'll retract this one if someone is aware of it being published somewhere else).

In any case, it sounds like a no win situation.😒

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again, as I have already pointed out several times (to no affect), you are aligning Oaks' thoughts in the the 1960s with an Essay from a generation later -- as though they need to be saying the same thing.  Why would you do that?

Oaks represented his perspective in this way from the talk.  He didn't say, this is the way I used to view things, and this is the way I view them now.  

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One should clearly note that his views today align with that Essay, and that his views in the 60s clearly did not -- nor should they. 

If his views today align with the essay, this is not evident from his talk.  He had every opportunity to use some language from the essay or to clarify that his old way of thinking has changed, but he neglected to do any of that.  You are making an assumption without any evidence to support it. 

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All allocations of guilt should be based on fair appraisals and Christian kindness.  You object to me passing harsh judgments upon you, and yet you do exactly that on Oaks.  Maybe we both need to repent.

If I've passed the same kind of harsh judgment on Oaks could you please show me where I've done that.  I haven't called him names, no ad hominem attacks, no exaggerated claims about what he's saying.  I've been critical, but I've tried to accurately represent him and also acknowledge my uncertainty about my readings of his talk, asking for possible other readings from this board.   I don't think your comparison is at all the same.  

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So I apologize for too readily finding fault with your views, for example attributing "hate" to you when you were merely being more critical than you would be toward others.

Thank you, I appreciate the acknowledgement and the apology for this.  

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Had I lived in Brigham Young's day, I would have been critical of his racist views, and he might have objected that he was applying the judgments of God -- and consequently have punished me (just as he did Orson Pratt).  I am sure that he would have been very annoyed.  Yet I would have considered him to be a true prophet of God, and have calmly accepted his punishments (just as Orson did).

I agree with this, and I would like to think I'd have been appropriately critical of such things in our past.  That is another reason I try to think critically about current events.  But one thing I've learned from history is that the majority of groups go along with bad leadership because this is how we've evolved to behave through evolution.  Many people in Germany didn't speak up or resist the evils perpetuated in their country's past, not because they were evil themselves, but because humans are conditioned to be loyal to the tribe, and it takes outlier personality types to stand up in defiance.  In all honestly, I'm not sure I'm that outlier personality type that would stand up and go against the group.  I'm trying to practice thinking and form habits that get me closer to this ideal, but I don't think I'm there yet.  

 

[Ahab]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't believe God tells people factual details about history.  God is an experience that individuals have, it is a powerful and personal experience, but it has never been an accurate way of confirming facts about the past or facts about the future.  I've seen no compelling evidence to empirically support this idea.  

Thank you for letting me know a little more about your perspective of God.  I, as you may already know, believe God is a word we commonly use to refer to our Father in heaven (or any other person who is the same kind of being he is) and that he actually tells us stuff, like factual details about history as well as present day occurrences or even future events.  I realize that not all who think they are hearing from God are hearing from him, our Father, though.  Sometimes Satan tells us or leads us to believe that he is God, which he is, even though he is not the same person we commonly refer to as our Father in heaven.  Sometimes it's just a matter of trying to figure out who we are actually hearing from, or who is giving us thoughts and ideas about things.

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

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.

They weren't doing it in the temple.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

They weren't doing it in the temple.

What causes you to believe that?  Do you realize baptism was an ordinance of the religion of the Jews then? What leads you to believe the Jews didn't baptize people in their temple back then?  For both the living and the dead, then?  John the Baptist wasn't doing anything new. Baptism didn't begin with him.  And Aaron and his sons weren't doing anything new in their day either.  Baptism has always been a  part of our religion, which is the correct and restored fullness of what was once the religion of the Jews, or house of Israel, going all the way back to Adam and Eve.  Whether your call it Mormonism or Christianity or Judaism, whatever.  Mormonism today is a  restoration of a very , very old religion that has included baptism, going all the way back to the "beginning".