Pres. Oaks devotional to Young Married Couples

[nuclearfuels]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Actually, everything is relative, that’s pretty much the only eternal doctrine that I can see happening here.  Nature and nurtue are components for all of the above, and its arrogant to think that some guy in the 21st century knows all there is to know about the complexities of nature and nurture and can define what is God ordained and what isn’t.  

Absolutes exist in a world that increasingly disdains absolutes. - Elder Bednar

What God ordained hasn't changed in type (yes, in degree- it has been modified) since Adam.

Progressing toward godhood by doing what God did (married, kids, endure to the end) are not steps He created.

He followed the rules and was blessed by the consequences of His actions

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

No, they are comfortable, not happy. The Book of Mormon plainly teaches that many outright prefer misery.

How should he feel like, "ignorance is bliss" trance?

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Why do you hate-watch/read/listen to this? It plainly just infuriates you. Are you trying to become the Hulk or something?

"Please don't make him angry.  You won't like him when he's angry."

And, moreover, one wonders why he comes here, to a board populated by a large number of faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, apparently seeking validation of his particular viewpoints on these issues.  (Not, of course, that there isn't anyone here who is willing to oblige him in that regard.  )

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

"Please don't make him angry.  You won't like him when he's angry."

And, moreover, one wonders why he comes here, to a board populated by a large number of faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, apparently seeking validation of his particular viewpoints on these issues.  (Not, of course, that there isn't anyone here who is willing to oblige him in that regard.  )

I am here reading the disparaging comments while I’m being referred to in third person you know.  

Why does anyone come here I guess is a question one could ask.  

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Absolutes exist in a world that increasingly disdains absolutes. - Elder Bednar

I disdain the absolute hubris of this statement.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I disdain the absolute hubris of this statement.  

Rage on, bro! 

[Scott Lloyd]

Quote

Now we're going to travel backwards in time to 2007 when our public statements on this topic were even more overtly offensive and troubling.  Thanks for bringing up the uncomfortable history and doubling down on disturbing teachings by calling them eternal.  Wow, this is just a cluster frank, I can't believe correlation let this talk get through.  Maybe they've cleaned house of the more moderate people in the PR department in the last few months?  I'm shocked these comments have been approved for public consumption in 2018.  

Um, were you aware that President Oaks is first counselor in the First Presidency and is also president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (though President M. Russell Ballard currently fills that function as acting president of the quorum) and, as such, is about as high in the leadership hierarchy as one can get with the exception of the Church president himself? That he is next in line as successor to the president of the Church?

I have little patience with the persistent though repeatedly debunked and logically incoherent notion that "the PR department" and "correlation" control the high-level leaders of the Church rather than vice versa.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Um, were you aware that President Oaks is first counselor in the First Presidency and is also president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (though President M. Russell Ballard currently fills that function as acting president of the quorum) and, as such, is about as high in the leadership hierarchy as one can get with the exception of the Church president himself?

I have little patience with the persistent though repeatedly debunked notion that "the PR department" and "correlation" control the high-level leaders of the Church rather than visa versa.

I have no insider knowledge of the dynamics between PR, correlation and church leaders.  I was just shocked that these older sentiments were expressed publicly again when the church has clearly made strides away from this rhetoric in recent years.  If the new regime is changing the tone in this direction that it’s clearly within their power as you suggest, but it’s still surprising to me.  

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I have no insider knowledge of the dynamics between PR, correlation and church leaders.  I was just shocked that these older sentiments were expressed publicly again when the church has clearly made strides away from this rhetoric in recent years.  If the new regime is changing the tone in this direction that it’s clearly within their power as you suggest, but it’s still surprising to me.  

That the Church has “made strides away from” the things Elder Oaks said here is, I would say, a misreading on you part, either of recent events or of what he said -- or both.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That the Church has “made strides away from” the things Elder Oaks said here is, I would say, a misreading on you part, either of recent events or of what he said. 

Sometimes an insistent 'hope' does that.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That the Church has “made strides away from” the things Elder Oaks said here is, I would say, a misreading on you part, either of recent events or of what he said. 

I accept that possibility, but it isn’t without precedent for new administrations to change direction and rhetoric.  Even the recent emphasis away from the title of Mormon is evidence of departure from prior leaders.  I see this talk as a step backwards on very important topics.  

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Sometimes an insistent 'hope' does that.

We all know how subversive hope is.  

[kllindley]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I just read through this news room article on a August 24th devotional by President Oaks, and I'm more than a little frustrated.  I'm going to critique some of the quotes and leave it up to you if you want to comment.  Some of what I'm going to say is pretty raw emotionally, and I think this talk is unfortunately one more example of why people like me just won't be welcome in church under the current regime.  

https://www.ldschurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2018-08-28/president-oaks-talks-church-history-lgbt-issues-mental-illness-at-los-angeles-devotional-47877

If they are informed so fully, including through consulting with knowledgeable professionals, you'd think they wouldn't be so out of touch with society on important issues of our day.  This quote helps me realize just how deliberately bad certain positions are, because of all the knowledge they have gathered, it makes me think that things like the Nov 2015 policy can't be made by mistake and that church leaders know exactly how damaging that policy really is and deliberately chose to implement the policy anyway.  

Ironically its often the policies and practices of the church that are the obstacles that young married couples face.  

I think this is a legitimate and important topic, but besides a few talks in recent years I can't think of how the church is effectively putting forward resources to address it.  I also wonder how much the church's own teachings and practices aren't contributing factors that exacerbate mental health issues.  They could lean on the vast knowledge of professionals in mental health to develop programs to assist those struggling with this serious issue, but I don't see any of the vast church resources being used effectively to combat this challenge.  

If this means the 2 hr block is coming, that would be excellent and I would cheer that decision.  I'm hoping here.  

In a lighter note, here are some gender stereotypes and sexism.  Thanks President Oaks.  Offensive Grandpa humor, please keep it to yourself.  

Right, so at least they know that society at large is aware of the bigotry with the church's policies and the intolerant attitudes.  Unfortunately, it seems this knowledge only makes them defend the practices even further.  This is an issue for the younger generations.  You're losing the younger generations because of your bigotry, LDS church.  How can people not see the writing on the wall here.  

Now we're going to travel backwards in time to 2007 when our public statements on this topic were even more overtly offensive and troubling.  Thanks for bringing up the uncomfortable history and doubling down on disturbing teachings by calling them eternal.  Wow, this is just a cluster frank, I can't believe correlation let this talk get through.  Maybe they've cleaned house of the more moderate people in the PR department in the last few months?  I'm shocked these comments have been approved for public consumption in 2018.  

At least the first part of this is a step in the right direction.  Don't demonize your kids when they come to you with difficult questions.  But instead of actually trying to answer those questions, just testify.  Isn't this in conflict with Elder Ballard's talk to the CES a couple years back.  Thats exactly what Elder Ballard said not to do.  Crazy...

We're sorry that those critics keep criticizing us.  Don't they know that everything we do is approved by God by definition, and no matter how ugly our actions are, its not our fault, its God who's in charge of it, so really its not ugly at all, its really kind and loving.  By definition its kind because its God's way of doing things and God is kind.  Silly critics....

If the church cares about families, its only certain kinds of families, the 1950s family ideal, not other very real families, not families that don't fit the mold.  Either fit the mold or you don't belong in this church, and God doesn't approve of your family.  That's the message I get from this talk.  This is very frustrating and upsetting.  I can't believe this guy is our leader in 2018.  Such a horrible rewind into less tolerant times.  

 

It must also be very frustrating to hear that many LGBT members appreciate this talk and the prophetic guidance of our leaders.

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

It must also be very frustrating to hear that many LGBT members appreciate this talk and the prophetic guidance of our leaders.

No, I assume most orthodox members support leaders by default without much critical examination of what was said.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Then you say that the prophets of God in the scriptures also held minority views in their societies, and that is why God uses prophets to cry repentance.  So ... you’re saying God calls prophets who held minority views to preach repentance.  

Wrong again. I never wrote or even implied that God uses certain prophets because they hold minority views. I merely pointed out that when God chooses and calls prophets, it is almost always because He wants to correct a society, to call its people to repentance and back to Him. There is zero correlation between popularity or lack of popularity and the correctness of a message. Many minority viewpoints are wrong.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Here is one poll on same sex marriage which shows majority support on this topic, which is clearly the case, and I’m suprised you even want me to produce this data, as I’m sure you’re aware of this trend.  

If you will actually go back and read what I wrote, I pointed out that secular American progressivism is a minority movement 'when viewed globally'. And to challenge that notion, you present me with a poll of Americans. Do you honestly contest what I actually wrote?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m a very positive person the majority of the time.

Which without doubt comes through loud and clear on this forum. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

How should he feel like, "ignorance is bliss" trance?

I think this is a trick question.

[carbon dioxide]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Right, so at least they know that society at large is aware of the bigotry with the church's policies and the intolerant attitudes.  Unfortunately, it seems this knowledge only makes them defend the practices even further.  This is an issue for the younger generations.  You're losing the younger generations because of your bigotry, LDS church.  How can people not see the writing on the wall here. 

Perhaps they are simply reflecting the Lords view that "I the Lord can not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance."  Perhaps some of the policies may be a little excessive but maybe there is a reason for it.  To impress on the minds of people the the Lord is not playing games.  Some things eternally matter and God will judge people for things regardless of what generation one was born in.  Society does not care about eternal laws.  It does not care about eternal consequences to things.  God does not care if society views his laws as being mean or if they see God as a bigot.  What is clear is if there is a difference of opinion on issues between God and a certain individual, God always wins.  The younger generation can choose to leave but eventually the wicked will be swept off.   I fully believe if every wicked Nephite who rebelled against God was allowed a testify of the results of rebellion, they would plead to everyone not to do it.  It simply is not worth the eternal consequences of standing up for wicked principles. 

[carbon dioxide]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

If the church cares about families, its only certain kinds of families, the 1950s family ideal, not other very real families, not families that don't fit the mold.  Either fit the mold or you don't belong in this church, and God doesn't approve of your family.  That's the message I get from this talk.  This is very frustrating and upsetting.  I can't believe this guy is our leader in 2018.  Such a horrible rewind into less tolerant times. 

No family is perfect and not every person is in the ideal family.  Some people never marry.  Some people divorce.   It is the reality of life.  However what is the real purpose of the church?  The Church does not exist to feed the poor or help the needy.  Sure that is one responsibility of the Church but that is not why it exists.  Any religion or secular organization can accomplish that task.   Does it exist to tell people about Jesus?  Once again the answer is no.  Other religions can do that.  There are basically two things the Church does that no other organization or church can do.  First it exists to better prepare for individuals to stand before God spotless at judgement and second what really relates here is to seal families together.  The Church takes this charge very seriously and thus it has an obligation to proclaim the importance of the family and really the family in the ideal condition.  Sure we may not often achieve the standard and the Lord is merciful but that does not mean Church should not proclaim the full standard to work towards.  Some families not only do not fit the mold, they are so far off the mark that the Church can not sanction any part of it.  It goes beyond families headed by married gay people.  Two married heterosexuals who have an open marriage  is off the mark.  The problem is today is that we are too tolerant of things.  It will get worse before it things are corrected but we must make a stand for righteousness.  Even if those stances are seen as bigotry or being mean.  If the Church was not getting flack from a wicked society, that would be a serious problem.  That would mean we are doing something wrong.

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

By which, of course, you really mean 'out of touch with your secular-progressive corner of American society', right? Which, viewed globally, is only one small (though noisy) minority group amongst many, many others.

By the way, can you point us to any examples from the scriptures where the prophets of God weren't 'out of touch' with the prevailing trends in their societies? Isn't this pretty much the sole reason for God to send mouthpieces to cry repentance?

Your call. If you're hoping to outlive this kind of thing, I'm afraid you may end up sorely disappointed.

Thank you for posting this link, by the way. I hadn't read this synopsis, and I really enjoyed it!

So here is the real problem with your stance that prophets speak out against ideas that are not popular but are right.  History doesn't really bear that out as true with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  When Brigham Young decided that the church was going to discriminate against blacks it was by far, the most popular belief at the time.  Blacks were viewed as servants, less than human and to be used by all the rest of the sons of Adam.  These are the teachings of Brigham Young.   And they would still be the popular opinion today if people had not changed their attitudes towards blacks.  First slowly and then more quickly until discriminating against blacks became a very unpopular point of view.  The problem comes in when the church declares these prejudices come from God.  Then what do you do?  It became such an unpopular idea that the church realized their position had to change.  So it did, and in doing so, joined the majority of people throughout the world.

The same is true with the church's stand against the LGBT community.  When the church started this offense against the gay community, their position was once again, the popular position.  The majority of Americans had no problem discriminating against gay people.  And the majority certainly thought they could deny them the right to marry.  The church was leading the charge against the LGBT community and the majority of American supported this popular view.  Everything was going as planned.  The church was the popular defender of discrimination against gays.  Then like in the past, public opinion changed.  People realized that just because you are gay does not mean you should be denied your civil rights.  Once again the shift of public opinion changed dramatically.  But the church had already drawn the line in the sand.  Gays don't deserve the right to marry and they were sticking to that, now unpopular position.  

So here we are today.  The master planners that came up with this popular at the time strategy against gays, are now leading the church. Nothing is going to change in their life time.  So NOW that position is the unpopular position.  It will remain such until at some point, the cost to the church is just too great.  Personally, I think the cost is already getting pretty high.  But don't underestimate the difficulty of admitting such a huge error.  Right now, we are at the doubling down stage.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I accept that possibility, but it isn’t without precedent for new administrations to change direction and rhetoric.  Even the recent emphasis away from the title of Mormon is evidence of departure from prior leaders. 

That’s not new. Church leaders have been enjoining that for decades. Do I have to cite general conference talks and the Church handbook?

Edited August 29, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

No, I assume most orthodox members support leaders by default without much critical examination of what was said.  

Do you have any idea how insulting that is? 

[stemelbow]

Quote

“We were sorry to see how many critics of that policy failed to consider its positive purpose, which was to follow the Church’s long-standing effort to avoid creating conflicts between children and those who are raising them,” he said. “Where children are being raised by custodians who do not have such a fundamental conflict with Church doctrine, there are ways to obtain approval for children to be baptized.”

If that was truly the purpose they obviously failed.  I think the policy change brought on more conflict and difficulty in family, at least from what I've seen.  Granted my view is my own and sees only that which I can see, but as I see it there is more division within families due to the policy change rather than less.  It is the opposite of prophetic.  

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you have any idea how insulting that is? 

I feel insulted, Scott?  Most members tend to not critically examine leader's words, tend to trust leaders are speaking God's will and all of that.  Why would you choose to be insulted by that?  

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

“We were sorry to see how many critics of that policy failed to consider its positive purpose, which was to follow the Church’s long-standing effort to avoid creating conflicts between children and those who are raising them,” he said. “Where children are being raised by custodians who do not have such a fundamental conflict with Church doctrine, there are ways to obtain approval for children to be baptized.”

If that was truly the purpose they obviously failed. 

How do you figure?  The policy's purpose was to avoid creating conflicts.  By what metric do you propose we discern the number of avoided conflicts?

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think the policy change brought on more conflict and difficulty in family, at least from what I've seen. 

With respect, I disagree.  I think the bulk of the "conflict and difficulty" has arisen from shrill and over-the-top protestations against the policy.  The policy itself, when allowed to function, probably works about the same as the policy it was based on (the one pertaining to children being raised in polygamous families).  

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Granted my view is my own and sees only that which I can see, but as I see it there is more division within families due to the policy change rather than less.  It is the opposite of prophetic.  

So we measure prophetic actions based on whether they are popular?  By that reckoning, Jesus Christ was a failure.  

Thanks,

-Smac