Elder Oaks

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm using the term in the sense that it's the explanation with the fewest unnecessary assumptions, not that it's the easiest explanation.

If someone in GC started using "blood and soil" rhetoric, I wouldn't need to wonder where that was coming from either.

I don't see how that's true though. Believing that it's God's will and doctrine also has the fewest unnecessary assumptions.

[stemelbow]

hmmm...i'm feeling more intrigued by the argument that the Church leaders are lead by God to parrot right wing identify politics, as gray has tabbed it.  I mean I find the practice and policy making due to such things pathetic and wrongheaded, but looking from the outside, for the most part, it is quite an explanation for members to maintain, as has been laid out here.  I'll see if I can fill in my family and friends on this stuff.  In truth though, I don't know what most members do witht his kind of nonsense.  I suppose they largely just ignore it and pretend he said something other than he did say.  I do believe that's how family and friends approach this--if they ever really look at it, they just quote the parts they like and ignore the rest.  

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't see how that's true though. Believing that it's God's will and doctrine also has the fewest unnecessary assumptions.

It requires the additional assumption that President Oaks has NOT been influenced by similar rhetoric in all kinds of secular and sectarian circles, rhetoric that just so happens to comport with his political opinions.

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Quick Question - Do Benson's fifteen points about honoring the President apply to all the GA's? If not, do they apply to the three members of the presidency, or just to the President?

I don't think the Church has really thought about it too much, but I would say to the President. His counselors are seen as his advisors. I see the organization as more a reflection of heavenly order. The Father has the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Lord of this world has the two anointed ones of Zechariah 4 and Revelation 11. 

Nevertheless, I am willing to speak from an unorthodox viewpoint. I personally don't feel the presidency is supposed to "dissolve" upon the death of the President, but remains an active quorum with equal authority to the quorum of the apostles until a new President is confirmed - just like the quorum of the apostles does on the death of its president. In that instance the remaining two counselors would act fully as the President. However, the vast majority of the Church will not agree.

Nor do I agree with all of the fourteen or fifteen points of Benson. For example "The prophet will never lead the Church astray." Sounds nice in principle, but I don't believe it is true. Joseph Smith himself went astray, and was corrected by the Lord. Nevertheless, because of his error we are without the Book of Lehi. BY taught things now disavowed. Apostasy has occurred before - obviously that could not occur unless the people went astray and the Lord allowed it. I think this principle comes from the belief that the Lord has restored His Church for the last time. However, there is no promise that the priesthood will remain on the earth till the very end. The promise is that the priesthood has been restored for the last time UNTIL an offering is made in righteousness by the sons of Levi. Telling oneself you cannot err is I think in itself error. Man is quite fallible and naturally prideful. The scriptures teach us numerous times the errors of His prophets. I believe it is a principle designed to promote discipleship, but that only our Savior will never fail us. Men - not so much. Therefore, if a teaching feels incorrect to me, I am not against praying about it myself for guidance about following it. I believe the Holy Spirit confirms scripture to us, and will confirm correct teachings as well if they are meant to act as scripture or be scripture. 

This gets back to the whole authority thing which you feel is part of "Mormon exceptionalism." We do feel the Lord guides this Church, although maybe not personally right now(I don't hear anyone saying "the Lord has told me..."). We strive to follow His guidance. If that makes us "exceptional" then I am willing and happy to be exceptional... to be a light in the darkness. Nevertheless, I feel you are more speaking of an attitude from a sociological viewpoint, which I cannot fully deny. I think it is manifest in the Benson principles above, and in Church culture - especially where the local population consists of large concentrations of LDS members. Nevertheless, like all generalities, it does not universally apply to the Church... So as much as you like pressing this button, I think you have to acknowledge that throughout the history of Christianity, it has taught various forms of exceptionalism - such as not being of the world, being humble, etc

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

It requires the additional assumption that President Oaks has NOT been influenced by similar rhetoric in all kinds of secular and sectarian circles, rhetoric that just so happens to comport with his political opinions.

Once the Church told us, officially, that the priesthood ban grew from the prevailing opinions of others, and yet maintained it was revelation from God, we were given hints what revelation amounts to.  Kind of a sad realization.

 

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Once the Church told us, officially, that the priesthood ban grew from the prevailing opinions of others, and yet maintained it was revelation from God, we were given hints what revelation amounts to.  Kind of a sad realization.

 

Very true.  This has been at the center of the faith crises of quite a few people that I know.  It was certainly a major factor prompting me to rebuild my testimony.

Today we've had revelation for the church defined as when the Q12 and FP are all in unity.  Given that, we can continue to expect directional shifts like this in the Church as those 15 men come to agreement on new things.

[Avatar4321]

I just listened to President oaks talk again. I didn’t hear anything untrue, controversial, or unkind.

sometimes I think people go looking for that which isn’t there.

[RevTestament]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

John McCain flat out said Rand Paul is working for Putin. Rand is working hard trying to reverse Russian sanctions. He and another group of Republicans traveled to Russia this year (the first group, humiliatingly, on July 4), presumably to get their marching orders.

If you think getting millions of dollars worth of sophisticated election help from a hostile foreign government is winning "fair and square" then you're not exactly a loyal American yourself.

OK - I said I wasn't going to do it, but I have to one last time. There are legitimate reasons to meet with Russians besides "taking marching orders." They are naturally concerned with political Islam, and I am sure don't want to see a new Caliphate set up in the Middle East. So in that sense I think they are a more trustworthy source of news and intelligence than Middle East Muslims are - not to mention more in line with US interests in the Middle East. I fail to see why you are not troubled by Obama's numerous meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood and his spending almost a trillion dollars of US taxpayer money to militarily support agendas of its Islamic subsidiaries, and yet are so troubled by meetings of US diplomats with Russians.  I say wake up. The end.

[Navidad]

38 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I don't think the Church has really thought about it too much, but I would say to the President. His counselors are seen as his advisors. I see the organization as more a reflection of heavenly order. The Father has the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Lord of this world has the two anointed ones of Zechariah 4 and Revelation 11. 

Nevertheless, I am willing to speak from an unorthodox viewpoint. I personally don't feel the presidency is supposed to "dissolve" upon the death of the President, but remains an active quorum with equal authority to the quorum of the apostles until a new President is confirmed - just like the quorum of the apostles does on the death of its president. In that instance the remaining two counselors would act fully as the President. However, the vast majority of the Church will not agree.

Nor do I agree with all of the fourteen or fifteen points of Benson. For example "The prophet will never lead the Church astray." Sounds nice in principle, but I don't believe it is true. Joseph Smith himself went astray, and was corrected by the Lord. Nevertheless, because of his error we are without the Book of Lehi. BY taught things now disavowed. Apostasy has occurred before - obviously that could not occur unless the people went astray and the Lord allowed it. I think this principle comes from the belief that the Lord has restored His Church for the last time. However, there is no promise that the priesthood will remain on the earth till the very end. The promise is that the priesthood has been restored for the last time UNTIL an offering is made in righteousness by the sons of Levi. Telling oneself you cannot err is I think in itself error. Man is quite fallible and naturally prideful. The scriptures teach us numerous times the errors of His prophets. I believe it is a principle designed to promote discipleship, but that only our Savior will never fail us. Men - not so much. Therefore, if a teaching feels incorrect to me, I am not against praying about it myself for guidance about following it. I believe the Holy Spirit confirms scripture to us, and will confirm correct teachings as well if they are meant to act as scripture or be scripture. 

This gets back to the whole authority thing which you feel is part of "Mormon exceptionalism." We do feel the Lord guides this Church, although maybe not personally right now(I don't hear anyone saying "the Lord has told me..."). We strive to follow His guidance. If that makes us "exceptional" then I am willing and happy to be exceptional... to be a light in the darkness. Nevertheless, I feel you are more speaking of an attitude from a sociological viewpoint, which I cannot fully deny. I think it is manifest in the Benson principles above, and in Church culture - especially where the local population consists of large concentrations of LDS members. Nevertheless, like all generalities, it does not universally apply to the Church... So as much as you like pressing this button, I think you have to acknowledge that throughout the history of Christianity, it has taught various forms of exceptionalism - such as not being of the world, being humble, etc

Thanks for your thoughtful answer. That really helps. More about exceptionality in another thread.

[Stargazer]

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think the idea that anyone in the Fed Govt takes marching orders from Russia is paranoid junk news - including liberals - and is being pushed by the remaining Obama friends and Islamic sympathizers. Maybe if I call it Russianophobia it will catch on. Russia and Political Islam are the two main power brokers of the Middle East, so naturally any policies not desired by Islam are going to be painted as Russian. If Russia was able to influence the elections at all it is the Democrats own fault, and pointing the finger at those exposing the dirty laundry is just sour grapes. To the leftists out there - you were beaten fair and square - get over it. And this is coming from one who is not a Trump fan, and didn't vote for him. (I certainly did not vote for Hillary either.) That is it for my political speech on this thread.

 

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

John McCain flat out said Rand Paul is working for Putin. Rand is working hard trying to reverse Russian sanctions. He and another group of Republicans traveled to Russia this year (the first group, humiliatingly, on July 4), presumably to get their marching orders.

If you think getting millions of dollars worth of sophisticated election help from a hostile foreign government is winning "fair and square" then you're not exactly a loyal American yourself.

As much as I hate being a board nanny, could I make the suggestion that you (cuz I'm not going to contribute, despite strong temptation) take this off the thread before it goes metastatic and kills the thread?

Please and thankyou.   

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

OK - I said I wasn't going to do it, but I have to one last time. There are legitimate reasons to meet with Russians besides "taking marching orders." They are naturally concerned with political Islam, and I am sure don't want to see a new Caliphate set up in the Middle East. So in that sense I think they are a more trustworthy source of news and intelligence than Middle East Muslims are - not to mention more in line with US interests in the Middle East. I fail to see why you are not troubled by Obama's numerous meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood and his spending almost a trillion dollars of US taxpayer money to militarily support agendas of its Islamic subsidiaries, and yet are so troubled by meetings of US diplomats with Russians.  I say wake up. The end.

Rand Paul meets with Russia. Weeks later he tries to get Russian sanctions removed. Probably a coincidence, right?

[Gray]

33 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

 

As much as I hate being a board nanny, could I make the suggestion that you (cuz I'm not going to contribute, despite strong temptation) take this off the thread before it goes metastatic and kills the thread?

Please and thankyou.   

Your wish is my command!

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It requires the additional assumption that President Oaks has NOT been influenced by similar rhetoric in all kinds of secular and sectarian circles, rhetoric that just so happens to comport with his political opinions.

But yours requires the additional assumption that some beliefs espoused by certain political parties are not of God.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

I won't argue with that or with you. I will simply reiterate what I have said (you are correct, so why argue) that Mormon exceptionalism, is I believe a construct that comes from Mormon sociology, group identity and history. You see it as an attack on your doctrine. I don't. In fact, I wish we really could have a thread where I could share those thoughts, then maybe I wouldn't do it in every post! I also think you may be confused (I can say that since you always say I misunderstand!) about how I use the word exceptional. As I think about it I think it is 1. A group psychological and sociological construct; 2. It comes out of LDS self-perception as to its history and 3. I am not the first to maintain or hold this perspective. I also bring it up so much because it is one of the key factors influencing me not to convert. So I guess I am "confessing" my belief (not doctrinal belief) but, more an observation of LDS writings, speeches and history. It has very little to do with things like the LDS doctrine of salvation or exaltation, although that is completely foreign to me, I admit. Perhaps I have a narrower view of doctrine than you do. That is why I don't connect when you and others infer I am arguing doctrine in my posts. To me doctrine is the great ologies - my concept of exceptionalism might fit into anthropology, psychology and sociology, but those aren't doctrines. The nature of Christ, the salvific effect of baptismal waters are all doctrinal and I have judiciously avoided any of that. Those things are not something I want to, or will debate on this forum. They aren't my reason for being here. I hope that helps; but it might just confuse things more.  For the fifth time tonight I will say, sorry!

Re-write that and insert "Mennonite" in place of "Mormon" in every statement and then we will agree.

Of course it is sociology.

What isn't?

I am a social constructivist.  Reality doesn't "exist" until we can talk about it- that is why all things were created by the Word- the Messenger.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism#Criticism

 

 

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Especially the part about me "being insufficiently humble, forbearing and conciliatory"!

Edited to add: "and full of myself," let's not forget that one.

Oh no, of course.  Clearly you can be proud of winning the humility prize for 2018!  Congratulations!! 

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

It makes me sad that you continue to attack Navidad.  I respect his point of view.  I don't think he has ever been disrespectful of beliefs the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I honestly believe he is being truthful in his pursuit to better understand beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  He should be allowed to ask questions on this forum.  And he should be allowed to respond from. his perspective, just like everyone else that participates.  This is a discussion board.  Let's not lose sight of that.  

He is more than capable of taking care of himself, and responds to EVERY post I make.  He is hardly a shrinking violet in need of your protection.

And he is free to endorse Hauns Mill (spelling? who cares?) all he wants but I find it offensive.  Perhaps you should tell him that being offensive to Mormons on a Mormon board is not a good idea. 

And you are free to respect his point of view while I disagree with it.

 

Edited October 8, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I wrote a long post, but just didn't seem appropriate to post for some reason (maybe because it is a personal belief, but not a "Mormon" belief even if my "Mormon" beliefs led to it as it seems problematic for Navidad to go exploring off road at this point), so let me just say that yes, I believe physical changes occur with acceptance of the ordinances.  And I can see why the crucifixion might be viewed in that way.

For Christ's wounds, simplifying it all down, it seems counterintuitive to me that trillions of years from now when this earth has passed from its current state to perfection or space dust that the evidence for immortal beings who once belonged to its mortal sphere that Christ can heal all wounds will still be his body being wounded.  I love the paradox for us now as it can 'shock' us into understanding at least in part what he did, took on all the hate and fear in the world---the wounds being the result---and still in himself was love and compassion and life, but I am hoping hate and fear and all the evidences they existed for us will disappear as the Atonement removes them from our hearts even if we currently need constant reminding that they exist and there exists a solution to all the pain.

Well I see this all as a paradigm, a story we tell ourselves to explain what cannot be explained.

Putting it in scriptural terms, we now see in a glass- a mirror of all that humans are capable of understanding, and do so "darkly".

So we are looking at ourselves, not "reality" because all we can know is what stories our little brains are capable of coming up with which work well for us in an Alma 32 sense.  These beliefs are "sweet" to us.

And we cannot even see our beliefs in the mirror very well because we see them "darkly".  And so we cannot even agree on a conclusive interpretation of what we see in our mirrors.

But THEN we will see it "face to face".

All we need to know is what gets us through this life and the path to greater knowledge.

So I am not too worried about what is "really happening" because that is unknowable in our present worm-brain state.  Explain relativity to a worm!  

So I do not have the illusion that what we believe is "reality" so I do not worry about the details of what is unknowable.

For those who need such explanations we might as well say "God will reverse the coils and make it all right" which is probably actually the best answer we can come with anyway. 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

It would be really simple and easy if that were true, but it's just not.  We can't use that as a way to gauge truth.  After all, if Pres. Oaks had said the opposite of what he did at conference, then in someone's eyes he would just be "parroting" other kinds of popular rhetoric right now.  

Because both kinds of rhetoric are popular, just with different groups.

Rhetoric is inescapable.  Everything we say and do comes from a point of view which could be called a "rhetorical" position if one chose to do so.  

[Gray]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

But yours requires the additional assumption that some beliefs espoused by certain political parties are not of God.

No, the null hypothesis would be that beliefs espoused by special interest groups are their own and not in any way invested with additional divine significance.

[blueglass]

I'm trying to understand the views of Elder Oaks.  Maybe someone can help me synthesize these three quotes.  Oaks, Scott, Widtsoe.  Then maybe we can bring in 3rd eye hindu Ajna and scientific models for intuition in a later discussion. 

Elder Oaks:  "when we seek the truth about religion we should use spiritual methods appropriate for that search:  1) prayer,  2) the witness of the holy ghost, and 3) study of the scriptures and the words of modern prophets.  i'm always sad when I hear of one who reports a loss of religious faith because of secular teachings.  Those who once had spiritual vision, can suffer from self-inflicted spiritual blindness.  As Pres Henry B. Eyring said, "their problem does not lie in what they think they see, it lies in what they cannot see."   The methods of science lead us to what we call 'scientific truth. but scientific truth is not the whole of life.  Those who do not learn by study and also by faith, limit their understanding of truth to what they can verify by scientific means, that puts artificial limits on their pursuit of truth."

Elder Scott: "There are two ways to find truth—both useful, provided we follow the laws upon which they are predicated. The first is the scientific method. It can require analysis of data to confirm a theory or, alternatively, establish a valid principle through experimentation. The scientific method is a valuable way of seeking truth. However, it has two limitations. First, we never can be sure we have identified absolute truth, though we often draw nearer and nearer to it. Second, sometimes, no matter how earnestly we apply the method, we can get the wrong answer.  The best way of finding truth is simply to go to the origin of all truth and ask or respond to inspiration."

Elder Widtsoe: "Doubt of the right kind, that is, honest questioning leads to faith. Such doubt impels men to inquiry which always opens the door to truth. The scientist in his laboratory, the explorer in distant parts, the prayerful man upon his knees, these and all inquirers like them find truth. They learn some things that are known, others are not."

[Jane_Doe]

35 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I'm trying to understand the views of Elder Oaks.  Maybe someone can help me synthesize these three quotes.  Oaks, Scott, Widtsoe.  Then maybe we can bring in 3rd eye hindu Ajna and scientific models for intuition in a later discussion. 

Elder Oaks:  "when we seek the truth about religion we should use spiritual methods appropriate for that search:  1) prayer,  2) the witness of the holy ghost, and 3) study of the scriptures and the words of modern prophets.  i'm always sad when I hear of one who reports a loss of religious faith because of secular teachings.  Those who once had spiritual vision, can suffer from self-inflicted spiritual blindness.  As Pres Henry B. Eyring said, "their problem does not lie in what they think they see, it lies in what they cannot see."   The methods of science lead us to what we call 'scientific truth. but scientific truth is not the whole of life.  Those who do not learn by study and also by faith, limit their understanding of truth to what they can verify by scientific means, that puts artificial limits on their pursuit of truth."

Elder Scott: "There are two ways to find truth—both useful, provided we follow the laws upon which they are predicated. The first is the scientific method. It can require analysis of data to confirm a theory or, alternatively, establish a valid principle through experimentation. The scientific method is a valuable way of seeking truth. However, it has two limitations. First, we never can be sure we have identified absolute truth, though we often draw nearer and nearer to it. Second, sometimes, no matter how earnestly we apply the method, we can get the wrong answer.  The best way of finding truth is simply to go to the origin of all truth and ask or respond to inspiration."

Elder Widtsoe: "Doubt of the right kind, that is, honest questioning leads to faith. Such doubt impels men to inquiry which always opens the door to truth. The scientist in his laboratory, the explorer in distant parts, the prayerful man upon his knees, these and all inquirers like them find truth. They learn some things that are known, others are not."

(Scientist & LDS lady writing this post)

I'm unsure of the conflict you're seeing between these quotes.

There are many different tools in the truth discovering tool box.  Some tools are great at somethings, but not for others.  For example, the scientific method is one truth-discovering tool, and through it we've discovered many great things about physics, biology, chemistry, etc.  Since these truths were discovered with the scientific method, you could call them 'scientific truths', as Elder Oaks did.  While the scientific method is a great tool, it is constrained and cannot answer all questions.  Like "Is there a God", cannot be either proven or disproven by the scientific method.  To get at those truths, we got to use a different tool (such as prayer and the other things described by Oaks).  

Because learning truth and how to best use these tools (scientific method or other) is a matter of practice and continual study, we do sometimes get incorrect conclusions.  Which is fine-- that's why we keep studying and pushing the depths of our knowledge/learning.  When we do discover something that holds up to be pretty solid, we test it, and if it does appear to be solid, we continue to build on it.    That's what it is to be a scientist, and what it is to be a disciple of Christ.  

[rongo]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

No, the null hypothesis would be that beliefs espoused by special interest groups are their own and not in any way invested with additional divine significance.

Are you saying that truly divine beliefs should never align with any views of any interest groups, ever? Might they sometimes actually agree with this or that view, if only by blind chance?

Reminds me of talking with the angry gay man who yelled at us on our mission. After calming down and letting us in (I had asked if we could come in and defend ourselves), he told us that he believed in God, but didn't believe that God thought homosexuality is a sin. I pointed out that we both couldn't be right, and that God agreed more with one or the other of us. Is it possible to find out exactly what God himself thinks about this? He was stumped, and the conversation went from there. 

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that God's actual view about things won't ever align with any "special interest groups." Is that what you really think? 

 

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

Are you saying that truly divine beliefs should never align with any views of any interest groups, ever? Might they sometimes actually agree with this or that view, if only by blind chance?

Reminds me of talking with the angry gay man who yelled at us on our mission. After calming down and letting us in (I had asked if we could come in and defend ourselves), he told us that he believed in God, but didn't believe that God thought homosexuality is a sin. I pointed out that we both couldn't be right, and that God agreed more with one or the other of us. Is it possible to find out exactly what God himself thinks about this? He was stumped, and the conversation went from there. 

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that God's actual view about things won't ever align with any "special interest groups." Is that what you really think? 

  

Let's say the odds of God's will aligning so precisely with the American far right on so many issues is slim. Further responsible exegesis of scripture can of course entirely refute the notion that poking transgender people in the eye has anything to do with the will of God.

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Let's say the odds of God's will aligning so precisely with the American far right on so many issues is slim.

Are the odds better that God's will will align precisely with far left ideology on so many issues?

[Gray]

30 minutes ago, rongo said:

Are the odds better that God's will will align precisely with far left ideology on so many issues? 

My guess: no.