Elder Oaks

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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

Historically, when it comes to issues of social equality, God’s will seems to follow societal norms (but often decades behind)... doesn’t seem to matter if they are left, right, or special interest. 

[Rivers]

20 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

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.

I heard nothing but standard  doctrine that the church has taught for a long time.  It’s not Pres. Oaks whom which people have a problem.  They don’t like the doctrine.  For those who disagree with the church’s teachings on family, marriage, sexuality, and gender, being a member of the church must be very difficult.

Edited October 9, 2018 by Rivers

[Rivers]

14 hours 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. 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.

I see the Church as being opposed to both the extreme right and the extreme left.  It’s just that the extreme left is a bit more influential these days.

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Rivers said:

For those who disagree with the church’s teachings on family, marriage, sexuality, and gender, being a member of the church must be very difficult.

Yes, it is. 

[Avatar4321]

23 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I heard nothing but standard  doctrine that the church has taught for a long time.  It’s not Pres. Oaks whom which people have a problem.  They don’t like the doctrine.  For those who disagree with the church’s teachings on family, marriage, sexuality, and gender, being a member of the church must be very difficult.

I don’t think it’s as difficult as they make it. They could simply choose to believe instead of fighting it and insisting in pride that the Church Changes to their standards.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I don’t think it’s as difficult as they make it. They could simply choose to believe instead of fighting it and insisting in pride that the Church Changes to their standards.

 

Except belief is not a choice. Or can you choose to believe that you have only four fingers on your right hand? 

[Avatar4321]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Except belief is not a choice. Or can you choose to believe that you have only four fingers on your right hand? 

Belief very much is a choice.

 

and we do have four fingers on every hand:)

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Belief very much is a choice.

 

and we do have four fingers on every hand:)

You only have four fingers on your hands? Wow! And you can choose to believe anything you want? Double wow!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/finger

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Except belief is not a choice. Or can you choose to believe that you have only four fingers on your right hand? 

Belief is a choice as to many, many things (though obviously not all things).

Belief in the existence of God is a choice.

Belief that God has certain attributes is a choice.

Belief that we are God's children is a choice.

Belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He has wrought a perfect atonement for us, and that he is our Savior and Redeemer is a choice.

Belief in the truth claims of the Church is a choice.

And on and on and on.

In contrast, there are some things about which there are no grounds for reasonable dispute, such that "belief" is not necessary, nor is it a choice.

Donald Trump is currently the President of the United States.

Earth is a sphere (technically, an oblate spheroid).

Hawai'i is located in the South Pacific.

And on and on and on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

I heard nothing but standard  doctrine that the church has taught for a long time.  It’s not Pres. Oaks whom which people have a problem.  They don’t like the doctrine.  For those who disagree with the church’s teachings on family, marriage, sexuality, and gender, being a member of the church must be very difficult.

Speaking of people opposing doctrine (but blaming Pres. Oaks), see here:

Quote

(KUTV) — Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, made comments about traditional marriage and gender that drew criticism during the Church’s General Conference on Saturday.

Mama Dragons, a support group for mothers of LGBTQ+ children which has 2,000 members, issued this statement on Monday via Facebook:

In light of the harmful rhetoric heard by our LGBTQ Mormon friends this past weekend from the pulpit at LDS General Conference, we as Mama Dragons would like to reiterate our unequivocal support of our LGBTQ children and the entire queer community. We remain committed to our mission of providing support and education to mothers and to condemning discrimination in any form. We love you. We celebrate you exactly as you are.

Lori Davis, a Mama Dragons Board Member and a member of the Church, said that for her, President Oaks’ talk caused her pain and sadness.

“It was doubling down on things that are really hard for our LBGTQ kids,” she said.

I can't help but think that the Mama Dragons are materially contributing to the difficulty arising in this issue.  Adult members of the Church publicly speaking against the General Authorities (by publicly accusing a member of the First Presidency of speaking "harmful rhetoric...from the pulpit and LDS General Conference") on a fundamental moral and doctrinal issue is going to create a lot of confusion and angst.  

I hope they start to reconsider their tactics and messaging.  Wendy Montgomery's shameful behavior is apparently still uncorrected and unretracted (see here and here).

Mama Dragons has a big credibility problem, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

Thanks for posting that @smac97

I’m grateful for the Mama Dragons, I think we need their voice. 

[smac97]

Just now, rockpond said:

Thanks for posting that @smac97

I’m grateful for the Mama Dragons, I think we need their voice. 

I don't.  I think they are creating much of the angst they are complaining about.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Speaking of people opposing doctrine (but blaming Pres. Oaks), see here:

I can't help but think that the Mama Dragons are materially contributing to the difficulty arising in this issue.  Adult members of the Church publicly speaking against the General Authorities (by publicly accusing a member of the First Presidency of speaking "harmful rhetoric...from the pulpit and LDS General Conference") on a fundamental moral and doctrinal issue is going to create a lot of confusion and angst.  

I hope they start to reconsider their tactics and messaging.  Wendy Montgomery's shameful behavior is apparently still uncorrected and unretracted (see here and here).

Mama Dragons has a big credibility problem, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

It always just amazes me that a person who considers themselves a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would speak out against the Lord's chosen prophets and apostles. 

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Speaking of people opposing doctrine (but blaming Pres. Oaks), see here:

I can't help but think that the Mama Dragons are materially contributing to the difficulty arising in this issue.  Adult members of the Church publicly speaking against the General Authorities (by publicly accusing a member of the First Presidency of speaking "harmful rhetoric...from the pulpit and LDS General Conference") on a fundamental moral and doctrinal issue is going to create a lot of confusion and angst.  

I hope they start to reconsider their tactics and messaging.  Wendy Montgomery's shameful behavior is apparently still uncorrected and unretracted (see here and here).

Mama Dragons has a big credibility problem, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

I choose life for these individuals that have possibly been tipped into wanting to end their lives after Oaks' talk, vs. accepting what a man says. And these mama's do as well. Apparently Oaks is trying to step clear away from scientific evidence that they are not choosing to be this way. Sad that he took that view, sad that he puts more people on a road to harm, nothing good about it. He will have to face the consequence of doing that. Mama Dragons aren't credible? Hum, so what does that even mean?

[HappyJackWagon]

This is just Oaks being Oaks.

Do his words hurt certain people? Yes.

Do his words energize the base of people on the Good Ship Zion? Yes.

 

In some Christian denominations there is the idea that there are 3 main things a Christian should try to accomplish. 1- Do no harm  2- Do good  3- Be in loving relationship with God

By that standard I can see how Oaks and other Good Shippers can see that he is doing good by providing a little hard truth/tough love. OK, fine. I also recognize that I have NO possible way of knowing for sure of Pres. Oaks relationship with God. That is between he and God.

BUT it also seems to me that he is doing harm to certain people regardless of his best intentions to do good. I would hope that as a Christian he might find a kinder, gentler way to share his truth in a way that does less harm to the people he is marginalizing.

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You only have four fingers on your hands? Wow! And you can choose to believe anything you want? Double wow!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/finger

 

It’s pretty typical for people to have only four fingers and one thumb on each hand. It is quite amazing how the Lord made us this way.

And Of course I can believe what I choose to believe. No one forces me to do anything

[stemelbow]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Speaking of people opposing doctrine (but blaming Pres. Oaks), see here:

I can't help but think that the Mama Dragons are materially contributing to the difficulty arising in this issue.  Adult members of the Church publicly speaking against the General Authorities (by publicly accusing a member of the First Presidency of speaking "harmful rhetoric...from the pulpit and LDS General Conference") on a fundamental moral and doctrinal issue is going to create a lot of confusion and angst.  

I hope they start to reconsider their tactics and messaging.  Wendy Montgomery's shameful behavior is apparently still uncorrected and unretracted (see here and here).

Mama Dragons has a big credibility problem, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm confused what is the confusion and angst they are causing, Smac?  It seems to me members of the Church get confused and feel angst at Pres Oaks' repeat of right wing politics and seemingly trying to make it appear it's from God.  Why can't anyone object?  you act as if objecting is the initial cause of the confusion and angst and seem fearful to plainly state the cause of the problem.  

[smac97]

On 10/9/2018 at 9:25 AM, Tacenda said:

I choose life for these individuals that have possibly been tipped into wanting to end their lives after Oaks' talk,

I do not understand what this means.

Quote

vs. accepting what a man says.

I do not understand this, either.

I also do not understand the "vs." element.  It's not like we are facing a choice of "life" or "accepting what a man says."  That's a false dichotomy.

Quote

And these mama's do as well.

And they do so by fabricating statistics and relying heavily on substantial misrepresentations.  They do so by resorting to sensationalism and alarmism.  They are materially contributing to the very angst about which they profess concern.

Quote

Apparently Oaks is trying to step clear away from scientific evidence that they are not choosing to be this way.

I don't know what this means.

Quote

Sad that he took that view,

What "view?"

Pres. Oaks said nothing about or against "scientific evidence."

Quote

sad that he puts more people on a road to harm,

I think the Mama Dragons are doing that.

Quote

nothing good about it.

There is a lot of good about speaking the truth.  Prophetic truth.  Revelatory truth.

Quote

He will have to face the consequence of doing that.

Unless, of course, he did nothing of the sort.

Meanwhile, the Mama Dragons have lied about suicide statistics to foment alarmism and ill will and anger, even hatred.  I think they will have to face the consequences of that.

Quote

Mama Dragons aren't credible? Hum, so what does that even mean?

I provided links. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 14, 2020 by smac97

[Avatar4321]

Just finished listening to the women’s session (It’s useful for the brethren to know what’s going on with the sisters)

President oaks has another absolutely outstanding talk. His words on kindness were especially uplifting.

i truly do not comprehend the outrage against him

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is just Oaks being Oaks.

Do his words hurt certain people? Yes.

Do his words energize the base of people on the Good Ship Zion? Yes.

John 6 was just Jesus being Jesus:

Quote

 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
...
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
...
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
...
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heardthis, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
...
66 ¶ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?|
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Jesus Christ said something that was not popular.  Many of those who heard it "murmured at him."  Many of those who heard it "strove among themselves."  Many of those who heard it "went back, and walked no more with him."  

Did His words hurt certain people?  Yes.

Did His words energize his remaining followers?  Yes.

Were His words true?  Aye, there's the rub.

Quote

In some Christian denominations there is the idea that there are 3 main things a Christian should try to accomplish. 1- Do no harm  2- Do good  3- Be in loving relationship with God

By this reasoning, we must condemn Jesus Christ.  

Christ said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  I'm quite okay with that.  What "harm" means, and the fact that it happens, is not in and of itself indicative of whether the conduct precipitating it was moral or right.  That's far too subjective a measurement.  

I'm also quite okay with the Lord's servants doing the same thing (saying and doing things that are not well-received by the society around them).  I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church.  Our reputation affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission.  But preserving and ehnancing the Church's reputation cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world.  He knew that.  But He preached it anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World.  

Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  

Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."

Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."  

Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

He also said:

Quote

49 ¶ I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

(Luke 12)

Years ago I used to be puzzled at the seeming inconsistency in the foregoing verses (the "Prince of Peace" coming to cause "division" amongst family members).  But I have come to believe that the conflict is arising from the increasing distance between God and His children, which distance is in turn being caused by the waywardness of His children.  Then the Savior comes and calls us to Him.  Some will heed the call, and some will not.  And from those disparate responses comes . . . division.  "For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three."

So with actual and real respect to you, I disagree that what the Church is doing is causing "harm" in a problematic sense.  Following the mandates of God is always necessary, even when speaking the truth causes offense.

My dad and I were talking about these a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  

And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."  

And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."  

And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

So the hostile reactions of the World to the inspired leadership of the Brethren are not "bad fruit."  They are the anticipated responses to prophetic counsel.  In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and based on revelation.  Our lot as Latter-day Saints is not to adhere to counsel from the Brethren because it is popular.  Our lot is to adhere to such counsel because it is right.  And when such counsel is right and unpopular, well . . . that's what the Spirit is for.

Quote

By that standard I can see how Oaks and other Good Shippers can see that he is doing good by providing a little hard truth/tough love. OK, fine. I also recognize that I have NO possible way of knowing for sure of Pres. Oaks relationship with God. That is between he and God.

"Knowing for sure?"  I suppose.  That's what faith is about, I think.

More to the point, whether Pres. Oaks' remarks are valid and reflective of the will of God is, I think, something we can discern for ourselves.

Quote

BUT it also seems to me that he is doing harm to certain people regardless of his best intentions to do good.

Well, Jesus did "harm" in John 6.  Speaking the truth can cause harm.  But it's a harm arising from confusion, error, misplaced priorities, sin, or some combination of these.

Meanwhile, the Mama Dragons are fabricating damnable lies about teens suicides so as to scare and coerce, to sensationalize, and to foment ill will against the leaders of the Church.  It seems to me that they are "doing harm to certain people regardless of {their} best intentions to do good."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 9, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Speaking of people opposing doctrine (but blaming Pres. Oaks), see here:

I can't help but think that the Mama Dragons are materially contributing to the difficulty arising in this issue.  Adult members of the Church publicly speaking against the General Authorities (by publicly accusing a member of the First Presidency of speaking "harmful rhetoric...from the pulpit and LDS General Conference") on a fundamental moral and doctrinal issue is going to create a lot of confusion and angst.  

I hope they start to reconsider their tactics and messaging.  Wendy Montgomery's shameful behavior is apparently still uncorrected and unretracted (see here and here).

Mama Dragons has a big credibility problem, IMO.

I'm confused what is the confusion and angst they are causing, Smac? 

I provided a link.

The Mama Dragons have lied.  They've lied about teens killing themselves.  They've publicly accused the Church of causing these suicides.  They have fabricated statistics and made numerous false claims about those statistics to bolster them.  See the above links.

Quote

It seems to me members of the Church get confused and feel angst at Pres Oaks' repeat of right wing politics and seemingly trying to make it appear it's from God. 

Meh.  There was nothing political in his remarks.  He was speaking as a prophet, seer and revelator.  He was not espousing political messages.

Quote

Why can't anyone object?  You act as if objecting is the initial cause of the confusion and angst and seem fearful to plainly state the cause of the problem.  

I take exception to falsehoods and sensationalism about teen suicides.

I take a lot of exception to that.

And the Mama Dragons have apparently done nothing to correct the record.  Their activism is based on lies and sensationalism and alarmism.  They are fomenting angst and confusion and agner in the minds of the teens about whom they profess concern.  I don't respect that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 9, 2018 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

John 6 was just Jesus being Jesus:

Jesus Christ said something that was not popular.  Many of those who heard it "murmured at him."  Many of those who heard it "strove among themselves."  Many of those who heard it "went back, and walked no more with him."  

Did His words hurt certain people?  Yes.

Did His words energize his remaining followers?  Yes.

Were His words true?  Aye, there's the rub.

By this reasoning, we must condemn Jesus Christ.  

Christ said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  I'm quite okay with that.  What "harm" means, and the fact that it happens, is not in and of itself indicative of whether the conduct precipitating it was moral or right.  That's far too subjective a measurement.  

I'm also quite okay with the Lord's servants doing the same thing (saying and doing things that are not well-received by the society around them).  I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church.  Our reputation affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission.  But preserving and ehnancing the Church's reputation cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world.  He knew that.  But He preached it anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World.  

Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  

Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually😞 "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."

Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."  

Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

He also said:

Years ago I used to be puzzled at the seeming inconsistency in the foregoing verses (the "Prince of Peace" coming to cause "division" amongst family members).  But I have come to believe that the conflict is arising from the increasing distance between God and His children, which distance is in turn being caused by the waywardness of His children.  Then the Savior comes and calls us to Him.  Some will heed the call, and some will not.  And from those disparate responses comes . . . division.  "For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three."

So with actual and real respect to you, I disagree that what the Church is doing is causing "harm" in a problematic sense.  Following the mandates of God is always necessary, even when speaking the truth causes offense.

My dad and I were talking about these a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  

And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."  

And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."  

And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

So the hostile reactions of the World to the inspired leadership of the Brethren are not "bad fruit."  They are the anticipated responses to prophetic counsel.  In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and based on revelation.  Our lot as Latter-day Saints is not to adhere to counsel from the Brethren because it is popular.  Our lot is to adhere to such counsel because it is right.  And when such counsel is right and unpopular, well . . . that's what the Spirit is for.

"Knowing for sure?"  I suppose.  That's what faith is about, I think.

More to the point, whether Pres. Oaks' remarks are valid and reflective of the will of God is, I think, something we can discern for ourselves.

Well, Jesus did "harm" in John 6.  Speaking the truth can cause harm.  But it's a harm arising from confusion, error, misplaced priorities, sin, or some combination of these.

Meanwhile, the Mama Dragons are fabricating damnable lies about teens suicides so as to scare and coerce, to sensationalize, and to foment ill will against the leaders of the Church.  It seems to me that they are "doing harm to certain people regardless of {their} best intentions to do good."

Thanks,

-Smac

Oaks is no Jesus.

I'll just say that it's easier for me to put my trust in a perfect deity than a man.

[Avatar4321]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Oaks is no Jesus.

I'll just say that it's easier for me to put my trust in a perfect deity than a man.

I’m sure that’s what the Pharisees said about Christ.

 

[bluebell]

I've seen a few women posting about this talk on the LDS mommy pages on Facebook who have said (direct quotes, including punctuation) I.  Needed. This.  Talk.  and This.  Talk.  Was.  For.  Me.  

Have we, as a church, fallen into the idea that if a talk doesn't help us personally then that means the speaker failed?

[smac97]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Oaks is no Jesus.

I agree.

But Jesus said: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

I'll just say that it's easier for me to put my trust in a perfect deity than a man.

And yet most of the information we have about that "perfect deity" has come through men.  Imperfect, but nevertheless inspired, men.

If I thought there was some daylight between Jesus and Pres. Oaks on this issue, I would better understand your point.  But what Pres. Oaks said is pretty much perfectly congruent with the scriptures, and what many, many other prophets and apostles have said.

As between A) the unified and consistent voice of ancient and modern prophets and apostles, and B) the vitriolic alarmism being presented by the World (including, it seems, the Mama Dragons), I'll go with the former.

Thanks,

-Smac