Elder Oaks

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

Sorry I overlooked your links.  But you did remind me of that whole suicide thing from a couple years ago, which I had forgotten.  Thanks.  

if they lied they lied, I suppose.  I thought it was more about numbers not adding up--as in the Mama Dragons lady said she knew about some number of suicides of LDS gay teens and the Utah numbers didn't equate to that many or something.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

I don't think I'm the only one who recognized the political theme to his remarks.  I was surprised to see he was so black and white, either/or when it came to his views on scientific thoughts, I admit.  I didn't think he was that conservative, but I guess he is.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

I hear ya.  If true about falsehoods and sensationalism I agree.  I recall though many friends finding a great deal of concern when this was all in the news, as each and everyone who was gay and raised LDS felt a very clear connection between being gay and raised in the Church and suicide.  They each had been on the brink of suicide numerous times as youth and each attributed the Church, its teaching and culture, as a major player in their depression.  Suicide numbers are one thing, I guess, but I don't think it's easy to deny that there is some amount of concern here.  

[Rivers]

How does one belong to an organization and fundamentally disagree with it on hugely important issues?  I used to be in the camp of people who vehemently opposed the church on the issues of which Oaks spoke about.  Its a very difficult road to walk.  

[HappyJackWagon]

39 minutes ago, Rivers said:

How does one belong to an organization and fundamentally disagree with it on hugely important issues?  I used to be in the camp of people who vehemently opposed the church on the issues of which Oaks spoke about.  Its a very difficult road to walk.  

The church is very imperfect. Why stay with something that is imperfect and with which I disagree on various issues? Because there is a hope for growth and change. It's like asking a husband why he stays with his very flawed wife. Usually it's because there is a hope for something better. Maybe there are signs that things could be better. Maybe there is a benefit to staying that outweighs the negative issues. I suspect there is often a pros/cons approach to determining whether a relationship is worthwhile. At some point the balance shifts enough that the answer becomes obvious, but sometimes it's a back and forth of positive and negative.

 

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Sorry I overlooked your links.  But you did remind me of that whole suicide thing from a couple years ago, which I had forgotten.  Thanks.  

if they lied they lied, I suppose.  I thought it was more about numbers not adding up--as in the Mama Dragons lady said she knew about some number of suicides of LDS gay teens and the Utah numbers didn't equate to that many or something.  

I don't think I'm the only one who recognized the political theme to his remarks.  I was surprised to see he was so black and white, either/or when it came to his views on scientific thoughts, I admit.  I didn't think he was that conservative, but I guess he is.  

I hear ya.  If true about falsehoods and sensationalism I agree.  I recall though many friends finding a great deal of concern when this was all in the news, as each and everyone who was gay and raised LDS felt a very clear connection between being gay and raised in the Church and suicide.  They each had been on the brink of suicide numerous times as youth and each attributed the Church, its teaching and culture, as a major player in their depression.  Suicide numbers are one thing, I guess, but I don't think it's easy to deny that there is some amount of concern here.  

As a retired school district superintendent I can assure you that suicide and being a gay young person is a big concern. I know nothing about this group you are talking about; but I certainly know about gay young people and suicide. Because this group lied, please don't underestimate the negative impact on the children of negative comments. All churches who have strong beliefs about this have had to deal with guilt and depression in their gay young people. Public school districts certainly have had much of the same.

[Calm]

Quote

They've publicly accused the Church of causing these suicides

There has actually been accusations that this most recent talk led to a suicide.  However, the tragic death occurred on Thursday before the talk was given from what I saw reported.

Just mentioning this in case someone comes across these recent accusations.

[Scott Lloyd]

Finally starting now to read this thread in earnest. I’ll just offer a gentle reminder that President Oaks is now a member of the First Presidency and, as such, is properly referred to with the ecclesiastical title “President” rather than “ Elder.” 

On a side note, when I began to call him President Oaks after his recent appointment to the First Presidency, it seemed very comfortable. Then I rememembered my first exposure to him was when I enrolled at BYU in 1972 and he had not long before been appointed university president. That’s why I’m used to calling him President Oaks. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[provoman]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

There has actually been accusations that this most recent talk led to a suicide.  However, the tragic death occurred on Thursday before the talk was given from what I saw reported.

Just mentioning this in case someone comes across these recent accusations.

 

I saw something similar, and it turns out it was a 2013 incident based on a letter that a Kyle Pederson wrote to Elder Oaks.

[Gray]

21 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

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

 

Are you trying to say President Oaks is the Messiah?

[Scott Lloyd]

21 hours 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 don’t think Smac is saying that President Oaks is Jesus. He’s saying that President Oaks is subjected to hatred for speaking essential truth as Jesus was subjected to hatred for speaking essential truth. Jesus, in fact, warned that such a thing will happen. 

I will put my trust in Jesus. And I will put my trust in men as they teach and convey His words consistent with their divine calling. 

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Finally starting now to read this thread in earnest. I’ll just offer a gentle reminder that President Oaks is now a member of the First Presidency and, as such, is properly referred to with the ecclesiastical title “President” rather than “ Elder.” 

On a side note, when I began to call him President Oaks after his recent appointment to the First Presidency, it seemed very comfortable. Then I rememembered my first exposure to him was when I enrolled at BYU in 1972 and he had not long before been appointed university president. That’s why I’m used to calling him President Oaks. 

Very close to when I went home from my mission, we had a mission conference with an area authority, Ernst Husz from Austria. He was a direct descendant of the Bohemian reformer who was burned at the stake while singing hymns, Jan Hus. When our mission president introduced me to him, he said, "Elder Rongo is our oak." Elder Husz replied, with a twinkle in his eye, "An oak is 3/4 of an Oaks."  

 

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Are you trying to say President Oaks is the Messiah?

 

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think Smac is saying that President Oaks is Jesus. He’s saying that President Oaks is subjected to hatred for speaking essential truth as Jesus was subjected to hatred for speaking essential truth.

Yeah, Gray, c'mon. Nobody here (including you) thinks he was saying President Oaks is Jesus or the Messiah. He was comparing the outrage and reactions Jesus received with the outrage and reactions President Oaks is receiving. 

What's the point in playing dumb about that and portraying someone as saying something like that? That makes your overreaction look even worse than it is. 

[smac97]

17 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church is very imperfect. Why stay with something that is imperfect and with which I disagree on various issues? Because there is a hope for growth and change. It's like asking a husband why he stays with his very flawed wife. Usually it's because there is a hope for something better.

I would hope that the husband would not seek to "improve" his "very flawed wife" by going online and publicly disparaging her, as the "Mama Dragons" are doing to the Church and to Pres. Oaks.

Quote

Maybe there are signs that things could be better. Maybe there is a benefit to staying that outweighs the negative issues. I suspect there is often a pros/cons approach to determining whether a relationship is worthwhile. At some point the balance shifts enough that the answer becomes obvious, but sometimes it's a back and forth of positive and negative.

What the Mama Dragons are doing is negative.  Again, adult members of the Church who are going out of their way to publicly speak against the General Authorities (such as 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 are going to create a lot of confusion and angst in the hearts and minds of the youth of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 10, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Are you trying to say President Oaks is the Messiah?

Do you really expect that question to be taken seriously?

[Gray]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you really expect that question to be taken seriously?

Avatar4321's comment makes no sense, otherwise.

[Gray]

33 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

Yeah, Gray, c'mon. Nobody here (including you) thinks he was saying President Oaks is Jesus or the Messiah. He was comparing the outrage and reactions Jesus received with the outrage and reactions President Oaks is receiving. 

What's the point in playing dumb about that and portraying someone as saying something like that? That makes your overreaction look even worse than it is. 

I wasn't responding to smac. I was responding to Avatar4321's strange objection at the top of this page.

[rockpond]

I imagine the Mama Dragons are hoping for a course correction from this or a future prophet since we are still a work in progress and sometimes the Lord lets His prophets and apostles say and do things that offend Him with a plan to correct us when the time is right. 

 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

I wasn't responding to smac. I was responding to Avatar4321's strange objection at the top of this page.

Sure, but even then, he was obviously comparing the reactions to both --- not saying Oaks is the Messiah. You look like you're not even trying to have a reasonable conversation when you twist things like that. 

[rongo]

Just now, rockpond said:

I imagine the Mama Dragons are hoping for a course correction from this or a future prophet since we are still a work in progress and sometimes the Lord lets His prophets and apostles say and do things that offend Him with a plan to correct us when the time is right. 

They're not going about it the right way --- at all. Flirting with Sam Young territory isn't a good foundation for positively influencing the Brethren. 

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

They're not going about it the right way --- at all. Flirting with Sam Young territory isn't a good foundation for positively influencing the Brethren. 

Agreed.  

I also think that there isn’t really much of an effective “right way” aside from patience. 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

They're not going about it the right way --- at all. Flirting with Sam Young territory isn't a good foundation for positively influencing the Brethren. 

I agree.  And worse than that, they are provoking fear and anger and confusion in vulnerable teenagers in the Church.  Very not cool.

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Agreed.  

I also think that there isn’t really much of an effective “right way” aside from patience. 

This is something I bring up fairly often. There is really not a "right way" to bring up questions or concerns with decision makers who could impact big issues (like LGBTQ) in the church.

We're not the only church struggling with the social shift. Many are. For example, the United Methodist Church is at risk of fracture over this issue. The conservative/traditional members are at odds with the more progressive elements within the church. They recognize the fissures being created by this issue so they are taking steps to address it, as imperfect as those steps may be. At their 2016 general conference (held every 4 years) they called for a special session of conference to be held in February of 2019 to focus solely on the issue of the LGBTQ issue. A Council of Bishops impaneled a "Commission on the Way Forward" which has been working on this since mid-2016. They are coming up with various alternatives and approaches, everything from maintaining the status quo (no lgbt marriage or ordination), changing to allow LGBT marriage and ordination, a mixture of the 2 depending upon the desires of local congregations. These councils have met and discussed for a couple of years now. They presented to the council of bishops who have accepted the framework. Next they will take it to the special session of general conference to discuss and vote on the way forward.

I mention that to describe a process that isn't all that unusual in other churches. Membership is involved. Delegates to conferences are chosen and I believe have a 50/50 mix of clergy and laity. The people are participants.

[Maestrophil]

On 10/8/2018 at 5:53 AM, changed said:

re Oaks, I just had an old friend say they are leaving the church over it.  

There is a kind, and an unkind, way of saying things... I do think Oaks could have been kinder in his approach.  If he were to recognize what a painful struggle it is for some, to mourn with those who mourn, ... I was really hoping to hear a talk that better outlined how to support those who were LGBTQ, how to better support those who were abused, how to support those who were going through a faith crisis... really wanted to hear something to show compassion, understanding, and support for those facing the worst trials and I did not hear it.  The only trial that was acknowledged that I could hear were trials of health, trials of death (losing someone you love) -  I did not hear any support for those who have experienced abuse, those whose spouse is adulterous, those who struggle with same sex attraction, those who do not yet have a testimony of everything in the gospel.  I did not hear a talk on the things I was hoping for.  

Did you listen to all of conference?  There were specifically talks that talked about those things.  Could it be that in isolating President Oaks' talk as a stand-alone message, people might get the wrong idea?  I tend to view the entire conference as a message for my life.  When all the 'pieces' are connected, the message is beautiful and inspiring to me, even when individual talks may fall flat for me.  

That said, I did not hear anything that personally bothered me in Pres. Oaks' comments, but I did recognize that anytime someone takes a hard line on gender identity, there will be those who dislike the message.  I don't know that there is much the church can do to accommodate people who desire a more lax approach to gender and sexuality aside from completely abandoning a sense of any expectation when it comes to sexuality. 

[Navidad]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is something I bring up fairly often. There is really not a "right way" to bring up questions or concerns with decision makers who could impact big issues (like LGBTQ) in the church.

We're not the only church struggling with the social shift. Many are. For example, the United Methodist Church is at risk of fracture over this issue. The conservative/traditional members are at odds with the more progressive elements within the church. They recognize the fissures being created by this issue so they are taking steps to address it, as imperfect as those steps may be. At their 2016 general conference (held every 4 years) they called for a special session of conference to be held in February of 2019 to focus solely on the issue of the LGBTQ issue. A Council of Bishops impaneled a "Commission on the Way Forward" which has been working on this since mid-2016. They are coming up with various alternatives and approaches, everything from maintaining the status quo (no lgbt marriage or ordination), changing to allow LGBT marriage and ordination, a mixture of the 2 depending upon the desires of local congregations. These councils have met and discussed for a couple of years now. They presented to the council of bishops who have accepted the framework. Next they will take it to the special session of general conference to discuss and vote on the way forward.

I mention that to describe a process that isn't all that unusual in other churches. Membership is involved. Delegates to conferences are chosen and I believe have a 50/50 mix of clergy and laity. The people are participants.

The same process you describe has been happening in many denominations as leadership and congregants together struggle with difficult issues.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Navidad

[Gray]

38 minutes ago, rongo said:

Sure, but even then, he was obviously comparing the reactions to both --- not saying Oaks is the Messiah. You look like you're not even trying to have a reasonable conversation when you twist things like that. 

I was making the point that his objection makes no sense, unless he's trying to say Oaks is the Messiah. Observe the syntax of the argument:

 

Quote

"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." HappyJackWagon

 

Quote

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

 

No twisting involved. Just pointing out the obvious problem with his objection. Most Christians believe Christ WAS perfect. Do most Mormons believe Oaks is perfect? If not, the comparison is nonsensical.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

59 minutes ago, Gray said:

Avatar4321's comment makes no sense, otherwise.

It made perfect sense to me. I find it odd that you don’t get the comparison. Pharisees rejected Christ because they refused to see that He was conveying divine truth to them. You likewise reject divine truth conveyed by an authorized representative of God.