Elder Oaks

[rongo]

23 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.

Serious question to all.

Does anyone think such a "fix" would be workable in the Church? Either a) having a congress with 50% general authorities and 50% delegates sent from the wards, or b) a solution where each ward/stake gets to choose whether or not they will accept gay marriage. 

I can't see the Church, even far into the future, doing anything but a) retaining the hardline status quo, or b) doing a 100% "disavowal." I think a "wessen die Region, dessen die Religion" approach spells the death of any Church that tries it.

---

*This was the outcome of the "Peace of Augsburg" that ended the 30 Years War over the Protestant Reformation. "Whose region, his religion" meant that the princes decided what the religion of his realm was. This led to the North/South split of Lutheranism and Catholicism in Germany/Austria, and all of the Scandanavian countries being Lutheran. 

I don't think this is realistic, feasible, or workable within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I don't think it will work in the United Methodist Church, either. 

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

You realize that 18 year old young men (who may or may not be able to make grilled cheese) go on missions as “authorized representatives of God.” That doesn’t mean what they say is divine truth.

I let the Holy Ghost convey divine truth.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Serious question to all.

Does anyone think such a "fix" would be workable in the Church? Either a) having a congress with 50% general authorities and 50% delegates sent from the wards,

Furthermore, in a hypothetical "congress" of clergy and laity, I believe that the delegates from the stakes would simply magnify and amplify how the general authorities vote. Then what?  

It's like one of B.H. Roberts's minor arguments against women's suffrage in Utah. All it would do is amplify and magnify the existing male vote. Do people really think very many wives are going to vote differently from their husbands? Even today, most couples vote the same. 

Sure, you might get a few delegates from Tom Christofferson's stake in the Bay Area, but overwhelmingly, the delegates would simply be rubber stamping the status quo default positions of the Church. 

[ksfisher]

35 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.

I guess that with the United Methodist Church not receiving revelation through modern prophets and apostles that they are doing the best they can.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

You realize that 18 year old young men (who may or may not be able to make grilled cheese) go on missions as “authorized representatives of God.” That doesn’t mean what they say is divine truth.

I let the Holy Ghost convey divine truth.

If they are acting properly in the spirit of their calling as they are trained to do, they are indeed acting as authorized representatives of God. Many people trace their introduction to the restored gospel of Christ to the instrumentality of such young messengers of Christ. “How beautiful upon the mountain are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings.”

I think it rather prideful to disparage an individual solely on the basis of his or her age, be the person young or old. It is, in fact, a form of prejudice. 

[Navidad]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Serious question to all.

Does anyone think such a "fix" would be workable in the Church? Either a) having a congress with 50% general authorities and 50% delegates sent from the wards, or b) a solution where each ward/stake gets to choose whether or not they will accept gay marriage. 

I can't see the Church, even far into the future, doing anything but a) retaining the hardline status quo, or b) doing a 100% "disavowal." I think a "wessen die Region, dessen die Religion" approach spells the death of any Church that tries it.

---

*This was the outcome of the "Peace of Augsburg" that ended the 30 Years War over the Protestant Reformation. "Whose region, his religion" meant that the princes decided what the religion of his realm was. This led to the North/South split of Lutheranism and Catholicism in Germany/Austria, and all of the Scandanavian countries being Lutheran. 

I don't think this is realistic, feasible, or workable within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I don't think it will work in the United Methodist Church, either. 

You are talking about something completely different from what I am. In your illustration secular authorities had the say over their regions. No one has suggested that in any post I have read. Oh, and by the way, some very good things came out of wessen die Region, dessen die Religion. Anabaptists who were hunted and killed by both Protestants and Catholics found safe havens from such persecution. Without the ability to find safe havens in regions under the control of sympathetic princes, the Anabaptist faith may not have survived and all that amazing Mennonite cooking would have been lost forever!

[stemelbow]

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

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.

Thanks.  I wouldn't disagree with that.   Not sure why anyone thought I would.  

[Navidad]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

I guess that with the United Methodist Church not receiving revelation through modern prophets and apostles that they are doing the best they can.

Oh my! Every member of the United Methodist Church has access to revelation from God! They don't have prophets and apostles because they have direct access through supplications and prayers to revelation from God, especially in the person of the Holy Spirit who indwells, leads and guides Christian Methodists.

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

You realize that 18 year old young men (who may or may not be able to make grilled cheese) go on missions as “authorized representatives of God.” That doesn’t mean what they say is divine truth.

I let the Holy Ghost convey divine truth.

A yes, the old 'can you make a grilled cheese sandwich test' to decipher the qualified representatives of God from the unqualified.  I like it.

Edited October 10, 2018 by pogi

[Navidad]

15 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

You realize that 18 year old young men (who may or may not be able to make grilled cheese) go on missions as “authorized representatives of God.” That doesn’t mean what they say is divine truth.

I let the Holy Ghost convey divine truth.

Can I say "Amen!"

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You are talking about something completely different from what I am. In your illustration secular authorities had the say over their regions. No one has suggested that in any post I have read.

Not posters, but one thing being mulled over by the UMC is whether to leave doctrinal practical decisions up to local congregations. That is exactly like what I referred to.

Oh, and by the way, some very good things came out of wessen die Region, dessen die Religion. Anabaptists who were hunted and killed by both Protestants and Catholics found safe havens from such persecution. Without the ability to find safe havens in regions under the control of sympathetic princes, the Anabaptist faith may not have survived and all that amazing Mennonite cooking would have been lost forever!

Without a doubt. The Protestant Reformation and aftermath were instrumental in bringing about a climate where the Restoration could happen. And, it shaped and continues to shape European and world politics and events. 

[SouthernMo]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If they are acting properly in the spirit of their calling as they are trained to do, they are indeed acting as authorized representatives of God. Many people trace their introduction to the restored gospel of Christ to the instrumentality of such young messengers of Christ. “How beautiful upon the mountain are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings.”

I think it rather prideful to disparage an individual solely on the basis of his or her age, be the person young or old. It is, in fact, a form of prejudice. 

That may be - I certainly am guilty of pride.

You hit on a key word in your response: “acting properly in the spirit of their calling.”  We all should trust the spirit, not the messenger.

I don’t (yet) have the spiritual confirmation that President Nelson’s words are true. Only confusion... that to me is the spirit telling me what he said is not true.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Oh my! Every member of the United Methodist Church has access to revelation from God! They don't have prophets and apostles because they have direct access through supplications and prayers to revelation from God, especially in the person of the Holy Spirit who indwells, leads and guides Christian Methodists.

Every person on the earth has access to personal revelation.  However, the necessary keys to lead the Lord's church in this day only reside with the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  We sustain him as a prophet, seer, and revelator.  This follows the pattern set out in the bible in Amos 3:7 which states, "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ah yes, the old 'can you make a grilled cheese sandwich test' to decipher the true authorized representatives of God from the importers.  I like it!

Might be a litmus test for a future spouse though. 

Reminds me of the line in the old folk song, “Can she make a cherry pie, Billy Boy, Billy Boy?” 

[SouthernMo]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

A yes, the old 'can you make a grilled cheese sandwich test' to decipher the qualified representatives of God from the unqualified.  I like it.

Yeah - probably not fair, but went to far to make a point that didn’t resonate. I would have thought that Scott held the words of the prophet in higher regard than the words of missionaries. I was wrong. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

That may be - I certainly am guilty of pride.

You hit on a key word in your response: “acting properly in the spirit of their calling.”  We all should trust the spirit, not the messenger.

I don’t (yet) have the spiritual confirmation that President Nelson’s words are true. Only confusion... that to me is the spirit telling me what he said is not true.

Some, to their own condemnation, reject divinely called messengers as instruments by which divine truth is conveyed, ignoring or forgetting that the good Lord very often uses this means of conveying it. If one is too stiff-necked to receive the message from a humble servant of God, one is likely not open to the still, small manifestation of the Holy Spirit. 

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Might be a litmus test for a future spouse though. 

Reminds me of the line in the old folk song, “Can she make a cherry pie, Billy Boy, Billy Boy?” 

Yes!  then there is one of my personal favorites:

Say man!
Hey baby!
I saw your wife the other day!
Yeah?
Yeah, an' she's ugly!
Yeah, she's ugly, but she sure can cook, baby!
Yeah, alright!

 

 

[Gray]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

You've resculpted Avatar's point in an attempt to rehabilitate it, by introducing a new argument not contained in the original syntax ("conveying divine truth"). What Avatar wrote makes no sense outside of the assumption that Oaks, like Jesus, is actually divine/perfect despite some assuming that he is a mere fallible man.

"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

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

The pharisees are said to have rejected the notion that Jesus was the divine "I Am" or Yahweh (according to John). Is Oaks actually Yahweh, or something similar? If not, this is a strange point to make.

Does Avatar really think Oaks is divine? Of course not. But his argument unwittingly makes that point.

 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Gray

[Navidad]

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

Not posters, but one thing being mulled over by the UMC is whether to leave doctrinal practical decisions up to local congregations. That is exactly like what I referred to.

 

 

Without a doubt. The Protestant Reformation and aftermath were instrumental in bringing about a climate where the Restoration could happen. And, it shaped and continues to shape European and world politics and events. 

You are so right. And of course, the Anabaptists were the first in a long line of restorational groups! 😊 And the Whitmers were the direct connection between the Anabaptist restoration and the founding of the LDS restoration!

[smac97]

1 hour 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.

Actually yes, there is.  I regularly refer readers on this board to an excellent article written by then-Elder Oaks in 1987, entitled "Criticism."  In it Elder Oaks lays out multiple "right way{s}" to "bring up questions or concerns."

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I don't see a schism in our future.  Possibly a large number of walkaways, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

On 10/9/2018 at 9:21 AM, 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.

Which is why I am LDS or whatever we are now.

A perfect deity who IS a man?

How can you do better than that as a paradigm to emulate ??  Gotta be the most powerful force for good there is- just as a paradigm even.

[HappyJackWagon]

35 minutes ago, rongo said:

Serious question to all.

Does anyone think such a "fix" would be workable in the Church? Either a) having a congress with 50% general authorities and 50% delegates sent from the wards, or b) a solution where each ward/stake gets to choose whether or not they will accept gay marriage. 

I can't see the Church, even far into the future, doing anything but a) retaining the hardline status quo, or b) doing a 100% "disavowal." I think a "wessen die Region, dessen die Religion" approach spells the death of any Church that tries it.

---

*This was the outcome of the "Peace of Augsburg" that ended the 30 Years War over the Protestant Reformation. "Whose region, his religion" meant that the princes decided what the religion of his realm was. This led to the North/South split of Lutheranism and Catholicism in Germany/Austria, and all of the Scandanavian countries being Lutheran. 

I don't think this is realistic, feasible, or workable within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I don't think it will work in the United Methodist Church, either. 

One of the values the UMC is focusing on with their effort, is to understand the contextuality of individual experience and perspectives. It gives voice to the most conservative as well as the most progressive. It allows them to work together go achieve understanding and mutual respect as they study the issue and myriad possibilities. IMO that is a much more meaningful and thoughtful process than just waiting to be told what to do by one leader.

Could it work in our church? Sure, in some fashion. In this example the commission on the way forward did significant work and then took it to the council of bishops for their review. They approved and then it will go to the general conference. IOW- it could be viewed as studying the problem, coming up with possible solutions and returning and reporting to the authority with stewardship. I don't imagine our church would work identically to UMC, but that's not the point. My point is that there is a method of participation. There is a way to express individual thoughts, ideas, experiences that could have some influence on the church in a positive way. It is a council. We like councils in our church, right?

Currently, there is no way to share ideas or problems with decision makers in our church. So when people try they generally make a bit of a public spectacle because it's the only way they may get noticed by church leaders. It's not a good system. However, if the church employed a large council process, and encouraged people to seek and follow their own inspiration, and not merely rubber stamp whatever their ecclesiastical leader says, I think the church would be a richer place. It would be more understanding of the various contexts people approach issues, problems, and faith. It recognizes there isn't a one size fits all answer that we should sit around and wait to be told what to think and do.

[ksfisher]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

One of the values the UMC is focusing on with their effort, is to understand the contextuality of individual experience and perspectives. It gives voice to the most conservative as well as the most progressive. It allows them to work together go achieve understanding and mutual respect as they study the issue and myriad possibilities. IMO that is a much more meaningful and thoughtful process than just waiting to be told what to do by one leader.

Could it work in our church? Sure, in some fashion. In this example the commission on the way forward did significant work and then took it to the council of bishops for their review. They approved and then it will go to the general conference. IOW- it could be viewed as studying the problem, coming up with possible solutions and returning and reporting to the authority with stewardship. I don't imagine our church would work identically to UMC, but that's not the point. My point is that there is a method of participation. There is a way to express individual thoughts, ideas, experiences that could have some influence on the church in a positive way. It is a council. We like councils in our church, right?

Currently, there is no way to share ideas or problems with decision makers in our church. So when people try they generally make a bit of a public spectacle because it's the only way they may get noticed by church leaders. It's not a good system. However, if the church employed a large council process, and encouraged people to seek and follow their own inspiration, and not merely rubber stamp whatever their ecclesiastical leader says, I think the church would be a richer place. It would be more understanding of the various contexts people approach issues, problems, and faith. It recognizes there isn't a one size fits all answer that we should sit around and wait to be told what to think and do.

Where does revelation to a prophet fit in with all this?

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Where does revelation to a prophet fit in with all this?

That's my thought. We are on the far end of the authoritative spectrum. That's who we are, and that's who we've always been. If we became more "democratic" with a tolerance for regional variation on doctrines and practices, we would become a Protestant church, but we would lose who we actually are. For those of us who want to remain Mormon, through and through, we will stick with a prophet-apostle dictated system. 

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

For those of us who want to remain Mormon, through and through, we will stick with a prophet-apostle dictated system. 

I agree, but if we want to stick with the prophet dictated system, then we will NOT remain "Mormon, through and through".