Elder Oaks

[Stargazer]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I’m not able to listen right now so I’ll study it later but it is sounding like a similar message that he often teaches.  

I’d guess he is repeating it more often now because he’s know that fewer and fewer church members agree with him.  

It is just more that the Church will have to disavow in the future. 

You seem to think that it's the job of the Church to go along with the prevailing opinion of society.  Is that an accurate assessment of your thoughts on this?

[Ginger Snaps]

49 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I fell asleep somewhere slightly before his talk and woke up near the end of it. So considering it was at least somewhat about increasing your family and my inability to stay awake these days are pregnancy induced, I figure I was just living parts of his talk . 

The only line I heard was him saying that our beliefs about the value of mortal life will continue to have us opposed to abortion and euthanasia. Weird line to wake up to. But even though I lean toward allowing abortion in society to an extent, I don't necessarily disagree with the line. Follwed by opposing gender bending or something (started to fade again). 

 

With luv,

BD 

Congrats!!!

[smac97]

On 10/6/2018 at 12:42 PM, rockpond said:

It is just more that the Church will have to disavow in the future. 

This sort of sounds like wishful thinking. There has been no indication that what President Oaks said is out of harmony with the scriptures, the teachings of the church or the counsel of the other general authorities. None. At all.

To the contrary, the church's teachings regarding gender, the meaning and definition of marriage, the law of Chastity, and so forth have been consistently reinforced and emphasized time and time again. So the idea that the church is gearing up to disavow teachings along these lines seems not very realistic.

I recognize that what Elder Oaks is saying is a difficult thing for some to hear. However, the more important question is weather what he is saying is true and correct and reflective of the will of God. On this point I would encourage us all to review John chapter 6. In that chapter a large number of the followers of Jesus Christ took exception to some of His teachings (regarding the idea that He is the "bread of life"), and left Him as a result.  I think we may be seeing something of a similar phenomenon in our day as pertaining to some members of the church  taking exception to teachings about the Law of Chastity and sexual orientation and same-sex marriage.

I hope people who are struggling with this issue are patient and work on it.

Thanks, 

Smac

Edited October 10, 2018 by smac97

[carbon dioxide]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I’m not able to listen right now so I’ll study it later but it is sounding like a similar message that he often teaches.  

I’d guess he is repeating it more often now because he’s know that fewer and fewer church members agree with him.  

It is just more that the Church will have to disavow in the future. 

Eternal truth is not established by popularity or vote.  Nothing Oaks spoke about is wrong.  If fewer church members agree with eternal truth that will be their problem.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Reaffirmation that gender is eternal and that an eternal marriage is comprised of a man and a woman.

So, the truth.  Yep, people won't like that.

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It is just more that the Church will have to disavow in the future. 

That's definitely not a given.  I know it's hard for a lot of us to hear though.  It would be easier in many legitimate ways if the church's teachings more closely matched the teachings of the world.

[SouthernMo]

While it only affects 1/20,000, I wonder what guidance church leaders would give on hermaphroditism?  If the global prevalence holds true in the church, there are about 750 members who deal with this medical issue.

Will parents of hermaphrodites go to hell because they select one gender for their child to live with?  Will that child go to hell because she was supposed to be a he?

[pogi]

41 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Im not talking about physical differences and how babies are made. I’m asking what  behavioral differences I should teach my kids? Until the combined FP/Q12  is ready to give specifics, we’re just spitting in the wind. 

In a salvation sense men and women are the same. Salvation comes from becoming like Christ; taking his image on us. That image has nothing to do with height, weight, skin color, spoken language, body organs or any other outward differences between people. If it did, we would need a black savior, short savior, Hindi- speaking savior, female savior, and so forth.  From a salvation view, the only characteristics that matter are those available to all people. So gender may be eternal in the sense that skin color may be eternal, but it has no bearing on salvation.  It’s just a beautiful variety.

Are you suggesting that the different physiological/hormonal makeups of men and women don’t have an effect on behavior, thoughts, and feelings?

Like it or not we are different, and we need to stop pretending like we are not.

[carbon dioxide]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So, the truth.  Yep, people won't like that.

Yes.  Are there members out that a transgender person who goes through reassignment surgery is going to be resurrected with that same body that has been surgically altered?  The Church is simply telling people a truth at everyone will have to recognize at some point that are what we are.    We can wish we were something else but that in the end does not matter.  Best to come to terms with how things are now than put things off for later.  I can no more change my gender than I can change my species.  I was male before I was born, I am male now and will be male 10 trillion earth years from now.  I can't change what I a am even if I have the option to temporarily change my legal status to female according to secular law.  Secular law has no value or power beyond mortality.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't see why this topic has to be revisited. The LDS church has an official stance on the subject. Whether the membership agrees or disagrees with that position is irrelevant.

I agree with Smac on the wishful thinking. There is no evidence to suggest that the LDS church will change. The church has upheld doctrine that cannot be amended because such an amendment will conflict with the Doctrine and Covenants. Consistency must be maintained in order for the LDS church to survive.

[Damien the Leper]

4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

While it only affects 1/20,000, I wonder what guidance church leaders would give on hermaphroditism?  If the global prevalence holds true in the church, there are about 750 members who deal with this medical issue.

Will parents of hermaphrodites go to hell because they select one gender for their child to live with?  Will that child go to hell because she was supposed to be a he?

These are important questions to consider. Does anyone have any thoughts on how the leadership would respond to this? Personally, I don't know where I'd begin.

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

While it only affects 1/20,000, I wonder what guidance church leaders would give on hermaphroditism?  If the global prevalence holds true in the church, there are about 750 members who deal with this medical issue.

Will parents of hermaphrodites go to hell because they select one gender for their child to live with?  Will that child go to hell because she was supposed to be a he?

We can at least be comforted in knowing that we do not teach or believe that someone can sin by accident or against their will.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

56 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that the different physiological/hormonal makeups of men and women don’t have an effect on behavior, thoughts, and feelings?

Like it or not we are different, and we need to stop pretending like we are not.

On average men in the US are about 5 inches taller than women. What does this piece of information tell you about the height of woman “x” and how it relates to the height man “z”? 

Edited October 6, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bsjkki]

I liked how he warned about being careful about the things you read or hear on the internet and that anonymous sources should not be trusted. Good advice...I would like journalists to return to standards of old where someone needed to have a named source. Even our most respected publications, no longer follow this standard and it is problematic.

Edited October 6, 2018 by bsjkki

[stemelbow]

Nothing new or interesting it seems to me. He suggested something long the lines of people who accept non traditional families are influenced by Satan.  

He also in a very black and white way of thinking condemned people who seek “what they call scientific truth” acting as if the only other option to the scientific method is belief in a traditional view of god.  

Cute retrenchment moves but it’ll be null and void in a few years for the church once the church members have eyes to see.  

[ksfisher]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Nothing new or interesting it seems to me. He suggested something long the lines of people who accept non traditional families are influenced by Satan.  

He also in a very black and white way of thinking condemned people who seek “what they call scientific truth” acting as if the only other option to the scientific method is belief in a traditional view of god.  

Cute retrenchment moves but it’ll be null and void in a few years for the church once the church members have eyes to see.  

So are you saying we should reject the words of the Lord’s prophets and apostles on this issue and pay more attention to what society teaches?

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that the different physiological/hormonal makeups of men and women don’t have an effect on behavior, thoughts, and feelings?

Like it or not we are different, and we need to stop pretending like we are not.

Nope. I’m asking what practical meaning this teaching has. I’ll give you one example. Men can use urinals; women not so much. So men’s restrooms should have urinaks but not women’s. 

Unfortunately, all I can come up with is obvious differences; things so obvious they don’t merit a general conference talk.

Your turn. If you’ve got anything meaningful please share. But general platitudes like ‘men and women are different’ are meaningless. And, I’ll add, dangerous, because the void leaves to members to fill out the meaning and they’ll often use the opportunity to push their own views. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, kllindley said:

I am loving Elder Oaks's talk, but I keep hearing bits that I predict the discontented are going to attack. Viciously. 

 

I’m reminded of the story that someone objected to resuming the construction of the Salt Lake Temple after the Utah War because eviery time temple construction was undertaken “the bells of hell begin to ring.” 

Brigham Young reportedly responded, “I want to hear them ring again.” 

I love Elder Oaks too, and I love his candor in teaching truth. 

Edited October 6, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

34 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So are you saying we should reject the words of the Lord’s prophets and apostles on this issue and pay more attention to what society teaches?

I think paying more attention to other useful views is important.  It feels very black and white and short sighted to trust oaks’ view.  I don’t think he’s speaking for god though.  He’s just giving a very 1950s view of things, which no doubt is very ingrained in him.  

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Nope. I’m asking what practical meaning this teaching has. I’ll give you one example. Men can use urinals; women not so much. So men’s restrooms should have urinaks but not women’s. 

Unfortunately, all I can come up with is obvious differences; things so obvious they don’t merit a general conference talk.

Your turn. If you’ve got anything meaningful please share. But general platitudes like ‘men and women are different’ are meaningless. And, I’ll add, dangerous, because the void leaves to members to fill out the meaning and they’ll often use the opportunity to push their own views. 

The meaning is found in the document he is obviously  referencing - the Proclamation.

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Other than the definition of marriage, what practical meaning does the doctrine of gender difference have?

Paul taught that women should not teach in church. We’ve rejected that. Women used to be excluded from missionary service and prayers in general conference. We’ve dropped those practices. And it’s been decades since the church told women to leave the workforce. 

So while I’m certain Elder Oaks feels strongly about this principle, I’m really struggling to understand what it means in practice.  Seriously, from official doctrinal sources, can anyone explain what the gender differences are?  I’d like to know, since apparently I’m supposed to tel my girls how they are different from their brothers. 

Sorry, we cant talk about that here.

  That's church doctrine but I have been banned from threads for discussing it.

 There are factions in control of the threads who do not accept that. But I will probly get banned anyway.

 I would rather be on the side of Elder Oaks than some factions on this board. 

 Sisters will tell you that they have something unique to contribute. On the other hand they are exactly the same as we are. Go figure. 

 

Edited October 6, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that the different physiological/hormonal makeups of men and women don’t have an effect on behavior, thoughts, and feelings?

Like it or not we are different, and we need to stop pretending like we are not.

But there is no reason to assume that these differences are part of the eternal nature of gender since having physical bodies with hormones, etc. has only been a very short part of our eternal existence so far.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Yes.  Are there members out that a transgender person who goes through reassignment surgery is going to be resurrected with that same body that has been surgically altered?  The Church is simply telling people a truth at everyone will have to recognize at some point that are what we are.    We can wish we were something else but that in the end does not matter.  Best to come to terms with how things are now than put things off for later.  I can no more change my gender than I can change my species.  I was male before I was born, I am male now and will be male 10 trillion earth years from now.  I can't change what I a am even if I have the option to temporarily change my legal status to female according to secular law.  Secular law has no value or power beyond mortality.

So do you believe those who were born as hermaphrodites were male and female before they were born and will be 10 trillion years from now?

[SouthernMo]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

We can at least be comforted in knowing that we do not teach or believe that someone can sin by accident or against their will.

But now we do know. We’ve been taught that gender is an essential, unchanging, god-given part of our identity.

What is a parent of a hermaphrodite to do?  What is a hermaphrodite to do?

[rodheadlee]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

So do you believe those who were born as hermaphrodites were male and female before they were born and will be 10 trillion years from now?

No, they are anomalies, caused by a imperfect world.