PDA

View Full Version : Oct 2013 conference thread



arizonaute
10-05-2013, 11:04 AM
Here we go

arizonaute
10-05-2013, 11:05 AM
no temples announced this morning

LA Ute
10-05-2013, 11:17 AM
"What is said is not as important as what I hear and what I feel." -- Elder Hales

arizonaute
10-05-2013, 11:42 AM
for some reason Dieter F seems like the most interesting man in church leadership.

LA Ute
10-05-2013, 11:50 AM
Been looking forward to the President Uchtdorf talk. He begins as usual with a great story.

His discussion of why people leave the church is very important and will be quoted repeatedly in the future. The acknowledgment that sometimes imperfect people in the church make mistakes is terrific. We are watching a landmark moment right now. I don't think I've ever heard anything like this in my life in General Conference.

"In spite of this the eternal truth of the gospel...is not tarnished, diminished or destroyed."

"My dear friends, there is still a place for you here."

Nurture "the seed of faith in the sometimes sandy soil of doubt."

"Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith."

"If you could see into our hearts you would see that you fit in better then you suppose."

This is one talk that left me choked up. Maybe because I know and love so many people who have left. I hope all of them watch or read this talk.

Sisyphus
10-05-2013, 11:54 AM
Uchtdorf's talk was absolutely amazing. Gonna commit that one to memory. Very moving, comprehensive and understanding.

LA Ute
10-05-2013, 11:57 AM
for some reason Dieter F seems like the most interesting man in church leadership.

I have to agree.

LA Ute
10-05-2013, 01:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjaRqnAuFO4

DrumNFeather
10-05-2013, 03:18 PM
Gift Nielson's talk was great. That guy has some energy.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk 2

Sisyphus
10-05-2013, 03:35 PM
Heartfelt and personal. Very wise counsel about the mental infirmities that we or our loved ones suffer from. That's going into the memory bank too.

wuapinmon
10-05-2013, 09:17 PM
I actually believe that Uchtdorf speaks for God. The others, my heart in the highlands on any given Sunday about them, but Uchtdorf.......the Force is strong with that one.

arizonaute
10-05-2013, 11:48 PM
priesthood DF Uchtdorf went yard again.

LA Ute
10-05-2013, 11:50 PM
priesthood DF Uchtdorf went yard again.

The guy's amazing.

Viking
10-06-2013, 07:49 AM
We enjoyed Uchtdorf's talk. We are hopeful that there will be a place for reformed Mormons like us one day. We believe in god and try to be good people. We love our heritage and the faith of our fathers. We support the church around the world.

But there is no place for us right now within Mormonism's current tent. I wish there were and we hope this will change.

NorthwestUteFan
10-06-2013, 10:43 AM
I actually believe that Uchtdorf speaks for God. The others, my heart in the highlands on any given Sunday about them, but Uchtdorf.......the Force is strong with that one.


We enjoyed Uchtdorf's talk. We are hopeful that there will be a place for reformed Mormons like us one day. We believe in god and try to be good people. We love our heritage and the faith of our fathers. We support the church around the world.

But there is no place for us right now within Mormonism's current tent. I wish there were and we hope this will change.

I sincerely hope they will find a way to let Uchtdorf skip to the top spot after Monson passes away. DU brings nothing but love and acceptance, and leaves the judgemental attitudes in the dustbin where they belong. He would hopefully lead the church of our heritage to a more inclusive, Big Tent mormonism, where we can all have a home.

The LDS church is desperately in need of a strong voice from outside of the Jello Belt. Uchtdorf is the medicine they need, while I fear Bednar is just a younger version of Packer the aggressively closed-minded Grizzly Bear.

(FWIW, the way the numbers work out we can expect to see Bednar in the top spot for over 20 years)

Sisyphus
10-06-2013, 11:37 AM
What an amazing tribute to his wife and his service as an Apostle

wuapinmon
10-06-2013, 05:48 PM
I remember when watching General Conference didn't piss me off. Oaks, Cook, and Andersen have destroyed any goodwill that Uchtdorf built yesterday.

LA Ute
10-06-2013, 06:03 PM
I remember when watching General Conference didn't piss me off. Oaks, Cook, and Andersen have destroyed any goodwill that Uchtdorf built yesterday.

Sorry, wuap.

NorthwestUteFan
10-06-2013, 06:54 PM
I remember when watching General Conference didn't piss me off. Oaks, Cook, and Andersen have destroyed any goodwill that Uchtdorf built yesterday.

"To all those who struggle with supporting your church leaders, we have a message for you..."

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/10/07/uduzebe6.jpg

OrangeUte
10-06-2013, 07:01 PM
Very contradictory conference with the messages from oaks et al. as opposed to uchtdorf. I can't wait to hear how they spin it.

LA Ute
10-06-2013, 07:59 PM
I personally got guidance, encouragement and inspiration I specifically needed from the talks by Presidents Uchtdorf (both of them) and Eyring (again, both talks), Elders Suarez (sp?), Hales, and Holland. President Monson's talk this morning hit me as hard as any talk by a church president ever has. ("I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.") I didn't hear Sunday afternoon. I think the Oaks and Uchtdorf talks are easily reconcilable. People may be reading too much into both talks.

This is just me, but when I approach Conference as a source of inspiration it really works for me. When I am instead listening for shifts in policy and trying to decide whether I agree with a speaker's statements on such matters, not so much. That would probably be true of any church, it seems to me.

wuapinmon
10-06-2013, 09:25 PM
Maybe y'all can elaborate. I don't fully understand the negative feelings on these talks. Was it just the stuff about marriage?

I really enjoyed the conference and don't see anything contradictory in the messages given.

Cook said something like, "I applaud the contributions of women in every field, BUT if you don't behave like my grandma did, then a pox upon you and your kin to the -nth generation"

Oaks drops sociology on us to defend the church's position on marriage while failing to note that the data he's giving is precisely because WOMEN now have the ability to make decisions for how they want to live outside the agriculture-society patriarchy to which the Brethren cling so tenaciously.

Then comes Elder Andersen with "Women don't need the priesthood because I God said so." The analogy of men opening the drapes to let the light in was especially patronizing because it just reinforces the circular logic he was throwing down throughout the entire talk. The church also completely misuses the word gender. Their insistence on using it to mean "sex" is incorrect, and wrong, because even in homosexual relationships, there can be differing genders among equal phenotypes. I nailed it here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/mac-williams/the-sociology-of-knowledge-homosexuality-in-the-lds-church/10151586882586095

Elder Oaks said that a "moral coward" doesn't act when he knows he should. Right back at you, Dallin.

I'm really struggling with calling myself LDS at this point. Mormon? Sure. But, LDS? I just don't know any more.

LA Ute
10-06-2013, 10:54 PM
I'll listen to the talks, wuap.

wuapinmon
10-07-2013, 09:20 AM
I'll listen to the talks, wuap.

When you do, think about this:


I think it's far healthier to remove ourselves from the ideologies of both sides (in as much as that's possible) and view the LDS ideological view of homosexuals and homosexual sex as an attempt to patch up the inconsistency of our own ideological system. What does that mean? We have a conundrum. If we have agency, if we are children of our Heavenly Father--created in his image, and if we are created with temptations that make us feel flawed for life, how then can a just God expect us to obey all of the commandments and yet find happiness in this life? How does our ideology address the children born with ambiguous genitalia, with both sets of genitalia, and those who have ovaries inside but a penis and no vagina? We're reminded of Packer's famous now-redacted conference question of "Why would a loving God make them that way?" The consequences of this hole in our ideology, this unanswerable question in the face of the prophetic declaration that "gender is eternal," demonstrate an inconsistency, and therefore, we're left with an ideology that doesn't ultimately provide a logical answer to the knowledge that it lacks--and the consequences that stem from that absence of knowledge.

concerned
10-07-2013, 09:27 AM
I personally got guidance, encouragement and inspiration I specifically needed from the talks by Presidents Uchtdorf (both of them) and Eyring (again, both talks), Elders Suarez (sp?), Hales, and Holland. President Monson's talk this morning hit me as hard as any talk by a church president ever has. ("I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.") I didn't hear Sunday afternoon. I think the Oaks and Uchtdorf talks are easily reconcilable. People may be reading too much into both talks.

This is just me, but when I approach Conference as a source of inspiration it really works for me. When I am instead listening for shifts in policy and trying to decide whether I agree with a speaker's statements on such matters, not so much. That would probably be true of any church, it seems to me.


I thought of a DU's talk when I read Ross Douthot's column about Pope Francis yesterday. There may be a parallel between the LDS church and NY Jews. Everybody is either very orthodox or become inactive altogether; the center has trouble holding (admittedly, a Mormon center is still very right of mainstream center). I thought D.U., like Pop Francis, is trying to hold or grow the center, which he can do because he is not American and does not carry all the political baggage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-promise-and-peril-of-pope-francis.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

LA Ute
10-07-2013, 10:00 AM
I thought of a DU's talk when I read Ross Douthot's column about Pope Francis yesterday. There may be a parallel between the LDS church and NY Jews. Everybody is either very orthodox or become inactive altogether; the center has trouble holding (admittedly, a Mormon center is still very right of mainstream center). I thought D.U., like Pop Francis, is trying to hold or grow the center, which he can do because he is not American and does not carry all the political baggage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-promise-and-peril-of-pope-francis.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

We're seeing a lot about Pope Francis and Pres. Uchtdorf. I think there is more of a continuum in LDS belief, and where one sits on the continuum depends both on cultural issues (drinking caffeinated drinks, for example) and doctrinal issues (women and the priesthood, same-sex marriage, etc.). Even among Orthodox Jews there are gradients -- e.g., some people are more kosher than others. There are plenty of Mormons who are not strictly orthodox but still participate actively in the church.

Viking
10-07-2013, 10:24 AM
Cook said something like, "I applaud the contributions of women in every field, BUT if you don't behave like my grandma did, then a pox upon you and your kin to the -nth generation"

Oaks drops sociology on us to defend the church's position on marriage while failing to note that the data he's giving is precisely because WOMEN now have the ability to make decisions for how they want to live outside the agriculture-society patriarchy to which the Brethren cling so tenaciously.

Then comes Elder Andersen with "Women don't need the priesthood because I God said so." The analogy of men opening the drapes to let the light in was especially patronizing because it just reinforces the circular logic he was throwing down throughout the entire talk. The church also completely misuses the word gender. Their insistence on using it to mean "sex" is incorrect, and wrong, because even in homosexual relationships, there can be differing genders among equal phenotypes. I nailed it here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/mac-williams/the-sociology-of-knowledge-homosexuality-in-the-lds-church/10151586882586095

Elder Oaks said that a "moral coward" doesn't act when he knows he should. Right back at you, Dallin.

I'm really struggling with calling myself LDS at this point. Mormon? Sure. But, LDS? I just don't know any more.

Hang in there. It is a great institution but you just have to define your own...personal...Mormonism.

wuapinmon
10-07-2013, 10:26 AM
Hang in there. It is a great institution but you just have to define your own...personal...Mormonism.

Yeah, but at some point reconciling the brand with the branding on my person is difficult.

Solon
10-07-2013, 11:15 AM
He's the Miggy Cabrera of apostles. All he does is hit home runs.

Though I'd have to say the entire Quorum of the Twelve brought their A-game yesterday. Great talks all around.

Not sure who the others are? This sounds like a good way to waste 20 minutes this morning:

Elder Bednar = Ichiro. Efficient and all business. Throw you out at home without blinking.
Elder Perry = Derek Jeter. Doubles hitter with occasional unforgettable moments. Impossible not to like him.
President Monson = Tommy Lasorda. A people's coach with a huge bank of amusing stories. A winner.
Elder Packer = Joe Mauer. Tough as nails. Calls a great game from behind home plate. Takes a lot of abuse from opponents.
Elder Oaks = Mariano Rivera. Consistent quality.
Elder Holland = Justin Verlander. Brings the heat with an occasional vicious change up.
Elder Nelson = Clayton Kershaw. A surgeon.
Elder Scott = Andy Pettitte. The stare-down. He'll look into your soul.
Elder Anderson = Jose Fernandez. ROY candidate overshadowed by more outspoken/dramatic candidate.
Elder Eyring = Joe Torre. Just loves the game. Loves his team.
Elder Christofferson = Manny Machado. Best defensive player in baseball.
Elder Ballard = Jerry Hairston. Best utility infielder in baseball. Will take on any assignment.
Elder Hales = Roy Halladay. A soft-spoken star.

This was pretty funny, sancho. Now I've got to go see what Elder Scott has said about forgiveness for taking PEDs. :p
But I think Packer is Ty Cobb. Oaks is starting to look like Mantle - stumbling around at the tail end of his career. He has a great legacy, but I wonder if he'll damage it with some of his recent strong remarks.


We're seeing a lot about Pope Francis and Pres. Uchtdorf.

I wonder if, to some extent, there is a connection to be drawn between both being cultural and geographic outsiders to an entrenched ecclesiastic culture. I strongly suspect that Uchtdorf is more liberal, socially minded than others in the Q12 because of his upbringing. I wonder to what extent the more hardline stances from his quorum-mates bother him.


Hang in there. It is a great institution but you just have to define your own...personal...Mormonism.

This is good advice, Viking. Good luck, wuap. Oaks has inspired me to avoid moral cowardice, although he would probably disagree with the morals I plan to defend more outspokenly.

USS Utah
10-07-2013, 11:28 AM
If someone misrepresents what another person says, am I supposed to take that someone seriously?

If you disagree, fine. If you think what they said was too hardline for your taste, okay. But misprepresenation serves no one.

Scratch
10-07-2013, 11:28 AM
(FWIW, the way the numbers work out we can expect to see Bednar in the top spot for over 20 years)

How do you figure? Uchtdorf and Hales both have more seniority than Bednar, and they are both about 12 years older than Bednar. It looks very likely that Bednar will hold down the top spot for a while, but "over 20 years" seems unlikely.

Sisyphus
10-07-2013, 11:34 AM
“Away with stereotyped Mormons.” - Brigham Young


“For Brigham Young, conformity is the danger signal: “I am not a stereotyped Latter-day Saint,” he said, “and do not believe in the doctrine. . . . Away with stereotyped ‘Mormons’!” When, as a boy, he was asked by his father to sign a temperance pledge, he resolutely refused. Youth rebelling against respectability? No, honesty resisting social pressure and hypocrisy.” Approaching Zion, – Hugh Nibley

Solon, Wuap and Viking. I love your style and I don't want you to conform within Mormonism just from social pressure.

There's always room in my big-tented heart for people willing to go against the grain on principle. I also have a some contempt to the moral cowards that will just go with the flow in fear of rocking the boat.

USS Utah
10-07-2013, 11:36 AM
How do you figure? Uchtdorf and Hales both have more seniority than Bednar, and they are both about 12 years older than Bednar. It looks very likely that Bednar will hold down the top spot for a while, but "over 20 years" seems unlikely.

There was an expectation that Harold B. Lee would serve in the top spot for a decade or more, but that's not what happened.

Applejack
10-07-2013, 12:19 PM
We're seeing a lot about Pope Francis and Pres. Uchtdorf. I think there is more of a continuum in LDS belief, and where one sits on the continuum depends both on cultural issues (drinking caffeinated drinks, for example) and doctrinal issues (women and the priesthood, same-sex marriage, etc.). Even among Orthodox Jews there are gradients -- e.g., some people are more kosher than others. There are plenty of Mormons who are not strictly orthodox but still participate actively in the church.

I can't tell if this was intentional or not, LAU, but I found your categorization of doctrinal/cultural very interesting indeed. Are you suggesting that opposing same-sex marriage is a "doctrine" of the LDS church, while drinking coffee is not, but merely "cultural"?

LA Ute
10-07-2013, 12:52 PM
I can't tell if this was intentional or not, LAU, but I found your categorization of doctrinal/cultural very interesting indeed. Are you suggesting that opposing same-sex marriage is a "doctrine" of the LDS church, while drinking coffee is not, but merely "cultural"?

It was shorthand regarding the different sources of disagreement. By "caffeinated drinks" I meant things like Coca-Cola.

wuapinmon
10-07-2013, 01:21 PM
I think you and I heard these messages somewhat differently.

I'm going off memory here, so I could be wrong, but I thought Elder Oaks Elder Oaks only "dropped sociology" after explaining that our primary motivations on this issue are doctrinal and not sociological.


"Be like my Grandma" surely wasn't the message or the intent of Elder Cook's talk. He primarily spoke about avoiding bondage to substances, behaviors, or ideas. That last part is interesting. I think we all know people (on both sides of the political spectrum) so devoted to their political ideals that they would give up everything of value just to win their game.

As for Elder Anderson, I don't know what we want. For the last year, there has been a rather vocal internet demand for an explanation on women and the priesthood. So he goes for it and offers the most sensitive explanation he can. He tries hard to emphasize that we all have access to the same blessings and ordinances -- that it's in the ordinances that the power of God is manifest. But of course this doesn't satisfy because ultimately there is no answer other than "I don't know".

I think it's refreshing for them to say they don't really know. It sure beats alternative explanations like "men are ordained because women bear children" or "men are ordained because women are naturally so much better than men." I'm not sure there's explanation that would satisfy, but let's at least appreciate that he was trying to sensitively respond to a question that people wanted answered.


As for the analogy -- any analogy is flawed if you look past its intent.

I'm not sure if Elder Andersen is a nervous smiler or not, but he seemed to be fighting back a smirk throughout his talk that was very offputting. For me, I'd much rather see an Apostle say, "We don't know why only men hold the priesthood. We have prayed about this issue, and we haven't had a response. All we can say is, we don't know and it's always been that way, so we'll keep praying until we either know why the Lord wants it this way or He tells us to change it." That's an answer that I think most people who actually care would accept as sincere, however unsatisfying it might be. It was a better attempt than any other I've heard, but on the heels of Cook and Oaks, I lumped him in with them, when the other two were the ones that really upset me, Oaks especially.

I feel like Elder Cook's talk was about the role of women is a savvy riposte of the addiction to an idea as it relates to women working outside the home. No matter what a woman does and accomplishes outside the home, she is saddled with the burden of being the woman who should stay home if she really truly wanted to obey HF. Those weren't his exact words, but it's the thrust of them. He said, "There are many voices now telling women how to live. They often contradict each other. Of particular concern are philosophies that criticize or diminish respect for women who choose to make the sacrifices necessary to be mothers, teachers, nurturers, or friends to children."

The whole part about his grandkids....

"Now let me say unequivocally that I am thrilled with the educational and other opportunities that are available to women. I treasure the fact that the backbreaking work and domestic drudgery required of women has been reduced in much of the world because of modern conveniences, and that women are making such magnificent contributions in every field of endeavor. BUT, if we allow our culture to reduce the special relationship that children have with mothers and grandmothers and others who nurturer them, we will come to regret it."

Basically what he's saying, in my mind, is that if you have a job, you can't be a good mother or grandmother or nurturer because you're not at home. He doesn't say that, but it feels like that's what he means. Staying home is a luxury in this day and age. Dual-income families are the norm and the economy has adjusted pricing to cope with dual-income normality. I feel like his talk was patronizing and throwing down some serious guilt/pressure on women to stay home.




How do you figure? Uchtdorf and Hales both have more seniority than Bednar, and they are both about 12 years older than Bednar. It looks very likely that Bednar will hold down the top spot for a while, but "over 20 years" seems unlikely.

IndyCoug, the actuary, did a study on life probabilities, and he had Bednar as prophet for a lengthy tenure. For the Church to always remain the way it is, all that needs be done is to ordain a 40-something conservative Apostle every 20 or so years.

Viking
10-07-2013, 01:28 PM
Yeah, but at some point reconciling the brand with the branding on my person is difficult.

I have an inkling of what you are going through. I can only hope you find a way to reconcile all of it and have inner peace.

Rocker Ute
10-07-2013, 01:42 PM
He said, "There are many voices now telling women how to live. They often contradict each other. Of particular concern are philosophies that criticize or diminish respect for women who choose to make the sacrifices necessary to be mothers, teachers, nurturers, or friends to children."


Your feelings are valid and that statement alone seems to indicate that it isn't a sacrifice to pursue a professional career. So don't take it the wrong way, what I'm about to say, but to play a devils advocate here for a moment, and from the viewpoint of my wife... Many of her friends and professional colleagues have maligned her for leaving her career because she wanted to just be a mom. It has happened a lot. I've been accused of making her be a 'good Mormon wife' when I've never said either way what I think she should do, this decision was hers to make, and continues to be and I'll support her whatever she decides.

She was successful in her career and may go back someday, but she always says, "While it is maddening at times, I just want to be a mom right now, I just want to be at home and take care of the kids and be there for them. That is how I feel like I can make the greatest impact." I'll say for her current career choice as a stay-at-home-mom she is exceptional at it, and her past career has really helped her with things she is doing now. We are also very fortunate that we are able to even do it, I think it is increasingly unfeasible to have a household with only a single income.

But some people, particularly some people close to her, really denigrate her for her decision pretending like it is somehow a lesser choice for her. We don't think so. For her, that statement (and some others by Christopherson) was a powerful and affirming one. And she is the first person to note to people to respect career decisions of people, maybe because she has been a victim in that regard.

Now certainly there is pressure from Mormon circles toward professional career women to be stay-at-home moms as well, so I don't want to pretend like that doesn't happen and it shouldn't.

I personally don't understand why there can't be respect both ways for these decisions. Having now witnessed it, there is no replacement that money could buy for what she is doing for our kids. Lots of families have fathers that are more nurturing and better suited for raising children than women too. Lots of different circumstances, but it would be nice to see respect for any decision.

concerned
10-07-2013, 01:56 PM
BTW, no one has really commented on one aspect of Pres. Uchtdorf's talk, which the NY Times picked up immediately. It appeared online Sat. evening, and in the paper yesterday. Is it significant that he admitted that past leaders have made mistakes, or is the Times blowing it out of proportion?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-top-mormon-leader-acknowledges-the-church-made-mistakes.html

wally
10-07-2013, 02:03 PM
How do you figure? Uchtdorf and Hales both have more seniority than Bednar, and they are both about 12 years older than Bednar. It looks very likely that Bednar will hold down the top spot for a while, but "over 20 years" seems unlikely.

Having seen the 'Dorf in person, I think he has the goods to make it into his 90s (knock-n-wood). He is shorter than I envisioned which is good for joints and general longevity as there will likely be fewer/no surgeries for such. He is active, which I know because I saw him walking with his wife (both of whom were sporting very euro looking track suits). I am hoping for a Prophet Uchdorf for sure.

Also, if we do get a 4-10 year "Dorf administration, I would anticipate some significant changes to be made a la '78 revelation. Kimball's son quoted his father in the biography he wrote saying: "I don't know that I should be the one doing this, but if I don't, my successor won't."

I would wonder if the "Dorf would push for as much change and what that change might be.

Dwight Schr-Ute
10-07-2013, 02:16 PM
He's the Miggy Cabrera of apostles. All he does is hit home runs.

Though I'd have to say the entire Quorum of the Twelve brought their A-game yesterday. Great talks all around.

Not sure who the others are? This sounds like a good way to waste 20 minutes this morning:

Elder Bednar = Ichiro. Efficient and all business. Throw you out at home without blinking.

Elder Perry = Derek Jeter. Doubles hitter with occasional unforgettable moments. Impossible not to like him.

President Monson = Tommy Lasorda. A people's coach with a huge bank of amusing stories. A winner.

Elder Packer = Joe Mauer. Tough as nails. Calls a great game from behind home plate. Takes a lot of abuse from opponents.

Elder Oaks = Mariano Rivera. Consistent quality.

Elder Holland = Justin Verlander. Brings the heat with an occasional vicious change up.

Elder Nelson = Clayton Kershaw. A surgeon.

Elder Scott = Andy Pettitte. The stare-down. He'll look into your soul.

Elder Anderson = Jose Fernandez. ROY candidate overshadowed by more outspoken/dramatic candidate.

Elder Eyring = Joe Torre. Just loves the game. Loves his team.

Elder Christofferson = Manny Machado. Best defensive player in baseball.

Elder Ballard = Jerry Hairston. Best utility infielder in baseball. Will take on any assignment.

Elder Hales = Roy Halladay. A soft-spoken star.

This was almost enough to make me want to watch baseball. And conference.

Scratch
10-07-2013, 02:18 PM
I would wonder if the "Dorf would push for as much change and what that change might be.

Step 1: Move Church HQ to Berlin.

Step 2: Convert LES into a soccer-only facility.

wally
10-07-2013, 02:39 PM
Step 1: Move Church HQ to Berlin.

Step 2: Convert LES into a soccer-only facility.

Turtlenecks at general conference?

Scratch
10-07-2013, 02:47 PM
Turtlenecks at general conference?

Missionaries will be required to wear lederhosen.

Scratch
10-07-2013, 02:49 PM
Turtlenecks at general conference?

The church is sending thousands of missionaries into the Sudetenland.

Too far?

Solon
10-07-2013, 03:13 PM
“Away with stereotyped Mormons.” - Brigham Young


“For Brigham Young, conformity is the danger signal: “I am not a stereotyped Latter-day Saint,” he said, “and do not believe in the doctrine. . . . Away with stereotyped ‘Mormons’!” When, as a boy, he was asked by his father to sign a temperance pledge, he resolutely refused. Youth rebelling against respectability? No, honesty resisting social pressure and hypocrisy.” Approaching Zion, – Hugh Nibley

Solon, Wuap and Viking. I love your style and I don't want you to conform within Mormonism just from social pressure.

There's always room in my big-tented heart for people willing to go against the grain on principle. I also have a some contempt to the moral cowards that will just go with the flow in fear of rocking the boat.

Thank you, friend.
I'm more of a moral coward than I would like to be.

LA Ute
10-07-2013, 03:41 PM
BTW, no one has really commented on one aspect of Pres. Uchtdorf's talk, which the NY Times picked up immediately. It appeared online Sat. evening, and in the paper yesterday. Is it significant that he admitted that past leaders have made mistakes, or is the Times blowing it out of proportion?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-top-mormon-leader-acknowledges-the-church-made-mistakes.html

Good question. I see his statement as cipher-like (as many General Conference talks are). Many people will see in what they want to see. Here's what he said, per the Times article:


“To be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.”

When he says "leaders in the church" to whom is he referring? I think he means all leaders (Occam's Razor, you know), from ward-level leaders on up to to the president of the church. I thought of things like Mountain Meadows and Adam-God, as well as dumb things bishops, stake presidents and members sometimes say and do. Since he does include "members" in that statement, and in light of the overall context of the talk, I think he was trying to say "people in the church are imperfect; don't let that distract you from the truthfulness of the message." I think he said almost exactly that, in fact, later in the talk.

So some people will see it the way I do. On one extreme, some will say he's talking only about Young Men presidents. On another extreme, many have already said, "Aha! He's talking about the priesthood ban, polygamy and [insert favorite grievance over past policy decisions or doctrinal teachings]."

Two Utes
10-07-2013, 04:15 PM
BTW, no one has really commented on one aspect of Pres. Uchtdorf's talk, which the NY Times picked up immediately. It appeared online Sat. evening, and in the paper yesterday. Is it significant that he admitted that past leaders have made mistakes, or is the Times blowing it out of proportion?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-top-mormon-leader-acknowledges-the-church-made-mistakes.html

Concerned, if they are admitting mistakes in the past, what are those mistakes? And, if they are acknowledging that leaders can make mistakes, what mistakes are they making now and how do I know which commandment is correct and which isn't?

Two Utes
10-07-2013, 04:16 PM
Good question. I see his statement as cipher-like (as many General Conference talks are). Many people will see in what they want to see. Here's what he said, per the Times article:



When he says "leaders in the church" to whom is he referring? I think he means all leaders (Occam's Razor, you know), from ward-level leaders on up to to the president of the church. I thought of things like Mountain Meadows and Adam-God, as well as dumb things bishops, stake presidents and members sometimes say and do. Since he does include "members" in that statement, and in light of the overall context of the talk, I think he was trying to say "people in the church are imperfect; don't let that distract you from the truthfulness of the message." I think he said almost exactly that, in fact, later in the talk.

So some people will see it the way I do. On one extreme, some will say he's talking only about Young Men presidents. On another extreme, many have already said, "Aha! He's talking about the priesthood ban, polygamy and [insert favorite grievance over past policy decisions or doctrinal teachings]."

What about Polyandry LA Ute? Was that a mistake?

LA Ute
10-07-2013, 04:44 PM
Concerned, if they are admitting mistakes in the past, what are those mistakes? And, if they are acknowledging that leaders can make mistakes, what mistakes are they making now and how do I know which commandment is correct and which isn't?


What about Polyandry LA Ute? Was that a mistake?

These are not new questions, as you know! I don't know the answer. DFU's point, as I took it, was a lot broader than the simple statement that prior leaders made mistakes:


President Uchtdorf said some members struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past. “We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church history — along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events — there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question,” he said. “Sometimes questions arise because we simply don’t have all the information and we just need a bit more patience. When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn’t make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction.”

President Uchtdorf said there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. “There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.

“I suppose the Church would only be perfect if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us — His imperfect children — and imperfect people make mistakes.”


The text of the talk isn't online yet, but you can get the audio and video here (http://www.lds.org/general-conference/sessions/2013/10?lang=eng).

wuapinmon
10-07-2013, 06:01 PM
Your feelings are valid and that statement alone seems to indicate that it isn't a sacrifice to pursue a professional career. So don't take it the wrong way, what I'm about to say, but to play a devils advocate here for a moment, and from the viewpoint of my wife... Many of her friends and professional colleagues have maligned her for leaving her career because she wanted to just be a mom. It has happened a lot. I've been accused of making her be a 'good Mormon wife' when I've never said either way what I think she should do, this decision was hers to make, and continues to be and I'll support her whatever she decides.

She was successful in her career and may go back someday, but she always says, "While it is maddening at times, I just want to be a mom right now, I just want to be at home and take care of the kids and be there for them. That is how I feel like I can make the greatest impact." I'll say for her current career choice as a stay-at-home-mom she is exceptional at it, and her past career has really helped her with things she is doing now. We are also very fortunate that we are able to even do it, I think it is increasingly unfeasible to have a household with only a single income.

But some people, particularly some people close to her, really denigrate her for her decision pretending like it is somehow a lesser choice for her. We don't think so. For her, that statement (and some others by Christopherson) was a powerful and affirming one. And she is the first person to note to people to respect career decisions of people, maybe because she has been a victim in that regard.

Now certainly there is pressure from Mormon circles toward professional career women to be stay-at-home moms as well, so I don't want to pretend like that doesn't happen and it shouldn't.

I personally don't understand why there can't be respect both ways for these decisions. Having now witnessed it, there is no replacement that money could buy for what she is doing for our kids. Lots of families have fathers that are more nurturing and better suited for raising children than women too. Lots of different circumstances, but it would be nice to see respect for any decision.

I think you raise excellent points, and it should absolutely be a woman's right to choose, something I think that most people on this site would agree with. What gets me though is the subtext that reinforces the general feeling that if we don't have women be moms and grandmas like they've always been, then we're going to really regret it, bringing a flood of guilt to those who perhaps 1) cannot afford to not work, 2) cannot stand the tedium of not working, or 3) are really good at what they do and take pleasure in doing something well besides/in addition to motherhood. I don't believe that only men should feel at ease about relishing the satisfaction of knowing that you're the best or really-damned-good at something because you are able to hone a talent via years of experience. All of these pressures from his talk then seem to either put a moral lien against a mother's career. When we couple that with the lamentation of the decline of birthrates and the "loss of Christian culture" from Europe, the guilt can seem overwhelming if that's not what you want for your life. My wife chose to stay home for years until she could see that my working 65-70 hours per week, doing any job I could get to earn extra money, was hurting my health and our relationship, so she started working. She didn't really have a choice, per se, but she despises being made to feel guilty for enjoying the fact that we can now afford a gym membership to get healthy because she works instead of staying home.

DanielLaRusso
10-07-2013, 06:49 PM
This was almost enough to make me want to watch baseball. And conference.

How do you follow a nap with a good night's rest?
863

concerned
10-07-2013, 06:55 PM
Concerned, if they are admitting mistakes in the past, what are those mistakes? And, if they are acknowledging that leaders can make mistakes, what mistakes are they making now and how do I know which commandment is correct and which isn't?


You're asking me? I'll tell you in a boardmail, but you have to promise not to tell anybody else.

Two Utes
10-07-2013, 07:12 PM
You're asking me? I'll tell you in a boardmail, but you have to promise not to tell anybody else.

You raised the topic.

concerned
10-07-2013, 07:42 PM
You raised the topic.
I just reported what is in the paper and posed a question for discussion.

LA Ute
10-07-2013, 07:50 PM
I just reported what is in the paper and posed a question for discussion.

Your lame explanations mean nothing. We know what you were really up to.

tooblue
10-07-2013, 07:53 PM
What about Polyandry LA Ute? Was that a mistake?

I suppose if we can come up with a clear, concise and universally accepted definition for what constitutes a mistake, in context to what someone once said or did, and in context to church leadership then there would be an authoritative answer to your question. However, that bigger question of what is a mistake is tricky … and not merely because any such decisive definition is elusive. More so because it raises other even more compelling questions such as: is there relative value in mistakes? Or is a life without mistakes—if at all possible—preferred?

What a wonderful absurdity. Not just on a personal level but in context to church leadership as well. Imagine what life might be like without mistakes. Though, if man or woman made no mistakes, especially in church leadership, then would there be a need for agency? Or would there be a need for faith? And is there such a thing as faith and even agency?

Of course then down the rabbit hole we go with the likes of Nitsche and Schopenhauer. But why? Why when I think all of us here can reasonably agree that mistakes are what makes life interesting and worth living. I mean—as an aside—that’s why most here watch college football; this is a University of Utah sports message board after all isn’t it?

In my experience my biggest and best learning moments occurred upon making mistakes. As well, my faith often increases exponentially when faced with my own and even the mistakes of others. I choose to embrace the fact past leaders made mistakes. Especially when I am able to judge those mistakes (even though we don’t have an authoritative definition) in proper context and with intellectual honesty. It renders past church leaders much more human and much more compelling. The very nature of such an understanding brings me peace. Precisely because I have made incredibly stupid mistakes in my life and yet despite those mistakes, one day, least of all I might be regarded well for my contributions to lives of the many people I have been blessed to serve and work with.

So, was polyandry a mistake? I don’t know. I do know that it has caused me to stop and think about the covenants I made when I got married; about marriage and the sealing power to bind families through out all eternity; about doctrine and the fallibility of leadership. It has forced me to examine my faith and demand more of myself as I strive to commune with God and to connect with my fellow man. And so, if it was a mistake, I am grateful that I might learn from it. I am ready for that and have been for a long time. Perhaps, in part, that too is what Elder Uchtdorf is saying … that the larger body of the church, especially now in Utah is ready for it also. And that is a good thing.

concerned
10-07-2013, 07:53 PM
Your lame explanations mean nothing. We know what you were really up to.

Your cynicism knows no bounds. No true Dickens afficiando would think such thoughts. Clearly you have been watching too much Breaking Bad when you are the only one home.

Solon
10-07-2013, 08:46 PM
I think you raise excellent points, and it should absolutely be a woman's right to choose, something I think that most people on this site would agree with. What gets me though is the subtext that reinforces the general feeling that if we don't have women be moms and grandmas like they've always been, then we're going to really regret it, bringing a flood of guilt to those who perhaps 1) cannot afford to not work, 2) cannot stand the tedium of not working, or 3) are really good at what they do and take pleasure in doing something well besides/in addition to motherhood. I don't believe that only men should feel at ease about relishing the satisfaction of knowing that you're the best or really-damned-good at something because you are able to hone a talent via years of experience. All of these pressures from his talk then seem to either put a moral lien against a mother's career. When we couple that with the lamentation of the decline of birthrates and the "loss of Christian culture" from Europe, the guilt can seem overwhelming if that's not what you want for your life. My wife chose to stay home for years until she could see that my working 65-70 hours per week, doing any job I could get to earn extra money, was hurting my health and our relationship, so she started working. She didn't really have a choice, per se, but she despises being made to feel guilty for enjoying the fact that we can now afford a gym membership to get healthy because she works instead of staying home.

This cracked me up.
Immigration and the tendency of immigrants towards big families are making up for the shortfall.

I didn't watch any of conference, but when I got home from my weekend getaway on Sunday night my wife warned me jokingly about being a "moral coward," and said that Oaks' talk had made even her (a true believer mom who believes in gay marriage and holds a full-time job) a bit uncomfortable.

LA Ute
10-07-2013, 09:23 PM
Your cynicism knows no bounds. No true Dickens afficiando would think such thoughts. Clearly you have been watching too much Breaking Bad when you are the only one home.

"[I]t was a maxim with Foxey....Always suspect everybody. That's the maxim to go through life with!"

-- The Old Curiosity Shop

mUUser
10-07-2013, 09:26 PM
....
But some people, particularly some people close to her, really denigrate her for her decision pretending like it is somehow a lesser choice for her. We don't think so. For her, that statement (and some others by Christopherson) was a powerful and affirming one. And she is the first person to note to people to respect career decisions of people, maybe because she has been a victim in that regard.....

My own experience is as follows, and wouldn't be surprised if your wife eventually arrived at the same place. My wife has been a working mom for some 19 years, and I've been a SAHD. In the beginning, we found little support within the church. Most were critical. I think over the years we've become numb to both criticism and applause. It's irrelevant. We've come to realize that our decision was personal and nobody, including the prophet himself, spent as much time, energy and prayerful thought into our decisions about our family than us. Once we understood that nobody else mattered, we ceased to need reaffirmation and ceased to be offended by those who are critical of our choice. It simply doesn't matter.

I suspect one day your wife will get there as well. It won't matter what her mom, your mom, her sister, the bishop, the SP, her best friend, some internet dude or President/Elder Whoever says.....both criticisms and applause. It'll all be water off a ducks back.

USS Utah
10-08-2013, 12:57 AM
I don't think I'm cynical enough to fit in around here.

wuapinmon
10-08-2013, 05:58 AM
I don't think I'm cynical enough to fit in around here.

I think you fit in around here without being cynical. Please don't avoid the discussions. If everything is one-sided then we're just an echo chamber. Voices like LA Ute help reign in some of our (my) more cynical tendencies. No one has a monopoly on truth, and, given the subjective nature of religious experience, more voices talking "one with another concerning the welfare of their souls" (Moroni 6:5-6) is a good thing, whether we're under the rafters of a chapel, or trading zeroes and ones with folks we've never met.

OrangeUte
10-08-2013, 09:02 AM
Per Oaks:
"An LDS eternal perspective does not allow Mormons "to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them," said the apostle, a former Utah Supreme Court justice. "And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has declared to be unchangeable."

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/56965652-219/god-women-marriage-lds.html.csp#sthash.CCPEUgD3.dpuf

Contrast that with Uchtdorf saying:

"Some struggle with "unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past," Uchtdorf explained. "We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of church history — along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable and divine events — there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question."

"To be perfectly frank," Uchtdorf said, "there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine."

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/56962132-219/lds-church-conference-women.html.csp#sthash.6aqJbOwj.dpuf

For a member of the church that believes same sex marriage ought to be lawful, Oaks' statements indicate those beliefs are inconsistent with the Gospel and against the Church. According the Uchtdorf, though, Oaks is wrong that the church's policies are immutable because they are based on an unchanging God's truths.

Which is it?

Am I a bad Mormon for wanting gay and lesbian couples to have legal rights the same as mine, or am I welcome in the doors of full fellowship even though I hold different opinion and beliefs in that area?

OrangeUte
10-08-2013, 09:05 AM
Uchtdorf may have only been speaking of instances of particular individuals behaving badly. However, given some of the official actions historically taken by the church, I highly doubt he was excluding those instances. Mountain Meadows, blacks and the priesthood and the "policy"are all instances that should be included in his "apology". If that's not what he meant, and those weren't included, then to me his talk was not as great as it seemed.

Two Utes
10-08-2013, 09:22 AM
Per Oaks:
"An LDS eternal perspective does not allow Mormons "to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them," said the apostle, a former Utah Supreme Court justice. "And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has declared to be unchangeable."

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/56965652-219/god-women-marriage-lds.html.csp#sthash.CCPEUgD3.dpuf

Contrast that with Uchtdorf saying:

"Some struggle with "unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past," Uchtdorf explained. "We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of church history — along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable and divine events — there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question."

"To be perfectly frank," Uchtdorf said, "there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine."

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/56962132-219/lds-church-conference-women.html.csp#sthash.6aqJbOwj.dpuf

For a member of the church that believes same sex marriage ought to be lawful, Oaks' statements indicate those beliefs are inconsistent with the Gospel and against the Church. According the Uchtdorf, though, Oaks is wrong that the church's policies are immutable because they are based on an unchanging God's truths.

Which is it?

Am I a bad Mormon for wanting gay and lesbian couples to have legal rights the same as mine, or am I welcome in the doors of full fellowship even though I hold different opinion and beliefs in that area?


"And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has declared to be unchangeable."

Sorry, but I can't believe Oaks can make this statement with a straight face given church history.

This is where the wheels come off for me. Is he even thinking before he is speaking or just throwing out words and phrases because that is what he has been conditioned to do and no one ever challenges him on it?

concerned
10-08-2013, 09:41 AM
"[I]t was a maxim with Foxey....Always suspect everybody. That's the maxim to go through life with!"

-- The Old Curiosity Shop

Manipulating and contorting Dickens for your own purposes is beyond cyncial, its callous. Good one though. Well done.

Scratch
10-08-2013, 10:21 AM
"And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has declared to be unchangeable."

Sorry, but I can't believe Oaks can make this statement with a straight face given church history.

This is where the wheels come off for me. Is he even thinking before he is speaking or just throwing out words and phrases because that is what he has been conditioned to do and no one ever challenges him on it?


I think to do this he is defining "truths" and "doctrines" very narrowly, much more narrowly than most people would intuitively think.

USS Utah
10-08-2013, 10:38 AM
Per Oaks:
"An LDS eternal perspective does not allow Mormons "to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them," said the apostle, a former Utah Supreme Court justice. "And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has declared to be unchangeable."

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/56965652-219/god-women-marriage-lds.html.csp#sthash.CCPEUgD3.dpuf

Contrast that with Uchtdorf saying:

"Some struggle with "unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past," Uchtdorf explained. "We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of church history — along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable and divine events — there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question."

"To be perfectly frank," Uchtdorf said, "there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine."

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/56962132-219/lds-church-conference-women.html.csp#sthash.6aqJbOwj.dpuf

For a member of the church that believes same sex marriage ought to be lawful, Oaks' statements indicate those beliefs are inconsistent with the Gospel and against the Church. According the Uchtdorf, though, Oaks is wrong that the church's policies are immutable because they are based on an unchanging God's truths.

Which is it?

Am I a bad Mormon for wanting gay and lesbian couples to have legal rights the same as mine, or am I welcome in the doors of full fellowship even though I hold different opinion and beliefs in that area?

Whoa! That was a leap. That Uchtdorf acknowledged mistakes hardly means Oaks made one. When I read Uchtdorf's comments I specifically thought of some things Burce R. McKonkie said that he later acknowledged being wrong about.

As for gay marriage, I said after the reaction to the passage of Prop 8, that those who were against gay marriage had already lost, they just didn't know it yet. I happen to think that members being asked to support Prop 8 was more about a test of obedience than about stopping gay marriage as government recognition of gay marriage appears inevitable. The LDS Church has made some movement, saying last spring that being gay wasn't a choice, and was mostly silent during the Prop 8 court case. This was very significant, but I think it is about as much as can be reasonablly expected. Gay marriage will be legal eventually, but the church will still disapprove.

USS Utah
10-08-2013, 10:43 AM
I think you fit in around here without being cynical. Please don't avoid the discussions. If everything is one-sided then we're just an echo chamber. Voices like LA Ute help reign in some of our (my) more cynical tendencies. No one has a monopoly on truth, and, given the subjective nature of religious experience, more voices talking "one with another concerning the welfare of their souls" (Moroni 6:5-6) is a good thing, whether we're under the rafters of a chapel, or trading zeroes and ones with folks we've never met.

Then I would suggest some caution. It has always seemd to me that if you are looking for reasons to be angry, then you will find them. If you are looking for reasons to be disaffected, you will find them. If you are looking for reasons not to believe, you will find them. No one can make us angry, we always have a choice.

LA Ute
10-08-2013, 10:43 AM
I don't think I'm cynical enough to fit in around here.

Nonsense! You fit in perfectly. Stay.

LA Ute
10-08-2013, 10:48 AM
I think to do this he is defining "truths" and "doctrines" very narrowly, much more narrowly than most people would intuitively think.

One of my favorite terms comes to mind: "infelicitous wording." Rare, in a DHO talk. But I think you are right.

LA Ute
10-08-2013, 11:17 AM
He meant whatever you wanted him to mean. Just reading here, for some he meant Mountain Meadows, for some he meant Elder McKonkie, for some he meant Adam-God. Probably for some, he was apologizing for some bishop forcing the deacons to wear white shirts even though it's not in the handbook. For me, he meant every line in the journal of discourses that haters have mined out in order to throw them in my face on the internet.

I listened to his talk again this morning while walking the dog and was reminded of the importance of context. I encourage everyone to read or watch or listen to the whole thing again. Video here (http://www.lds.org/general-conference/watch/2013/10?lang=eng&vid=2721983168001&cid=12). The subject of mistakes by church leaders was only a small part of the talk. There was a great deal more to it. In essence, he was echoing (and he quoted) the BofM's title page: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God...." He was saying, over and over again, "come, join with us." Don't let the imperfections or hypocrisy of some members (a subject he spent much more time on than the mistakes of leaders) keep you away. "There's room for you here." There's so much beauty in the talk. I can't get enough of it.

concerned
10-08-2013, 11:47 AM
I listened to his talk again this morning while walking the dog and was reminded of the importance of context. I encourage everyone to read or watch or listen to the whole thing again. Video here (http://www.lds.org/general-conference/watch/2013/10?lang=eng&vid=2721983168001&cid=12). The subject of mistakes by church leaders was only a small part of the talk. There was a great deal more to it. In essence, he was echoing (and he quoted) the BofM's title page: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God...." He was saying, over and over again, "come, join with us." Don't let the imperfections or hypocrisy of some members (a subject he spent much more time on than the mistakes of leaders) keep you away. "There's room for you here." There's so much beauty in the talk. I can't get enough of it.

Thus the comparison to Pope Francis. Trying to do similar things, it seems to me.

USS Utah
10-08-2013, 12:39 PM
The Germans were never in the Abbey.

wuapinmon
10-08-2013, 02:58 PM
Then I would suggest some caution. It has always seemd to me that if you are looking for reasons to be angry, then you will find them. If you are looking for reasons to be disaffected, you will find them. If you are looking for reasons not to believe, you will find them. No one can make us angry, we always have a choice.

I'm looking for equality, truth, and right. I'll let you know when I find them.

UtahsMrSports
10-08-2013, 03:41 PM
The ordain women movement was interesting to me.

Wonder if it gains any momentum.

Personally, I was put off by their actions. Seems theyre more interested in "hey! look at me!" than on seeking change.

Solon
10-08-2013, 05:32 PM
Then I would suggest some caution. It has always seemd to me that if you are looking for reasons to be angry, then you will find them. If you are looking for reasons to be disaffected, you will find them. If you are looking for reasons not to believe, you will find them. No one can make us angry, we always have a choice.

At my house, I have to be very careful when criticizing anything about LDS leaders because my devout wife feels like I'm criticizing her.

I would like for everyone to keep participating in a spirit of openness & respect without lecturing one another about how to live one's life.
We can share our thoughts without attacking & feeling attacked.
We as a community can walk this line, I'm confident. I agree with the suggestion for caution, but not to the point of insincerity or disingenuousness.
It's okay to disagree.

Scratch
10-08-2013, 05:50 PM
I would like for everyone to keep participating in a spirit of openness & respect without lecturing one another about how to live one's life.

This is an extremely difficult, if not impossible, standard to apply to this conversation because what is being debated is essentially some LDS church leaders' advice/instruction as how to best live one's life. Therefore, while it's easy to avoid "lecturing one another about how to live one's life" by taking a position contrary to that of those leaders, it is almost impossible to side with those leaders without at least impliedly "lecturing one another about how to live one's life." I think that's part of what makes this a difficult conversation (at least on one side of the conversation) in a forum where I believe everyone wants to respect others' feelings and life choices.

LA Ute
10-08-2013, 05:57 PM
At my house, I have to be very careful when criticizing anything about LDS leaders because my devout wife feels like I'm criticizing her.

I would like for everyone to keep participating in a spirit of openness & respect without lecturing one another about how to live one's life.
We can share our thoughts without attacking & feeling attacked.
We as a community can walk this line, I'm confident. I agree with the suggestion for caution, but not to the point of insincerity or disingenuousness.
It's okay to disagree.

I disagree with this. :D

Actually, we have a great atmosphere here for respectful and friendly discussion. Le's keep at it! 865


This is an extremely difficult, if not impossible, standard to apply to this conversation because what is being debated is essentially some LDS church leaders' advice/instruction as how to best live one's life. Therefore, while it's easy to avoid "lecturing one another about how to live one's life" by taking a position contrary to that of those leaders, it is almost impossible to side with those leaders without at least impliedly "lecturing one another about how to live one's life." I think that's part of what makes this a difficult conversation (at least on one side of the conversation) in a forum where I believe everyone wants to respect others' feelings and life choices.

I am an optimist. I think this will be fine as long as everyone takes a "here's how I see it" approach, which seems to be happening.

BTW, you need to get your brother in here. I have felt a need for some time now to share some thoughts with him about how he should live his life.

OrangeUte
10-08-2013, 06:52 PM
Whoa! That was a leap. That Uchtdorf acknowledged mistakes hardly means Oaks made one. When I read Uchtdorf's comments I specifically thought of some things Burce R. McKonkie said that he later acknowledged being wrong about.

As for gay marriage, I said after the reaction to the passage of Prop 8, that those who were against gay marriage had already lost, they just didn't know it yet. I happen to think that members being asked to support Prop 8 was more about a test of obedience than about stopping gay marriage as government recognition of gay marriage appears inevitable. The LDS Church has made some movement, saying last spring that being gay wasn't a choice, and was mostly silent during the Prop 8 court case. This was very significant, but I think it is about as much as can be reasonablly expected. Gay marriage will be legal eventually, but the church will still disapprove.

I think you are right about the gay marriage issues.

The divide between what Uchtdorf and Oaks said, in my opinion, was that on one hand Dieter was saying "stick around in the church even if you have questions and disagree with some of the policies and doctrine because we want you here and we love you." Oaks, on the other hand is saying "you can't be a Mormon and also hold a political belief that gay marriage is just." i was inartful about what i was saying (thanks Siri dictation...) But Oaks' comments leave me with the impression that if I hold a political belief that gay marriage is equitable and fair that i cannot be a good Mormon for condoning such a political position. Perhaps i am wrong, but i don't think he leaves any doubt that his view of being a good Mormon doesn't include that. Uchtdorf's comments suggest that you can still be a good member of the church even if you disagree with the policies of the church politely. Oaks doesn't even leave room for that option.

USS Utah
10-08-2013, 07:42 PM
At my house, I have to be very careful when criticizing anything about LDS leaders because my devout wife feels like I'm criticizing her.

I would like for everyone to keep participating in a spirit of openness & respect without lecturing one another about how to live one's life.
We can share our thoughts without attacking & feeling attacked.
We as a community can walk this line, I'm confident. I agree with the suggestion for caution, but not to the point of insincerity or disingenuousness.
It's okay to disagree.

No intent to lecture, just telling people what I think.

OrangeUte
10-08-2013, 07:58 PM
Regardless of what Elder Oaks said or how it is interpreted, the Church has been clear for a long time that political opinions have nothing to do with standing, worthiness, or anything else that matters. A couple of lines in general conference doesn't change that.

My own personal feeling is that God finds most political issues to be quite unimportant. I don't think He cares much what we believe politically. He wants us to be good citizens, study issues, and vote because He wants us to be thoughtful and caring, not because He hopes we will vote a certain way. It's a "give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" type thing.

As for the few lines that Elder Oaks spoke regarding the law, could it be that he was merely offering a justification for the Church's involvement and not issuing instructions to members on political leanings? Honest question because I can't remember the exact wording.

I think saying a Mormon can't condone legalizing same sex marriages is definitely in the realm of saying how members should vote and also conveys that standing in the church and worthiness are at issue. The word CAN'T (or cannot) is pretty strong and doesn't leave much room for discussion of differing political ideologies.

Solon
10-08-2013, 08:00 PM
No intent to lecture, just telling people what I think.

I like learning about your point of view. Please keep sharing.

OrangeUte
10-08-2013, 09:36 PM
So do you think this represents a change in church policy then? I don't. I am guessing that church policy has not changed and that we can all ignore that word "can't." That's what I plan on doing.

Not at all. It's more of the pseudo "love" speak that the church gives to people that aren't mainstream Mormons politically. Saying "you are welcome and we want you to come because we love you" but really it's not that way at all. If you don't conform, members are marginalized that don't toe the line.

OrangeUte
10-08-2013, 09:39 PM
So do you think this represents a change in church policy then? I don't. I am guessing that church policy has not changed and that we can all ignore that word "can't." That's what I plan on doing.

It doesnt change my mind on how I view issues politically. But I can do without the trite "come back" talk about people offended or who are concerned with church history or the way they are treated. The reality is that the church may officially say that but words like Dallin Oaks make sure that the church, its leaders and its members will get to be as homogenous as possible.

LA Ute
10-08-2013, 09:40 PM
Not at all. It's more of the pseudo "love" speak that the church gives to people that aren't mainstream Mormons politically. Saying "you are welcome and we want you to come because we love you" but really it's not that way at all. If you don't conform, members are marginalized that don't toe the line.

That does happen; I've seen it. I think DFU's talk was intended in part for the active, non- skeptical members who need to be more welcoming and less judgmental.

OrangeUte
10-08-2013, 09:43 PM
That does happen; I've seen it. I think DFU's talk was intended in part for the active, non- skeptical members who need to be more welcoming and less judgmental.

That is interesting to look at it from that perspective. I may take your advice and go through it again.

LA Ute
10-08-2013, 09:50 PM
That is interesting to look at it from that perspective. I may take your advice and go through it again.

Maybe it's just me but when I heard the talk I was motivated to try harder to have the same attitude DFU does, and I was thinking of people I knew who would benefit from outreach like his. After all, most of the people DFU was inviting to come back were not listening to his talk, and he knew that. Also, the people who most needed to hear one of his most awesome statements - that leaving the church is not necessarily the result of transgression or laziness - were people in the church who were judging those who've left. He had at least those two audiences in mind.

USS Utah
10-08-2013, 10:27 PM
I'm looking for equality, truth, and right. I'll let you know when I find them.

I'm looking for kindness, compassion and understanding.

USS Utah
10-08-2013, 10:28 PM
I like learning about your point of view. Please keep sharing.

You might check out my blog:

http://thewholemissionary.blogspot.com/

OrangeUte
10-09-2013, 08:56 AM
I'm looking for kindness, compassion and understanding.

I know someone for whom "kindness is their religion".

One of the dangers of our church is that we teach we are the "only true and living church." Listening to an apostle speak with the authority of God often empowers people to think being active members of this church and following its rules creates a superior person in them.

If Uchtdorf was speaking to those people as his audience, great. But, politically speaking he empowered Mormons that agree with his position on gay marriage politically to believe that they are superior to those who do not. I have no problem with a church believing that homosexuality can be sinful. Where I get rubbed is when they tell me that religious belief has to dictate my political aims. Particularly when that direction and my disagreement with it results in me feeling like an outlier in my own church. Notice that I did not say disobedience. However, the net result often can be a feeling that others are judging you for being disobedient simply for having a differing political view.

That being said, I know many women who were ruined as members of the church because of the direction given to them during the ERA movement. Numerous times I have heard it said that those women simply did not have strong testimonies, or there were other reasons that they left. This is where Uchtdorf hit the nail on the head.

Some of the other speeches, though, resulted in weakening his talk when conference is viewed as a whole. There are certainly inconsistencies in these talks being discussed from a perspective of members of the church who hold different political beliefs. Simply saying that the church professes neutrality in voting does not take away the rub of the reality in day to day dealings and the reality of a more liberal thinking member in a very conservative church.

OrangeUte
10-09-2013, 09:01 AM
Lest everyone think I am a sniveling Gerald Tanner wannabe, I was incredibly moved by Pres. Monson's speech on Sunday morning. There is something about the person nearing the end of their life expressing their reflections and feelings on the ride. That gets me every time.

wuapinmon
10-09-2013, 10:57 AM
Some of the other speeches, though, resulted in weakening his talk when conference is viewed as a whole. There are certainly inconsistencies in these talks being discussed from a perspective of members of the church who hold different political beliefs. Simply saying that the church professes neutrality in voting does not take away the rub of the reality in day to day dealings and the reality of a more liberal thinking member in a very conservative church.

For me, this is a BINGO!

LA Ute
10-09-2013, 10:58 AM
I listened to Elder Oaks' talk again this morning on my drive in to work. Here is the relevant text, I've tried to include all the context and to highlight what stood out to me:


In the midst of these concerning trends, we are also conscious that God’s plan is for all of His children and that God loves all of His children, everywhere.6 (http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng#6-10791_000_42oaks) The first chapter of the Book of Mormon (http://mormon.org/book-of-mormon) declares that God’s “power, and goodness, and mercy are over all the inhabitants of the earth” (1 Nephi 1:14 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/1.14?lang=eng#13)). A later chapter declares that “he hath given [his salvation] free for all men” and that “all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden” (2 Nephi 26:27–28 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/26.27-28?lang=eng#26)). Consequently, the scriptures teach that we are responsible to be compassionate and charitable (loving) toward all men (see 1 Thessalonians 3:12 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-thes/3.12?lang=eng#11); 1 John 3:17 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-jn/3.17?lang=eng#16); D&C 121:45 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121.45?lang=eng#44)).

IV.

We are also respectful of the religious beliefs of all people, even of those increasing numbers who profess no belief in God. We know that through the God-given power of choice, many will hold beliefs contrary to ours, but we are hopeful that others will be equally respectful of our religious beliefs and understand that our beliefs compel us to some different choices and behaviors than theirs. For example, we believe that, as an essential part of His plan of salvation, God has established an eternal standard that sexual relations should occur only between a man and a woman who are married.


The power to create mortal life is the most exalted power God has given to His children. Its use was mandated by God’s first commandment to Adam and Eve (see Genesis 1:28 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/1.28?lang=eng#27)), but other important commandments were given to forbid its misuse (see Exodus 20:14 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/20.14?lang=eng#13); 1 Thessalonians 4:3 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-thes/4.3?lang=eng#2)). The emphasis we place on the law of chastity is explained by our understanding of the purpose of our procreative powers in the accomplishment of God’s plan. Outside the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman, all uses of our procreative powers are to one degree or another sinful and contrary to God’s plan for the exaltation of His children.


The importance we attach to the law of chastity explains our commitment to the pattern of marriage that originated with Adam and Eve and has continued through the ages as God’s pattern for the procreative relationship between His sons and daughters and for the nurturing of His children. Fortunately, many persons affiliated with other denominations or organizations agree with us on the nature and importance of marriage, some on the basis of religious doctrine and others on the basis of what they deem best for society.


Our knowledge of God’s plan for His children7 (http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng#7-10791_000_42oaks) explains why we are distressed that more and more children are born outside of marriage—currently 41 percent of all births in the United States8 (http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng#8-10791_000_42oaks)—and that the number of couples living together without marriage has increased dramatically in the past half century. Five decades ago, only a tiny percentage of first marriages were preceded by cohabitation. Now cohabitation precedes 60 percent of marriages.9 (http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng#9-10791_000_42oaks) And this is increasingly accepted, especially among teenagers. Recent survey data found about 50 percent of teenagers stating that out-of-wedlock childbearing was a “worthwhile lifestyle.”10
(http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng#10-10791_000_42oaks)
V.

There are many political and social pressures for legal and policy changes to establish behaviors contrary to God’s decrees about sexual morality and contrary to the eternal nature and purposes of marriage and childbearing. These pressures have already authorized same-gender marriages in various states and nations. Other pressures would confuse gender or homogenize those differences between men and women that are essential to accomplish God’s great plan of happiness.



Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them. And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has identified as unchangeable.


Our twelfth article of faith (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1.12?lang=eng#11) states our belief in being subject to civil authority and “in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral.

Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.


In this determination we may be misunderstood, and we may incur accusations of bigotry, suffer discrimination, or have to withstand invasions of our free exercise of religion. If so, I think we should remember our first priority—to serve God—and, like our pioneer predecessors, push our personal handcarts forward with the same fortitude they exhibited.



Now we get to parse. He said:

Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them.

I heard (and read) that language to mean homosexual behavior is sinful and we can't condone it just because it is made legal, just as we don't condone adultery and various other sins that constitute legal behavior in our society. By "find justification in the laws that permit them" I think that is what he means. The two bolded sentences that follow support that interpretation. I do not think he is saying members cannot support laws allowing same-sex marriage. I know good members of the church who are quite libertarian on many social issues, such as whether many drug laws should be repealed or whether "victimless crimes" ought to be legalized, or whether Utah's liquor laws are silly. I don't think members will be called to account for such views. One can consider certain behaviors wrong without thinking those behaviors should be illegal. Those are all probably minority views among Mormons, but I don't think anyone will suffer for holding them.


For me, this is a BINGO!

See above. I think you are reading far too much into the Oaks talk.

Scratch
10-09-2013, 11:13 AM
I listened to Elder Oaks' talk again this morning on my drive in to work. Here is the relevant text, I've tried to include all the context and to highlight what stood out to me:



Now we get to parse. He said:

Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them.

I heard (and read) that language to mean homosexual behavior is sinful and we can't condone it just because it is made legal, just as we don't condone adultery and various other sins that constitute legal behavior in our society. By "find justification in the laws that permit them" I think that is what he means. The two bolded sentences that follow support that interpretation. I do not think he is saying members cannot support laws allowing same-sex marriage. I know good members of the church who are quite libertarian on many social issues, such as whether many drug laws should be repealed or whether "victimless crimes" ought to be legalized, or whether Utah's liquor laws are silly. I don't think members will be called to account for such views. One can consider certain behaviors wrong without thinking those behaviors should be illegal. Those are all probably minority views among Mormons, but I don't think anyone will suffer for holding them.



See above. I think you are reading far too much into the Oaks talk.

This was essentially what I got from those comments. Not so much that members can't have certain political views, but that societal, cultural, and even legal acceptance of certain things does not change God's views on those things. It is also clear that there are all sorts of sinful behaviors (as defined by the LDS church) that the LDS church would not want to be made illegal. For example, I'm confident that the church would not currently support laws prohibiting sodomy or cohabitation.

Applejack
10-09-2013, 11:30 AM
I heard (and read) that language to mean homosexual behavior is sinful and we can't condone it just because it is made legal, just as we don't condone adultery and various other sins that constitute legal behavior in our society. By "find justification in the laws that permit them" I think that is what he means. The two bolded sentences that follow support that interpretation. I do not think he is saying members cannot support laws allowing same-sex marriage. I know good members of the church who are quite libertarian on many social issues, such as whether many drug laws should be repealed or whether "victimless crimes" ought to be legalized, or whether Utah's liquor laws are silly. I don't think members will be called to account for such views. One can consider certain behaviors wrong without thinking those behaviors should be illegal. Those are all probably minority views among Mormons, but I don't think anyone will suffer for holding them.

See above. I think you are reading far too much into the Oaks talk.

I don't get the angst about Oaks' talk (other than the line about doctrines and policies being unchanging, which was kind of bizarre). I read this talk as the church's new position on gay marriage: we can't stop it, but we aren't going to change our doctrine about homosexuality as sinful. I'm fine with that position - the church can do whatever it wants in regards to its members/doctrines. This should have been the church's position all along.

Personally, I'm fascinated by Oaks' focus on religious freedom surrounding the gay marriage debate; it seems like that's all he talks about anymore. He's a smart dude (once on the short list for SCOTUS) so he knows that the 1st amendment will never allow the government to force the church to perform gay marriages. What is his worry? Tax status?

USS Utah
10-09-2013, 11:30 AM
One of the dangers of our church is that we teach we are the "only true and living church." Listening to an apostle speak with the authority of God often empowers people to think being active members of this church and following its rules creates a superior person in them.

Anyone who thinks that hasn't really been paying attention.


Where I get rubbed is when they tell me that religious belief has to dictate my political aims.

To be intellectually honest, would I not have to reconcile my political ideology with my religious beliefs?

In any case, we are agents unto ourselves. We are not dictated to, but invited to consider principles and doctrines, and to decide for ourselves.


Simply saying that the church professes neutrality in voting does not take away the rub of the reality in day to day dealings and the reality of a more liberal thinking member in a very conservative church.

The church is neutral when it comes to political parties and candidates. It is not neutral on issues where it believes moral principle is involved. It is an important distinction.

LA Ute
10-09-2013, 11:40 AM
Personally, I'm fascinated by Oaks' focus on religious freedom surrounding the gay marriage debate; it seems like that's all he talks about anymore. He's a smart dude (once on the short list for SCOTUS) so he knows that the 1st amendment will never allow the government to force the church to perform gay marriages. What is his worry? Tax status?

Just a guess, but I think he is worried about the church (and anyone who sees the issue the same way) becoming so marginalized that we have few defenders. There are some who consider opposition to same-sex marriage to be equivalent to opposition to interracial marriage. If that idea becomes widely accepted, then we might end up just as marginalized as extremist pastors who still preach racial hatred. That would be a difficult position for the church. I think that is what he is driving at here:


We are also respectful of the religious beliefs of all people, even of those increasing numbers who profess no belief in God. We know that through the God-given power of choice, many will hold beliefs contrary to ours, but we are hopeful that others will be equally respectful of our religious beliefs and understand that our beliefs compel us to some different choices and behaviors than theirs.

USS Utah
10-09-2013, 11:42 AM
i heard (and read) that language to mean homosexual behavior is sinful and we can't condone it just because it is made legal, just as we don't condone adultery and various other sins that constitute legal behavior in our society.

Bingo!

USS Utah
10-09-2013, 11:44 AM
Not so much that members can't have certain political views, but that societal, cultural, and even legal acceptance of certain things does not change God's views on those things.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have another winner!

USS Utah
10-09-2013, 11:48 AM
(other than the line about doctrines and policies being unchanging, which was kind of bizarre)

Certainly things can change, from plural marriage to blacks and the priesthood to organizational stuff like creating new quorums and changing roles of quorums. Some things are given only for a season, other things become impracticable due to the growth of the church.

With all of that said, it's important to remember who makes the call on these changes.

LA Ute
10-09-2013, 11:52 AM
...other than the line about doctrines and policies being unchanging, which was kind of bizarre....

As I said below, infelicitous wording. ;) He could have said that better.

USS Utah
10-09-2013, 11:57 AM
Again, this very conservative church is becoming more diverse by the minute, and that is a good thing. Many of the 30-somethings in my current ward are either progressive or ambivalent. I have been in two wards where, among those who were vocal about these things, the membership was fairly evenly split politically. My personal hope is that increased political diversity in wards will help everyone realize how little politics really matter in the grand scheme.

Several years ago, a member of my history board joined the LDS Church, not through any effort on my part, he met a girl and ended up marrying her. In any case, he lived in New York, and was surprised to find out that the members of his ward were much more liberal than he had expected. Based on the conversations at my board he expected all Mormons to be very conservative.

Applejack
10-09-2013, 11:58 AM
With all of that said, it's important to remember who makes the call on these changes.

That's a perfectly understandable belief, but Oaks is saying something different. He is suggesting that not only does God drive the changes, but that policies and doctrines are unchanging (or at the least are determined by unchangeable truths). It's hard to see how excluding blacks from the priesthood was "determined by" an unchangeable truth.


Just a guess, but I think he is worried about the church (and anyone who sees the issue the same way) becoming so marginalized that we have few defenders. There are some who consider opposition to same-sex marriage to be equivalent to opposition to interracial marriage. If that idea becomes widely accepted, then we might end up just as marginalized as extremist pastors who still preach racial hatred. That would be a difficult position for the church. I think that is what he is driving at here:

I'm sure this is a concern. But discussing religious freedom ad nauseum seems like a legal tactic for when this marginalization occurs (don't force us to perform gay marriages), not a tactic for avoiding the marginalization in the first place. Oaks is the most legalistic of the GAs, so I'm interested in what he and the church's legal department is worried about.

Applejack
10-09-2013, 12:03 PM
As I said below, infelicitous wording. ;) He could have said that better.

Haha, I'm not sure Justice Oaks can use that excuse.

USS Utah
10-09-2013, 12:05 PM
It's hard to see how excluding blacks from the priesthood was "determined by" an unchangeable truth.

As near as anyone can tell, it wasn't. However, when it came to changing the policy, the will of the Lord was earnestly sought through prayer, and the change happened only when they received an affirmative answer.

LA Ute
10-09-2013, 12:06 PM
Haha, I'm not sure Justice Oaks can use that excuse.

His talks are always the most tightly-worded and reasoned of all the Q12. Which is why I find that language a bit puzzling.

OrangeUte
10-09-2013, 12:41 PM
Come on. "Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them."

He is clearly stating that this is about the laws - i.e. gay marriage!

I get that it is a conservative church. I have belonged to it for years and years and years. And years. And, for all of those years, I have been a democrat and a liberal on the political spectrum. I am viewed as an outlier on the political spectrum of the church and that results in judgments, whether or not rightly judged, to be against the church on this principle. To say that Oaks didn't mean what he said and could have chosen his words more carefully does very little to assuage my problems with what he says. Let me state it again as to what bothers me.

1. Uchtdorf says we need to be prepared to have others with differing opinions and problems with history maintain their membership and full fellowship because they are not sinners or offended by members of the church. They simply feel unwelcome holding different views or having problems with tricky historical issues.

2. Oaks says "Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them." I.e. If you believe that gay people should be able to marry, then you do not have an eternal perspective.

Now, for the fully believing member who disagrees that gay marriage ought to be legal on grounds of equality under the law of our land, Oaks' statements clearly say that such a member does not have an eternal perspective and does not understand God's plan or doctrine as the basis for that eternal perspective. Where does this leave that member? it leaves them with a Church that says on one hand "come back and fellowship with us, we value you..." but on the other hand is saying "if you disagree with us on this issue, then you don't have the eternal perspective that we have and you don't understand God's laws and Gospel correctly.

This just scratching the surface.

Let me just say this to your responses to my posts above.. First, I do get it and have been paying attention. Claiming to be the Only True and Living Church comes at a high cost because it results often in situations where the person who disagrees with the leadership on one thing is very uncomfortable. Intellectual honesty, in my opinion, allows for you to have a different code for how you live your own life than the code you have for society. i.e. Believing that homosexuality is a religious sin does not mean that you have to favor laws that disallow gay citizens equal protection under the laws of the land that declare its objectives as "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". To say you have to collect all of your religious and political beliefs and cross-check them is absurd.

Oaks sentiments and teachings leave many people feeling like they will always be second class citizens in our church if they "come back" into fellowship because there will always be something wrong with them and the way that they think.

that being said, I agree with Sancho that our church is becoming more divers. I know liberal thinking Bishops, etc., and think that is an excellent development. I also have some insight into the Church policies on homosexuality from my family's own situation that helps me to maintain my membership and not be too bothered by Mormon's that disagree with how I view things politically that the church does. It is very easy for me to be an active member of the Church - this doesn't lead me astray. But, to say that it doesn't bother me would be untrue, because it does. Perhaps I am parsing words that Oaks said, but I would counter that both sides of this debate are doing just that.

USS Utah
10-09-2013, 01:02 PM
First, I do get it and have been paying attention.

My apologies, I should have been more clear.


empowers people to think being active members of this church and following its rules creates a superior person in them.

If anyone thinks they are superior to others, they haven't really been paying attention. I did not mean to suggest that people such are yourself have not been paying attention.


Intellectual honesty, in my opinion, allows for you to have a different code for how you live your own life than the code you have for society. i.e. Believing that homosexuality is a religious sin does not mean that you have to favor laws that disallow gay citizens equal protection under the laws of the land that declare its objectives as "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". To say you have to collect all of your religious and political beliefs and cross-check them is absurd.


I was for civil unions when the president was for civil unions. I was informed that I was a bigot. Now I just don't care. I am neither for nor against gay marriage.

Slim
10-09-2013, 01:15 PM
From Clark Griswold: It's the Christmas star, and that's all that matters tonight. Not bonuses, or gifts, or turkeys or trees. See kids, it means something different to everybody, and now I know what it means to me.

The fact that you were able to incorporate a Christmas Vacation quote into the General Conference thread is amazing. Well Done.

Christmas Vacation: "...The gift that keeps on giving the whole year."

Sisyphus
10-09-2013, 01:27 PM
Interesting thoughts by everyone. I don't want to parse and analyze much but I appreciate the discussion nonetheless.

As a general rule for me, I think of our church (I loathe use of "The Church") is set up so that 95% of the action is at the ward level and GC addresses are used for mileposts for teaching doctrine, inspiration and motivation. Of course there's going to be some inconsistencies and stuff we don't buy Wholesale. Working out our salvation is a lot more about local involvement, service , generosity of spirit and love than getting a complete and consistent internal doctrinal framework IMO.

The "only true and living" thing for me is not about bragging points or having the answer key for the final, it's more about faith&hope from working out your salvation within the framework of gospel principles to learn the things we need that can only be learned through living them. I think Uchtdorf's talk was the best at hitting what's important and properly discounting, in a sense, the doctrinal minutia , misunderstandings, mistakes and what-not which should be acknowledged but aren't nearly as important as love, compassion, service, fellowship and faithfulness in the face of challenges. All of these GREAT things are supplied by involvement at the ward level.

concerned
10-09-2013, 01:28 PM
Come on. "Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them."


Now, for the fully believing member who disagrees that gay marriage ought to be legal on grounds of equality under the law of our land, Oaks' statements clearly say that such a member does not have an eternal perspective and does not understand God's plan or doctrine as the basis for that eternal perspective. Where does this leave that member? it leaves them with a Church that says on one hand "come back and fellowship with us, we value you..." but on the other hand is saying "if you disagree with us on this issue, then you don't have the eternal perspective that we have and you don't understand God's laws and Gospel correctly.



It seems to me he is not saying that you don't understand God's laws, but that you do not accept them. The former is an act of ignorance or stupidity, the latter is an act of disobedience.

Scorcho
10-09-2013, 01:31 PM
admittedly I played hookie from General Conference last weekend and am now just trying to keep up by listening to a talk a day over the next few weeks.

Elder Hales Saturday Morning talk was a complete snoozer.That guy needs more energy.

Hales is the anti-Holland. Someone get him a Monster Energy Drink or a strong cup of Postum.

San Diego Ute Fan
10-09-2013, 02:06 PM
His talks are always the most tightly-worded and reasoned of all the Q12. Which is why I find that language a bit puzzling.

IMO, the most eloquent of them all was Elder Neal A Maxwell. I miss him.

Scratch
10-09-2013, 02:13 PM
Come on. "Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them."

He is clearly stating that this is about the laws - i.e. gay marriage!


I still read this differently. The key word there, IMO, is "in," as opposed "for." you don't find justification in a law for the law itself, you find justification in the law for something else. In other words, when he says "in" you have to ask what are you justifying with the law? He seems to be referring back to the word "behaviors," and is saying that laws permitting those behaviors cannot be used to justify those behaviors. Now, if he had said "justification for the laws that permit them" then we would be dealing with a completely different situation.

Two Utes
10-09-2013, 02:56 PM
I listened to Elder Oaks' talk again this morning on my drive in to work. Here is the relevant text, I've tried to include all the context and to highlight what stood out to me:



Now we get to parse. He said:

Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them.

I heard (and read) that language to mean homosexual behavior is sinful and we can't condone it just because it is made legal, just as we don't condone adultery and various other sins that constitute legal behavior in our society. By "find justification in the laws that permit them" I think that is what he means. The two bolded sentences that follow support that interpretation. I do not think he is saying members cannot support laws allowing same-sex marriage. I know good members of the church who are quite libertarian on many social issues, such as whether many drug laws should be repealed or whether "victimless crimes" ought to be legalized, or whether Utah's liquor laws are silly. I don't think members will be called to account for such views. One can consider certain behaviors wrong without thinking those behaviors should be illegal. Those are all probably minority views among Mormons, but I don't think anyone will suffer for holding them.



See above. I think you are reading far too much into the Oaks talk.


You highlighted a portion of the Oaks' talk discussing marriage. Yet, "Celestial Marriage" in this church was originally defined as polygamy. After the manifesto, "Celestial Marriage" was changed to, in essence what it is now. EXACTLY the core doctrine he is speaking about (marriage) has changed. Yet, he says that this is one of God's "truths" that are unchangeable.

OrangeUte
10-09-2013, 03:36 PM
I still read this differently. The key word there, IMO, is "in," as opposed "for." you don't find justification in a law for the law itself, you find justification in the law for something else. In other words, when he says "in" you have to ask what are you justifying with the law? He seems to be referring back to the word "behaviors," and is saying that laws permitting those behaviors cannot be used to justify those behaviors. Now, if he had said "justification for the laws that permit them" then we would be dealing with a completely different situation.

doesn't that sounds like Bill Clinton dissecting the word "is" in his Monica Lewinski deposition?

finding justification for the action in the law or for the law, to me ends at the same place. If you support gay marriage then you have not got an eternal perspective on the gospel and God.

OrangeUte
10-09-2013, 03:51 PM
It seems to me he is not saying that you don't understand God's laws, but that you do not accept them. The former is an act of ignorance or stupidity, the latter is an act of disobedience.

exactly. he is saying that if you don't agree than it is an act of disobedience.

OrangeUte
10-09-2013, 03:52 PM
admittedly I played hookie from General Conference last weekend and am now just trying to keep up by listening to a talk a day over the next few weeks.

Elder Hales Saturday Morning talk was a complete snoozer.That guy needs more energy.

Hales is the anti-Holland. Someone get him a Monster Energy Drink or a strong cup of Postum.

haha! General Conference on Red Bull!

LA Ute
10-09-2013, 04:14 PM
You highlighted a portion of the Oaks' talk discussing marriage. Yet, "Celestial Marriage" in this church was originally defined as polygamy. After the manifesto, "Celestial Marriage" was changed to, in essence what it is now. EXACTLY the core doctrine he is speaking about (marriage) has changed. Yet, he says that this is one of God's "truths" that are unchangeable.

Like I said, I find his choice of words in that one sentence ("our policies are determined by the truths God has identified as unchangeable") perplexing.


exactly. he is saying that if you don't agree than it is an act of disobedience.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think he meant anything other than to say that merely because something is lawful doesn't make it right. (This means you will not be designated a miserable vomitous mass, or even a warthog-faced buffoon (http://www.utahby5.com/showthread.php?263-Random-chat-thread&p=22941&viewfull=1#post22941).)

USS Utah
10-09-2013, 04:23 PM
exactly. he is saying that if you don't agree than it is an act of disobedience.

To have disobedience you must first have understanding. In the plan of salvation, as found in LDS theology, God does not hold people responsible for a law they have not received.

To have an a different understanding (a disagreement) than someonelse cannot be disobedience.

USS Utah
10-09-2013, 04:27 PM
I don't think he meant anything other than to say that merely because something is lawful doesn't make it right.

There are a lot of things that I have a legal right to do (smoking, drinking, pornography, adultery, etc), that the LDS Church, and other churches, frown on.

Just because I can, it doesn't mean I should.

OrangeUte
10-09-2013, 05:36 PM
To have disobedience you must first have understanding. In the plan of salvation, as found in LDS theology, God does not hold people responsible for a law they have not received.

To have an a different understanding (a disagreement) than someonelse cannot be disobedience.

so, he is calling all of us who disagree with the church's position stupid because we don't understand the plan of salvation/gospel/mind of the Lord? that's nice. :D

(This was tongue in cheek - I understand your point.)

USS Utah
10-09-2013, 07:30 PM
so, he is calling all of us who disagree with the church's position stupid because we don't understand the plan of salvation/gospel/mind of the Lord? that's nice. :D

(This was tongue in cheek - I understand your point.)

Good, because I was about to throw up my hands and say, "If you want to be offended there is nothing I can do about it."

NorthwestUteFan
10-09-2013, 08:17 PM
Oaks might be a wiz at the Law, but he fails in his comprehension of the Twelfth Article of Faith. (being subject to kings, rulers, magistrates, etc, and in honoring, obeying, and sustaining the law...)

I say this as somebody who has been told, in church, in three different states, which way we are expected to vote in an upcoming election when gay marriage was on the ballot.

OrangeUte
10-09-2013, 09:03 PM
Good, because I was about to throw up my hands and say, "If you want to be offended there is nothing I can do about it."

;-)

I really just want LA Ute to call me a cruel name.

Jarid in Cedar
10-09-2013, 09:06 PM
Good, because I was about to throw up my hands and say, "If you want to be offended there is nothing I can do about it."

I don't read OU's protests as being offended, more as being frustrated by a message that he disagrees with.

NorthwestUteFan
10-09-2013, 09:34 PM
I don't read OU's protests as being offended, more as being frustrated by a message that he disagrees with.

I can think of few offenses that cut more deeply than to have a leader of a church in which one believes, and which (at least in the recent past) claims to be God's only true and living Church on the face of the earth, tells that person he/she lacks faith and offends Almighty God for holding a belief differing from that held by said church leader.

It is especially offensive when said church leader holds a view that is very easily debunked (eg people 'choose' to be gay, because a loving God would never create somebody like that).

'WWJD?' is one hell of a tough measuring stick to meet. "Where are your accusers?... Neither do I accuse you. "

LA Ute
10-09-2013, 09:37 PM
;-)

I really just want LA Ute to call me a cruel name.

I'm having a hard time with that because I've met you and collaborated with you and like you. It just isn't coming. But here goes: You w-w-warthog-f-f-faced b-b-buffoon.

That's the best I can do.

wuapinmon
10-09-2013, 10:07 PM
See above. I think you are reading far too much into the Oaks talk.


Like I said, I find his choice of words in that one sentence ("our policies are determined by the truths God has identified as unchangeable") perplexing.



We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think he meant anything other than to say that merely because something is lawful doesn't make it right. (This means you will not be designated a miserable vomitous mass, or even a warthog-faced buffoon (http://www.utahby5.com/showthread.php?263-Random-chat-thread&p=22941&viewfull=1#post22941).)

Sorry, man. Your argument founders in the face of this section from the end of his talk, "I pray that we will not let the temporary challenges of mortality cause us to forget the great commandments and priorities we have been given by our Creator and our Savior. We must not set our hearts so much on the things of the world and aspire to the honors of men (see D&C 121:35 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121.35?lang=eng#34)) that we stop trying to achieve our eternal destiny. We who know God’s plan for His children—we who have made covenants to participate in it—have a clear responsibility. We must never deviate from our paramount desire, which is to achieve eternal life.12 (http://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng#12-10791_000_42oaks) We must never dilute our first priority—to have no other gods and to serve no other priorities ahead of God the Father (http://lds.org/study/topics/god-the-father?lang=eng) and His Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ (http://mormon.org/jesus-christ)."

The underlined portion quite clearly shoots across the bow of those who would serve the false idols of allowing the 14th Amendment to be applied equally to all. But, the part right before that is the most egregious example of hegemonic bullying I've ever seen in the Church, "A moral coward is one who is afraid to do what he thinks is right because others will disapprove or laugh. Remember that all men have their fears, but those who face their fears with dignity have courage as well.”11 (http://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng#11-10791_000_42oaks)

There's little dignity in saying this (http://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/02/the-divinely-inspired-constitution?lang=eng) about the Constitution, " I see divine inspiration in what President J. Reuben Clark called the “great fundamentals” of the Constitution. In his many talks on the Constitution, he always praised three fundamentals: (a) the separation of powers into three independent branches of government in a federal system; (b) the essential freedoms of speech, press, and religion embodied in the Bill of Rights; and (c) the equality of all men before the law. I concur in these three, but I add two more. On my list there are five great fundamentals," if you're going to ignore the 14th Amendment.

Elder Oaks said it best, "When power comes from the people, there is no legitimacy in legal castes or classes or in failing to provide all citizens the equal protection of the laws." So, until that is achieved, I'll not listen to assertions by him (or any other) of my moral cowardice for assuming that he was being serious. I don't want no peace; I and I need equal rights and justice.

bopahull
10-09-2013, 10:22 PM
Good question. I see his statement as cipher-like (as many General Conference talks are). Many people will see in what they want to see. Here's what he said, per the Times article:



When he says "leaders in the church" to whom is he referring? I think he means all leaders (Occam's Razor, you know), from ward-level leaders on up to to the president of the church. I thought of things like Mountain Meadows and Adam-God, as well as dumb things bishops, stake presidents and members sometimes say and do. Since he does include "members" in that statement, and in light of the overall context of the talk, I think he was trying to say "people in the church are imperfect; don't let that distract you from the truthfulness of the message." I think he said almost exactly that, in fact, later in the talk.

So some people will see it the way I do. On one extreme, some will say he's talking only about Young Men presidents. On another extreme, many have already said, "Aha! He's talking about the priesthood ban, polygamy and [insert favorite grievance over past policy decisions or doctrinal teachings]."

The King Follett discourse is among the most often misquotes of Joseph Smith. It actually reads 'and God too lived on an earth'. The an is conveniently dropped by those casting disparagement onthe LDS faith.

LA Ute
10-09-2013, 10:48 PM
Sorry, man. Your argument founders in the face of this section from the end of his talk, "I pray that we will not let the temporary challenges of mortality cause us to forget the great commandments and priorities we have been given by our Creator and our Savior. We must not set our hearts so much on the things of the world and aspire to the honors of men (see D&C 121:35 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121.35?lang=eng#34)) that we stop trying to achieve our eternal destiny. We who know God’s plan for His children—we who have made covenants to participate in it—have a clear responsibility. We must never deviate from our paramount desire, which is to achieve eternal life.12 (http://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng#12-10791_000_42oaks) We must never dilute our first priority—to have no other gods and to serve no other priorities ahead of God the Father (http://lds.org/study/topics/god-the-father?lang=eng) and His Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ (http://mormon.org/jesus-christ)."

The underlined portion quite clearly shoots across the bow of those who would serve the false idols of allowing the 14th Amendment to be applied equally to all. But, the part right before that is the most egregious example of hegemonic bullying I've ever seen in the Church, "A moral coward is one who is afraid to do what he thinks is right because others will disapprove or laugh. Remember that all men have their fears, but those who face their fears with dignity have courage as well.”11 (http://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng#11-10791_000_42oaks)

There's little dignity in saying this (http://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/02/the-divinely-inspired-constitution?lang=eng) about the Constitution, " I see divine inspiration in what President J. Reuben Clark called the “great fundamentals” of the Constitution. In his many talks on the Constitution, he always praised three fundamentals: (a) the separation of powers into three independent branches of government in a federal system; (b) the essential freedoms of speech, press, and religion embodied in the Bill of Rights; and (c) the equality of all men before the law. I concur in these three, but I add two more. On my list there are five great fundamentals," if you're going to ignore the 14th Amendment.

Elder Oaks said it best, "When power comes from the people, there is no legitimacy in legal castes or classes or in failing to provide all citizens the equal protection of the laws." So, until that is achieved, I'll not listen to assertions by him (or any other) of my moral cowardice for assuming that he was being serious. I don't want no peace; I and I need equal rights and justice.

Wuap, my friend, the plain meaning of the words in DHO's talk is contrary to what you are claiming he meant. You have to torture his language and seek hidden meaning to get to your conclusions. Occam's Razor.

BTW, what you call "hegemonic bullying" (a nice phrase) is a quote from Thomas S. Monson 27 years ago. It sounds like he is thinking of the great and spacious building of Lehi's dream. It's a well-stated but unremarkable point in that respect.

Sisyphus
10-10-2013, 12:00 AM
I went with the Elders this evening for a discussion with a well-reasoned and intelligent investigator originally from Africa. Guess which talk from GC stood out the most??? Lot's of questions and concerns floated...

USS Utah
10-10-2013, 12:47 AM
Originally Posted by USS Utah http://www.utahby5.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.utahby5.com/showthread.php?p=22908#post22908)

See above. I think you are reading far too much into the Oaks talk.

Strange, I don't recall saying that.

USS Utah
10-10-2013, 12:49 AM
Oaks might be a wiz at the Law, but he fails in his comprehension of the Twelfth Article of Faith. (being subject to kings, rulers, magistrates, etc, and in honoring, obeying, and sustaining the law...)

I say this as somebody who has been told, in church, in three different states, which way we are expected to vote in an upcoming election when gay marriage was on the ballot.

To the best of my knowledge, none of the questions in the temple recommend interview ask about political ideology, or positions on the issues of the day. As long as one can answer the actual questions affirmatively and receive a recommend, then it shouldn't matter what other members of the ward think.

LA Ute
10-10-2013, 06:48 AM
Strange, I don't recall saying that.

I said it. Somehow wuap copied my comment into a quote from your post.

DrumNFeather
10-10-2013, 07:00 AM
admittedly I played hookie from General Conference last weekend and am now just trying to keep up by listening to a talk a day over the next few weeks.

Elder Hales Saturday Morning talk was a complete snoozer.That guy needs more energy.

Hales is the anti-Holland. Someone get him a Monster Energy Drink or a strong cup of Postum.

While I agree, I think he gave one of the more important talks of the entire weekend, mostly because he reviewed the thought process behind how speakers choose their topics, and how they are not assigned or really vetted (in some cases, not until afterwards! :) )

LA Ute
10-10-2013, 09:20 AM
While I agree, I think he gave one of the more important talks of the entire weekend, mostly because he reviewed the thought process behind how speakers choose their topics, and how they are not assigned or really vetted (in some cases, not until afterwards! :) )

Yeah, I really liked that talk, much more than I expected to. Maybe because I was walking the dog while listening to it, so I had to pay attention to understand.

wuapinmon
10-10-2013, 09:52 AM
Wuap, my friend, the plain meaning of the words in DHO's talk is contrary to what you are claiming he meant. You have to torture his language and seek hidden meaning to get to your conclusions. Occam's Razor.

BTW, what you call "hegemonic bullying" (a nice phrase) is a quote from Thomas S. Monson 27 years ago. It sounds like he is thinking of the great and spacious building of Lehi's dream. It's a well-stated but unremarkable point in that respect.

I disagree with you. His words are plain to me. "Aspire to the honors of men" makes no sense in his remarks other than to be mean that those who support gay marriage's legality are moral cowards because they won't stand up for what they think is right.

OrangeUte
10-10-2013, 10:32 AM
I don't read OU's protests as being offended, more as being frustrated by a message that he disagrees with.

definitely wasn't offended. my skin is very thick.

LA Ute
10-10-2013, 10:58 AM
I disagree with you. His words are plain to me. "Aspire to the honors of men" makes no sense in his remarks other than to be mean that those who support gay marriage's legality are moral cowards because they won't stand up for what they think is right.

You have me struggling to say this right, and to be sure I have thought this through. So be kind to me if I flop.

I think his talk says only that the church teaches and believes that sexual relations outside of marriage are wrong, and that homosexual relations are also wrong, whether in a marriage or not, and that as members we should not shy away from stating or affirming those beliefs. I do not think he is saying anyone is wrong for supporting same-sex marriage, or will be punished in any way for that support. An analogy: I don't think adultery or "sodomy" are right, but I don't think they should be illegal either. That has no impact on my faithfulness as a member.

I coud (and maybe should) stop there. But I'll go on.

DHO's talks tend to be tightly written and reasoned, so context is important. Here's the larger context of his "aspire to the honors of men" statement, with what I see as key provisions bolded, and a few comments inserted:


Our twelfth article of faith (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1.12?lang=eng#11) states our belief in being subject to civil authority and “in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. [This is hardly a novel or threatening idea.] Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. [Ditto.] Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place. [This two sentences seem to be the ones that trouble you, I think. On their face they are telling me that we won't change our views on marriage or our moral opposition to same-sex marriage, no matter how society see those issues. I don't see that as a surprising statement.]


In this determination we may be misunderstood, and we may incur accusations of bigotry, suffer discrimination, or have to withstand invasions of our free exercise of religion. If so, I think we should remember our first priority—to serve God—and, like our pioneer predecessors, push our personal handcarts forward with the same fortitude they exhibited. [I don't know about you, but for me the subject of SSM rarely comes up anymore. If someone ever does ask me what my position was on Prop 8 or on SSM generally, I admit to you that I'll stiffen my back, prepare for some awkwardness, say a little prayer, and answer as directly and sensitively as I know how. What DHO is telling me not to do is to fold, to pretend I never supported Prop 8 or say that I think SSM is just fine, simply because I fear social disapproval.]


A teaching of President Thomas S. Monson applies to this circumstance. At this conference 27 years ago, he boldly declared: “Let us have the courage to defy the consensus, the courage to stand for principle. Courage, not compromise, brings the smile of God’s approval. Courage becomes a living and an attractive virtue when it is regarded not only as a willingness to die manfully, but as the determination to live decently. A moral coward is one who is afraid to do what he thinks is right because others will disapprove or laugh. Remember that all men have their fears, but those who face their fears with dignity have courage as well.”11 (http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng#11-10791_000_42oaks) [Ditto above.]


I pray that we will not let the temporary challenges of mortality cause us to forget the great commandments and priorities we have been given by our Creator and our Savior. We must not set our hearts so much on the things of the world and aspire to the honors of men (see D&C 121:35 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121.35?lang=eng#34)) that we stop trying to achieve our eternal destiny. [Ditto. He's pretty much saying we need to stand up for our beliefs.] We who know God’s plan for His children—we who have made covenants to participate in it—have a clear responsibility. We must never deviate from our paramount desire, which is to achieve eternal life.12 (http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng#12-10791_000_42oaks) We must never dilute our first priority—to have no other gods and to serve no other priorities ahead of God the Father (http://lds.org/study/topics/god-the-father?lang=eng) and His Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ (http://mormon.org/jesus-christ).


These are fundamentally matters of conscience. The church's teachings on SSM are clear. Still, as a matter of public policy I personally see no problem with a member of the church supporting same-sex marriage or opposing initiatives or legislation that would prohibit SSM. Doing so would not prevent someone from honestly getting a temple recommend. If one takes those positions as a matter of conscience then I see no moral cowardice. For an active Mormon there's actually courage in doing so, even though I personally disagree. If, OTOH, one takes those positions to avoid social disapproval -- i.e., because one "aspires to the honors of men," then I see such cowardice. DHO is telling us to stand up for our church's beliefs, if they are consistent with our own.

Which leads to a deeper question. If someone simply disagrees with those beliefs, then we are in different territory and I honestly don't know what to say to that person. I know some people think gays should be allowed to be sealed in the temple, for example. That's not a matter of moral cowardice, just one of disagreement with church doctrine at a fundamental level. It's a different issue from the church telling you what to think or how to vote.

I hope this makes sense.

NorthwestUteFan
10-10-2013, 11:21 AM
To the best of my knowledge, none of the questions in the temple recommend interview ask about political ideology, or positions on the issues of the day. As long as one can answer the actual questions affirmatively and receive a recommend, then it shouldn't matter what other members of the ward think.

My point is that telling us how we are expected to vote skates very close to being a violation of election laws (or at least IRS regs to maintain tax exempt status). And that church was judged to be in violation of election laws in the Prop 8 campaign in California, and was forced to pay fines for numerous counts of not disclosing their direct campaign contributions.

In fact they originally denied contributing money for political ads, until they were shown the smoking gun with their fingerprints all over it. After that was uncovered they fessed up and had to pay the fines.

It seems they believe the TR question "are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?" doesn't necessarily apply to the organization itself.

DrumNFeather
10-10-2013, 11:24 AM
So, when these conference critiques come out, what would we call it? Monday Morning Seventy or Arm Chair Apostle?

Freaky Girl
10-10-2013, 11:26 AM
As a lurker on this thread, I just want to thank you all for your thoughtful and thought provoking comments!

LA Ute
10-10-2013, 11:30 AM
My point is that telling us how we are expected to vote skates very close to being a violation of election laws (or at least IRS regs to maintain tax exempt status). And that church was judged to be in violation of election laws in the Prop 8 campaign in California, and was forced to pay fines for numerous counts of not disclosing their direct campaign contributions.

In fact they originally denied contributing money for political ads, until they were shown the smoking gun with their fingerprints all over it. After that was uncovered they fessed up and had to pay the fines.

It seems they believe the TR question "are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?" doesn't necessarily apply to the organization itself.

Campaign finance law is pretty intricate. I could be wrong, but I don't recall that the church was found to have lied about its donations. It had huge clout on the campaign's steering committee but didn't run things day to day, including the details of reporting. There is plenty to criticize about the Prop 8 campaign, but I don't think that one's accurate (that the church or its representatives lied). But let's keep this thread about General Conference.

Applejack
10-10-2013, 11:38 AM
It comes down to the interpretation of what Elder Oaks means when talking about moral cowardice. We have many possible readings:

1) Members of the Church who support same-sex marriage legislation for any reason are moral cowards.

2) Members of the Church who support same-sex marriage legislation out of fear or pressure are moral cowards.

3) People who believe that homosexual relations are sinful but who will not admit that belief out of fear are moral cowards.

4) The most general interpretation: people who do not do what they think is right out of fear are moral cowards.

Personally, I think his wording, context, history, and attitude indicate that his intent was a #3/#4 mix.

I am really not liking this "moral coward" term. I prefer to be encouraged to be valiant in my testimony than to be discouraged from being cowardly.

Is there really a belief that there are members of the church that support same sex marriage because of fear or pressure? From whom? The world? It seems like for church members, whatever fear or pressure exists around same sex marriage comes from the other side.

Solon
10-10-2013, 11:50 AM
Is there really a belief that there are members of the church that support same sex marriage because of fear or pressure? From whom? The world? It seems like for church members, whatever fear or pressure exists around same sex marriage comes from the other side.

I'm sure it varies from place to place.
My brother-in-law lives in (the poor part of) Santa Barbara County in California. When Prop. 8 started revving up, his Stake President stood at the pulpit and told the congregation that, like the LDS Pioneers of the 19th century, the call to action on Prop. 8 was their call to pull handcarts to Utah. The faithful would answer the call and go door-to-door, man phone banks, give money, etc. The unfaithful would be left behind.

USS Utah
10-10-2013, 11:50 AM
My point is that telling us how we are expected to vote skates very close to being a violation of election laws (or at least IRS regs to maintain tax exempt status). And that church was judged to be in violation of election laws in the Prop 8 campaign in California, and was forced to pay fines for numerous counts of not disclosing their direct campaign contributions.

In fact they originally denied contributing money for political ads, until they were shown the smoking gun with their fingerprints all over it. After that was uncovered they fessed up and had to pay the fines.

It seems they believe the TR question "are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?" doesn't necessarily apply to the organization itself.

An initial search is failing to find anything that supports your assertion. Please provide links to sources?

Sisyphus
10-10-2013, 11:56 AM
Again:
“Away with stereotyped Mormons.” - Brigham Young

Moral courage, for me, is finding your way without going into full group-think mode. Oaks criticizes secular "group-think" in his talk if you boil it down to the essence. Yet there's plenty of material he uses that will help perpetuate the LDS "group-think" at the same time.

For me there's always admiration and respect for people willing to go against the grain out of principle. I also have some contempt of moral cowardice when it comes to going with the flow in fear of rocking the boat. The boat can be rocked from both sides. True to your principles AND ALSO willing to challenge one's own beliefs. We have around 90K+ missionaries at any given moment whose SOLE PURPOSE is to ask people to challenge their current beliefs with a distinct alternative, yet if we do the same it's "the road to Apostacy". Hmmm....

USS Utah
10-10-2013, 11:57 AM
My point is that telling us how we are expected to vote skates very close to being a violation of election laws (or at least IRS regs to maintain tax exempt status). And that church was judged to be in violation of election laws in the Prop 8 campaign in California, and was forced to pay fines for numerous counts of not disclosing their direct campaign contributions.

In fact they originally denied contributing money for political ads, until they were shown the smoking gun with their fingerprints all over it. After that was uncovered they fessed up and had to pay the fines.

It seems they believe the TR question "are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?" doesn't necessarily apply to the organization itself.

In fact, claims that that the church was "convicted" of "13 counts of election fraud" are not true.

http://mormonvoices.org/1009/legal-issues-surrounding-the-church-and-proposition-8

LA Ute
10-10-2013, 12:07 PM
Is there really a belief that there are members of the church that support same sex marriage because of fear or pressure? From whom? The world? It seems like for church members, whatever fear or pressure exists around same sex marriage comes from the other side.

The pressure is not to support SSM but to stay quiet about it or voice fake support. I've seen it only in CA during the Prop 8 war. The pressure was strong and unrelenting and it came from opponents of Prop 8. In one highly-publicized effort, it came from members of the church who undertook an organized on-line effort to "out" LDS donors to the yes on 8 campaign. To compare the pressure church members felt with that coming from the No on 8 campaign is really apples and oranges, to say the very least.

OrangeUte
10-10-2013, 12:51 PM
i still don't see in Oaks' talk anywhere that says it is okay to be a Mormon who believes that same sex marriage laws are just.

We are talking in circles trying to prove our points. I think Oaks needs to come out and say CLEARLY what he feels about LDS members who support gay marriage rights politically. His words are obviously vague enough that both sides feel either offended or justified.

wuapinmon
10-10-2013, 01:24 PM
If so, why choose the offensive interpretation? Why not give the benefit of the doubt?

Given the Church's history, is that second one a fair question?

USS Utah
10-10-2013, 01:26 PM
i still don't see in Oaks' talk anywhere that says it is okay to be a Mormon who believes that same sex marriage laws are just.

We are talking in circles trying to prove our points. I think Oaks needs to come out and say CLEARLY what he feels about LDS members who support gay marriage rights politically. His words are obviously vague enough that both sides feel either offended or justified.

Does it really matter? I can't think of any time where you would be asked about it. In the end, it's between you and God.

LA Ute
10-10-2013, 01:49 PM
i still don't see in Oaks' talk anywhere that says it is okay to be a Mormon who believes that same sex marriage laws are just.

We are talking in circles trying to prove our points. I think Oaks needs to come out and say CLEARLY what he feels about LDS members who support gay marriage rights politically. His words are obviously vague enough that both sides feel either offended or justified.

I see what you are saying about the lack of clarity. I don't think it's realistic, though, in this day and age, to expect a clear statement in a GC talk on how people should vote on an issue. I've read the talk 4 times now and I still think he is saying "The church believes in these moral principles and faithful members should defend them even if it's not PC to do so." Exactly how church members do that, and how they reconcile their personal views with church teachings, is up to them as individuals. I don't see any reason to fear church repercussions for their personal views.

Am I making sense?

chrisrenrut
10-10-2013, 02:03 PM
Does it really matter? I can't think of any time where you would be asked about it. In the end, it's between you and God.

I don't mean to pour gas on the fire, but. . .

TR question #7 states: Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

One could interpret that to mean SSM, if they felt that leadership preaches that doing so is against church teachings.

I can see some of the faithful interpreting in their minds that supporting SSM also supports the perceived sin that occurs in those relationships.

USS Utah
10-10-2013, 02:05 PM
868

I am amazed sometimes at how fixated we become to things that just don't matter. Usually with me it's just personal issues, and I often learn later that things were not as I had supposed. I always thought my religion should be between me and God. The organization I belong to exists to support me in that endeavor, and to give me opportunities to serve and bless others.

USS Utah
10-10-2013, 02:09 PM
I don't mean to pour gas on the fire, but. . .

TR question #7 states: Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

One could interpret that to mean SSM, if they felt that leadership preaches that doing so is against church teachings.

I can see some of the faithful interpreting in their minds that supporting SSM also supports the perceived sin that occurs in those relationships.

One could also interpret that to mean the Demoratic Party. But I'm pretty sure LDS Democrats need not be worried.

There was a member of my history group -- uber conservative and an atheist -- who asked me why Harry Reid hadn't been excommunicated yet. I tried to explain to him that it doesn't work that way, the people don't get exed based on political ideology. Tuck SSM in there with abortion and move on to more important things.

USS Utah
10-10-2013, 02:16 PM
SSM doesn't need my support as I believe it is inevitable.

It would be a waste of time to oppose it, because as stated, I believe it's inevitable.

chrisrenrut
10-10-2013, 03:00 PM
SSM doesn't need my support as I believe it is inevitable.

It would be a waste of time to oppose it, because as stated, I believe it's inevitable.

I get where you are coming from, and I think your position is shared by a large number of faithful LDS. But understand, there are also a large number coming from other backgrounds. Backgrounds that make these questions important in their lives.

You have posted some amazing pictures of temples in the past. The temple represents the pinaccle of faithfulness in the church, where the highest level of blessings are obtained. Imagine someone with deep internal conflict on wanting to live up to the highest standards of the gospel in thought and deed, but also wanting a loved one who is homosexual to obtain the most happiness they can in their life. That can be a very hard conflict to reconcile, and it could make that TR question very important to them. Then we get what some see as ambiguous guidance from an apostle on the subject, and it inflames their interal conflict.

When that question comes up, I always have a hint of doubt in my mind. I have homosexual friends and close relativees. I feel the slightest bit of doubt that my wanting them to be happy despite their challenges and choices makes me "agree with the practices of individuals contrary to the teachings of the church". Ultimately, I answer the question "No" for a variety of reasons. But it is not without some thought and introspection.

Jarid in Cedar
10-10-2013, 03:16 PM
I see what you are saying about the lack of clarity. I don't think it's realistic, though, in this day and age, to expect a clear statement in a GC talk on how people should vote on an issue. I've read the talk 4 times now and I still think he is saying "The church believes in these moral principles and faithful members should defend them even if it's not PC to do so." Exactly how church members do that, and how they reconcile their personal views with church teachings, is up to them as individuals. I don't see any reason to fear church repercussions for their personal views.

Am I making sense?

I disagree. It is very easy to say exactly what you mean.

Jarid in Cedar
10-10-2013, 03:18 PM
868

I am amazed sometimes at how fixated we become to things that just don't matter. Usually with me it's just personal issues, and I often learn later that things were not as I had supposed. I always thought my religion should be between me and God. The organization I belong to exists to support me in that endeavor, and to give me opportunities to serve and bless others.


So you would be perfectly fine if you(meaning eternally) belonged to the Unitarian Church as long as it furthered your relationship with God? (FTR, I agree with that, but the LDS church does not.)

LA Ute
10-10-2013, 03:22 PM
I have homosexual friends and close relatives.

I think this is the source of a lot of soul-searching for many members. I'm in the same boat, and am often wondering what a supremely loving God has in store for my gay friends and relatives. I have no specific answer, so I fall back on "it'll all work out fairly and gloriously in the end." Then I reflect on how that's much easier for me to say than it is for them.

LA Ute
10-10-2013, 03:30 PM
I disagree. It is very easy to say exactly what you mean.

That's absolutely true. What I am saying is that the Q12 and FP are not going to tell us how to vote over the pulpit in General Conference. DHO seems to be taking the "teach correct principles and let them govern themselves" route, which is what the church does except in specific cases. Liquor by the drink, parimutuel betting, lotteries. Even then they don't say "vote this way," they say "the church opposes this," and sometimes also "we urge our members to do the same." I don't know of anyone ever being held to account merely for how he/she voted on a public issue, or merely for speaking up on an issue.

I do wish DHO's talk was not written so much like a judicial opinion.

OrangeUte
10-10-2013, 04:27 PM
If so, why choose the offensive interpretation? Why not give the benefit of the doubt?

I didn't say they were vague to me. I said that they were vague enough that both sides feel offended or justified. I still think Oaks called me out as a bad member of the church for supporting same sex marriage rights under the constitution.

OrangeUte
10-10-2013, 04:29 PM
That's absolutely true. What I am saying is that the Q12 and FP are not going to tell us how to vote over the pulpit in General Conference. DHO seems to be taking the "teach correct principles and let them govern themselves" route, which is what the church does except in specific cases. Liquor by the drink, parimutuel betting, lotteries. Even then they don't say "vote this way," they say "the church opposes this," and sometimes also "we urge our members to do the same." I don't know of anyone ever being held to account merely for how he/she voted on a public issue, or merely for speaking up on an issue.

I do wish DHO's talk was not written so much like a judicial opinion.

even if not being held to account is not done by virtue of a church court or worthiness interview (i.e. temple recommend), these comments clearly make a judgment of people based on how they view this issue.

LA Ute
10-10-2013, 04:33 PM
I didn't say they were vague to me. I said that they were vague enough that both sides feel offended or justified. I still think Oaks called me out as a bad member of the church for supporting same sex marriage rights under the constitution.

OU, do you think you could feel comfortable fitting yourself into a position like the abortion position taken by many LDS Democratic office holders? "I am personally opposed to abortion but the law of the land is that women should have a choice, and I support that. I hope their choice will be not to have an abortion." I think that's Harry Reid's position and he is an active member.

Similarly, you could say you are personally opposed to gay marriage but think people should be free to choose how they want to live their lives. If it ever becomes the Constitutional law of the land, you could add in that part of the abortion position. Is that a place you'd feel comfortable?

USS Utah
10-10-2013, 04:42 PM
So you would be perfectly fine if you(meaning eternally) belonged to the Unitarian Church as long as it furthered your relationship with God? (FTR, I agree with that, but the LDS church does not.)

The Unitarians would not be able to support me for several reasons, not least because of the doctrinal differances.

USS Utah
10-10-2013, 04:46 PM
I get where you are coming from, and I think your position is shared by a large number of faithful LDS. But understand, there are also a large number coming from other backgrounds. Backgrounds that make these questions important in their lives.

You have posted some amazing pictures of temples in the past. The temple represents the pinaccle of faithfulness in the church, where the highest level of blessings are obtained. Imagine someone with deep internal conflict on wanting to live up to the highest standards of the gospel in thought and deed, but also wanting a loved one who is homosexual to obtain the most happiness they can in their life. That can be a very hard conflict to reconcile, and it could make that TR question very important to them. Then we get what some see as ambiguous guidance from an apostle on the subject, and it inflames their interal conflict.

When that question comes up, I always have a hint of doubt in my mind. I have homosexual friends and close relativees. I feel the slightest bit of doubt that my wanting them to be happy despite their challenges and choices makes me "agree with the practices of individuals contrary to the teachings of the church". Ultimately, I answer the question "No" for a variety of reasons. But it is not without some thought and introspection.

I do understand this, which was why I was for civil unions. I was more than happy to consent to everything but the word marriage.

Jarid in Cedar
10-10-2013, 05:41 PM
The Unitarians would not be able to support me for several reasons, not least because of the doctrinal differances.

Reread what I said. IF it fulfilled those requirements, would it be ok? What about for those who it does?

USS Utah
10-10-2013, 05:57 PM
Reread what I said. IF it fulfilled those requirements, would it be ok? What about for those who it does?

This seems so obvious that I am actually left wondering just what the heck it is your asking.

LA Ute
10-10-2013, 06:05 PM
A friend of mine posted this on her Facebook page. It's touching.


I have a very dear friend who is openly homosexual and still an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Here are her words, they are beautiful and inspiring...

"For those who saw my post on Mormons Building Bridges yesterday, someone asked me why I stay:

I doubt just as many others do. I have so many reasons to quit. So, why do I stay?I stay because I have received a witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, because I believe in Christ's teachings we are meant to emulate, because I believe a 14-year-old boy's prayer was answered by God and Jesus Christ in the woods of NY. I have witnessed miracles wrought by faith and priesthood power. I stay because of the many good works I see. I stay because this goodness far outweighs the bad. I stay because of those kindred few whom I have told my truth that still love and support me.

I stay because I made a promise to Heavenly Father in the temple to keep covenants that I believe in. I stay amidst the consensus attitude of "one must be adamantly against GAY PERSONS or else one is somehow condoning the ACTS of homosexuality" because there are people who have changed and show compassion, understanding, and unconditional love no matter how a person "acts." Christ commanded us to love, not tolerate. I AM my acts. I stay because I believe in people. I believe in the atonement. I believe hearts and minds can be changed. I believe we can improve.

Lastly, I stay because I had no one like me to look up to when I was growing up--that is the loneliest of realities. I stay to give a face and a name, a testimony and sense of humor to Mormon and gay. I stay because I am equal parts Mormon and equal parts gay, and always will be. I stay for gay youth, who like me, pray every night for God to let them die so they don't have to feel this pain. I stay to make a difference, even if it is little.

I stay."

USS Utah
10-10-2013, 06:29 PM
A friend of mine posted this on her Facebook page. It's touching.

Though there are many that apparently believe it, the notion that we have to be adamantly against gay individuals is flat out wrong. God loves all of his children equally, he is no respecter of persons, and we are supposed to be striving to do the same. We are supposed to pray to be filled with charity, and one aspect of charity is to love the sinner (and we are all sinners) while hating the sin, in other words, to seperate behavior from the individual.

Mormon Red Death
10-10-2013, 06:40 PM
That's absolutely true. What I am saying is that the Q12 and FP are not going to tell us how to vote over the pulpit in General Conference. DHO seems to be taking the "teach correct principles and let them govern themselves" route.

You really believe this? His talk said you were a moral coward if you belived ssm is ok.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

LA Ute
10-10-2013, 06:43 PM
You really believe this? His talk said you were a moral coward if you belived ssm is ok.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

Hey, where have you been? We've been debating here whether that is actually what he said for the last two days. ;)

tooblue
10-10-2013, 06:52 PM
You really believe this? His talk said you were a moral coward if you belived ssm is ok.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

That is not what he said. It is a gross mischaracterization of his talk and a poor mashup of a variety of ideas expressed in his words to suit an agenda.

In kind, let me ask you if that is what he said, are you and several other posters here saying that if I don't support ssm then I am a hateful bigot? Because that is a possible implication of your position on the subject.

USS Utah
10-10-2013, 06:56 PM
I guess I am lucky to have never met one of these people, in or out of church. The only place I ever really see hate is in the comments sections of online articles. I am convinced that the average Mormon (and average person, for that matter) is a much better person than he/she gets credit for here.

Neither have I and I agree.

Mormon Red Death
10-10-2013, 07:10 PM
That is not what he said. It is a gross mischaracterization of his talk and a poor mashup of a variety of ideas expressed in his words to suit an agenda.

In kind, let me ask you if that is what he said, are you and several other posters here saying that if I don't support ssm then I am a hateful bigot? Because that is a possible implication of your position on the subject.

No I afford men the rights to the dictate of their own conscience. If that's what you believe then fine.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

Mormon Red Death
10-10-2013, 07:10 PM
Hey, where have you been? We've been debating here whether that is actually what he said for the last two days. ;)

Working

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

tooblue
10-10-2013, 07:45 PM
No I afford men the rights to the dictate of their own conscience.

As do I. And as does Elder Oaks. His talk doesn't change that.


If that's what you believe then fine.

No, it's not fine. The implication that I am a hateful bigot is as real as the supposed implication that you are a moral coward if you support ssm. That is the other side of this discussion that is not being addressed.

Mormon Red Death
10-10-2013, 08:52 PM
As do I. And as does Elder Oaks. His talk doesn't change that.

No, it's not fine. The implication that I am a hateful bigot is as real as the supposed implication that you are a moral coward if you support ssm. That is the other side of this discussion that is not being addressed.

way to project something no one ever said...

wuapinmon
10-10-2013, 10:01 PM
That is not what he said. It is a gross mischaracterization of his talk and a poor mashup of a variety of ideas expressed in his words to suit an agenda.

In kind, let me ask you if that is what he said, are you and several other posters here saying that if I don't support ssm then I am a hateful bigot? Because that is a possible implication of your position on the subject.

We're having a respectful conversation here, tooblue. Your first paragraph doesn't jibe with the milieu herein.

tooblue
10-10-2013, 10:38 PM
way to project something no one ever said...

That's my point. You have done a similar thing with Elder Oaks talk.

tooblue
10-10-2013, 11:00 PM
We're having a respectful conversation here, tooblue. Your first paragraph doesn't jibe with the milieu herein.

My comment is an honest expression. There is no malice or disrespect intended. My tone is not harsh. My intent it is to be direct. Elder Oaks did not say that a moral coward is someone who supports ssm. You and others feel that is what he implied. You are entitled to that opinion. I do not think you are sinful or evil for espousing it. However, I am entitled to challenge that opinion with a poster I personally know and trust.

Please don't make an issue out of my supposed tone. I have been bullied enough in these forums.

OrangeUte
10-10-2013, 11:17 PM
I have appreciated the dialogue. I remain concerned with Oaks' comments but dissecting them is necessary.

I have found myself lately not enjoying Oaks as much as I used to. I met him briefly when he came to organize our stake presidency a few years ago. He was very friendly and shook hands with nearly everyone in our stake. He was humble and humorous. After one of the newly called counselors in the stake presidency gushed over him, Oaks rebuked his gushing kindly by commenting that he was just a man and no celebrity. I respect that.

However, his comments this go around and several years ago regarding diversity do not jive with me in a lot of ways. Good people disagree with me on many many things. That is fine. I don't let other people dictate what I believe or how I think. Oaks comments won't keep me in or out of the church. They will, however, reveal the mentality leading the church just as Dieter U's do, and so on and so forth. When I see something that seems inconsistent or worrisome, I don't have any problem questioning it. I'm glad many people here don't either. The discussion stemming from the questioning is awesome.

OrangeUte
10-11-2013, 06:32 AM
OU, do you think you could feel comfortable fitting yourself into a position like the abortion position taken by many LDS Democratic office holders? "I am personally opposed to abortion but the law of the land is that women should have a choice, and I support that. I hope their choice will be not to have an abortion." I think that's Harry Reid's position and he is an active member.

Similarly, you could say you are personally opposed to gay marriage but think people should be free to choose how they want to live their lives. If it ever becomes the Constitutional law of the land, you could add in that part of the abortion position. Is that a place you'd feel comfortable?

No. I'm comfortable where I am on same sex marriage and homosexuality. But I don't think the church is. That's why there is a shift taking place. All of this talk of immutability of God's laws sounds too familiar for me to really believe that one day homosexuals won't be more accepted in lds ranks of activity. I don't expect temple marriages but I do believe there will be a softening on the stance that "gay" is absolutely a choice and therefore a sin and that "we should love the sinner and hate the sin" will dissipate somewhat. I do believe that many many gay people are born attracted to the same sex. I have known far too many and seen their journeys to believe that they are just choosing to sin.

wuapinmon
10-11-2013, 07:48 AM
I do believe that many many gay people are born attracted to the same sex. I have known far too many and seen their journeys to believe that they are just choosing to sin.

I have had a similar experience. Also, I don't remember choosing to be straight; I was born attracted to big boobs.

OrangeUte
10-11-2013, 07:54 AM
I agree with your intent here, but the "born this way" phrase always bothers me. There is no way that something as complicated at sexuality is 100% genetic. I am much more comfortable saying that people do not make a choice to be gay (most people, anyway). But surely a combination of genetics and life experiences lead to our attractions. We're not talking about eye color here.

That may seem like semantics, but it is a helpful difference for me for two reasons: (1) it's true, and (2) it makes it easy for me to know and love gay people while still believing that homosexual behavior is ultimately harmful.

What is harmful about homosexual behavior in a loving marriage/committed relationship?

Solon
10-11-2013, 09:31 AM
As do I. And as does Elder Oaks. His talk doesn't change that.



No, it's not fine. The implication that I am a hateful bigot is as real as the supposed implication that you are a moral coward if you support ssm. That is the other side of this discussion that is not being addressed.

LOL at the thought of tooblue being hateful. He's not mean enough.

Talented? Yes.
Crazy? Sometimes.
Hateful? No.

LA Ute
10-11-2013, 09:39 AM
Talented? Yes.
Crazy? Sometimes.
Hateful? No.

Hmmm. Doesn't that describe half the membership of this board? 870

wally
10-11-2013, 10:26 AM
I was born attracted to big boobs.

LOL! this is true of all persons be they male or female, gay or straight, it is universal of all infants!

wuapinmon
10-11-2013, 11:12 AM
LOL! this is true of all persons be they male or female, gay or straight, it is universal of all infants!

Some of us keep the attraction all the days of our lives. I can't recall anything beyond, "damn! Susan Granger's hands sure are soft" in 6th grade.

Scratch
10-11-2013, 11:16 AM
Some of us keep the attraction all the days of our lives. I can't recall anything beyond, "damn! Susan Granger's hands sure are soft" in 6th grade.

Careful, you don't want to hear what Dallin H. Oaks thinks about hand fetishes.

wuapinmon
10-11-2013, 12:28 PM
Careful, you don't want to hear what Dallin H. Oaks thinks about hand fetishes.

"Unclean hands, impure heart"

OrangeUte
10-11-2013, 02:54 PM
What is harmful about homosexual behavior in a loving marriage/committed relationship?

Fair enough! GO UTES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OrangeUte
10-11-2013, 02:55 PM
Careful, you don't want to hear what Dallin H. Oaks thinks about hand fetishes.

HAHAHA! This has me actually laughing outloud in my office.

Freaky Girl
10-14-2013, 12:27 AM
The Unitarians would not be able to support me for several reasons, not least because of the doctrinal differances.

No need to worry about rejection from the Unitarians. We have no doctrines, only seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:

- The inherent dignity and worth of every person.
- Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations.
- Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregation.
- A free and responsible search for truth and meaning.
- The right of conscience and the use of democratic process within our congregation and in society at large.
- The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all.
- Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

USS Utah
10-14-2013, 12:12 PM
I don't expect temple marriages but I do believe there will be a softening on the stance that "gay" is absolutely a choice and therefore a sin and that "we should love the sinner and hate the sin" will dissipate somewhat.

I think we're already there. The LDS Church said last spring that being gay was not a choice. Having sex outside of marriage, be it gay or not, will remain a sin. As far as I know, you can be a gay member in good standing as long as you are celibate.

wuapinmon
10-14-2013, 06:13 PM
I think we're already there. The LDS Church said last spring that being gay was not a choice. Having sex outside of marriage, be it gay or not, will remain a sin. As far as I know, you can be a gay member in good standing as long as you are celibate.

This is merely a transitory state. If you claim sex can only be enjoyed inside of marriage, and then deny marriage to two people because of their orientation, you've changed precious little. It's the same product no matter how you cross it.

Freaky Girl
10-14-2013, 06:25 PM
I think we're already there. The LDS Church said last spring that being gay was not a choice. Having sex outside of marriage, be it gay or not, will remain a sin. As far as I know, you can be a gay member in good standing as long as you are celibate.


Here is a blog written about an Elder from my mission. He is active LDS, EQ teacher, and "out" as a gay man at work, with his family, and at church. He story is certainly not the story of every gay LDS man, but has strengthened his faith in his church.

http://theabhaus.blogspot.com/2013/10/christians-story.html?m=1

LA Ute
10-14-2013, 07:06 PM
Here is a blog written about an Elder from my mission. He is active LDS, EQ teacher, and "out" as a gay man at work, with his family, and at church. He story is certainly not the story of every gay LDS man, but has strengthened his faith in his church.

http://theabhaus.blogspot.com/2013/10/christians-story.html?m=1

"I don't know what we should do; what do you think we should do?" Awesome. Heart-breaking too.

USS Utah
10-15-2013, 09:26 AM
"We accept the Savior's invitation when we ponder and pray on the message of every [General Conference] talk." -- Thomas S. Monson

USS Utah
11-22-2013, 12:44 PM
I have been reading through the conference issue of the Ensign this week. The ability to read the talks a few weeks after conference is an excellent opportunity. Some speakers present a challenge to some because of their speaking style, or their age. Someone here mentioned the talk by Elder Hales as being particularly difficult -- boring. When I read the talk, however, I thought the content was brilliant -- a user's guide to general conference.

Unfortunately, some talks seem to lose something in written form. I thought Elder Oaks talk was an example of that. His talk was controversial when given, but when I read it last night and found it to be like a legal document.

Also, unless the speaker says "close quote" at the end of a quote, it is hard for the listener to know when the quote ends. Some might not even realize the speaker was quoting someone. For example, the passage in Oaks talk referring to courage and moral cowardice was in fact a quote from a talk given by President Monson in 1986.

"Let us have the courage to defy the consensus, the courage to stand for principle. Courage, not compromise, brings the smile of God’s approval. Courage becomes a living and an attractive virtue when it is regarded not only as a willingness to die manfully, but as the determination to live decently. A moral coward is one who is afraid to do what he thinks is right because others will disapprove or laugh. Remember that all men have their fears, but those who face their fears with dignity have courage as well."

Link:

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/10/courage-counts

When I read that last night I seemed to recall that passage being discussed here. I looked for the quote here today, but didn't find it.

OrangeUte
11-23-2013, 08:07 AM
There is plenty of controversial and combative stuff in Oaks' talk.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng

"Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them. And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has identified as unchangeable.

"Our twelfth article of faith states our belief in being subject to civil authority and 'in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.' But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called 'same-sex marriage' do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.

"In this determination we may be misunderstood, and we may incur accusations of bigotry, suffer discrimination, or have to withstand invasions of our free exercise of religion. If so, I think we should remember our first priority—to serve God—and, like our pioneer predecessors, push our personal handcarts forward with the same fortitude they exhibited.

"A teaching of President Thomas S. Monson applies to this circumstance. At this conference 27 years ago, he boldly declared: 'Let us have the courage to defy the consensus, the courage to stand for principle. Courage, not compromise, brings the smile of God’s approval. Courage becomes a living and an attractive virtue when it is regarded not only as a willingness to die manfully, but as the determination to live decently. A moral coward is one who is afraid to do what he thinks is right because others will disapprove or laugh. Remember that all men have their fears, but those who face their fears with dignity have courage as well.'

"I pray that we will not let the temporary challenges of mortality cause us to forget the great commandments and priorities we have been given by our Creator and our Savior. We must not set our hearts so much on the things of the world and aspire to the honors of men (see D&C 121:35) that we stop trying to achieve our eternal destiny. We who know God’s plan for His children—we who have made covenants to participate in it—have a clear responsibility. We must never deviate from our paramount desire, which is to achieve eternal life. We must never dilute our first priority—to have no other gods and to serve no other priorities ahead of God the Father and His Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ."

NorthwestUteFan
11-24-2013, 11:16 AM
The fact remains that Oaks is very explicitly calling me a moral coward for taking a stance other than the position he defines by supporting gay marriage. I am a moral coward for taking a position that decreases the total amount of human suffering. I am a moral coward when I reject the insular group-think and take the kinder, more loving approach. The concept of Jesus in modern western society would tend more toward love, in my estimation.

I agree with Seattle Ute who elsewhere said that this talk was a huge step backward for those of us who would like to see a more 'liberal'* Mormon church.

This is a very direct assault on the ethical beliefs of what must be a consequential percentage of church members.

*as in, the kind which fully accepts those of us who don't fully believe all the church's claims and may have different political views, but stick around because of family or cultural reasons. Not as in the Sean Hannity' s favor epithet.

Solon
12-02-2013, 09:55 AM
The fact remains that Oaks is very explicitly calling me a moral coward for taking a stance other than the position he defines by supporting gay marriage. I am a moral coward for taking a position that decreases the total amount of human suffering. I am a moral coward when I reject the insular group-think and take the kinder, more loving approach. The concept of Jesus in modern western society would tend more toward love, in my estimation.

I agree with Seattle Ute who elsewhere said that this talk was a huge step backward for those of us who would like to see a more 'liberal'* Mormon church.

This is a very direct assault on the ethical beliefs of what must be a consequential percentage of church members.

*as in, the kind which fully accepts those of us who don't fully believe all the church's claims and may have different political views, but stick around because of family or cultural reasons. Not as in the Sean Hannity' s favor epithet.

This religious-freedom tack has been an interesting one to watch, as LDS voices have tried to re-frame themselves as persecuted instead of persecutors (I'm thinking specifically of the gay-marriage debates).

I am just as eager as anyone to preserve religious freedom in this country. However, I find most of the examples of infringement on religious freedom to be unconvincing:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/religious-freedom
http://www.ldsmag.com/1-ac-1/article/10921
http://www.religiousfreedom.org/about_us/
http://blogs.uvu.edu/newsroom/2013/03/26/center-for-constitutional-studies-spring-conference-on-religious-freedom-to-feature-former-bush-cabinet-member-gov-mike-leavitt-and-author-noah-feldman/

Having visited places in the world where there really is a lack of religious freedom (with occasional deadly consequences), I am perhaps not as sympathetic as I should be to the plight of (what appears to me to be barely more than) American religionists catching some negative publicity for their religious views. But I'm open to correction.

I realize that many of the arguments go back (erroneously, IMO) to the views of the Framers of the US Constitution. Thse Founding Fathers arguments are tough for me to swallow, since the Framers of the Constitution never envisioned anything like Medicare, Income Tax, or Women's Suffrage. Notions of "Freedom" change over time. This has generally been a good thing in this country.

Maybe some of the lawyers on the board can inform & convince me why religious freedom in the USA is "imperiled" (http://ldsmag.com/1/article/10921/1/page-1).

UtahDan
12-02-2013, 01:55 PM
I wish I could find it now, but in the last few days I read an interesting piece by an Amish fellow addressing this issue. He used the famous example of Amish conscientious objectors, pointing out that there were consequences to claiming that status. That the religious freedom lay in having the ability to opt out, but that many of those who did were given alternate assignments which they were required to perform, often involving hard labor. But it would be crazy, he argued, for a person to claim conscientious objector status and then show up and demand the rank, status and pay check that go along with military service. You have the freedom to opt out, but you don't ALSO get the goodies.

tooblue
12-02-2013, 02:11 PM
This religious-freedom tack has been an interesting one to watch, as LDS voices have tried to re-frame themselves as persecuted instead of persecutors (I'm thinking specifically of the gay-marriage debates).

I am just as eager as anyone to preserve religious freedom in this country. However, I find most of the examples of infringement on religious freedom to be unconvincing:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/religious-freedom
http://www.ldsmag.com/1-ac-1/article/10921
http://www.religiousfreedom.org/about_us/
http://blogs.uvu.edu/newsroom/2013/03/26/center-for-constitutional-studies-spring-conference-on-religious-freedom-to-feature-former-bush-cabinet-member-gov-mike-leavitt-and-author-noah-feldman/

Having visited places in the world where there really is a lack of religious freedom (with occasional deadly consequences), I am perhaps not as sympathetic as I should be to the plight of (what appears to me to be barely more than) American religionists catching some negative publicity for their religious views. But I'm open to correction.

I realize that many of the arguments go back (erroneously, IMO) to the views of the Framers of the US Constitution. Thse Founding Fathers arguments are tough for me to swallow, since the Framers of the Constitution never envisioned anything like Medicare, Income Tax, or Women's Suffrage. Notions of "Freedom" change over time. This has generally been a good thing in this country.

Maybe some of the lawyers on the board can inform & convince me why religious freedom in the USA is "imperiled" (http://ldsmag.com/1/article/10921/1/page-1).


I would say you already have your answer, and I don't see a point in continuing to ask the question. The bolded portion of your comments above is evidence enough to suggest that religious freedom of expression is imperilled. On this Web site in another forum I once attempted to provide a sincere and more nuanced response from the perspective of a Latter Day Saint who lives in a country as prosperous economically and socially as the United States, but where these discussions have already been had and legislation has already been enacted. I was summarily told I was "this" or "that" in a derogative tone, which effectively ended the discussion. My views, thoughts or feelings on the matter—regardless of message board personas or dynamics—are considered unhelpful and even unduly dangerous. Effectually, I no longer have a voice on the subject. And if I do raise a voice, my words are instantaneously labeled hurtful, harmful and hateful, regardless of my willingness to want to be understood and to want to understand.

My response is not hyperbole. It is an honest reflection on the reality I live. For all the talk of taking steps forward or back there is so little consideration for where one stands at the moment. A lack of empathy, of any kind directed towards any point of view should raise more alarms that it does. It's just too easy to quibble about hypotheticals.

Solon
12-02-2013, 05:50 PM
I wish I could find it now, but in the last few days I read an interesting piece by an Amish fellow addressing this issue. He used the famous example of Amish conscientious objectors, pointing out that there were consequences to claiming that status. That the religious freedom lay in having the ability to opt out, but that many of those who did were given alternate assignments which they were required to perform, often involving hard labor. But it would be crazy, he argued, for a person to claim conscientious objector status and then show up and demand the rank, status and pay check that go along with military service. You have the freedom to opt out, but you don't ALSO get the goodies.

Interesting.
When I lived in PA, there were enough LDS kids in the local high school play to get the practices moved from Sunday afternoons to Saturday afternoons. They were very adamant about their right not to have to practice on their Sabbath. Too bad for the Jewish kids in the play, I guess. (yes, there were Jewish kids in the play)