Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 260

Thread: 9 AM Press Conference

  1. #181
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    46,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jay santos View Post
    I saw this today. Interesting. I think it's highly likely that the presidency change is being viewed in a related way by the people that are closest to it. (I originally wrote similar way and changed it to related. I don't have a guess at how similar it is viewed--and the Hugh B Brown change was viewed even more dramatically I believe. But I feel very strongly it's not nothing.)

    Two accounts of the reassignment of J. Reuben Clark from 1st to 2nd counselor:

    (Spencer W. Kimball: Resolute Disciple, Prophet of God by Francis M. Gibbons)
    ---
    The most significant change in the general leadership occurred on April 4, 1951, when President George Albert Smith passed away. ... a special council meeting was held to consider the reorganization of the First Presidency. All agreed there should be no delay. After the Brethren counseled together, David O. McKay was approved and ordained as the ninth President of the Church. Unexpectedly, he nominated Stephen L Richards as his first counselor and J. Reuben Clark as the second. Elder Kimball seemed to express the feelings of the other members of the council about this action and the response of President Clark, who had been the first counselor in the First Presidency for almost twenty years. "I was shocked. What fortitude and self-control, what self-mastery. How could any mortal take a blow like that and stand?"

    --

    (Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power by D. Michael Quinn)
    --

    In April 1951 McKay began his presidency by demoting J. Reuben Clark from first to second counselor. "How could any mortal take a blow like that and stand?" wrote Apostle Spencer W. Kimball of Clark. "But he did." Before the public announcement some apostles worried that "it will kill Brother Clark," and that "the people will not be reconciled" to Clark's demotion. McKay publicly denied that the change was a demotion or that there was "any rift" between them. However, church leaders and bureaucrats knew that Clark had been demoted because of the disagreements they had experienced for years as First Presidency counselors. It was not long before this tension became public knowledge. Nationally-syndicated newspaper columnist Drew Pearson interviewed prominent Utahns and published this assessment: "Today, at the age of 80, Clark is the most reactionary apostle in the Mormon church-so reactionary that when McKay became president he promptly demoted Clark from his place as No. 1 counselor." Years later McKay responded to a complaint about Clark's negativism with the comment: "How do you think I have gotten along with him? If I ever had any inspiration it was when I selected Stephen L Richards as my first counselor, against all precedent." For sixteen years McKay had been subordinate to then first counselor Clark, but "their roles of domination and subordination had been reversed." Now McKay was in charge.
    So was McKay right or wrong to demote Clark?

    Jay, let's suppose for the sake of argument that your conspiracy theory is true. I.e., this was not a move to promote Oaks, but rather a move to demote DFU. Do we have any hard evidence (or even soft evidence!) that there is some kind of idealogical/theological rift in the Q12 regarding DFU? Yes, he gives beautiful, inspiring talks, but is there any evidence that he was a force driving or resisting policy change in certain areas?
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  2. #182
    Board eye candy beefytee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Lehi
    Posts
    4,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Monstah View Post
    I still can't believe President Nelson is 94. Although it's been discussed that 94 is still 94, he seems to be in as good of shape as any of the more senior apostles (above Uchtdorf).
    Not that there is much difference, but... I don't believe he is 94 either. I believe he is 93 (DOB:September 9, 1924).
    Obviously your point still stands.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    I just saw that first few minutes and noticed that. It looked...really weird. I also immediately thought of my dad who had dementia. But then he talked and he seemed OK.

    If the face is 'rehearsed', I'm not sure what he's going for, because it doesn't look good.
    Quote Originally Posted by falafel View Post
    I just pulled up the press conference to see President Eyring's look. I laughed out loud. I love President Eyring, despite his inability to get through one talk with a dry eye. I don't think the look was rehearsed, but just the effect of aging and perhaps an unawareness of what he looks like.
    The thing I noticed was how still he sat. He didn't move at all.

    The lighting in there might have been bothering him. I'm guessing they had some pretty bright lights on them for the broadcast.

  3. #183
    Board eye candy beefytee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Lehi
    Posts
    4,537

    Default

    One other thought on the choosing of Elder Oaks. I think that it is very plausible that Pres. Nelson wishes he would have gotten some experience in the First Presidency before becoming President and he is affording Pres. Oaks the opportunity that he never had.

  4. #184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    So was McKay right or wrong to demote Clark?

    Jay, let's suppose for the sake of argument that your conspiracy theory is true. I.e., this was not a move to promote Oaks, but rather a move to demote DFU. Do we have any hard evidence (or even soft evidence!) that there is some kind of idealogical/theological rift in the Q12 regarding DFU? Yes, he gives beautiful, inspiring talks, but is there any evidence that he was a force driving or resisting policy change in certain areas?
    1. It's not a matter of right or wrong in McKay demoting Clark. That's the wrong way to frame it. The issue at hand is whether or not these changes have any significance or not.
    2. Please don't call it a conspiracy. It's not a conspiracy.
    3. I think if I spent a lot of time researching this, I could make decent case. But for now, can we just use this logic. a. it's unreasonable to think they don't disagree on things, right? so there is some variation b. I think if you took vote across people who pay attention and asked who was the most hardliner-conservative Oaks would be in your top two or three of results. If you took vote on the most liberal-progressive-softy, Uchtdorf would likely be #1. Do you disagree? There must be a reason those perceptions are out there. Further, it's circular, but going into this there were many critics saying something like "I bet he drops Uchtdorf and puts in a hardliner like Oaks or Bednar." That's something, right?

    Let me be clear. I am not trying to paint Uchtdorf as a Progressive and Oaks as a hardliner. I'm not suggesting there is anything but maybe slight disagreements on various stances. But I am strongly advancing the opinion that differences in viewpoints are likely the reasoning behind the change.

  5. #185
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    46,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jay santos View Post
    1. It's not a matter of right or wrong in McKay demoting Clark. That's the wrong way to frame it. The issue at hand is whether or not these changes have any significance or not.
    2. Please don't call it a conspiracy. It's not a conspiracy.
    3. I think if I spent a lot of time researching this, I could make decent case. But for now, can we just use this logic. a. it's unreasonable to think they don't disagree on things, right? so there is some variation b. I think if you took vote across people who pay attention and asked who was the most hardliner-conservative Oaks would be in your top two or three of results. If you took vote on the most liberal-progressive-softy, Uchtdorf would likely be #1. Do you disagree? There must be a reason those perceptions are out there. Further, it's circular, but going into this there were many critics saying something like "I bet he drops Uchtdorf and puts in a hardliner like Oaks or Bednar." That's something, right?
    That sounds about right. Just a general perception and that's it.

    Quote Originally Posted by jay santos View Post
    Let me be clear. I am not trying to paint Uchtdorf as a Progressive and Oaks as a hardliner. I'm not suggesting there is anything but maybe slight disagreements on various stances. But I am strongly advancing the opinion that differences in viewpoints are likely the reasoning behind the change.
    Seems like a correlation = causation argument to me.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  6. #186
    Local Character clackamascoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Frog Pond Grange
    Posts
    6,228

    Default

    Oaks/Uchtdorf... Oaks/Uchtdorf... Why isn't any talking about Nelson? He's the senior behind the wheel driving 55 mph in the fast lane.

    When poet puts pen to paper imagination breathes life, finding hearth and home.
    -Mid Summer's Night Dream


  7. #187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    That sounds about right. Just a general perception and that's it.



    Seems like a correlation = causation argument to me.
    So the point of disagreement is in whether Uchtdorf is materially different than Oaks in terms of being more Progressive, more liberal, less hardliners, etc? Or at least perceived that way by Nelson when making his decision? If you really believe that, OK. I don't have a lot of data to make the case. But I'm honestly shocked if someone that's paying attention to this like you feels this way.

  8. #188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    So was McKay right or wrong to demote Clark?

    Jay, let's suppose for the sake of argument that your conspiracy theory is true. I.e., this was not a move to promote Oaks, but rather a move to demote DFU. Do we have any hard evidence (or even soft evidence!) that there is some kind of idealogical/theological rift in the Q12 regarding DFU? Yes, he gives beautiful, inspiring talks, but is there any evidence that he was a force driving or resisting policy change in certain areas?
    I agree there is no evidence of this whatsoever. I don't think this was a move to demote DFU in anyway. I don't think it was necessarily a move to even promote Oaks. I think it was likely Nelson choosing as his first counselor the person that he most aligns with, has the most experience working with, who he is most comfortable with, etc. That is why this should scare the hell out of anyone who actually wants the church to make progress, not because it silences DFU. I'd guess he is still prominent at GC and maybe even gets a few extra speaking assignments. He is good PR.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

    He who drinks beer sleeps well. He who sleeps well cannot sin. He who does not sin goes to heaven. The logic is impeccable.
    --Charles W. Bamforth, Ph.D.

  9. #189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mpfunk View Post
    I agree there is no evidence of this whatsoever. I don't think this was a move to demote DFU in anyway. I don't think it was necessarily a move to even promote Oaks. I think it was likely Nelson choosing as his first counselor the person that he most aligns with, has the most experience working with, who he is most comfortable with, etc. That is why this should scare the hell out of anyone who actually wants the church to make progress, not because it silences DFU. I'd guess he is still prominent at GC and maybe even gets a few extra speaking assignments. He is good PR.
    I think the church will move how it moves regardless of which one is in the first presidency. It really shouldn't be scary to anyone. The church moves slow and will continue to move slow whether it be the Silver Fox or That 70's Oaks (I think he looks like the dad) that sits on the shoulder or the President.
    Dyslexics are teople poo...

  10. #190
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    46,211

    Default

    Interesting BCC essay by someone upset about the new first presidency.

    https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/01/...rdest-calling/

    Yet argues that one should can and should sustain without necessarily agreeing with a leader.

    By treating each other as siblings-in-Christ—literally “brother” and “sister”—we feed the Body of Christ by turning us toward rather than away from each other, even when—especially when!—we are aggrieved.

    Which brings me to sustaining votes, which seem to conflate consent and sustaining. Is it possible to not consent and still sustain? The answer must be “yes”. I may believe a person unworthy of a calling or ill-suited to a task, but withholding my love—making it conditional—is an abrogation of my duty as a sibling-in-Christ and a child of God. Moreover, while my concerns about any one individual may be well-founded and soundly reasoned, I’m not a heart surgeon; I can’t withhold my love with any sort of precision. In the Body of Christ, we are all connected, so when we don’t sustain one person, we necessarily deny those connected to that person some of the vitality of our sustaining love.

    So I choose to sustain.

    Sometimes—the best times—I sustain because of my abiding love for the individual I sustain. And sometimes—the lean times, the times when years of aching have brought me low—I sustain because of my abiding love for those caught up with me in the Body of Christ.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  11. #191
    CS Institutional Memory Jarid in Cedar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Up on western high
    Posts
    12,891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    Interesting BCC essay by someone upset about the new first presidency.

    https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/01/...rdest-calling/

    Yet argues that one should can and should sustain without necessarily agreeing with a leader.
    I don't necessarily agree with his rationale, but I whole heartedly agree with his statement.

    The ability to disagree and maintain a sense of perspective on the big picture is ultimately what pulled me through to the other side.
    "The first thing I learned upon becoming a head coach after fifteen years as an assistant was the enormous difference between making a suggestion and making a decision."

    "They talk about the economy this year. Hey, my hairline is in recession, my waistline is in inflation. Altogether, I'm in a depression."

    "I like to bike. I could beat Lance Armstrong, only because he couldn't pass me if he was behind me."

    -Rick Majerus

  12. #192
    Major disappointment The_Tick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    5,413

    Default

    I agree with the sentiment...but they are confused as to what a sustaining really is.

    A sustaining isn't a vote of approval. Sustaining someone means that you will do what you need to do to help them succeed in the calling they have been given.

    So whether you sustain or you don't....all it shows is how much you care about them being the best "(insert calling here)" that they can be.

  13. #193
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    46,211

    Default

    Yeah, sustaining can mean a lot of different things I guess. Just thought it was an interesting perspective.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  14. #194
    Major disappointment The_Tick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    5,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    Yeah, sustaining can mean a lot of different things I guess. Just thought it was an interesting perspective.
    I agree 100%. I've had Bishops before that I just didn't care for how they managed or operated the ward. But I still sustained them in the calling. Doesn't mean they didn't do great things...just not my style.

  15. #195
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    46,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarid in Cedar View Post
    I don't necessarily agree with his rationale, but I whole heartedly agree with his statement.

    The ability to disagree and maintain a sense of perspective on the big picture is ultimately what pulled me through to the other side.
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Tick View Post
    I agree with the sentiment...but they are confused as to what a sustaining really is.

    A sustaining isn't a vote of approval. Sustaining someone means that you will do what you need to do to help them succeed in the calling they have been given.

    So whether you sustain or you don't....all it shows is how much you care about them being the best "(insert calling here)" that they can be.
    OK, here is my takeaway from this. As we have discussed a few times, I think there is great value in associating with a group of fellow believers at church, even (or perhaps especially) if some of those folks are people you may not normally like or choose to associate with. Getting out of our comfort zone and learning to love people in spite of differences is good for us and can transform us. It seems to me that sustaining a leader with whom we may disagree on some issues and whose style we may not prefer, is basically the same thing. Learning to love and respect and support a church leader in such cases is what we should be doing as disciples of Christ. Yes of course I would have preferred to see DFU stay in the FP, but I don't expect my leaders to be perfect or a mirror of my likes and dislikes any more than I expect that from my fellow saints.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  16. #196
    CS Institutional Memory Jarid in Cedar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Up on western high
    Posts
    12,891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    OK, here is my takeaway from this. As we have discussed a few times, I think there is great value in associating with a group of fellow believers at church, even (or perhaps especially) if some of those folks are people you may not normally like or choose to associate with. Getting out of our comfort zone and learning to love people in spite of differences is good for us and can transform us. It seems to me that sustaining a leader with whom we may disagree on some issues and whose style we may not prefer, is basically the same thing. Learning to love and respect and support a church leader in such cases is what we should be doing as disciples of Christ. Yes of course I would have preferred to see DFU stay in the FP, but I don't expect my leaders to be perfect or a mirror of my likes and dislikes any more than I expect that from my fellow saints.
    Agreed. And ftr, I didn't intend to appear that I have issue with the choices for the first presidency. I personally don't think it really matters who is there. The intent of the priesthood structure is for the 15 to operate as a unit.
    "The first thing I learned upon becoming a head coach after fifteen years as an assistant was the enormous difference between making a suggestion and making a decision."

    "They talk about the economy this year. Hey, my hairline is in recession, my waistline is in inflation. Altogether, I'm in a depression."

    "I like to bike. I could beat Lance Armstrong, only because he couldn't pass me if he was behind me."

    -Rick Majerus

  17. #197

    Default

    Dieter Uchtdorf is ultra-conservative.

    Oaks and Nelson are reactionary.

  18. #198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ByronMarchant View Post
    Dieter Uchtdorf is ultra-conservative.

    Oaks and Nelson are reactionary.
    Hey buddy! Good to see you around. Hope all is well.

  19. #199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ByronMarchant View Post
    Dieter Uchtdorf is ultra-conservative.

    Oaks and Nelson are ultra-reactionary.
    Fixed it for you.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

    He who drinks beer sleeps well. He who sleeps well cannot sin. He who does not sin goes to heaven. The logic is impeccable.
    --Charles W. Bamforth, Ph.D.

  20. #200
    Senior Member UVACoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    1,588

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    Um, no. I didn't say that. And I started off by saying I don't suspect anything nefarious. I am suggesting that when a counselor is called, you can't discount shared personality and philosophical considerations. If Oaks and Eyring are closer to Nelson on the LGBT (and other) issues, that might have impacted Nelson leaving Erying in as opposed to keeping Uchtforf.

    It doesn't take a 'conspiracy' to explain at least some of the choices church presidents make. Hell, if it's anything like what we see in the church in general, it isn't hard to fathom that church presidents are also moved by personal preferences.
    Does Uchtdorf have unorthodox views on the LGBT issue? I don’t get this.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  21. #201
    Senior Member UVACoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    1,588

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    Personally, my position is that it's likely the LGBT issue played a part in the decision. Nelson believes the November policy was revelation. And Oaks cannot help stop talking about the gays. I think it's clear they are on one side of the spectrum. And it's probably safe to guess that their side will be the church's side for a while. I don't know where on the spectrum Uchtdorf resides. But again, if we are playing the guessing game, I would think he's further left than those guys.

    Who cares is a good question. All of us on this board have at least some interest playing the guessing game where the church will be in the future. If there is agreement in principle (certainly not in extent) that personal preference plays some role in calling counselors, then we have another data point to argue about the future of the church.
    I’m sincerely curious to know what you think the views on the LGBT “issue” of those that are on the other side of the spectrum from President Nelson and Oaks might be. I wasn’t aware there was a spectrum.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  22. #202
    Senior Member UVACoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    1,588

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mpfunk View Post
    We can argue all we want about the demotion of DFU being a sign or not. I personally doubt that it was any sign.

    What is unfortunate though is that the most hateful, divisive, and hardline individual in the Quorum of the 12 is now 1st counselor. Oaks talk from the last conference was incredibly divisive. He has consistently been hostile towards both LGBTQ and women.

    The fact that Nelson was willing to put that person as his first counselor isn't a great indicator that the already snails pace of progress in the church will continue. It may halt all together and it may even regress at this point.
    As someone that has some personal knowledge of President Oaks, this is the biggest load of horse shit I’ve read in quite some time.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  23. #203
    Senior Member Katy Lied's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Center of the Salt Lake Valley
    Posts
    8,434

    Default

    The hardliner was vetoed by the Lord in 2015.

  24. #204
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    46,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UVACoug View Post
    As someone that has some personal knowledge of President Oaks, this is the biggest load of horse shit I’ve read in quite some time.
    You should visit our fair board more often. We get big loads like this all the time from funk!

    (seriously, you should post more)
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  25. #205
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    46,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katy Lied View Post
    The hardliner was vetoed by the Lord in 2015.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  26. #206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UVACoug View Post
    Does Uchtdorf have unorthodox views on the LGBT issue? I don’t get this.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    I honestly have no idea. It's more likely than not that he agrees with the November policy and the official LDS stance on LGBT issues. But there's quite a few members who sincerely want him to be more
    progressive than Nelson or Oaks. He continually gives inspiring talks that don't focus on the church governance, and so they hope his talks reflect a progressive mentality.

    Quote Originally Posted by UVACoug View Post
    I’m sincerely curious to know what you think the views on the LGBT “issue” of those that are on the other side of the spectrum from President Nelson and Oaks might be. I wasn’t aware there was a spectrum.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Again, we are all conjecturing about who and where in the spectrum church leadership lies. And I have no knowledge about anyone's belief. I'm just contributing to the CS parlor game of where the leadership resides on the LGBT spectrum. Who knows, maybe Bednar is a closet liberal!

    If there is a difference of opinion in leadership, we shouldn't be surprised. It's pretty clear there were significant differences of opinion in the church's last struggle with social justice, blacks and the priesthood.

  27. #207
    Senior Member UVACoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    1,588

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    You should visit our fair board more often. We get big loads like this all the time from funk!

    (seriously, you should post more)
    Thanks. I'll try to visit and post more (and not just to get baited into responding to funk).

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    I honestly have no idea. It's more likely than not that he agrees with the November policy and the official LDS stance on LGBT issues. But there's quite a few members who sincerely want him to be more
    progressive than Nelson or Oaks. He continually gives inspiring talks that don't focus on the church governance, and so they hope his talks reflect a progressive mentality.



    Again, we are all conjecturing about who and where in the spectrum church leadership lies. And I have no knowledge about anyone's belief. I'm just contributing to the CS parlor game of where the leadership resides on the LGBT spectrum. Who knows, maybe Bednar is a closet liberal!

    If there is a difference of opinion in leadership, we shouldn't be surprised. It's pretty clear there were significant differences of opinion in the church's last struggle with social justice, blacks and the priesthood.
    Thanks for your response. If it wasn't obvious, I don't think there is much of a divide amongst current Church leadership on the LGBT "issue." I'm sure there are a difference of opinions on a wide variety of topics, including the best way to talk about the LGBT "issue." I would be shocked if there was any disagreement on the underlying doctrine though. And to be honest, if you go back and look at some of the prior stuff Oaks has said on the subject, it would have been considered pretty "progressive" at the time as well. Oaks is far from the boogeyman that prog-mos have recently tried to paint him to be. But someone had to fill that role once Packer died, so I guess Oaks is as good as any (with Bednar being the backup).

    It honestly baffles me that anyone with any knowledge of the Church could sincerely believe that any of the 12 disagree with the Church's fundamental teachings on homosexuality.

  28. #208
    Senior Member UVACoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    1,588

    Default

    I'm sorry to dominate this thread, but I wanted to add one thing. As many of you know, I am gay. Shortly after I came out to my parents (about a year after getting back from my mission), the Church published this interview with Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman regarding "Same-Gender Attraction" (their term):

    https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/artic...der-attraction

    At the time, I was still trying to figure out exactly how to reconcile my testimony (strong at the time) with my sexual attraction to men. I can't tell you how comforting this "interview" was for me--especially the comments made by Elder Oaks. I think my legalistic mind is naturally inclined to appreciate Elder Oaks' manner of speaking, but the very simple way in which he laid out the doctrine in this interview really made me feel like I could find a way to reconcile my testimony and sexual orientation and find a place in the Church. And, sincerely, it made me feel loved and understood by God and by Church leaders. I felt at the time (and now) that Elder Oaks had been inspired to say these things directly for my benefit. This part, in particular, was comforting:

    PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Let’s say my 17-year-old son comes to talk to me and, after a great deal of difficulty trying to get it out, tells me that he believes that he’s attracted to men — that he has no interest and never has had any interest in girls. He believes he’s probably gay. He says that he’s tried to suppress these feelings. He’s remained celibate, but he realizes that his feelings are going to be devastating to the family because we’ve always talked about his Church mission, about his temple marriage and all those kinds of things. He just feels he can’t live what he thinks is a lie any longer, and so he comes in this very upset and depressed manner. What do I tell him as a parent?

    ELDER OAKS: You’re my son. You will always be my son, and I’ll always be there to help you.

    The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.

    The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”
    I have a cousin who had come out shortly before I did who was basically disowned by his family (interestingly, his family has since embraced him and left the Church). My parents did not react the same way, but at the time the interview really gave me some comfort on that issue anyways.

    Having re-read this interview this morning, I can see that there are numerous things that were said, even in the excerpt I quoted above, that funk (and people that share his views) could easily characterize as bigoted, hateful, and intolerant. And honestly, given my changed perspective, I might agree that some of the way things are framed in the interview could have been said in a more sensitive, loving manner.

    But when the interview came out, I remember feeling like it represented a pretty significant sea-change in the way the Church was approaching the LBGT "issue." Not that it was that inconsistent with prior teaching, but just that the Church was talking about it at all, let alone in such a nuanced manner.

    Thus, I find the idea that President Oaks is a bigoted, intolerant hardliner that was put in the First Presidency to stamp out any semblance of tolerance for gay people that might have been fostered by President Uchtdorf to be beyond laughable. And the idea that a general conference talk where Oaks literally just read the Family Proclamation from the pulpit is irrefutable proof of his profound hatred for the LGBT community falls far short of passing the smell test.
    Last edited by UVACoug; 01-21-2018 at 11:18 AM.

  29. #209
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    11,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UVACoug View Post
    I'm sorry to dominate this thread, but I wanted to add one thing. As many of you know, I am gay. Shortly after I came out to my parents (about a year after getting back from my mission), the Church published this interview with Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman regarding "Same-Gender Attraction" (their term):

    https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/artic...der-attraction

    At the time, I was still trying to figure out exactly how to reconcile my testimony (strong at the time) with my sexual attraction to men. I can't tell you how comforting this "interview" was for me, especially the comments made by Elder Oaks. I think my legalistic mind is naturally inclined to appreciate Elder Oaks' manner of speaking, but the very simple way in which he laid out the doctrine in this interview really made me feel like I could find a way to reconcile my testimony and sexual orientation and find a place in the Church. And, sincerely, it made me feel loved and understood by God and by Church leaders. I felt at the time (and now) that Elder Oaks had been inspired to say these things directly for my benefit. This part, in particular, was comforting:



    I have a cousin who had come out shortly before I did who was basically disowned by his family (interestingly, his family has since embraced him and left the Church). My parents did not react the same way, but at the time the interview really gave me some comfort on that issue anyways.

    Having re-read this interview this morning, I can see that there are numerous things that were said, even in the excerpt I quoted above, that funk (and people that share his views) could easily characterize as bigoted, hateful, and intolerant. And honestly, given my changed perspective, I might agree that some of the way things are framed in the interview could have been said in a more sensitive, loving manner.

    But when the interview came out, I remember feeling like it represented a pretty significant sea-change in the way the Church was approaching the LBGT "issue." Not that it was that inconsistent with prior teaching, but just that the Church was talking about it at all, let alone in such a nuanced manner.

    Thus, I find the idea that President Oaks is a bigoted, intolerant hardliner that was put in the First Presidency to stamp out any semblance of tolerance for gay people that might have been fostered by President Uchtdorf to be beyond laughable. And the idea that a general conference talk where Oaks literally just read the Family Proclamation from the pulpit is irrefutable proof of his profound hatred for the LGBT community falls far short of passing the smell test.
    What Oaks & Company seem insensitive to or unaware of is how far general society has moved away from the idea that sex or homosexual sex is sinful. Society has accepted as a norm that sexual activity is normal and healthy, not inherently sinful unless within the bounds of straight marriage. And they have no explanation why people are oriented in a same sex manner. Without an explanation for such a basic human condition but while remaining so adamant that you must behave in a manner contrary to your core nature seems harsh, hateful and inconsiderate. It just seems to simplify why some people should be denied a basic human need without any help or compassion.

    Did you see the Reddit secreted videos of Oaks? I'll admit the way they came out was under-handed and wouldn't recommend anybody do that, but in some of the footage I saw, Oaks had a weird line of question from this "expert" on the "gay agenda."
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

  30. #210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UVACoug View Post
    As someone that has some personal knowledge of President Oaks, this is the biggest load of horse shit I’ve read in quite some time.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Don't worry, one of Funk's favorite things is to be offended oh behalf of someone else.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •