9 AM Press Conference

[Jarid in Cedar]

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.

[ByronMarchant]

Dieter Uchtdorf is ultra-conservative.

Oaks and Nelson are reactionary.

[YOhio]

Dieter Uchtdorf is ultra-conservative.

Oaks and Nelson are reactionary.

Hey buddy! Good to see you around. Hope all is well.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Dieter Uchtdorf is ultra-conservative.

Oaks and Nelson are ultra-reactionary.

Fixed it for you.

[UVACoug]

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

[UVACoug]

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

[UVACoug]

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

[Katy Lied]

The hardliner was vetoed by the Lord in 2015.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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)

[Jeff Lebowski]

The hardliner was vetoed by the Lord in 2015.

[Northwestcoug]

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.

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.

[UVACoug]

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).

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.

[UVACoug]

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.

[Topper]

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."

[Shaka]

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.