Elder Oaks Talk

[Jeff Lebowski]

In the first part of his talk, he said that a child who is living with another person shouldn't expect his/her parents to accept the couple. That left me scratching my head. What exactly is the proper response in such a situation?

[Sizzle]

In the first part of his talk, he said that a child who is living with another person shouldn't expect his/her parents to accept the couple. That left me scratching my head. What exactly is the proper response in such a situation?

Maybe I misheard but I thought he was saying that in the cases of children sinning like that it isn't a clear cut and dry solution for the parents to accept it and just deal with it, nor to totally shun them and disown them. It is somewhere in between. Though maybe I heard it wrong as I had a screaming baby and a 2 year old tackling me.

[Indy Coug]

Maybe I misheard but I thought he was saying that in the cases of children sinning like that it isn't a clear cut and dry solution for the parents to accept it and just deal with it, nor to totally shun them and disown them. It is somewhere in between. Though maybe I heard it wrong as I had a screaming baby and a 2 year old tackling me.

That was pretty much it.

[Solon]

That was pretty much it.

He counseled against both complete exclusion of a wayward child and complete acceptance of unrighteous behavior. "Where do parents draw the line? That is a matter for parental wisdom, guided by the inspiration of the Lord."

He tackled theodicy a little too, taking (more or less) the "God is not omnipotent" solution to the conundrum (i.e. God is constrained by laws).

Also:

The love of God does not supersede His commandments.

"God will not forestall the exercise of agency by his children. . . . God does not intervene to forestall the consequences of some person's choices in order to protect the well being of other persons, even when they kill, injure, or oppress one another. For this would destroy His plan for our eternal progress. He will bless us to endure the consequences of others' choices, but he will not prevent those choices."

The latter paragraph seems to deny divine intervention on behalf of the righteous. At the very least, maybe he could have noted that "sometimes God will not intervene."

I would like it if Oaks developed his ideas more substantively in another medium. The nature of the talk and its audience requires over-simplification of some of these ideas. The nature and relationships between God, humans, justice, mercy, law, and agency are pretty complex for a ca. 15 minute talk. I'm sure he's aware of the strengths and weaknesses of some of his assertions, but can't fully explain all of his reasoning in a brief talk.

PS - The features on lds.org for watching and listening to conference are outstanding. Nice work.

[LiveCoug]

In the first part of his talk, he said that a child who is living with another person shouldn't expect his/her parents to accept the couple. That left me scratching my head. What exactly is the proper response in such a situation?

Sizzle is right. He was saying that doing what you say here, is NOT appropriate, but neither is condoning the behavior and ignoring it. A happy medium that YOU as parents decide is an appropriate reaction.

[wuapinmon]

He counseled against both complete exclusion of a wayward child and complete acceptance of unrighteous behavior. "Where do parents draw the line? That is a matter for parental wisdom, guided by the inspiration of the Lord."

He tackled theodicy a little too, taking (more or less) the "God is not omnipotent" solution to the conundrum (i.e. God is constrained by laws).

Also:

The love of God does not supersede His commandments.

"God will not forestall the exercise of agency by his children. . . . God does not intervene to forestall the consequences of some person's choices in order to protect the well being of other persons, even when they kill, injure, or oppress one another. For this would destroy His plan for our eternal progress. He will bless us to endure the consequences of others' choices, but he will not prevent those choices."

The latter paragraph seems to deny divine intervention on behalf of the righteous. At the very least, maybe he could have noted that "sometimes God will not intervene."

I would like it if Oaks developed his ideas more substantively in another medium. The nature of the talk and its audience requires over-simplification of some of these ideas. The nature and relationships between God, humans, justice, mercy, law, and agency are pretty complex for a ca. 15 minute talk. I'm sure he's aware of the strengths and weaknesses of some of his assertions, but can't fully explain all of his reasoning in a brief talk.

PS - The features on lds.org for watching and listening to conference are outstanding. Nice work.

Yes, it does. Wow. Wow! That has to be developed better because it negates the value of praying for His intercession if He won't do it.

[Tim]

Sizzle is right. He was saying that doing what you say here, is NOT appropriate, but neither is condoning the behavior and ignoring it. A happy medium that YOU as parents decide is an appropriate reaction.

I would say it better as "You as parents decide on an appropriate response, as long as it's somewhere in between those two extremes." Several people I know have chosen to completely cut those children off, and I think he's saying that that is NOT a valid option. The answer is in finding the middle ground. Yes, parents have the choice, but it's not an unchecked choice; they have the ultimate choice, but only if they are attempting to find a balance.

[UtahDan]

Yes, it does. Wow. Wow! That has to be developed better because it negates the value of praying for His intercession if He won't do it.

Well I believe that is pretty close to the truth, personally, but I don't think that is what he really meant. If he did, it is a massive doctrinal shift.

[FMCoug]

Maybe I misheard but I thought he was saying that in the cases of children sinning like that it isn't a clear cut and dry solution for the parents to accept it and just deal with it, nor to totally shun them and disown them. It is somewhere in between. Though maybe I heard it wrong as I had a screaming baby and a 2 year old tackling me.

This was my take as well. Don't shun them but don't treat them as if they are married either.

[BlueHair]

Very bad advice. Parents should be mature enough to treat their adult children like adults. Why strain a relationship over something so trivial? What could possibly be accomplished by the middle ground approach?

[LA Ute]

Yes, it does. Wow. Wow! That has to be developed better because it negates the value of praying for His intercession if He won't do it.

My (immediate, unreflected-upon) reaction is that he cannot have meant it that way. Speculation: It is so obvious that God does sometimes intervene (he has done so, per the scriptures, repeatedly), and given that E. Oaks' talk was restricted to essentially 15 minutes of outlining some deep topics, he simply spoke in shorthand on that point.

Being something of a (well-meaning) weasel, I reserve the right to modify my speculative thoughts.

[wuapinmon]

Well I believe that is pretty close to the truth, personally, but I don't think that is what he really meant. If he did, it is a massive doctrinal shift.

I agree. I hope that he comes back and clarifies, otherwise the extreme right-wing is going to schism away from the Church, "WE'RE NOT DEISTS. THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE CHRISTIAN!"

[UtahDan]

I agree. I hope that he comes back and clarifies, otherwise the extreme right-wing is going to schism away from the Church, "WE'RE NOT DEISTS. THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE CHRISTIAN!"

Perhaps it was Freudian?

[Jeff Lebowski]

He counseled against both complete exclusion of a wayward child and complete acceptance of unrighteous behavior. "Where do parents draw the line? That is a matter for parental wisdom, guided by the inspiration of the Lord."

I missed that nuance. I definitely look forward to going back reading this one.

I guess what I am wondering is what exactly does it mean to not be accepting in this case? Presumably we are talking about a choice made by an adult child, right? What would one do?

Avoid or be disrespectful to the child's partner? No
Not allow them to come to family functions? No
No Christmas presents? Uh-uh.
Cut them out of the will? Ha.
Call their children "the bastard grandkids"? Hell no.

Specifically, I am struggling to think of what would be done differently with a child in this case that would not be considered un-Christlike. Maybe some gentle and loving encouragement to tie the knot. That's about all that I can come up with at the moment.

[Solon]

I missed that nuance. I definitely look forward to going back reading this one.

I guess what I am wondering is what exactly does it mean to not be accepting in this case? Presumably we are talking about a choice made by an adult child, right? What would one do?

Avoid or be disrespectful to the child's partner? No
Not allow them to come to family functions? No
No Christmas presents? Uh-uh.
Cut them out of the will? Ha.
Call their children "the bastard grandkids"? Hell no.

Specifically, I am struggling to think of what would be done differently with a child in this case that would not be considered un-Christlike. Maybe some gentle and loving encouragement to tie the knot. That's about all that I can come up with at the moment.

I thought about this more last night. Although its application is vague, I suspect Elder Oaks's counsel was referring in part to accepting children's homosexual partnerships. I can't prove it, and his language was deliberately generalized (it is, after all "General Conference") but I listened to the talk a couple of times and came away with this impression both times.