President Oaks and the Priesthood Restriction

Public forum to discuss questions about Mormon history and doctrine.
Ann
Posts: 2568
Joined: 09 Sep 2012, 02:17

Re: President Oaks and the Priesthood Restriction

Post by Ann » 23 Jun 2018, 08:54

SamBee wrote:
23 Jun 2018, 03:28
Ann wrote:
23 Jun 2018, 02:19
I just listened to clips from Oaks’ talk. I’m amazed. He flat out said the ban was God’s command. What the heck?!?
Mormonism has this weird conundrum... officially we follow the current president's counsel over the previous ones, but we still can't admit some of previous ones might have been wrong.
The strongly worded priesthood essay didn’t give cover for him to say the ban was man-made? I don’t get it. Like you say, weird. And discouraging.
"Preachers err by trying to talk people into belief; better they reveal the radiance of their own discovery." - Joseph Campbell

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes." - Marcel Proust

"Therefore they said unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered and said unto them, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes...." - John 9:10-11

Ann
Posts: 2568
Joined: 09 Sep 2012, 02:17

Post by Ann » 23 Jun 2018, 09:04

Heber13 wrote:
23 Jun 2018, 06:00

God works in mysterious ways. So we tell ourselves, when we don't understand why past prophets said what they said. Or we don't want to just accept prophets and church policies were wrong.
Again, I would have thought, given what he said about his time in the midwest and east struggling with the ban and rejecting all the folklore about it...I would have thought he would welcome the new stance in the essay. I am sad and surprised to hear him doubling down. I saw at least one black Mormon blogger in tears.
"Preachers err by trying to talk people into belief; better they reveal the radiance of their own discovery." - Joseph Campbell

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes." - Marcel Proust

"Therefore they said unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered and said unto them, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes...." - John 9:10-11

Ann
Posts: 2568
Joined: 09 Sep 2012, 02:17

Re: President Oaks and the Priesthood Restriction

Post by Ann » 23 Jun 2018, 09:11

nibbler wrote:
23 Jun 2018, 06:49
I wonder if Oaks' approach (recognizing that there's probably something wrong but deciding to be obedient to authority and remaining hopeful/patient) will work for rising generations? I suppose it has to, what other alternative is there? Or maybe that's the expectation of the members but rather than do that, members opt to leave?
I’m tempted to say that it certainly isn’t going to work, but I’d be extrapolating from my own children to the whole generation.
"Preachers err by trying to talk people into belief; better they reveal the radiance of their own discovery." - Joseph Campbell

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes." - Marcel Proust

"Therefore they said unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered and said unto them, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes...." - John 9:10-11

Roy
Posts: 4888
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 14:16
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: President Oaks and the Priesthood Restriction

Post by Roy » 01 Jul 2018, 15:47

Ann wrote:
23 Jun 2018, 08:54
SamBee wrote:
23 Jun 2018, 03:28
Ann wrote:
23 Jun 2018, 02:19
I just listened to clips from Oaks’ talk. I’m amazed. He flat out said the ban was God’s command. What the heck?!?
Mormonism has this weird conundrum... officially we follow the current president's counsel over the previous ones, but we still can't admit some of previous ones might have been wrong.
The strongly worded priesthood essay didn’t give cover for him to say the ban was man-made? I don’t get it. Like you say, weird. And discouraging.
I have been considering this for a while now. I am of the opinion that President Oaks is responding to his legal training to develop a legally, logically, and spiritually defensible position that will serve the church for generations to come.

Lawyers are not especially constrained by the truth. Legal cases in some ways are a battle of competing alternate realities.

If the church officially says, "The priesthood ban was man made - even though at the time we thought it came from God." that then begins the ball rolling on a host of unintended consequences that lead pretty quickly to "how do we know that current policies are from God?"

I imagine that President Oaks would wish to avoid that. Therefore he puts forward a reality where why the church does what it does is open to constant speculation and error, However what the church does is unassailable and divine. The leaders of the church implementing the policy might misunderstand and even teach errors about why the policy exists but the policy itself must be God's will because this is God's church and God is in charge. He would not permit HIS church to enact something that is against His will and purpose.

To put it another way ... What happened was destined to happen. We know this because it happened.

Prove me wrong. I dare you. ;)

I believe that president Oaks has identified a fallback position that the church can now retreat to on any questionable issue. Polygamy? Priesthood ban? SSM? Restrictive gender roles? Male only priesthood? Some new issue that we have not even begun to think about? They can all at some future point, when the cause is lost and the church has long since changed its stance, be answered by saying "God commanded it - for what purpose we know not."
"It is not so much the pain and suffering of life which crushes the individual as it is its meaninglessness and hopelessness." C. A. Elwood

“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223

"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13

DancingCarrot
Posts: 172
Joined: 23 May 2014, 18:24

Re: President Oaks and the Priesthood Restriction

Post by DancingCarrot » 01 Jul 2018, 19:22

Roy wrote:
01 Jul 2018, 15:47
Lawyers are not especially constrained by the truth. Legal cases in some ways are a battle of competing alternate realities.
Very good point. In a large sense, lawyers are trying to prove their case (or at least poke a big enough hole in someone else's case), not necessarily adhering to Capital T Truth. I would bet that a lot of them believe they're the proponents of the truth, whether or not that's objectively provable.
Roy wrote:
01 Jul 2018, 15:47
I imagine that President Oaks would wish to avoid that. Therefore he puts forward a reality where why the church does what it does is open to constant speculation and error, However what the church does is unassailable and divine. The leaders of the church implementing the policy might misunderstand and even teach errors about why the policy exists but the policy itself must be God's will because this is God's church and God is in charge. He would not permit HIS church to enact something that is against His will and purpose.
There's this big conundrum with how we speak about the church: that the organization of the church itself is perfect, ordained by God, and directed by Christ BUT the people running it are imperfect. How we as a people are able to keep the level of cognitive dissonance alive to sustain two paradoxes simultaneously beats me. I think it's simply a lot to process to realize that your church that you've been taught to rely on for certainties in life turns out to be run by completely fallible yet usually well-intentioned humans is a big pill to swallow, therefore a lot of people don't. Or they take a while to digest it.

Also, it *may* be God's church, but it's also staffed with humans so expecting it to be run precisely how God wants at all times for his exact will and purpose sounds eerily similar to Satan's plan. Just saying.

Even the best project managers know that you can't control everything and real skill comes into play when things don't go according to plan. Because they will. I can't believe in a God that has a finely tuned plan for every detail anymore, it just doesn't work for me nor does it inspire me. I am intrigued and hopeful for a God that is just as big a player in the experience as we are, is improvising because us other players have choices and abilities to exercise as well, and responds with the flux of life that is constantly in motion. That's what gives me hope.
It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live. -Dumbledore

Roll away your stone, I'll roll away mine. Together we can see what we will find. -Mumford & Sons

User avatar
dande48
Posts: 894
Joined: 24 Jan 2016, 16:35
Location: Wherever there is danger

Re: President Oaks and the Priesthood Restriction

Post by dande48 » 01 Jul 2018, 20:19

DancingCarrot wrote:
01 Jul 2018, 19:22
There's this big conundrum with how we speak about the church: that the organization of the church itself is perfect, ordained by God, and directed by Christ BUT the people running it are imperfect. How we as a people are able to keep the level of cognitive dissonance alive to sustain two paradoxes simultaneously beats me. I think it's simply a lot to process to realize that your church that you've been taught to rely on for certainties in life turns out to be run by completely fallible yet usually well-intentioned humans is a big pill to swallow, therefore a lot of people don't. Or they take a while to digest it.
Well, there are many doctrines beyond the priesthood ban that are openly denounced, yet were at one time taught as scripture.

In Moses' Time:
-Throw rocks at gays until they die. Same with adulterers, witches, blasphemers, etc.
-But if you rape a virgin, you must marry her, and pay her father 50 pieces of silver. But that's as far as your punishment goes.
-Kill all of those belonging to other religions, including their children

In Paul's time:
-Homosexuals don't go to heaven
-Women should keep quiet in Church, and have long hair
-Slaves should be obedient

In Brigham's time:
-God is a polygamist
-Polygammy is a requirement for exaltation
-Adam-God Theory
-Dark skin is a curse
-It is God's will that blacks should be slaves to whites
-Apostates (loosely defined) cannot be forgiven, unless their blood is spilt (blood atonement)

Most everything listed above was once beleived by either the LDS Church, or an earlier religion the LDS Church claims to be their progenitors. And yet, if you preach any of those things, you will most likely be excommunicated. Most of those doctrines are denounced and condemned by Church leaders (or so ludacris, they no longer feel the need to mention them). Most members of the Church are aware of them. But maintaining that sense of security, certainty, and continuity is more powerful than the discomfort of cognitive dessonance. The Church will change, but it still needs to maintain its image to hold onto its power.If you take that away, even in the name of Truth, it'll hurt a lot of people. Maybe some people are better off beliving that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young treated blacks with love and respect.
"The whole world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel." - Horace Walpole

"Even though there are no ways of knowing for sure, there are ways of knowing for pretty sure."
-Lemony Snicket

User avatar
Heber13
Posts: 6828
Joined: 22 Apr 2009, 16:37
Location: In the Middle

Re: President Oaks and the Priesthood Restriction

Post by Heber13 » 02 Jul 2018, 10:34

I think all of these are really good points.

What it tells me is that people (the fallible but well-intentioned that DC described) are striving for nice, neat, clean, sure things so the organization can work.
Roy wrote:
01 Jul 2018, 15:47
Lawyers are not especially constrained by the truth. Legal cases in some ways are a battle of competing alternate realities.
But as Roy points out...there is no black and white world.

It is all up to our perceptions, and as a society, you build a case for the truth, and that's what people are trying to do.

We are all on a journey. At some point, you realize it is a never-ending journey. There is no easy out. Just choices for us. And we have to let go of what past leaders said...even prophets. We can learn from them, perhaps (especially if we cherry pick quotes). But we cannot bank on them for eternal situational sure knowledge.

Hence the need for continuing revelation...we need it (personal and church).

My personal revelation is to call past prophets racist according to our views today. It's too bad we held on to their views for as long as we did. Now we move forward and should learn from that. Oaks will do what Oaks is called to do. He'll do it well, or he won't.

Regardless...I don't need the church leaders to validate anything. I will take what they say as one data point for me to consider while I seek personal revelation. It is not the only data point. It is not a worthless data point. It just is what it is.
Roy wrote:
01 Jul 2018, 15:47
What happened was destined to happen. We know this because it happened.
Amen.

What will happen will happen. I just want to be a loving passenger helping to bring good things to individuals I come in contact with along the way, while I wait to see what will happen. I am open to many possible outcomes...including there is no God or afterlife. It isn't what I hope for...but...I accept it may be what happens. I guess we'll see (or won't). My practice is to try to stay in the present moment.
Luke: "Why didn't you tell me? You told me Vader betrayed and murdered my father."
Obi-Wan: "Your father... was seduced by the dark side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true... from a certain point of view."
Luke: "A certain point of view?"
Obi-Wan: "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to...depend greatly on our point of view."

Post Reply