Elder Oaks B1 statement

[Palerider]

Regardless of one's political views, I thought the contrast between this statement from Charles Krauthammer, who passed away today and the statement made by Pres. Oaks at the B1 gathering was very telling.

"You're betraying your whole life if you don't say what you think and you don't say it honestly and bluntly."

I can only add that any individual or organization that prohibits an honest, open and forthright discussion of issues is not representing a Godly perspective and anyone with any sense should abandon such repression.

[Reuben]

I agree with the direction of Krauthammer's statement, and I'm trying to work out whether I agree with where it ends up.

What did President Oaks say?

[Palerider]

I agree with the direction of Krauthammer's statement, and I'm trying to work out whether I agree with where it ends up.

What did President Oaks say?

In essence, Oaks stated that he came to the conclusion that the priesthood ban was wrong but he decided to stay quiet and support the leadership in their error. In other words he was a coward. He betrayed the principle of "do what is right, let the consequence follow" which he so vigorously claimed to believe in.

I suppose one could add hypocrite as well. It gives me no pleasure to say it but the Savior's statement regarding the Pharisees being whited sepulchres which on the outside are beautiful but within are full of dead men's bones, also comes to mind.

[slavereeno]

In essence, Oaks stated that he came to the conclusion that the priesthood ban was wrong but he decided to stay quiet and support the leadership in their error. In other words he was a coward. He betrayed the principle of "do what is right, let the consequence follow" which he so vigorously claimed to believe in.

How do we know he even felt this way? Maybe he liked the priesthood ban, but now would like to appear like he didn't? Because he stayed silent he forfeits the right to claim he was against it before. I guess that the risk of being a yes-man your whole life.

Right now I am living the yes-man life with most of my family and friends... Will I get caught in the same trap?

[Corsair]

Right now I am living the yes-man life with most of my family and friends... Will I get caught in the same trap?

You don't need to be a yes-man. I'm not recommending that you denounce the church, but you don't have to agree with their position. I would say things like, "I wonder if they could have handled that differently?" This also leads your interlocutor into revealing what kind of Mormon he or she actually is. You will likely see a wince and a sigh as they immediately think of lots of ways this might have been handled better from 1840 onward.

The only reason that believers are a little touchy about the priesthood ban is that deep down they know that there is no way that the church comes off looking like the good guy as long as they have to "Follow the Prophet" and claim that he was talking to God. It's the same thing with plural marriage, violence in Missouri, Mountain Meadows Massacre, the Hoffmann forgeries, and every other unholy or impure practice that the church might have stumbled into.

[Palerider]

In essence, Oaks stated that he came to the conclusion that the priesthood ban was wrong but he decided to stay quiet and support the leadership in their error. In other words he was a coward. He betrayed the principle of "do what is right, let the consequence follow" which he so vigorously claimed to believe in.

How do we know he even felt this way? Maybe he liked the priesthood ban, but now would like to appear like he didn't? Because he stayed silent he forfeits the right to claim he was against it before. I guess that the risk of being a yes-man your whole life.

Right now I am living the yes-man life with most of my family and friends... Will I get caught in the same trap?

This is an excellent point.

It's easy for him to say he found it to be wrong, but we have no evidence to believe it.

Regarding the dilemma of pretending to be a believer when we aren't in order to not upset our families, it's really difficult and I've been there.

I told my wife quite soon after reaching my conclusion that the church was a fraud. Then I had the unenviable task of telling my children and in-laws. Most were terribly disappointed. Some were very understanding.

Things were a little uncomfortable for a couple of years. But when everyone saw that I wasn't going out to look for babes, getting a divorce, hooked on drugs or porn, and in essence still lived a Christian life. Things slowly got better. Three of my children (all adults) did their own research and reached a similar conclusion as had I.

My wife eventually followed suit and we are now as happy, if not more, than we ever were while in the church. Plus we have more time for each other and when we do good things for others (which is fairly often) we do it out of the goodness of our hearts, not because we've been "assigned" to keep an eye on someone.

And that is something that most in the church, especially leadership have great difficulty understanding or comprehending.

Being charitable only counts with God when it comes from the heart. The moment you "assign" or order someone to do good works you have placed them under OBLIGATION and then it becomes impossible to determine the motive for the good works. Thus free will is destroyed and the Grace that we would freely give to others is corrupted.

Sorry for derailing my own thread but one thing leads to another...

The main point is that time does heal most wounds and it is difficult for a family member who is TBM to argue with a life that is lived with integrity. It's the best weapon against the leadership charge of "you can't be righteous outside of the church". As a matter of fact, that is an enslaving concept that scares people to stay on the inside in fear.

Healing the wounds of leaving the church takes time and patience. Patience even to endure the accusations that will falsely come against you. In the end I think it is worth it.

[Palerider]

and every other unholy or impure practice that the church might have stumbled into.

Too good...

[Hagoth]

Oaks stated that he came to the conclusion that the priesthood ban was wrong but he decided to stay quiet and support the leadership in their error.

Since Oaks can't possibly be apologizing for his behavior (something he doesn't believe in), he must be advocating institutionalized cowardice and holding himself up as a model of how to act when you are presented with a decision to either choose the right or follow the prophet.

[Red Ryder]

Oaks fits nicely into the pattern of institutional dishonesty so much that I would suggest he's one of the core modern day architects of it.

[2bizE]

Wasn't Pres. Monson's last talks about standing up for what is right even in the face of ridicule?

[alas]

Oaks stated that he came to the conclusion that the priesthood ban was wrong but he decided to stay quiet and support the leadership in their error.

Since Oaks can't possibly be apologizing for his behavior (something he doesn't believe in), he must be advocating institutionalized cowardice and holding himself up as a model of how to act when you are presented with a decision to either choose the right or follow the prophet.

Yes, he thinks he is a wonderful example of following the prophet, even if you think he is wrong. Only he calls it courage rather than cowardice. Because following the prophet is always more right than following your own God given conscience.

[Corsair]

Yes, he thinks he is a wonderful example of following the prophet, even if you think he is wrong. Only he calls it courage rather than cowardice. Because following the prophet is always more right than following your own God given conscience.

This is still a frequent lesson topic in church. The story of Saul choosing to sacrifice some of the Amalekites flocks rather than kill them was presented in Gospel Doctrine just a few weeks ago. Apologists and leaders have been trying to push the idea that "prophets are not infallible", but we are still obligated to follow them to the letter.

Additionally relevant to this discussion are the Mormons who openly called for an end to the priesthood and temple ban in the early 1970s. this includes Douglas A. Wallace, a Mormon High Priest and lawyer in Vancouver, Washington. In April 1976, Wallace, acting on his own, ordained a black man, Larry Lester, to the priesthood. He was excommunicated from the church for his deliberate disobedience of the rules and regulations of the church in violation of the outlines of the church.

Dallin Oaks knew what would happen if he was more vocal about the ban. He was president of BYU and would not have been in that position if he was anything except subservient to the LDS church.

[Hagoth]

This is still a frequent lesson topic in church. The story of Saul choosing to sacrifice some of the Amalekites flocks rather than kill them was presented in Gospel Doctrine just a few weeks ago...

One of my favorite scriptures. Saul, rather than killing Agag, the Amalekite ruler, brought him back alive, "And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal." (1 Samuel 15:33)

Apologists and leaders have been trying to push the idea that "prophets are not infallible", but we are still obligated to follow them to the letter.

I often hear indignation toward doubters and apostates for "expecting church leaders to be perfect and then being offended when they make mistakes." But I have never once heard that sentiment followed by a specific name of a church leader who was mistaken, or the way in which he was wrong.

[wtfluff]

I often hear indignation toward doubters and apostates for "expecting church leaders to be perfect and then being offended when they make mistakes." But I have never once heard that sentiment followed by a specific name of a church leader who was mistaken, or the way in which he was wrong.

This is why when a believer quotes: "Give Brother Joseph a break!", non-believers should ask: "Give Joseph a break for what???