NOM

“There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less” (Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:61)

It says a lot about any group that would let a man with such ideas become its leader.

I would like to think that if given a democratic choice, members would pick Uchtdorf over Oaks. I could envision Candidate Oaks claiming the words of Jesus in the Bible to be "fake gospel".

asb wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 2:55 am Immediately preceding Oak's comment about mortal circumstances, he said something that surprised me even more.

Dallin Oaks wrote:[After the council in heaven] many also made covenants with the Father concerning what they would do in mortality.

This was new "doctrine" to me. How long before we start getting berated for not keeping covenants that we supposedly made but don't even remember?

This has already been done. I'm struggling to remember but I want to say it came from Nelson. It was framed as having to keep promises we made in the preexistence.

I'll try to find it.

Edit: Found it. Nelson's devotional on 9/17/2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbfU8Trdu9I&t=13m41s

At the 13 minute, 41 second mark. It's not a 100% match, but that's the quote I was thinking of.

Thanks, nibbler. Like I said, this is a new one on me.

For reference, where is what RMN says in that video:

RMN wrote:I would not be surprised if, when the veil is lifted in the next life, we learn that you actually pled with our Heavenly Father to be reserved for now. I would not be surprised to learn that premortally, you loved the Lord so much that you promised to defend his name and gospel during this world's tumultuous winding-up scenes.

I sense that we are seeing the genesis of some new "teaching" that will become established "truth" down the road.

asb wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 7:07 am Thanks, nibbler. Like I said, this is a new one on me.

For reference, where is what RMN says in that video:

RMN wrote:I would not be surprised if, when the veil is lifted in the next life, we learn that you actually pled with our Heavenly Father to be reserved for now. I would not be surprised to learn that premortally, you loved the Lord so much that you promised to defend his name and gospel during this world's tumultuous winding-up scenes.

I sense that we are seeing the genesis of some new "teaching" that will become established "truth" down the road.

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure this stuff has been around for a long time. I think there's a fair amount of it in the Journal of Discourses. They even try to lay claim to being descendents of Christ and having royal blood in their veins. It just takes some old codger like Nelson to expand on and remember the old crap.

Those who are descendents of Christ through his polygamous marriages to Mary Magdalene and others would obviously be reserved to come forth through a special lineage and for a special time here on Earth.

He may not state it directly and openly but I would bet in his heart, RMNelson believes he has a little of the blood of Christ running through his veins. How else could he have become the Lord's great prophet at this critical time?

I mean purging the use of the word "Mormon" in describing the church is a pretty big deal wouldn't you say?

Palerider hits it outta the park! There is really just glitz and glitter going on in order to keep members in their believing mode. We have literally EARTH SHATTERING problems, and just nuthin significant from the old boys........Jesus must be unavailable for the time being. I'm just not all that impressed by any of those in charge, whether of this earth or not.

Palerider wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 7:46 am I don't think so. I'm pretty sure this stuff has been around for a long time. I think there's a fair amount of it in the Journal of Discourses. They even try to lay claim to being descendents of Christ and having royal blood in their veins. It just takes some old codger like Nelson to expand on and remember the old crap.

Those who are descendents of Christ through his polygamous marriages to Mary Magdalene and others would obviously be reserved to come forth through a special lineage and for a special time here on Earth.

He may not state it directly and openly but I would bet in his heart, RMNelson believes he has a little of the blood of Christ running through his veins. How else could he have become the Lord's great prophet at this critical time?

It's an ancient gambit. Leaders have long sought ways to legitimatize their authority. The more they consider their authority and pronouncements to be unchalleangable, the more they have sought to ground their authority in some god-given right. Claiming godly visitations, or just hinting at them, has been one long used technique. Leaders have also sought to establish this right through heredity. They often map their heredity to previous leaders. When they can map it to god incarnate, so much the better.

There have always been those that claimed descendency from Jesus. "The DaVinci Code" popularized one version of the idea. In various forms and locations the idea has been around for nearly 2000 years.

Certainly it isn't unique to Jesus. Greek tales of Zeus mating with humans provide great scenarios. According to legend, King Minos of Crete was the son of Zeus and Europa. We consider this myth these days, but clearly the idea of a king claiming divine parentage was widely recognized at the time. According to legend, Alexander the Great was the son of Zeus, though it's unclear where that legend originated. (It might have started with his mother, Olympia. Claiming to be impregnated by god can have some great value.)

It's odd how often leaders who want to impose their will on others find some divine right to support their claim.

Oaks strikes again !!!!! For him to suggest that I brought on myself my physically abusive, emotionally abusive , sexual abuser alcoholic parents on myself because I was not as valiant in the pre existence as I should have been is total Bullshit !!!!!!! This hurt very bad as I'm sure he likes it to do !!! He has no idea what Hell I went through as a kid !!! He should be kicked out of the church for even suggesting such a thing !!!!

Mackman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 4:17 pm Oaks strikes again !!!!! For him to suggest that I brought on myself my physically abusive, emotionally abusive , sexual abuser alcoholic parents on myself because I was not as valiant in the pre existence as I should have been is total Bullshit !!!!!!! This hurt very bad as I'm sure he likes it to do !!! He has no idea what Hell I went through as a kid !!! He should be kicked out of the church for even suggesting such a thing !!!!

"Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus replied: Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

Mackman, I hope you have distanced yourself enough from the church that absolutely no part of your mind is entertaining any of that BS. The last will be first, and the first will be last.

If no one is tested beyond their capacity, those with a privileged life have a very low capacity.

Big Big hugs being sent your way!!!

alas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 10:06 am We really need to turn this upside down on them and start teaching that God sends his choicest spirits to the most difficult earth assignments. Born into a loving Mormon home with uppity ups in the church as relatives? You were such a weak fence sitter that God couldn’t trust you with anything hard. Born Gay? You must have been a General in Heaven because God trusted you to rise above difficulty and persecution. Born to a starving family in Africa and forced to become a child solider before you turned six? One of the top, most beloved of God because it takes a really righteous person to even survive in such a situation? Born white? Pathetic weakling. Born Black? God knows you could handle adversity.

See, god doesn’t dump first graders into college level classes and expect them to pass. No, he gives the weak babies something easy, like being born into a general authority’s family that is white, rich, and loving.

I have been trying to remember where I first read this concept. It was a Greek Philosopher, but that is all I can remember. Maybe someone could help me out?

Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 7:31 am

alas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 10:06 am We really need to turn this upside down on them and start teaching that God sends his choicest spirits to the most difficult earth assignments. Born into a loving Mormon home with uppity ups in the church as relatives? You were such a weak fence sitter that God couldn’t trust you with anything hard. Born Gay? You must have been a General in Heaven because God trusted you to rise above difficulty and persecution. Born to a starving family in Africa and forced to become a child solider before you turned six? One of the top, most beloved of God because it takes a really righteous person to even survive in such a situation? Born white? Pathetic weakling. Born Black? God knows you could handle adversity.

See, god doesn’t dump first graders into college level classes and expect them to pass. No, he gives the weak babies something easy, like being born into a general authority’s family that is white, rich, and loving.

I have been trying to remember where I first read this concept. It was a Greek Philosopher, but that is all I can remember. Maybe someone could help me out?

There is a book out years ago for LDS people who survived child abuse. I have not read it, but the basic premise as I understand it is that God sent special, strong spirits into abusive homes to end the generational passing down of child abuse. The book is called Chain Breakers.

alas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 2:05 pm There is a book out years ago for LDS people who survived child abuse. I have not read it, but the basic premise as I understand it is that God sent special, strong spirits into abusive homes to end the generational passing down of child abuse. The book is called Chain Breakers.

I suppose we would all be chain breakers then, of a somewhat different variety.

Special, strong spirits! I like that. It flatters me, which makes me feel the Spirit.

Thanks Angel.

I read Oaks Sunday morning conference talk, and I wanted to check, is this the comment that this thread is referring too?

Pres. Oaks: "In ways that have not been revealed, our actions in the spirit world have influenced our circumstances in mortality."

I think it's interesting that Pres. Oaks uses a lot more caution that Harold B. Lee did in his quote.

Pres. Lee: "This privilege of obtaining a mortal body on this earth is seemingly so priceless that those in the spirit world, even though unfaithful or not valiant, were undoubtedly permitted to take mortal bodies although penalty of racial or physical or nationalistic limitations."

Wouldn't it be educational if someone could ask about this in a question/answer setting with Pres. Oaks? I wonder if he is aware of the Lee quote, and how his (Oaks's) quote backs off some of Pres. Lee's more judgmental specifics?

The difference in the two statements (approximately 50 years apart) seems to show some progress in the understanding and (dare I say?) humility of Church leaders.

deacon blues wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:33 am
Pres. Oaks: "In ways that have not been revealed, our actions in the spirit world have influenced our circumstances in mortality."

Oaks' statement is fairly contradictory in and of itself.

If the ways our conduct in the pre-existence have influenced our mortal circumstances haven't been revealed, how does he know that those actions have indeed effected our place in mortality?
It seems as if he's attempting to confirm, but soften the doctrine implied by the Book of Abraham ( "Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou was born") while making room for speculation by older hardline members at the same time.

It's a little gutless.....

Either confirm the thinking of guys like Harold B. Lee, or disown the doctrine. Don't try to parse this out.

Yeah, Pres. Oaks really sounds wishy-washy about this. It's odd that he seems to know so much about other things such as eternal gender, etc.

Palerider wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:18 am If the ways our conduct in the pre-existence have influenced our mortal circumstances haven't been revealed, how does he know that those actions have indeed effected our place in mortality?

My reading between the lines says he knows that because he is so in awe of himself that it can't possibly be an accident that he's white, American, straight, rich, has thousands of people practically worshiping him, and will soon be what he considers the most important and respect-worthy person on the planet.

Comments like that coming from someone like him come across to me as dogwhistles, whether intentional or not, to bigots and white supremacists.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 4:26 pm

Palerider wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:18 am If the ways our conduct in the pre-existence have influenced our mortal circumstances haven't been revealed, how does he know that those actions have indeed effected our place in mortality?

My reading between the lines says he knows that because he is so in awe of himself that it can't possibly be an accident that he's white, American, straight, rich, has thousands of people practically worshiping him, and will soon be what he considers the most important and respect-worthy person on the planet.

Comments like that coming from someone like him come across to me as dogwhistles, whether intentional or not, to bigots and white supremacists.

A comment on another blog reminded me of this discussion. The guy said, “when I find a prophet who says, “I know who God’s chosen people are, and it is those guys over there.” Then I will know that he is a true prophet.” Every prophet ever seems to claim to be God’s favorite, we are God’s chosen, and then they create God in his own image. So, Oaks claiming to be one of God’s selected in the pre-existence favorites is just more of the same. Find me a prophet who says, “oh my gosh, I got born into every privilege there is. I must be a weak spirit for God to give me such an easy earth test. After all, this earth life is a test and I got the kindergarten test.” Then I will know he is a prophet. But look at the General authorities. Name me one who struggled with a physical handicap, being a battered or abused child, the child of alcoholics, growing up below the poverty lever. Name me one who ever went hungry because there was no food in the house. Nope, they all come from cushy backgrounds.

So, if this life really is a test, then rather than being the supper special spirits, our general authorities are still in kindergarten where they get the easy test.

After being reincarnated a few more times, maybe they will get strong enough as spirits to deal with the kind of home situation that Mackman grew up in, after they have an incarnation as a black woman, and a gay man.

“I know who God’s chosen people are, and it is those guys over there.”

deacon blues wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:33 am I read Oaks Sunday morning conference talk, and I wanted to check, is this the comment that this thread is referring too?

Pres. Oaks: "In ways that have not been revealed, our actions in the spirit world have influenced our circumstances in mortality."

I think it's interesting that Pres. Oaks uses a lot more caution that Harold B. Lee did in his quote.

Pres. Lee: "This privilege of obtaining a mortal body on this earth is seemingly so priceless that those in the spirit world, even though unfaithful or not valiant, were undoubtedly permitted to take mortal bodies although penalty of racial or physical or nationalistic limitations."

Wouldn't it be educational if someone could ask about this in a question/answer setting with Pres. Oaks? I wonder if he is aware of the Lee quote, and how his (Oaks's) quote backs off some of Pres. Lee's more judgmental specifics?

The difference in the two statements (approximately 50 years apart) seems to show some progress in the understanding and (dare I say?) humility of Church leaders.

That's an interesting take, that this is a progressive statement. My initial take was that Oaks' statement was regressive in some ways. I haven't heard many people talk about the conditions we face in this life being related to our level of obedience in the preexistence for a long, long time. In fact I'd argue that the teaching was partially, if not totally disavowed in the Race and the Priesthood essay:

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life;

And now with Oaks' comments some variant of the teaching is back on center stage. My initial take wasn't Oaks softening a position and being progressive, I took it as more of a sign that church leaders are old and haven't fully let go of things from the past.

Maybe it comes down to whether you've got a positive or negative frame of mind when processing things.

Nibbler
And now with Oaks' comments some variant of the teaching is back on center stage. My initial take wasn't Oaks softening a position and being progressive, I took it as more of a sign that church leaders are old and haven't fully let go of things from the past.

Just remember those essays are more political statements rather than true doctrine. The Brethren had nothing to do with them, but allowed church "scholars" to write them. One of the dumbest things I have ever seen. WE won't teach you the doctrine and truth, so we let scholars written and speculate for us, that way if things get ugly we can just say it was their ideas, NOT ours. Yet the Brethren's ideas are clearly still so racist, mysoginist, and backward, that it would be better if they just stop talking.