Re: Dallin Oaks: “I suggest that research is not the answer"
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:34 pm
The word “pitiful” comes to mind. May I suggest that Pres. Oaks is up to his neck in denial.
A place to love and accept the people who think about and live Mormonism on their own terms.
https://newordermormon.net/
It's hard to know without having heard the entire talk but from the context provided he said "I suggest that research is not the answer" on the back of "Some spouses wonder how to best go about researching and responding to such issues."He acknowledged that some Latter-Saint couples face conflicts over important values and priorities. Matters of Church history and doctrinal issues have led some spouses to inactivity. Some spouses wonder how to best go about researching and responding to such issues.
“I suggest that research is not the answer,” he said.
The Church does offer answers to many familiar questions through its Gospel Topics Essays found at lds(dot)org.
“But the best answer to any question that threatens faith is to work to increase faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” he said. “Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church. And conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study and service, furthered by loving patience on the part of spouse and other concerned family members.”
You covered it later in your post, but I think his follow-up comments put this in a context that is more about telling believing members that research isn't the way to help someone's testimony, be it the spouse who is doubting or the spouse that is still all-in.nibbler wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:45 amIt's hard to know without having heard the entire talk but from the context provided he said "I suggest that research is not the answer" on the back of "Some spouses wonder how to best go about researching and responding to such issues."
Me paraphrasing and putting lots of words into Oaks' mouth, "You're not going to resolve your inactive spouse's issues through responding to their issues with your own research."
It's still not a good look, but from the post Mormon perspective, no one wants to become a project or assaulted with weak apologetics. Me being charitable, that may have been all that Oaks was saying. But usually you'd follow up those statements with a, "Don't try to convince them that they're wrong, just show them an outpouring of love." or some such.
I wonder if interpreting that statement is overly subject to negativity bias.
The word "but" is funny apart from being a homophone for the glutes. It can weaken the preceding phrase, entirely invalidate it, or signal that it should be ignored. Here are a few rewordings that make the different interpretations clear.“We are taught to love our neighbors, but it is not easy to love and live with those who have different standards and sometimes challenge us and our standards in a persuasive or even threatening way,” he said.
This is obviously true. It's even empathetic, validating what many in the intended audience already feel. I can imagine most believing Mormons would interpret it this way.We are taught to love our neighbors. This teaching sometimes has less hold on us than we would like, because it is not easy to love...
I can imagine most believing Mormons would definitely not interpret it this way. I can also imagine a few disaffected Mormons being afraid it would be interpreted this way.We are taught to love our neighbors. This teaching is invalid because it is not easy to love...
Ah, now here's a problem. I can imagine a minority of believing Mormons and a majority of disaffected Mormons would interpret it this way. For example, it might induce a believing spouse to stew over the idea that her husband challenges her and her standards in a persuasive and threatening way. Probably the biggest problem here is the word threatening, actually. Mormons are already great at feeling threatened by a persuasive argument, and the phrase "persuasive or even threatening" can reinforce the idea that they should.We are taught to love our neighbors. Ignore that for now, and focus instead on the fact that it is not easy to love...
It is not easy to love and live with those who have different standards and sometimes challenge us and our standards, but regardless of this, we are taught to love our neighbors' butts.
I agree with this - and of course the words he chooses to use are interpreted differently depending on if you're a believer or non-believer.Reuben wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:30 amI wonder if interpreting that statement is overly subject to negativity bias.
The word "but" is funny apart from being a homophone for the glutes. It can weaken the preceding phrase, entirely invalidate it, or signal that it should be ignored. Here are a few rewordings that make the different interpretations clear.“We are taught to love our neighbors, but it is not easy to love and live with those who have different standards and sometimes challenge us and our standards in a persuasive or even threatening way,” he said.
This was a bit of a departure for Oaks I think. I've heard talks implying that one really can't fully be converted to Christ outside of the church.
I suspect you might be right, but I'm not sure what you mean. Can you connect the dots for me?jfro18 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:28 amI agree with this - and of course the words he chooses to use are interpreted differently depending on if you're a believer or non-believer.Reuben wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:30 amI wonder if interpreting that statement is overly subject to negativity bias.
The word "but" is funny apart from being a homophone for the glutes. It can weaken the preceding phrase, entirely invalidate it, or signal that it should be ignored. Here are a few rewordings that make the different interpretations clear.“We are taught to love our neighbors, but it is not easy to love and live with those who have different standards and sometimes challenge us and our standards in a persuasive or even threatening way,” he said.
Again I think you take this in totality with the other talks given just this year by Corbridge, Renlund, and even Holland's talk to the Maxwell Institute telling them they won't be punished for getting it wrong if it promotes faith... this is not all happening this quickly by coincidence.
So I agree that you can take the quote about loving our neighbors 100 different ways, but I can't help but take it in the context of what is being taught by all of the leaders suddenly in what feels like crisis mode.
It's the continuation of the church telling members that doubts lead to Satan, etc... really seemed to kick off with Saints and the "face-to-face" event, but just in 2019 so far:
I encountered this on my mission. Southern California in the 1970's was a hotbed of Christian Evangelism, and as a missionary I had this explained to me almost as clearly as you explain it here, Pale Rider. I was with companions who were in denial and/or intentionally blind, and I doubted my self, and went with the flow. I do remember thinking "Even our Mission President would not have a valid answer for this." I doubt President Oaks would either, but I think he should at least address it. I am glad he recognizes there is a difference between Jesus Christ and the Church, even if sometimes Church Leaders actions belie this.Palerider wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:43 amThis was a bit of a departure for Oaks I think. I've heard talks implying that one really can't fully be converted to Christ outside of the church.
Strange hearing it put this way because as you adroitly point out, why join the LDS church if you can be converted to Christ outside of it?
Of course their answer is going to be that they have the only true "saving" ordinances. The ordinances are the big thing.
Which creates the question: Does the atonement of Christ save me or do the "legal" ordinances specified by the LDS church save me?
Remembering that "sacrifice" was the "ordinance" of the law of Moses in the O.T.
The answer is found in Matt. 9:13
"But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
The ordinance of sacrifice was given as a foreshadowing of the Atonement and the Lord wanted it obeyed for that purpose but, He also showed in the above quote that ordinances are empty, earthly gestures. Without heartfelt conversion, without Mercy we are neither converted or saved.
This has always been a small shelf-item for me. I guess I rationalized it via baptism. Baptism is considered a "saving" ordinance and is even taught by Christ himself as being necessary to "fulfill all righteousness." And now that I think of it, same with the sacrament. So why not the temple ordinances as taught by the church?Palerider wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:43 amStrange hearing it put this way because as you adroitly point out, why join the LDS church if you can be converted to Christ outside of it?
Of course their answer is going to be that they have the only true "saving" ordinances. The ordinances are the big thing.
Which creates the question: Does the atonement of Christ save me or do the "legal" ordinances specified by the LDS church save me?
The problem here is that the more I am able to believe in Jesus Christ the less I am able to accept the idea that he would send an avenging angel to force someone to marry young girls behind his wife's back, or create a fraudulent bank, or create a book of scripture that is neck-deep in evidence that it is fake."But the best answer to any question that threatens faith is to work to increase faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."
This issue of ordinances has been a curiosity for me for a long time and I'm not sure I have an answer, but I do have some suspicions.græy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:10 pm
This has always been a small shelf-item for me. I guess I rationalized it via baptism. Baptism is considered a "saving" ordinance and is even taught by Christ himself as being necessary to "fulfill all righteousness." And now that I think of it, same with the sacrament. So why not the temple ordinances as taught by the church?
I still don't know where the line is between being saved by the atonement and grace or by the act of participating in ordinances. If ordinances are required, which ones? Only those from the New Testament? Or also the new ones JS inven... er, restored? None? Some? All?
LDS Prophets would clearly say all ordinances in our modern church are necessary. But I think it is very clear that the first Christians didn't have anything like temples or endowment ceremonies. Were they not saved? Why does the unchanging God have different requirements now?
This is something DW and I are still struggling with a little. I have challenged my assumptions about God, Jesus and a "true" church. I have lost my belief in a One True Church entirely. I find it difficult to see God as an old bearded white guy. I struggle with the concept of Jesus as a deity. So I start to see baptism as a symbol, in which case, why would authority even matter? It seems that the most likely explanation is that the "authority" concept was introduced later when a budding church needed to establish its place in the new religion.
I'm not sure whether he's saying that or tacitly admitting something he may have statistical evidence for: that sincere research may be more likely to help a believer come to the same conclusions of their spouse.2bizE wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:34 amI think this statement from Oaks May have been taken out of context.
For those who have already researched church history, found the deception, and now are in a crisis of Truth, continued research is not the answer that will bring the poor souls back onto the covenant path