I just watched the entire fireside.On 9/11 it seems clear he was warning
us about Islamophobia.And I found it easy to apply the principles when it
comes to Prop 8.Things became less clear when trying to justify the honor
code injunction regarding homosexual behavior. And it all fell apart when
trying to sort out the issue of illegal aliens.Methinks the church
sometimes plays the globalist elite role rather poorly.
We believe in absolute truth, including the existence of God and the right and
wrong established by His commandments,"What is he meaning when
he says "the wrong established by His commandments" What wrongs is he
Thanks CTguy30, that's exactly what I got out of it. I think Elder Oaks' main
goal was proving that a balance between truth and tolerance does exist. He gave
few suggestions as to the implementation of that balance, but I think that's
mostly because that implementation is very personal and depends on our
situation. I'm really not sure why some people are trying to throw Elder Oaks
under the bus here (i.e. "he's an apostle not a prophet,"
"political correctness has crept into the church," etc.). Nothing in
this talk was new doctrine, it was mostly a review about the example Jesus
Christ set for tolerance and peace, but presented in a novel light and
circumstance (and, I might add, a very appropriate time as well). I think the
quote Elder Oaks gave from Dr. Alwi Shihab about tolerance is something we
should all aim to live up to.
I once sat in a physics class of about 250 students in a lecture hall. As the
instructor put up the equation and asked if anyone could see the solution...not
one hand went up. Not one of us could see the solution...one student did raise
his hand and offered that he believed that since he couldn't see the solution,
the solution (or say absolute truth) must not exist...After explaining it
to us and showing us the solution...not one of us understood it...therefore, the
one student maintained that the solution didn't exist. Later on in the
semester...we all came to understand that solution or absolute truth...I
trust Elder Oaks as I did that professor...I believe [Oaks}, along with other
righteous men, SEE the solution. We often cannot, and some may even stand up and
offer that since they can't see it, it must not exist. An absolute truth is
offered only to those who seek it; everyone doesn't have to accept it right now
for it to be absolute. Some choose to walk by faith, and TRUST that they will
come to know the TRUTH.
Absolute truth, yet there are so many instances of situational actions. How is
this reconciled? Doesn't action follow genuine belief?
@ Let the Truth be Told | 12:13 a.m. Sept. 12, 2011 Really?Not one single scripture in the Bible says, and I quote you here, that "
all men are children of God?" Not one verse?What about this?:
"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children
of God. And if children, then heirs. Heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ,
if so be that we suffer with him." - Romans 8:16-17
Latter-day Larry - You're both right, it was an apostolic opinion, given that
Elder Oaks does not have the keys to pronounce doctrinal changes.I
just want to know what Sister Oaks said.
A Voice of Reason, We are God's children and that we are all brothers and
sisters. True, in a generic sense. For in him we live and move and have
our being. As some of your own poets have said, We are his offspring. (Acts
17:28) But as many as received Him, to them He gave the
AUTHORITY(exousia,1849) to become children of God, to those who believe in His
name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the
will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13) And[Christians] because ye
are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying,
Abba, Father.(Gal 4:6)James Talmage ,Divinely appointed Judges
Called gods, In Psalm 82:6 ,judges invested by divine appointment are called
gods.(Jesus the Christ p.501)is it not written in your law, I said Ye are
gods,(John 10:34) Present tense, Not even Mormonism teaches you are a god right
As the Lord has stated, "Whether by my voice or the voice of my servants,
it is the same." Yes, there are times when certain things were said that
could be solely opinion. However, we were not there when the things were said
and so many of them are second hand reports, or we have just snippets of what
was said. To try and justify something based on that and that alone is naive to
say the least.When an Apostle of the Lord states, "There are
those who are given the gift to know and then those given the gift to believe on
their words. I ask that YOU believe on my words." That is an an Apostle
testifying of his sacred calling and urging all present to believe on his words.
So yes, the whole talk was revelation.
A voice of Reason,Though sometimes your comments are defensive I
don't ever find them offensive and I think you're a good example of how
discussions should go on des news.So Thanks!
@Brahmabull,Not exactly. According to the Church website doctrine is
given by prophets and apostles repeatedly, but as it has been mentioned, Elder
Oaks is an apostle of God and per each General Conference, Latter Day Saints
sustain him as a prophet seer and revelator as with all the apostles and
therefore he does speak the words of Christ.
Latter-day Larry, I agree with the point you're making. I wouldn't say that
everyone who says 'it isn't revelation' is necessarily being critical of the
Apostles (or whomever) when they make such comments; but a common theme of
criticism obviously exists within a great deal of the comments making this
point.In response to this concern, I would invite another idea that
adequately addresses this common criticism.First, I would suggest
that they read the first and second points made in "Fourteen Fundamentals
in Following the Prophet", by Ezra Taft Benson.Second, after
reading those two references I would suggest that we not forget the most direct
line of revelation that we have, ourselves. I'm not simply talking about
personal prayer, but also the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have read things from
Dallin H. Oaks that people have criticized, where I've even heard another member
say that he had an agenda, and so on. However, I know without any doubt that his
words were true, not because of his "rank" (if you will), or
priesthood office, or the venue where it was given, but as the spirit testified
of the truthfulness of his words.
George,Thanks a bunch. I laughed when I read the 'temptation' bit.
Although I've lately been more 'riled up' than before, it doesn't reflect my
real views all that accurately. I imagine the only things I ever feel justified
in directly condemning (argument-wise I mean) would either be 1- Intentional
misrepresenting of someone else's beliefs or 2- Arguments intending to discredit
one's right to choose their beliefs and express them. --- I tend to only find
these arguments from those arguing anti-______. These persons typically argue
anti-LDS or anti-atheist, or anything where one's sole arguing goal is to fight
another belief. I believe that such arguing is destructive and entirely ad
hominem. While I get very defensive fairly frequently and when really pushed
even very offensive... I really do know that the best approach is the peaceful
sharing of ideas.Without a peaceful arena for public discourse and
debate, one that would welcome diverse and disagreeing views... I can't really
expect others to treat me with that same respect. I'll certainly try to
encourage a more productive approach. I can't promise I may never get a little
'riled up' from time to time though, lol.
Brahmabull -You may want to check D&C 68:4. If you listen to the talk
or read it in its entirety and don't feel what I and many others felt, then you
won't understand it. In fact, you _can't_ understand it; it will seem as, in
Paul's words, foolishness to you (I Corinthians 2:14). Elder Oaks is no
ordinary man, he is an apostle. He gave his apostolic witness to what he was
saying at the conclusion of his talk. If that means nothing to you, then no
wonder it seems to you as mere opinion.
I have no problem being tolerant of others. Looking at world history and people
through out my life, I haven't found many with common sense. Mainly, I've
learned to rely on my own thoughts and opinions.
Establishing a law to help clarify temporal or spiritual intent is a natural
normal human practice either in government or religion. Laws help maintain
critical liberties of a free people. Look at the numerous motor vehicle and
traffic laws as one mere example. Elder Oaks' comments here are abbreviated.
The three absolute truths he addresses are by no means the only absolute truths
in existence. He selected those three truths as some among the various
contributors supporting tranquil inter-personal relationships. If we really
want to know what he means, or allow him the time to explain legal principles,
we can write him for an in depth treatise. He is most capable to do so not only
from the spirit of his Apostolic calling, but as a former Utah Supreme Court
Justice. His counsel importunes peace through the provident act of avoiding
An absolute truth, sometimes called a universal truth, is an unalterable and
permanent fact. None of the things mentioned in this article are absolute truth
because if they were most people would agree they are! They don't!Many religions contain absolute truths. For example, a Christian might say,
"I know Jesus Christ is my Savior. By following his teachings, I will live
in heaven when I die." To the believer this may be an absolute truth.
Imposing this statement on others is where this absolute truth is disagreed upon
or debated. While many may agree that the Christian believes absolutely that
Jesus is his Savior, they are unlikely to agree that Jesus as everyone's Savior
is an absolute truth. When a persons absolute truth is extended to all others,
it can be viewed not as an absolute truth or universal truth, but rather a
personal truth. As a mere human, when you have certain beliefs which you think
you can prove to yourself and others who believe the same, but cannot prove to
others who believe differently than "absolute truth" is a false claim.
Just declaring something is absolute truth does not make it so.
@AZRods;"believers should not shrink from seeking laws to
maintain public conditions or policies that assist them in practicing the
requirements of their faith ..."Sounds very much to me like
they actually NEED the laws in order to "assist" them in keeping the
"requirements" of their faith. If you truly had faith, you wouldn't
need the "assist", would you? :0The problem with passing
these laws that provide "assistance" to those of your (or any) faith,
is that they HINDER other religious/non-religious who aren't in need of the
"assistance". If you need "assistance" keeping
the requirements of your faith, perhaps you should seek help from your local
religious authorities instead of passing laws?
Ranchhand says "If you have to have a law for you to "practice the
requirements of their faith", then they don't really have faith at
all."Simply not so.If we need laws in society, it does
not mean that we would all be law breakers without those laws.Many
people are, by nature, less inclined to keep certain laws, whether they belaws of the land or laws of God. But it is our choice.Laws make us
accountable, a consequence that many will find undesirable.You are
right though, some people just don't get it;)
So...where does that leave us when it comes to the Family Proclamation? Was
President Packer right the first time? Or were his edited remarks the
"truth"?I can understand that he might have misspoken a word
like temptation, but not an entire phrase endorsing the Family Proclamation.Dare I suggest that political correctness has crept into the church regarding
feminism, homosexuality and illegal aliens?And if so, where does absolute
truth come into play?
"believers should not shrink from seeking laws to maintain public
conditions or policies that assist them in practicing the requirements of their
faith where those conditions or policies are also favorable to the public
health, safety, or morals."If you have to have a law for you to
"practice the requirements of their faith", then they don't really
have faith at all.Not everyone shares the same "morals".
Legislating your version automatically infringes on the rights of those who
don't share your version.Being tolerant doesn't demand you abandon
your own version of "truth", but that you allow others to live theirs
without your interference.Some people just don't get it.
@voice of reason I have noticed a difference in the tone of your post.
while I am sure we will continue to disagree on issues I like the new tone very
much, I will do my best to not be a source of temptation to turn back from the
new tone. good luck.
It is a nice article, but remember what elder Oaks says isn't doctrine, it is
only opinion. So you have to take it for what it is worth.
From the article-"when believers take their views into the
public square they must seek inspiration from the Lord and be selective and wise
in choosing which principles to promote; when choosing to promote a position
methods and advocacy should be tolerant of opinions and positions of those who
do not share similar beliefs; believers should not be deterred by the charge
that they are trying to legislate morality and "believers should not shrink
from seeking laws to maintain public conditions or policies that assist them in
practicing the requirements of their faith where those conditions or policies
are also favorable to the public health, safety, or morals."-------Well said!I am imperfect and any frequenter on
here would know that I have moments of less tolerance when I'm upset from an
issue, but I try to be conscious of fair and inviting debate. Very recently, in
my personal life I have experienced something that makes me want to invite the
kindest debate possible. We really shouldn't be bitter at all, but we absolutely
should seek to learn God's truth, not as others understand it or would portray
it.The truth- our beliefs don't infringe freedom, but protect it.
Let the Truth be Told,I'm not going to go back and forth
'Bible-bashing', I simply want to encourage that there is reference in the
Bible, whether we all agree or not, that one could at very least understand as
meaning that we are God's children and that we are all brothers and sisters.Deuteronomy 14:1Psalm 82:6Matthew 5:48John 20:17While they all support the idea that God is indeed our supreme Father,
the scripture in John also makes it clear that Jesus Christ at least in our
relationship to God the Father, is indeed our brother.Again, we all
may disagree on this point- but there is at least reasonable reference as to why
we believe such a doctrine.
He said there are three absolute truths individuals who believe in God usually
share: people are brothers and sisters under God, taught within their religions
to love and to do good to one another; living with differences is what the
Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us we must do and tolerance and respect for
others does not cause us to abandon our commitment to truths and covenants. 1: The bible in no way teaches that all men are brothers or that all men
are children of God.2: Jesus said He was the ONLY Way3: I do,
however, agree with number 3