I guess this is a different take than Randall Bowen’s post yesterday. I attended the “Be One” celebration a week ago at the Conference Center. It was truly an amazing service. I encourage you all to watch it. Gladys Knight, the Bonner Family, the Be One Choir, and all the performers were amazing. I got a little emotional as I listened to these wonderful black performers discuss the First Vision, and highlighted black history. Some of these stories I had heard, some of them I had not. I encourage you all to watch it if you haven’t. The link is below. Just skip ahead of the countdown timer. The meeting starts about 1 hour in.
I hate to point out anything negative, but there was one fly in the ointment. You can read Elder Oaks entire address here, and it was mostly good. He encouraged us to abandon all personal prejudices, but it seems he can’t help himself with regards to one certain prejudice:
Even as we unite to abandon all attitudes and practices of prejudice, we should remember that it is not prejudice for the Church to insist on certain rules in furtherance of the Lord’s requirement of worthiness to enter a temple. The Lord has declared that obedience to covenants and commandments is an essential requirement to enjoy sacred blessings. Any attempt to erase divine requirements for eternal life and eternal families would be like trying to establish Satan’s plan that “all would be saved.” We mortals already rejected Satan’s plan in our premortal lives. We chose the plan of our Heavenly Father, which provides the freedom to choose and keep the eternal covenants and commandments that apply equally to all. The equality of God is not equal outcomes for all, but equal opportunity for all.
This seems like a veiled reference to gay marriage. I was disappointed in this one paragraph, and wish Elder Oaks would have a vision like Peter in Acts 10:15 “What God has cleansed, that call not common.” The NIV translation reads, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” Please Elder Oaks, abandon ALL prejudice. Don’t pick and choose. Abandon the PoX. It is wrong, and your application of it with regards to children of gay parents is not only prejudice, but un-christian, and violates Mormon theology. As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of lifting the ban, don’t perpetuate and justify prejudice of any kind. (If you had left out that one paragraph, I wouldn’t have written this post.)
But thank you to everyone who put together this wonderful program last week. It was amazing.
I guess “we don’t apologize” has grown to “and we don’t evolve”. …at least some of us don’t. I just regret that the mantle of some people’s intolerance — which shows little concern for all manner of our human failing to live up to standards of worthiness but one — falls both on the vulnerable and the ones it simply doesn’t fit. And that’s painful for both groups.
But I guess that just makes it more important for those of us who can embrace everyone, regardless of how imperfect, to increase our activities to do it!
I loved this recent response from Pope Francis to a young boy asking about his father, an atheist:
“The next step in answering Emanuele’s question, he said, would be to think about what God is like and, especially, what kind of heart God has. “What do you think? A father’s heart. God has a dad’s heart. And with a dad who was not a believer, but who baptised his children and gave them that bravura, do you think God would be able to leave him far from himself?”
“Does God abandon his children?” the Pope asked. “Does God abandon his children when they are good?”
The children shouted, “No.”
“There, Emanuele, that is the answer,” the Pope told the boy. “God surely was proud of your father, because it is easier as a believer to baptise your children than to baptize them when you are not a believer. Surely this pleased God very much.”
http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2018/04/16/is-my-dad-in-heaven-little-boy-asks-pope/
I read that part of Elder Oak’s talk to mean pretty much what the OP said it did — that the reversal of the priesthood ban cannot be used as a precedent for reversing the Church’s rejection of gay sex. Logically, I can see how they’re not quite the same. I think church leaders have mostly accepted the idea that you can’t change your sexual orientation (just like you can’t choose your race), but hold to the idea that whether or not one chooses to engage in gay sex remains a moral choice.
The real problem they have is in convincing us that making the choice to marry someone of the same sex leads to more harm than marrying someone of the opposite sex to whom one is not attracted or to going through life without hope of a romantic relationship.
I feell that we here on earth must live under one rule, not judge..Elder Oaks is simply stating a fact, the rule of the Gospels teaching.
Get a grip Elder Oaks is a prophet seer and a Revelator what he says it’s the truth there were no inferences or innuendos. Stop trying to make everything fit your own image just be obedient and live the Covenant path
THANK YOU for your article!!!
Each and every single one of us are the Temples of God! All of us are Divinely Loved by Heavenly Parents. All of us!!!
I’m exhausted with the continuing pressure to always seeming to have to prove ones Worthiness to others or some authority figure!! We are All Worthy!!!! All of us!!!
We are All God’s Temples ” built without hands” Each and Every One of Us are God’s
Annointed!, Not just a few special people/Leaders. If each of us, Would view each other, everyone you see , as Temples of God and Divinely Annointed Beings…….pretty dang sure our world would become Heaven on Earth, right Here and Now!!!
Ann T-
I want to KISS you! …in a perfectly worthy and heterosexual way of course.
The church will rue it’s stance on this one. It in itself is satanic
MH, Ann T, and others,
The Community of Christ formalized this by including as one if its 9 Enduring Principles, the following:
Worth of All Persons
God views all people as having inestimable and equal worth.
God wants all people to experience wholeness of body, mind, spirit, and relationships.
We seek to uphold and restore the worth of all people individually and in community, challenging unjust systems that diminish human worth.
We join with Jesus Christ in bringing good news to the poor, sick, captive, and oppressed.
Keep in mind that my denomination has its own, less-than-perfect history of dealing with race relations, particularly in our congregations and districts throughout the American South during the Jim Crow-era and into the 1960s. Faith communities can grow beyond their shortcomings, failures, and unrighteous behaviors, however. Although agonizingly painful and stressful at times, we have since opened priesthood ministry to women (1985)and in recent years to the LGBT community (at least in the US, Canada, Australia, and UK). I sincerely hope someday that will happen with our LDS “distant cousins.”
I find it interesting how people who are frustrated with the Church and church leaders have such selective observations and memories of church history, doctrine, practices, conference talks, etc. The post by Lois, about the Pope is an example. The implication is that it sure would be nice if Mormon leaders would kind, and charitable, ans full of unconditional love like the Pope. I wonder if any of them have ever read the heartfelt, tender, emotion talks by the apostles pleading with people to trust God and believe that Christ really can do what he says he can? What about the counsel from Elder Packer – one of the most frequently maligned apostles among disaffected mormons – that a man who was by the “policy” not worthy to bless his child should be invited to perform the blessing so he could feel closer to God and His love. Look it up. Maybe just a little similar to the story about the Pope?
Oaks can’t help himself. It’s offensive to me that he used what should have been a platform for those of black African heritage to do their thing to make it about his own personal agenda. That is not leadership.
I’m with LDS_Aussie. Oaks inserting his homophobia into this keynote address was like the best man at a wedding who gives a great toast to the bride and groom then takes a tangent to trash talk the flower girl. It lacked class.
“It seems….” you said that perfectly. You have read way too much into Dallin Oaks comments.
Blovell, my friend turned to me immediately and said the same thing immediately after Oaks spoke these words. It was a “veiled reference” that could be easily denied. But if it wasn’t gay marriage, what was he talking about?
As I read through most of the comments, I feel that old adage is true. ” You can’t see the forest for the trees.”
Most of you who made some of the comments, did you or did you not hold your arm to the square and sustain Elder Oaks as a prophet, seer, and revelator? If you did, what’s your problem? If you did not, what is your problem?
The ones with the problems sounded to me like self righteous hypocrites. You have your own idea of what and what is not correct. That’s the good thing about moral agency., you make the choice, you find out.
…if a man shall come among you and shall say: Do this, and there is no iniquity; do that and ye shall not suffer; yea, he will say: Walk after the pride of your own hearts; yea, walk after the pride of your eyes, and do whatsoever your heart desireth—and if a man shall come among you and say this, ye will receive him, and say that he is a prophet.
Here is the thing that frustrates me the most and continues to hurt my heart: I followed every counsel from these guys starting in the mid 90s to do what I was supposed to do with regard to my sexual orientation. It turns out they didn’t know what they were doing, and damaged a lot of people. They’ve finally come to understand (due possibly to the carnage their ideas have wrought in my life and the lives of many like me) that sexual orientation is not a choice. But they refuse to consider the theological implications of that. They simply stop at “You can still choose your behavior! It’s an Abrahamic test! Everybody has trials! and so on, and so on”. Now they’ve added an additional layer of pain over the whole situation with the PoX.
I didn’t hear E Oaks’s talk, but I did hear Pres. Nelson’s. He quoted the scripture that “all are alike unto God.” I immediately felt the devastating truth that if what the Brethren have done with this policy is sanctioned by God, it simply isn’t true that all are alike unto Him. And until the Brethren and the members of the Church who have lined up to support this policy put themselves into the shoes of gay, lesbian, trans members, and consider the theology behind the Church’s position on sexual orientation, things will never change. The theological implications of the current situation are devastating and faith-destroying.
Dale, I know many LDS Church members consider loyalty to the brethren of higher importance than loyalty to Christian principles. There is such a thing as loyal disagreement, and this is a case. I just sat through MHA presentations of Paul Reeve discussing Orson Pratt’s public disagreements with Brigham Young over legalizing slavery. Pratt said angels would blush and God would be disappointed.
Quincy Newell discussed Jane Manning James’s disagreement with not being allowed to be sealed or her endowment in the temple. Matt Harris also spoke on Hugh Brown’s advocating for overturning the ban. Are these men and women wrong for opposing their leaders, despite their uplifted hands?
Sustaining church leaders doesn’t mean you lose the right to disagree.
Jared, don’t wrest the scriptures. I’d love to hear a rebuttal to my old post re-evaluating gay scriptures, but I suspect you will ignore it, as you usually do. https://mormonheretic.org/2012/12/26/re-evaluating-gay-scriptures/
MH-the verse out of Helaman I used in the above comment isn’t exclusively for the latest episode where church members are mentally stoning the prophets. It applies to a broad range of issues that are popular targets. Your post is about gays. It is merely one of many areas church members are moving away from prophets.
The Nephite’s are like a mirror. We are traveling the same path. Tt is interesting to see the reflections from the Book of Mormon at work in our day.
Jared, I feel so prophetic. You addressed exactly zero of the scriptures in my post.
Many of these same prophets supported white supremacy. I could quote Brigham young saying blacks had no right to priesthood, curse of Cain, yada yada. These are repugnant quotes and orson Pratt was correct to oppose them. Hugh brown was right to oppose the black ban, as was Pratt for opposing slavery. The prophets were clearly wrong on these points.
Are you saying Pratt and Brown were stoning the prophet for their stance? Because it sure sounds like it. Prophets like Jeremiah were stoned for speaking truth to power. I support brown and Pratt for being more prophetic than Young and McKay.
Let me add one other comment. Bruce r McConkie stated in 1978, that someone referred to was A disavowel, stated that all statements prior to 1978 were with limited light and knowledge. That would mean Brigham Young spoke with limited light and knowledge. Orson Pratt, on the other hand, Apparently spoke with light and knowledge unknown up to Brigham young. It is OK to disagree with the brethren when they are wrong, but I know sometimes that can be difficult to decipher. But even Orthodox Bruce r McConkie clearly stated that the brethren prior to 1978 spoke with limited light and knowledge. That should be a noncontroversial statement to make.
Is McConkie stoning The Prophet Brigham Young?
MH-I’m not trying to debate. You stated how you feel about Pres Oaks’s side ways remarks about gays in you OP. I accept your take. I feel different. I support what Pres Oaks said.
I don’t always like what I hear from church leaders. for example, I’m puzzled by the decision to marginalize children in gay families. It doesn’t make sense to me.
I think its best to take things I don’t like about decisions the prophets reach to Heavenly Father and ask for help to understand. So far, I haven’t had a direct answer. As I read the scriptures though, I see situations where church members suffered when they followed the prophets, but the Lord made it up to a 100 to 1.
If I were a member of the twelve, I would let it be known that marginalizing children of gay families needs to be reviewed. When it comes to Brigham Young and the priesthood ban, I can understand to a degree how he decided as he did. There are enough scriptures in the Book of Mormon and bible to understand his decision. With that said, I’m elated that revelation reversing the ban in 1978 was received. I accept that Pres McKay didn’t reverse the ban in his day. He was the prophet and decided not to in answer to prayer.
I think we should sustain the prophets when we disagree with them, but at the same time, take our concerns to the Lord seeking his help. In Pres Lee’s day he said something to the effective that if you are 25 and not married you’re a menace. I was over 25 having been drafted in the military, and then going on a church mission. I didn’t appreciate what he said.
Please don’t take my difference of opinion as an invitation for a debate. I respect your opinion, and hope you will mine.
MH-disagreeing with the prophets isn’t mentally stoning them. Stoning the prophets occurs when one strongly oppose them publically, and speak ill of them.
“Stoning the prophets occurs when one strongly oppose them publically, and speak ill of them.”
Please watch that Paul Reeve interview about Orson Pratt. (very interesting interview.) Pratt PUBLICLY disputed Young in front of the Utah Legislature, said “angels would blush.” Is that speaking ill of Brigham? Is Orson’s language materially different than anything I said? If so, how?
Pratt and Young had mixed roles. Pratt is an apostle and legislator while Young is church President and governor. They saw things differently and because of their public roles were required to disagree publically to fulfill there responsibilities. However, I don’t believe they spoke ill of each other. Speaking ill means to demean and ridicule those we differ with.
All the scriptures I have read on marriage refer to man and wife. I’ve never seen any referring to man and man or women and woman. D & C 132 clearly states that marriage needs to follow God’s lawa. Is it crueler to withhold desired blessings in mortality or to allow people their desires in mortality and let the suffer in the eternities.
Please don’t use animals to justify human behavior unless you want to justify all animal behaviour
Mormon Heretic, why do you think that President Oaks’ statement seems like a veiled reference to gay marriage? It doesn’t seem veiled at all, and could refer to many things, including so-called “gay” marriage. He very clearly stated that God’s plan includes equal opportunity for all, not equal outcomes.
Satan’s plan was that all would be saved. God’s plan, if it is to be enjoyed to the fullest, and as President Oaks clearly states, includes the essential requirements of obedience to covenants and commandments. In order to reach this standard, we all need to repent. Which plan do you support? These covenants and commandments are extended to God’s children equally, regardless of race or sexual preferences. Why are you uncomfortable with President Oaks’ true statements? Have you thought to examine your own prejudices before attempting to dilute a very clear and timely message from one of the Lord’s living apostles? Food for thought.
Ah, section 132. Where women are given to men as concubines.
What a lovely scripture about suffering not just in eternity, but the eternities.
Sparks, Homosexuality was not visible, usually because it was illegal, so it was not included in discussion of marriage. According to Wikipedia homosexuality has been illegal since the 7th century, so only hetrosexual marriage is described.Though there are always people being punished.
Now that we are more respectfull of minorities, we realise that God has said things like “all are alike unto God, black and white, bond and free, male and female, gay and straight.” Now you might protest gay and straight, but think how the other are the minorities of the time. And that God asks us to love perfectly as he does (matt 5:48). Taken together, to me doesn’t allow for any discrimination against any of Gods children is not acceptable. I do not expect that God wants us to discriminate against anyone in this world or the next.
Jared, I have mixed roles. I am an elder and citizen of this legislature, and a blogger. I see things differently than Oaks and because of my public role, I am required to disagree publicly to fulfill my responsibilities when I see unchristian sermons & behavior.
Xenophan, I have already answered your question here. As for D&C 132, please tell me where I am wrong. In short, D&C 132 conflicts with Book of Mormon, the condemnation of Emma seems highly manipulative, Most Mormons (especially you) ignore D&C 132, and Joseph did things that flatly contradict D&C 132. Read this and offer a response when you’ve read it: https://mormonheretic.org/2015/03/01/dc-132-and-other-mens-wives (Like Suzanne, I also find the part about concubines repugnant.)
You should also read the link I left for Jared about gay scriptures. Honestly I would love a rebuttal.
Food for thought.
The truth is, you can add the caveat “unless you’re gay” to a pretty broad range of the pronouncements made by church leaders. Or sometimes, “unless your parents are gay.”
MH, thanks for this. The signaling is clear from Oaks. Of course that’s what he was doing. Just like he’s always done. To argue otherwise, as some of the comments here would have, shows they haven’t paid as much attention to what Oaks says as they claim to. They feel they can call you out, when, in context, it is their lack of understanding of what Oaks says that is most apparent. I don’t believe for a second any of those comments come from gay members or those close to gay members.
Thank you for being an ally and be aware enough to see what Oaks is saying. He knows it, and so do all gay members and gay allies. He’s drawing lines and keeps drawing them. Those who aren’t paying attention don’t even see it. Or, they feel that he is right to do so. The irony and most disheartening part, however, is that he did it at this event.
The newest leaders have stayed relatively silent on the topic recently (ministering has captured the day). Thanks to Oaks, (we knew it would be him), cautious optimism from gay members is again gone. We are not welcome and not invited to be part of the unified body in any fashion other than lip service from the leaders–and most often not even then. At least some members act and feel differently. Thank you.
You’re right, MH, the celebration was amazing. Tears came to my eyes more than once.
You’re alright right, I have to believe, about President Oaks’ veiled reference to same-sex marriage. What else could it be?
But it seems that many people, such as some here, are sidestepping the real questions. Is active, purposeful, homosexuality a sin? Is same-sex marriage a sin? These are YES or NO questions.
The brethren believe they are sin, and they so counsel church members. They call for repentance. They call for us to change, to abandon our sin and our prejudice. If these are sin, then aren’t the brethren right in warning us, and calling for repentance? Even if they do so imperfectly?
WHY is there only one sin that they obsess about?
WHY is there only one sin that should marginalize children who haven’t c committed the sin?
WHY must everyone in the church be mobilized to shame people for one variety of sin among all the sins we are ALL guilty of?
Alice, it’s because there is a very strong lobby for having homosexuality accepted as no longer a sin. It’s not about loving the sinner, and hating the sin, it’s about deciding that gay sex is no longer a sinful act now that the two can be legally married.
But what does a parent’s sin have to do with a child’s ordination or baptism?
Beam, meet mote.
The PoX needs to go.
I have a few more yes/no questions for you.
Is oral sex in marriage a sin?
Is intercourse with my wife while she is on her period a sin?
Is recreational sex ok if we are on birth control?
Is incest ok? (Adams kids, Lehi’s kids, Noah’s kids, Lot for all you biblical literalists)
Is Polygamy a sin?
Is Polyandry a sin?
Is sex a sin?
Different prophets have had different ideas about what is sin and what is not sin regarding sex. Is there a chance that the sex that you are engaged in is not approved of by God? Many Christians in the third and fourth centuries preached that the carnal act of sex is incompatible with having the spirit and being Christian. (If you think they are mistaken, try singing a hymn in your mind next time you are having sex and see if you can climax.) My point is that the same “ick factor” homophobes use to try and demonize homosexuals really should apply to heterosexuals too. It really is a lustful, carnal, wicked, gross act.
I do not know if God approves of monogamous homosexual relationships. In all honesty I do not have a dog in this fight and I do not care. I did witness my grandma be a racist her whole life and feel justified in her racism because it was validated by people she respected as prophets seers and revelators. She never put on a robe and burned a cross in anyone’s front yard, but she lived her whole life thinking she was better than a whole race of people, and it is impossible to feel love and charity for a group of people that you think you are better than. It did affect the way she talked about and treated black people. It also affected the way her kids acted. It turns out the people she trusted to tell her God’s will and attitude about a group of people were dead wrong.
I don’t know how any of you that are commenting here about the evils of homosexuality actually treat homosexuals, but I fear you might be following the path of my grandma. Believe whatever it is that you want, but don’t claim certain knowledge and realize that your words are going to affect the way you treat homosexuals and the way your kids are going to treat homosexuals.
This is why Utah’s youth suicide rate tripled since Prop 8. You declared war on your own children, and are reaping a bloody harvest.