Oaks goes full Communist

[Destroyer]

Remember, we have a type and a shadow of what Oaks wants us to be in Alma 47. If we can just be as accommodating as Lehonti was, everything will work out for us as great as it did for him.

[jreuben]

Many of us wondered if oaks was a communist due to his time in a supreme court position. Now we have confirmation that yes indeed, oaks is an evil luciferian communist piece o trash. Thank you for sharing this sad and disgusting tidbit.

[Moroni104]

When I saw the Church website describing the event it triggered me.

I think what triggers me most is the way the website describes the talk and what the website authors choose to emphasize.

For example, the website says:

President Oaks said we should avoid being “unduly influenced” by extreme voices because “they polarize and sow resentment” in their quest for zero-sum victories. “Such outcomes are rarely sustainable or even attainable, and they are never preferable to living together in mutual understanding and peace.”

President Oaks also said we should not let fear of the potential loss of some of our own freedoms blind us to the freedoms of others.

I think the people who run the website are woke or stupid and choose to emphasize things like this. It seems like an attempt to try to moderate conservatives in the Church.

However, here is another quote from the talk:

In a free society like ours, all are lawfully privileged and morally obligated to exert their best political efforts to argue for what they think is most desirable.

If that was the main quote that was emphasized by the website, I would have got a much different vibe about what this talk is about. He is saying that you and I are morally obligated to exert our best political efforts. I believe this.

He is also saying we should avoid extreme voices, which can be true, but it is really hard to determine what is "extreme" ,so it is sort of a wishy-washy sentence that doesn't mean anything. He doesn't actually say what voices are extreme.

If you listen to the entire talk (I had to listen at 1.5X speed because he talks so slowly) I think this talk is pretty straightforwardly saying:
1) You advocate for what you believe
2) You don't break the law
3) You try to seek to understand others, and negotiate with political opponents in a "win-win" fashion if possible. (Think Stephen Covey).

I think in general, these are true statements. Unfortunately, I do NOT agree with the way the Church has negotiated with LGBTQ. I don't believe that it is good public policy to harm the rights of businesses, housing, and individuals, with regards to their desires to associate or non-associate with LGBTQ individuals. I feel like the Church's position seems more like an attempt to get the woke mob to go after those groups and leave the Church alone. It is the virtue signaling that everyone is trying in their attempts to appease the woke mob. Eventually the woke mob is coming for the Church. The Church cannot agree to pass laws that essentially say something is bigotted if it is done by private individuals but is NOT bigotted if done by the Church. Eventually, people say "if the University of Private Individuals must have same gender bathrooms, then so must BYU." You can only feed so many people to the cannibals until you are the only ones left.

The Church appears to be acting on good principles, (1) advocacy, (2) sustaining the law, (3) seeking to understand others and seeking to "win-win", but in the case of the LGBTQ mob, I don't think it is going to work out well.

For me, the description of the talk triggered me, and the position of the Church with regards to LGBTQ stuff annoys me, but this talk itself is fine.

Anyway... I don't wish to get in a debate with anyone. I am just explaining view in case it is helpful to anyone. Have a good evening.

[EmmaLee]

Fauci and Oaks - sound exactly the same, and that is NOT a good thing -

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/1 ... ety-video/

Dr. Fauci: ‘There is a Misplaced Perception About People’s Individual Right to Make a Decision that Supersedes the Societal Safety’

[TrueFaith]

The Salt Lake Tribune has a report on Oaks talk. He was sweating bullets and had to stop half way through it. Why? He knows what he was saying is wrong.

It’s not recorded in the church’s official transcript of his speech, but he actually stopped in the middle, telling the audience, “I think at this point, I’ll take a brief sitting break and invite you to enjoy a brief standing break.” He resumed the speech after a short recess. He also wiped his face multiple times during the speech and just appeared … well, more uncomfortable than I ever recall seeing him.

Oh, we're listening and we don't like what he's saying. What he is saying is not what an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ should be saying.

I think it has become the “most difficult” because he recognizes how few Latter-day Saints are listening.

Standing up for freedom is what mortality is all about. The freedom to choose is why we are here. We are not drunk. What a poor description. How insolent to refer to members as such.

And conservatives, drunk with a particular approach to “freedom” that focuses wholly on the self without any consideration of neighbor or the greater good, aren’t listening either. That has become especially clear during the pandemic, when conservative saints in the U.S. have pushed back vociferously against church leaders who advised them to mask up or get vaccinated to curb the spread of COVID-19.

It's very painful and uncomfortable to speak contrary to the influence of the Holy Ghost.

[stormcloak]

The Salt Lake Tribune has a report on Oaks talk. He was sweating bullets and had to stop half way through it. Why? He knows what he was saying is wrong.

...

Is there a video of Oaks giving this speech?

Edit: Looks like I found it here:

However, someone in the comments said this is not the live version which was posted yesterday. Apparently they've removed the Q&A as well as the break at the halfway point. However, it appears this channel called "Latter Gay Stories" has uploaded at least the Q&A portion:

[onefour1]

I think what Elder Oaks is teaching is compromising and coming to mutual agreements as long as it is not compromising our essential freedoms and basic right of the free exercise of our religion. If the compromise does not infringe upon our life, health, free pursuit to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience, or basic rights of freedom, etc. then it is a good thing to seek a mutual agreement to resolve our differences with mutual respect and love of our fellow man to live together in peace.

It is an issue if such groups seek to do away with our basic rights and our free exercise of religion according to the teachings of God. What society often lacks is the reason God gave us our free agency to do as we please. One cannot truly become a good being like God without free will. God is a being who does good of his own volition. One cannot do good of their own volition without having the free will to choose goodness in and of themselves. In order to build good character within each of us, it is necessary that we all have the free will to choose between good and evil. The down side of this is that some will be deceived and choose evil. But without free choice we could never achieve the character of God. Would we truly become good beings by being forced to do good? I don't think so. A person who chooses goodness of their own free will and choice is a much better being than one who is forced to do good. Understanding this basic concept is the real reason we have free will. If all God wanted was for us to obey him He could easily take away our free will. But that is not all that God wants. He wants us to learn to be good beings in and of ourselves. Thus he gives mankind a great amount of freedom to do as we will on an individual basis.

Compromise is always compromise. In other words you do give up something when you compromise. The essential thing is that we do not give up our basic rights and freedoms to maintain our right to worship God to the full extent that God wants us to be able to worship him. Compromising any of our freedoms, in my opinion, infringes upon how God wants us to live and worship him. I believe that God, knowing the wickedness of those who seek power, inspired the freedoms of our constitution to allow us to live according to how he would have us live. We should seek to preserve the constitution and the laws that ensure our freedoms. We should always seek to preserve our right to the free exercise of religion and to protect all the tenants of our religion from those who seek to do away with them. The freedoms we have should never be compromised. The real question then is if there is any room for compromise.

[Baurak Ale]

The Salt Lake Tribune has a report on Oaks talk. He was sweating bullets and had to stop half way through it. Why? He knows what he was saying is wrong.

It’s not recorded in the church’s official transcript of his speech, but he actually stopped in the middle, telling the audience, “I think at this point, I’ll take a brief sitting break and invite you to enjoy a brief standing break.” He resumed the speech after a short recess. He also wiped his face multiple times during the speech and just appeared … well, more uncomfortable than I ever recall seeing him.

Oh, we're listening and we don't like what he's saying. What he is saying is not what an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ should be saying.

I think it has become the “most difficult” because he recognizes how few Latter-day Saints are listening.

Standing up for freedom is what mortality is all about. The freedom to choose is why we are here. We are not drunk. What a poor description. How insolent to refer to members as such.

And conservatives, drunk with a particular approach to “freedom” that focuses wholly on the self without any consideration of neighbor or the greater good, aren’t listening either. That has become especially clear during the pandemic, when conservative saints in the U.S. have pushed back vociferously against church leaders who advised them to mask up or get vaccinated to curb the spread of COVID-19.

Perhaps he had to sit down because his Covid shot was doing its safe and effective thing.

[BeNotDeceived]

benotde, I think you convinced me a few years ago that about 2024. . .I still think that. I didn't get the vax. Many of my friends didn't either but they claim that they follow the prophet. I'm not sure what the sign would be of following the prophet. I do follow Christ. Those who do not apostatize will take the covenant to the House of Israel. I don't want to miss that opportunity.

Oaks was introduced to his wife by Marie Osmond, who is her very best friend. Oaks now lives with a very worldly woman but I'm sure it is not rubbing off on him. He probably doesn't need to impress any of her friends, either, ya know.

2024 began to standout in me 0030 thread, which is the second term of a "couple-three years".

... The man child takes action at some point in relation to the sign of the woman--but when? ...

THE SECOND BOOKEND

The next time after 9/23/2017 that the crown of 12 stars will be upon her head will be on 7/27/2023. Now it only matters where Jupiter is on that date and if it makes sense. Well Jupiter is in Aries. And in, The Gospel in the Stars, Aries represents the Lamb of God acting at the time of the consummation. So yeah 7/27/2023 is the perfect sign for the man child standing! ...

And Mike's post about the second bookend explains the first term.

Sign, but not sing. gbng

[Serragon]

“Sustain” is an interesting word.

If you are doing your part, whatever you see that as, in order to help them to be prophets seers and revelators, would that not be true sustaining?

Unquestionably it would be.

Whether they are getting prophecy vision or revelation currently at the moment is out of your control and very basically fundamentally unrelated to whether or not you sustain them.

The typical LDS definition of sustain is that you will follow their counsel. I’ve shared several quotes from the church webpage before, I’ll have to go find them again. Pretty bizarre.

Words have meanings. If they wanted the interview to say “do you assent to the statement that they are true prophets seers and revelators” they could very easily modify the wording. To that wording. They never have.

If they wanted to ask whether you “follow” them, they likewise could change the wording to “follow.”

They haven’t. So I will answer the questions as worded.

That’s fair.

Local leaders have made that distinction though...

A good friend had his temple recommend revoked over the phone a few months ago because he said that there are many prophets.

That’s a good question... I may start a thread to get people’s thoughts...

Why do we “sustain” a select few men as prophets, when we all have that capability?

Yet the recommend questions require that we sustain 15 prophets.

[Gadianton Slayer]

The typical LDS definition of sustain is that you will follow their counsel. I’ve shared several quotes from the church webpage before, I’ll have to go find them again. Pretty bizarre.

Words have meanings. If they wanted the interview to say “do you assent to the statement that they are true prophets seers and revelators” they could very easily modify the wording. To that wording. They never have.

If they wanted to ask whether you “follow” them, they likewise could change the wording to “follow.”

They haven’t. So I will answer the questions as worded.

That’s fair.

Local leaders have made that distinction though...

A good friend had his temple recommend revoked over the phone a few months ago because he said that there are many prophets.

That’s a good question... I may start a thread to get people’s thoughts...

Why do we “sustain” a select few men as prophets, when we all have that capability?

Yet the recommend questions require that we sustain 15 prophets.

I can't understand why... outside of unrighteousness dominion.

[Serragon]

Words have meanings. If they wanted the interview to say “do you assent to the statement that they are true prophets seers and revelators” they could very easily modify the wording. To that wording. They never have.

If they wanted to ask whether you “follow” them, they likewise could change the wording to “follow.”

They haven’t. So I will answer the questions as worded.

That’s fair.

Local leaders have made that distinction though...

A good friend had his temple recommend revoked over the phone a few months ago because he said that there are many prophets.

That’s a good question... I may start a thread to get people’s thoughts...

Why do we “sustain” a select few men as prophets, when we all have that capability?

Yet the recommend questions require that we sustain 15 prophets.

I can't understand why... outside of unrighteousness dominion.

Just pointing out that the recommend questions themselves support your friend's statement.

[Gadianton Slayer]

That’s fair.

Local leaders have made that distinction though...

A good friend had his temple recommend revoked over the phone a few months ago because he said that there are many prophets.

That’s a good question... I may start a thread to get people’s thoughts...

Why do we “sustain” a select few men as prophets, when we all have that capability?

Yet the recommend questions require that we sustain 15 prophets.

I can't understand why... outside of unrighteousness dominion.

Just pointing out that the recommend questions themselves support your friend's statement.

Ah! Gotcha. This is true, but sometimes church culture doesn't play nice with "true"...