- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve been reading a lot on various forums how many people took offense to Elder Oaks’ talk referring to “moral cowards” in the last conference. I admit I did not hear the talk given live, but in reading it, I think some people may be making much ado about nothing, and I’m curious for other’s input. Here is the quote: Quote:
A teaching of President Thomas S. Monson applies to this circumstance. At this conference 27 years ago, he boldly declared: “Let us have the courage to defy the consensus, the courage to stand for principle. Courage, not compromise, brings the smile of God’s approval. Courage becomes a living and an attractive virtue when it is regarded not only as a willingness to die manfully, but as the determination to live decently.A moral coward is one who is afraid to do what he thinks is right because others will disapprove or laugh. Remember that all men have their fears, but those who face their fears with dignity have courage as well.” He’s clearly stating this to his TBM audience and encouraging them to stand up for their beliefs (in this talk he’s referring specifically to SSM) and not to be intimidated by what others will think, say, or do. However, I think his counsel equally applies to those of us who may hold a differing belief. We are also counselled to do what we think is right. It says “A moral coward is one who is afraid to do what
hethinks is right ….” not what the Church thinks is right or what presiding authorities think is right or anyone else for that matter. Thoughts?
Actually, his entire talk was was about SSA and gay marriage, and the sacredness of marriage, and his message was that if you support SSM than you are bowing to the pressures of the world and are a moral coward. And that the church doctrine and position will never change because they are not moral cowards like I am. IMO.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
cwald wrote:Actually, his entire talk was was about SSA and gay marriage, and the sacredness of marriage, and his message was that if you support SSM than you are bowing to the pressures of the world and are a moral coward. And that the church doctrine and position will never change because they are not moral cowards like I am.
IMO.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
The only time the words “moral coward” were used is in the paragraph and context I noticed above. A lot of people however are reading into it exactly what you mentioned. I’ve read the talk, and objectively, that is not what is being said.
Link to the full text of the talk:
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng Whatever gets you through the night. I’m inclined to agree that cwald’s interpretation is correct as to the speaker’s intent, but yes, in applying the talk I will follow that advice about what MY moral values are. I’m on the same page with Cwald and Hawk. I did hear the talk, and I can see how the whole thing was offensive to many people. Disagreeing with a church principle, and in fact believing otherwise, does not make one a moral coward. Is Steve Young a moral coward? Quite the opposite, I think, because a person of his standing had the courage to state his beliefs (opposite of Elder Oaks’) openly and without fear of retribution. As with most things, (e.g. “doubt your doubts”) we can’t take one thing, even a paragraph or a few paragraphs, out of the context of the whole and make it look as though it’s something else. Mormons love to do that with scripture, too, but then again we’re not the only ones who do it.
I have a hard time interpreting any of this as “you’re a moral coward if you support SSM”… I just don’t see it. baldzach wrote:I have a hard time interpreting any of this as “you’re a moral coward if you support SSM”… I just don’t see it.
I’ll reread the talk and see if I can agree with you.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
I try not to get hung up on any speaker’s individual views. I like to take a message for the good that I can get out of it. If the message is to stand up for and practice what you individually believe I am happy to follow that advice, and I believe I do. Everyone will be criticized by someone, we all have different points of view. So our approach would be take that statement and use it to justify disagreeing with him about the topic of the talk. I’m fine with that. In fact, I like it.
:thumbup: If anyone complains, we can quote an apostle to defend us.:clap:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.