Elder Uchtdorf as Medicine for Elder Oaks

For some people, Elder Oaks’ talk was a bit poisonous. Elder Uchtdorf’s talk is the medicine for it. The answer for many members is to live what Elder Uchtdorf taught and ignore some of what Elder Oaks preached. Some people need Elder Oaks’ certainty and steadfast exactness, but those who don’t need that can find healing from Elder Uchtdorf’s grace and inclusion.

I am happy Elder Uchtdorf spoke after Elder Oaks.

This is pretty much where I am at. My BYU sons both told me people there loved the Oaks talk. I’m sure there are people who do rally behind that kind of “standard bearing.” I’m not making a direct comparison here, but in some ways that’s very much like the ardent Trump followers – he gives the message they want to hear and it doesn’t matter how much some others might be offended by that message.

Uchtdorf’s talk was very reminiscent of “Come, Join With Us” which as some of you know made a difference in my life. Some of it was almost directly quoted from the earlier talk. I agree, Uchtdorf gives us a bit of the balm of Gilead. I was honestly not only disappointed in the talk by Oaks (because I don’t why he beats the same drum so often) but a few others as well, including Christofferson and to some extent Gong. While Uchtdorf couldn’t kiss it and make it all better, he didn’t hurt more either.

I didn’t watch conference, I purposely avoided it this year, I don’t know what exactly was said but it’s not hard to guess what Oaks likes to talk about.

One talk I can ignore or grit my teeth and muscle through, but I’ll tell you what’s hard.

The only, and I mean the only talk that I’ve seen people in my area mention on social media was Elder Oaks’ talk. They absolutely loved it. Now… far, far more people in my area haven’t made any comment at all about any talks. For all I know an overwhelming majority could be dead-set against the teachings brought up in the talk.

Good luck bringing that up at church though, where I feel the most orthodox that loved the talk will hold the culture hostage. Being against any idea brought up in the talk is not a tenable position, there’s a strong voice of authority that is against you and the orthodox absolutely love the talk.

It’s easy to reach the conclusion, “It’s just a person I disagree with. I’ll ignore them.” It’s harder when your tribe wants to hold your feet to the fire. It really makes one wonder whether they can continue to hang with their tribe. I don’t want to attend church where our local leaders loved the talk so much that we read it four times between now and April.

[Personal note, not an Admin Note]: I will NOT accept insulting the LGBTQ+ community, even just by implication, in threads about posts I write. The lettering has nothing to do with “the gay rights lobby”. They literally are very different things. The extra letters are to represent people who have been erased from our written records because there have not been ways to name them for who they are. We would never suggest eliminating references to race or ethnicity from a list of people’s heritages; I will not accept suggestions to eliminate references to the actual sexual identities of real people. They have been eliminated from our dialogue for too long. I will not let it happen or even be suggested in threads about posts I write.

It won’t be addressed again in this thread. It isn’t the focus of the post, and comments about it will divert attention from that focus.

I am sorry if that sounds harsh or dismissive, but this is an issue on which I will not bend – as a participant, not as an admin.

/back to the purpose and focus of the post

I apologize, Sam, if my comment seemed to say you are homophobic. That was not my intent. Seriously, that was not my intent.

My point simply was that the lettering and the gay rights lobby are very different things – and there is a concerted effort even within the gay community to be more accepting of the other letter individuals. Being gay (G) is very different than being someone who is represented by the other letters, and a lot of gay people (especially older gay people) have struggled to accept being grouped with them – for a lot of reasons. Saying or even implying that the other letters should be eliminated is insulting to people who are represented by those letters, intentionally or unintentionally, and saying that they are the result of the gay rights lobby simply is incorrect.

This is an incredibly complicated issue, and this thread is not the thread to disucuss it. It needs to drop now, so the conversation can return to the focus of the post: Elder Oaks’ and Elder Uchtdorf’s talks as they relate to ALL of us. If you want to continue the discussion, please send me a PM so we can do so privately.

Honestly, I used to like Oaks when I was younger. However, he’s become too conservative over the years, in my opinion, and behind the scenes he’s said some comments that really rubbed me the wrong way. Uchtdorf I still like a lot, even if all his talks aren’t all equal in greatness.

An extended family member knows one of the speakers’ sisters who has a homosexual child (How is that for degrees of Kevin Bacon?), and this speaker asked his sister what message the LGBTQ members wanted to hear. Her answer was simple:

That they are loved, wanted, and needed.

Elder Oaks’ talk notwithstanding, more than one talk focused on that message to one degree or another. Things are changing, and I beleive they will keep changing.

Finally, Elder Packer got hyper-focused on sex the last few years of his life. It became an obsession, and it turned a previously progressive leader in many ways into a stereotypical orthodox, regressive leader. I have seen that happening to Elder Oaks. He still gives a progressive talk periodically, but he is starting to obsess about religious freedom, persecution, staunch obedience, etc.

An extended family member knows one of the speakers’ sisters who has a homosexual child

Ironically, Elder Oaks has a talented grandson who is gay. No surprise, they are estranged.

Finally, Elder Packer got hyper-focused on sex the last few years of his life. It became an obsession, and it turned a previously progressive leader in many ways into a stereotypical orthodox, regressive leader. I have seen that happening to Elder Oaks. He still gives a progressive talk periodically, but he is starting to obsess about religious freedom, persecution, staunch obedience, etc.

My dad is nearly the same age as Oaks. He is beginning to have memory issues. Not alzheimers but spots of disconnect. To counter that he has become more strident in his views. Last spring my mom and I sat through his Easter talk, hands clenched in panic, holding our breath, that he didn’t move into diatribe. He bumped into a bit, but lucky didn’t stay. I wouldn’t be surprised if Oaks isn’t in the same boat. This is where agedness really catches us badly.