- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
President Oaks has been making some appearances lately. The following comes from a report in the church news of the abundant life conference for single adults where President Oaks was the keynote speaker. Quote:Referencing a message he shared recently about Latter-day Saint pioneers, President Oaks talked about the importance of inclusion both in the Church’s past and today.
“There is worldly praise and pressure for divisions that draw us apart, for diversity that impairs our unity, for reliance on family descent instead of individual qualifications and we are influenced by a culture of opposition. I concluded that ‘as a Church and as a culture, we need to lead out in demonstrating inclusion.’”
That “inclusion” is not the same as surrendering commitments to truth and morality.
President Oaks’ definitions
Divisions: We have powerful forces that seek to draw us apart, dividing us from the unity that is our strength. These forces are relentless.
Diversity: At a time when diversity is earnestly sought and greatly praised, the Restored Church opposes the popular definition of diversity in its organization and composition. We are all children of God and that is our most important characteristic. We need to unite in love.
Descent: You don’t need to be descended from pioneers or notable leaders to be included in the choicest blessings of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Opposition: We know that there must be opposition in all things, but we must resist being critical or pessimistic in these trying times.
I was somewhat confused by the definitions and looked up President Oaks’ previous speech on pioneers from the SUPer DUPer Day celebration that he appeared to be referencing. Quote:One of those principles is inclusion. “The pioneer legacy is a legacy of inclusion,” President Oaks declared.
“We live in a time when inclusion is needed — in political relations, in cultural relations, in legal relations — and it’s not forthcoming in our society,” he told the Church News after the event. “As a Church and as a culture, we need to lead out in demonstrating inclusion, not descent, diversity, diversion or opposition.”
Inclusion
President Oaks concluded his remarks with a second question: “Are these pioneer celebrations academic, merely increasing our fund of experience and knowledge, or will they have a profound impact on how we meet our current challenges?”
Church leaders have repeatedly challenged Latter-day Saints to gain strength from the example of the pioneers. This includes welcoming new members, ministering to reawaken the faith of those who have strayed and reaching out to current refugees.
When the Saints were driven out of Missouri and later during the Nauvoo exodus, Church leaders were adamant that none of the poor would be left behind. “When the wagons and handcarts moved west, their movement was always one of inclusion, and no day’s journey ended until every straggler was accounted for,” he said.
As a modern-day example of rescuing stragglers, President Oaks referenced the Church’s 3,600 humanitarian projects ministering to people in 160 countries during 2020.
I must have read his “definition” for diversity a dozen times and I’m still no closer to understanding what he’s trying to communicate. What exactly is the popular definition of diversity that the church opposes?
Reading it a baker’s dozenth time, maybe he’s making a similar statement as Bednar’s, “There are no homosexual members of the church.” Which I think was a poor attempt to try to communicate how we should focus on ways we’re similar (all children of god) and not on things that could divide us. Instead it was interpreted by many to be an invalidating statement, ironically becoming something that divided us.
I really don’t know what he means by popular definition of diversity. I take it to mean being more united by being more accepting of diversity.
To be honest, his statements feel like a dog whistle for the type of member that makes me feel unwelcome at church.
Quote:
This includes welcoming new members,ministering to reawaken the faith of those who have strayed
This makes it sound like a part of his definition of inclusion is to reach out to others with the ulterior motive of homogenizing people into the church monoculture.
Full disclaimer, this is a particularly sensitive subject for me because as an orthodox believer I surrendered a large part of my identity in order to fit in. At the time I didn’t realize that’s what was going on and it reached a point where it became an unconscious source of pain and stress in my life.
And I suppose the rhetoric coming from church leaders in the decades following the civil rights movement became more and more heated right up until the moment that they surrendered to the better way the world had shown them. Perhaps we’ll see that phenomenon play out again.
From what I can gather, when President Oaks uses the term inclusion he is mainly talking about not leaving out poor people. Thus he gives the church’s humanitarian projects as the example of inclusion. I honestly feel that the church does a fair job of this. Maybe it is because of the remeumpton story in the BoM, Maybe it is because of our dabbling with consecration in the early days of the church but we generally do not exclude people because of poverty. I also like the reference to “reaching out to current refugees.” Although that does not seem to be a direct quote from Elder Oaks and may be some editorial commentary from the church news. Still, I am glad that it is in print.
Elder Oaks appears to contrast this inclusion from descent, diversity, diversion, and opposition.
I found it funny that Elder Oaks is criticizing highlighting an individual’s descent while at the same time “President Oaks began by sharing the stories of several of his family’s pioneer ancestors: Addison Everett, Hyrum Oaks, Emer Harris, Orange Seely, Anson Call, John S. White, Mary Fielding Smith and Joseph F. Smith.” Sister Oaks said of the event, “For us, I think the best part was feeling the spirit of those in attendance and how much they loved their ancestry.”
For me this seems like a tension/contradiction. We accept/include everyone but we are also super proud of our pioneer heritage
nibbler wrote:
I must have read his “definition” for diversity a dozen times and I’m still no closer to understanding what he’s trying to communicate.What exactly is the popular definition of diversity that the church opposes?
Reading it a baker’s dozenth time, maybe he’s making a similar statement as Bednar’s, “There are no homosexual members of the church.” Which I think was a poor attempt to try to communicate how we should focus on ways we’re similar (all children of god) and not on things that could divide us. Instead it was interpreted by many to be an invalidating statement, ironically becoming something that divided us.
I really don’t know what he means by popular definition of diversity. I take it to mean being more united by being more accepting of diversity.
To be honest, his statements feel like a dog whistle for the type of member that makes me feel unwelcome at church.
Right. His definition of Diversity is strange. I speculate that President Oaks is being defensive and pushing back against near constant criticism that the leadership of the church isn’t diverse enough. I think that he is saying that diversity might be important in a man-made group where everyone is submitting and contributing ideas. Diversity, however, is not important in a God led group where the leaders reveal God’s plan and everyone else should do all that they can to follow.
Quote:“With faith in God, they did what every pioneer does — they stepped forward into the unknown: a new religion, a new land, a new way of doing things. With faith in their leaders and in one another, they stood fast against formidable opposition,” he said.
Other qualities evident in the lives of pioneers were unselfishness, sacrifice, cooperation and unity. President Oaks cited the examples of the Saints who immediately responded to President Brigham Young’s call to rescue stranded handcart companies and those who obediently pulled up roots and applied their talents and lives to colonizing new areas.
“We praise what the pioneers’ great qualities have done for us, but that is not enough. We should also assure that these same qualities are guiding principles for each of us as we have opportunities to sacrifice for our nations, our families, our quorums, our members and our Church,” President Oaks said.
“This is especially important in societies that have exalted personal interest and individual rights to the point where these values dilute the powers of individual responsibility and sacrifice.”
First, I agree that there is a lot of division which has gotten to ridiculous levels lately in politics, religion, entertainment, you name it. But it almost sounds like Oaks thinks diversity is to blame for these divisions. In my opinion diversity is just the basic fact of human existence. We have different opinions, backgrounds, personalities, and beliefs. I think division is really caused by trying to stamp out this diversity, wanting to make everyone else do things our way or have everything conform to our own beliefs.
And I don’t think inclusions is possible without recognizing diversity. People need to feel included as part of a group. But they also need to feel loved for who they are as an individual, which includes all the diversity of unique traits that make us who we are. I get that we are all part of the same human family and should be able to have some unity from that, but that doesn’t mean we are all the same or should be.
I find this personally triggering, as it reminds me of what I hated hearing the most at BYU: “Isn’t it so great that we’re here at BYU where we’re all members of the church and
believe the same things?” After going through a faith transition, this was very alienating. But in more private conversations I found there was actually quite a bit of diversity in perspectives and beliefs. Yet for some reason we had to maintain this illusion that everyone was the same.
nibbler wrote:
Quote:
This includes welcoming new members,ministering to reawaken the faith of those who have strayed
This makes it sound like a part of his definition of inclusion is to reach out to others with the ulterior motive of homogenizing people into the church monoculture.
Full disclaimer, this is a particularly sensitive subject for me because as an orthodox believer I surrendered a large part of my identity in order to fit in. At the time I didn’t realize that’s what was going on and it reached a point where it became an unconscious source of pain and stress in my life.
There ya go. I also had trouble figuring out what Oaks meant by his definition of diversity but I think he means we don’t need diversity in the “worldly sense” because we should all be homogenized into the monoculture. Fortunately this is an anonymous forum so I can say this without risk of apostasy by disagreeing with a church leader – he’s absolutely wrong. In my opinion one of the biggest faults of the church is that we try to homogenize everyone and don’t include and incorporate the cultural differences of what is supposed to be a worldwide church.
Arrakeen wrote:
And I don’t think inclusions is possible without recognizing diversity. People need to feel included as part of a group. But they also need to feel loved for who they are as an individual, which includes all the diversity of unique traits that make us who we are. I get that we are all part of the same human family and should be able to have some unity from that, but that doesn’t mean we are all the same or should be.
I agree. Everyone needs to be accepted for who and what they are, not for what some old out of touch guys think they should be.
Another factor to consider is the organization mindset. Diversity gets in the way of results in the short-term. It takes time to listen to everyone and include everyone’s input in decision-making (also something our church is not great at) before implementing whatever practice is agreed on for a specific principle, as well as chipping away at the organization revelation level. It also chips away at control – the more people are involved in something, the less control leaders have for it.
In the long term, diversity leads to better solutions – eventually. And there is always collateral damage….
I tend to view leader comments as unconsciously guided by the business practices they learned about maintaining an organization. I think that the organization studies for diversity and including all voices at the table is newer then most of the upper leadership, so is erratically applied.
I also think that diversity is cautiously applied because the leaders don’t want to alienate the groups that they view are their greatest stakeholders to make room for additional stakeholders.
DarkJedi wrote:
Fortunately this is an anonymous forum so I can say this without risk of apostasy by disagreeing with a church leader – he’s absolutely wrong. In my opinion one of the biggest faults of the church is that we try to homogenize everyone and don’t include and incorporate the cultural differences of what is supposed to be a worldwide church.
One of the advantages of the body of Christ is that diverse people come together to make the whole stronger.
Quote:If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
And if they were all one member, where were the body?
But now are they many members, yet but one body.
And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked.
That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
Church is a challenge because the goal often feels like one of two things:
Everybody has to be a hand. Everybody. Yes, that means you foot. You too eye. Hands. All hands.
- Perhaps a variant of the first, it’s good that you’re an eye and all, but we’re assigning you to be a hand. We need hands. You, hand over there. Yes, you. We’re assigning you to be an eye because we’ve suddenly discovered that we’re short one eye.
The various body parts don’t get to be the body parts they are so we can’t leverage their strength, and what’s worse is that sometimes we lop off body parts because they are not the hand and are therefore not of the body.
nibbler wrote:
Church is a challenge because the goal often feels like one of two things:Everybody has to be a hand. Everybody. Yes, that means you foot. You too eye. Hands. All hands.
Perhaps a variant of the first, it’s good that you’re an eye and all, but we’re assigning you to be a hand. We need hands. You, hand over there. Yes, you. We’re assigning you to be an eye because we’ve suddenly discovered that we’re short one eye.
The various body parts don’t get to be the body parts they are so we can’t leverage their strength, and what’s worse is that sometimes we lop off body parts because they are not the hand and are therefore not of the body.
I laughed at both of these examples. They are funny because they are both so true both culturally and in organizational assignments.
Speaking of definitions and relative to your point, It is interesting that outside of the church the word “calling” is synonymous with a vocation, passion, mission, or life purpose. It is something that by definition brings the person doing it a sense of fulfillment. In our church a “calling” is an assignment made by church leaders, where we do not have any input, and we are discouraged from saying no.
I’m late to the party on this one, but what he said reminded me exactly of what a sister said in RS about races. I blogged about it here: https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/10/17/erasing-race/ From the post:
Quote:I was disconcerted in this Relief Society discussion by a well-meaning older woman’s remark that in her belief there will be no other races in the hereafter, and that will make things so much better because we won’t have these divisions between us–they simply won’t exist. Then she went on to list these (apparently divisive) races: Asian, blacks, and so on (I think she ran out of color groups). I leaned and whispered to the Relief Society President sitting next to me “And white people. Right? No more white people?” But no, Caucasians / Europeans / beige people like her (and me) didn’t make the list of races that would no longer exist. It could have been an omission, but I had a sneaking suspicion that it wasn’t. She seemed to be implying that color itself was an impurity to be removed, and without it we would all be the same, unified–that same is good while different is bad.
This reminded me of a very strange conversation I had with a college friend who was from Utah when I was a freshman at BYU. He asked if I thought we would all look the same in the Celestial Kingdom. I wrinkled my nose up in confusion, “How would we all look the same?” I wondered. Since we don’t look the same now, who would we look like? I had never even considered such a thing. It seemed more like a dystopian Hell than a Heaven.
He said because we were all supposed to be unified, that he had heard plenty of people say things that made it sound like we would also look the same: white hair, presumably same age, wearing white clothes, etc. Of course, the unstated assumption was that we’d all be white, having the non-whiteness purified out. He pointed out that in the temple, we were made to all look as much alike as possible.
To put it another way, I think Oaks (like Bedar) is saying that black lives don’t matter, just Christian lives do. And oh, BTW, he’s really just thinking of white Christian churches. Bednar basically said there are no “gay” Church members, just Church members. Well, FYI, there *are* gay Church members, and I’ll believe they are really talking about inclusion and love when we quit preferencing white, cishetero, middle-class, Christian, Utahns, men first.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.