- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think Oaks’s answer is interesting (from the article): Quote:I think that’s a question that will be answered on judgment day. I can’t answer that beyond what has already been said. I know that those tragic events happen.
And it’s not unique simply to the question of sexual preference. There are other cases where people have taken their own lives and blamed a church-my church-or a government, or somebody else for their taking their own lives, and I think those things have to be judged by a higher authority than exists on this earth.
And I am ready to be accountable to that authority, but I think part of what my responsibility extends to, is trying to teach people to be loving, and civil and sensitive to one another so that people will not feel driven, whatever the policy disagreements, whatever the rules of the church, or the practices of a church, or any other organization, if they are administered with kindness, at the highest level or at the level of the congregation or the ward, they won’t drive people to take those extreme measures.
That’s part of my responsibility to teach that. And beyond that, I will be accountable to higher authority for that. That’s the way I look on that. Nobody is sadder about a case like that than I am. Maybe that’s a good note to end on.
In one way, it can be interpreted as a bit arrogant (I’ll be judged and I’m ready for that, perhaps indicating he might feel vindicated). On the other hand he does repeat his admonition for everyone to treat each other kindly regardless of our position or agreement/disagreement. I agree with him that part of his responsibility as a special witness of Christ is to teach what Christ taught – and loving each other is what Christ taught.
In truth, I think this was a non-answer akin to a politician’s non-answer (he did not answer the question that was asked him, and that question could well be perceived as antagonistic anyway). I do believe we will each be held accountable to some extent, and I also agree with Elder Oaks that we don’t know much about that. I don’t believe that either Oaks or Andrew Evans (the questioner) actually believe a church leader will be held accountable for the actions of any individual other than themselves.
My thoughts paralleled DJ’s on his response to the question. In one way I am glad he says that he knows he will be judged and good that he is pushing for others to treat people nice. He also pushes a bit of the blame by inferring that how people are treated are causing the suicides – not the policy. And after that question he ended the questioning. I guess he had enough. I will say he is still sharp in the mind. I listened to this all from Mormon stories and he was quick on his feet with the questions.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
His answer seems to try to have it both ways. He is saying he thinks the gay policy is correct as is but that he doesn’t want people to commit suicide. Sort of like a general who sends people to battle and he knows some will die – he must do it and he’s justified in doing it but he wants to reduce casualties. This is the reality of our church for the near to mid term until the policy changes.
DarkJedi wrote:I do believe we will each be held accountable to some extent, and I also agree with Elder Oaks that we don’t know much about that. I don’t believe that either Oaks or Andrew Evans (the questioner) actually believe a church leader will be held accountable for the actions of any individual other than themselves.
Ever since my faith transition I do not make decisions based on anything in the hereafter. We simply don’t know enough about it. To make decisions based on an eternal point of view is utterly futile – I try to decide based on what is right in this life because that’s all I know. Not trying to preach at you DJ, I just don’t like his answer.
Depending on how the afterlife really works out – I think forgiveness from us is going to be a big requirement. And if there is no afterlife – that forgiveness requirement is going to be necessary. I can not imagine the hurdle the forgiveness required for those who experience the Policy or it’s direct effects. Nor can I imagine the personal forgiveness that maybe required should a person flip sides from Policy Best to Policy Not.
Heart open has new meanings for me.
Roadrunner wrote:DarkJedi wrote:I do believe we will each be held accountable to some extent, and I also agree with Elder Oaks that we don’t know much about that. I don’t believe that either Oaks or Andrew Evans (the questioner) actually believe a church leader will be held accountable for the actions of any individual other than themselves.
Ever since my faith transition I do not make decisions based on anything in the hereafter. We simply don’t know enough about it. To make decisions based on an eternal point of view is utterly futile – I try to decide based on what is right in this life because that’s all I know. Not trying to preach at you DJ, I just don’t like his answer.
I’m right there with you RR. I am very much the same way since my FC. We know so little about the after life and judgement and all, and I think that’s perhaps because that’s the way God wants it. If He wanted us to know more, we would. He has told us to love one another and some other things that important here and now, and I’m trying to do those things without regard for any eternal reward or punishment. If I get there and I’m wrong and I’m banished to outer darkness, so be it – but I really don’t believe that’s how God works. (Was it Obi Wan or Yoda who said something about being in the here and now to Luke?)
Someone weighs in on Elder Oaks comments http://www.wheatandtares.org/20448/oaks-addresses-church-accountability-in-lgbt-deaths/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.wheatandtares.org/20448/oaks-addresses-church-accountability-in-lgbt-deaths/ Also I am wondering if people at this actually like re-posting of things like the above? I suspect many of you already read many of these and I don’t want to create more posts.
[Admin Note]: Linking to good things from other non-anti sites is great. We have a lot of lurkers for whom such material is important. LookingHard wrote:Someone weighs in on Elder Oaks comments
http://www.wheatandtares.org/20448/oaks-addresses-church-accountability-in-lgbt-deaths/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.wheatandtares.org/20448/oaks-addresses-church-accountability-in-lgbt-deaths/ Also I am wondering if people at this actually like re-posting of things like the above? I suspect many of you already read many of these and I don’t want to create more posts.
I love that people post links like this because I don’t regularly check blog sites. I would have missed some great essays were it not for those of you who reference such things on other sites.
A commenter on W&T pointed out that there are probably a lotof people sadder than Elder Oaks about these suicides. Friends and family members of the deceased, for example. Elder Oaks saying “no one is sadder about this than I am” sounds an awful lot like “no church does more to prevent abuse.” It’s really distasteful, honestly.
I don’t think Elder Oaks was trying to draw a real comparison, I think that was just his way of expressing his deep concern over the issue. At least I hope so. Let’s not make Elder Oaks an offender for a word over that choice, even though I agree it is incorrect. It is common rhetoric that is not meant to be taken literally. Someone else posted a comment on that W&T thread that I’ve also thought about before, that possibly the 2A links to feelings of infallibility. Obviously the Q15 aren’t the only ones who have had the 2A, but theoretically, historically, the 2A meant that nothing you did from that point on could be a sin or wrong. It would all work for the building up of the kingdom. To me, that’s easily disproven by the fact that the Q15 have disagreements, but that doesn’t mean 100% of them see that logical fallacy. Hawkgrrl wondered Quote:Someone else posted a comment on that W&T thread that I’ve also thought about before, that possibly the 2A links to feelings of infallibility.
I’ve let this one roll in my head for a day or two, I can’t say I buy it. I think part of Elder Oaks statements come from an era gone by. An era where kids were spanked, adults were the ultimate authority (no sassing, etc.), and where things didn’t change (i.e. LGBT).
I also think much of his style is Supreme Court Justice style. I have never met a judge who apologized for anything. They have to have a thick spine.
The final thought I have been working through is God never apologized for taking young Dallin Oaks dad. Dallin had to learn to suck up what life handed him, move on, make due, etc. That sets up a very different view of life. He was fatherless in an era where women didn’t have near the opportunities. No one could fix the pain the death may have inflicted. It steeled the boy who became the man he is today. Maybe what appears un-empathetic to us, is the hard earned callouses of his childhood.
I am guessing in the dark, but I just can’t shake it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.