Elder Oaks promoting political left

[GeeR]

Yes, to the first question. To answer the second question read For What Purpose by Alvin R. Dyer.

[Zathura]

Yes, to the first question. To answer the second question read For What Purpose by Alvin R. Dyer.

How about Hispanics? Or Arabs?

[GeeR]

I'll sum up my personal belief on the subject of interracial marriage by paraphrasing what Spencer W. Kimball taught in his Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. He said let the Mexicans marry Mexicans, blacks marry blacks, Eskimos marry Eskimos, Chinese marry Chinese, etc.

[Zathura]

I'll sum up my personal belief on the subject of interracial marriage by paraphrasing what Spencer W. Kimball taught in his Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. He said let the Mexicans marry Mexicans, blacks marry blacks, Eskimos marry Eskimos, Chinese marry Chinese, etc.

You don't believe that could have been his personal opinion, and not necessarily the will of God?

[Zathura]

I'll sum up my personal belief on the subject of interracial marriage by paraphrasing what Spencer W. Kimball taught in his Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. He said let the Mexicans marry Mexicans, blacks marry blacks, Eskimos marry Eskimos, Chinese marry Chinese, etc.

Also, do you believe it possible that a white man can be told by the Spirit to marry a black woman? Or a Hispanic woman?

[GeeR]

I'll sum up my personal belief on the subject of interracial marriage by paraphrasing what Spencer W. Kimball taught in his Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. He said let the Mexicans marry Mexicans, blacks marry blacks, Eskimos marry Eskimos, Chinese marry Chinese, etc.

I doubt Pres. Kimball said to himself: "Self, I'm going to write a book full of my personal opinions and teach it to the members of the church as doctrine." Also, do you believe it possible that a white man can be told by the Spirit to marry a black woman? Or a Hispanic woman?

The question is irrelevant since being "told by the Spirit" is subjective and is determined by each persons personal bias. Do you know of any precedence for this that has universal application?

[Zathura]

I'll sum up my personal belief on the subject of interracial marriage by paraphrasing what Spencer W. Kimball taught in his Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. He said let the Mexicans marry Mexicans, blacks marry blacks, Eskimos marry Eskimos, Chinese marry Chinese, etc.

I doubt Pres. Kimball said to himself: "Self, I'm going to write a book full of my personal opinions and teach it to the members of the church as doctrine." Also, do you believe it possible that a white man can be told by the Spirit to marry a black woman? Or a Hispanic woman?

The question is irrelevant since being "told by the Spirit" is subjective and is determined by each persons personal bias. Do you know of any precedence for this that has universal application?

We know that Prophets have stated their own opinions from time to time. That's why Joseph said that Prophet is only a Prophet when he speaks as one.
"told by the Spirit" Is relevant in every situation. If the Spirit of God tells a white man to marry a woman, who happens to be black, then clearly Interracial marriage would not be wrong right? Nn God's mind, since it what God's Spirit that told the man to marry this woman.

[samizdat]

I'll sum up my personal belief on the subject of interracial marriage by paraphrasing what Spencer W. Kimball taught in his Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. He said let the Mexicans marry Mexicans, blacks marry blacks, Eskimos marry Eskimos, Chinese marry Chinese, etc.

I doubt Pres. Kimball said to himself: "Self, I'm going to write a book full of my personal opinions and teach it to the members of the church as doctrine." Also, do you believe it possible that a white man can be told by the Spirit to marry a black woman? Or a Hispanic woman?

The question is irrelevant since being "told by the Spirit" is subjective and is determined by each persons personal bias. Do you know of any precedence for this that has universal application?

We know that Prophets have stated their own opinions from time to time. That's why Joseph said that Prophet is only a Prophet when he speaks as one.
"told by the Spirit" Is relevant in every situation. If the Spirit of God tells a white man to marry a woman, who happens to be black, then clearly Interracial marriage would not be wrong right? Nn God's mind, since it what God's Spirit that told the man to marry this woman.

Yep. Then you have discernment to think about too.

The prophets did counsel against interracial marriage and those counsels were in the Institute manuals until well into the 80s and 90s.

Being married to a Mexican lady (and happily too and by the voice of the Spirit too) I can see where there would be issues between cultures as well as language. Having served my mission in another region of Mexico helped, but had I served even in Chile or Brazil there would be issues. One might look at that and shout RACIST to President Kimball but when you live in a relationship like that one can see his wisdom in that especially if the cultural issues are very different.

[Lizzy60]

I believe there is a significant difference between a Prophet "counseling" that interracial marriage is not advised, because he knows there will very likely be many difficulties due to cultural prejudice and differences in upbringing and values, and a Prophet testifying that interracial marriage is not approved by God and should therefore be avoided at all costs.

[buffalo_girl]

When we have fully applied the Gospel of Christ to the work of our individual sanctification - being then able to 'see eye-to-eye' - there will be no manner of 'ites'.

[A Random Phrase]

I'll sum up my personal belief on the subject of interracial marriage by paraphrasing what Spencer W. Kimball taught in his Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. He said let the Mexicans marry Mexicans, blacks marry blacks, Eskimos marry Eskimos, Chinese marry Chinese, etc.

The black lady who wrote "A Soul So Rebellious" and some other books talked to Pres Kimball about marrying a white man. He told her that the reason he took that stance was because of how difficult such a marriage was (differences in culture, prejudice against the couple and their children for example). No, I cannot give a cite. It has been too long.

Anyway, in short, his stance was not based in a belief of anyone's supposed inferiority or lack of valiance in some other realm.

[iWriteStuff]

Once again Elder Oaks continues to move more and more to the political left, especially on the issues of gay "rights"
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37033080&nid=12 ... d=queue-16" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As someone who has lived as a Mormon my entire life in Utah I am shocked how far to the left politically that my "leaders" have moved. Not only does this new position toward the "center" goes against everything I have been taught in the church, it goes against the teachings of the scriptures and common sense.

I'd really like to know where the OP went on this one.

How far to the left do the brethren seem to you now? Because the left is trying to crucify them in the news, even some within the church.

Doubtless Elder Oaks knew of the changes coming to the policies of the church, or at least the fact that God hasn't changed his "opinion" on homosexuality. What, then, might one suppose was the purpose of his comments in light of today's news of the policy shift?

[GeeR]

I'll sum up my personal belief on the subject of interracial marriage by paraphrasing what Spencer W. Kimball taught in his Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. He said let the Mexicans marry Mexicans, blacks marry blacks, Eskimos marry Eskimos, Chinese marry Chinese, etc.

The black lady who wrote "A Soul So Rebellious" and some other books talked to Pres Kimball about marrying a white man. He told her that the reason he took that stance was because of how difficult such a marriage was (differences in culture, prejudice against the couple and their children for example). No, I cannot give a cite. It has been too long.

Anyway, in short, his stance was not based in a belief of anyone's supposed inferiority or lack of valiance in some other realm.

Reading between the lines it sounds like to me that he was giving her the milk before the meat. The article by Alvin R. Dyer entitled For What Purpose is pure meat.

[A Random Phrase]

Maybe, GeeR. All I know is what it was from her perspective. Perhaps you're right, and he was not telling her his true feelings, or all of his thoughts and feelings on the matter, to spare her feelings.

[Zathura]

I'll sum up my personal belief on the subject of interracial marriage by paraphrasing what Spencer W. Kimball taught in his Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. He said let the Mexicans marry Mexicans, blacks marry blacks, Eskimos marry Eskimos, Chinese marry Chinese, etc.

The black lady who wrote "A Soul So Rebellious" and some other books talked to Pres Kimball about marrying a white man. He told her that the reason he took that stance was because of how difficult such a marriage was (differences in culture, prejudice against the couple and their children for example). No, I cannot give a cite. It has been too long.

Anyway, in short, his stance was not based in a belief of anyone's supposed inferiority or lack of valiance in some other realm.

Reading between the lines it sounds like to me that he was giving her the milk before the meat. The article by Alvin R. Dyer entitled For What Purpose is pure meat.

Certain Missions have received word from Area Seventy's that missionaries should not ever read this article that you mention. They claim that it does not express the Church beliefs. FYI

[GeeR]

I'll sum up my personal belief on the subject of interracial marriage by paraphrasing what Spencer W. Kimball taught in his Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. He said let the Mexicans marry Mexicans, blacks marry blacks, Eskimos marry Eskimos, Chinese marry Chinese, etc.

The black lady who wrote "A Soul So Rebellious" and some other books talked to Pres Kimball about marrying a white man. He told her that the reason he took that stance was because of how difficult such a marriage was (differences in culture, prejudice against the couple and their children for example). No, I cannot give a cite. It has been too long.

Anyway, in short, his stance was not based in a belief of anyone's supposed inferiority or lack of valiance in some other realm.

Reading between the lines it sounds like to me that he was giving her the milk before the meat. The article by Alvin R. Dyer entitled For What Purpose is pure meat.

Certain Missions have received word from Area Seventy's that missionaries should not ever read this article that you mention. They claim that it does not express the Church beliefs. FYI

I’ve never heard of anything so ridiculous. I was given the talk when I was on my mission, in fact it was freely handed out to all the missionaries at our zone conference. The talk is not opinion, brother Dyer backs up everything with scripture if I remember right. It is a very enlightening talk and it is noteworthy that Bro. Dyer was a member of the First Presidency at the time and as such would have had the endorsement President McKay.

[Zathura]

I’ve never heard of anything so ridiculous. I was given the talk when I was on my mission, in fact it was freely handed out to all the missionaries at our zone conference. The talk is not opinion, brother Dyer backs up everything with scripture if I remember right. It is a very enlightening talk and it is noteworthy that Bro. Dyer was a member of the First Presidency at the time and as such would have had the endorsement President McKay.

Times change buddy. When I was a missionary, this talk was mentioned in a zone conference by a seventy, and he specifically mentioned Brother Dyer and his opinions in his talk and advised us not to ever read it.
I love his essay, I thought it was great. To be clear, I don't really care what the church says about it because I enjoyed it very much. You don't have to convince me that he backs it all up with scripture. I would refer it to to anyone.
But it's true, Mission Presidents now TAKE this talk from missionaries. It's not a ridiculous statement.
Yesterday's leaders endorsed it, today's leaders don't.

[GeeR]

I’ve never heard of anything so ridiculous. I was given the talk when I was on my mission, in fact it was freely handed out to all the missionaries at our zone conference. The talk is not opinion, brother Dyer backs up everything with scripture if I remember right. It is a very enlightening talk and it is noteworthy that Bro. Dyer was a member of the First Presidency at the time and as such would have had the endorsement President McKay.

Times change buddy. When I was a missionary, this talk was mentioned in a zone conference by a seventy, and he specifically mentioned Brother Dyer and his opinions in his talk and advised us not to ever read it.
I love his essay, I thought it was great. To be clear, I don't really care what the church says about it because I enjoyed it very much. You don't have to convince me that he backs it all up with scripture. I would refer it to to anyone.
But it's true, Mission Presidents now TAKE this talk from missionaries. It's not a ridiculous statement.
Yesterday's leaders endorsed it, today's leaders don't.

The tares in the public affairs dept. of the church are asserting themselves with making policy. This means that there is a conflict between policy and doctrine—“politically correct” policy vs. true doctrine. It looks like in this conflict that policy is winning out over doctrine, but not for me, I’ll stick with the doctrine thanks very much. We need to find out who these tares are and escort them out of the church like they escorted Randy Bott out of B.Y.U.

[Zathura]

I’ve never heard of anything so ridiculous. I was given the talk when I was on my mission, in fact it was freely handed out to all the missionaries at our zone conference. The talk is not opinion, brother Dyer backs up everything with scripture if I remember right. It is a very enlightening talk and it is noteworthy that Bro. Dyer was a member of the First Presidency at the time and as such would have had the endorsement President McKay.

Times change buddy. When I was a missionary, this talk was mentioned in a zone conference by a seventy, and he specifically mentioned Brother Dyer and his opinions in his talk and advised us not to ever read it.
I love his essay, I thought it was great. To be clear, I don't really care what the church says about it because I enjoyed it very much. You don't have to convince me that he backs it all up with scripture. I would refer it to to anyone.
But it's true, Mission Presidents now TAKE this talk from missionaries. It's not a ridiculous statement.
Yesterday's leaders endorsed it, today's leaders don't.

The tares in the public affairs dept. of the church are asserting themselves with making policy. This means that there is a conflict between policy and doctrine—“politically correct” policy vs. true doctrine. It looks like in this conflict that policy is winning out over doctrine, but not for me, I’ll stick with the doctrine thanks very much. We need to find out who these tares are and escort them out of the church like they escorted Randy Bott out of B.Y.U.

Hey, I like Elder Dyer too