Oaks: Almost Good

[_sock puppet]

He did speak of adults putting their personal interests ahead of the interests of children. I thought he spoke of that in the context of divorce, though it may have come up in other parts of the talk as well.

In the detached, narrow world in which the FP/12 circulate, divorce is always bad. In my experience, divorce is usually like having your gall bladder removed after several stones/attacks. Divorce, like surgery, seems invasive and drastic, it requires intense recovery, but then it allows healing--including for the children. Often bishops talking a spouse-member into not divorcing just prolongs the misery--including for the children.

Oaks had no idea of what he was talking about in this regard, in the real world.

And no, I've not divorced. I'm yet on my first and only marriage, so I speak from more objective observations than, say, in defense of past decisions.

[_Tchild]

Did he say that only Mormons have parental concern? If so I missed that.

As for your second question, I guess that depends on your definition of "fairly well-balanced adult". I'd also add that I think the fact that "wishing" doesn't translate to "acting" might have been the point of his talk.

He did speak of adults putting their personal interests ahead of the interests of children. I thought he spoke of that in the context of divorce, though it may have come up in other parts of the talk as well.

Regarding the mall, that's a whole separate issue about which I have unresolved concerns of my own. I won't pretend to defend that decision with the limited knowledge I have about it.

From YOUTUBE. Elder Oaks talk at 16:12-16:31

"I pray that we will humble ourselves as little children, and reach out to protect our little children. For they are the future, for us, for our church and for our nation....In the name of Jesus Christ, amen."

So, for 16 minutes we get the dismal details of the plight of children, and in the last 18 seconds, we get the church's "solution".

I am sure that Elder Oaks is concerned about children as we all are. It sure doesn't hurt to speak out on their behalf.

What benefit do you think this will have on the plight of children the world over? Do you believe that the church will use its resources to feed, clothe or find suitable homes for children in need beyond what they are currently giving (about 3% of income per year for ALL humanitarian aid)?

If Oaks and the church leadership acted sincere, but then do not themselves contribute more in humanitarian aid, or to promote more service missions at the expense of proselytizing (hint, proselytizing is more effective when you let your actions do all the speaking) on the church's part, then do they really believe what they preach, or are they hypocrites?

[_keithb]

I agree with Oaks that

• children are vulnerable and should not be taken advantage of, in any way, and that they need special care and attention to their needs
• data does show that children raised by two parents are comparatively better equipped than their peers that have only one parent involved.
• the percentage of births to unmarried mothers is at a very high rate

I disagree with Oaks that

• marriage is only for procreating and raising children
• the needs and desires of the man and the woman are not a prime reason for marriage
• same sex couples that adopt provide no better upbringing than situations where only one parent is involved

Oaks' speech, while laudable in many respects, was a thinly veiled attack on same-sex marriage.

"Same-sex marriage" is an LDS doctrinal problem only. To the world at large, whether a person is living together in a homosexual relationship, or doing so under a label of being "married" is irrelevant the same way that some astronomers classify 'Pluto' as a planet, while others do not.

War, ethnic strife, starvation, disease, income inequality (mind numbing poverty for 2 billion+), resource depletion (care of our earthly habitat) and a hundred other real and everyday problems and Oaks talks about a boogeyman that potentially undermines LDS doctrinal and its institutional positioning?

Surely, the tens or hundreds of thousands of orphaned, unwanted, neglected and discarded children the world over are furious that two loving people of the same sex are pulling them out of foster homes, from off the streets and sniffing glue, or from state run orphan homes to give them a loving home.

The utter gall of it all!

The fact that Elder Oaks chooses such a mainline Christian Boogeyman, and lazily avoids any topic of real concern shows the nature of institutional religion and of Oaks himself.

+1

[_bcspace]

I believe what you call adultery to be a breach of my promise to my wife. God--and 'sin'--has nothing to do with it. As for fornication, no, it is not a 'sin' for an unmarried, consenting adult to have sex with another consenting adult.

This is your brain like an egg in the frying pan of reason. Any more questions

I dunno. Absence of STD's for me and any of my potential partners plus no chance they would be raising children out of wedlock because of anything I did seems pretty reasonable to me.

[_keithb]

I believe what you call adultery to be a breach of my promise to my wife. God--and 'sin'--has nothing to do with it. As for fornication, no, it is not a 'sin' for an unmarried, consenting adult to have sex with another consenting adult.

This is your brain like an egg in the frying pan of reason. Any more questions

I dunno. Absence of STD's for me and any of my potential partners plus no chance they would be raising children out of wedlock because of anything I did seems pretty reasonable to me.

This is why the merciful gods invented condoms.

[_mercyngrace]

From YOUTUBE. Elder Oaks talk at 16:12-16:31

"I pray that we will humble ourselves as little children, and reach out to protect our little children. For they are the future, for us, for our church and for our nation....In the name of Jesus Christ, amen."

So, for 16 minutes we get the dismal details of the plight of children, and in the last 18 seconds, we get the church's "solution".

I am sure that Elder Oaks is concerned about children as we all are. It sure doesn't hurt to speak out on their behalf.

What benefit do you think this will have on the plight of children the world over?

About the same as us chatting over the talk?

But hopefully more, since at least the issues were pointed out before a wider audience. Hopefully, his speaking them in conference will inspire some adults to overcome selfishness, ignorance, and apathy and create better circumstances for children in their sphere of influence. And hopefully, given the numbers of church members who hang on every word uttered in GC, protecting children across the globe will become a clear and urgent moral imperative in the LDS community.

Do you believe that the church will use its resources to feed, clothe or find suitable homes for children in need beyond what they are currently giving (about 3% of income per year for ALL humanitarian aid)?

If Oaks and the church leadership acted sincere, but then do not themselves contribute more in humanitarian aid, or to promote more service missions at the expense of proselytizing (hint, proselytizing is more effective when you let your actions do all the speaking) on the church's part, then do they really believe what they preach, or are they hypocrites?

I don't pretend to know how or why the church uses its funds as it does. But I do believe the bolded line above to be 100% true. Preach the gospel always. When necessary use words. ~ St. Francis of Assisi

[_sock puppet]

I believe what you call adultery to be a breach of my promise to my wife. God--and 'sin'--has nothing to do with it. As for fornication, no, it is not a 'sin' for an unmarried, consenting adult to have sex with another consenting adult.

This is your brain like an egg in the frying pan of reason. Any more questions

I dunno. Absence of STD's for me and any of my potential partners plus no chance they would be raising children out of wedlock because of anything I did seems pretty reasonable to me.

So an activity must be entirely free of risk of unintended, negative consequences or it's a 'sin'?

Today one of your "apostles" claimed LDS doctrine is easy to find. Show me where driving a car is an LDS 'sin' because there are accidents, including those that leave people quadriplegic, and even fatalities. Seems pretty unreasonable if STDs and unwanted pregnancies make sex a sin and accidents and fatalities don't make driving a car a sin too.

[_brade]

Wait, I missed this bit. Go here and see the last paragraph:

Evidence, he added, indicates that children are at a “significant disadvantage” when raised by single or unmarried parents. “We should assume the same disadvantages for children raised by couples of the same gender.”

WTF? He was a judge?

[_sock puppet]

Wait, I missed this bit. Go here and see the last paragraph:

Evidence, he added, indicates that children are at a “significant disadvantage” when raised by single or unmarried parents. “We should assume the same disadvantages for children raised by couples of the same gender.”

WTF? He was a judge?

That's the phrase that caught my ire, and prompted the OP. From the OP, "Oaks' speech, while laudable in many respects, was a thinly veiled attack on same-sex marriage."

That's what makes Oaks such a sellout. He has a brilliant mind, and can be a clear thinker--at least when the topic is not religion.

[_brade]

Wait, I missed this bit. Go here and see the last paragraph:

Evidence, he added, indicates that children are at a “significant disadvantage” when raised by single or unmarried parents. “We should assume the same disadvantages for children raised by couples of the same gender.”

WTF? He was a judge?

That's the phrase that caught my ire, and prompted the OP. From the OP, "Oaks' speech, while laudable in many respects, was a thinly veiled attack on same-sex marriage."

That's what makes Oaks such a sellout. He has a brilliant mind, and can be a clear thinker--at least when the topic is not religion.

I mean, look, at bottom the church's reason for fighting against same sex marriage is doctrinal. So, why not just stick with that instead of frantically trying to connect it to the world of serious inquiry? I know the answer, of course. You're less likely to affect policy if the reason for your policy is "God told me so" (though, sadly, that seems to work better than it should in the US).