Oaks confirms we have heavenly mothers.

[MG 2.0]

The Church News has written up an article about Oaks and his talk in Belgium. Can you guess which part of his talk they forget to mention?

They didn't show the talk at the Sacrament meeting. I think we know why.

In the 'short' brought here and also passed around on some social media sites, why does the imagery only show Elder Oaks and everything else, excluding a human figure in background, is literally white? Nothing there. Walls, pews, people...nothing.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

They didn't show the talk at the Sacrament meeting. I think we know why.

In the 'short' brought here and also passed around on some social media sites, why does the imagery only show Elder Oaks and everything else, excluding a human figure in background, is literally white? Nothing there. Walls, pews, people...nothing.

It's a white wall you muppet! Have you never seen a Chapel with white walls? This is a picture from the Church News article. You'll notice the chapel has white walls (as per the short), you'll notice Oaks does not look well (he's very drawn as per the short), and you'll notice his tie is red and white striped (as per the short).

[I Have Questions]

This image shows the space behind Oaks that would be shown from the angle the video was shot. If you look carefully behind Oaks you can see an arm draped across an empty chair, in exactly the same pose as the Gentleman who was sat behind Oaks in the short.

[MG 2.0]

In the 'short' brought here and also passed around on some social media sites, why does the imagery only show Elder Oaks and everything else, excluding a human figure in background, is literally white? Nothing there. Walls, pews, people...nothing.

It's a white wall you muppet! Have you never seen a Chapel with white walls? This is a picture from the Church News article. You'll notice the chapel has white walls (as per the short), you'll notice Oaks does not look well (he's very drawn as per the short), and you'll notice his tie is red and white striped (as per the short).

Angle of the camera. Other people should be at least partially in the frame. Blue chairs. Flowers. The one person in the background isn't seen in the other pictures. Maybe he is, but I'm not seeing him.

There is nothing.

So far, I'm not buying it. Believe what you want.

This is the only video we actually have that's verifiable (the one I linked to from Church News). Any type of 'Sactament Meeting Video' I would expect should have something other than a simple white background.

The Church News looks real...and it is. This 'short' looks manufactured to me. Something about the pauses and the translation...volume for one...seems to be a bit off too.

I'm not going to continue making any more out of this than you folks have already done. Until I can see absolute proof that this short that ended up on Reddit is verifiably true, I have my doubts.

The fact that you're posting the picture from the Church News rather than from the so-called Sacrament Meeting and using it as 'evidence' is also interesting.

By the way, we could get along much better if you don't fall into the habit of using adolescent responses.

I'm not a muppet. Grow up

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

In the video on the Church News article, two minders have to bring on a chair, or a stool with which to prop Oaks up whilst he speaks. He looks terrible.

[Rivendale]

This image shows the space behind Oaks that would be shown from the angle the video was shot. If you look carefully behind Oaks you can see an arm draped across an empty chair, in exactly the same pose as the Gentleman who was sat behind Oaks in the short.

The short video was a different meeting. Broadcast only on zoom. The second video (Oaks had to be helped up) did not have the translator but you get a glimpse of the same guy in the short.

[I Have Questions]

Angle of the camera. Other people should be at least partially in the frame. Blue chairs. Flowers. The one person in the background isn't seen in the other pictures. Maybe he is, but I'm not seeing him.

There is nothing.

So far, I'm not buying it. Believe what you want.

This is the only video we actually have that's verifiable (the one I linked to from Church News). Any type of 'Sactament Meeting Video' I would expect should have something other than a simple white background.

The Church News looks real...and it is. This 'short' looks manufactured to me. Something about the pauses and the translation...volume for one...seems to be a bit off too.

I'm not going to continue making any more out of this than you folks have already done. Until I can see absolute proof that this short that ended up on Reddit is verifiably true, I have my doubts.

The fact that you're posting the picture from the Church News rather than from the so-called Sacrament Meeting and using it as 'evidence' is also interesting.

By the way, we could get along much better if you don't fall into the habit of using adolescent responses.

I'm not a muppet. Grow up

Regards,
MG

You are double spacing again, despite agreeing with the host that you wouldn't. Did you lie to Shades?

[I Have Questions]

This image shows the space behind Oaks that would be shown from the angle the video was shot. If you look carefully behind Oaks you can see an arm draped across an empty chair, in exactly the same pose as the Gentleman who was sat behind Oaks in the short.

The short video was a different meeting. Broadcast only on zoom. The second video (Oaks had to be helped up) did not have the translator but you get a glimpse of the same guy in the short.

Yes, everything points to it being legit.

[Rivendale]

The volume is low and quality is different because it was taken by a member with a cell phone from a zoom meeting.

[Mag’ladroth]

MG the smoking gun is that via this “prophet, seer, and revelator” we know that the church and its apologists denials that “God didn't become a God” like the Lorenzo Snow couplet and all of church history say, is PR nonsense.

If Elohim didn’t become a god why do heavenly mothers exist? To beget spirit children? Oh, what is the ultimate goal of those sprit children? Why to reach exaltation to godhood and rule over “thrones and kingdoms and worlds” of course!

Mormon apologists continually get metaphorically kicked in the face by church leadership and I find it rather funny

Megladroth, I have no idea as to what you are referring. Can you reference denials of this sort? This would be a major shift in LDS teaching.( not just, well we don't much teach that for deflecting a televised question)

Has the hymn Our father with its verse about heavenly mother been removed?

Sorry if I mislead anyone. What I was referring to was the tendency of “Thoughtful” Saint, Ward Radio, etc. to downplay the KFD, and any official Mormon teachings of being exalted to godhood as “not canonized doctrine,” and attempting to make this topic seem similar to the theosis of the Eastern Orthodox.

The tactic goes like this:

Interlocutor: “Mormonism teaches that you progress to godhood like Elohim and will rule over thrones, kingdoms, etc.”

Mormon ePologist: “The KFD is what you’re referring to and it’s not official canonized doctrine. We don’t “become like Elohim” and rule our own planets. We become like god because we are his children and Athanasius says we will apotheosize to be like god too *quote mine of Athansius*