Yet another Doubt Devotional. This time it?????s Oaks....

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: Yet another Doubt Devotional. This time it’s Oaks....

Post by _Shulem »

Then there are certain antiChrists who harden hearts and lead the children of God carefully down to hell.


Take Maksutov for example: A modern day Korihor!


Image

Image
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Yet another Doubt Devotional. This time it’s Oaks....

Post by _Lemmie »

Shulem wrote:Then there are certain antiChrists who harden hearts and lead the children of God carefully down to hell.


Take Maksutov for example: A modern day Korihor!


Image

Image
:lol: I'm guessing Maks will take this as quite the compliment.
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: Yet another Doubt Devotional. This time it’s Oaks....

Post by _Maksutov »

Shulem wrote:Then there are certain antiChrists who harden hearts and lead the children of God carefully down to hell.


Take Maksutov for example: A modern day Korihor!


Image

Image


Damn. As if my head wasn't big enough already. :lol:
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: Yet another Doubt Devotional. This time it’s Oaks....

Post by _Shulem »

Lemmie wrote::lol: I'm guessing Maks will take this as quite the compliment.


Then there is Lemmie -- a modern Jezebel who violates every commandment and is guilty of a multitude of sins.

Image

Where's my box of chocolates? I get first dibs.
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Yet another Doubt Devotional. This time it’s Oaks....

Post by _Lemmie »

Shulem wrote:
Lemmie wrote::lol: I'm guessing Maks will take this as quite the compliment.


Then there is Lemmie -- a modern Jezebel who violates every commandment and is guilty of a multitude of sins.

Image

Where's my box of chocolates? I get first dibs.

:lol: Well goodness. I am touched! Thank you, Shulem!

(but I'll be damned if the big boyd gets any of my chocolates. :cool: )
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Yet another Doubt Devotional. This time it’s Oaks....

Post by _Gadianton »

You can imagine them sweating over this. If they say “don’t look over there!” Then they must be smart enough to know that for every sucker who takes their word for it, there will be the X who had no idea there was a problem and suddenly, they are curious. But even worse is the Y class. Those who quickly do the math, and the very mention of a problem that one dare not face leaves them in a state of compartmentalization. They know, without needing to be told anything else, that the problem is insurmountable— game over. And they instantly add a protective layer to their compartment boundary and sing a hymn. They don’t dare process the very thing told to them by Oaks and likely to become aggressive with anyone who brings the subject up.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Yet another Doubt Devotional. This time it’s Oaks....

Post by _Gadianton »

oh, and Oaks just destroyed the Mopologetic community. Saying not to research it means that the Interpreter and FAIR don't have answers that help.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Yet another Doubt Devotional. This time it’s Oaks....

Post by _I have a question »

Individuals must not form conclusions based on unexamined assertions or incomplete research, or be influenced by insincere seekers, the Apostle taught. Drawing from the words of the Church’s assistant Church historian, Rick Turley, Elder Christofferson said, “Don’t study Church history too little.”

https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-c ... h?lang=eng

In matters concerning a spouses faith crisis brought on by Church History, the advice given to the believing spouse in how to answer those questions is enlightening as to the deep divisions and different factions within the Q12 and the FP.
Christofferson - Don’t study too little.
Oaks - Don’t study at all.

This now on the back of another example - the name of the Church.
Under Hinckley and Monson - I’m A Mormon, Meet The Mormons.
Under Nelson - Using the term Mormon is a victory for Satan.

Church Leadership is flip flopping around so much, showing show little connection between the left hand and the right hand, it’s beginning to look like very panic striken, desperate men searching for solutions to a problem they’ve had for a very long time (the 18-30 age group stopping active Church involvement) and for which, no matter what they’ve tried, they keep making it worse.

The lowering of the age for missionary service didn’t work.
The essays didn’t work.
The Joseph Smith papers aren’t working.
“Saints” isn’t working.

Will this latest flip flop back to the drive to get members to stop studying have the desired impact? Well, in my opinion you can’t unring the Church History bell. The information was available to members long before the Church decided to come clean (well, sort of begrudgingly clean and only on as much as was already public knowledge) about its own history. But in so doing members recognised the deceit by the Church which they had been subjected to for generations. Good luck trying to reverse that to a position where members are not supposed to look at all.

They look clueless. They don't look like 15 men guided from above by an all-knowing deity.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Yet another Doubt Devotional. This time it’s Oaks....

Post by _I have a question »

During my college studies at BYU, I was introduced to the History of the Church, an edited compilation of the writings of Joseph Smith and others. After I graduated from law school, I carefully read all seven volumes. I also pursued personal research in original records in Illinois, where the Prophet Joseph lived the last five years of his life.
<snip>
My studies strengthened my testimony of his prophetic calling.
(Dallin H. Oaks, Personal Testimony, September 2013)
https://josephsmith.net/article/dallin-h-oaks?lang=eng

I am a 65-year student of the life of Joseph Smith. In all of my reading and original research, I have never been dissuaded from my testimony of his prophetic calling and of the gospel and priesthood restoration the Lord initiated through him.
(Dallin H. Oaks, Twitter, June 25 2018)
https://mobile.Twitter.com/oaksdallinh?lang=en

{In relation to people who have questions about Church history} I suggest that research is not the answer,
(Dallin H. Oaks, Chicago Devotional, February 2 2019)
https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-a ... ions-48930

“Do as I say, not as I do”
Etymology
This order first appeared in John Selden's Table-Talk (c. 1654): "Preachers say, 'Do as I say, not as I do.'"

Verb
do as I say and not as I do

(as imperative) Don't imitate my behavior but obey my instructions.
See also
hypocrisy

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/do_as_ ... ot_as_I_do
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Yet another Doubt Devotional. This time it’s Oaks....

Post by _I have a question »

Why would Oaks be telling members not to research Church History if...

As part of my assignment as an advisor to the Church History Department, I have read all the volumes of The Joseph Smith Papers. I have also read the first volume of the new narrative history of the Church, entitled Saints.26 Reading everything Joseph Smith ever wrote or was reported to have said has simply strengthened my testimony of his role as a prophet, chosen of God to restore His work on earth.

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ ... g?lang=eng

There’s a big push of the narrative “We’ve read everything, so you don’t have to...” going on these days.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
Post Reply