Oaks - Red letter talk

[mikbone]

Anyone seen anything like that before?

Im sure social media will hate it.

I loved it.

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/04/51oaks?lang=eng

Edited April 6, 2023 by mikbone

[NeuroTypical]

I haven't seen anything like it in GC.  Just in primary, where kiddos who can barely read are struggling through their first talks.  I kept asking "what is this former Utah Supreme Court Justice setting us up for?"  

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I haven't seen anything like it in GC.  Just in primary, where kiddos who can barely read are struggling through their first talks.  I kept asking "what is this former Utah Supreme Court Justice setting us up for?"  

I’m sure you know this, but Oaks was a finalist for the supreme court in the early 2000’s during the W administration 

[Grunt]

30 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Anyone seen anything like that before?

Im sure social media will hate it.

I loved it.

Agreed.  I’m going to have to listen again.  

[Just_A_Guy]

23 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I’m sure you know this, but Oaks was a finalist for the supreme court in the early 2000’s during the W administration 

It was the Reagan administration that had Oaks on the shortlist for (IIRC) either SCOTUS or the DC Circuit.  President Oaks’s biography mentions some correspondence he had with (I think) then-AG Ed Meese with the administration  probing about whether or not Oaks would accept such a nomination.

At U. Chicago, Oaks was also good friends with Robert Bork.

 

Edited April 2, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[LDSGator]

18 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

was the Reagan administration that had Oaks on the shortlist for (

Oh okay. Sorry about that, got my years way off. Was he under consideration for the seat Scalia eventually got?
 

18 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Oaks was also good friends with Robert Bork.

Oh wow. 

Edited April 2, 2023 by LDSGator

[Just_A_Guy]

21 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Oh okay. Sorry about that, got my years way off. Was he under consideration for the seat Scalia eventually got?

I’ll have to look it up; but I think it was the O’Connor seat.  

[SilentOne]

It sort of reminded me of some Conference talks I've read from before I was born that consisted mostly of a lot of directly quoted scripture, but I think they tended to have more connecting verbiage in between quotes. Did Elder Oaks have any of that?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

Anyone seen anything like that before?

Im sure social media will hate it.

I loved it.

Yes, I'll have to see a) what kind of pattern it created and b) go through the New Testament and Book of Mormon and do the same thing on my own.

[mikbone]

“My message today consists of a selection of the words of our Savior — what He said,”

 

“After His ministry in the holy Land, Jesus Christ appeared to the righteous on the American continent. These are some of the words He spoke there.”

 

“We believe in Christ.  I conclude with what He said about how we should know and follow his teachings.”

Edited April 2, 2023 by mikbone

[Vort]

21 hours ago, mikbone said:

Im sure social media will hate it.

An ironic but powerful testament to its truthfulness.

[Traveler]

I am impressed that a modern prophet in these last days would quote from our past - connecting our time to when Christ was on earth.

 

The Traveler

[Jersey Boy]

On 4/2/2023 at 4:40 PM, mikbone said:

Anyone seen anything like that before?

Im sure social media will hate it.

I loved it.

I doubt elder Oaks’ rather strange and totally uncharacteristic General Conference address is the one he originally planned on giving. It’s hard to believe that after 6 months a brilliant mind like his couldn’t have come up with something more original to say. It seems to me his address was hastily cobbled together at the last minute just to be able to fill his allotted time.

After President Nelson admitted in his address that President Oaks and President Eyring have been having disagreements, albeit civil ones, I’m wondering if President Eyring opined at the last minute that President Oaks’ originally planned address was too hard hitting and controversial, and for these reasons President Oaks was forced to prepare a talk on the fly that included virtually no thoughts of his own?

I know what I’m saying seems far fetched, but at very least I’m fairly certain something happened behind the scenes that caused President Oaks to give the most unoriginal and unusual of all the General Conference addresses he’s ever given since becoming a general authority. To reiterate, President Oaks had a full 6 moths to come up with another one of his thought provoking talks, but the best he could do was quote the Savior on a wide range of subjects with no particular central focus or theme?

Now I do indeed realize that I could be flat out wrong, but I think it’ really is possible that something unusual happened behind the scenes that caused him to give such a strange and totally uncharacteristic conference address. 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Jersey Boy

[mikbone]

20 minutes ago, Jersey Boy said:

I doubt elder Oaks’ rather strange and totally uncharacteristic General Conference address is the one he originally planned on giving. It’s hard to believe that after 6 months a brilliant mind like his couldn’t have come up with something more original to say. It seems to me his address was hastily cobbled together at the last minute just to be able to fill his allotted time.

I couldn't disagree more.  We obviously need to focus more on Christ.  I was moved.  I plan on spending some time going over the talk quote by quote.  

It was the only talk that I have listened to twice already.

Perhaps the central theme is we should listen to and understand the words of Christ.

We believe in Christ. 

Edited April 4, 2023 by mikbone

[zil2]

33 minutes ago, Jersey Boy said:

Now I do indeed realize that I could be flat out wrong

I think you are flat out wrong.  I felt the Spirit witness that President Oaks' words were precisely what we needed to hear and that his assemblage was something I need to study, to find the reason and meaning behind the sequence and selections.  As I was typing that, this came to mind:

Quote

Matthew 11

16 ¶ But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows,

17 And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.

18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.

19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 4/2/2023 at 4:12 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I’ll have to look it up; but I think it was the O’Connor seat.  

I just re-skimmed the relevant parts of President Oaks's biography.  He was released as president of BYU in 1980 and nominated to the Utah Supreme Court in November of 1980.  (He had acquired something of a reputation as a conservative, both for his handling of BYU and also because when he was a professor at the University of Chicago he had been involved with the university council that disciplined some hippie rioters/vandals.)  He was also chairman of the board of PBS at this point and was in Washington DC fairly often.  When Reagan was inaugurated there was talk of offering Oaks a job relatively high up in the Attorney General's Office, and a January 1981 article from the Washington Post also mentions him as a potential candidate for Secretary of Education.  Oaks's biography says he told the Reagan administration that he wasn't interested in another administrative job and was happy on the Utah Supreme Court; but when an AG Office executive asked if he'd be interested in the Solicitor General spot Oaks replied in the affirmative.  He flew out to DC in March of 1980 to meet with several judiciary officials, senators, etc., but later that month he received a spiritual impression to withdraw his name from consideration.  He was nevertheless called out to DC again for another round of interviews regarding the SG job, which he did half-heartedly; and the slot ultimately went to Rex E. Lee instead. 

Oaks's name was bandied around in 1981 after Potter Stewart resigned from SCOTUS, but he never really pushed for the job and it went to Sandra Day O'Connor instead.  Right after that Reagan admin officials reached out to him to see if he was interested in a slot on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and he replied that due to other constraints he wasn't interested at that point but might be interested in the future.  By late 1983/early 1984 Oaks let the Reagan admin know that he was ready to accept a position if it were offered; and then in April he was called to the Q12.  

3 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

I doubt elder Oaks’ rather strange and totally uncharacteristic General Conference address is the one he originally planned on giving. It’s hard to believe that after 6 months a brilliant mind like his couldn’t have come up with something more original to say. It seems to me his address was hastily cobbled together at the last minute just to be able to fill his allotted time.

After President Nelson admitted in his address that President Oaks and President Eyring have been having disagreements, albeit civil ones, I’m wondering if President Eyring opined at the last minute that President Oaks’ originally planned address was too hard hitting and controversial, and for these reasons President Oaks was forced to prepare a talk on the fly that included virtually no thoughts of his own?

I know what I’m saying seems far fetched, but at very least I’m fairly certain something happened behind the scenes that caused President Oaks to give the most unoriginal and unusual of all the General Conference addresses he’s ever given since becoming a general authority. To reiterate, President Oaks had a full 6 moths to come up with another one of his thought provoking talks, but the best he could do was quote the Savior on a wide range of subjects with no particular central focus or theme?

Now I do indeed realize that I could be flat out wrong, but I think it’ really is possible that something unusual happened behind the scenes that caused him to give such a strange and totally uncharacteristic conference address. 

It's impossible to disprove such speculation, of course.  But, this struck me as an extremely Christ-centered conference (off the top of my head, I'm not sure I can remember a single reference to Joseph Smith).  My initial reaction was something like yours--disappointment at not hearing something more original from President Oaks's keen mind.  But the impression very clearly came to me that intellectually, I'm playing checkers and he's playing three-dimensional chess.  

I will be reviewing the written text of his talk very closely.  

[Carborendum]

4 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

 It’s hard to believe that after 6 months a brilliant mind like his couldn’t have come up with something more original to say.

... President Oaks to give the most unoriginal and unusual of all the General Conference addresses he’s ever given

with no particular central focus or theme?

Now I do indeed realize that I could be flat out wrong... strange and totally uncharacteristic conference address. 

It seems Elder Oaks was answering a question that so many people have, but have never heard anyone providing an answer.  And there it was in black and white.  Yet it is simple enough to discount it as "unoriginal."

This is what I heard

Quote

Hear Him

One of Pres. Nelson's main themes since he took up the mantle.  But the question that people have had is "how"? 

Someone I know recently asked me what on earth "faith" and "testimony" even mean.  They seem like buzz words and vague concepts of something religious/spiritual, etc.  But what exactly is it?  How can I search for something when I don't even know what I'm looking for?

This is not someone who was being rebellious.  This was someone sincerely wanting to feel this "thing called faith" that so many people attribute their peace and happiness to.  But this person had no idea what to look for.

So, Pres Oaks gave the first step:

Quote

What he said.

Read His actual words and we begin on the road. Pres Oaks started us on the road by giving us the selection that he did.  And there is a pattern to it.  He started with:

Quote

The words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.

So read the words of Christ.  He gave us many.  But the Savior said a whole lot more (including many things in the D&C which Pres Oaks did not quote).  We first hear Him by reading the recorded written words of the Savior.  By hearing those words, we learn to recognize His voice.  Once we can recognize His voice, we are ready for the next step.

He gave some steps to prepare for sanctification -- the fourth article of faith (but it was worded as the Savior said it, not as the Article of Faith says it

Baptism, humility, Holy Ghost...  Remember that these are the FIRST principles and ordinances. 

• We've already shown faith by spending time studying the scriptures in search of His words. 
• We humble ourselves by doing His will by being baptized.  We make the first covenant of salvation.
• We learn how to receive the Holy Ghost.

How do we receive the Holy Ghost? I don't know if he meant it to be a chiasmus.  But I can force it if I try. (Sorry, the formatting on the forum doesn't allow for the arrow thing without taking up a lot of space.

SERMON ON THE MOUNT Change of heart (The Beatitudes) Higher standards: Whosoever looketh upon a woman, etc. etc. etc.
Not of this world (forsake the world)
Beware of false prophets
Take my yoke and learn of me
Deny yourselves of all ungodliness
Do his will... ye shall know of the doctrine.
Seek, ask, knock...
I am the resurrection and the life.
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart...
Keep my commandments.
My peace give I unto you.

No, it isn't a true chiasmus.  It's just something I do to connect dots.  When thinking along these lines (a chiastic structure) it helps me make connections where it may not normally occur to me.

• Through a change of heart, living higher standards, we have not the peace of men, but the peace of the Lord.  "Wickedness never was happiness."
• We forsake the world by living the commandments of God.
• We take Christ's yoke upon us by going where He goes, doing what He does.  Then we brecognize what Eternal Life is really like.
• The simple seek, ask, knock is not very fruitful until we deny ourselves of all ungodliness.
• The central message being: If we do His will, we will know and understand what Eternal Life really is and how to get there.

This is the answer of how we can develop our faith and testimony.  It is an answer to how we can grow closer to the Lord and learn to recognize His voice, His commandments, His will, and become like Him.  Whether Pres Oaks intended it or not, that is what the Savior is always teaching us.

THEN PRES OAKS TOOK IT TO ANOTHER LEVEL.

Quote

A spirit hath not flesh and bones...
Go and baptize every creature, I am with you always.

We tend to think that faith is a spiritual thing.  We tend to think that living the gospel is a spiritual thing.  But know... that it is a physical thing just as much as it is a spiritual thing.  We start by doing something physical.  But it must be something physical that represents what is going on with us spiritually.  We can't just "go through the motions."

Quote

I am in the Father... the Father in me...
No more animal sacrifice.  Broken heart, contrite spirit. 

We tend to think that faith is a spiritual thing.  We tend to think that living the gospel is a spiritual thing.  But know... that it is a physical thing just as much as it is a spiritual thing.  We start by doing something physical.  But it only does us any good if that physical is an outgrowth of something sincerely spiritual -- even if it is only a desire to obtain something spiritual.

Quote

Be baptized.  Become as a little child (humble yourself).  Be perfect

It is interesting to note that the Greek word "be" (Ἔσεσθε) in Matt 5:48 isn't the present imperative.  It is the future indicative. It is a process.  So, "be ye therefore perfect" is a command to get on the road to perfection. 

What do we do as we're on that road?

Quote

Watch and pray always.

And what do we expect to see at the end of that road?

Quote

My father sent me, raised up on the cross, to judge men of their works.

How do we prepare?

Quote

Repent... Sanctified by Holy Ghost.  ...believe in Christ.

Finally, in the context of everything else he said, he gave this passage that means something on multiple levels.

Quote

The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost... will teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you.

As I heard these words, I was impressed that it was more than just the words of scriptures.  It included every spiritual impression I've ever had.  The Spirit can remind me of whatever he told me before.

But it also included something else.  I had an impression that we were all taught through the Spirit in the pre-earth life.  How could it be otherwise?  What were we taught there?  How can we remember it?

Through the Holy Ghost.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Carborendum

[askandanswer]

I haven't seen the talk yet, that will happen this coming Sunday, but the comments here reminded me of a Priesthood lesson I gave many years ago. For my lesson, I quoted the whole of the Sermon of the Mount. I didn't say anything else. Nothing else needed to be said.

Edited April 4, 2023 by askandanswer

[NeuroTypical]

12 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

I doubt elder Oaks’ rather strange and totally uncharacteristic General Conference address is the one he originally planned on giving.

As far as speculations go (which is what we're all doing here), yours is as valid as any other.  I don't think it's correct, but it's as good a guess as any.

I still don't have any guesses as to why he gave that talk, but I am reminded of something that happened a few years back in the political arena.  I think this happened in the US House of Representatives, but I might be mistaken.   A republican brought to the floor of the house, a bill taken word for word from their official republican platform, and the bill did not receive a single republican vote.  Instead, it received a little bit of condemnation from one or two republicans for being divisive and unwarranted (and some other criticisms).

Whelp, Elder Oaks brought to General Conference, a talk pretty much exclusively from the words of the Savior during his mortal ministry.  I just wanted to go on record that even if I hadn't already sustained him in the earlier vote, I would (and do) gladly sustain him and his comments, after that talk.  Those words are as important and valid for us today, as they were when first uttered.

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[NeuroTypical]

Here's the "talk summary", I guess we get this before we get the full transcript:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/general-conference/2023/4/2/23667028/president-oaks-april-2023-general-conference-jesus-christ-teachings-scriptures

And here's the talk:

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[mikbone]

 

The Oaks talk reminds me of a portion of Joseph Smith’s last GC talk.  The prophet was trying to make a statement.  He quotes over a dozen verses from the Bible but does not list a single one by book, chapter and verse.  I took the time to find each quote from the scriptures and list them via superscript highlight. 

I learned much going over the talk with a fine tooth comb.  I’ll do the same with President Oaks talk when it comes out in text version.  It helps to read the verse in its entire context to understand the intended meaning.

Edited April 4, 2023 by mikbone

[Vort]

20 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

I doubt elder Oaks’ rather strange and totally uncharacteristic General Conference address is the one he originally planned on giving. It’s hard to believe that after 6 months a brilliant mind like his couldn’t have come up with something more original to say.

I understand why you might think this, and I can't honestly deny that some part of my psyche is attracted to the idea. But I reject it. The day I decry Elder Oaks (certainly one of my all-time favorite speakers) for delivering the pure words of Christ instead of some religious commentary on the popular perversions of our time is the day I need to rigorously reexamine the very foundations of my own testimony.

On a closely related note, I wonder if it's time for me to go ahead and pull the plug on time-wasting "social media", which is mostly garbage and pollution anyway. I spend little time on so-called social media as it is, but zero would probably be even better.

I also wonder if time spent on this forum might not be better utilized elsewhere. But I have the good sense never actually to say that out loud or write it down.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

On a closely related note, I wonder if it's time for me to go ahead and pull the plug on time-wasting "social media", which is mostly garbage and pollution anyway. I spend little time on so-called social media as it is, but zero would probably be even better.

In theory I love the idea of what Facebook could and should be. I would love to see my extended family's children and events and keep updated with them, etc., etc. Instead...none of my family uses Facebook and my feed is mostly filled with ads and inane quizzes or memes. With the addition of "shorts" I get bikini pics and the like in my feed. Garr...I hate Facebook now! And it's still, probably, the best of social media.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

 

Did you just bring me back to an old favorite album I haven't thought about in years and now I have several songs stuck in my head for the rest of the night and now I'm anxious that you might disappear off of this site and facebook and we'll all be left Vortless?

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I also wonder if time spent on this forum might not be better utilized elsewhere.

It is very difficult to be online at all and not engage in contention. (I know this thread is on President Oakes' talk, and I'm speaking of President Nelson's...but....) I have stayed out of other less moderated forums because the contention there becomes so awful so quickly. But even here...there's contention. Continual, constant, contention.

I must admit, I don't understand the concept of "no contention". I really don't. But I trust the prophet. So I swallow what I do and do not understand and commit.

But that leaves me feeling like...well....what's the point of even being here? Every time I say something...it gets debated. And every time someone else says something I usually find that I want to debate it. But I'm not supposed to do that any more. So what's the point? Or can contention-less debate exist? Doesn't seem like it. So every thing I say is viewed as "wrong" by others and what others say is viewed as "wrong" by me, but I'm not supposed to correct what I believe is wrong, or defend what I believe is right. Which in real life means blankly discussing...I dunno....the weather. Like I said... I don't understand. (On the flip side, I hate being in arguments...so not engaging has been much better on my emotional state.)

In a lot of ways the messaging given by our leadership at Conference seems to have strayed away from the practical. And that's left me floundering quite a bit.

So....I dunno. It makes me feel inclined to spend less time here as well.