President Uchtdorf conducts.
Choir sings, “Saints, Behold How Great Jehovah”
Choir sings, “Secret Prayer.”
Elder Oaks
THIS IS A MUST-READ TALK IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE RECENT CONTROVERSY REGARDING WOMEN AND THE PRIESTHOOD. THESE NOTES ARE NOT COMPLETE. PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE TALK CAREFULLY ON-LINE.
We do not step down when we are released from a calling, we do not step up when we are called. Our attitude toward the calling is the issue. Nursery is equally honorable.
Keys and authority of the priesthood. Broadcast so all members can see this talk. Priesthood power blesses all of us. Priesthood keys direct women and men. Priesthood authority pertain to women as well as men.
Priesthood is the power of God delegated to man so man can act on the Earth for the salvation of the human family. It is the power by which the Earth was created. The priesthood is the power by which we will be resurrected and proceed to eternal life.
Priesthood keys are the authority to direct, control and govern the use of the priesthood on the Earth. Every act is done under the authorization of the person holding the keys.
Keys both enlarge and limit. Certain people are given the authority of the priesthood. A person who holds the priesthood cannot give authority to another unless authorized by the person who holds the keys. A priesthood holder cannot administer the Sacrament in his own home without authorization from the one who holds the keys.
Keys held by the temple president allow sisters in the temple to perform priesthood acts. Jesus Christ determines what keys are given to mortals. We think that all were given to Joseph Smith. The keys of this dispensation were given to Joseph Smith. There are other priesthood keys not given to man on the Earth, including the keys of creation and resurrection.
The first presidency has the power to make many decisions. These authorities exercise all of the keys given to men in this dispensation, but they are not free to change the divine pattern that only men will hold the priesthood.
How does this apply to women? Joseph Fielding Smith said, “while the sisters have not been given the priesthood…this does not mean the Lord has not given them authority…they have authority (in the temple) to do great and wonderful things.”
Women have been given authority. The RS has been given power and authority to do a great many things. Church work done in the temple and wards and branches is done under those who hold priesthood keys. RS is not just a class, but something they belong to, a divinely established appendage.
When a woman is set apart to preach the Gospel, she is given priesthood authority to preach the Gospel. Same with women who receive a calling.
A person who has authority or calling should forget about their “rights” and concentrate on their “responsibilities.”
The Lord has directed that only men will only be ordained to the priesthood. The power cannot be exercised without the companionship of one of God’s daughters. Marriage is a partnership. A full partnership. Women and men are equal with different responsibilities.
Blessings of the priesthood. These are available to men and women on the same terms. The gift of the Holy Ghost and the blessings of the temples are examples. Women are equal to and different than men. Men and women are both endowed with the same power, which is priesthood power.
Elder Donald L. Hallstrom of the Seventy
Information on Elder Hallstrom: https://www.lds.org/church/leader/donald-l-hallstrom
New technology is great, but has little value if people are not willing to receive the word and act on it. Must be willing to act, willing to change.
Don’t say, “that’s just the way I am.” We meet in Priesthood because who we are is not who we can become. We all have the ability to change.
Your challenges are not insurmountable. Told the story of an Indian man who overcome incredible obstacles to become a missionary and advance in the Gospel. The Gospel helped him change.
1)We must be priesthood men, whether young men or older men, showing spiritual maturity. Need to see the priesthood as a sacred act.
2)We need to serve. Must magnify our calling by serving others, including wives and children, our callings.
3)We need to be worthy. Commonly accepted practices in the world choke our ability to advance in the priesthood. “See that you do all things in worthiness.”
Elder Randall L. Ridd, of the young men’s presidency
More choices mean more opportunities. More potential to do good and…evil.
God trusts you to successful discern among all the choices available. Young men are growing up with one of the greatest tools for good in the history of man, the internet. Choice means accountability. The very best and the very worst are available.
The internet records your desires. As you surf the internet, you leave tracks, what you communicate, where you have been, and the things that interest you. Your cyber book of life. The internet will give you more and more of what you seek. It is easy to engage in worthy pursuits, but the opposite is also true.
Satan is trying to trap you with addictive behavior. Four principles:
1)know who you are. (He told a very touching story about a young man who gained a glimpse of the pre mortal existence and saw who he really was, a follower of Christ. It changed his life.)
2)plug into the source of power. Words of the prophets.
3)Owning a smart thing does not make you smart. Don’t do dumb things with your smartphone.
4)The Lord provides technology to accomplish His purposes.
Choir, “Rejoice, the Lord is King.”
Elder Uchtdorf
Story of Rip Van Winkle. Slept for 20 years. Missed the American Revolution. Are you sleeping through the Restoration of the Gospel?
The Restoration is ongoing. We are living through it now. These events will culminate in the glorious Second Coming. Ancient prophets yearned to see our day. How will we contribute to this time?
Reasons people do not participate in the Restoration.
1)Selfishness. What is in it for me? Contrary to the spirit to build God’s kingdom. The remedy is to come to Christ.
2)Addiction. Some addictions start slowly. Then they become consuming addictions. Pornography, alcohol, gambling, virtual reality. Satan has many tools to rob us of our divine potential. Listen to the voices of family, friends, and the prophets and the Savior to avoid addiction. If you have an addiction, seek help. The Lord will not give up on you.
3)Competing priorities. People get so busy that we feel like a cart pulled by many animals straining in a different direction. Hobbies, sports, community or political issues — they may be good and honorable, but are they leaving us time for our highest priorities?
Elder Eyring
Heroes. Joe Dimaggio became his hero when he was young. We will copy our heroes. For Elder Eyring, he observed his father as the branch president, and his father became his hero. Elder Eyring grew up in Princeton, NJ.
The other hero was a US Marine, came to meetings wearing his Marine uniform. Wartime. Taught him how to play basketball.
Each person with the priesthood is a model for others. You are a lighted candle. You can be a great model, average or a bad model. It matters to the Lord which you choose. “You are the light of the world, a city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.”
Three characteristics of heroes:
1)Pattern of pray.
2)Habit of service.
3)Rockhard decision to be honest.
President Monson
We live in a world where moral values have been tossed aside, where sin and temptations surround us. Many influences tear down what is decent. Impose a secular society. Decisions are constantly before us that can determine our destiny. Need the courage to say no when we should, the courage to do the right thing because it’s right.
We will have the courage to defend what we believe? We can help ourselves in our desire to do that which is right when we are in places where our thoughts are influenced for good.
If you ever find yourself in the place where you shouldn’t ought to be, get out!
The real tests of courage are inner tests, like when remaining faithful when nobody is looking, standing alone when you are misunderstood. Do the right thing, defend beliefs when you may be ridiculed.
During WWII, one man always prayed even if he were jeered at. Another example of another youth who was clean and wearing a shirt in Sacrament meeting, but people saw him after the meeting smoking a cigarette and looking scruffy.
Brethren, are you the same person during Sacrament meeting and after Sacrament meeting.
Just be the same person in the dark that you are in the light.
Told the story of Parley Pratt and Joseph Smith in the Liberty Jail.
It is impossible to stand upright when one plants his roots in the shifting sands of popular opinion.
Courage, not compromise, brings the smile of God’s approval.
Let everyman learn his duty, to act in the office to which he is appointed, in all diligence. Then we will be a royal priesthood.
Choir sings, “Abide With Me”
New Post: April 2014 184th General Conference, notes from Priesthood Session: April 2014 184th Ge… http://t.co/MRyRpYvAjB #LDS #Mormon
RT @ldsblogs: TheMillennialStar: April 2014 184th General Conference, notes from Priesthood Session http://t.co/FgsH4LOHU7 #lds #mormon
Geoff, nice summary. Was it just me, or did Elder Oaks seems to have an added measure of seriousness in comparison with his recent conference talks? It seems he knew that this talk would be heavily scrutinized.
I, too, got the distinct impression that Oaks would have preferred not to have been compelled (by circumstances or assignment, I can’t say which) to give that talk.
To be honest guys I was so busy typing during his talk that I didn’t think about anything except how to get it all down. His talk is really, really important and I want to read the whole thing carefully as soon as it comes out.
Here is a good summary of Elder Oaks’ talk.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865600323/Elder-Dallin-H-Oaks-Keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood.html
Elder Oaks’s was one of the deepest, most powerful talks ever in Conference. If he was compelled by circumstance to give it, I’m almost glad for the circumstance! Insanely powerful stuff. Everything he said about the temple are things my wife says when the issue of female ordination comes up, but the ideas about authority in callings was new to me. I knew right away this session would be special.
No mention of President Uchtdorf’s Air Force One story in these notes, but if anyone missed it, look it up. Cleverest “follow the prophet” example ever. Got a huge reaction in my stake center–and not just the polite chuckle most church jokes get; it was genuinely hilarious material!
President Monson’s tenure continues to impress me with its directness. He was in full “eyebrow singe-ing” mode, and I wonder if we notice that enough. Since the mantle of the presidency has fallen on him, the days of cute, warm stories are largely gone, and he spends much more time now boldly calling for immediate results in repentance and worthiness. In the last several years, he’s become less likely to give “three steps to improvement” talks and more likely to raise his voice and declare the world dangerously corrupt. If his ministry has often been that of a teddy bear, as the prophet he’s a teddy bear who can make a fist when needed. Maybe it’s just me, but I wonder why I don’t hear more people noticing that talks like this could have come straight from the mouth of Elijah. That means something.
I feel a bit vindicated by Elder Oaks’ talk. He expressed the same kinds of concepts about the priesthood that I have been saying to supporters of OW. Much of what he said is laid out in Handbook 2. Between Elder Oaks and Elder Holland, I don’t see much room for the continued disaffection of some members. You either believe we have 15 prophets, seers and revelators and will sustain them – or you don’t. I think many will continue to rationalize their positions “I can be an active faithful member but still support SSM and OW.” But I think we are on the verge of a purge.
IDIAT…
We can only hope for a purge at this point. It would of course be better if the OW movement would repent, rather than need to be purged…
I think it is notable that BCC did NOT do an open thread last night… Someone must have warned the vipers there of the wrath to come…
If the WO faction wanted some “answers” from the Priesthood authorities, Elder Oaks and Elder Holland’s talks seem to have given a resounding “No, women cannot hold the priesthood in the same direct manner as the men, especially not offices.” Of course, they will continue to hound and pretend that it wasn’t the will of the Lord since this reason or that. When they say about the Prophet and Apostles, “you didn’t pray,” then it is only because the OW refuse to listen.
Idiot, trust me when I say there is no vindication with those who mock and reject you even when in support of the Church leadership. There are a lot of things I feel vindicated by, and yet I am still considered a pariah. No, they have their views and to paraphrase Jesus, even if a man was to be resurrected they would not listen.
I was talking about Elder Oaks’ talk with my wife this morning, and she responded with “of course, I have always known that the priesthood is much bigger than just a calling.” She felt like she was delegated a portion of the priesthood when she was set apart as a missionary, when she received a calling and when she performs here daily duties. The priesthood is NOT a position in the Church — it is much bigger and more powerful than that, and women already receive portions of the priesthood all the time, and my wife already understood that.
Huston, you should write a guest post on your impressions of Pres. Monson’s presidency, using some clear examples. That would be awesome.
I don’t think a purge will be necessary now–not a general one, anyways. OW has been de-fanged, at least where rank-and-file Mormons are concerned. Oaks’ sermon will have run around the Church a thousand times before OW’s anticipated “member discussions” have even gotten their shoes on; and Oaks was very clear that the Lord has said “no” to ordination. OW might continue to whine that we don’t have access to a written revelation saying as much–but such antics smack of calling Oaks a liar, and I don’t think the membership will stand for it.
Once the movement has fizzled, the recalcitrants among the OW leadership can be dealt with one by one if their behavior so warrants. No purge, no outraged following, no mess.
I tend to agree with JimD’s scenario. I will say some prayers for the souls of Kate Kelly and her followers that they will repent and come back to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. She is on a very, very dark path that will bring her and her family nothing but suffering in the long run, so I mostly feel sorry for her.
Having read a few OW supporters, they are saying exactly what you would expect. They are claiming that Elder Oaks never said the magic sentence, “We prayed and asked God to give women the Priesthood (offices) and He said no.” For them, all this talk of women having access to Priesthood outside of offices or in particular callings under its direction is balderdash unless God comes down in a repeat of the Kirtland Temple for all the world to see and proclaim one way or the other.
Luke 16;31
It would be disengenuous and naive to assert that Elder Oaks was not answering the dissident protests. More interesting to me, I think he offers a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes deliberations of the first councils of Church leadership.
My first impression was that he was primarily responding to the OW petitions. But thinking deeper, I am inclined now to see his remarks as a report representing the position of Church leadership, which must have been arrived at after due deliberation and finally forming a consensus. When considered from that perspective, I think his talk presents the confirmation of intense prayer, careful reasearching and discussion of the issues, and the body of Church leadership coming together to consolidate their views.
I have no doubt that it was a long and difficult process that produced what Elder Oaks presented to the body of the Church. Though I think the OW movement has been a factor in prompting deeper inquiry by Church leaders, I honestly doubt that it was the first or only consideration.
Just as an incidental interest, I find fascination in that some lines of thought so closely echo the findings of Church historian D. Michael Quinn, before he jumped off the deep end and was excommunicated. Not that I think this vindicates him in apostasy, but it attests to the fact that Quinn was at one time a brilliant scholar and analyst of Church history.
I am curious to see what the OW response will be, and not just from the wingbat’s posting on their Facebook page, but something official. They’ve not updated their website as of this morning, and the only posts on the Facebook page were a claim of 500+ attendees (local news put it closer to 200) and to quote 2 Corinthians 4: 8-9:
8 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair;
9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;
Apparently they are feeling a bit put upon.
Jim Cobabe –
I agree with your thought re church councils; but Elder Oaks has a respectable track record of expounding the doctrine of the priesthood in his own right. Indeed, I don’t think later historians will be able to adequately cover this period of Church history without an in-depth review of Oaks’ ministry. He has been heavily involved in the Church’s positions on gender, homosexuality, religious liberty . . . Heck, he’s even a significant figure as far back as the Mark Hoffman affair.
I hope I’m still around to read the definitive scholarly biography of Elder Oaks, whenever it’s written.
I kind of think it’s important to point out D. Michael Quinn was excommunicated to unrepentant homosexuality, not just his “writings” as he so often claims.
On D. Michael Quinn’s excommunication:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Church_discipline/Scholars/D._Michael_Quinn
I’m not understanding what Quinn’s excommunication has to do with OW. Regardless of any apparent similarities, each case is separate and unique, and each is obviously a result of being unrepentant. Or is that just a threadjack?
Each talk of priesthood session was excellent, and Elder Oak’s talk set the tone for a very uplifting and educational meeting. He outlined some clear doctrines in relation to women, a talk that will require further study.
Tiger, yeah, just a threadjack. You are correct that each case is different and unique.
Geoff, maybe, but in the meantime, I wrote about this a few years ago after I first started noticing it. http://gentlyhewstone.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/has-president-monson-gotten-more-serious/
His talk on kindness this morning is classic President Monson, but I really can’t remember many (any?) fire and brimstone talks from before 2008. Since then–since becoming the head of the church–he’s had several in-your-face addresses frankly calling out wickedness, such as those quoted in my linked post, and his priesthood talk last night.
I remember witnessing the same transformation in Pres. Hinckley when he assumed the mantle. He became much more direct, prophetic, and presidential in his tenure. Of course he had many years of experience as a counselor, but when he assumed the mantle directly, the tone of his sermons changed and sometimes he addresses consisted of several topics, almost as a checklist of things to report and discuss with church members. Pres. Monson’s approach has been more gradual, but clearly noticeable.
I’ve noticed the same thing that Huston and Tiger talk about with both Pres. Monson and Pres. Hinckley. I noticed it to some extent with Pres. Hunter, but he was only president for one conference, so it was less pronounced. I was too young when Pres. Benson became president, but it might be interesting to look at that as well. I’m reminded of the discourse of Jacob in Jacob 2 in thinking about this. Pres. Monson literally has the weight of the world on his shoulders. I see him saying, in his own way, “according to the responsibility which I am under to God, to magnify mine office with soberness, and that I might rid my garments of your sins, I come up into the temple this day that I might declare unto you the word of God.”
Last night’s talk by Elder Oaks was excellent and the doctrines have been expounded by him before. See:
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/05/the-relief-society-and-the-church?lang=eng
This url connects to the April 1992 General Conference talk by Elder Oaks entitled “The Relief Society and the Church.” Last night Elder Oaks added a few statements making the doctrines a little more direct. This will be useful to remind members of the Church of the doctrines behind current priesthood practices. It might even persuade a few of the vacillating members of the OW movement.
What effect will this talk have on the OW group as a whole? None. Why? Because I am sure they are already aware of the 1992 talk by Elder Oaks, at least those who have been in the movement for any length of time. I believe many are far more hardened and distant from the believing membership of the Church than one would would think by listening to the press releases. Why do I believe this? Because I have listened to them talk amongst themselves. One can find these discussions on the podcast series by Dan Wotherspoon (Mormon Matters) and more recently by John Dehlin. Just listen to what they say. Also, at least one very prominent member has left a trail elsewhere, in other causes, in which one can ascertain how “believing” they actually are. Someone from the OW women group made the statement to the SLC news media that those marching Saturday night are (as I recall) “faithful and believing members of the Church.” Perhaps many are. But to have said that as a blanket statement about the group was either disingenuous or made by a new member who doesn’t know some of the other members very well.
If President Monson were to announce at some future Conference that the general authorities had made extraordinary effort to pray about the issue of female ordination and the answer was “no,” would that satisfy the core of the OW movement? No. On the other hand, if the answer was “yes,” would they be satisfied? No. If you think that’s absurd…well, just listen to them…
One topic that has NEVER come up in any of the in-group discussions (that I have heard) of the OW members is that of performing Christ-like service, which comes up everywhere else in the Church. Why? Because once this thread of Christ-like service enters the discussion, the idea of ordaining women becomes superfluous. Whether one has been ordained to the priesthood or not, once becoming like the Savior and performing service like Him becomes one’s goal, one has his or her hands full, to the point of an overwhelming responsibility.
Their silence this morning has been interesting. I sincerely believe that there are many in the OW group that have testimonies and will follow the prophets. Kate Kelly wrote an article published yesterday at a blog called Flunking Sainthood, that “I have no doubt in my heart that women will one day be ordained… but if not, I will continue to serve the Lord.” Let’s see what this actually means. If she believes “serving the Lord” has the meaning that most faithful LDS would ascribe to it, she will step down from this group and put her energies into an endeavor consistent with the doctrines of the Gospel. If she doesn’t, we’ll be able to see very clearly that Kate Kelly believes that serving the Lord means attacking His Church. That will be all anyone flirting with OW will need to know to accurately determine whether or not they should get involved or stay involved. I’m not holding my breathe, she’s backed herself in a corner. Time will tell whether she is this generation’s Margaret Toscano. (For an interesting exercise, go to their site and the media coverage and you’ll see Toscano standing right behind or right next to Kate more often than not.)
I think all due restraint is called for in speculation about Quinn’s departure from the Church. I have no interest in Quinn other than his contributions to understanding Church history. It is ever instructive that the Church does not elaborate on the details of an excommunication, so it would probably be prudent to follow that example.
Fortunate or not, since the Church remains silent, the ex member can give any justification they favor. I have never heard anyone from the Church offer an official rebuttal.
Additionally, after Elder Oaks talk yesterday, members of OW cannot honestly answer “no” to the following question: “Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?” It could not have been stated any simpler last night.
Quite a rogue’s gallery in the OW leadership, really–Kelly, Toscano, Kaimi Wenger (who dismissed the current policy as “bull[excrement]”), Nadine Hansen (proprietor of the Mormonsfor8 website and instrumental in whipping up anti-Mormon gay sentiment back in 2008–Mormons who supported the campaign and subsequently lost their jobs or had their houses vandalized can thank Ms. Hansen to no small degree), Stephanie Lauritzen (founder of All Enlisted and the “wear-pants-to-church” business, who swore AE was *not* about priesthood ordination) . . .
Michael – suppose you’re the bishop of someone who is actively engaged with OW, they come to you for a TRI, and after asking that question, they answer “No.” Then what? There are many who believe the person doing the interview must accept the answers given at face value. That has never been my training. I’ve been told to use my discernment and where I feel it appropriate, the ask exploring questions to flesh out true feelings. Not to take license and get involved in sexual matters. But, if you know the member has a WOW struggle, or hasn’t paid any tithing in quite some time, or any number of other things, I’ve been told to dig a little deeper and if they have a problem with that approach, they can arrange to meet with the stake president. Anyway, was just wondering what others’ take was on TRIs. NOTE: that is not to say that answering “yes” merits any kind of church discipline, simply that one might not qualify for a temple recommend.
IDIAT, what you describe as your training is consistent with my experience and training as well. As I thought about this, a few things come to mind. First, the Handbook does say that members who have close relatives who are involved in apostate groups should be questioned closely regarding those groups to make sure that the member being interviewed doesn’t have sympathies for those groups.
Second, a bishop or stake president can call an member of their ward/branch in at any time for a worthiness interview and can take their temple recommend away if they believe that the individual in question is not living up to their covenants or is otherwise unworthy. These interviews are not as scripted as the standard recommend interview. I suspect that the difference between the two is best understood as a result of considering that counselors primarly (in my experience) are delegated to conduct renewal interviews, and require more guidance while bishops and stake presidents hold keys and have greater authority to inquire into worthiness issues.
Third, in discussing Church Discipline, the Handbook states that there are several situations in which a disciplinary must be held. This list includes apostasy, which is defined as:
“1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.”
Numbers 1 and 2 seem particularly applicable. There might be a guest post in there somewhere.
My first impression from Elder Oaks’ talk: WOW, either a lot more of the membership is agitating for female ordination or this small band of feminists have a lot more influence than I’ve been led to believe. Because I heard no new information in the talk and, like Geoff’s wife, most of the Mormon women in know in the Church are already pretty well versed in how the priesthood institutionally operates.
On the one hand, this was an authoritative repudiation of the goals of OW. On the other hand, from Holland, Oaks and even Anderson, its clear that many of our general church leaders are listening to even the smallest group of concerned voices. I have not doubt that more then a few of them are reading blogs, facebook and maybe even comment sections of online content. That, to me, is news.
Christian J, you may be right, but it is also clear to me that many people, both men and women, simply don’t understand the difference between a priesthood calling (like bishop, stake president, etc) and the priesthood itself. In addition, they do not seem to understand that not all priesthood keys have been granted to current prophets and that the Lord grants these keys in very specific ways, and the granting of these keys is not something that can be controlled by the prophets. It is obvious to me that Kate Kelly of the OW movement has simply no clue of these realities and sees the priesthood as simply a worldly position. If you read her comments, she seems to think that the LDS church should be like the Congregational church and just start appointing women bishops and stake presidents tomorrow (of course with the goal of having exactly half of them be women within a few years, and if it doesn’t happen, more agitation in an endless cycle of unhappiness).
Christian J and Geoff B, as I think about it more, I see Elder Oaks’ talk as an ominous sign. While it is simple to view it as a response to questions being raised right now by the ladies of OW. The thought that comes to mind is that Elder Oaks was answering questions that are going to be raised years from now. I expect that five years from now, Elder Oaks’ talk will be more important than it is today.
Michael, Elder Oaks’ talk cannot be dismissed so easily, I agree. And may be used in the future. BUT, a very common explanation I hear for past prophetic misstatements is that they were not given by a unanimous voice by the First Presidency and/or Q12. If that criteria for eternal and unchanging doctrine can be an excuse for false teachings in the past, then it begs OW to use it for individual statements like these. The unanimous Family Proc, for example, seems to draw a sort of line in the sand regarding the limits of gay inclusion in this way, but is not explicit concerning female ordination.
Isolated statement – no matter how direct – from apostles should mean *something* to believing Mormons, but I’m fascinated by how frequently the door of possibility is left open. Some would add – by design.
Certainly a general conference talk would carry more weight that something said in another context, such as an interview with an Australian television reporter, for instance, but I agree with you. Having said that, I think that the 12 are pretty careful about what they say, and for good reason. There’s been a number of times that the Church has had to back away from things one member or another of the 12 have said, but that number is relatively small in my opinion. If Elder Oaks had announced something new rather than reiterated existing doctrines, than there would be a lot more questions. Maybe it’s the lawyer in me, but I’m interested in getting my hands on the footnotes.
There’s still been no word for Ordain Women. It’s interesting, because last year they posted retrospectives on the Sunday and Monday after their event, but there’s been nothing yet.
From a FB comment of a friend:
“Oh that’s awesome! Elder Oaks came a few years ago when our stake was reorganized and Jeff *********** got to sit down and talk to him between meetings. He said Elder Oaks is the most down to earth, lighthearted man. Jeff told him “You seem so serious when you speak.” Elder Oaks then said “that’s because they always give me the hard topics” and was laughing.”