Dallin Oak'S Remarks At Ces Fireside

[mrmandias]

Abortion and pornography, I'll warrant. Also gambling and, perhaps, drug legalization. I recall at least one talk by Elder Oaks where he made the same sorts of points about 'legislating morality' in the context of abortion laws.

In a speech Sunday at a Church Education System (CES) Fireside in the Marriott Center at BYU, Elder Dallin Oaks is reported by The Deseret News as sharing this counsel:

I'm curious as to what devout Mormons believe Elder Oaks is speaking about, beyond the one obvious example that comes to mind (referring to Prop 8 ).

Would one accept that his words should apply to "seeking laws to maintain public conditions or policies that assist them in practicing the requirements of their faith where those conditions are also favorable to public health, safety, or morals" with regards to:

Sabbath obervance?

Alcohol consumption?

Coffee consumption?

Paying 10% of one's income to the church?

Abortion?

Others...?

How would one go about defining "public morals"...?

Daniel2

[Daniel Peterson]

Acts 17

:

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

In which, citing two pre-Christian pagan poets who were referring to Zeus -- Epimenides of Crete and Aratus of Cilicia -- as if they were talking about the God of the Bible, and addressing a pagan audience in Athens, Paul is clearly implying that we are all, including those very pagan Athenians to whom he was speaking, the children of God.

[William James]

I doubt that Elder Oaks would ever equate extermination of anyone with public health and safety. That's a pretty cynical view on your part.

Our federal and state constitutions are written upon a foundation of shared community standards and freedom of belief. Due to differences in beliefs this requires an ongoing discussion and debate over what our community standards should be. No one group should have to apologize for being an active part of that debate.

I suspect the proponents of Proposition 8 or Sunday sales of alcohol feel just as protective of their First Amendment rights as any Latter-day Saint. To bring up the spectre of the elimination of the Saints by a murderous mobocracy is a poor, awkward and just plain bad attempt at humor, irony or whatever that was supposed to be.

It is obvious to me that Daniel2 was NOT claiming that Oaks endorses the Missouri extermination order. What Daniel2 is saying, I think, is that if public law gets decided on completely subjective preferences (as opposed to an appeal to secular reasoning), then we can get absurd and unjust results like the extermination order. For Mormons to oppose gay marriage on the basis of religious belief and/or prejudice alone, as opposed to objective, scientific, and rational bases for the benefit of society, then such an approach is wrong, and we will in effect be intruding upon the reasonable exercise of our fellow citizens' personal conscience. In my opinion, there is NOTHING wrong with legislating based upon moral conviction, SO LONG AS THAT MORAL CONVICTION IS SUPPORTED BY SECULAR REASONING rather than mere religious belief. In the case of Prop 8, my own position is that the Government should not be involved in defining marriage at all, because the term has an inherently religious connotation. So I neither supported nor opposed Prop 8. But in terms of gay relationships, when they are consensual and between mature adults, the state has no business in prohibiting, discouraging, or preventing them. To the extent that Prop 8 is/was intended as a tool to stamp a badge of societal disapproval on consensual gay relationships, then it is utterly misplaced and steps outside the bounds of proper law in a non-theocratic society such as ours.

As to the Missouri extermination order, what many people don't know is the information Boggs was acting on at the time. Although his decision was certainly wrong, he was fed completely false intelligence leading him to genuinely believe, in my opinion, that the Mormons were a military threat to Missouri (as opposed to merely having differences in religious belief). But to be fair, even those religious bigots in Missouri who hated the Mormons (in large part because of what began as LDS abolitionist leanings) probably thought they were upholding public morals when they fought the Mormons and sought their expulsion from Missouri. If Elder Oaks does not put some secular brakes on the train of transforming private religious conviction into public policy, it can lead to the very types of institutionalized discrimination and bigotry which was exercised against the Mormons in Missouri long ago.

[KevinG]

I'm not saying we are worse than mainstream Christians, but I still think we deserve a spanking.

http://www.fox13now....32-d1ace2e5d34a

With the large number of LDS represented in Utah I would say their having an influence over public policy is warranted. The rights of the minority are still protected quite well by the constitution and our representative system. If the citizens of Utah don't like their liquor board or representatives they should vote them out and replace them with someone who more closely reflects their values.

Again in my experience sopme unhappy citizens of Utah screamed "separation of Church and State" most loudly but their actual political environment leans more libertarian than many other states.

[jadams_4242]

In a speech Sunday at a Church Education System (CES) Fireside in the Marriott Center at BYU, Elder Dallin Oaks is reported by The Deseret News as sharing this counsel:

I'm curious as to what devout Mormons believe Elder Oaks is speaking about, beyond the one obvious example that comes to mind (referring to Prop 8 ).

Would one accept that his words should apply to "seeking laws to maintain public conditions or policies that assist them in practicing the requirements of their faith where those conditions are also favorable to public health, safety, or morals" with regards to:

Sabbath obervance?

Alcohol consumption?

Coffee consumption?

Paying 10% of one's income to the church?

Abortion?

Others...?

How would one go about defining "public morals"...?

Daniel2

All hes saying is "dont be ashamed of the gospel"! period! {speak up!}.

[frankenstein]

He also said there are four governing principles to maintaining truth and tolerance in the public square:

when believers take their views into the public square they must seek inspiration from the Lord and be selective and wise in choosing which principles to promote;

when choosing to promote a position methods and advocacy should be tolerant of opinions and positions of those who do not share similar beliefs;

believers should not be deterred by the charge that they are trying to legislate morality

and "believers should not shrink from seeking laws to maintain public conditions or policies that assist them in practicing the requirements of their faith where those conditions or policies are also favorable to the public health, safety, or morals."

a little of the second point could be had in many LDS circles, but I understand that many LDS claim "nature of the beast" or rather would prefer to live the a lesser law for school children i.e. Law of Moses, than live a Higher Law of the Gospel. though I also understand that LDS folks largely pick and choose what council they will follow and what council they will take a hot iron too in order to justify their dismissal and open rebellion to said council from LDS Prophets and Apostles.

Nice Hyperbole. I don't think Oaks remarks even come close to sanctioning the extermination of anyone.

Nemesis

I do not intend to engage you in the conversation, but I will use your quote as a reference to other quotes along the same lines.

With that, not having recently read the Boggs extermination order, doesn't the order refer to public safety or something akin to thereto as justifcation? If so, it does not place Daniels querry so much in the realm of hyperbole or cynicism.

Headquarters of the Militia,

City of Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1838.

General John B. Clark:

Sir Since the order of this morning to you, directing you to cause four hundred mounted men to be raised within your division, I have received by Amos Reese, Esq., of Ray county, and Wiley C. Williams, Esq., one of my aids, information of the most appalling character, which entirely changes the face of things, and places the Mormons in the attitude of an open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made war upon the people of this state. Your orders are, therefore, to hasten your operation with all possible speed. The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace--their outrages are beyond all description.

I am very respectfully,

your ob't serv't,

L. W. Boggs,

Commander-in-Chief.

what was the defiance of laws? was it polygamy, if so, that would have gone against public morals of the time.

Edited September 14, 2011 by frankenstein

[Zakuska]

a little of the second point could be had in many LDS circles, but I understand that many LDS claim "nature of the beast" or rather would prefer to live the a lesser law for school children i.e. Law of Moses, than live a Higher Law of the Gospel. though I also understand that LDS folks largely pick and choose what council they will follow and what council they will take a hot iron too in order to justify their dismissal and open rebellion to said council from LDS Prophets and Apostles.

I do not intend to engage you in the conversation, but I will use your quote as a reference to other quotes along the same lines.

With that, not having recently read the Boggs extermination order, doesn't the order refer to public safety or something akin to thereto as justifcation? If so, it does not place Daniels querry so much in the realm of hyperbole or cynicism.

what was the defiance of laws? was it polygamy, if so, that would have gone against public morals of the time.

Defiance of the laws wasn't polygamy. It was raising an army and protecting their property. Treason was the Charge. Not polygamy nor the burning of the press.

[Pahoran]

a little of the second point could be had in many LDS circles, but I understand that many LDS claim "nature of the beast" or rather would prefer to live the a lesser law for school children i.e. Law of Moses, than live a Higher Law of the Gospel.

Referring to what, exactly? If you're going to pass judgement upon "many LDS," it would be nice to know just what we/they are accused of here.

though I also understand that LDS folks largely pick and choose what council they will follow and what council they will take a hot iron too in order to justify their dismissal and open rebellion to said council from LDS Prophets and Apostles.

Not to be picky, but "council" means "a group of people discussing and making decisions about something." I think you are talking about "counsel," which means "advice."

And here, I can think of one or two examples of what you are talking about. For example, some "LDS folks" in California came out in "open rebellion" against the counsel of the Leaders of the Church just a few years ago on a remarkably clear-cut moral question.

With that, not having recently read the Boggs extermination order, doesn't the order refer to public safety or something akin to thereto as justifcation? If so, it does not place Daniels querry so much in the realm of hyperbole or cynicism.

Of course it does.

what was the defiance of laws? was it polygamy, if so, that would have gone against public morals of the time.

No, it was not polygamy. The governor willingly believed a false report to the effect that the Saints were engaged in armed rebellion. He justified his attempted genocide on that basis.

And anyone who can't tell the difference between attempted genocide and alcohol regulation -- or defending marriage -- might just have missed the point of Elder Oaks' talk.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Regulating alcohol consumption to the extent that we do in Utah is embarrassing to me as a Utahn. Things need to change. Other people live here too and they don't have the Church as a social outlet.

We need to decide if we are Iran (positive freedom) or Libertarian (negative freedom) in Utah. We mostly just pick and choose to force our preferences on others without evaluating whether or not we are being rational or consistent. It's an immature way of dealing with politics and people outside of the Church call us out on it (justly so).

It's my understanding that within the last year or two, the laws in Utah governing alcohol sales have been liberalized — with the support of LDS leaders, I might add — to the point where they are pretty typical of laws in most other areas.

See this link.

Have you kept current on this issue?

Edited September 14, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Defiance of the laws wasn't polygamy. It was raising an army and protecting their property. Treason was the Charge. Not polygamy nor the burning of the press.

True. The treason charge was because martial law was declared in Nauvoo. In effect, Joseph and Hyrum were arrested — and eventually murdered — for trying to protect their own people from mobs.

[MosesStone1980]

Robert George spoke at BYU in October of 2008 on this very topic: http://www.byub.org/talks/transcripts/byuforum/2008/10/byuforum20081028-2345.pdf

Apropos? I think so.

Personal morals are a fundamental necessity in determining public policy on a wide array of civic issues.

Edited September 15, 2011 by MosesStone1980

[frankenstein]

Referring to what, exactly? If you're going to pass judgement upon "many LDS," it would be nice to know just what we/they are accused of here.

as was stated in another thread "this isn't a Preisthood lesson".

Thank you for the correction on council v. counsel.

No, it was not polygamy. The governor willingly believed a false report to the effect that the Saints were engaged in armed rebellion. He justified his attempted genocide on that basis.

thank you for this correction aswell.

[bluebell]

I would disagree with this particular statement of his:

"People are brothers and sisters under God."

Spiritually speaking, we are either the children of God or the devil,

as Jesus mentioned (John 8:44).

You are only a son or daughter of God if you are led by His spirit

(Romans 8:14). See also John 1:12, Romans 8:19, Philippians 2:15, and

1 John 3:1-2.

A hindu or a muslim, for example, is not my brother.

Oaks wasn't speaking from a spiritual point of view, but from a literal point of view. LDS believe that everyone is a spirit son or daughter of God. I believe it was Paul who taught this as well when he taught unbelievers that they, as well as himself, were offspring of God.

In that sense, a Muslim or Hindu is your spiritual brother.

[Facsimile 3]

With the large number of LDS represented in Utah I would say their having an influence over public policy is warranted. The rights of the minority are still protected quite well by the constitution and our representative system. If the citizens of Utah don't like their liquor board or representatives they should vote them out and replace them with someone who more closely reflects their values.

Again in my experience some unhappy citizens of Utah screamed "separation of Church and State" most loudly but their actual political environment leans more libertarian than many other states.

I think libertarianism is mostly used for convenient things, like allowing lenient zoning laws which allows for developers to build next to refineries or strip mines. The State Government will say things like, we're not a colony of DC (expressing anger over Federal control of Utah wild lands and speaking of the virtues of state's rights), but then the same state government has no problem turning around an micromanaging city and county governments on an issue like stopping them from declaring a neighborhood historical. So I'm not buying that these things are being done out of some well tempered adherence to a political ideology. It's mostly just whatever best fits the opportunity. Again, we aren't the south (which is not somewhere I think anyone wants to compare themselves to), but we need to take inventory and improve.

This video clip with Sen. Valentine totally bothered me because not only did he bring the Church into the conversation, but he gave a really lame answer. Obviously LDS people should have an influence that's why we vote, but what does that even mean? That we should influence a limitation on the number of bars we will allow because we don't drink alcohol? How does that even follow? Sen. Valentine should have just kept his mouth shut if he didn't plan on being more articulate in explaining himself on that.

It's my understanding that within the last year or two, the laws in Utah governing alcohol sales have been liberalized — with the support of LDS leaders, I might add — to the point where they are pretty typical of laws in most other areas.

See this link.

Have you kept current on this issue?

Hey Scott, I have kept current on the issue; I'm going into Urban Planning at the UofU so I know a thing or two about the rules (especially in the SLC area). Our state liquor laws are a lot like Obama's bank regulations, they shift with almost every legislative session and that causes some real headaches for the industry in Utah. No one likes instability in regulations, it's bad for investment. Liquor laws freed up the most under Huntsman, but since then things have gotten trickier in eccentric and arbitrary ways. For instance, just this last legislative session the liquor regulations changed so that the state could build less bars and more restaurants (with only beer and wine). The legislature, just to make clear that they weren't losing ground on regulating, added in a few zingers for the industry to deal with. They committed even more state funds to stricter inspections / standards for bars (we already had strict standards) and they made it illegal for any new bars serving food to mix their beverages in public view. And then you had the issue where the state closed down state liquor stores citing funding issues when these stores were in the green and were a major money maker for the state. If we subbed out liquor and replaced it with banks or manufacturing, people in our red state would have been outraged.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Facsimile 3

[wenglund]

Regulating alcohol consumption to the extent that we do in Utah is embarrassing to me as a Utahn. Things need to change. Other people live here too and they don't have the Church as a social outlet.

What I see driving alcohol regulation in Utah nowdays isn't the LDS Word of Wisdom, but concerns about drunk driving--a concern that crosses religious and non-religious boundaries. Besides Vermont, Utah has the lowest percent of fatalities due to drunk or alcohol impaired driving. You may be embarrassed by that statistic, but I am not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Facsimile 3]

What I see driving alcohol regulation in Utah nowdays isn't the LDS Word of Wisdom, but concerns about drunk driving--a concern that crosses religious and non-religious boundaries. Besides Vermont, Utah has the lowest percent of fatalities due to drunk or alcohol impaired driving. You may be embarrassed by that statistic, but I am not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hey Wade, I don't think drunk driving is the motivation. If Sen. Valentine had been more savvy he probably would have said that, but it's pretty much just Utah LDS culture (I won't even say it's the Church).

We probably have the least amount of drunk driving because we have one of the smallest drinking populations in the USA. Also, I don't think most members or non-members in Utah are bothered by DUI checkpoints or harsh DUI punishments. Those aren't the regulations that cause resentment.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Facsimile 3

[wenglund]

Hey Wade, I don't think drunk driving is the motivation.

I believe it is, along with other social cost:

SALT LAKE CITY [Feb 2003)— Bruce L. Olsen, press secretary to the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has released the following statement:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes no apology for its participation in the legislative process concerning the legal regulation of alcohol in the State of Utah. The Church has both the right and the responsibility to let its voice be heard on this important issue. The First Presidency has repeatedly declared that the regulation of alcoholic beverage consumption is a moral issue.

"Accordingly, the Church has a long history of making its views on the subject known to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission and the Legislature. We believe the Church’s position represents the views of many individual Utah citizens, including many who do not belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We further believe that significantly lower social costs from the abuse of alcohol in Utah than in other states justify this continuing concern.

"For several years, the Church of Jesus Christ has engaged a registered lobbyist, Mr. Jerry Fenn, to represent it before the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission and the Legislature. We did not originate the current legislation. Rather, representatives of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, hospitality and alcohol industry members, and others developed the proposal. Mr. Fenn certainly participated in that process by providing our perspective on the broad array of issues contained in the proposal. At all times he — and his client — have acted above reproach.

"We expect that elected officials will examine the proposal and will vote in accordance with their informed views as to the best interests of the people of Utah. We sincerely hope the Church’s views will be weighed carefully. This is the democratic process." (see HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 15, 2011 by wenglund

[Facsimile 3]

^^^

Hey Wade, seeing on how this was released back in 2003 (I wasn't even old enough to drive), do you think you could give me some context? This press release doesn't really mean anything to me if I don't know what the proposed regulations are nor what it means that members of the liquor industry were involved. I can't really do much with this as it stands presented to me other than take note that the Church was directly lobbying in matters of alcohol regulation.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Facsimile 3

[Kenngo1969]

... And anyone who can't tell the difference between attempted genocide and alcohol regulation -- or defending marriage -- might just have missed the point of Elder Oaks' talk.

Regards,

Pahoran

Gee, ya think?

[Pahoran]

Gee, ya think?

Actually if I say what I really think, I'm likely to get booted from the thread.

It seems that many think the greatest of MB sins is to be impolite. For my money, I'd rather have someone tell me to my (cyber) face that he thinks I'm a h***-bound cultist and "proven liar" than hide malicious, calculated demagoguery beneath a smarmy veneer of faux politeness.

But then, that's just me.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Ares]

Actually if I say what I really think, I'm likely to get booted from the thread.

Your restraint is appreciated.

[HeatherAnn]

...In my experience with public politics it is not the religionists that have been most adament about shutting off the other side of the debate with accusations of censorship, hatred or bigotry.

Yeah, I agree. NOM posters ganged up on me, one sending me harrassing pms annonymously through the other forum - because I spoke up about why legalizing gay marriage is not in our best interest... ending up silencing me.

Another forum, I spoke up about it similarly and a moderator threatend me that I'll be banned because I broke a rule of not speaking of anything against homosexuality. I explained, "I read the rules, there are no rules indicating that." She then added a rule about it & banned me.

I was very careful to speak respectfully & focus on studies, not just my oppinion... & to explain how I have family & friends with homosexual tendencies, who I love. Still, it was too threatening to some.

Tell that to the Yanomami.

... Or any cliquish group.

Edited September 15, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[frankenstein]

for those who think that the nature of the given forum, audience or adversary determines the appropriateness of Latter-day Saint behaviour here are relevant points from Elder Oaks talk.

kindness in the communication, but firmness in the truth.

Our obligation to tolerance means that none of these behaviors—or others we consider deviations from the truth—should ever cause us to react with hateful communications or unkind actions.

In the balance between truth and tolerance, tolerance can be dominant where the behavior does not involve us personally.

For example, it is one thing to ignore serious sins when they are private; it is quite another thing to be asked to sponsor or impliedly endorse them, such as by housing them in our own homes.

...we should remember the Savior’s teaching that we should avoid contention (see 3 Ne. 11:29-30) and that our example and our preaching should “be the warning voice, every man to his neighbor, in mildness and in meekness” (D&C 38:41). In all of this we should not presume to judge our neighbors or associates on the ultimate effect of their behaviors. That judgment is the Lord’s, not ours. Even He refrained from a final mortal judgment of the woman taken in adultery (John 8:11). Tolerance requires a similar refraining in our judgment of others.

when believers seek to promote their positions in the public square, their methods and their advocacy should always be tolerant of the opinions and positions of those who do not share their beliefs. We should not add to the extremism that divides our society. As believers we must always speak with love and show patience, understanding, and compassion toward our adversaries. Christian believers are under command to love their neighbors (Luke 10:27), to forgive (Matt. 18:21-35), and to do good to those who despitefully use them (Matt. 5:44). They should always remember the Savior’s teaching that we “bless them that curse [us], do good to them that hate [us], and pray for them which despitefully use [us], and persecute [us]” (Matt. 5:44). As believers we should also frame our arguments and positions in ways that contribute to the reasoned discussion and accommodation that are essential to democratic government in a pluralistic society. By this means we will contribute to the civility that is essential to preserve our civilization.

There may be situations, there will be situations, where, with serious moral issues involved, we cannot bend on matters of principle. But in such instances we can politely disagree without being disagreeable. We can acknowledge the sincerity of those whose positions we cannot accept.

Edited September 15, 2011 by frankenstein

[Yirgacheffe]

As Dallin Oak said,

I've been shocked at how blind some people are... and how strongly they believe & try to persuade others to believe that evil is good & good is evil... Even when medical, social & mental health reports clearly indicate those traditionally considered "evil" are in-fact harmful.

.

Like what?

[california boy]

What I see driving alcohol regulation in Utah nowdays isn't the LDS Word of Wisdom, but concerns about drunk driving--a concern that crosses religious and non-religious boundaries. Besides Vermont, Utah has the lowest percent of fatalities due to drunk or alcohol impaired driving. You may be embarrassed by that statistic, but I am not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And there are even fewer fatalities due to drunk driving in some countries in the middle east where they are defending moral principles through the used of government power. We should be looking to those countries to show us the way to a more moral set of standards based on laws and force. We simply have not gone far enough. There is more work to be done and Elder Oaks talk is a call to action.