Dallin Oak'S Remarks At Ces Fireside

[HeatherAnn]

Like what?

Referring to homosexual practices... STDs, AIDs & health complications even between 2 healthy males, the fact that nobody's "born" gay... etc.

This topic (& legalizing gay marriage) was discussed previously on this thread:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/54655-breaking-news-gay-marriage-ruling/page__st__260

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

By one's own morality.

Could you expand on this comment?

[Daniel2]

Referring to homosexual practices... STDs, AIDs & health complications even between 2 healthy males, the fact that nobody's "born" gay... etc.

Could you elaborate on what "STDs" (including "AIDS") and "health complications" you believe exist "even between two healthy males"?

Beyond that point, what are your thoughts about the decreased "health complications" of "two healthy females"...?

And as a follow up, if it could be shown that healthy same-sex-female couples had "less health complications" than healthy male-and-female couples, would you support banning civil marriage for opposite-sex couples...?

Why or why not? What do you feel is the link between "health complications" and "civil marriage"?

Are or should any "health complications" be acceptable, in your view, for couples (including those that are straight) for couples that choose to be sexually active?

Your so-called "fact" that "nobody's 'born' gay" really isn't a "fact" at all. If one accepts what many conservative religions preach on the issue, instead of trusting science and medicine, one would likely believe that "no one is 'born' gay."

However, the vast majority of medical science, research, and mental health professionals indicate that sexual orientation is intact by the time any individual is born--both straight and gay.

Daniel2

Edited September 15, 2011 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

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.

Well said, William--and exactly my point in raising the parrallel I did.

Daniel2

[frankenstein]

the fact that nobody's "born" gay... etc.

CFR, please prove that nobody is born gay.

please read

Ether 12:27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”

Elder Packer: "Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father."

So what is Elder Packer addressing:

1. Some suppose they were preset, AND

2. cannot overcome that preset.

3. What does Elder Packer say to that claim? NOT SO!

So what is Elder Packer saying, that even if you suppose you are preset YOU CAN overcome, because God is faithful and will not lead us into temptation.

Please prove your claim, that it is a fact that nobody is born gay.

This topic (& legalizing gay marriage) was discussed previously on this thread:

http://www.mormondia...g/page__st__260

Yes, that thread again.

Edited September 16, 2011 by frankenstein

[changed]

I think this talk (twin towers) was more about the threat of atheism, and suppression of religious freedom...

I still can't find the text of this online. Here is the vid: http://lds.org/broadcasts/watch/ces-devotional/2011/09?lang=eng&pid=738917358001&pkey=AQ~~,AAAAmBrDwtE~,_58lK-P1xvJ5WTHbRnmdONkYkAiPKoal

anyone have a link to the text?

Edited September 15, 2011 by changed

[cinepro]

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 ).

To answer your question specifically, I think most LDS are comfortable supporting legislation against pornography, gambling, same-sex marriage, and abortion (except in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother). Also the ERA in the 70s.

Other than that, we seem to have a pretty libertarian view of trying to teach our (adult) neighbors correct principles, and letting them govern themselves when it comes to alcohol, coffee, sabbath observance, modesty, adultery and homosexuality etc..

[frankenstein]

I think this talk (twin towers) was more about the threat of atheism, and suppression of religious freedom...

I still can't find the text of this online. Here is the vid: http://lds.org/broad...nmdONkYkAiPKoal

anyone have a link to the text?

here

[wenglund]

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.

I don't follow alcohol legislation all that closely, if at all, so Iam not sure what the context was (not that should matters since the press release clearly spelled out the Church's motive when it comes to alcohol legislation in general), but I believe it came on the heals of the 2002 Winter Olympic, when "the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (UDABC) relaxed enforcement of Utah's alcohol laws. This helped lead to less restrictive laws that came into effect in May 2003. This came after complaints, particularly after an incident in which an International Olympic Committee official complained."(see: HERE)

I realize how immensely important booze is to some people, but some of us are more interested in saving preventable loss of life and unnecessary degradation of the quality of life.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[HeatherAnn]

Daniel & Frankenstein,

Come on... it's not rocket science...

You are the product of a man & woman... proof of the natural order or things.

When you go against nature, things just don't flow as well.

Also, legalizing gay marriage is denouncing the importance of mothers & fathers... pretending that children can do without one or the other, when studies & biology itself shows otherwise.

Please reread the thread if you want more info.

[frankenstein]

Daniel & Frankenstein,

Come on... it's not rocket science...

You are the product of a man & woman... proof of the natural order or things.

When you go against nature, things just don't flow as well.

Also, legalizing gay marriage is denouncing the importance of mothers & fathers... pretending that children can do without one or the other, when studies & biology itself shows otherwise.

Where is your proof of the fact that "nobody is born gay"?

So do you care to prove your fact?

Edited September 16, 2011 by frankenstein

[KevinG]

... Or any cliquish group.

The name of that tribe means "human beings". That was the inside joke. (Sometimes I'm too obtuse).

[KevinG]

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.

Oh brother. First we get the Missiouri extermination order as an example of community standards and then we get Sharia law as a comparison to a call for religious people to be involved in forming their community laws under a democratic representative system.

HYPERBOLE much?

[Pahoran]

You are correct about one thing and one thing only, It is not rocket science to prove something you claim as a fact.

Where is your proof of the fact that "nobody is born gay"? It is not rocket science to prove that if it is a fact as you claimed above.

So do you care to prove your fact?

Frankie,

Are you sure you are being as kind and loving in your communication as you want others to be?

You know it's not possible to prove a negative. Heather was clearly expressing an opinion; something she is entitled to hold. It seems a little unkind to demand that she prove something that cannot, by its nature, be proven.

In support of her position, I would point out that the arguments I have seen to the contrary -- i.e. that people are "born gay" -- are rather flawed. For instance, they frequently rely upon discredited "research" put forth by Alfred Kinsey to the effect that infants are sexually aware. I would further observe that those who make that claim frequently appear to be arguing from a position of self-interest.

For these reasons, I am inclined to the view that that position is wrong, and that therefore the alternative is more likely to be correct.

Regards,

Pahoran

[frankenstein]

Frankie,

Heather was clearly expressing an opinion; something she is entitled to hold. It seems a little unkind to demand that she prove something that cannot, by its nature, be proven.

Regards,

Pahoran

Here is Heatherann's statement

"the fact that nobody's "born" gay... etc."

That is not a statement of an opinion. If I expressed my opinion of things does that mean I can claim them as a fact?

Edited September 15, 2011 by frankenstein

[Facsimile 3]

I don't follow alcohol legislation all that closely, if at all, so Iam not sure what the context was (not that should matters since the press release clearly spelled out the Church's motive when it comes to alcohol legislation in general), but I believe it came on the heals of the 2002 Winter Olympic, when "the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (UDABC) relaxed enforcement of Utah's alcohol laws. This helped lead to less restrictive laws that came into effect in May 2003. This came after complaints, particularly after an incident in which an International Olympic Committee official complained."(see: HERE)

I realize how immensely important booze is to some people, but some of us are more interested in saving preventable loss of life and unnecessary degradation of the quality of life.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Without the specifics on what the lobbyist was doing years ago, there isn't much for me to comment on. It's very possible that this had to do with something reasonable, which usually isn't the case regarding many of our regulations on the books.

I would say that you need to be careful with your train of thought on wanting to protect someone's quality of life, as someone who doesn't like suburban sprawl I could use your justifications for limiting alcohol in more severely limiting automobile usage (which can be done in many ways like ceasing to fund roads to the extent that we do or changing zoning requirements to reduce parking capacity).

Automobiles decrease our quality of life by killing and injuring thousands of people in the United States. I don't know someone personally who has been injured or died from drinking alcohol, but I know of many who have in car accidents. Cars also destroy our quality of life because they make it so that kids live in places that aren't pedestrian friendly; places where they can't fully utilize services until they turn 16 years of age (which means they mostly sit in their house and get fat). They destroy our quality of life by polluting. They destroy our quality of life by alienating elderly people in suburbs where they literally cease to have a place in social life once they can no longer drive. Cars kill human beings and alienate them from each other.

If you believe the government exists to in a positive way (positive freedom), to make people good people (libertarians believe that churches and the private sector are supposed to make people good, not the government) then the government should save us from cars. Not only are they not saving us, but right now they are basically funding our addiction (freeway subsidies).

Edited September 16, 2011 by Facsimile 3

[Pahoran]

Here is Heatherann's statement

"the fact that nobody's "born" gay... etc."

That is not a statement of an opinion. If I expressed my opinion of things does that mean I can claim them as a fact?

Note to HeatherAnn: this forum is liberally populated with barrack-room lawyers who will dissect your every word with microscopic exactitude, even while demanding a standard of niceness from you that they have no intent of emulating themselves.

If that concerns you, you may want to triple-check every word you write before hitting the "Post" button.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

Without the specifics on what the lobbyist was doing years ago, there isn't much for me to comment on. It's very possible that this had to do with something reasonable, which usually isn't the case regarding many of our regulations on the books.

You are entitled to your overly cynical opinion.

I would say that you need to be careful with your train of thought on wanting to protect someone's quality of life, as someone who doesn't like suburban sprawl I could use your justifications for limiting alcohol in more severely limiting automobile usage (which can be done in many ways like ceasing to fund roads to the extent that we do or changing zoning requirements to reduce parking capacity).

Automobiles decrease our quality of life by killing and injuring thousands of people in the United States. I don't know someone personally who has been injured or died from drinking alcohol, but I know of many who have in car accidents. Cars also destroy our quality of life because they make it so that kids live in places that aren't pedestrian friendly; places where they can't fully utilize services until they turn 16 years of age (which means they mostly sit in their house and get fat). They destroy our quality of life by polluting. They destroy our quality of life by alienating elderly people in suburbs where they literally cease to have a place in social life once they can no longer drive. Cars kill human beings and alienate them from each other.

If you believe the government exists to in a positive way (positive freedom), to make people good people (libertarians believe that churches and the private sector are supposed to make people good, not the government) then the government should save us from cars. Not only are they not saving us, but right now they are basically funding our addiction (freeway subsidies).

There is really no need to get paranoid. When I spoke of "quality of life", I was thinking of alcohol-related things where the cost to society in general far exceeds the benefits (as opposed to your extreme examples). I am not sure government is the best means for accomplishing this, but I think it is worth considering ways to diminish the amount of spousal/child abuse, loss of jobs and broken families, due to alcohol and alcoholism. I speak as one who has a number of family members who suffer from alcoholism, and I know intimately the huge costs to the sufferers and our family as a whole.

Again, I realize how immensely important booze is to some people, and I promise that the Church is not going to deny them their precious drink.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Facsimile 3]

You are entitled to your overly cynical opinion.

Hey Wade, you are one of the good guys. I'm not trying to make this personal. I don't think the above quote is very fair, but oh well. I think we LDS tend to be overly cynical about other peoples' personal choices, such as drinking alcoholic beverages in bars.

I have very good friends who drink alcohol. Because they are my friends, they are excellent people ( ) and therefore, they don't deal out damage to our society. As LDS members we are incredibly lucky to have a social culture that enriches our lives. This isn't common, not even in other churches (especially in urban areas). Bars are a meeting place and a place where many positive relationships are formed. In Utah, we have this reputation with non members (well deserved) where we are friendly, but not friends. We have a lot going on with our families and callings and such and don't really mingle as much with those outside of the ward. But, it really just adds insult to injury when we don't engage and then start picking at bar culture. I really want us to leave them be and be their friends. That's all.

My parents divorced when I was very small and I would visit my inactive LDS father for 2 months during every summer growing up until I turned 18. My dad and I would go to bars in his city where he knew everyone and they knew him. He would never drink when I was with him, we only went for the food, the sports team playing on the TVs and the people he knew. We still regularly frequent Sneakers Sports Bar in San Carlos every time I visit him. There is something great about a bar outside of the alcohol (not all bars are the same obviously), it really is a neighborhood meeting place and even a place of fellowship. Alcohol is evil in many ways, but so are many things that aren't gospel related. People need to learn to manage their own creature and live in moderation. And I expect them to allow me the same (this includes me being able to practice my LDS faith).

Sorry for being a bum, Wade. I enjoy the conversation.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Facsimile 3

[elguanteloko]

An embarrassing statement that of Mr. Oaks.

The principle under which he is working here seems to be that what isn't compatible with the "Gospel culture" should not be allowed. Any Mormon, through a little bit of reflection, should be able to see why this rule is ludicrous and against the most basic of freedoms.

Having sex before marriage with another consenting adult is immoral (the worst sin after murder - a ridiculous position, btw) and goes against the "Gospel culture"... should Mormons be in favor of making premarital sex illegal? If not, then his statement is worthless and should be discarded.

Really, people? Should we really take this guy seriously?

[KevinG]

The principle Elder Oaks (a former lawyer and justice and advocate of religious freedom for all denominations) is operating under is that people of faith should be engaged in the community standards discourse.

No where in his comments (or his history of comments) is there any attempt to advocate Latter-day Saints dictate our beliefs through the law.

It is a matter of balance. Of course I know many people wish the Mormons and other religious peoples would just shut up and go away from any public discussion of morals and standards.

[california boy]

Oh brother. First we get the Missiouri extermination order as an example of community standards and then we get Sharia law as a comparison to a call for religious people to be involved in forming their community laws under a democratic representative system.

HYPERBOLE much?

Perhaps you could explain the difference between Muslins imposing their religious beliefs of morality on a society that may or may not be Muslin and according to Elder Oaks the Mormon church imposing it's religious beliefs of morality on those that are not members of the church. While the punishment of disobeying the laws may be different, the legal imposing of morality on others is the same. Is this really how we want to govern in this country? Did Joseph Smith mis speak when he said "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves"? Wasn't his approach to educate and encourage righteousness rather than legislate it?

Where did the change in policy happen in the church that it now feels it should become involved in legislating morality and doctrinal teachings? When did the church decide it was important to be involved in other peoples marriages? How is it even a moral issue to continue to force one group of people to prevent them from legally making a commitment to each other in the eyes of the law of this country? Does that policy encourage fidelity and monogamy within the gay population or does it encourage fractured relationships. What would society be like if straight people were not allowed to solemnize their relationships within the laws of this country? How would that policy promote morality? Hyperbole? probably not as much as you would like it to be.

[elguanteloko]

The principle Elder Oaks (a former lawyer and justice and advocate of religious freedom for all denominations) is operating under is that people of faith should be engaged in the community standards discourse.

No where in his comments (or his history of comments) is there any attempt to advocate Latter-day Saints dictate our beliefs through the law.

It is a matter of balance. Of course I know many people wish the Mormons and other religious peoples would just shut up and go away from any public discussion of morals and standards.

Read the quote carefully, dude. There is a reason why Mormons don't even differentiate between what is moral and what should be (legally) allowed. If this distinction would have been made clear from the beginning then things like Prop8 would have never been supported because no connection between "the immorality of gay marriage" and "the legality of gay marriage" would have been made.

"A matter of balance" requires reason to see where the balance is. The General Authorities aren't known for doing that almost by definition. Their role is that of authority that should be obeyed, not of the epitome of understanding and reason.

[Storm Rider]

Read the quote carefully, dude. There is a reason why Mormons don't even differentiate between what is moral and what should be (legally) allowed. If this distinction would have been made clear from the beginning then things like Prop8 would have never been supported because no connection between "the immorality of gay marriage" and "the legality of gay marriage" would have been made.

"A matter of balance" requires reason to see where the balance is. The General Authorities aren't known for doing that almost by definition. Their role is that of authority that should be obeyed, not of the epitome of understanding and reason.

My, we do like to make penalizations about others! Sophistry is the first step to spiritual blindness. First, to legalize something is to make it moral; to make it common is the road to normality. You don't think the tons of shows that demonstrate gay people and their lifestyle is just like everyone else's is by accident? Let's not be naive; it was a conscious agenda to do just that. In make it look normal that remove the perversion, the abnormality, and the cancer that is homosexuality.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

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.

The Book of Mormon teaches the same- Only when we accept Jesus Christ do we become His sons and His daughters...

And now, because of the covenant which ye have made, ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters:

For behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him, and have become his sons and his daughters.

And under this head ye are made free; and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free.

There is no other name given, whereby salvation cometh, therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God, that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives.

And it shall come to pass that whosoever doeth this, shall be found at the right hand of God, for he shall know the name by which he is called; for he shall be called by the name of Christ. (Mosiah 3:8-12 RLDS))