Dallin Oak'S Remarks At Ces Fireside

[Daniel2]

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.

Just in case anyone who may not be familiar with Mormonism is reading, and from a... perhaps bizzare, on my part?...desire to set the record "straight" ( ) in defense of Mormonism, itself: Although Latter-day Saints believe that sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful (including same-sex behaviors), Storm Rider's characterization of homosexuality as "cancer" is not typical LDS verbiage, nor even doctrinally-sound, according to LDS belief.

To address your point, Storm Rider: conscious marketing through media (including, but certainly not limited to, television) is often used by those wishing to become more mainstream--whether by those that hope to mainstream LGBT families or those that hope to mainstream LDS families. I would reject any insinuation that there's anythinig either inappropriate or nefarious, by either group.

Daniel2

Edited September 16, 2011 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

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?

Well said, Frank. It certainly appears that Heather is unable to prove what she alleged was "fact" (now curiously characterized by other post-ers as merely her statement of "opinion").

As I mentioned, the overhwelming scientific consensus suggests exactly the opposite: that sexual orientation is fixed by birth (whether straight or gay).

Pahoran's reference to outdated and completely irrelevant Freudian theories are somewhat puzzling, as Freud's theories have been long discredited and have nothing to do with the medical sciene of the biology of sexual orientation. I believe such comments and his resulting assumptions are simply the product of a lack of exposure to current and relevant scientific data on the issue.

And, as far as everyone's concerned--I would agree that it's always best to try to approach any contentious issue with even-ness and civility.

Daniel2

Edited September 16, 2011 by Daniel2

[Hestia]

An embarrassing statement that of Mr. Oaks.

Remember where you are and that Mr. Oaks is a revered leader. There is nothing embarrassing about standing for morality.

[William Schryver]

An embarrassing statement that of Mr. Oaks.

...

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

Yes, we should take "this guy" very seriously.

It is a popular catch phrase these days to suggest that government should not "legislate morality." Of course, this is a nonsensical statement in that the entire criminal code of this and every country on earth is, in fact, the very embodiment of legislated morality.

For those who would like to have even more reason to take seriously the wise words of Elder Dallin H. Oaks (in my judgment, one of the great minds in the history of Mormonism) I highly recommend this speech delivered in 1999 at Brigham Young University: http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6647

To the extent we abandon the field to the cacophony of voices calling for what amounts to an enforced tolerance of immorality in society, we consign that society to a certain doom.

Edited September 16, 2011 by William Schryver

[Daniel2]

The words of C.S. Lewis come to mind:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Daniel2

[Nathair/|\]

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

You are correct. However, our spirits are born as the sons and daughters of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, which is what Elder Oaks was talking about.

Yours under the oaks of distinction,

Nathair /|\

[frankenstein]

Elder oaks seems to state that only believers are brothers and sisters though he does not realy elaborate on who a believer believes in

[elguanteloko]

First, to legalize something is to make it moral;

It seems, then, that by this standard masturbation, premarital sex, 'dirty' thoughts, etc should all be made illegal.

Do you agree with this?

Edited September 16, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

Remember where you are and that Mr. Oaks is a revered leader. There is nothing embarrassing about standing for morality.

You are not getting the point, Hestia. "Standing for morality" is one thing and "Making what is immoral illegal" is ANOTHER thing.

Not making this distinction will inevitably take you to try and make pretty much anything that you consider immoral illegal. Are you in favor of making masturbation illegal? What about pre-marital sex? Desiring someone to suffer pain and die?

Are you in favor of making all sin illegal?

If not, then you do NOT agree with Mr. Oaks. If you do agree with Mr. Oaks then you have to answer the tough questions about the consequences your view takes you to.

[elguanteloko]

It is a popular catch phrase these days to suggest that government should not "legislate morality." Of course, this is a nonsensical statement in that the entire criminal code of this and every country on earth is, in fact, the very embodiment of legislated morality.

Laws are definitely based on certain moral assumptions, I never even disagreed with that. I don't even know why you respond to me as if I did... probably because you want me to have said that.

Now, the problem I'm pointing out here is that confusing "morality" with "legal" is a misstep in reasoning. This is because there is NO CONTRADICTION that results from granting the following statement:

"It is moral for the Government to allow certain immoral acts."

Please, brother, read the previous statement carefully.

Do you agree with it or not?

Edited September 16, 2011 by elguanteloko

[frankenstein]

William Schryver, on 16 September 2011 - 10:28 AM, said: It is a popular catch phrase these days to suggest that government should not "legislate morality." Of course, this is a nonsensical statement in that the entire criminal code of this and every country on earth is, in fact, the very embodiment of legislated morality.

I think there is a distinction between "morality of laws" concerning theft, killing, drunk driving, etc. Those types of laws do not need nor have ever required a "God" to say they were wrong in order for a society to determine that such actions should not be tolerated.

However, buggery laws, swearing laws, laws favoring one race over another, etc...these types of laws, are usually have some sort of religious basis, and lack a legitimate secular basis; thus said laws have been over turned or exceptions carved out (for instance, Lawerance v. Texas, "explative the Draft" and so forth)

Though a non-believer may not have need to be concerned with swearing - a position put forth by Elder Oaks; a non-believer does have a need to support laws that support life, liberty, property. A society can not function without those types of laws or policies.

And I can see no reason for a free people to bind themselves to a religion basis for laws - if the United States were to adopt a religious basis for its laws then we all can be assured that laws would favors "christians" and disfavor Mormons and everyone else that "christians' consider cults, heathens or Christ killers.

Edited September 16, 2011 by frankenstein

[Bsix]

I take the position that in a democracy ALL laws are democratic, and that almost all democratically enacted laws are in some way founded upon in morality.

For example, laws against stealing, fraud, assault, etc. are practical...but founded in morality.

Thus, the laws of a democratic society are a reflection of the collective morality of the self-governed.

Even atheists have profound views on right and wrong, fair and unfair, good and bad, moral and immoral. Atheists derive the basis of their moral beliefs from a different logic...but they are sincere in those views. Even atheists seek to legislate their moral views.

Thus, we end up with a big stew of moralists of all types advocating for laws that reflect their sense of what is right and best for our society. In this environment of moral democracy...those with specific religious morals have every right to attempt to persuade and legislate what they think is right.

Six

Edited September 17, 2011 by Bsix

[elguanteloko]

I take the position that in a democracy ALL laws are democratic, and that almost all democratically enacted laws are in some way founded upon in morality.

Thus, the laws of a democratic society are a reflection of the collective morality of the self-governed.

Even atheists have profound views on right and wrong, fair and unfair, good and bad, moral and immoral. Atheists derive the basis of their moral beliefs from a different logic...but they are sincere in those views. Even atheists seek to legislate their moral views.

Thus, we end up with a big stew of moralists of all types advocating for laws that reflect their sense of what is right and best for our society. In this environment of moral democracy...those with specific religious morals have every right to attempt to persuade and legislate what they think is right.

Six

This view is extremely misleading.

I don't differ from you in that we should strive for a better society that promotes good values, etc. You and I agree on the very basics...

The problem with most Mormons is precisely that they don't use good reasoning, plain and simple. If critical thinking and philosophy were to be taught rigorously to Mormons, my prediction is that about 95% of Mormons would leave the Church based on my personal experiences of people who learn and understand about these topics.

[William Schryver]

The problem with most Mormons is precisely that they don't use good reasoning, plain and simple. If critical thinking and philosophy were to be taught rigorously to Mormons, my prediction is that about 95% of Mormons would leave the Church based on my personal experiences of people who learn and understand about these topics.

I always get a good chuckle out of statements like this. You should really go join up with others of your kind in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park. Of course, for all I know, you're already there, but posting under a different handle. In any case, you'd fit in perfectly.

At any rate, it is my sincere desire that all those who would leave the Church, upon being subjected to a rigorous course of "critical thinking and philosophy," should do so. The Church will get along just fine without them. It always has.

For my own part, as I have noted recently (in this thread: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/55679-of-critics-and-cynicism/), I would rather stand with the 5% than with the 95% of those who, "but for the vile guns," would have been valiant soldiers.

[Eldwynn]

I always get a good chuckle out of statements like this. You should really go join up with others of your kind in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park. Of course, for all I know, you're already there, but posting under a different handle. In any case, you'd fit in perfectly.

At any rate, it is my sincere desire that all those who would leave the Church, upon being subjected to a rigorous course of "critical thinking and philosophy," should do so. The Church will get along just fine without them. It always has.

For my own part, as I have noted recently (in this thread: http://www.mormondia...s-and-cynicism/), I would rather stand with the 5% than with the 95% of those who, "but for the vile guns," would have been valiant soldiers.

It's times like this I am really happy you believe in three kingdoms. If there was ANY chance I had to spend eternity listening to your blabbering in the Celestial kingdom... it would certainly not maximize my happiness.

Seriously though, aren't you done with message boards?

P.s. Despite my girlish figure, I am indeed a man, so your sexist bigotry does not apply

Edited September 17, 2011 by Eldwynn

[Eldwynn]

I take the position that in a democracy ALL laws are democratic, and that almost all democratically enacted laws are in some way founded upon in morality.

Thus, the laws of a democratic society are a reflection of the collective morality of the self-governed.

Even atheists have profound views on right and wrong, fair and unfair, good and bad, moral and immoral. Atheists derive the basis of their moral beliefs from a different logic...but they are sincere in those views. Even atheists seek to legislate their moral views.

Thus, we end up with a big stew of moralists of all types advocating for laws that reflect their sense of what is right and best for our society. In this environment of moral democracy...those with specific religious morals have every right to attempt to persuade and legislate what they think is right.

Six

I would argue that MOST questions of morality don't come from religion at all. You probably disagree with incest, murder, theft etc. whether or not its in your holy book or not. If for some reason you lost your faith tomorrow, you would not all the sudden be killing people- and if you think you WOULD then I advise psychiatric care immediately...

I find it much more likely that the beliver and non-believer are really drawing their morality from "feelings" that are enveloped in the human mind...

This explains, for example, the fact that you are (presumably) against incest, even if there are mentions of it in the bible.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Eldwynn

[elguanteloko]

I always get a good chuckle out of statements like this. You should really go join up with others of your kind in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park. Of course, for all I know, you're already there, but posting under a different handle. In any case, you'd fit in perfectly.

If not something more commendable, you at least are funny.

At any rate, it is my sincere desire that all those who would leave the Church, upon being subjected to a rigorous course of "critical thinking and philosophy," should do so. The Church will get along just fine without them. It always has.

sure

For my own part, as I have noted recently (in this thread: http://www.mormondia...s-and-cynicism/), I would rather stand with the 5% than with the 95% of those who, "but for the vile guns," would have been valiant soldiers.

sure, too.

[elguanteloko]

I would argue that MOST questions of morality don't come from religion at all. You probably disagree with incest, murder, theft etc. whether or not its in your holy book or not. If for some reason you lost your faith tomorrow, you would not all the sudden be killing people- and if you think you WOULD then I advise psychiatric care immediately...

...and don't forget the best example of secular morality I've seen explained: slavery!

[HeatherAnn]

Pahoran,

Thanks for the wise words of advise in communicating with some on this forum.

Frankenstein,

Isn't it a given that when anybody posts anything it's their oppinion?

Saying something over & over again doesn't make it true. Unless you're saying "I'm obnoxious & repetitive."

The proof is in the pudding.

You & I are factual proof that a sperm from a man & an egg from a woman combine to form another human being.... Nature's way.

[William Schryver]

It's times like this I am really happy you believe in three kingdoms. If there was ANY chance I had to spend eternity listening to your blabbering in the Celestial kingdom... it would certainly not maximize my happiness.

I don't think you need to be concerned.

Seriously though, aren't you done with message boards?

Seriously though, what's it to you?

P.s. Despite my girlish figure, I am indeed a man ...

You had me fooled.

Edited September 17, 2011 by William Schryver

[HeatherAnn]

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

Thanks for that clarification.

We do seem to be groupy as a race... like we do better together, than alone - physically, financially & even mentally.

There's a certain spirit in feeling like you belong... Yet I sometimes wonder if people give up too much in that process.

In belonging, we're unified in purpose, but that doesn't mean we have to unite in all purposes.

IE: On NOM, I noticed that because some predominant posters are liberal, feminist, homosexual-agenda supporting & church hating... others follow it. They just accept whatever the leaders accept, so they can be liked, belong, or whatever. When you question them by them selves, they'd say something different.

I don't stand up for my & everyone's natural origin (heterosexuality) because Dallin Oaks, or any other leader told me to.

I stand up for it because it's right & most healthy for our society.

Some things the LDS church leaders say I completely disagree with & will & have equally stood my ground.

But standing up for maintaining legal marriage between a man & a woman is too significant for us & future generation (esp. children) to not support.

Edited September 17, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[frankenstein]

Derp pamcakes

Edited September 18, 2011 by frankenstein

[Hestia]

Keep personal remarks out of the discussion and stick to the topic.

[Bsix]

The problem with most Mormons is precisely that they don't use good reasoning, plain and simple.

While I find that notion somewhat elitist and arrogant, it has very little (if anything) to do with my comments regarding the nature of democratic encoding of morality into law. I as a Mormon have as much right to advocate and vote into law (directly or via elected representatives) as anyone who thinks their notion of what is good for society come from a more reasoned place.

Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Atheists, Hindus, Agnostics, Wiccins, Spaghetti Monsterists, etc. all have equal rights to democratically sway the collective enforcement of morals through the enactment of laws.

Other may think that my reasons for voting for certain laws is silly and superstious...but so what??? That is how democracy works.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Bsix

[Bsix]

I would argue that MOST questions of morality don't come from religion at all.

I do not nessessarily disagree with that concept. I simply argue that virtually ALL law has a basis in a moral concept, no matter if it is directly rooted in a specific religious teaching.

I find it much more likely that the beliver and non-believer are really drawing their morality from "feelings" that are enveloped in the human mind...

Let's say that I grant you that concept. It still means that regardless of the source of the "feelings", believers and non-believers are legistlating morality through their democratic voice. Thus, our laws are a collection of rules that are almost entirely based on what we collectively believe is the best, most fair, moral way to govern and improve our socieity and culture.

That being the case, I as a Mormon have every right to advocate for what I believe is in the best interests of society. And, I have the right to use my own moral/religious beliefs as the basis of my civic participation.

I find it interesting that so many are shocked and offended that Latter Day Saints are active in attempting legislate what they believe is best for society based upon our personal "feelings."

We hear all the time that it is wrong and offensive to legislate laws based on moral beliefs. We are no different in doing so than any other person who attempts to legislate from their own personal "feelings." Every citizen who is active in politics, public policy, or democratic processes is applying their own morals, beliefs, and opinions to the collective societal moral foundation.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Bsix