Elder Oaks Speaks On "the Boundary Between Church And State" (merged)

[Kenngo1969]

... We believe in sustaining the Constitution, not sustaining those who try to destroy it. Arguments like yours run contrary to the elders of Israel stepping forth to save the Constitution.

 

As I told JKWilliams, I will not budge on this issue, but we can agree to disagree.

Right.  Poison the well by questioning your rhetorical opponent's motivations, then haughtily assure the world that (well poisoning notwithstanding) you've claimed the rhetorical high ground by cheerfully proclaiming, "But, we can agree to disagree!"  Please!  That's poor form, Brother Frank.  "Respectful" dialogue doesn't work that way.  It's not up to me, but if it were, I wouldn't allow that sort of thing to go on in this thread, in this forum, or on this board.  Normally, I'm not one to play faith-based or intellect-based "trump cards," but you need to change your perspective from that high horse you're riding, so perhaps I can help you do that.

 

I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for my entire life (that is to say, nearly 30 years longer than you have), and I have roots in the Church that go back even further than that: indeed, they go all the way back to the Restoration on one side of my family.  Additionally, I have sufficient education and other credentials that I daresay I've probably forgotten more about constitutional law, constitutional theory, and the proper role of government and of the judiciary than you will ever know.  I've certainly done more than simply casually peruse a few right-wing Web sites or read a few popular books on those subjects (many of which suffer from more than a mild case of misinformation) for ersatz or quasi-Constitutional talking points.  Whatever our disagreements, I would be exceedingly wary of presuming to say who does and who does not respect the Constitution, and why.

 

What, exactly, are you proposing that we do?  "Uphold the Constitution" by assassinating a few U.S. Supreme Court justices?  By importuning our senators to impeach a few of them (and if so, what "high crimes and misdemeanors" have they committed, other than reaching a decision with which many disagree)?  Go the Kim Davis route and simply stop obeying laws with which we disagree? Where, exactly, would any of those courses, if pursued, lead?  For someone who crows so loudly about his respect for the Constitution and for law (along with, apparently, an alleged corresponding lack of respect for them among anyone with whom he disagrees), you seem to be inching ever closer to skating on the thin, perilous, edge of anarchy's ice (a position hardly consistent with respect for law).  

 

As should be abundantly clear to you if you've paid any attention at all to my other contributions on this thread and have at least minimal reading comprehension skills, I don't agree with the majority's opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges.  But like it or not, the only way to change it would be to enact legislation countering its effect (an unlikely prospect, given that President Obama would not sign such legislation even if it were to pass both houses of Congress), or to support Presidential and Senatorial candidates who are likely to nominate and to confirm, respectively, Supreme Court nominees whose vision of the Constitution more closely matches our own.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[jkwilliams]

Right. Poison the well by questioning your rhetorical opponent's motivations, then haughtily assure the world that (well poisoning notwithstanding) you've claimed the rhetorical high ground by cheerfully proclaiming, "But, we can agree to disagree!" Please! That's poor form, Brother Frank. "Respectful" dialogue doesn't work that way. It's not up to me, but if it were, I wouldn't allow that sort of thing to go on in this thread, in this forum, or on this board. Normally, I'm not one to play faith-based or intellect-based "trump cards," but you need to change your perspective from that high horse you're riding, so perhaps I can help you do that.

I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for my entire life (that is to say, nearly 30 years longer than you have), and I have roots in the Church that go back even further than that: indeed, they go all the way back to the Restoration on one side of my family. Additionally, I have sufficient education and other credentials that I daresay I've probably forgotten more about constitutional law, constitutional theory, and the proper role of government and of the judiciary than you will ever know. I've certainly done more than simply casually peruse a few right-wing Web sites or read a few popular books on those subjects (many of which suffer from more than a mild case of misinformation). Whatever our disagreements, I would be exceedingly wary of presuming to say who does and who does not respect the Constitution, and why.

What, exactly, are you proposing that we do? "Uphold the Constitution" by assassinating a few U.S. Supreme Court justices? By importuning our senators to impeach a few of them (and if so, what "high crimes and misdemeanors" have they committed, other than reaching a decision with which many disagree)? Go the Kim Davis route and simply stop obeying laws with which we disagree? Where, exactly, would any of those courses, if pursued, lead? For someone who crows so loudly about his respect for the Constitution and for law (along with, apparently, an alleged corresponding lack of respect for them among anyone with whom he disagrees), you seem to be inching ever closer to skating on the thin, perilous, edge of anarchy's ice (a position hardly consistent with respect for law).

As should be abundantly clear to you if you've paid any attention at all to my other contributions on this thread and have at least minimal reading comprehension skills, I don't agree with the majority's opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges. But like it or not, the only way to change it would be to enact legislation countering its effect (an unlikely prospect, given that President Obama would not sign such legislation even if it were to pass both houses of Congress), or to support Presidential and Senatorial candidates who are likely to nominate and to confirm, respectively, Supreme Court nominees whose vision of the Constitution more closely matches our own.

Amen, brother.

[Kenngo1969]

And Brother Frank, your "respect" for the Constitution seems awfully selective.  Why is it that you don't seem to have as much respect for Article III as you do for the First Amendment?

[Scott Lloyd]

So tell us when did Elder Oaks said to defend business owners right (Oregon Bakery) to discriminate because of their religion?  or to defend BYU's accreditation?

 

 

 

I hope they are more concerned about service and helping the poor. 

So tell us what Jesus said about climate change and global warming.

 

(See? I can do this too.)

[Scott Lloyd]

Bummer, Scott. You gave TSK his own thread to derail, and he's still coming back to this one with his bizarre accusations.

 

I'll bet all those Coptic Christians being slaughtered for their religion would agree with him that religious freedom is a non-issue that we don't have to worry about.  Such things demonstrate the absurdity of myopic viewpoints based on ignorance of the real world.

From now on, every time he does this, just come back with "So tell us what Jesus said about climate change and global warming." If he doesn't get the hint, maybe others will.

[Teancum]

Establishing marriage as a civil right is not redefining it. Ruling that people of the same sex can marry each other is redefining marriage. And now everyone's tax dollars are paying for all the public records in which society recognizes two people of the same sex being married to each other.

 

I will not budge on this issue, but we can agree to disagree.

 

Great

 

I disagree with you. And you are clearly wrong.

[Teancum]

Most states did not have "laws" prohibiting gay marriage, but gay people were still not allowed to get married in those states. Ruling that a state law prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional does not simply give gay people the right to marry. They did not have the right to marry in states where there was no law. The Constitution reigns supreme, not the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court could have ruled that the law was not needed to prevent gay marriage, but they instead redefined marriage.

 

We believe in sustaining the Constitution, not sustaining those who try to destroy it. Arguments like yours run contrary to the elders of Israel stepping forth to save the Constitution.

 

As I told JKWilliams, I will not budge on this issue, but we can agree to disagree.

 

 

Don't like it?  Lobby for an amendment to the constitution. That is how it works.

[Teancum]

So tell us what Jesus said about climate change and global warming.

 

(See? I can do this too.)

 

 

Who cares?  As I mentioned before you believe in continuous revelation don't you?

[TheSkepticChristian]

So tell us what Jesus said about climate change and global warming.

 

(See? I can do this too.)

 

No you can't because Jesus told us to help the poor. How are business owners helping the poor by discriminating because of their religious beliefs? 

[jwhitlock]

No you can't because Jesus told us to help the poor. How are business owners helping the poor by discriminating because of their religious beliefs? 

 

So tell us what Jesus said about climate change and global warming and how he said having your viewpoint on them was necessary to helping the poor.

[jwhitlock]

From now on, every time he does this, just come back with "So tell us what Jesus said about climate change and global warming." If he doesn't get the hint, maybe others will.

 

This may be kind of fun! Can I post cat pictures with my questions?

[TheSkepticChristian]

From now on, every time he does this, just come back with "So tell us what Jesus said about climate change and global warming." If he doesn't get the hint, maybe others will.

 

What did Elder Oaks say about the Oregon Bakery? Did he endorse the right of business owners to discriminate? 

Elder Oaks did warn us about global warming. Elder Oaks prophesied that sea level rise on seacoast cities "will bring ocean tides to their doorsteps or over the thresholds"  

 

 

 

So tell us what Jesus said about climate change and global warming and how he said having your viewpoint on them was necessary to helping the poor.

 

I won't have a conversation with you until you start reading a Science book

 

 

So tell us what Jesus said about climate change and global warming.

 

(See? I can do this too.)

 

No you can't because Jesus told us to help the poor. How are business owners helping the poor by discriminating because of their religious beliefs?

Edited October 28, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Tony Frank]

Don't like it?  Lobby for an amendment to the constitution. That is how it works.

 

You may or may not believe this, but the elders of Israel will most definitely step forth to save the Constitution when it is hanging by a thread. That is how it will work.

[jwhitlock]

 

I won't have a conversation with you until you start reading a Science book

 

 

You haven't demonstrated any interest in having a cogent conversation.

 

What did Jesus have to say about reading science books and helping the poor?

[Teancum]

You may or may not believe this, but the elders of Israel will most definitely step forth to save the Constitution when it is hanging by a thread. That is how it will work.

I am not holding my breath. I suggest you not hold yours either.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Teancum

[jwhitlock]

 

No you can't because Jesus told us to help the poor. How are business owners helping the poor by discriminating because of their religious beliefs?

 

Where did Jesus tell us to "help the poor" as you are quoting Him?  I don't find this anywhere. Is this something else you're making up?

[Tony Frank]

Right.  Poison the well by questioning your rhetorical opponent's motivations, then haughtily assure the world that (well poisoning notwithstanding) you've claimed the rhetorical high ground by cheerfully proclaiming, "But, we can agree to disagree!"  Please!  That's poor form, Brother Frank.  "Respectful" dialogue doesn't work that way.  It's not up to me, but if it were, I wouldn't allow that sort of thing to go on in this thread, in this forum, or on this board.  Normally, I'm not one to play faith-based or intellect-based "trump cards," but you need to change your perspective from that high horse you're riding, so perhaps I can help you do that.

 

I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for my entire life (that is to say, nearly 30 years longer than you have), and I have roots in the Church that go back even further than that: indeed, they go all the way back to the Restoration on one side of my family.  Additionally, I have sufficient education and other credentials that I daresay I've probably forgotten more about constitutional law, constitutional theory, and the proper role of government and of the judiciary than you will ever know.  I've certainly done more than simply casually peruse a few right-wing Web sites or read a few popular books on those subjects (many of which suffer from more than a mild case of misinformation) for ersatz or quasi-Constitutional talking points.  Whatever our disagreements, I would be exceedingly wary of presuming to say who does and who does not respect the Constitution, and why.

 

What, exactly, are you proposing that we do?  "Uphold the Constitution" by assassinating a few U.S. Supreme Court justices?  By importuning our senators to impeach a few of them (and if so, what "high crimes and misdemeanors" have they committed, other than reaching a decision with which many disagree)?  Go the Kim Davis route and simply stop obeying laws with which we disagree? Where, exactly, would any of those courses, if pursued, lead?  For someone who crows so loudly about his respect for the Constitution and for law (along with, apparently, an alleged corresponding lack of respect for them among anyone with whom he disagrees), you seem to be inching ever closer to skating on the thin, perilous, edge of anarchy's ice (a position hardly consistent with respect for law).  

 

As should be abundantly clear to you if you've paid any attention at all to my other contributions on this thread and have at least minimal reading comprehension skills, I don't agree with the majority's opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges.  But like it or not, the only way to change it would be to enact legislation countering its effect (an unlikely prospect, given that President Obama would not sign such legislation even if it were to pass both houses of Congress), or to support Presidential and Senatorial candidates who are likely to nominate and to confirm, respectively, Supreme Court nominees whose vision of the Constitution more closely matches our own.

 

Are you saying that the elders of Israel will not step forth to save the Constitution when it is hanging by a thread because, as the 12th Article of Faith states, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law," and because, as you pointed out, Jesus Christ once said that the Jews should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?

 

I do not think that saving the Constitution will involve anything like the elders of Israel "assassinating a few U.S. Supreme Court justices" or "importuning our senators to impeach a few of them," nor do I think we will save the Constitution if we "simply stop obeying laws with which we disagree."

 

With your incredible lineage and roots in the Church, and that magnificent education on the Constitution, you do believe that the elders of Israel will step forth to save the Constitution when it is hanging by a thread, don't you?

Edited October 28, 2015 by Tony Frank

[Teancum]

Are you saying that the elders of Israel will not step forth to save the Constitution when it is hanging by a thread because, as the 12th Article of Faith states, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law," and because, as Kenngo1969 pointed out, Jesus Christ once said that the Jews should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?

I do not think that saving the Constitution will involve anything like the elders of Israel "assassinating a few U.S. Supreme Court justices" or "importuning our senators to impeach a few of them," nor do I think we will save the Constitution if we "simply stop obeying laws with which we disagree."

With your incredible lineage and roots in the Church, and that magnificent education on the Constitution, you do believe that the elders of Israel will step forth to save the Constitution when it is hanging by a thread, don't you?

Maybe Kenngo won't say it but I will. No the Elders of the LDS church that you term Israel will not step forward to save the constitution. This assumes it needs saving, which it doesn't currently, and if it did it won't be excusively by Mormon leaders or priesthood holders though a few could be involved.

By the way what is your authoritive source for this? I know it has been attributed to Joseph Smith but I think it is suspect. I also think it says the constitution will hang by a thread and IF it is saved it will be by the elders of the church .

Edited October 28, 2015 by Teancum

[Tony Frank]

Like every other citizen or resident of the United States, public servants are entitled to think, to write, to speak, and to act as they wish in private and in other arenas of the public square.  However, they must follow the law as the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted it when performing their duties as public officials.  Are you going to quibble with Joseph Smith, too, who wrote that "[w]e believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, and in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"?  Are you going to quibble with Jesus Christ, who instructed His followers to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's"?

 

I see. You agree with Elder Oaks that every public servant MUST support "what God has declared immoral" or quit their job.

[Teancum]

Here is an old Ensign article on the hang by a thread idea. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/06/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

What do we know about the purported statement of Joseph Smith that the Constitution would hang by a thread and that the elders would save it?

D. Michael Stewart, Brigham Young University, Department of History The documents show that Joseph Smith did prophesy a number of times that the United States and the Constitution would be imperiled and that the elders would have a hand in saving them. The first known record of the prophecy dates to July 19, 1840, in Nauvoo, when the prophet spoke about the redemption of Zion. Using Doctrine & Covenants 101 as a text, he said, “Even this nation will be on the verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground and when the Constitution is on the brink of ruin this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction.” (Joseph Smith Papers, LDS Church Historical Archives, Box 1, March 10, 1844.)

There are also other documents in Church History files that show that five different early Saints recorded some remarks by the Prophet Joseph Smith on this same prophecy, perhaps voiced by the Prophet a number of times in a number of ways after 1840. Parley P. Pratt wrote in 1841 that the prophet said, “The government is fallen and needs redeeming. It is guilty of Blood and cannot stand as it now is but will come so near desolation as to hang as it were by a single hair!!!!! Then the servants goes [sic] to the nations of the earth, and gathers the strength of the Lord’s house! A mighty army!!!!!! And this is the redemption of Zion when the saints shall have redeemed that government and reinstated it in all its purity and glory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” (George A. Smith Papers, Church Archives, Box 7, Folder 5, January 21, 1841.)

James Burgess related that the Prophet, while addressing the Nauvoo Legion several miles east of Nauvoo in May 1843, said that “the time would come when the constitution and government would hang by a brittle thread and would be ready to fall into other hands but this people the latter-day saints will step forth and save it.” (James Burgess Journal, 1818–1904, Church Archives, vol. 1—found among loose sermons.)

Orson Hyde recalled that the Prophet predicted that “the time would come that the Constitution and the country would be in danger of an overthrow and said he, if the constitution be saved at all, it will be by the Elders of this Church. I believe this is about the language as nearly as I can recollect it.” (JD, 6:150.)

In a Pioneer Day celebration in Ogden in 1871, Eliza R. Snow said, “I heard the prophet say, ‘The time will come when the government of these United States will be so nearly overthrown through its corruption, that the Constitution will hang as it were by a single hair, and the Latter-day Saints—the Elders of Israel—will step forward to its rescue and save it.” (Journal History, MSF 143 #28, July 24, 1871.)

Jedediah M. Grant, during the dark days of threatened invasion of Utah by a federal army, referred to the Prophet’s utterance as he addressed a Mormon Battalion gathering in Salt Lake City, February 6, 1855.

“What did the Prophet Joseph say? When the Constitution shall be tottering we shall be the people to save it from the hand of the foe.” (Deseret News Weekly, January 19, 1870.)

On various occasions, Joseph Smith referred to the Constitution, the country, and destiny of the nation; and there is clear evidence that he anticipated future peril. Furthermore, he pronounced the prophecy at various times and places. Perhaps he himself interchanged the simile “on the brink of ruin,” “hang by a brittle thread,” “hang by a single hair,” etc., to describe the anticipated crisis. It is also clear that the redeemers or rescuers of the Constitution were to be either the Saints generally or priesthood officers specifically.

Since no particular time was given for fulfilling this prophecy, members of the Church have often wondered about its timing. The prophecy clearly indicates a single, identifiable episode yet to come. However, it is helpful for us to constantly be on guard against threats to the central elements of the Constitution. It is not wise to sit by and think that the protection of the Constitution is the problem of someone else at some other time.

In support of this view of “constant vigilance,” it is most instructive to note that Church leaders have seen the Constitution imperiled a number of times. Brigham Young, reflecting on the prophecy of 1868, expressed: “It would not be many years before these words come to pass.” (JD, 12:204.) President John Taylor in 1884 declared: “It may be nearer … than some of us think.” (JD, 25:350.) President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., warned in 1942: “Whether it [the Constitution] shall live or die is now in the balance.” (Conference Report, October 1942, p. 58.)

Students of history and the Constitution know that the Constitution has been imperiled a number of times in its history and has been saved a number of times both by vigorous political action and by vocal public opinion.

Thus, rather than simply wait for the one time when the Constitution shall hang by a thread, Latter-day Saints must continually be vigilant. Our commission to save the Constitution is, like salvation, a continuing task, and Church leaders have pointed out the tools available: analysis of constitutional principles, personal study of the history of our nation, reading the Constitution to children at home and in schools, teaching them self-sacrifice—the principle that makes freedom possible—teaching them their obligations as mature citizens, recognizing and resisting ideologies that threaten constitutional principles, and developing loyalty to principle rather than to men or parties.

Politicians and statesmen must grapple with tough questions, painstakingly familiarize themselves with vital issues, and be decisive; but finally, an antidote to abusive government, to corruption, and to constitutional peril lies in private character. Humble people in prayerful homes will contribute immeasurably to a lasting constitutional government. And it should be apparent that consistent efforts in these areas will prepare us both to continually protect the Constitution and to prepare us for possibly a yet future rendezvous with our Constitution’s destiny.

[Kenngo1969]

I see. You agree with Elder Oaks that every public servant MUST support "what God has declared immoral" or quit their job.

I'm not going to engage your self-serving gloss on what Elder Oaks said, but thanks fer playin'!

[Teancum]

I see. You agree with Elder Oaks that every public servant MUST support "what God has declared immoral" or quit their job.

Yes you are getting it. Accept a more accurate post by you above would say "what I believe God has declared immoral."

Guess what, we don't live in a theocracy. And I thank God for that.

[Scott Lloyd]

This may be kind of fun! Can I post cat pictures with my questions?

'Twould be a nice touch. And make them as large and in-your-face as you can. We're trying to emulate TheSkepticChristian, after all.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Who cares?  As I mentioned before you believe in continuous revelation don't you?

Why aren't you saying this to TheSkepticChristian? He's the one who's trying to shut down conversation because, according to him, Jesus didn't talk about religious freedom. We are merely turning his pattern of questioning back on him. As I said on the other thread, it's gentle mockery.

[Scott Lloyd]

I won't have a conversation with you until you start reading a Science book

 

 

Where did Jesus say you couldn't have a conversation with somebody unless you read a science book? I won't have a conversation with you until you point out to me where Jesus said this.