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

[jwhitlock]

I realize you'll probably conclude that "Padawan to The Bombastic One" doesn't have that same ring, but ...

 

I'm trying to find something that rolls off the tongue:

 

"Sub-Groveling Sycophant to The Bombastic One"

 

"Aspiring Bombastic One"

 

"Bombastisist in Training"  (I made up a new word!)

 

None of them seems to have the simple appeal of "The Bombastic One".

[Calm]

If someone called me bombastic, it would replace "Creates Beasts Of The Earth" in a heartbeat.  Something like "The Bombastic One" has a nice, classy ring to it.

I am going to add it to my list of "Words I Say Under My Breath When Responding to Certain Posts".

I just realize that idiom doesn't make a lot of sense....

[Calm]

I'm trying to find something that rolls off the tongue:

 

"Sub-Groveling Sycophant to The Bombastic One"

 

"Aspiring Bombastic One"

 

"Bombastisist in Training"  (I made up a new word!)

 

None of them seems to have the simple appeal of "The Bombastic One".

Third one comes close though.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've never been called bombastic.

 

I'm jealous.

Perhaps he can add "bombastic" as a descriptor in his member title, "Gods favorite groveling sycophant."

[Scott Lloyd]

I am duplicitous and two-faced (aren't those the same thing?). Bombastic would be nice. I am sure Ken is crushed.

Ah, none of you can top "internet tyrant."

[jkwilliams]

Ah, none of you can top "internet tyrant."

Follower of Satan tops that.

[Scott Lloyd]

Follower of Satan tops that.

Hey jkwilliams, I just proof read a news story that will come out this weekend (maybe earlier than that on line) about Elder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles giving the address at the annual convocation at Stanford University.

 

According to the story, he had quite a bit to say about morality, God and even Jesus Christ specifically. Just wondering if you are going to go after him the way you did Elder Holland for what he said at Snow College five years ago. Stanford, after all, is a state-sponsored school. And it's not even in Utah.

 

Edited to add correction::

Stanford is a private university, though it is not a religious school.

 

It would have been more accurately stated to have said Stanford is a secular school.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Hey jkwilliams, I just proof read a news story that will come out this weekend (maybe earlier than that on line) about Elder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles giving the address at the annual convocation at Stanford University.

According to the story, he had quite a bit to say about morality, God and even Jesus Christ specifically. Just wondering if you are going to go after him the way you did Elder Holland for what he said at Snow College five years ago. Stanford, after all, is a state-sponsored school. And it's not even in Utah.

I didn't go after him. I said he crossed a line. As for Stanford, when my nephew graduated a few years ago, it was a private university. When did the state take over? Must have been very recently.

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't go after him. I said he crossed a line.

You went after him for allegedly "cross[ing] a line," this after he quoted Rudyard Kipling and a couple of other British poets/authors.

 

 

As for Stanford, when my nephew graduated a few years ago, it was a private university. When did the state take over? Must have been very recently.

 

Oops. My bad.

 

I don't believe it's a religious or church-sponsored institution, though. It was founded by Leland Stanford, former governor and senator from California.

 

My hunch is that many of the same people who would be irritated at Elder Cook for bringing up God at a state school would also be unhappy with him for doing it at Stanford.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

You went after him for allegedly "cross[ing] a line."

Oops. My bad.

I don't believe it's a religious or church-sponsored institution, though. It was founded by Leland Stanford, former governor and senator from California.

My hunch is that many of the same people who would be irritated at Elder Cook for bringing up God at a state school would also be unhappy with him for doing it at Stanford.

I wasn't irritated at Elder Holland, just thought it was awkward and a little inappropriate. It was my parents who were irritated, evil apostates that they are.

[Scott Lloyd]

I wasn't irritated at Elder Holland, just thought it was awkward and a little inappropriate. It was my parents who were irritated, evil apostates that they are.

I don't think anybody here called them or anyone else "evil apostates."

 

But to make it convenient to judge for oneself, here again is the published news story about that allegedly "awkward" and "inappropriate" commencement speech given back in 2010 by Elder Holland.

 

EPHRAIM — Invoking three British "voices from the past" — Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, writer Rudyard Kipling, and poet and cleric John Donne — Elder Jeffrey R. Holland counseled graduates Saturday at the 122nd commencement of Snow College.

Elder Holland of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Quorum of the Twelve received an honorary doctorate of humane letters prior to giving the commencement address to 755 graduates at the junior college in central Utah.

In his address, Elder Holland explained that Wolsey rose to political prominence and worldly wealth in the court of King Henry VIII. But when he couldn't overcome church objections and deliver a divorce for his king, he lost everything, ultimately falling ill and dying on his way to execution.

"What a tragic end to such a gifted beginning," Elder Holland said. "What a pathetic farewell to a life that held such promise, as yours does. … And where did it go wrong? It went wrong when ambition became more important that conviction; when corruption transcended fidelity; when power and wealth created a thirst that honest living could not satisfy."

He told the graduates, acknowledging they are facing tough global economic times, to avoid making the same mistakes by turning to "the permanent things, the reliable things forever. Truth and industry and love. Family and friends. Humility and sacrifice and faith."

Elder Holland then recited from Kipling's "Recessional," written at the height of the British Empire, including the words: "Lest we forget — lest we forget."

He exhorted the graduates "to remember again what so many have sacrificed and done for you in order that you could be here today," including parents, family, faculty, friends and for some, spouses and children.

"Promise to remember Snow College, its wonderful traditions, and the people who made all this possible for you today. And when you do remember, be grateful," he said.

Elder Holland then turned to a sermon delivered by Donne affirming that God "had made no decrees to distinguish the seasons of his mercies, especially during times of discouragement."

Then he told the graduates, "Above all else you have learned here, may you leave this great school secure in the promise of God's unfailing love for you."

 

I'll be interested to know, after you've had a chance to read about his speech, whether you think Elder Cook was being similarly "awkward" and "Inappropriate."

[Dion]

"A new comprehensive study by the CDC with over 33,000 participants has confirmed earlier estimates; less than 3 percent of the U.S. population self-identifies as gay, lesbian or bisexual. Earlier, much smaller-scale surveys have put that number at 4 percent."

 

I think that the key phrase here is "self-identifies" - what about actual behavior? But my main point was that the LDS Church seems to be trying to handle this issue in a "fair and balanced" way. That's a good thing!

[jkwilliams]

The implication seems to be that my family reacted inappropriately to Elder Holland's entirely innocuous remarks. I may be evil and duplicitous, but my entire family does not share my malice toward the Lord's anointed.

[Scott Lloyd]

The implication seems to be that my family reacted inappropriately to Elder Holland's entirely innocuous remarks. I may be evil and duplicitous, but my entire family does not share my malice toward the Lord's anointed.

It's you, not your family, who appears to be complaining publicly about it. Maybe they are doing it elsewhere, but I don't see it here.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

It's you, not your family, who appear to be complaining publicly about it. Maybe they are doing it elsewhere, but I don't see it here.

I mentioned it, and you suggested I overreacted. That is entirely possible. Defending one's understanding of the event is not the same as complaining. As a matter of fact, you are the one who brought it up days after I dropped it.

[Scott Lloyd]

I mentioned it, and you suggested I overreacted. That is entirely possible. Defending one's understanding of the event is not the same as complaining. As a matter of fact, you are the one who brought it up days after I dropped it.

True, that.

 

I'll drop it as well -- though I might start a thread just to discuss Elder Cook's speech. I think it significant that apostles seem to be speaking frequently these days at fairly visible outside venues.

[jwhitlock]

I realize you'll probably conclude that "Padawan to The Bombastic One" doesn't have that same ring, but ...

 

I see you've humbly accepted the title of "Master of Bombast".

 

Let there be rejoicing and wordy speeches!

[Tony Frank]

If someone called me bombastic, it would replace "Creates Beasts Of The Earth" in a heartbeat.  Something like "The Bombastic One" has a nice, classy ring to it.

 

You, sir, are bombastic, indeed, you are The Bombastic One. 

[Meadowchik]

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.

Kenngo, as a relatively new member of this forum I'm going to go out on a limb and make an observation about this exchange:

I saw more argument and not nearly as much a portion (if any) of getting personal in his points...while you seemed to go all out on the personal. Your response seemed disproportionate to me, and I would have loved to see a more tempered conversation.

From one reader and poster to another...

[Kenngo1969]

Kenngo, as a relatively new member of this forum I'm going to go out on a limb and make an observation about this exchange:

I saw more argument and not nearly as much a portion (if any) of getting personal in his points...while you seemed to go all out on the personal. Your response seemed disproportionate to me, and I would have loved to see a more tempered conversation.

From one reader and poster to another...

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.  I do not take kindly to Brother Frank's setting himself up (against the rest of us is one thing, but against Elder Oaks, who seems virtually uniquely qualified to opine on the potential impact of constitutional questions with respect to religious exercise, not to mention being one of the Lord's prophets, seers, and revelators??? ) as A Brave, Virtually-Lone Defender of the Constitution, of Truth, of Justice, and of The American Way, whilst those of us who disagree with him (including Elder Oaks??!!! ) are poor, benighted, wayward souls who are left to wallow in our comparative ignorance, and who, alas, don't share nearly Brother Frank's deep, abiding love for the U.S. Constitution  ...

Edited October 29, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[MiserereNobis]

The US Constitution is an Enlightenment document, influenced by the deist French philosophes, and devoid of religion.

 

The preamble of the US Constitution:

 

"We the People of the United States..."

 

The preamble of the Irish Constitution:

 

"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial..."

 

Now that there is an inspired preamble

[Scott Lloyd]

The US Constitution is an Enlightenment document, influenced by the deist French philosophes, and devoid of religion.

 

The preamble of the US Constitution:

 

"We the People of the United States..."

 

The preamble of the Irish Constitution:

 

"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial..."

 

Now that there is an inspired preamble

The U.S. Constitution is an inspired document that preserves the God-given endowment of moral agency to mankind.

 

(By inspired, I don't mean perfect or infallible; hence the amendments, beginning with the first 10, which we call the Bill of Rights.)

[MiserereNobis]

The U.S. Constitution is an inspired document that preserves the God-given endowment of moral agency to mankind.

 

 

So does the Irish Constitution, including freedom of religion.  It just gives credit where credit is due -- to God and Jesus Christ -- instead of to "We the People."

 

ETA:  Here's a listing of individual rights in the Irish Constitution.

Edited October 29, 2015 by MiserereNobis

[PeterPear]

So does the Irish Constitution, including freedom of religion. It just gives credit where credit is due -- to God and Jesus Christ -- instead of to "We the People."

How very wrong.

The 7th Article of the US Constitution mentions God even Jesus Christ "Signed in the Year of our Lord."

The Declaration of Independence also mentions God and inalienable rights that men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with their God-given rights, etc, which also established the 13 Independent Colonies and their legislatures and representatives who represented these 13 colonies who ratified the US Constitution to form a framework of Govt to protect those rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

You cannot separate the US Constitution from the Declaration of Independence even if they are separate documents, for the latter more eloquently declares the rights of men come from God and not from some royal British monarch - much better than the 1922 Irish Constitution (copied from the US Constitution as have the majority of countries in the world) with its inclusion of religious teachings - for the Irish Constitution originally prevented divorce-until it was changed in the 1990s!

You had better never believe the ridiculous argument that this country's govt was founded on a "godless" US Constitution.

Edited October 29, 2015 by PeterPear

[Scott Lloyd]

So does the Irish Constitution, including freedom of religion.  It just gives credit where credit is due -- to God and Jesus Christ -- instead of to "We the People."

 

ETA:  Here's a listing of individual rights in the Irish Constitution.

I never said true and divine principles of government were the exclusive province of the U.S. Constitution.