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

[cinepro]

I don't have one that I know about.

 

That can only mean one thing.

Edited October 21, 2015 by cinepro

[cinepro]

I wonder how Elder Oaks would counsel Daniel who refused to obey the law to only pray to the Idol God of Babylon? A bad law is a bad law is a bad law.

 

If Daniel had run for office, or accepted an appointment, to be the prayer clerk whose duty was to lead prayers for the people, and then later the people voted and decided they wanted to pray to the Idol God of Babylon, and the magistrates determined that the peoples' will was valid and that from now on the prayer clerk should direct their prayers to the Idol God, then yes, I'm pretty sure Elder Oaks would say that Daniel should fulfill his public duty or resign from his post.

[jwhitlock]

The theme of Elder Oaks's address (as I've repeated in the title of this thread) was "The Boundary between Church and State."

He had an interesting take on the well-known metaphor "a wall between church and state" and, in fact, rejected the concept:

To solidify that, he had a few suggestions:

Excellent point that he made. With a wall there can be no interactions between the two. Since people themselves stand in both places, such an artificial constraint as a wall will lead to inevitable conflict and is ultimately unsustainable. A curtain is a far better metaphor and one that I hope will replace the wall.

[Zakuska]

Alma was a religious apointy to king Noahs court and he defied the unjust edicts of King Noah in reguards to Abinadi's execution. Would Elder Oaks counsel Alma to do his duty against his personal "moral/religious conscience" and join in with the other Priests who unjustly killed Abinadi?

Edited October 21, 2015 by Zakuska

[Meadowchik]

I wonder how Elder Oaks would counsel Daniel who refused to obey the law to only pray to the Idol God of Babylon? A bad law is a bad law is a bad law.

I doubt he would think Daniel needed additional counsel in that.

[thesometimesaint]

Excellent point that he made. With a wall there can be no interactions between the two. Since people themselves stand in both places, such an artificial constraint as a wall will lead to inevitable conflict and is ultimately unsustainable. A curtain is a far better metaphor and one that I hope will replace the wall.

 

I want that wall to be high and thick. Let people believe anything they want, and act in ways consistent with law. IE; My right to swing my righteous fist ends at your righteous nose. "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

[Scott Lloyd]

Alma was a religious apointy to king Noahs court and he defied the unjust edicts of King Noah in reguards to Abinadi's execution. Would Elder Oaks counsel Alma to do his duty against his personal "moral concience" and join in with the other Priests who unjustly killed Abinadi?

From the transcript of the talk:

 

I speak first to my fellow believers—those advocating the maximum free exercise of religion. I begin with the reminder that for believers there are two different systems of law: divine and civil. While all believers revere divine law, most also acknowledge that civil law is also ordained of God. The Lord Jesus Christ directed, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). So taught, we must, to the extent possible, obey both systems of law. When there are apparent conflicts, we must seek to harmonize them. When they are truly irreconcilable, we should join with others of like mind in striving to change the civil law to accommodate the divine. In all events, we must be very measured before ever deciding—in the rarest of circumstances—to disregard one in favor of the other.

 

While he says here that "we must be very measured before ever deciding -- in the rarest of circumstances -- to disregard" an unjust law, he does not rule it out altogether.

 

So the answer to your question is very simple: Elder Oaks would not have counseled Alma to join in killing Abinadi.

 

Have you read the transcript of the speech, by the way? I recommend you do so.

[Scott Lloyd]

I want that wall to be high and thick. Let people believe anything they want, and act in ways consistent with law. IE; My right to swing my righteous fist ends at your righteous nose. "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

It strikes me that you have altogether missed Elder Oaks's point. [sigh]

Edited October 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Zakuska]

From the transcript of the talk:

 

While he says here that "we must be very measured before ever deciding -- in the rarest of circumstances -- to disregard" an unjust law, he does not rule it out altogether.

 

So the answer to your question is very simple: Elder Oaks would not have counseled Alma to join in killing Abinadi.

 

Have you read the transcript of the speech, by the way? I recommend you do so.

Our fire wall here blocks the church/relgious websites along with any streaming media. But I will when I get home.

So what does he say about kim davis?

[thesometimesaint]

It strikes me that you have altogether missed Elder Oaks's point. [sigh]

 

I've already said I think it's a balancing act. Civility is always important, and a negotiated settlement of disagreements is far better than continued disagreeableness. That being said I don't want a theocracy(Until Jesus comes back) or an aggressive atheistic government.

Edited October 21, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[ksfisher]

Alma was a religious apointy to king Noahs court and he defied the unjust edicts of King Noah in reguards to Abinadi's execution. Would Elder Oaks counsel Alma to do his duty against his personal "moral/religious conscience" and join in with the other Priests who unjustly killed Abinadi?

 

It would seem that somewhere in the process Alma was either fired or resigned. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Our fire wall here blocks the church/relgious websites along with any streaming media. But I will when I get home.

So what does he say about kim davis?

From the transcript:

    

Believers should also acknowledge the validity of constitutional laws. Even where they have challenged laws or practices on constitutional grounds, once those laws or practices have been sustained by the highest available authority, believers should acknowledge their validity and submit to them. It is better to try to live with an unjust law than to contribute to the anarchy that a young lawyer named Abraham Lincoln anticipated when he declared, “There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.”[12]

       Clear cases for the application of this principle are the public officials in the executive or judicial branch who enforce and interpret the laws. All such officials take an oath to support the constitution and laws of their jurisdiction. That oath does not leave them free to use their official position to further their personal beliefs—religious or otherwise—to override the law. Office holders remain free to draw upon their personal beliefs and motivations and advocate their positions in the public square. But when acting as public officials they are not free to apply personal convictions—religious or other—in place of the defined responsibilities of their public offices. All government officers should exercise their civil authority according to the principles and within the limits of civil government. A county clerk’s recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal by her office and staff to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle. Far more significant violations of the rule of law and democratic self-government occur when governors or attorneys general refuse to enforce or defend a law they oppose on personal grounds—secular or religious. Constitutional duties, including respect for the vital principle of separation of powers, are fundamental to the rule of law. Government officials must not apply these duties selectively according to their personal preferences—whatever their source.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

I've already said I think it's a balancing act. Civility is always important, and a negotiated settlement of disagreements is far better than continued disagreeableness. That being said I don't want a theocracy(Until Jesus comes back) or an aggressive atheistic government.

I altogether reject the insinuation that Elder Oaks was calling for a theocracy before Jesus comes back. And there does not have to be a "thick and high" wall to preclude that.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

It would seem that somewhere in the process Alma was either fired or resigned. 

It would have been more than prudent for him to resign under the circumstances, true.

 

Someone whose oath of office requires him/her to do something utterly odious to his/her conscience ought to resign.

[thesometimesaint]

I altogether reject the insinuation that Elder Oaks was calling for a theocracy before Jesus comes back.

 

ALL of Christianity, including the LDS, is based on a theocracy. When that will occur is open to the timing invoked in each sect of Christianity. For me I want a say in how my government works until Jesus comes back. Elder Oaks seems to agree.

[Scott Lloyd]

ALL of Christianity, including the LDS, is based on a theocracy. When that will occur is open to the timing invoked in each sect of Christianity. For me I want a say in how my government works until Jesus comes back. Elder Oaks seems to agree.

He does not agree with the "wall of separation" concept. He rejects it. He said so directly. That's why he replaced it with the "curtain of separation" metaphor.

[Zakuska]

It would have been more than prudent for him to resign under the circumstances, true.

 

Someone whose oath of office requires him/her to do something utterly odious to his/her conscience ought to resign.

What did Alma do though?

Pleaded Abinadi's case to the king and did everything he could to prevent it. Voiced his objections openly. Tried to change the law... do what ever he could before he had to flee because the King wanted to unjustly persecute him too.

He didn't leave by choice or simply.... resigning.

Nor did he simply do his duty and join in the BBQ and festivities.

He was removed by force and unjust laws.

That's exactly what Kim Davis did. Even going to Jail for it.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Zakuska

[jkwilliams]

What did Alma do though?

Pleaded Abinadi's case to the king and did everything he could to prevent it. Voiced his objections openly. Tried to change the law... do what ever he could before he had to flee because the King wanted to unjustly persecute him too. He didn't leave by choice and simply.... resigning. Nor did he simply do his duty and join in the BBQ and festivities.

That's exactly what Kim Davis did. Even going to Jail for it.

 

There's a way to change laws in our country, and it's not by government officials refusing to do their jobs. If I were still a believer, I would find your comparison of Kim Davis to Alma offensive. I'm glad Elder Oaks made it clear that the church does not support actions like hers. 

[Zakuska]

There's a way to change laws in our country, and it's not by government officials refusing to do their jobs. If I were still a believer, I would find your comparison of Kim Davis to Alma offensive. I'm glad Elder Oaks made it clear that the church does not support actions like hers.

Offensive? Why? Are we not supposed to liken the scriptures to our selves?

Alma was a public official who swore an oath to the king to obey and execute his edicts, who publicaly refused to execute an unjust edict.

Kim Davis was a public official who swore an oath and reacted to an unjust law/edict the same way Alma did.

That you cant see the similarities and find the comparison offensive is rather telling.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Zakuska

[jwhitlock]

Alma was a religious apointy to king Noahs court and he defied the unjust edicts of King Noah in reguards to Abinadi's execution. Would Elder Oaks counsel Alma to do his duty against his personal "moral/religious conscience" and join in with the other Priests who unjustly killed Abinadi?

 

Again, not the same situation. Alma pleaded for Abinadi, which was his right in the office he held. For doing so, he was illegally chased out of office. Alma was not refusing to fulfill the duties of his office.

 

Saying that, he still had the same option as the clerk to resign. The corruption of King Noah and his priests did not let it get that far.

[Zakuska]

Again, not the same situation. Alma pleaded for Abinadi, which was his right in the office he held. For doing so, he was illegally chased out of office. Alma was not refusing to fulfill the duties of his office.

 

Saying that, he still had the same option as the clerk to resign. The corruption of King Noah and his priests did not let it get that far.

Exact the same situation. It wasn't his place to plead for anyone. He had been ordered along with the other Priests to execute the kings edict and he flat out refused to execute his duty and to obey the king and BBQ Abinadi. Edited October 21, 2015 by Zakuska

[jwhitlock]

I want that wall to be high and thick. Let people believe anything they want, and act in ways consistent with law. IE; My right to swing my righteous fist ends at your righteous nose. "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

 

The real world has a way of presenting situations that don't fit that sentiment very well - especially since regulations have intruded into areas they have no business being in.

 

I agree, though, that this misses the whole point. Both religion and law can have a positive effect on each other, and that positive effect should be fostered. Those who call for total separation of religion from the state (it rarely goes both ways, however, in their minds) are instead inflicting their own secular viewpoints in the formation of law and denying the expression of the religious viewpoint in how laws are formed. That effectively shuts out large parts of the electorate from the process.

 

The public discussion is meant to enable us to come to a compromise that is best for society. From what I understand of Elder Oaks' remarks, that compromise is disappearing.

[jkwilliams]

Offensive? Why? Are we not supposed to liken the scriptures to our selves?

Alma was a public official who swore an oath to the king to obey and execute his edicts, who publicaly refused to execute an unjust edict.

Kim Davis was a public official who swore an oath and reacted to an unjust law/edict the same way Alma did.

That you cant see the similarities and find the comparison offensive is rather telling.

 

Yes, because everyone knows that burning someone to death for their religious beliefs is exactly the same thing as not issuing marriage licenses to those who are legally qualified to obtain them.

 

I'm glad that Elder Oaks agrees with me. 

[jwhitlock]

Exact the same situation. It wasn't his place to plead for anyone. He had been ordered along with the other Priests to execute the kings edict and he flat out refused to execute his duty and to obey the king and BBQ Abinadi.

 

Nope. Alma wasn't ordered to execute Abinadi. Alma didn't refuse; it didn't get to that point. Alma pleaded - which was his right - for Abinadi and was threatened and chased out for doing so.

 

Of course, a totalitarian regime is something quite different than what we're talking about here, so the situation is definitely not the same when it comes to the rule of law as acknowledge by the people.

 

Finally, your last statement is simply crass.

[jwhitlock]

I've already said I think it's a balancing act. Civility is always important, and a negotiated settlement of disagreements is far better than continued disagreeableness. That being said I don't want a theocracy(Until Jesus comes back) or an aggressive atheistic government.

 

We're definitely headed for the latter. We're out of balance.