Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 Congratulations to jwhitlock for being the person that gave me rep point #7777. 1
jwhitlock Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Congratulations to jwhitlock for being the person that gave me rep point #7777. So what do I win? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 So what do I win?A rep point for the above post.
jwhitlock Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 A rep point for the above post. It was worth it!
ksfisher Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 A more comparable situation would be if Alma had been ordered to put the torch to Abinadi, refused but then expected to stay on the job. 1
Ares Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 This thread was merged with the "elder-oaks-comments-on-public-officials-and-same-sex-marriage" thread as opposed to closing it. Both had content that posters wanted to address.
Sky Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Here's what I heard in a nutshell: There has to be some checks and balances and give and take in a secular, pluralistic society. The differences of some fundamental beliefs are still there, but there has to be room for a sort of 'middle-ground' where all of us can live in peace and harmony with each other. Be wary of the polarizing voices on both sides and know that not everybody may get everything they want. We should honor the law. There is no damaging compromise going on by being great neighbors! - (I think that might be my favorite line.) I also liked this: "We all lose when an atmosphere of anger or hostility or contention prevails. We all lose when we cannot debate public policies without resorting to boycotts, firings and intimidation of our adversaries." I felt a sense of that intimidation recently when I advocated for stricter gun-control laws. Certain things cannot even be mentioned without generating fiery reactions, no matter how well reasoned and temperate I thought my arguments were. I personally would love to hear some talks like this in General Conference. Does anybody else feel like this call for balance would have been nice when same-sex marriage was being held up as a threat to society, especially during the time of Prop 8? To me, it seems somewhat problematic when we hold up the Family Proclamation on the one hand, but on the other hand, call for a balanced, middle-ground. It's a very fine line that the Church is trying to walk, in my opinion.
jwhitlock Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Here's what I heard in a nutshell: There has to be some checks and balances and give and take in a secular, pluralistic society. The differences of some fundamental beliefs are still there, but there has to be room for a sort of 'middle-ground' where all of us can live in peace and harmony with each other. Be wary of the polarizing voices on both sides and know that not everybody may get everything they want. We should honor the law. There is no damaging compromise going on by being great neighbors! - (I think that might be my favorite line.) I also liked this: "We all lose when an atmosphere of anger or hostility or contention prevails. We all lose when we cannot debate public policies without resorting to boycotts, firings and intimidation of our adversaries." I felt a sense of that intimidation recently when I advocated for stricter gun-control laws. Certain things cannot even be mentioned without generating fiery reactions, no matter how well reasoned and temperate I thought my arguments were. I personally would love to hear some talks like this in General Conference. Does anybody else feel like this call for balance would have been nice when same-sex marriage was being held up as a threat to society, especially during the time of Prop 8? To me, it seems somewhat problematic when we hold up the Family Proclamation on the one hand, but on the other hand, call for a balanced, middle-ground. It's a very fine line that the Church is trying to walk, in my opinion. It was interesting to note that during Prop 8, church members mostly were civil in standing up for what they were supporting. There were some exceptions, of course, but I think overall the church did great at balancing their viewpoint and not demonizing everyone that was gay - though some opponents accused the church of doing just that. Middle ground is where different viewpoints can exist, but people can be respected. I don't think that concept is well understood in some segments of our society. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Does anybody else feel like this call for balance would have been nice when same-sex marriage was being held up as a threat to society, especially during the time of Prop 8? To me, it seems somewhat problematic when we hold up the Family Proclamation on the one hand, but on the other hand, call for a balanced, middle-ground. It's a very fine line that the Church is trying to walk, in my opinion. I don't believe capitulating on earnestly held beliefs is what Elder Oaks was calling for yesterday. Rather, it was recognizing, respecting and tolerating differences of opinion and co-existing with civility, even as one acknowledges deeply contrasting views. So it's OK to think redefinition of marriage is harmful to society; just don't be unkind to those who believe the contrary. Similarly, when others express views that you find unpalatable, still try to treat them with respect and kindness, even while rejecting their opinions. Edited October 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 3
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 This thread was merged with the "elder-oaks-comments-on-public-officials-and-same-sex-marriage" thread as opposed to closing it. Both had content that posters wanted to address.Very good.
Meadowchik Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 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.By no rational analysis is it exactly the same. BTW, the BOM is a spritual record, not a political one. Thus, we can't really say we have the legal details of the situation with Alma and King Noah.
Zakuska Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) BTW, the BOM is a spritual record, not a political one. Thus, we can't really say we have the legal details of the situation with Alma and King Noah. Thats news to a whole slew of LDS Authors and General Authorities. Examples: The legal cases in the book of Mormon http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/the-legal-cases-in-the-book-of-mormon/ See "The Trial of Abinadi" And These: Bushman, Richard L. "The Book of Mormon and the American Revolution." BYU Studies 17 (Autumn 1976):3-20. Reynolds, Noel B. "The Political Dimension in Nephi's Small Plates." BYU Studies 27 (Fall 1987):15-37. Ricks, Stephen D. "The Ideology of Kingship in Mosiah 1- 6." F.A.R.M.S. Update, Aug. 1987. Welch, John W. "The Execution of Zemnarihah." F.A.R.M.S. Update, Nov. 1984. Welch, John W. "The Law of Mosiah." F.A.R.M.S. Update, Mar. 1987. Welch, John W. "Statutes, Judgments, Ordinances and Commandments." F.A.R.M.S. Update, June 1988. Welch, John W. "Lehi's Last Will and Testament: A Legal Approach." In The Book of Mormon: Second Nephi, the Doctrinal Structure, ed. M. Nyman and C. Tate, pp. 61-82. Provo, Utah, 1989. Welch, John W. "The Case of an Unobserved Murder." F.A.R.M.S. Update, Feb. 1990. Welch, John W. "Law and War in the Book of Mormon." In Warfare in the Book of Mormon, ed. S. Ricks and W. Hamblin, pp. 46-102. Salt Lake City, 1990. NOEL B. REYNOLDS The book of Mosiah speaks from the dust to us of our day and explains how the Government of the Nephites and Lamanites worked and why it changed from a Dictatorial Monarchy under King Noah into to a Democratic Republic ruled by Judges and then later fell because of sin and Iniquity and people choosing unjust laws and wickedness over righteousness. The scriptures are chalk full of "civil law" Deuteronomy & Leviticus for example. Even Elder Oaks, a Lawyer himself knows how much Law & Politics there are in the Bom. <links forth coming> Edited October 21, 2015 by Zakuska
Meadowchik Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Thats news to a whole slew of LDS Authors and General Authorities.Examples:The legal cases in the book of Mormonhttp://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/the-legal-cases-in-the-book-of-mormon/See "The Trial of Abinadi"And These:Bushman, Richard L. "The Book of Mormon and the American Revolution." BYU Studies 17 (Autumn 1976):3-20.Reynolds, Noel B. "The Political Dimension in Nephi's Small Plates." BYU Studies 27 (Fall 1987):15-37.Ricks, Stephen D. "The Ideology of Kingship in Mosiah 1- 6." F.A.R.M.S. Update, Aug. 1987.Welch, John W. "The Execution of Zemnarihah." F.A.R.M.S. Update, Nov. 1984.Welch, John W. "The Law of Mosiah." F.A.R.M.S. Update, Mar. 1987.Welch, John W. "Statutes, Judgments, Ordinances and Commandments." F.A.R.M.S. Update, June 1988.Welch, John W. "Lehi's Last Will and Testament: A Legal Approach." In The Book of Mormon: Second Nephi, the Doctrinal Structure, ed. M. Nyman and C. Tate, pp. 61-82. Provo, Utah, 1989.Welch, John W. "The Case of an Unobserved Murder." F.A.R.M.S. Update, Feb. 1990.Welch, John W. "Law and War in the Book of Mormon." In Warfare in the Book of Mormon, ed. S. Ricks and W. Hamblin, pp. 46-102. Salt Lake City, 1990.NOEL B. REYNOLDSThe book of Mosiah speaks from the dust to us of our day and explains how the Government of the Nephites and Lamanites worked and why it changed from a Dictatorial Monarchy under King Noah into to a Democratic Republic ruled by Judges and then later fell because of sin and Iniquity and people choosing unjust laws and wickedness over righteousness. The scriptures are chalk full of "civil law" Deuteronomy & Leviticus for example.Even Elder Oaks, a Lawyer himself knows how much Law & Politics there are in the Bom.<links forth coming>There are still politics in the Book of Mormon, but the purpose is not as a political record. Yes we can learn things of a political nature but I would not say we have a complete legal detailing of King Noah's government.Do you see the distinction there? I do. 2
jkwilliams Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 There are still politics in the Book of Mormon, but the purpose is not as a political record. Yes we can learn things of a political nature but I would not say we have a complete legal detailing of King Noah's government.Do you see the distinction there? I do.Well, it was written for our time, so maybe the story of Alma foreshadows that of Kim Davis.
Meadowchik Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Well, it was written for our time, so maybe the story of Alma foreshadows that of Kim Davis. Oh no, I hope not. I was not cheering for Davis.
jkwilliams Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Oh no, I hope not. I was not cheering for Davis.Hence the wink.
Meadowchik Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Hence the wink.Humour is much more decodable in real life! At least if you're me
Tony Frank Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 I don't have one that I know about.But I wonder if the poster is confusing Elder Oaks with Elder Christofferson. You are correct. I simply assumed it was Elder Oaks who had the gay relative.
Dion Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 My understanding is that 3 to 4% of the population is homosexual and that 6 to 7% is bisexual. So the 10% gay number holds up. Of course this doesn't explain why people are gay or if gay behavior is right or wrong. I am very impressed with the intelligent, balanced way that Elder Oaks seems to be dealing with the gay marriage issue. I wonder what Ayn Rand, a libertarian, would have thought about the gay marriage issue. For that matter, did she, an atheist, ever say anything about the LDS Church?
Tony Frank Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 I don't remember the Ancient Jews having a Bill of Rights? The Supreme Court redefined marriage. What does that have to do with the Bill of Rights?
Tony Frank Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 Boom."Although not mentioning Kim Davis by name, in a clear reference to the Kentucky county clerk who refused on religious grounds to issue a marriage license to a gay couple, Elder Oaks said public officials who take an oath have a responsibility to support the constitution and their local laws.“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,” he said. “A county clerk’s recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle.”Kim Davis of Rowan County stopped issuing marriage licenses after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June legalized same-sex marriage. She spent five days in jail for refusing to obey a federal judge's ruling ordering her to issue the licenses."http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-oaks-balance-accommodation-not-culture-warsBasically, you're welcome to express your convictions in the public square, but if you're an official do your job. Elder Oaks had a completely different view at General Conference in October 2013. “Our twelfth article of faith states our belief in being subject to civil authority and ‘in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.’ But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place. “In this determination we may be misunderstood, and we may incur accusations of bigotry, suffer discrimination, or have to withstand invasions of our free exercise of religion. If so, I think we should remember our first priority—to serve God—and, like our pioneer predecessors, push our personal handcarts forward with the same fortitude they exhibited. “A teaching of President Thomas S. Monson applies to this circumstance. At this conference 27 years ago, he boldly declared: ‘Let us have the courage to defy the consensus, the courage to stand for principle. Courage, not compromise, brings the smile of God’s approval.’” “I pray that we will not let the temporary challenges of mortality cause us to forget the great commandments and priorities we have been given by our Creator and our Savior. We must not set our hearts so much on the things of the world and aspire to the honors of men that we stop trying to achieve our eternal destiny. We who know God’s plan for His children—we who have made covenants to participate in it—have a clear responsibility. We must never deviate from our paramount desire, which is to achieve eternal life. We must never dilute our first priority—to have no other gods and to serve no other priorities ahead of God the Father and His Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ.” Elder Oaks should have stuck with what he said in 2013. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng
carbon dioxide Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) Elder Oaks had a completely different view at General Conference in October 2013. “Our twelfth article of faith states our belief in being subject to civil authority and ‘in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.’ But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place. “In this determination we may be misunderstood, and we may incur accusations of bigotry, suffer discrimination, or have to withstand invasions of our free exercise of religion. If so, I think we should remember our first priority—to serve God—and, like our pioneer predecessors, push our personal handcarts forward with the same fortitude they exhibited. “A teaching of President Thomas S. Monson applies to this circumstance. At this conference 27 years ago, he boldly declared: ‘Let us have the courage to defy the consensus, the courage to stand for principle. Courage, not compromise, brings the smile of God’s approval.’” “I pray that we will not let the temporary challenges of mortality cause us to forget the great commandments and priorities we have been given by our Creator and our Savior. We must not set our hearts so much on the things of the world and aspire to the honors of men that we stop trying to achieve our eternal destiny. We who know God’s plan for His children—we who have made covenants to participate in it—have a clear responsibility. We must never deviate from our paramount desire, which is to achieve eternal life. We must never dilute our first priority—to have no other gods and to serve no other priorities ahead of God the Father and His Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ.” Elder Oaks should have stuck with what he said in 2013. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=engI don't see a conflict in what Oaks has said. He did not say that since gay marriage is legal then its is morally right or that we must accept it. He simply says for public servants, they must do their job even if their job requires them to do some things they do not agree with. If one is required to do something that violates their conscience, perhaps they should find a new job that does not require them to do so. Oaks has not changed his view at all. He simply has clarified a particular point in regards to what people are expected to do on their job. Edited October 22, 2015 by carbon dioxide 2
carbon dioxide Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) My understanding is that 3 to 4% of the population is homosexual and that 6 to 7% is bisexual. So the 10% gay number holds up. Of course this doesn't explain why people are gay or if gay behavior is right or wrong. I am very impressed with the intelligent, balanced way that Elder Oaks seems to be dealing with the gay marriage issue. I wonder what Ayn Rand, a libertarian, would have thought about the gay marriage issue. For that matter, did she, an atheist, ever say anything about the LDS Church? A total of 2.3% of U.S. adults said they were gay, lesbian or bisexual in the largest federal government survey ever to ask about sexual orientation. That number is a bit lower than the 3% to 4% found in some other recent surveys, including a Gallup Poll from 2012 — but some of those studies encompassed broader groups, including transsexuals. In the new survey of 34,557 adults, released Tuesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an additional 1.1% said they were "something else," didn't know or refused to answer" http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/15/gay-lesbian-bisexual-cdc-survey/12671717/ "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. The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), published July 15 by the CDC, was the first large-scale study of it’s kind. Data was collected from the Census Bureau, as The Washington Post reported, and 33,557 adults between the ages of 18 and 64 participated in the study, which included in-person interviews as well as follow-up phone questions. The NHIS study found that, while 96.6 percent of adults identified as “straight”, 1.6 percent identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent called themselves bisexual. 1.1 percent responded “I don’t know” or said they were “something else” not listed. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kristine-marsh/2014/07/15/cdc-gay-population-23-thanks-media-americans-think-number-13-times-h This sounds about right to me. I have know a few gay people in my life but definitely not 10% of the people I have known on my life are LBGT. Count the number of people you know in your life and how many can you say are LBGT? Unless you are living in a place like in San Francisco, I predict you will find that far less than 10% of the people you know are of that group. Edited October 22, 2015 by carbon dioxide 1
Kenngo1969 Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) I don't see a conflict in what Oaks has said. He did not say that since gay marriage is legal then its is morally right or that we must accept it. He simply says for public servants, they must do their job even if their job requires them to do some things they do not agree with. If one is required to do something that violates their conscience, perhaps they should find a new job that does not require them to do so. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.] Oaks has not changed his view at all. He simply has clarified a particular point in regards to what people are expected to do on their job. Ding, ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding!!! "Tell him what he's won, Bob!" P.S.: I should also note that Halconero said essentially the same thing in the OP. Good call! Edited October 22, 2015 by Kenngo1969 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 Elder Oaks said, " I reject the idea of a wall between church and state."
Recommended Posts