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

[Scott Lloyd]

Yep, my parents are really hypersensitive. LOL

I don't know. I've not met them. It is you who are invoking their authority.

[jkwilliams]

I don't know. I've not met them. It is you who are invoking their authority.

 

Oh, my parents have no authority. I did think it was interesting that they were more sensitive to the religious nature of the address than I was, but as I said, my wife and daughter also remarked that the address made them a bit uncomfortable (that's about how I would describe my reaction). Maybe we're all hypersensitive. 

[sethpayne]

I don't know. I've not met them. It is you who are invoking their authority.

 

LOL.  And you are discounting their experience simply because you won't cede the point!

 

No one could ever be made uncomfortable by religious expression in any environment because ... LDS Church is true. QED!

[jkwilliams]

LOL.  And you are discounting their experience simply because you won't cede the point!

 

No one could ever be made uncomfortable by religious expression in any environment because ... LDS Church is true. QED!

 

Well, I should say that my parents have had it in for Elder Holland for a long time.

[sethpayne]

Well, I should say that my parents have had it in for Elder Holland for a long time.

 

Hypersensitive and vindictive.  It's a surprise you turned out as well as you have, John.

Edited October 22, 2015 by sethpayne

[jkwilliams]

Hypersensitive and vindictive.  It's a surprise you turned out as well as you have, John.

 

Well, given that I am two-faced, duplicitous, and fundamentally dishonest, I'd say I turned out about the way you'd expect.

[Scott Lloyd]

LOL.  And you are discounting their experience simply because you won't cede the point!

 

No one could ever be made uncomfortable by religious expression in any environment because ... LDS Church is true. QED!

I can only go from what is available to me. I have a newspaper account and I have JK's account, purportedly of the same event. But to me it looks like two different speeches that are being discussed.

 

Different people have different perspectives, so I really don't have a basis on which to settle on a conclusion one way or the other.

 

But you tell me I have to "cede the point"?

Edited October 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jwhitlock]

That's what I first thought when I first read this, but then I really began thinking about it and stalked a couple of my FB friends to see their friends list (which, let's be honest, half the time are acquaintance lists). And a lot of them fit the trend down to their friends lists...even if they don't live in UT . Even in diverse areas, though there were more....there would still be a whole lot less than you'd expect. People who have friends lists like mine are simply not the norm (I would click on my friends list on FB, scroll down randomly, and out of 12 people I could see on a screen, at least 4 would be ethnic minorities every time, usually more, and usually from varying ethnic backgrounds...P.S. I live in UT, so that makes it extra weird ). But Friends v. aquaintances do make a difference in the level of discussion or knowledge about what their lives are really about on a day-to-day, either way. And many diverse areas, as you noted, are still in enclaves of peoples. Truly intermixed neighborhoods and populations are still not as common, though growing. Which is probably why they focused on friends. 

 

Also, the research kinda ran its course through several papers....WaPo was just the first one that popped on my screen. 

 

 

100% agree. 

 

 

Still mostly agree, but I don't think there is one reality. People build constructs based on what they see and know in the world that become their social reality. The more insular people get in their views, the more that "reality" will become codified in their minds as the right way of existence. Sometimes we are right, sometimes we're not....much of the time it's not really either and one's truth may be completely circumstantial...working well in one state, but terribly in another.

 

with luv,

BD

 

The line about seeing things as we are in your sig is very appropriate to this discussion.

 

Maybe it's a definition of "friend".  I have some very in depth discussions with people who are acquaintances on a variety of topics, including controversial ones. Yet in my case, that doesn't make them fully friends. More like trusted acquaintances. My list of who I consider friends can be counted on one hand. I guess many people (like Facebook) have a more expansive definition of what a friend is.

 

Or maybe I'm just odd.

 

 

As far as reality and perception go, when two groups have different perspectives and both want their perspectives to become reality, so to speak, conflict occurs. That's why I find the continued - and growing - cultural and racial divides so troubling. The people who cross those divides are relatively rare and noteworthy because they stick out from the norm. Elder Oaks' counsel to respect one another even when we disagree, and to find common ground instead of differences is a step in closing the divide.

[Scott Lloyd]

So, recognizing the writer of the news story about Elder Holland's address at Snow College in 2010, and knowing him to be a former member of the Church News staff, I figured he quite likely would have written a longer story of the same event for publication in the Church News. Moreover, I reckoned, because the implied readership for a Church News story would be a bit different than for a Deseret News story, Greg would likely have included more of what, if anything, from the speech was more doctrinaire in nature, more along the lines of jkwilliams's recollection about "preaching" and "turning the event into a pulpit."

 

Well, I was right in that there was another, longer story. Here it is:

 

 

Graduates taught by 'voices from the past' By Greg Hill
Church News staff writer
Published: Saturday, May 8, 2010

EPHRAIM, UTAH

Invoking three British "voices from the past," Elder Jeffrey R. Holland counseled Snow College graduates to seek what is truly important, never forget how they've been blessed and be secure in God's love for them.

Elder Holland received an honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters prior to delivering the commencement address on a pleasant Saturday morning, May 1, to 755 graduates and guests who filled the arena in the campus Activity Center. He was accompanied by many family members including his wife, Sister Patricia Holland, and, joining him on the stand, son Matt Holland, president of Utah Valley University.

Charming his audience with humor about his age "([my notes] are a little damp from traveling on the ark"), Elder Holland called upon Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, writer Rudyard Kipling and poet/preacher John Donne to help him teach the graduates of the central Utah junior college.

He explained that the ambitious Cardinal Wolsey rose to political power and wealth in the court of England's King Henry VIII, becoming "the second most powerful man in the British realm." However, he quickly lost everything when, as the church's representative, he was unable to deliver a divorce for the king from Catherine of Aragon.

"Wolsey was stripped by King Henry of every office and all property," Elder Holland said, "accused of treason. Wolsey fell ill and died while on the way to London for his likely execution.

"What a tragic end to such a gifted beginning," Elder Holland said, then asking, "Where did it go wrong?"

He answered, "It went wrong when ambition became more important than conviction; when corruption transcended fidelity; when power and wealth created a thirst that honest living could not satisfy."

Many of the traits that brought down Cardinal Wolsey, including selfishness and pride, have caused the current global economic crisis, Elder Holland said, warning the graduates to avoid those traits.

"For Snow graduates, it must be the permanent things, the reliable things forever: truth and industry and love, family and friends, humility and sacrifice and faith," Elder Holland said.

"As you stand on the threshold of your bright and beautiful future, may heaven strip from you this very hour, this very instant, any budding taste you may have for acquiring unseemly wealth or authoritarian power or worldly acclaim for acclaim's sake. I pray you will always have money sufficient for your needs, and I pray you will always exert a righteous influence wherever life's journey takes you, but I ask you not to be lured by the siren song of avarice and greed, or the quest for unrighteous dominion over your fellow men and women."

Elder Holland continued, "Student life and student wages have already taught you that to be happy you do not need the most expensive car, the most fashionable clothing, nor the most elegant furnishings in your home. Furthermore, in the years ahead, neither your self-esteem nor your standing before God will hinge on being at the top of the corporate pyramid."

He then called upon Kipling to teach another lesson.

The writer's oft-quoted "Recessional" was written in 1897 at the zenith of the British Empire. Elder Holland said Kipling soberly asked Queen Victoria's subjects on her Diamond Jubilee "to consider the love of God and the sacrifice of thousands of people which had made that present moment possible, and with what arrogance and ingratitude it might forever be thrown away."

The poem includes the words: "Lest we forget — lest we forget."

Elder Holland said, "Part of what needs to be said on any graduation day, where we celebrate so much of what you have newly gained and what excitingly lies ahead, is to remind one another never to forget what has been so generously given to us by those in the past."

While the graduates were rightfully the stars of the day, he told them to take time "to remember again what so many have sacrificed and done for you in order that you could be here today." He included parents, family, faculty, friends, staff, administrators, spouses, children, taxpayers and many others "who have made it possible for you to rejoice as young kings, queens and captains today.

"The true meaning of such blessings can be lost all too easily if we fail to offer that ancient and everlasting sacrifice — a humble and a contrite heart."

He told the graduates, "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."

As they go forward with their lives, Elder Holland acknowledged, the graduates might suffer discouragement, disappointment or despair. "You may even make a mistake or two, and worry that the chance to succeed or be safe or be happy in life has eluded you forever because of those mistakes," he said.

But, "such troubled times always pass — or at least they can if you want them to," he said.

He quoted from one of the preacher Donne's sermons: "But God had made no decrees to distinguish the seasons of his mercies. In paradise, the fruits were ripe the first minute, and in Heaven it is always autumn. His mercies are ever in their maturity."

Then Elder Holland said, "Above all else you have learned here, may you leave this great school secure in the promise of God's unfailing love for you. … If you desire God's mercy, I promise you that help will come to you."

 

 

I have to say, I'm still not seeing anything here directly relating to the Atonement, unless it's that last line about God's mercy and love. But even that is not really an exposition on the Atonement.

 

Nor am I seeing anything that is overbearingly, annoyingly, obnoxiously religious in nature to the point that it could reasonably be regarded as inappropriate for the setting. In fact, it's not a lot different in content from the other story; a bit more detailed perhaps.

 

Well, I'll leave it to individual readers to make their own determination, I suppose.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jwhitlock]

Elder Oaks said religious freedom is not going to go away "that religious principles and teachings and their organizations are here to stay" 

 

He said nothing of the sort. That's your own unsupported extrapolation.

[jwhitlock]

If all men were angels no government would be necessary. If all men were devils no government would be possible.

It was an issue for our Constitutional Conventions, and it is an issue today. If the government gives money to specific faith based, or small sets of organizations to the exclusion of all others. It is promoting one religion over another. 

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Neighborhood_Partnership

 

Government is highly selective in which groups it gives money to. It always has been. Since I don't get welfare payments from the government, can we say that government is actively promoting the poor class over other classes?

 

Or is there more to it than just that, such as what the money being given is really designated for?

[jkwilliams]

So, recognizing the writer of the news story about Elder Holland's address at Snow College in 2010, and knowing him to be a former member of the Church News staff, I figured he quite likely would have written a longer story of the same event for publication in the Church News. Moreover, I reckoned, because the implied readership for a Church News story would be a bit different than for a Deseret News story, Greg would likely have included more of what, if anything, from the speech was more doctrinaire in nature, more along the lines of jkwilliams's recollection about "preaching" and "turning the event into a pulpit."

Well, I was right in that there was another, longer story. Here it is:

I have to say, I'm still not seeing anything here directly relating to the Atonement, unless it's that last line about God's mercy and love. But even that is not really an exposition on the Atonement.

Nor am I seeing anything that is overpoweringly, annoyingly, obnoxiously religious in nature to the point that it could reasonably be regarded as inappropriate for the setting. In fact, it's not a lot different in content from the other story; a bit more detailed perhaps.

Well, I'll leave it to individual readers to make their own determination, I suppose.

What can I say? We Williamses will grasp at anything to badmouth an apostle.

[Scott Lloyd]

He said nothing of the sort. That's your own unsupported extrapolation.

This, in fact, is what he did say:

 

      There should be no adversariness between believers and nonbelievers, and there should be no belligerence between religion and government. These two realms should have a mutually supportive relationship. In that relationship governments and their laws can provide the essential protections for believers and religious organizations and their activities. Believers and religious organizations should recognize this and refrain from labeling governments and laws and officials as if they were inevitable enemies. On the other hand, those skeptical of or hostile to believers and their organizations should recognize the reality—borne out by experience—that religious principles and teachings and their organizations are here to stay[4] and can help create the conditions in which public laws and government institutions and their citizens can flourish.

So what he said are here to stay are religious principles and teachings and their organizations.

 

He didn't say the same about religious freedom.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jwhitlock]

Indeed. I've always been opposed to school prayer because I know how awkward it would have been for me growing up in a place where most people were not only not LDS but not Christian. Around the time I was in high school, our school district started having a minute of silence at the beginning of the day, which is pointless.

 

Frankly, I don't want the schools teaching my kids religious values and doctrines. That's my job as a parent. 

 

I was going to respond more in depth to this, but I'd better not get on my soapbox about how far public schools have strayed from their basic responsibilities.

[jwhitlock]

This, in fact, is what he did say:

 

So what he said are here to stay are religious principles and teachings and their organizations.

 

He didn't say the same about religious freedom.

 

Yet religious freedom is really not that important in the bigger scheme of things, according to those who proclaim they know what our priorities should be.

 

Part of what I got out of Elder Oaks' remarks was that when appropriate religious freedom flourishes, society also flourishes. I agree wholeheartedly with that.

[TheSkepticChristian]

So what he said are here to stay are religious principles and teachings and their organizations.

 

He didn't say the same about religious freedom.

 

What is the difference? 

 

 

He said nothing of the sort. That's your own unsupported extrapolation.

 

Alarmism. Religious freedom will not go away. 

[jwhitlock]

To quote from what Scott posted on Elder Oaks' remarks:

 

" There should be no adversariness between believers and nonbelievers, and there should be no belligerence between religion and government. These two realms should have a mutually supportive relationship. In that relationship governments and their laws can provide the essential protections for believers and religious organizations and their activities. Believers and religious organizations should recognize this and refrain from labeling governments and laws and officials as if they were inevitable enemies. On the other hand, those skeptical of or hostile to believers and their organizations should recognize the reality—borne out by experience—that religious principles and teachings and their organizations are here to stay[4] and can help create the conditions in which public laws and government institutions and their citizens can flourish."

 

The bolded part in the quote is going to be especially difficult to overcome. Many of us have an inherent mistrust of government that I think is well founded. It's fostered by our real world experiences in dealing with increasing government incompetence and self serving bureaucracies, in paying increasing amounts of taxes that provide shrinking benefits, in increasingly burdensome regulations and intrusive surveillance, and in seeing the increasing corruption that is becoming part of all levels of government. The founders seemed to have their own jaundiced view of government and wanted to have it kept in check.

 

I don't know what it would take to reverse that particular attitude, even as I recognize that Elder Oaks makes a valid point of it as something that must occur if the mutually supportive balance is to be found.

[jwhitlock]

What is the difference? 

 

Alarmism. Religious freedom will not go away. 

 

Again, totally unsupported claims. I suspect that you won't see the difference, rather than can't see the difference, which is actually very clear from what he said.

[Zakuska]

I found out where Elder Oaks "cribbed" his press release from.

 

Mosiah 27
1 And now it came to pass that the persecutions which were inflicted on the church by the unbelievers became so great that the church began to murmur, and complain to their leaders concerning the matter; and they did complain to Alma. And Alma laid the case before their king, Mosiah. And Mosiah consulted with his priests.
2 And it came to pass that king Mosiah sent a proclamation throughout the land round about that there should not any unbeliever persecute any of those who belonged to the church of God.
3 And there was a strict command throughout all the churches that there should be no persecutions among them, that there should be an equality among all men;
4 That they should let no pride nor haughtiness disturb their peace; that every man should esteem his neighbor as himself, laboring with their own hands for their support.
5 Yea, and all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God.
6 And there began to be much peace again in the land; and the people began to be very numerous, and began to scatter abroad upon the face of the earth, yea, on the north and on the south, on the east and on the west, building large cities and villages in all quarters of the land.
7 And the Lord did visit them and prosper them, and they became a large and wealthy people

When I say "cribbed" I mean he basically did exactly what Alma did in a similar situation. It also seems History is repeating itself right before our very eyes!

Edited October 23, 2015 by Zakuska

[TheSkepticChristian]

Again, totally unsupported claims. I suspect that you won't see the difference, rather than can't see the difference, which is actually very clear from what he said.

 

Sure, defend religious freedom  and ignore 

 

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

When there was true persecution on religious freedom in Mosiah 24, the believers still were able to worship God

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/24?lang=eng

 

I don't think religious freedom defense is the priority of Jesus.  

[jwhitlock]

Sure, defend religious freedom  and ignore 

 

 

 

Do you always make throwaway statements whose sole purpose is to offend? Since you don't have anything intelligent to add to the discussion, it's not worth responding to you further.

 

I suspect most people knew that when you made your first cheap shot on this thread. My bad for thinking that you might have something valid to say.

[TheSkepticChristian]

I suspect most people knew that when you made your first cheap shot on this thread. My bad for thinking that you might have something valid to say.

 

LOL I though Christianity was more about helping and serving others, not much about defending religious freedom. 

If you think that is not valid, then I don't want to have a conversation with you. 

 

PS I also said 

 

 

When there was true persecution on religious freedom in Mosiah 24, the believers still were able to worship God

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/24?lang=eng

 

I don't think religious freedom defense is the priority of Jesus.  

[thesometimesaint]

Government is highly selective in which groups it gives money to. It always has been. Since I don't get welfare payments from the government, can we say that government is actively promoting the poor class over other classes?

 

Or is there more to it than just that, such as what the money being given is really designated for?

 

Since when has poverty been a religion? Last I heard poverty isn't sin, but get rid of it as fast as you can. BTW "Promote the general welfare is in the US Constitution". I don't know what you mean by "promoting the poor class". Please explain.

 

Exactly; The government giving money to a religion is giving money being given for what it is design for. To promote a particular religion over all others. I beleive That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; I don't want government money going to any church, mosque, synagogue, temple, shrine, kingdom hall, etc., etc., etc..

 

You seem to me to be saying that you want a curtain between Church and State so "holey" that money flows through it. If I am misunderstanding, please forgive me, and please explain./

 

Ps;

Edited October 23, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[KevinG]

Do you always make throwaway statements whose sole purpose is to offend? Since you don't have anything intelligent to add to the discussion, it's not worth responding to you further.

 

I suspect most people knew that when you made your first cheap shot on this thread. My bad for thinking that you might have something valid to say.

 

Not just a cheap shot but a false dichotomy.  Chastity and charity are not either/or in the Gospel.  They are AND. 

 

The Latter-day Saints have spent significantly more time, talent, and treasure on service and poverty relief than they ever have on issues about sexuality and marriage.  Even when you include the years of polygamy.

Edited October 23, 2015 by KevinG