Elder Oaks speaks at Claremont on religious freedom

[Scott Lloyd]

Not yet read the full transcript of this, but I like what I see in the summary report on LDS Newsroom. 

He calls for a cease-fire in the culture wars, asks that each side refrain from leading out with "non-negotiables," and generally calls for greater civility and mutual understanding. 

Link:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-apostle-cease-fire-culture-wars

He wonders pointedly what would have happened in the struggle to abolish slavery if religionists had been shut out of the dialogue because they were religionists. 

All in all, an eminently reasonable stance. 

Edited March 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not yet read the full transcript of this, but I like what I see in the summary report on LDS Newsroom. 

He calls for a cease-fire in the culture wars, ask that each side refrain from leading out with "non-negotiables," and generally calls for greater civility and mutual understanding. 

Link:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-apostle-cease-fire-culture-wars

He wonders pointedly what would have happened in the struggle to abolish slavery if religionists had been shut out of the dialogue because they were religionists. 

All in all, an eminently reasonable stance. 

How do we guarantee the rights of all US citizens while at the same time claiming that some citizens do not have the same rights as we do?

[The Nehor]

Did not have time to read. Is he for it of against it?

[Keq82]

Did he make mention of what Brigham Young taught about slavery?  Actually, Brigham Young was in FAVOR of slavery.

Here are just a few of his (Brigham Young's ) radical, racist quotes:

Where can be the common sense of any wishing to see the slaves of the south set at liberty,... Such a thing could not take place without corrupting all civil and wholesome society, of both the north and the south! Let the BLACKS of the south be free, and our community is overrun with paupers, and a reckless mass of human beings, uncultivated, untaught and unaccustomed to provide for themselves the necessaries of life- endangering the chastity of every female who might by chance be found in our streets-our prisons filled with convicts, and the HANG-MAN WEARIED with executing the functions of his office! This must unavoidably be the case, every rational man must admit, who has ever travelled in the slave states, or we must open our houses unfold our arms, and bid these DEGRADED AND DEGRADING sons of Canaan, a hear[t]y welcome and a free admittance to all we possess! A society of this nature, to us, is so intolerably DEGRADING, that the bare reflection causes our feelings to recoil, and our hearts to revolt....the project of EMANSIPATION IS DESTRUCTIVE TO OUR GOVERNMENT, and the notion of amalgamation is devilish!

(Messenger and Advocate, Vol. 2, pp. 299-301)

"In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the "servant of servants," and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 172).

It is not the prerogative of the President of the United States to meddle with this matter, and Congress is not allowed, according to the [p.40]

Constitution, to legislate upon it. If Utah was admitted into the Union as a sovereign State, and we chose to introduce slavery here, it is not their business to meddle with it; and even if we treated our slaves in an oppressive manner, it is still none of their business and they ought not to meddle with it. 

Journal of Discourses 4:39-40 (Aug 31, 1856)

Poster removed: racebaiting

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

How do we guarantee the rights of all US citizens while at the same time claiming that some citizens do not have the same rights as we do?

Perhaps I missed the part of Elder Oaks's speech where he makes such a claim. Can you provide a quote? 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Keq82 said:

Did he make mention of what Brigham Young taught about slavery?

"Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form" (see Gospel Topics essay, "Race and the Priesthood") as do I.

This is a thread about the speech delivered by Elder Oaks last week at Claremont. If you want to discuss Brigham Young's racism, please start your own thread for that purpose rather than derailing this one.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form" (see Gospel Topics essay, "Race and the Priesthood") as do I.

This is a thread about the speech delivered by Elder Oaks last week at Claremont. If you want to discuss Brigham Young's racism, please start your own thread for that purpose rather than derailing this one.

I thought the question was asked what if the religious view was shut down back when slavery was around.  When someone brings up the race views of a religious person in the era of slavery, it's off topic and shut down?  I find the hypothetical an interesting one and one which ought to not be shut down but actually discussed, particularly since it was brought up in the OP.

I'm quite happy to hear that Elder Oaks has called a cease-fire and that each side stop leading with non-negotiables.  Sounds reasonable. 

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I thought the question was asked what if the religious view was shut down back when slavery was around.  When someone brings up the race views of a religious person in the era of slavery, it's off topic and shut down?  I find the hypothetical an interesting one and one which ought to not be shut down but actually discussed, particularly since it was brought up in the OP.

I'm not shutting down discussion. I'm asking that the subject of Brigham Young's racial views (which are outside the scope of Elder Oaks's Claremont address) occupy a separate thread and not be allowed to derail this one. I regard my request as a reasonable one that deserves to be honored.

If you have more to say on my request, or on Brigham Young's views on slavery,  please start your own thread for that purpose.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

How do we guarantee the rights of all US citizens while at the same time claiming that some citizens do not have the same rights as we do?

Do you know of any society when all citizens had equal rights?  What would that look like?  When does a child have the rights of an adult?  When does a prisoner have the same rights as those who have not served in prison?  When does is human life recognized and thus attained any degree of rights?  When do the mentally handicapped have the same rights as those who don't have any significant mental handicaps?  Who gets to choose when rights are denied and why?

Why is inclusiveness only important when a "non-group" member wants to be part of the group?  Should a natural group - families, relatives, same culture, etc., have rights?  Should they be forced to abandon those rights for those not of their group?  Why?  

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He wonders pointedly what would have happened in the struggle to abolish slavery if religionists had been shut out of the dialogue because they were religionists. 

Did Elder Oaks quote any Mormon religionists from back then regarding their desire to abolish slavery?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Did Elder Oaks quote any Mormon religionists from back then regarding their desire to abolish slavery?

No. 

[ALarson]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

No. 

It might be interesting to read what the dialogue from some Mormon religionists back then, since you stated:

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He wonders pointedly what would have happened in the struggle to abolish slavery if religionists had been shut out of the dialogue because they were religionists

 

[ERMD]

Amazing how many axes there are to grind out there.  If I were so dissatisfied with so many aspects of an organization with which I was affiliated, and had such distrust of its leadership, I would strongly reconsider my involvement.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It might be interesting to read what the dialogue from some Mormon religionists back then, since you stated:

 

Perhaps for some. Please start a separate thread for it, though, rather than derail this one. The thread is about Elder Oaks's Claremont speech, and Brigham Young's views on slavery are quite outside the content of that speech. 

The link to the speech is in the OP. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the content. 

Edited March 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps for some. Please start a separate thread for it, though, rather than derail this one. The thread is about Elder Oaks's Claremont speech, and Brigham Young's views on slavery are quite outside the content of that speech. 

Did I mention Brigham Young?  And how is it derailing the thread when the topic I asked about was brought up by you in the OP?

From your OP:

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He wonders pointedly what would have happened in the struggle to abolish slavery if religionists had been shut out of the dialogue because they were religionists.

I simply stated that it would be interesting to read what any the dialogue was by some Mormon religionists at that time.

Or do you believe that Mormon religionists were "shut out of the dialogue" back then?

.

Edited March 28, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Did I mention Brigham Young?  And how is it derailing the thread when the topic I asked about was brought up by you in the OP?

From your OP:

I simply stated that it would be interesting to read what any the dialogue was by some Mormon religionists at that time.

Or do you believe that Mormon religionists were "shut out of the dialogue" back then?

.

Not part of the Oaks speech. Please take it to another thread. 

And if you choose to participate in this one, please acquaint yourself with the speech so you can do so meaningfully. 

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, Keq82 said:

Did he make mention of what Brigham Young taught about slavery?  Actually, Brigham Young was in FAVOR of slavery.

Here are just a few of his (Brigham Young's ) radical, racist quotes:

Where can be the common sense of any wishing to see the slaves of the south set at liberty,... Such a thing could not take place without corrupting all civil and wholesome society, of both the north and the south! Let the BLACKS of the south be free, and our community is overrun with paupers, and a reckless mass of human beings, uncultivated, untaught and unaccustomed to provide for themselves the necessaries of life- endangering the chastity of every female who might by chance be found in our streets-our prisons filled with convicts, and the HANG-MAN WEARIED with executing the functions of his office! This must unavoidably be the case, every rational man must admit, who has ever travelled in the slave states, or we must open our houses unfold our arms, and bid these DEGRADED AND DEGRADING sons of Canaan, a hear[t]y welcome and a free admittance to all we possess! A society of this nature, to us, is so intolerably DEGRADING, that the bare reflection causes our feelings to recoil, and our hearts to revolt....the project of EMANSIPATION IS DESTRUCTIVE TO OUR GOVERNMENT, and the notion of amalgamation is devilish!

(Messenger and Advocate, Vol. 2, pp. 299-301)

"In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the "servant of servants," and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 172).

It is not the prerogative of the President of the United States to meddle with this matter, and Congress is not allowed, according to the [p.40] Constitution, to legislate upon it. If Utah was admitted into the Union as a sovereign State, and we chose to introduce slavery here, it is not their business to meddle with it; and even if we treated our slaves in an oppressive manner, it is still none of their business and they ought not to meddle with it. 

Journal of Discourses 4:39-40 (Aug 31, 1856)

Oh God in Heaven, another one that wants to attempt to amaze us with cherry picking quotes of past members and leaders of the Church.  Gads, it is so tiresome.  Maybe a personal block is in order.

Keq, nothing that you know or have learned will surprise people here.  Nothing that you can share about Mormonism has value to me or to anyone else here I expect.  We have all been students of religion for too long, have read too much; and understand the shortcomings of our leaders far better, I expect, than you.  Attempting to introduce negative spin in a topic where it obviously does not belong only affects you.  If you want to share something share your current beliefs and thoughts.  Engage us on the ground you stand on today.  

Oh, by the way, in your opinion did Jesus condemn slavery?

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps I missed the part of Elder Oaks's speech where he makes such a claim. Can you provide a quote? 

Never said he did claim that. Just asking a question. OTOH Do LGBT citizens in North Carolina enjoy the same rights as the citizens of Utah/California?

[Buckeye]

As he's done in other recent addresses, Elder Oaks makes many good points, but ultimately goes too far in asking for religious views to receive special treatment. 

Religious belief and practice should be strongly protected. While not perfect, the United States has certainly done a better job than most on this front. One can still hear cries to stop a mosque from being built or limiting the height of spire on an LDS temple, but by and large our country does very well on this front.  And Oaks' is certainly right that the best outcomes tend to come when bodies of faith and the secular government seek to find as much harmony as possible. A good example of this would be military-issue garments.

Elder Oaks is certainly correct that religious viewpoints should not be intimidated or prevented from being heard. I'm frankly concerned about the level of intolerance at many universities towards even considering conservative viewpoints. That said, Oaks goes too far in suggesting - without any guidance - that religious viewpoints are "more valuable than any others." That's where the real problems derive, including the above comments about slavery. 

Consider the following religious viewpoints directed to social policy:

1. The bible supports liberty so the government should abolish slavery. 
2. The bible supports slavery so the government should allow it.
3. God forbids the races to intermarry so the government should not recognize such marriages.
4. God limits marriage to opposite-sex so the government should not recognize same-sex marriages.
5. God commands that the Sabbath be a day of rest so the government should prevent business from operating on Sunday.
6. Allah defines gender differences for our benefit; one of these is that women should not be allowed to drive, or even leave home unaccompanied.

The list could go on and on. But these arguments - all very much real ones that have existed on this planet - are sufficient to undermine Elder Oaks' claim that religious viewpoints should be given priority over all other arguments (rather than just equal opportunity to be heard). It is very dangerous to ask our legislatures/courts to either (i) determine on their own God's will for government or (ii) judge between competing religious claims as to which one best represents God's will. Our own church history is a prime example of this. Were we to uphold the principle that purely religious arguments (i.e., arguments with no other basis that "I speak for God and God says X") trump all others, such a principle would lead to the demise of the very democracy that Elder Oaks prizes so heavily. In a democracy, each citizen has equal say. Allowing some citizens to have a final say because they head up a religious group that an elected official favors - that kind of government is the very type that our founding fathers rebelled against.

To quote Thomas Jefferson (quoting Diderot): "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

Edited March 28, 2016 by Buckeye

[ALarson]

57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not part of the Oaks speech. Please take it to another thread. 

And if you choose to participate in this one, please acquaint yourself with the speech so you can do so meaningfully. 

Got it.  You only want quotes from religionists that support your view  (regarding the dialogue from the past on slavery, that you brought up in your OP).  Not much of a discussion, but it is your thread.

.

Edited March 28, 2016 by ALarson

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not yet read the full transcript of this, but I like what I see in the summary report on LDS Newsroom. 

He calls for a cease-fire in the culture wars, ask that each side refrain from leading out with "non-negotiables," and generally calls for greater civility and mutual understanding. 

Link:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-apostle-cease-fire-culture-wars

He wonders pointedly what would have happened in the struggle to abolish slavery if religionists had been shut out of the dialogue because they were religionists. 

All in all, an eminently reasonable stance. 

I am very confused about this statement that I have bolded.  "Christians" then, just like now tried to use the Bible and their closely held religious beliefs to justify slavery and discrimination.  Their closely held religious beliefs completely supported slavery.  

Quote They asked who could question the Word of God when it said, "slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling" (Ephesians 6:5), or "tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect" (Titus 2:9)   Is Elder Oaks really suggesting that those supporting slavery should have been entitled to keep slavery based on their "closely held religious beliefs? " I have a feeling Scott will be shutting down this thread like he always does when things don't go the way he wants.  Already posters are showing what Brigham Young's "closely held religious beliefs" were on slavery and he is having a hissy fit.

[Buckeye]

California Boy, to be fair, religious arguments were used by both sides of the slavery debate. That's the very reason why the baptists split and my ancestors were southern baptists until we joined the LDS church. IMO, the biblical arguments supporting slavery are much stronger than those opposing it. That's why allowing the "religious views" to trump all reasoned arguments is so dangerous - particularly in an increasing pluralistic society.

Another important point to consider in the context of Elder Oaks' address is that religions need not die simply because secular society starts to reject a policy that has religious defenders. Ending slavery didn't kill off religion. Rather, the religions moved (sometimes slowly) to remove slavery as an important part of their belief system. Christians didn't need to rewrite the bible, they just stopped focusing so much on the biblical support for slavery and instead focused on other (better) biblical principles. Likewise, society's embrace of SSM need not doom religions. We can change our focus to other (better) biblical princples such as "it is not good for man to be alone" and "man should have joy in his posterity." There is a way forward.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Buckeye

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Do you know of any society when all citizens had equal rights?  What would that look like?  When does a child have the rights of an adult?  When does a prisoner have the same rights as those who have not served in prison?  When does is human life recognized and thus attained any degree of rights?  When do the mentally handicapped have the same rights as those who don't have any significant mental handicaps?  Who gets to choose when rights are denied and why?

Why is inclusiveness only important when a "non-group" member wants to be part of the group?  Should a natural group - families, relatives, same culture, etc., have rights?  Should they be forced to abandon those rights for those not of their group?  Why?  

I want to thank you for your post.  I always wonder how people are able to justify and support discrimination.  Your's is the perfect argument.  The truth is, we DO treat all children the same in this country.  There are no special rules when a child is black or gay or Jewish or a female.  The truth is we do treat all criminals equally under the law.  There are no special rules for black, gay, Mormon or female criminals.  ALL ARE TREATED EQUALLY UNER THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY.  

We have no special laws for ANY group based on race, gender, religious beliefs and increasingly sexual orientation.  Yeah some are trying to create special laws for religious beliefs.  They want to break the civil right laws that have been in existence and have served this country well for over 50 years.  So far they have been unsuccessful except for the very recent law past in North Carolina.  Hopefully the courts and public pressure will correct those discriminating laws.  No one gets a free pass just because they justify discrimination by their religious beliefs. 

[california boy]

41 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

As he's done in other recent addresses, Elder Oaks makes many good points, but ultimately goes too far in asking for religious views to receive special treatment. 

Religious belief and practice should be strongly protected. While not perfect, the United States has certainly done a better job than most on this front. One can still hear cries to stop a mosque from being built or limiting the height of spire on an LDS temple, but by and large our country does very well on this front.  And Oaks' is certainly right that the best outcomes tend to come when bodies of faith and the secular government seek to find as much harmony as possible. A good example of this would be military-issue garments.

Elder Oaks is certainly correct that religious viewpoints should not be intimidated or prevented from being heard. I'm frankly concerned about the level of intolerance at many universities towards even considering conservative viewpoints. That said, Oaks goes to far in suggesting - without any guidance - that religious viewpoints are "more valuable than any others." That's where the real problems derive, including the above comments about slavery. 

Consider the following religious viewpoints directed to social policy:

1. The bible supports liberty so the government should abolish slavery. 
2. The bible supports slavery so the government should allow it.
3. God forbids the races to intermarry so the government should not recognize such marriages.
4. God limits marriage to opposite-sex so the government should not recognize same-sex marriages.
5. God commands that the Sabbath be a day of rest so the government should prevent business from operating on Sunday.
6. Allah defines gender differences for our benefit; one of these is that women should not be allowed to drive, or even leave home unaccompanied.

The list could go on and on. But these arguments - all very much real ones that have existed on this planet - are sufficient to undermine Elder Oaks' claim that religious viewpoints should be given priority over all other arguments (rather than just equal opportunity to be heard). It is very dangerous to ask our legislatures/courts to either (i) determine on their own God's will for government or (ii) judge between competing religious claims as to which one best represents God's will. Our own church history is a prime example of this. Were we to uphold the principle that purely religious arguments (i.e., arguments with no other basis that "I speak for God and God says X") trump all others, such a principle would lead to the demise of the very democracy that Elder Oaks prizes so heavily. In a democracy, each citizen has equal say. Allowing some citizens to have a final say because they head up a religious group that an elected official favors - that kind of government is the very type that our founding fathers rebelled against.

To quote Thomas Jefferson (quoting Diderot): "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

Now THAT is an amazing speech that we should be talking about.   Brilliant.  And fair.

[stemelbow]

 

Quote

Elder Oaks posed the following question: “How would the great movements toward social justice in the United States, such as the abolition of slavery or the furthering of civil rights, have been advocated and pressed toward adoption if their religious proponents had been banned from participating on the issue by the assertion that private religious or moral positions were not an acceptable basis for public discourse or lawmaking?”

The other day I was engaged with a friend of mine on the topic of religion, when he suggested he knows for certain that we in the latter-days were more faithful in the pre-earth world, thus we get to live in a better time and place, having more opportunity and all that.  I was astounded by his confidence in suggesting knowledge so I pressed, asking, you know or you feel strongly to be true.  he said without a doubt he knew.  Okee dokes.  As it turns out before 1978 many n the Church supported the notion that blacks were less valiant.  many in the Church believed it up to the recent essays and many probably still hold that view.  I'm not sure, at least from an LDS perspective, religious views were a positive for the abolition of slavery nor the civil rights. 

 

Maybe today religious views are hurting dialog on issues we face moreso than helping.  Thoughts?