Elder Oaks speaks at Claremont on religious freedom

[juliann]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

.

If you go back to the ink the transcript and video have been added. Elder Oaks is very clear so Scott is right to try to steer everybody back to the topic   This particular point wasn't about Mormons and if Mormons didn't help, then they weren't one of the religious proponents Oaks spoke about. How wrong we were to not have been active proponents is a good topic, it just isn't relevant to his point....which was to acknowledge the importance of those who were major players.

Quote

To illustrate the importance of religious conscience in public life, 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?”

 I find particularly notable here is his use of the term  "social justice" given how some Mormons have reacted against that term. And we have just heard the first session of conference urge members to be a part of social justice for refugees. 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

If you go back to the ink the transcript and video have been added. Elder Oaks is very clear so Scott is right to try to steer everybody back to the topic   This particular point wasn't about Mormons and if Mormons didn't help, then they weren't one of the religious proponents Oaks spoke about. How wrong we were to not have been active proponents is a good topic, it just isn't relevant to his point....which was to acknowledge the importance of those who were major players.

 I find particularly notable here is his use of the term  "social justice" given how some Mormons have reacted against that term. And we have just heard the first session of conference urge members to be a part of social justice for refugees. 

I thought the point suggested that without the religious contribution things like slavery would have ended worse.  But we dont' know that.  we have to consider the whole of the religious viewpoint to understand whether the religious view was an overall benefit.

[rockpond]

11 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 haven't read the full transcript yet (it wasn't yet posted early this morning when I had my personal study time) but I will read it.

But here's the full quote you are paraphrasing above:

Advocates who seek to banish religious arguments from the public square should answer this 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?

His implication seems to be that "religious proponents" are responsible for the abolition of slavery and the furthering of civil rights.  I'm not sure that the history of our country supports such a conclusion.

Overall... from the quotes I read in the Mormon Newsroom summary, it seemed like a great address with good counsel for those inside the church, outside the church, and those leading the Church.

[Buckeye]

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

If you go back to the ink the transcript and video have been added. Elder Oaks is very clear so Scott is right to try to steer everybody back to the topic   This particular point wasn't about Mormons and if Mormons didn't help, then they weren't one of the religious proponents Oaks spoke about. How wrong we were to not have been active proponents is a good topic, it just isn't relevant to his point....which was to acknowledge the importance of those who were major players.

 I find particularly notable here is his use of the term  "social justice" given how some Mormons have reacted against that term. And we have just heard the first session of conference urge members to be a part of social justice for refugees. 

I see no need to focus on mormon influence in the slavery debate. But if we're going to look at the influence of some religious leaders to abolish the practice, we have to also look at the (considerable) influence of other religious leaders who used religion to provide cover for the perpetrators (i.e., my ancestors). Religion was at least as bad an influence as it was a good one. It was a tool for both sides. The same holds true today for our public debates. 

You do make a very good point about "social justice." In my high priest group that term is not usually thrown around in a positive light (same as "political correctness). It is good to see the church focusing on social justice for refugees - particularly muslim refugees.

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by Buckeye

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, juliann said:

This particular point wasn't about Mormons and if Mormons didn't help, then they weren't one of the religious proponents Oaks spoke about. How wrong we were to not have been active proponents is a good topic, it just isn't relevant to his point....which was to acknowledge the importance of those who were major players.

Yes, I acknowledge that as well.  So, do you believe that Mormon religionists were not a part of the dialogue at all regarding the abolishment of slavery? (Or that they just weren't proponents?  I agree they were not "major players".)

Edited March 28, 2016 by ALarson

[Buckeye]

I should also point out one other area of strong agreement with Elder Oaks. He correctly emphasizes the religion provides a valuable mechanism for order and governance separate from what civil government provides. Much of the peace and prosperity that we enjoy derives from man's adherence to good religious principles, even when such principles are not / cannot be enforced through tax incentives, the penal code, or other means of government influence.

By and large, government and religion agree on the ends (don't kill, be honest, etc.) and so, while separate, they generally pull together in the same direction. The conflict comes at times when the diverge. Slavery was a good example. Civil rights another. SS rights (including marriage) is a current one we face. Historically, the pressure at such times as led to considerable friction, but eventually the powers found renewed agreement as to what direction to walk. I believe the same will happen with today's struggles. To use the analogy of yoked oxen, government and religion can only beneficially have so much difference. Eventually what leads to agreement is that the parties that underlie both institutions - the people - force progress to take hold. This effect may be slower for religious bodies than civil, but it nonetheless real. I see is first hand in my LDS congregations where the membership is very ready to move away from conflicts over marriage and onto issues such as social justice for refugees.

[USU78]

Perhaps I'm missing something, or recent events in my own life are coloring my perceptions, but it seems to me that:

(1) "Social Justice" for groups and individuals based upon such things as race and religion are what Elder Oaks is referring to;

(2) "Social Justice" for groups based upon behavior is at very least not what he had in mind; and

(3) "Social Justice" for those who above all seek drama and misery, both of self and others, is not something we should be supporting.

[thesometimesaint]

I want all groups to have a say, just not the final say.

[USU78]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I acknowledge that as well.  So, do you believe that Mormon religionists were not a part of the dialogue at all regarding the abolishment of slavery? (Or that they just weren't proponents?  I agree they were not "major players".)

ALarson, perhaps, forgets D&C 101:79-80:

Quote

Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.   And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

 

[thesometimesaint]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

ALarson, perhaps, forgets D&C 101:79-80:

 

In 1833 the LDS were still just bit players.

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

There are no special rules for black, gay, Mormon or female criminals.  ALL ARE TREATED EQUALLY UNER THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY.  

Just to clarify some laws are given a stricter standard to follow, for example, laws concerning gender and age are only  given intermediate scrutiny, while laws concerning race, religion, and some types of speech are given a strict scrutiny standard. These standards actually make some laws easier to defeat/create, therefore all laws are not treated equally.

Quote

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. 

Emphasis mine.

Civil right laws have been greatly needed and the lack of civil right laws has been the greatest weakness of the Constitution (it initially condoned slavery). But we must remember not to trample one fundamental right in favor over another fundamental right  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."  Which by the way has been around for well over 235 years.

Constitutionally yours Anijen

I do not know of any religion (certainly not the LDS Church) that justify discrimination.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Anijen

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I see no need to focus on mormon influence in the slavery debate. But if we're going to look at the influence of some religious leaders to abolish the practice, we have to also look at the (considerable) influence of other religious leaders who used religion to provide cover for the perpetrators (i.e., my ancestors). Religion was at least a bad an influence as it was a good one. It was a tool for both sides. The same holds true today for our public debates. 

 

 

Of course religion is a tool for "both sides." However, slavery was around long before a religious justification was concocted....but its abolition came about because of anti-slavery religions.  Religion didn't create slavery but it ended it. The Civil Rights Movement was built on religion. I don't see how this can be successfully argued against.

Elder Oaks began by saying he was only going to talk about his observations, he did not have the qualifications to speak as an expert in this area of law. He is advocating the protection of religious views only in the context of those who are trying to silence them on the basis that an opinion may have a religious foundation. 

He ends with the conflicts between non discrimination and religious freedom, which is the heart of the matter. . We should all seek a cease fire in culture wars. We should refrain from calling the opposition godless or bigots  We are fellow citizens who need each other and can resolve our differences, he included compromise as a resolution.

 He advocates following law, gives examples of officials breaking law (not upholding law) based on personal opinion, such as the refusal to uphold Prop 8.. But he also used the clerk who wouldn't sign marriage licenses as another. His recommendations recognized the brutality against minority groups. He consistently gave examples from both perspectives, he did not place fault solely on the secular reactions.

What was most effective, I thought, was his final emphasis on civility. "New low in name calling and new high in yelling" in the presidential campaigns. He quoted from the Christian Monitor, a quote I will want to save. I think we are seeing a push from the Church for non-contention. We should accept unwanted results with "graciousness." Several mentions of the necessity of supporting LGBT rights. His continued acknowledgement of differeing positions was remarkable. I think I have seen more movement in the church this month than I have seen in years. "Not in my lifetime" isn't going to be a catch phrase anymore if this keeps up.

I'm listening to this, the transcript link wasn't working. He is obviously promoting his idea of religious freedom based on his experience and observation....that was the point of the conference. I think his position can be summarized in his own words, "fairness for both total dominance for neither."

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

ALarson, perhaps, forgets D&C 101:79-80:

Iirc, that was added after slavery was abolished and it was not in the 1835 edition either (but I need to look that up as I'm just going from memory here).  I think it was added after Joseph's death and after the Civil War.

This is interesting to read though:

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/utils/getdownloaditem/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/7236/filename/2347.pdf/mapsto/pdf

[juliann]

34 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I acknowledge that as well.  So, do you believe that Mormon religionists were not a part of the dialogue at all regarding the abolishment of slavery? (Or that they just weren't proponents?  I agree they were not "major players".)

That would require a term paper. And it would hijack this thread.

[USU78]

21 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

In 1833 the LDS were still just bit players.

It got them mobbed and murdered and kicked out of Missouri.

Is that being a "bit player" just because the oh-so-fashionable Eastern Seaboard finally got on board in the '50s?

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Iirc, that was added after slavery was abolished and it was not in the 1835 edition

CFR, even though it's a minor point in my greater point about Mormons suffering in Missouri because of their abolitionist views, which were declared quite openly.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

CFR, even though it's a minor point in my greater point about Mormons suffering in Missouri because of their abolitionist views, which were declared quite openly.

I said I was going from memory here.  I'll try to look it up later today (or earlier) and get back to you.

I do remember that part was added later and was not in the 1835 edition of the Book of Commandments, though....

Do you believe "the Mormons suffered in Missouri because of their abolitionist views"?  

CFR on that.

.

Edited March 28, 2016 by ALarson

[Buckeye]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

Of course religion is a tool for "both sides." However, slavery was around long before a religious justification was concocted....but its abolition came about because of anti-slavery religions.  Religion didn't create slavery but it ended it. The Civil Rights Movement was built on religion. I don't see how this can be successfully argued against.

You're overplaying the effect of religion on both causes. Religion was certainly used in both causes, and heavily. But it was not the sole means to change. For instance, the man who penned the Declaration of Independence was an avowed Deist who did not believe in organized religion and set out to purge his copy of the New Testament of Christ's miracles. Several of the founding fathers were athiests. It's not accurate to say that religion ended slavery or civil rights violations (which still very much occur). Rather, religion was a tool used by many of those engaged in those efforts. 

 

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

Elder Oaks began by saying he was only going to talk about his observations, he did not have the qualifications to speak as an expert in this area of law. He is advocating the protection of religious views only in the context of those who are trying to silence them on the basis that an opinion may have a religious foundation. 

He ends with the conflicts between non discrimination and religious freedom, which is the heart of the matter. . We should all seek a cease fire in culture wars. We should refrain from calling the opposition godless or bigots  We are fellow citizens who need each other and can resolve our differences, he included compromise as a resolution.

 He advocates following law, gives examples of officials breaking law (not upholding law) based on personal opinion, such as the refusal to uphold Prop 8.. But he also used the clerk who wouldn't sign marriage licenses as another. His recommendations recognized the brutality against minority groups. He consistently gave examples from both perspectives, he did not place fault solely on the secular reactions.

If all he was advocating was a voice, I would have no disagreement. But he didn't stop there. He pushed further to argue that religious viewpoints should have "special" consideration and trump others. That's where I disagree. If a religion can offer support for a position, it should be heard. E.g., if it could say, "we've had members of our church who tried SSM and we supported them but in the end they all divorced and the children were miserable" - that would be evidence that a legislature or court could consider. But making purely religious claims to authority - "I speak for God and he says X" - is not something civil authorities should give any ear to. We're a democracy, not a theocracy. On that point, the two forms of government are incompatible. 

Oaks' statements about acting civilly are indubitably correct. And I do very much appreciate his fair application of the law to all public servants.

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

What was most effective, I thought, was his final emphasis on civility. "New low in name calling and new high in yelling" in the presidential campaigns. He quoted from the Christian Monitor, a quote I will want to save. I think we are seeing a push from the Church for non-contention. We should accept unwanted results with "graciousness." Several mentions of the necessity of supporting LGBT rights. His continued acknowledgement of differeing positions was remarkable. I think I have seen more movement in the church this month than I have seen in years. "Not in my lifetime" isn't going to be a catch phrase anymore if this keeps up.

I'm listening to this, the transcript link wasn't working. He is obviously promoting his idea of religious freedom based on his experience and observation....that was the point of the conference. I think his position can be summarized in his own words, "fairness for both total dominance for neither."

 

This is good material too. And very needed at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised to hear such instruction at the upcoming conference - both from Elder Oaks and from others.

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I said I was going from memory here.  I'll try to look it up later today (or earlier) and get back to you.

I do remember that part was added later and was not in the 1835 edition of the Book of Commandments, though....

Do you believe "the Mormons suffered in Missouri because of their abolitionist views"?  

CFR on that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_early_Mormonism

Quote

 

In the summer of 1833 W. W. Phelps published an article in the church's newspaper, seeming to invite free black people into the state to become Mormons, and reflecting "in connection with the wonderful events of this age, much is doing towards abolishing slavery, and colonizing the blacks, in Africa."^[4] Outrage followed Phelps' comments, (Roberts [1930] 1965, p. 378.) and he was forced to reverse his position, which he claimed was "misunderstood", but this reversal did not end the controversy, and the Mormons were violently expelled from Jackson County, Missouri five months later in December 1833.^[5]

Coincidentally, on December 16, 1833, Joseph Smith dictated a passage in the Doctrine and Covenants stating that "it is not right that any man should be in bondage to another." (D&C Section 101:79).

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It got them mobbed and murdered and kicked out of Missouri.

Is that being a "bit player" just because the oh-so-fashionable Eastern Seaboard finally got on board in the '50s?

Bit players are/should be entitled to every right as the majority, whatever their location in the US.

BTW it was the Eastern Seaboard south from Virginia that supported and fought for slavery.

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

You're overplaying the effect of religion on both causes. Religion was certainly used in both causes, and heavily. But it was not the sole means to change. For instance, the man who penned the Declaration of Independence was an avowed Deist who did not believe in organized religion and set out to purge his copy of the New Testament of Christ's miracles. Several of the founding fathers were athiests. It's not accurate to say that religion ended slavery or civil rights violations (which still very much occur). Rather, religion was a tool used by many of those engaged in those efforts. 

 

 

No one said it was the sole means. But you are underplaying the role of religion in an era where religion was not separated from "science" or much of anything else.

And you underplay the role of black religion in a movement that was brought to fruition through pastors such as Martin Luther King. What I hear you saying, essentially, is that the Civil Rights Movement as we know it could have prevailed without these religious martyrs. It is like saying Prop 8 would have passed without religious influence. 

I strongly disagree with you on this but I'm not going to continue to derail this thread with it.

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, USU78 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_early_Mormonism

 

Thanks for the quote.  I do see that I had the statement mixed up with another one I was thinking of.

However, I do not believe that the Mormon's view on slavery was the driving force from them being expelled from Missouri.  But, that's another topic for another thread.

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for the quote.  I do see that I had the statement mixed up with another one I was thinking of.

However, I do not believe that the Mormon's view on slavery was the driving force from them being expelled from Missouri.  But, that's another topic for another thread.

Yup.  I agree:  quite enough rabbitholing at somebody else's thread's detriment.

[USU78]

18 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Bit players are/should be entitled to every right as the majority, whatever their location in the US.

BTW it was the Eastern Seaboard south from Virginia that supported and fought for slavery.

Do you not agree that the Missouri experience formed the Church's "stay the heck away from our natural Yankee/British abolitionism" policy that was in place and remained as late as the late '50s-'70s?

[thesometimesaint]

12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Do you not agree that the Missouri experience formed the Church's "stay the heck away from our natural Yankee/British abolitionism" policy that was in place and remained as late as the late '50s-'70s?

Of course it had an effect on LDS members. However LDS members were an insignificant minority in 1833. That doesn't excuse their mistreatment.