conference today

[Rain]

Elder Anderson

Speaking about how the speakers prepare their conference talks. 

Conference is His words to answer our questions if we will listen to him.  

Quoting Elder Hales' talk that was shared with him last week: (After his death Christ appeared to those who had faith in him).  "Our faith prepares us to be in the presence of God. "

 

Edited October 2, 2017 by Rain

[Robert F. Smith]

33 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

We cannot legislate morality.  [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.] We have seen the folly of that in Prohibition, or the Blue Laws once so common, and in the U.S. government attack on LDS polygamy in the 19th century.  Our wonderful Constitution sets up a system in which we as Americans can decide what is legal and what is illegal, but only as long as we are willing to extend equal protection of the law to all.  We should take Articles of Faith ##11 & 12 as a general guide.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks (who, I should point out, at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, since in the past, you've ridiculed myallegedly-tenuous grasp of legal concepts, Robert, knows a thing or two about law ) disagrees:

Some reach the pro-choice position by saying we should not legislate morality. Those who take this position should realize that the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality. Should we repeal all laws with a moral basis so that our government will not punish any choices some persons consider immoral? Such an action would wipe out virtually all of the laws against crimes.

Source: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/01/weightier-matters?lang=eng

You miss the point, Kenngo.  No one is suggesting that murder should not be designated as a crime, and I am surprised that a sophisticated jurist (Elder Oaks) should also miss the point -- his use of the inaccurate term "law of crimes" indicates his attempt to refer to serious violations of law -- but which violations would those be?  Roman Catholics believe, for example, that life begins at conception, which means that any abortion for any reason is murder.  That is the reason they regularly attempt to make any abortion a serious crime in whatever country in which they have influence.  Since the LDS faith has no such belief in life beginning at conception, the Brethren think that abortion in cases of incest, rape, or a threat to the life of the mother are permissible.  Indeed, they do not make any abortion a matter of Church discipline.  Other religious groups have a variety of positions on this matter, while the U.S. Supreme Court (which sets the actual law on this matter) has long since decided that the question of legality of abortion has a great deal to do with when a fetus becomes viable outside the womb (how early can a preemie survive?), which is the point at which abortion becomes illegal.  Legislation could be brought to bear on this matter, but that would require that the larger American community come to some sort of agreement on what the law on abortion should be.

One can preach morality, but legislating it is a fool's errand.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree, but it seems like the problem comes in trying to find the line between morality and protecting others.  Some things, like murder or stealing, are obvious.  Other things, like abortion, are not as clear cut.  That's why i don't think sayings like 'we cannot legislate morality' are very practical, on the ground (so to speak).

Yes.  Legislating criminality is not the same a legislating morality.  Forcing people by law to go to the state church on Sunday is an example of legislating morality.  We can always argue that it is good for them, just as we can argue that requiring them (taxing them) to pay tithing to the state church is also a good thing.  These were once laws with penalties for disobedience.  A free society cannot abide such laws.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

We do, however, enact laws to protect our society.  There is no one, for example, that we wish to legalize murder, robbery, or the use of alcohol by minors on the grounds that people should be able to choose for themselves.  Should we not then be in favor of laws that help our society function in a harmonious manner?  Does not the consumption of alcohol take countless lives every year and damage thousands of homes?  Should we not then be in favor of laws that would remove this or other similar scourges from our midst?  It seems that many of our laws do nothing more than protect our ability to commit collective self destruction.

These were the very arguments which accompanied Prohibition in the early 20th century, which was the culmination of the Temperance movement.  The goals were certainly laudable, but the cure was worse than the disease -- causing corruption throughout government and the establishment of serious organized crime.  As with current rampant drug abuse (largely a failure of the medical community), alcoholism is not to be dealt with so much as a crime, but rather as a disease needing treatment and rehabilitation.  That is why courts have found it far more successful to offer drug and alcohol diversion programs instead of incarceration.  You'd think that, after 50 years of failure in the war on drugs, we would learn something.

[strappinglad]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You'd think that, after 50 years of failure in the war on drugs, we would learn something.

For sure we are a stubborn bunch. What's the old saying? " The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

[Glenn101]

After listening to the conference sessions the last two days I do not feel the desire to debate anything that any of the speakers have said but to try to remember as much as I can and apply it to my life. I never would have though that a quote from a cartoon movie would impress itself on me so strongly, i.e. to "look beyond what you can see." I will be mulling over the nuances of that one for a bit.

Glenn

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I just don't think that's it.  Rather we need to accept our pluralistic society and respect those who make choices which we would not make, be they non-traditional marriage (SSM, polygamy, etc.), abortion, adultery, taking recreational drugs (nicotine, reefer, booze, etc.) where legal, and cavorting on the sabbath (Muslim Friday, Jewish Saturday, and Christian Sunday).  We may disapprove of those things, but our doctrine is very specific about free agency for all, come what may. Just because we wish to obey the Lord does not mean that others should be required by law to do so.  In fact, it is given unto them to choose for themselves.  That is part of what life on Earth is all about: Making choices.  Of course there are pressures.  There wouldn't be any real choices without pressures from all sides -- God wants to test us under real conditions.  This life is not a game of let's pretend.  At least not for us adults.

I’ll be able to comment further/better when the talk comes out in print, but I take what you are saying to be that we need to be in the world but not of it, while I think Elder Oaks was covering only the part about not to be of it on the points covered by The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

I think to not be of the world can entail leaving it alone (“flight,” or in eh public square, “laissez fare”), or exerting our will to improve it (“fight” or “activism”). I recall one the other speakers speaking to this; in either case we are acting and hopefully acting with faith and not fear.

As far as the passing of laws among a society, one may voice the position not to pass laws that align with his personal moral compass and let these matters go (which ironically is a way of exerting the influence of his moral compass upon the passing of laws anyway), and another may voice the position to pass them, thus more directly exerting the influence of his moral compass upon the laws of his society.

I recall Elder Oaks’ remarks being politically neutral, and I take the Proclamation to be also, but individuals can and should certainly act in the political realm according to their faith in what it means to not be of the world.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I’ll be able to comment further/better when the talk comes out in print, but I take what you are saying to be that we need to be in the world but not of it, while I think Elder Oaks was covering only the part about not to be of it on the points covered by The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

I think to not be of the world can entail leaving it alone (“flight,” or in eh public square, “laissez fare”), or exerting our will to improve it (“fight” or “activism”). I recall one the other speakers speaking to this; in either case we are acting and hopefully acting with faith and not fear.

As far as the passing of laws among a society, one may voice the position not to pass laws that align with his personal moral compass and let these matters go (which ironically is a way of exerting the influence of his moral compass upon the passing of laws anyway), and another may voice the position to pass them, thus more directly exerting the influence of his moral compass upon the laws of his society.

I recall Elder Oaks’ remarks being politically neutral, and I take the Proclamation to be also, but individuals can and should certainly act in the political realm according to their faith in what it means to not be of the world.

Yes, and there is a huge advantage to living in a free and open society:  We can preach all the morality we want -- unlike the new Soviet Union of Vlad Putin, where we are no longer permitted to proselyte.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Elder Anderson

Having a lot of technical difficulties right now on our computer.  ...

 

Technical difficulties notwithstanding, I appreciate your efforts to "live blog" the Conference. Since I've been working both days, about the only addresses I've heard live are those from the first speakers at the Saturday and Sunday morning sessions, respectively.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You miss the point, Kenngo.  No one is suggesting that murder should not be designated as a crime, and I am surprised that a sophisticated jurist (Elder Oaks) should also miss the point -- his use of the inaccurate term "law of crimes" indicates his attempt to refer to serious violations of law -- but which violations would those be?  Roman Catholics believe, for example, that life begins at conception, which means that any abortion for any reason is murder.  That is the reason they regularly attempt to make any abortion a serious crime in whatever country in which they have influence.  Since the LDS faith has no such belief in life beginning at conception, the Brethren think that abortion in cases of incest, rape, or a threat to the life of the mother are permissible.  Indeed, they do not make any abortion a matter of Church discipline.  Other religious groups have a variety of positions on this matter, while the U.S. Supreme Court (which sets the actual law on this matter) has long since decided that the question of legality of abortion has a great deal to do with when a fetus becomes viable outside the womb (how early can a preemie survive?), which is the point at which abortion becomes illegal.  Legislation could be brought to bear on this matter, but that would require that the larger American community come to some sort of agreement on what the law on abortion should be.

One can preach morality, but legislating it is a fool's errand.

Then on what basis should we legislate if not morality?

What is fair and just are moral considerations so what do we have left?

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

For sure we are a stubborn bunch. What's the old saying? " The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

On this basis we should abolish Home Teaching.  

[strappinglad]

The trouble with most laws is that somebodies morality is always being shoved down somebody else's throat. We had Sabbath Day laws where Christian law was enforced upon believers and non- believers alike. When those laws were removed , now if someone wants to not work on their Sabbath, they might also have to choose to not work at all. The Jews dealt with this by running their own businesses with their own hours of work. Problem is , when the big malls came in , new rules made setting hours more difficult.

Can one live in society and not be bothered by laws designed to push somebody else's agenda? Buy a house in any city. Don't pay for water. The water will be shut off. Fine . Don't pay for the electrical. The electrical will be shut off. Fine . Nobody comes by to rip the water lines and wiring out of your house. But don't pay your taxes and see who will take your whole house away from you. Try to drill a well on your property or set up a windmill. Good luck. One fellow recently was charged for collecting rain water on his own property. The state claimed it owned the rain. Now there's a moral law !

[strappinglad]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

On this basis we should abolish Home Teaching.  

It's that " expecting different results " that is the kicker.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

The trouble with most laws is that somebodies morality is always being shoved down somebody else's throat. We had Sabbath Day laws where Christian law was enforced upon believers and non- believers alike. When those laws were removed , now if someone wants to not work on their Sabbath, they might also have to choose to not work at all. The Jews dealt with this by running their own businesses with their own hours of work. Problem is , when the big malls came in , new rules made setting hours more difficult.

Can one live in society and not be bothered by laws designed to push somebody else's agenda? Buy a house in any city. Don't pay for water. The water will be shut off. Fine . Don't pay for the electrical. The electrical will be shut off. Fine . Nobody comes by to rip the water lines and wiring out of your house. But don't pay your taxes and see who will take your whole house away from you. Try to drill a well on your property or set up a windmill. Good luck. One fellow recently was charged for collecting rain water on his own property. The state claimed it owned the rain. Now there's a moral law !

The rainwater story leaves out important context when expressed that way. He was doing more then just collecting and bottling or using rainwater:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/rainwater.asp

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, Rain said:

Elder Bednar

One of the challenges of today is focusing on where we are going with all the things we have to do today.

Eternal life is the ultimate promise. We have the opportunity and responsibility to accept the call that comes with that promise.  Following Christ changes our nature line upon line. 

The Sabbath day helps us to keep the object of eternal life in our sight. 

Temples help us receive and remember his promises.

Temples and the Sabbath are a sacred space and time to lit our eyes to God.

Our homes combine the time and place of remembering those promises. What we do in our homes are pivital in our divine nature. 

 

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, strappinglad said:

For sure we are a stubborn bunch. What's the old saying? " The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

It isn't the same people doing the same thing repeatedly. You seem to be saying that any country that repeats mistakes, is insane if the same procedures are followed by successive generations. I don't reject your definition of insanity, but I question whether it should be applied to a different generation of people that inhabits the same political boundaries of people who came before, but are now dead. It almost seems like you are expecting nations to learn from history, which would be highly unrealistic. I would propose this: Ignorant yes. Insane no. According to the way I think (not everyone will agree, but most I think will), insanity always excuses from culpability. Ignorance? Not necessarily.

[Rain]

7 hours ago, Duncan said:

an aside, but where did you serve?

Houston Texas and Houston East missions. The mission split while I was there.

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

Houston Texas and Houston East missions. The mission split while I was there.

oh nice! I had a friend who served in Houston East, last name of Alston and in Houston around that time, her last name was Slocombe

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't think God does things like the KSS, the Proclamation, or other things specifically to test us. I think the nature of life, things, and people is that there are naturally going to be innumerable opportunities for people to take offense or lose faith --- on their own, without being sent by God to test.

"Let's have them set up a bank that will go awry to see how people react," or "Let's give this proclamation specifically to upset people and see how they will react." I can see God knowing that these things would happen, but not designing them specifically to bring to pass the test.

I don't think I was saying that God did it in order to test folks. Of course He knew it was going to happen, and did nothing to fix anything so it wouldn't. Thus it becomes a test.

Of course, our entire mortal lives are tests.

[Rain]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

oh nice! I had a friend who served in Houston East, last name of Alston and in Houston around that time, her last name was Slocombe

Sorry. Don't know her.  Before the mission split they had a lot more new missionaries coming in so I knew far fewer of the sisters percentage-wise at the end of my mission than the beginning. 

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

After listening to the conference sessions the last two days I do not feel the desire to debate anything that any of the speakers have said but to try to remember as much as I can and apply it to my life. I never would have though that a quote from a cartoon movie would impress itself on me so strongly, i.e. to "look beyond what you can see." I will be mulling over the nuances of that one for a bit.

Glenn

I felt filled with the conference. A peace with a desire to do better. I'm really hoping to see beyond.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Then on what basis should we legislate if not morality?

What is fair and just are moral considerations so what do we have left?

Precisely. The notion of amoral legislation is a fool's errand ... and without any historical basis.

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, JulieM said:

I love her story. I couldn't watch (taping it as my mom is ill and I had to go take care of her).  Did he talk about her sealing to Joseph after years of faithfulness?

She is a woman of amazing faith and charity.  It was great to hear Elder Ballard honor her.

As far as I am aware, her sealing as an eternal servant to Joseph Smith was not reversed (mentioning that in conference might have raised some eyebrows).  But I am hopeful that her descendants have completed her temple work to seal her to her children.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

On this basis we should abolish Home Teaching.  

For that to work, people would actually need to be 'doing the same thing over and over'. When I do that, I get exactly the intended results.

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Of course, what is wrong in themselves and what is wrong because we say so is problematic because everything is actually wrong only because we say so....there have been cultures, after all, who have believed murder is appropriate.  In our culture some believe abortion is a wrong in itself, others do not.

There is virtually no culture that holds murder (meaning illegal killing of a human being) to be appropriate. Perhaps some may have existed in the past. In Iceland's deep past (before Norway took over), for instance, if you happened to kill someone in an argument, the law then required you to report the killing and hold yourself available for an inquest. If the killing were judged legal (self-defense, and so on), you got off scot-free. If the killing were judged illegal, you had to pay a fine to the victim's family.  Or they might have the right to kill you.  But if you failed to report the killing (and it was found that you had killed the person), you would be judged an outlaw and anyone who found you could legally kill you in return. But murder was still considered illegal.

However, my response was tilted towards the Western legal traditions in their various incarnations. In Common Law jurisdictions, which include the UK and its current and former Commonwealth nations, the US, and some others, mala in se and mala prohibita are to be understood as they are defined in Black's and Ballentine's dictionaries of law, and Coke's and Blackstone's treatises.  And about 1/3 of the world population lives under various forms of English Common Law.  And people that live under this kind of law generally absorb its basics osmotically through parents, schools and churches, etc.  You were raised surrounded by its precepts, and like a fish in water, you're largely unaware of it.  

But even in non-common law nations and cultures, such as is found in much of South America, and Europe (Napoleonic, Nordic and Germanic Civil Law), many of the same principles as in Common Law apply.  Murder is wrong everywhere. So is theft. So is battery.  So is rape. Variations in how the basic law of the land is administered are numerous, of course.