Has the Prophet Given Any Temporal Advice for Today' Situation?

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, sorry, went off on a tangent and forgot to come back.

In generalities I would say it falls under providing for the common defense. And no, the restrictions are not particularly well spelled out.

There are court challenges pending right now. Some seem frivolous and motivated by partisan goals to me but I saw one I read about that seemed to have some merit.

At the federal level there basically is no such power to enforce a stay at home order. The federal government can advise but, contrary to some administrations they basically cannot quarantine the whole nation. On the state level it is more settled. In the late 1700s there were a lot of yellow fever outbreaks and quarantine orders were enforced by states, sometimes against whole other states. The sad part is that the disease was primarily transmitted by mosquitos so the quarantines probably did not help much at all. There was a surprise court case where Texas tried to quarantine everyone and everything coming in to Louisiana and the Supreme Court acknowledged that the state had the right to protect its citizens. The ruling did strike down parts of the quarantine judged unsound such as quarantinIng cargos for excessive periods when there was nothing to suggest that would help. Texas was suspected of trying to win out economically by cutting off Louisiana imports for a time and that the quarantine was specifically made excessive to achieve that end. The federal government got involved because it fell under interstate commerce and they were quarantining the mail. Don’t mess with the post office! States can get away with a lot more.

We can also look at use of similar powers used for non-medical purposes. The WWII Japanese internment camps were ruled mostly constitutional except that vaguely inhabitants who were proven loyal had to be released. Not sure how the court thought that would work. Guantanamo is still around and has housed US citizens. Not defending those that were there but it is a chilling precedent. Curfews have generally been found to be enforceable unless they specifically conflict with a first amendment practice. Generally these are targeted at youth which most everyone except youth seem to find acceptable.

Our faith had its own run in with a governor deciding that for the good of all some people needed to be forced out of a specific state. Then again both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young declared martial law themselves in extreme circumstances. The abuses of power in US history due to many martial law declarations that were used to bust unions or target minorities do not endorse the practice but there were some uses where it seemed necessary.

I personally hate how everything in this crisis seems to have become a political statement. It is a health crisis. I think polling, political opinion, and how people feel about is is all irrelevant and decisions relevant to the crisis should be made by wise experts and not influenced by the fear, denial, or hysteria of mobs. Then I realize that rule of the wise has been suggested long before, remember reading Plato, and realize that the experts are as fallen as everyone else and almost no one is truly fit to lead and there is no system of government yet devised that keeps the few noble, selfless, and honest in charge.

Yeah, I rambled again but hopefully it is more relevant rambling.

That's all fine, well, and good, but, again, it doesn't answer any of my questions.  Providing for the common defense is something that is in the federal Constitution, and it's in the Preamble, which is not binding.  I would say that any court, or any other party, citing to the Preamble for support is probably in trouble. Thanks.

Edited May 5, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[The Nehor]

46 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

That's all fine, well, and good, but, again, it doesn't answer any of my questions.  Providing for the common defense is something that is in the federal Constitution, and it's in the Preamble, which is not binding.  I would say that any court, or any other party, citing to the Preamble for support is probably in trouble. Thanks.

Whatever, I have lost interest.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Whatever, I have lost interest.

Got insomnia tonight?  Or rather this morning?

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/2/2020 at 10:19 PM, Thinking said:

You should have stopped right there. As a journalist, you should know as well as anybody that many words have multiple meanings.

I think I’m as aware as anyone of the propensity of certain words and phrases to bear a particular connotation and that it therefore behooves a careful speaker or writer to be conscious of this in his or her selection of terms. 
 

I’ve been aware of this since high school when I was introduced to the study of semantics and the distinction between denotative and connotative meaning as propounded in the writings of the renowned linguist Dr. S. I. Hayakawa. . 

Edited May 5, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/2/2020 at 10:07 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Mate, this is an argument you may wish to take up with the one whose words you so dislike: Pres Nelson.

I’m not faulting President Nelson, and I resent your knee-jerk implication that I am. 
 

We are, each of us, prone to pick up on the use of popular catch phrases, often without putting much thought into the connotative meaning of them. I am entitled to form an opinion about a particular term and to express that opinion without having my loyalty to or esteem for our Church leaders or anyone else implicitly called into question. 

Edited May 5, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I am entitled to form an opinion about a particular term and to express that opinion without having my loyalty to or esteem for our Church leaders or anyone else implicitly called into question. 

Oh, I didn't mean to imply anything. I thought I was being explicit. Sorry.

[Islander]

On 5/2/2020 at 9:32 AM, thatjimguy said:

I know he has issued words about fasting and faith. I am wondering if anything has been said regarding temporal wisdom though. Specifically, should we stay at home or not?

 

There is nothing officially. Many believe that prophesy, in the biblical sense, stopped many generations ago. I know that we sustains the leadership as prophets and seers but there has been no "revelation" in the biblical sense as to what God intended to do (that would happen) and a warning given to the saints prior to the events in question. 

For now we are at the mercy of the civil authorities as to what would happen next and when. And it seems that every governor has decided to take upon his/her self authority, not vested in them by the constitution, under the pretext of public safety. A very dangerous precedent. 

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Whatever, I have lost interest.

I'm shocked ... shocked, I tell you!

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

. I know that we sustains the leadership as prophets and seers but there has been no "revelation" in the biblical sense as to what God intended to do (that would happen) and a warning given to the saints prior to the events in question. 

I believe the movement to a two hour Sunday with emphasis on a home church just long enough to get us used to the idea of depending on ourselves and having the materials for home study available and familiar plus the change to allowing civil weddings without having to wait a year prior were prophetic changes myself. 

[Islander]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe the movement to a two hour Sunday with emphasis on a home church just long enough to get us used to the idea of depending on ourselves and having the materials for home study available and familiar plus the change to allowing civil weddings without having to wait a year prior were prophetic changes myself. 

It could be argued that those are changes in response to social/environmental demands. For years now, many people just went to Sacrament or 2 out of the 3 hour block. Children have a much shorter attention span, so keeping them under control for 3 hours has always been a challenge. Also, the divorce (and remarriage) rate among the saints is fast approaching that of the secular society. But, we were talking about (in the original post) the current (virus) situation and whether the FP had issue any specific counsel going forward. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, Islander said:

I know that we sustains the leadership as prophets and seers but there has been no "revelation" in the biblical sense as to what God intended to do (that would happen) and a warning given to the saints prior to the events in question.

I'm not sure Mormon would agree with your explanation of what 'revelation' looks like or how it often functions:

Quote

And I do this for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord knoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he worketh in me to do according to his will.

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[2BizE]

Yes. Take your vitamins.

[The Nehor]

On 5/5/2020 at 5:03 AM, Calm said:

Got insomnia tonight?  Or rather this morning?

I am going to bed around 3 every morning and getting up around 8:30. It has become my normal sleep schedule during the quarantine.

[The Nehor]

22 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm shocked ... shocked, I tell you!

Can you show me where in the constitution you are entitled to that response?

[The Nehor]

23 hours ago, Islander said:

For now we are at the mercy of the civil authorities as to what would happen next and when. And it seems that every governor has decided to take upon his/her self authority, not vested in them by the constitution, under the pretext of public safety. A very dangerous precedent. 

Governors have had and used that authority since the late 1700s and it was believed constitutional then. Is this something you have always disagreed with or do you believe something is different this time?

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Can you show me where in the constitution you are entitled to that response?

Article IX, Section 3.  You're welcome.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Governors have had and used that authority since the late 1700s and it was believed constitutional then. Is this something you have always disagreed with or do you believe something is different this time?

Cool!  Then you won't mind citing precedents, since there are so many of them!

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Article IX, Section 3.  You're welcome.

The apocrypha?

11 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Cool!  Then you won't mind citing precedents, since there are so many of them!

Gibbons v. Ogden
Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health

[Bob Crockett]

On 5/5/2020 at 10:06 AM, Islander said:

And it seems that every governor has decided to take upon his/her self authority, not vested in them by the constitution, under the pretext of public safety. A very dangerous precedent. 

The constitution does not grant authority to the states.  Tenth Amendment:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

[Islander]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

The constitution does not grant authority to the states.  Tenth Amendment:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Indeed.

[Islander]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Governors have had and used that authority since the late 1700s and it was believed constitutional then. Is this something you have always disagreed with or do you believe something is different this time?

Assumed authority is NOT granted authority under the law. The fact that they are actually doing this does not mean it is constitutionally allowed. The constitution is not suspended because of current events unless there is an invocation of suspension of habeas corpus by the President. That has not happened. Since business are regulated by the government, it could be argued that the shut down is lawful. But the 10th Amendment remains and reinforces that the Constitution stands, regardless of what's happening

[Stargazer]

On 5/2/2020 at 7:48 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

It might be nit picky, and I mean no disrespect to the Church or the prophet, who, like any of us, can get caught up in the vernacular of the day. But “global citizen” is a buzz term I don’t like. I will explain. 
 

“Citizen” is a word that implies allegiance, deference and obeisance to a sovereign entity, such as a nation or state. There is no global sovereign that I know of, certainly none that I recognize. 
 

If pressed to come up with a substitute term for “global citizens” I might suggest “global neighbors” or “members of the global community.” They convey roughly the same idea without the unintended baggage to which I object. 

Yes, I think you're being too nit-picky here.

When I was a Boy Scout merit badge counselor I dealt with the three Citizenship merit badges, all of which were required for Eagle Scout. They were Citizenship in the Community,  Citizenship in the Nation, and Citizenship in the World. As far as the word citizenship is concerned, in connection with the Community and World merit badges, I think one can understand "citizenship" in its "responsible participant" connotation. I don't think it's necessary or even reasonable to ascribe "citizenship" in the political sense to the concept of "global citizen". To start with, there is no such thing, and it can only be figurative. Take me, for example, who am living in the United Kingdom, and am not a citizen of it, in the political sense. In the broad sense, I consider it my duty to be a "good citizen" in the UK, by respecting the laws, acting responsibly towards those who live here, picking up my own litter, and so on. In just such a way, someone can be a "good citizen" in the World. Note, please, "in the world," not "of the world."

Edited May 6, 2020 by Stargazer

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

Assumed authority is NOT granted authority under the law. The fact that they are actually doing this does not mean it is constitutionally allowed. The constitution is not suspended because of current events unless there is an invocation of suspension of habeas corpus by the President. That has not happened. Since business are regulated by the government, it could be argued that the shut down is lawful. But the 10th Amendment remains and reinforces that the Constitution stands, regardless of what's happening

The power to quarantine and restrict travel by governors has been held as constitutionally sound by the Supreme Court several times in our history. You can disagree with the rulings of course but it is established practice by the body whose job it is to make that adjudication.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, I think you're being too nit-picky here.

When I was a Boy Scout merit badge counselor I dealt with the three Citizenship merit badges, all of which were required for Eagle Scout. They were Citizenship in the Community,  Citizenship in the Nation, and Citizenship in the World. As far as the word citizenship is concerned, in connection with the Community and World merit badges, I think one can understand "citizenship" in its "responsible participant" connotation. I don't think it's necessary or even reasonable to ascribe "citizenship" in the political sense to the concept of "global citizen". To start with, there is no such thing, and it can only be figurative. Take me, for example, who am living in the United Kingdom, and am not a citizen of it, in the political sense. In the broad sense, I consider it my duty to be a "good citizen" in the UK, by respecting the laws, acting responsibly towards those who live here, picking up my own litter, and so on. In just such a way, someone can be a "good citizen" in the World. Note, please, "in the world," not "of the world."

Thank you for your reasoned response. 

[Islander]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The power to quarantine and restrict travel by governors has been held as constitutionally sound by the Supreme Court several times in our history. You can disagree with the rulings of course but it is established practice by the body whose job it is to make that adjudication.

I was referring more to the right to assembly and to move about. Government can restrict airlines and public transportation but not my right to go where I please. Democrats seem more eager to infringe in those rights/ Here in the Mid West we had no such issues. We have been ridding our bikes, walking in the parks and the like without problems.