Preserving Religious Freedom in Time of Crisis: Remarks by Elder Bednar

[Scott Lloyd]

Here’s an important article posted on “Newsroom” on the Church website covering remarks by Elder David A. Bednar to the BYU Law Society. It deals with the importance of preserving religious liberty even during a time of pandemic or other crisis. After giving the link, I’ll post excerpts. But I recommend going there and reading the whole thing. 
 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/bednar-covid-19-pandemic-religious-freedom

Elder Bednar warned there is a danger in limiting a religious organization’s right to gather. “Gathering, in short, is at the core of faith and religion. Indeed, if the faithful are not gathering, sooner or later they will begin to scatter. And because gathering lies at the very heart of religion, the right to gather lies at the very heart of religious freedom.”

Further from the article:

 

In North America, Elder Bednar pointed out, jurisdictions deemed services related to alcohol, animals and marijuana as essential, while the services of religious organizations were classified as nonessential, even when those activities could be safely conducted.

The senior Church leader cited examples in one state where Catholic priests were barred from anointing a parishioner with holy oil in the performance of last rites, even if that person did not have COVID-19. In the same state, Latter-day Saints were not allowed to perform baptisms. 

“The power of government must have limits,” asserted Elder Bednar.

“This time of restriction and confinement has confirmed for me that no freedom is more important than religious freedom,” said the senior leader of the global faith. “Protecting a person’s physical health from the coronavirus is, of course, important, but so is a person’s spiritual health.”

I think it striking that Elder Bednar used examples involving Catholics as well as Latter-day Saints. As Church members we should be about the business of safeguarding religious freedom for everyone, not just ourselves  

 

Edited June 17, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I inadvertently left out the word freedom when I wrote the title of this thread, as in “Preserving Religious Freedom in a Time of Crisis.” I ask that a moderator make the correction for me. Thank you kindly in advance. 
 

Edited to add: Never mind. Fixed it myself. 

Edited June 17, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

You can correct titles yourself by editing your opening post...at least you could in the past. 

[Islander]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I inadvertently left out the word freedom when I wrote the title of this thread, as in “Preserving Religious Freedom in a Time of Crisis.” I ask that a moderator make the correction for me. Thank you kindly in advance. 

It was a really good talk. It also point to the fact that, for the most part, North American saints have been free to assemble and worship unencumbered by government interference in the past. Will they have the conviction and strength of faith to remain steadfast if persecution ensues? Will they seek to please men or God wen it comes to illegitimate rule-making by local government in violation of the Constitution. 

If anything, it is just eye opening how fragile Constitutional protections are in the current environment.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

You can correct titles yourself by editing your opening post...at least you could in the past. 

Thanks. I didn’t realize this. Or I had forgotten. 

[Scott Lloyd]

The article link has been shared on Facebook 989 times last I looked. If you care about religious freedom, go to the article on “Newsroom” and share it on social media. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here’s an important article posted on “Newsroom” on the Church website covering remarks by Elder David A. Bednar to the BYU Law Society. It deals with the importance of preserving religious liberty even during a time of pandemic or other crisis. After giving the link, I’ll post excerpts. But I recommend going there and reading the whole thing. 
 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/bednar-covid-19-pandemic-religious-freedom

Elder Bednar warned there is a danger in limiting a religious organization’s right to gather. “Gathering, in short, is at the core of faith and religion. Indeed, if the faithful are not gathering, sooner or later they will begin to scatter. And because gathering lies at the very heart of religion, the right to gather lies at the very heart of religious freedom.”

Further from the article:

 

In North America, Elder Bednar pointed out, jurisdictions deemed services related to alcohol, animals and marijuana as essential, while the services of religious organizations were classified as nonessential, even when those activities could be safely conducted.

The senior Church leader cited examples in one state where Catholic priests were barred from anointing a parishioner with holy oil in the performance of last rites, even if that person did not have COVID-19. In the same state, Latter-day Saints were not allowed to perform baptisms. 

“The power of government must have limits,” asserted Elder Bednar.

“This time of restriction and confinement has confirmed for me that no freedom is more important than religious freedom,” said the senior leader of the global faith. “Protecting a person’s physical health from the coronavirus is, of course, important, but so is a person’s spiritual health.”

I think it striking that Elder Bednar used examples involving Catholics as well as Latter-day Saints. As Church members we should be about the business of safeguarding religious freedom for everyone, not just ourselves  

 

There are parts I like, and parts I very much disagree with.  

Contrary to what some people believe, our personal rights and liberties have limits.  Every single one of them. 

The government has the right to order temporary containment and quarantine measures (temporarily restricting liberties) in times of emergency, according to The Public Health Service Act. 

He states that "the power of government must have limits".  It does.  What about the liberties of religion?  Is he suggesting they should be without limit even in times of public emergency?  I hope not.

I strongly disagree with his comment that "no freedom is more important than religious freedom", and "Religious freedom is paramount among our fundamental rights."  I am shocked that he places religious liberty above our basic and most fundamental right to life.   While fundamentally important, what makes religious freedom "paramount", aka supreme? 

"In a time of crisis, sensitive tools are necessary to balance demands of religious liberty with the just interests of society."  I can agree with this.  But what does he mean by "tools"?  What suggestions does he offer?  What restrictions to religious liberty does he feel are reasonable in the name of the just interests of society?  The tone of the message is that religious liberty should reign supreme over every other right, but offers zero suggestions as to how that could and should be tempered in times of emergency.    

P.S. I am a strong advocate for religious liberty.

Edited June 17, 2020 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, pogi said:

There are parts I like, and parts I very much disagree with.  

Contrary to what some people believe, our personal rights and liberties have limits.  Every single one of them. 

The government has the right to order temporary containment and quarantine measures (temporarily restricting liberties) in times of emergency, according to The Public Health Service Act. 

He states that "the power of government must have limits".  It does.  What about the liberties of religion?  Is he suggesting they should be without limit even in times of public emergency?  I hope not.

I strongly disagree with his comment that "no freedom is more important than religious freedom", and "Religious freedom is paramount among our fundamental rights."  I am shocked that he places religious liberty above our basic and most fundamental right to life.   While fundamentally important, what makes religious freedom "paramount", aka supreme? 

"In a time of crisis, sensitive tools are necessary to balance demands of religious liberty with the just interests of society."  I can agree with this.  But what does he mean by "tools"?  What suggestions does he offer?  What restrictions to religious liberty does he feel are reasonable in the name of the just interests of society?  The tone of the message is that religious liberty should reign supreme over every other right, but offers zero suggestions as to how that could and should be tempered in times of emergency.    

P.S. I am a strong advocate for religious liberty.

I see nothing in the address of Elder Bednar that would warrant your complaint that he does not recognize that religious liberty — as do all civil liberties — has its legitimate limitations. The very fact that he refers matter-of-faculty to the need “to balance demands of religious liberty with the just interests of society” ought to convey to any reasonable mind that Elder Bednar does indeed recognize reasonable limitations. How could there be such a balance without limitations on both sides? This is a blatant straw-man argument on your part, one scarcely worthy of consideration. 
 

As to the primacy of religious liberty, I see freedom of religion, speech, the press and assembly as being inseparable components of the overall right to seek, ascertain and promulgate truth. And yes, that right is arguably as precious as life itself. Countless people, both ancient and modern, have gone to war and died for the preservation of that right. 
 

One of our states — I think it’s New Hampshire, but I could be wrong — has as its slogan “Live free, or die.” Profound words. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

There are parts I like, and parts I very much disagree with.  

Contrary to what some people believe, our personal rights and liberties have limits.  Every single one of them. 

The government has the right to order temporary containment and quarantine measures (temporarily restricting liberties) in times of emergency, according to The Public Health Service Act. 

He states that "the power of government must have limits".  It does.  What about the liberties of religion?  Is he suggesting they should be without limit even in times of public emergency?  I hope not.

I strongly disagree with his comment that "no freedom is more important than religious freedom", and "Religious freedom is paramount among our fundamental rights."  I am shocked that he places religious liberty above our basic and most fundamental right to life.   While fundamentally important, what makes religious freedom "paramount", aka supreme? 

"In a time of crisis, sensitive tools are necessary to balance demands of religious liberty with the just interests of society."  I can agree with this.  But what does he mean by "tools"?  What suggestions does he offer?  What restrictions to religious liberty does he feel are reasonable in the name of the just interests of society?  The tone of the message is that religious liberty should reign supreme over every other right, but offers zero suggestions as to how that could and should be tempered in times of emergency.    

P.S. I am a strong advocate for religious liberty.

Perhaps he is weighing eternal things as more important than temporal things?  As in, the right to worship God has more eternal consequences for a person than the right to life?

[Boanerges]

I fully believe an underlying concern of the leadership is that after doing "home church" for this long some will decide they can live without "church church."

Aside from that, I probably live in the state referenced by Elder Bednar. A couple points about that:

1) We have been taking our instructions from our Area leadership. During the height of the crisis here we were forbidden from giving blessing and taking the sacrament to others. We were told the only contact we should have is via phone or video conference. These restrictions, and others, were church restrictions, although I'm sure the government agreed. Things here have only slightly been eased. We can now bless the sacrament for someone who does not have the priesthood in the home, but they supply the bread/water and we aren't to linger - just do the blessing (which may be done outside) and go. But there are still no live interviews, meetings of any kind, etc.

2) In my state (NY) the first major spread of the disease came via religious services/religious school. NYC's pandemic began with Jews. That's not meant to be anti-Semitic or accusatory, it's just the way it was. An individual had traveled to Europe, brought the disease back to his family who spread it to neighbors, the private school where the kids went, and his synagogue. The thing is exponential, as Drs. Fauci and Birx have often asserted, 2 today, 20 tomorrow, 200 the next day - and that's literally how it was in NYC. (Note that I live several hundred miles from NYC.) And while our governor likely should have acted faster, it was necessary that he stop religious services and he did - while some early on defied his order and continued to spread the disease.

Lastly, there has been some reference to religious freedom as opposed to religious liberty. I'm not sure I see a difference in the two.

Edited June 17, 2020 by Boanerges

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I see nothing in the address of Elder Bednar that would warrant your complaint that he does not recognize that religious liberty — as do all civil liberties — has its legitimate limitations. The very fact that he refers matter-of-faculty to the need “to balance demands of religious liberty with the just interests of society” ought to convey to any reasonable mind that Elder Bednar does indeed recognize reasonable limitations. How could there be such a balance without limitations on both sides? This is a blatant straw-man argument on your part, one scarcely worthy of consideration. 

I never accused Elder Bednar of stating that there are no limitations to religious liberty.  In fact, I think I made that very clear with the quote you provided.  Further, I stated this,  "Is he suggesting they should be without limit even in times of public emergency?  I hope not."  Clearly not an accusation.  Perhaps you are the one building up a strawman against me. 

My opening remark was a general statement, but I can see how it might have been misconstrued to be an accusation against Elder Bednar.

I do wonder what limits he thinks are legitimate.  He seems to make the case that limiting the right to gather should be off-limits.  I completely disagree. 

He said multiple times that "the power of government must have limits", as if it doesn't; as if it somehow overstepped it's authority in restricting the right to gather. Nope.  It does, and should, have the right to do so in emergency. 

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And yes, that right is arguably as precious as life itself. 

But is the right "paramount" (I.e. supreme, superior, of prime and matchless importance)" to the right of life itself? 

I align with our Catholic brothers here who rightly place the right to life as "paramount' to religious liberty. 

Quote

“Every person has a fundamental right to life,” say the U.S. Bishops, “the right that makes all other rights possible."

https://www.cacatholic.org/teachings/catholic-social-teaching/themes/rights-and-responsibilities

And these:

Quote

The right to life is the fundamental right, of which all other rights are corollaries. The right to life states that you own your own body. It is your property to do with as you please. No one may force you to do anything, no one may injure you in any way, and above all, no one may take your life (without consent.) 
The opposite to the right to life is life as a slave, where someone or some people essentially own you -- they can dictate what you do, when you do it, and take your life if they please. 
It should be noted that rights are guarantees to freedom of actions. They do not provide for anything but freedom of action. There is no right to food, for example; only the right to work and keep the proceeds with which you may buy food.
www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Rights.html

Quote

 

The right to life is the fundamental right from which all other rights (right to liberty, the right to legally acquire, possess, and use property, and the right to pursue one’s happiness) logically derive.
The right to life states that you are sovereign, (your body is your property and belongs to you, i.e., you own yourself) and it is proper to take those actions (right to liberty) to legally acquire, use, and dispose of property (right to property) which is necessary for one’s survival and flourishing (right to the pursuit of happiness), free from the physical compulsion and coercive interference of other individuals.
These derivative rights (right to liberty, the right to legally acquire, possess, and use property, and the right to pursue one’s happiness) are corollaries of the right to life, i.e., are applications of the right to life to varying contexts.

https://www.capitalism.org/individual-rights/right-to-life-liberty-and-the-pursuit-of-happiness/

 

Quote

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

 

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One of our states — I think it’s New Hampshire, but I could be wrong — has as its slogan “Live free, or die.” Profound words. 

I heard that from a libertarian on these boards not long ago.  When you really analyze these words, they kind of fall apart into ridiculousness.  Live free.  So American!  But who truly lives free?  No one.  I live in a republic and not an anarchy state - thank Goodness!  Am I better off dead?  Perhaps limits to our freedoms are not so bad after all, and not worth dying over. 

[Duncan]

Right now for us it's 50 people but that is across the board, you can catch covid 19 just as easily at Church than you can at Froggie's Bar and Grill . We haven't heard tickety-boo about returning to church

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Perhaps he is weighing eternal things as more important than temporal things?  As in, the right to worship God has more eternal consequences for a person than the right to life?

I don't know if it does have more eternal consequence.  If a government were to restrict the right to worship, God will not condemn us for that.  We can still enjoy all the eternal blessings.  He judges our hearts and that is something that the government cannot measure or restrict.  God sent us to earth first and foremost to gain life in a body.  Before everything else that follows...there was life.  It is primal. 

[mgy401]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I strongly disagree with his comment that "no freedom is more important than religious freedom", and "Religious freedom is paramount among our fundamental rights."  I am shocked that he places religious liberty above our basic and most fundamental right to life.   While fundamentally important, what makes religious freedom "paramount", aka supreme? 

A point to consider:

The constitution allows government under certain conditions to end life, end liberty through imprisonment, seize property, prevent marriage, confiscate children, and punish speech.

It does not, under any circumstances, allow government to order a person to change their religion.  

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know if it does have more eternal consequence.  If a government were to restrict the right to worship, God will not condemn us for that.  We can still enjoy all the eternal blessings.  He judges our hearts and that is something that the government cannot measure or restrict.  God sent us to earth first and foremost to gain life in a body.  Before everything else that follows...there was life.  It is primal. 

I don't know if that's true, maybe it is.  

We aren't cursed for choices we couldn't make, but can the choices that we did make help turn us into people that won't accept the right choice when we do have the option?  Can they create hardheartedness that agency can't overcome, for example?  And what of the effect on the children raised in such a place?  Could generations be lost to the blessings that come from choosing to live the gospel and the growth that agency to worship God makes possible?  Can a loss of the ability to worship God for generations frustrate God's purposes for the earth?  

There's no way to answer those questions of course, only God knows.  

But if the first and foremost reason for mortality is to gain a body (something that I'm not sure is true), then everyone who is born has already fulfilled that purpose.  Death after birth can't frustrate that purpose as the body exists regardless of the length of time it spends alive.  

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

A point to consider:

The constitution allows government under certain conditions to end life, end liberty through imprisonment, seize property, prevent marriage, confiscate children, and punish speech.

It does not, under any circumstances, allow government to order a person to change their religion.  

However, ending a person's life, kind of puts an end to the free exercise of their religion...and every other right they have along with it.  So thy may not be able to change a person's exercise of religion from one to another, but they can end it.   Everything else is corollary to life. 

[Tishbite]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In North America, Elder Bednar pointed out, jurisdictions deemed services related to alcohol, animals and marijuana as essential, while the services of religious organizations were classified as nonessential, even when those activities could be safely conducted.

He seems to be creating a false dichotomy here. Religious gatherings of a large number of people sitting in a room together for an extended period time are very different from the more transient traffic through the other venues that he mentioned. Additionally, liquor stores were deemed essential due to medical concerns about alcohol withdrawal and the potential increase in hospital intake in an already overburdened system if they were to be closed. They weren't kept open just because people like drinking alcohol. Similarly, marijuana dispensaries service actual medical needs, making it essential.

Plus, while the government might have restricted religious gatherings due to the fact that they have proven to be a vector of spread (and this disproportionately affects the elderly who are at higher risk), they did not ban religious services per se. Many churches and religions have chosen to do online services during the pandemic, and the LDS church could have easily done the same. The interests of public health have required some adaptation of religious practice, perhaps, but the government did not restrict our right to worship beyond what was necessary and practical.

[stemelbow]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here’s an important article posted on “Newsroom” on the Church website covering remarks by Elder David A. Bednar to the BYU Law Society. It deals with the importance of preserving religious liberty even during a time of pandemic or other crisis. After giving the link, I’ll post excerpts. But I recommend going there and reading the whole thing. 
 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/bednar-covid-19-pandemic-religious-freedom

Elder Bednar warned there is a danger in limiting a religious organization’s right to gather. “Gathering, in short, is at the core of faith and religion. Indeed, if the faithful are not gathering, sooner or later they will begin to scatter.

Where does he fear the faithful will scatter to?  I suppose his fears have some grounding since members have scattered away from the church since its beginnings.  But that was with gatherings happening.  I'm curious if they are finding some issues related to the break.  Too many realizing church is not all its cracked up to be?  

 

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know if that's true, maybe it is.  

We aren't cursed for choices we couldn't make, but can the choices that we did make help turn us into people that won't accept the right choice when we do have the option?  Can they create hardheartedness that agency can't overcome, for example?  And what of the effect on the children raised in such a place?  Could generations be lost to the blessings that come from choosing to live the gospel and the growth that agency to worship God makes possible?  Can a loss of the ability to worship God for generations frustrate God's purposes for the earth?  

There's no way to answer those questions of course, only God knows.  

We do know that there are societies throughout history who have restricted or severely limited the rights of worship for many, many generations.  There is good scriptural basis to believe that God will be merciful to the children raised in such conditions without the law.  I don't know if God will be so merciful to those who were accountable for restricting those freedoms, however.

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But if the first and foremost reason for mortality is to gain a body (something that I'm not sure is true), then everyone who is born has already fulfilled that purpose.  Death after birth can't frustrate that purpose as the body exists regardless of the length of time it spends alive.  

 True.  But let's consider that life is more than mortality.  Before worship could happen, God gave us life (pre-existence).  Life is primal to all things (except for intelligence - whatever that is).  The beginning or premortal worship was premortal life.  Premortal life led to premortal worship.  Premortal worship led to mortal life.  Mortal life led to worship in mortality.  Worship in mortality leads to eternal life.  Life is the beginning and telos of all things, even the worship of God (which is life).  Life leads to worship, and worship leads to life.  To strip someone of life is to strip them of the right to worship.  Therefore, life is foundational and makes all other rights possible.  Life is of utmost eternal consequence to all things.  All things come from it and point to it. 

Edited June 17, 2020 by pogi

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Boanerges said:

I fully believe an underlying concern of the leadership is that after doing "home church" for this long some will decide they can live without "church church."

I've heard that concern expressed by a few leaders in my stake, and there may be some truth to it. Only time will tell. But the vibe I'm picking up is the exact opposite. I've had people who might have attended church twice last year asking me when we'll be allowed to meet again. I fully expect our numbers to stay the same (though perhaps with new faces replacing a few old ones?) or to increase.

[longview]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

29 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

A point to consider:

The constitution allows government under certain conditions to end life, end liberty through imprisonment, seize property, prevent marriage, confiscate children, and punish speech.

It does not, under any circumstances, allow government to order a person to change their religion.  

However, ending a person's life, kind of puts an end to the free exercise of their religion...and every other right they have along with it.  So thy may not be able to change a person's exercise of religion from one to another, but they can end it.   Everything else is corollary to life.

You have a strange habit of conflating things together.  When a person is subjected to the death penalty for murder, he is NOT at that time being forced to change his religion (regardless if he is a believer or not).  Those two things do NOT go hand in hand.

@mgy401 is correct that a citizen in normal circumstances is free to choose how to live his religion or to ignore religion.  However, there are cases where government entities have improperly stepped in to force business owners or employees to act against their religious freedoms.  SCOTUS has overruled most of the heavy handed prosecutions.

Here is a video of a physician who agrees with many points made by Elder Bednar.  He has observed that the trade-offs between draconian lockdowns and the rise in suicides and acceleration in domestic violence, etc leads him to think common sense is better served to end the lockdowns and expedite herd immunity.  He noted the strange behaviors by mayors and governors in permitting marijuana stores, liquor stores, abortion mills, etc to stay open while church goers are abused even when practising isolation (separate cars at the church parking lot listening to radio broadcasts).

 

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

We do know that there are societies throughout history who have restricted or severely limited the rights of worship for many, many generations.  There is good scriptural basis to believe that God will be merciful to the children raised in such conditions without the law.  I don't know if God will be so merciful to those who were accountable for restricting those freedoms, however.

We also have scriptural stories of God killing everyone and starting over when the choices of the adults essentially took away the ability of their children to choose good and it became impossible to reclaim them.  

I'm not doubting God's extension of mercy but questioning the idea that as long as mercy can be extended after death, that's all that matters to fulfill God's purposes for His children.

Quote

 True.  But let's consider that life is more than mortality.  Before worship could happen, God gave us life (pre-existence).  Life is primal to all things (except for intelligence - whatever that is).  The beginning or premortal worship was premortal life.  Premortal life led to premortal worship.  Premortal worship led to mortal life.  Mortal life led to worship in mortality.  Worship in mortality leads to eternal life.  Life is the beginning and telos of all things, even the worship of God (which is life).  Life leads to worship, and worship leads to life.  To strip someone of life is to strip them of the right to worship.  Therefore, life is foundational and makes all other rights possible.  Life is of utmost eternal consequence to all things.  All things come from it and point to it. 

I don' t know that I agree that mortal life is primal to all things, especially the length of mortal life, which is actually what we are talking about.  Worship existed before mortal life, for example, and wasn't dependent on it.  I'm not suggesting that life is not necessary or important; I'm questioning the idea that the length of mortal life is more important than the ability to worship God and make covenants with Him.   They are obviously interconnected (you need to be alive to choose God), so in some way we might be arguing about which blade is most important in a pair of scissors.  

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We also have scriptural stories of God killing everyone and starting over when the choices of the adults essentially took away the ability of their children to choose good and it became impossible to reclaim them.  

I'm not doubting God's extension of mercy but questioning the idea that as long as mercy can be extended after death, that's all that matters to fulfill God's purposes for His children.

I don' t know that I agree that mortal life is primal to all things, especially the length of mortal life, which is actually what we are talking about.  Worship existed before mortal life, for example, and wasn't dependent on it.  I'm not suggesting that life is not necessary or important; I'm questioning the idea that the length of mortal life is more important than the ability to worship God and make covenants with Him.   They are obviously interconnected (you need to be alive to choose God), so in some way we might be arguing about which blade is most important in a pair of scissors.  

I didn't say "mortal" life is primal to all things.  I said life is primal to all things.   I pointed out that premortal life is primal to premortal worship, and mortal life is primal to mortal worship.  Life is primal.  Life is paramount.  God said he is the life.  We worship life.  Life is the beginning and the end.    Life is foundational.  Life makes worship possible whether we are speaking premortally or mortally. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

2 hours ago, longview said:

When a person is subjected to the death penalty for murder, he is NOT at that time being forced to change his religion (regardless if he is a believer or not).  Those two things do NOT go hand in hand.

Reread what I wrote.  Straw-man.  

2 hours ago, longview said:

Here is a video of a physician who agrees with many points made by Elder Bednar.  He has observed that the trade-offs between draconian lockdowns and the rise in suicides and acceleration in domestic violence, etc leads him to think common sense is better served to end the lockdowns and expedite herd immunity.  He noted the strange behaviors by mayors and governors in permitting marijuana stores, liquor stores, abortion mills, etc to stay open while church goers are abused even when practising isolation (separate cars at the church parking lot listening to radio broadcasts).

This is a HUGE derail.  The doctor only mentioned religion in one tiny sentence for like one second of a 16 minute or so video mostly promoting Hydroxychloroquine.  Face-palm!!!  Please don't waste my time with this junk and stick to topic. 

P.S.  Supporting limits to religious liberty in emergency is not the same as support for liquor stores to be open.

Edited June 18, 2020 by pogi

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I didn't say "mortal" life is primal to all things.  I said life is primal to all things.   I pointed out that premortal life is primal to premortal worship, and mortal life is primal to mortal worship.  Life is primal.  Life is paramount.  God said he is the life.  We worship life.  Life is the beginning and the end.    Life is foundational.  Life makes worship possible whether we are speaking premaritally or mortally. 

I know you didn't say mortal life, (except for for when you said "Mortal life led to worship in mortality") but we are talking about mortal life in his discussion so other types of life don't seem relevant.  

We could also correctly say that agency makes worship possible though. Without agency, life is ultimately irrelevant and God's will is frustrated.  God's mercy can't overcome all losses of agency, which satan's plan taught us.  Even with the existence of mercy, agency is still essential for the plan of salvation to work.