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

[Calm]

2 hours ago, alter idem said:

As I recall, the source was somebody on Reddit that thought Elder Bednar's anecdotes were suspicious.  Am I right?  It was on Reddit, I think.

When I searched (and did not find) for a case with the characteristics that Elder Bednar described, Reddit was one place that was discussing the talk. It may (or may not) have been the first one to bring up the possibility that his claims were problematic, but it was not the only one. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, alter idem said:

As I recall, the source was somebody on Reddit that thought Elder Bednar's anecdotes were suspicious.  Am I right?  It was on Reddit, I think.

Doesn’t surprise me in the least. 
 

As I indicated in a recent post, I don’t spend much time on Reddit. My exasperation threshold is not that high. 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Let your voice be heard! I think Elder Bednar recognizes that governors have that power (within the constraints of their state constitution), and that we cannot allow them by our power (within the constraints of our state constitution) to treat the exercise of religion as simply nonessential or trivialize the fundamental right to worship God.

Down with Herbert!  That wicked-attituded (If that’s even a word) Latter-day Saint who closed down conference and called churches non-essential...Never again shall we elect a Latter-day saint governor.

Edited June 30, 2020 by pogi

[Anijen]

On 6/29/2020 at 12:32 PM, pogi said:

Well, I provided 2 more sources who do not fit into the extreme-left category.  That should suffice.  Are you going to deny the laws exist?  Are you suggesting that Governor Herbert (a right wing Latter-day Saint) broke the law?

Read into it what you want. My point  has nothing to do with any governor at all. I never denied that laws exist or implied such. You're moving the goalpost here. My whole post was a response saying the ABA is very left and has their own agenda. Everything else you have added and then try to argue against what you have added and then you accuse me of straw man tactics. You should be ashamed and to me it is a hypocritical imaginative posturing. 

Quote

A clock doesn't need to work to be right twice day.  Either way, I posted other references so that should suffice.

Okay. 

 

Quote

I am not arguing specific cases.  I am talking about the general legal right that governor's have to designate churches as nonessential in emergency. 

I said nothing about Utah's governor. Well, I would rebut that argument as against the First Amendment. 

 

Quote

"They"?  You make it sound as if all governor's from both sides of the isle are doing this.

I did not mention governors, not a single one. you're the one doing that. They, equals all the politicians, from a local mayor, an appointed police chief, a city councilman, etc..

 

Quote

  If there are any, they need to be held accountable. You hold individuals accountable.  That's how our system works. 

Please, do not lecture me on how a city works, I am not a child.  Furthermore, please do not lecture me on holding people accountable, when you serve as a prosecutor for over two years I'll hold your legal expertise up to mine.

Quote

You don't punish everyone, or strip the rights/powers of all governor's because a few broke the law. 

Again, I never mentioned governors.

 

Quote

To strip governor's of their constitutional rights and moral duty to protect the public in emergency through executive quarantine orders/shut-downs would be devastatingly catastrophic.

 Again, I never mentioned a single governor. Moreover, I am not nor have I advocated stripping of any rights. I have advocated the First Amendments religious clauses and the First Amendments assembly clause. I have advocated that social distancing can be accomplished in church services. I have advocated that it is unconstitutional to allow some religions to gather while denying others. I have advocated that it is also unconstitutional to allow some business to stay open while others are not allowed, (they also can implement social distancing and should also be allowed to stay open).

Edited July 2, 2020 by Anijen

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Anijen said:

You should be ashamed and to me it is a hypocritical imaginative posturing. 

He was having a conversation with Steve-O and you stepped in with an FYI.  It is hardly surprising he saw your conversation with him as a continuation of that one even if he was wrong.  Better to just clarify why you were posting and not slam him for misunderstanding your point.  He was not the only one who assumed you were jumping into that conversation, I did as well.

The same thing happens to me a lot. I see one point I want to comment on as not that accurate or needing imo clarification without meaning to join the full conversation. Even when I put up an FYI label, in most cases the person I am quoting assumes I hold the same position as the person they are responding to when often I don’t or I am not interested in discussing it. I find it very frustrating and now I will have to control that frustration or be a hypocrite.

Edited June 30, 2020 by Calm

[pogi]

10 hours ago, Anijen said:

Read into it what you want. My point  has nothing to do with any governor at all. I never denied that laws exist or implied such. You're moving the goalpost here. My whole post was a response saying the ABA is very left and has there own agenda. Everything else you have added and then try to argue against what you have added and then you accuse me of strawman tactics. You should be ashamed and to me it is a hypocritical imaginative posturing. 

You kept refuting my source even after I posted other references in good faith.  You went as far as to argue against my clock analogy, suggesting that "it can never right, it's broke".  Naturally, I took that to mean that you thought the source was broken and therefore wrong in the laws they cited.  If your sole point was to point out ABA agenda, I heard you the first time and acknowledged your point and posted new, more moderate, references.  The fact that you kept coming after me after that, led me to believe you weren't accepting the info in the sources provided, which backed up my broken and therefore never right ABA source.  

Regarding governors - that has been the discussion from the beginning.  We are talking about the governor's executive power in emergency.  You are jumping into my conversation with someone else and changing the goalpost.

I'm not ashamed of anything I have said. Maybe you are misjudging me here. You are making personal attacks now, maybe it's time to walk away.

10 hours ago, Anijen said:

I said nothing about Utah's governor. Well, I would rebut that argument as against the First Amendment. 

It's not an argument, I was just stating what is the law - it's fact.  It has been rebutted in court. It has been tried and found to be constitutional.  If you can find any court cases that have come to different conclusions (you seemed to imply that there would be some that contradicted the APA examples since you accused them of only listing cases which favored their biased view), I'd be happy to see them.  I don't want to see cases referencing isolated incidents, I want to see cases challenging the state's executive powers in emergency and how it violates the First Amendment. 

10 hours ago, Anijen said:

I did not mention governors, not a single one. you're the one doing that. They, equals all the politicians, from a local mayor, an appointed police chief, a city councilman, etc..

That is right, I am the one talking about governors, and you are the one jumping in and changing the conversation without clarifying what you are talking about.  Police chiefs and councilmen, etc. don't have authority to impose these constitutionally endowed executive powers/orders we (everyone but you) are talking about. "All the politicians, etc"???  All of them are doing this? It is interesting how you are widening the conspiracy to not just include governors, but now the whole system is against Christians and Jews, in a mostly Christian society.

10 hours ago, Anijen said:

Again, I never mentioned a single governor. Moreover, I am not nor have I advocated stripping of any rights. I have advocated the First Amendments religious clauses and the First Amendments assembly clause. I have advocated that social distancing can be accomplished in church services. I have advocated that it is unconstitutional to allow some religions to gather while denying others. I have advocated that it is also unconstitutional to allow some business to stay open while others are not allowed, (they also can implement social distancing and should also be allowed to stay open).

You haven't mentioned a governor, but you are arguing against the actions of governors.  They are the ones calling churches non-essential and prohibiting them from gathering.  Concilmen and police chiefs, etc don't have the power to make these executive orders.  That is what you are arguing against isn't it?  You are accusing Gov. Herbert (and all other governor's who closed churches) of violating the First Amendment in doing so, aren't you? They are the ones imposing these emergency orders, which you so disdain, to protect the people.  So, yes, you are accusing governor's of wrong doing, you don't have to name names.  Again show me examples of courts finding a governors executive power in emergency to prohibit a church from gathering to be a violation of the first amendment.  I have shown you examples of these orders being upheld and found to be constitutional.  Again, this is not our first rodeo, surely you have something to reference here. It's not like it hasn't been tried. 

As to your claims of violations in isolated incidents, that is a straw man.  You are butting in and changing the argument.  I am not going to argue specific cases I know nothing about.  That is not what this is about. We are talking about state executive powers and their right to designate churches as non-essential or essential in emergency.  That is it.  Stick to that and things will go so much more smoothly.  

 

 

Edited June 30, 2020 by pogi

[CV75]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

Down with Herbert!  That wicked-attituded (If that’s even a word) Latter-day Saint who closed down conference and called churches non-essential...Never again shall we elect a Latter-day saint governor.

I don't have any interest in Utah politics.

I know you're kidding, but this kind of extreme action in response to Elder Bednar's speech demonstrates that 80% of the hearers will take it in a balanced way, and 10% at each end of extreme bias will freak out.

[stemelbow]

My wife indicated this has been popping up on social media like crazy the last little bit.  People have been championing it as prophetic and other such inspiring talk.  So last night as we lay getting ready for our rest, we decided to give it a listen, concerned for the welfare of our families and friends who seem intent in seeing government as enemy.  I could not get over his over-reach on people's intentions.  I was surprised to hear he seems so distrustful of government, in general.  It felt like to me, he was intent on creating an enemy where none exists at all.  It was an uninspired perplexing display if you ask me. 

I wanted to add I think Pogi has done an admirable job in staying consistent and pointed in this discussion.  I'm sure that's influenced by the fact that I agree with him.  

[bsjkki]

This just decided Supreme Court decision has some bearing on this issue since it involves treating 'religion' the same as as other entities. Most of the court cases seem very concerned that religious observance is being restricted more than private business or less favored than other activities. That is a not allowed. In this case it is decided that the state cannot discriminate against a religious school in a program that helps other categories of private schools. A big win. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf

"Here, the application of Montana’s no-aid provision ex-cludes religious schools from public benefits solely because of religious status. As a result, strict scrutiny applies. Pp. 6–12.(b) Contrary to the Department’s contention, this case is not gov-erned by Locke v. Davey, 540 U. S. 712. The plaintiff in Locke was denied a scholarship “because of what he proposed to do—use the funds to prepare for the ministry,” an essentially religious endeavor. Trinity Lutheran, 582 U. S., at ___. By contrast, Montana’s no-aid pro-vision does not zero in on any essentially religious course of instruction but rather bars aid to a religious school “simply because of what it is”—a religious school. Id., at ___. Locke also invoked a “historic and sub-stantial” state interest in not funding the training of clergy, 540 U. S., at 725, but no comparable tradition supports Montana’s decision to disqualify religious schools from government aid. Pp. 12–16."

Edited June 30, 2020 by bsjkki

[JamesBYoung]

No one tell Elder Bednar that churches are spreading COVID in clusters.

Edited June 30, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[USU78]

The attempted murder of the motorist in Provo on University Avenue is very disturbing.  This is not theoretical.  This is real and it's here.  It's not over there, such that it doesn't concern us.

I cannot help but think of the Saints in Kirtland in 1833, and I wonder if we need to be applying this in our own lives today.  To forgive once is really hard.  Twice is awful.  Thrice is a terrible thing to ask.  Yet it is asked.  The 4th time, however, may soon be upon us, as things are developing.  What do we do to prepare ourselves both to bear with patience, as well as be strong enough to retaliate, and that against our inclinations?

D&C 98:1, 14-16, 23-31:

            

Verily I say unto you my friends, ^afear not, let your hearts be comforted; yea, rejoice evermore, and in everything give ^bthanks; …

             Therefore, be not ^aafraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will ^bprove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, ^ceven unto death, that you may be found worthy.  For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me.  Therefore, ^arenounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to ^bturn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children;  …

             Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will ^asmite you, or your families, once, and ye ^bbear it patiently and ^crevile not against them, neither seek ^drevenge, ye shall be ^erewarded; But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being ^ameted out as a just measure unto you.  And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an ^ahundred-fold.  And again, if he shall smite you the third time, and ye bear it ^apatiently, your reward shall be doubled unto you four-fold; And these three ^atestimonies shall stand against your enemy if he repent not, and shall not be blotted out.  And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me, then ye shall see to it that ye ^awarn him in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation. And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine ^aenemy into thine hands; And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy ^arighteousness; and also thy children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.  Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

this kind of extreme action

What extreme action exactly are you referring to?

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The attempted murder of the motorist in Provo on University Avenue is very disturbing.  This is not theoretical.  This is real and it's here.  It's not over there, such that it doesn't concern us.

You mean the one who was driving his SUV into a crowd of protestors?

Quote

The shooter caught on video was “thoroughly masked,” Taylor said, but he was wearing shorts and police believe he was white and “lean.” And police do not know if he was there with one protesting group or the other.

“We don’t know what his intentions were. We don’t know what his involvement with the crowd was,” Taylor said. “We just know that he was there.”

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/06/30/man-is-shot-he-drives/
 

Not sure of your point.  What does this make “real”?

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

You mean the one who was driving his SUV into a crowd of protestors?

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/06/30/man-is-shot-he-drives/
 

I keep watching the crowd sprinting towards the motorist in order to stop him from going about his business.  He was reasonably fearful, as borne out by the two gunshots taken at him by the balaclava-wearing gunman.  So, yeah, the criminals seeking to impede traffic, quite against the law, and then seeking specifically unlawfully to detain the motorist in violation of section 7-5-304(1), UCA, quite against the law, quite provoked the fearful action more consistent with escape than aggression.  I'm confused why this is confusing.  "An actor commits unlawful detention if the actor intentionally or knowingly, without authority of law, and against the will of the victim, detains or restrains the victim.

Not sure of your point.  What does this make “real”?

Gunfire on University Avenue doesn't concern you?  {confused}

Edited June 30, 2020 by USU78

[pogi]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don't have any interest in Utah politics.

I know you're kidding, but this kind of extreme action in response to Elder Bednar's speech demonstrates that 80% of the hearers will take it in a balanced way, and 10% at each end of extreme bias will freak out.

I'm not quite sure how you calculated those statistics from my post.

I was more responding to your post and interpretation of Bednar (that we should vote out offending Governor's) than I was to his talk. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by pogi

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I keep watching the crowd sprinting towards the motorist in order to stop him from going about his business.  He was reasonably fearful, as borne out by the two gunshots taken at him by the balaclava-wearing gunman....

Gunfire on University Avenue doesn't concern you?  {confused}

I should have phrased it what is the “real” you are referring to.

Since the police have not identified the suspect or why he was there, it seems premature to draw conclusions.  For all we know, the guy was walking down the street going to work (“thoroughly masked” suggests more of course, but maybe paranoid about Covid or being videoed and then doxxed as one of the protestors) and thought the driver was intentionally hitting protestors in order to injure them and went vigilante. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Calm

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

What extreme action exactly are you referring to?

I took the post as a humorous take on knee-jerk polemic rants with elements of ignorance (the made-up word), hyperbole (he shut down conference) and bigotry (Never again shall we elect a Latter-day saint governor). Such a rant, to me, is an extreme action. I'm not interested in Utah politics, so don't ask me to explain my rationale, just a gut reaction to the post

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I'm not quite sure how you calculated those statistics from my post.

I was more responding to your post and interpretation of Bednar (that we should vote out offending Governor's) than I was to his talk. 

I see -- yes, vote your conscience, absolutely! And those aren't what I'd call stats, they are about as serious as your representation (at least I hope you were just mocking the "other side" from where you apparently stand), a gut estimation. But if you were serious, and if this is getting into Utah politics, i haven't anything to say.

Edited June 30, 2020 by CV75

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

You mean the one who was driving his SUV into a crowd of protestors?

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/06/30/man-is-shot-he-drives/
 

Not sure of your point.  What does this make “real”?

 

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

I keep watching the crowd sprinting towards the motorist in order to stop him from going about his business.  He was reasonably fearful, as borne out by the two gunshots taken at him by the balaclava-wearing gunman.  So, yeah, the criminals seeking to impede traffic, quite against the law, and then seeking specifically unlawfully to detain the motorist in violation of section 7-5-304(1), UCA, quite against the law, quite provoked the fearful action more consistent with escape than aggression.  I'm confused why this is confusing.  "An actor commits unlawful detention if the actor intentionally or knowingly, without authority of law, and against the will of the victim, detains or restrains the victim.

 

 

Gunfire on University Avenue doesn't concern you?  {confused}

I would be very unnerved if a mob were attempting to detain me in traffic, especially if I had children or other family members in the car. I’d be for getting out of there as quickly as possible. 
 

A couple of days ago I heard the recording of a 9-1-1 call from one of the cities back east in which a mob of “protesters” was surrounding the vehicle of a mother with her daughter in the car. She was pleading with the dispatcher to send police to rescue them. She repeatedly said the mobbers were climbing on her car and that her daughter was crying from fear. The dispatcher would only respond that it was a “sanctioned event” and suggested she call City Hall to “register [her] complaint.” 
 

This sort of thing is alarming and outrageous, to say the least. We elect and employ public servants to, among other things, protect us from danger. If they are unable or unwilling to do so, we need to replace them as soon as possible. Meanwhile, I would not blame any American for exercising the right to self-defense up to and including the infliction of bodily injury. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Meanwhile, I would not blame any American for exercising the right to self-defense up to and including the infliction of bodily injury. 

So you are okay with the gunman shooting if he was fearful of others being hurt by the car?  Because I don’t see much reasoning difference between the two. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

So you are okay with the gunman shooting if he was fearful of others being hurt by the car?  Because I don’t see much reasoning difference between the two. 

With what can be known at this point, I see the perps in this incident as being the mob unlawfully detaining the motorist. Apparently, the gunman was part of the mob. 
 

Edited to add: And he reportedly “continued to protest” after the shooting. Sounds like he was part of it beforehand. 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

With what can be known at this point, I see the perps in this incident as being the mob unlawfully detaining the motorist. Apparently, the gunman was part of the mob. 

Extra odd, from the little video of it I saw, the crowd didn't really disperse when shots were fired.  That's a fairly scary thought, if you ask me.  Once shots were fired I'd figure the crowd would go crazy.  

Edited June 30, 2020 by stemelbow

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Extra odd, from the little video of it I saw, the crowd didn't really disperse when shots were fired.  That's a fairly scary thought, if you ask me.  Once shots were fired I'd figure the crowd would go crazy.  

Yeah, me too.  I wonder if they realized it wasn’t a backfire. 

[alter idem]

On 6/29/2020 at 12:35 PM, pogi said:

He is entitled to his opinion.  His opinion endangers everyone and is contrary to law in allowing governor's power to decide, however.

And you're entitled to your opinion.  But, I'm entitled to mine and I think you are wrong to accuse Elder Bednar of 'endangering' others because he disagreed with a decision made that Religious services were deemed 'non essential'.  He also can disagree that Governors should have been allowed to decide churches were non-essential.  I think you ought to honor Elder Bednar's right to an opinion as much as your own.

It is also my opinion that it was unfair of some government officials to decide that Church services were non essential, but then also decide that protests were apparently essential.  When ordinary citizens see officials making these kinds of odd decisions, it is hard to believe they are actually looking out for the welfare of their citizens.  

[alter idem]

On 6/29/2020 at 3:26 PM, Calm said:

It should be noted imo that Pogi’s personal beliefs have a huge amount of experience the rest of us are lacking in regards to knowing about Covid and how it is spreading.
 

If you were at a neighbourhood party and one neighbour was a specialist in heart disease who was telling you your symptoms were a sign of a heart attack and you should immediately go to the hospital, but the rest of the party was saying you just had some bad heartburn, take some antacid and should stick around for the rest of the fun, who would you listen to?

From his comments on these Covid threads, that seems to be the case, but I absolutely disagree with his, IMO, overreaction and apparent unhappiness towards Elder Bednar's decision to speak on this subject.  Pogi may know disease, but I think most members agree that Elder Bednar's bailiwick is Religion.  Given his calling as a member of the Quorum of 12 Apostles in the church, I recognize his right to speak up in his capacity as a  'watchman on the tower' for things that he feels are vitally important to the world regarding God's children and their spiritual well being.  I think there's no doubt he feels strongly about this subject and therefore, imo, he ought to speak up. Clearly he has strong concerns for how the world views religion and religious services and practices.  He is a defender of Faith in Jesus Christ and in the importance of Religion in our society and he apparently perceives a threat to the infringement of the rights of Religious peoples.  Given the state of the world, Elder Bednar will of course be criticized and vilified for doing so, so that it not a good excuse for him to keep silent.

[alter idem]

11 hours ago, USU78 said:

I keep watching the crowd sprinting towards the motorist in order to stop him from going about his business.  He was reasonably fearful, as borne out by the two gunshots taken at him by the balaclava-wearing gunman.  So, yeah, the criminals seeking to impede traffic, quite against the law, and then seeking specifically unlawfully to detain the motorist in violation of section 7-5-304(1), UCA, quite against the law, quite provoked the fearful action more consistent with escape than aggression.  I'm confused why this is confusing.  "An actor commits unlawful detention if the actor intentionally or knowingly, without authority of law, and against the will of the victim, detains or restrains the victim.

 

 

Gunfire on University Avenue doesn't concern you?  {confused}

I don't understand why protesters were in the street, obstructing traffic (which is very dangerous and never appropriate for a peaceful protest) and I don't understand why some  person was carrying a loaded weapon and actually discharged it!  There is no acceptable excuse for either of those activities.  At least, it used to be unacceptable to law abiding Americans......way back before people seemed to lose their collective minds.