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

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think you hit on the problem people have. Who has the power to decided what risks are necessary and what risks aren't?

It would appear to many that this is just an excuse to see exactly how much power a governor can seize for itself in the name of "protecting people".  

Bednar had a great point.  This oppression of religion is unprecedented.  The disease is much less dangerous than other outbreaks in the past.   Did polio shut churches down? did Measles? Did smallpox? For most of the world?

People get so afraid of dying that they are preventing people from living.  

In the past our ancestors thought freedom more valuable than life, I don't think many here could say the same. 

 

You don't have factual information and Elder Bednar was wrong in saying this is unprecedented.  Churches were closed by governments in Spanish flu, polio, small pox, scarlet fever outbreaks, and others.  This was a novel virus and pandemic.  We didn't know what to expect as with other diseases.  We didn't know how deadly it actually was.  Now that we are learning, we are loosening things up.  This is not a slippery slope towards restricting religious liberties as some claim.  We didn't lose our religious liberty from the Spanish flu or polio closures, and we wont now.  Things returned back to normal and those were absolutely appropriate decisions. 

Who has the power to decide?  We have given the government the right and power to make such decision in emergency situations, and only in emergency situations.  There is no slippery slope. We are protected by law. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by pogi

[longview]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

44 minutes ago, longview said:

Tell that to black families that owned their small businesses and many other innocent victims that lost their properties and lives.  It goes on way too many times.  Review the obscenity of Ferguson and many other leftist tantrums artificially engineered.

I don't think you understand.  If police tried to break up the protests and put a cap on the steam - it would have exploded!  There would have been 10 times as many small business owners who lost property.  There would have been more lives lost.  There would have been more violence against police.  The police properly mitigated and deescalated the situation by not breaking up the protests. 

This is a huge cop out.  There were genuine protesters at the beginning that were peaceful.  This is where the "powers that be" could taken immediate measures to limit the numbers and enforce spacing.  But they did not care, they were more eager for the "impactful messages."  Then outside subversives came in and started stoking violence and vandalism.  These are extremists who make up the "Occupy Wall Street" agitators, ACORN (now renamed to something else), that continue to shift from one "noisy" event to another.  The authorities knew that but resisted calling out the national guard.

There was NO proper mitigation.  There was NO attempt at de-escalation.  They cared not a whit about defending innocent small business owners.  They were mere cannon fodders to be sacrificed for stoking screaming headlines in the dominant media.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

World wide broadcast of General Conference, before internet was TV - if you were fortunate enough, before TV was Radio. Before that, King Benjamin style. Certainly people can disagree about the spiritual efficacy of online services.

Not saying there can be zero spiritual efficacy, but my opinion is that in-person participation is vastly superior to virtual participation. 

 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Its quite a wonder that a pandemic comes and there is grave concern of extra scattering from the faith as a result.  Why religion at all if it's so fragile and uninspired?

I'm not concerned about there being too much scattering. In fact, as we have been inviting people to attend church - trying to manage attendance to be no more than 50 per week - we have found several people committing to come back who we haven't seen in a while. Maybe on the margin we will lose a few attendees, but I suspect that would be a bigger concern in places like Utah, where (and this is just my perception) you might have more people who are 'socially' than 'spiritually' converted to the church. 

[MustardSeed]

Is it possible that Elder Bednar could have made this speech rogue?  Does he represent the church or just himself in this speech?

[MustardSeed]

Also there are several women in my ward who are very very outspoken regarding their views around their rights and COVID.  They are in my opinion extreme, and loud.  No masks.  No limits. No government.  Etc.  
 

I find it distasteful and am turned off by it.  
 

these same women are holding up Bednars speech as a freedom flag- saying it’s validating all their thoughts and feelings.  They can’t wait to gather again. No masks. 

I can’t help but think this is going to create another divide. 
 

Part of gathering in worship is the comfort of group think - and now that politix are so infused in all this, I find myself realizing we are really not as alike as I used to think. 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Is it possible that Elder Bednar could have made this speech rogue?  Does he represent the church or just himself in this speech?

Even if he wrote the speech only for the intended audience, and even if he leaned entirely on his own ideas, if he said things the church leaders believed were problematic, I don't think it would have been published in the church's newsroom.  Just my opinion though.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Also there are several women in my ward who are very very outspoken regarding their views around their rights and COVID.  They are in my opinion extreme, and loud.  No masks.  No limits. No government.  Etc.  
 

I find it distasteful and am turned off by it.  
 

these same women are holding up Bednars speech as a freedom flag- saying it’s validating all their thoughts and feelings.  They can’t wait to gather again. No masks. 

I can’t help but think this is going to create another divide. 
 

Part of gathering in worship is the comfort of group think - and now that politix are so infused in all this, I find myself realizing we are really not as alike as I used to think. 

In my ward masks are required to attend--Bednar speech or not--so these women would really be struggling.  I know what you mean though in that I have some really vocal facebook friends who have gone overboard with conspiracy theories/freedoms and rights/no masks and it's gotten off-putting.  

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Singling out religion in comparison to the BLM protests is a blatant attempt to make it seem as if religion specifically is being targeted and persecuted here. 

If the government fails to treat religious gatherings the same as comparable non-religious gatherings then the government is engaging in discrimination against religious worshipers and is in violation of the Constitution. 

 

Quote

Religion is not being singled out here! All industry is required to follow state mandated guidelines, not just religion.

And if they were all being required to follow the same mandates equally there wouldn't be a problem. In practice, however, that isn't what we have been seeing.

For example, in Washington state, the government allows people to gather in restaurants and taverns at 50% capacity with no numerical cap so long as social distancing and hygiene protocols are followed. 

Whereas gatherings in places of worship are restricted to 25% capacity with a hard cap of 50 people, regardless of adherence to social distancing and hygiene protocols. 

We are seeing the same things taking place in New York and other parts of the country as well. 

When I see the government giving preference to The Cheesecake Factory over the Church of Jesus Christ, yeah - I've got a problem with that. 

 

Quote

At least in Utah, I see all other industry being discriminated against in comparison to religion, when comparing group sizes that are permitted.

I would be fine with comparable secular and religious activities being treated in like manner.

If the government in Utah is giving preference to religious gatherings above that which is being given to comparable non-religious gatherings then the government is wrong to do so.

 

Quote

I agree that there is no legal justification for making an exception for BLM protestors.  The BLM protests are a highly atypical/exceptional and potentially, or demonstrably rather, explosive situation.  Allowing them to happen is not without reason and consideration for public safety, I am sure.  Sometimes you have to make the best of a situation that had terrible timing.  I higher level of force and containment efforts from police would have led to something even more terrible and deadly, guaranteed. 

In other words, it's okay to treat religionists worse than protesters because churchy folks will tolerate it without resorting to violence. The economist in me can't help but think that is a rather perverse incentive structure.

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

If the government fails to treat religious gatherings the same as comparable non-religious gatherings then the government is engaging in discrimination against religious worshipers and is in violation of the Constitution. 

This would only be true if literally every non-religious gathering were equally treated more favorably than religious gatherings.  It would be nearly impossible to prove religious discrimination if restaurants are favored above dance-clubs, social clubs, movie theaters, swimming pools, bowling allies, etc., etc. etc.,...and churches.  Can you demonstrate that all non-religious entities are favored above religious entities?  That religious entities are being singled out?

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

And if they were all being required to follow the same mandates equally there wouldn't be a problem. In practice, however, that isn't what we have been seeing.

For example, in Washington state, the government allows people to gather in restaurants and taverns at 50% capacity with no numerical cap so long as social distancing and hygiene protocols are followed. 

Whereas gatherings in places of worship are restricted to 25% capacity with a hard cap of 50 people, regardless of adherence to social distancing and hygiene protocols. 

We are seeing the same things taking place in New York and other parts of the country as well. 

When I see the government giving preference to The Cheesecake Factory over the Church of Jesus Christ, yeah - I've got a problem with that. 

Quite frankly, it is stupid of them to base this on percentage of capacity.  That is absolutely stupid and dangerous as max capacity can be extremely high, but in no way can this be seen as religious discrimination.  In fact, I see churches as being highly favored here.  Does anyone know what maximum capacity is for most LDS chapels?   It is extremely rare to see restaurants with that kind of capacity, I would imagine.  This is not counting the mega-churches in Washington with regular attendance of over 2,000 (with much higher "max capacity").  This is not counting religious conferences with many, many thousands.   Churches, based on those percentages, will likely see much larger gatherings in Washington than restaurants. 

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I would be fine with comparable secular and religious activities being treated in like manner.

If the government in Utah is giving preference to religious gatherings above that which is being given to comparable non-religious gatherings then the government is wrong to do so.

Thank you for acknowledging that is wrong, but why not the same level of outrage towards non-religious discrimination, demanding equal treatment?  If roles were reversed, you would not say I would be "fine..."  I don't think that is the language you would use. 

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

In other words, it's okay to treat religionists worse than protesters because churchy folks will tolerate it without resorting to violence. The economist in me can't help but think that is a rather perverse incentive structure.

 Again, that is a false dichotomy.  It is not religionists vs protesters.  It is protesters vs all other entities (including non-religious entities).  Protesters are getting special treatment above ALL other entities, not just religionists.  You are framing this out to appear as religious persecution and discrimination.  That is nonsense!  Many of those protesters are religionists too by-the-way.  Many church groups gathered in protest.  They weren’t singled out and arrested or fined for gathering as a religious group.

Yes, potentially violent situations with property damage, rules change in order to mitigate and deescalate the situation.  There has to be leeway in situations like this.   For example, if this same thing happened, except it was religionists protesting police brutality against, and things started getting out-of-hand, I guarantee the same measures would have been taken.  This is not discrimination against religionists.  Religionists are not being singled out here.  This all feels like persecution syndrome to me.  There is no substance to it whatsoever.   I fully support police measures taken (regardless if the group were religionists or not).  Anything more could have ended terribly. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I'm not concerned about there being too much scattering. In fact, as we have been inviting people to attend church - trying to manage attendance to be no more than 50 per week - we have found several people committing to come back who we haven't seen in a while. Maybe on the margin we will lose a few attendees, but I suspect that would be a bigger concern in places like Utah, where (and this is just my perception) you might have more people who are 'socially' than 'spiritually' converted to the church. 

You may not be concerned, but it appears Bednar is.  Or perhaps, he is wrong and it's not true that people scatter from the faith if they don't meet regularly.  

[Anijen]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Elder Bednar stated that religious liberty is "paramount among all other fundamental rights". 

He stated that there is "no other freedom more important".

He stated that we have forgotten what is "most important" while trying to save lives from Covid - religious liberty.

You subsequently implored me to take this to mean that he was simply "emphasizing the importance of religious liberty" and not really placing it above the right to life, which quite frankly is "interpreting his meaning differently than as stated".  I am sorry if you are offended, but that is what went down.  

I was not, reread and I would suggest you use your glasses this time.

Thanks

[JAHS]

I use my old Mormon Doctrine to raise my monitor up. I wonder which book Elder Bednar is using?

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Even if he wrote the speech only for the intended audience, and even if he leaned entirely on his own ideas, if he said things the church leaders believed were problematic, I don't think it would have been published in the church's newsroom.  Just my opinion though.

Makes sense. 
I have this idea that anything official would have the video quality and professionalism  of President Nelson’s earlier COVID address.  Maybe not. 
 

also my curiosity has me wondering if this might bring some strong differing of opinions even among church leaders. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by MustardSeed

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I was not, reread and I would suggest you use your glasses this time.

Thanks

If I misunderstood, I apologize.  I will need some clarification though, because I thought you were trying to convince me that Elder Bednar meant something other than what he actually said in those quotes I just posted.  Do you actually agree with him that Religious liberty is "most important" and "paramount to all other fundamental rights", or that no other freedom is "more important"?

You tried to convince me that "paramount" didn't mean "above" or "superior" in the legal sense.  I got curious and looke up the term in thelaw.com dictionary.  Here is the definition of "paramount" I found:

Quote

 Above; upwards. That which is superior; usually applied to the highest lord of the fee of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, as distinguished from the mesne (or intermediate) lord. Fitzh. Nat. Brev. 135. In the law of real property, the term “paramount title” properly denotes one which is superior to the title with which it is compared, in the sense that the former is the source or origin of the latter. It is, however, frequently used to denote a title which is simply better or stronger than another, or will prevail over it But this use is scarcely correct unless the superiority consists in the seniority of the title spoken of as “paramount” See Hoopes v. Meyer, 1 Nev. 444. Paramount equity. An equitable right or claim which is prior, superior, or preferable to that with which it is compared.

Paramount title, from another legal definition:

Quote

Paramount title refers to a title that prevails over any other claim of title. In real property law paramount title means the original title or ownership superior or stronger than the one with which it is compared to. It is also referred to as parent title because other titles arrive from a paramount title.

I couldn't find any definition of paramount that means anything other than superior, or above, or stronger, or better, or preferable. 

Seems to match the regular dictionary definion:

Quote

chief in importance or impact; supreme; preeminent: 
a point of paramount significance.
above others in rank or authority; superior in power or jurisdiction.
noun
a supreme ruler; overlord.

It seems to mean the same thing as I thought.  Do you really agree with him 100% in what he said, or are you trying to get me to not take what he said at face value?

Edited June 19, 2020 by pogi

[MustardSeed]

I’m with Pogi here- our church is not professionally cleaned, there’s a lot of touching at churches, a lot of singing, crying, talking, close sitting, snot noses, familiarity and GERM sharing at church.  This should not be a revelation- Everyone knows that Tuesday is symptom day lol. Churches are likely being held to a hard standard due to “reasons”. 

[Anijen]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Elder Bednar stated that religious liberty is "paramount among all other fundamental rights". 

He stated that there is "no other freedom more important".

He stated that we have forgotten what is "most important" while trying to save lives from Covid - religious liberty.

 I am sure if the Governor of Utah forced you to allow soldiers in your house and they get to pick their bedrooms and they expected you to feed them and do their washing of their clothes etc., you would naturally place the Third Amendment in a paramount position at that time.

Paramount importance does not have to mean it is a right that is supreme over all other rights (your words). I read it that due to the pandemic causing lockdowns at this time, they are affecting religious rights and the right to assemble. The Third amendment rights are not effecting us at this time, neither are the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. Thus, it is natural  to read this as the First Amendment is paramount [at this time]. 

 

Quote

You subsequently implored me to take this to mean that he was simply "emphasizing the importance of religious liberty"

And he was emphasizing the importance of religious liberty, hence the title of his talk A Wake Up Call For Religious Freedom

 

Quote

... above the right to life, which quite frankly is "interpreting his meaning differently than as stated". 

You are the one who stated that Elder Bednar is "advocating putting lives at risk."  You, not me.

 

Quote

I am sorry if you are offended,

Annoyed that you are mincing the words of an Apostle saying he is advocating putting lives at risks. He is plainly not, he is speaking of the importance, even paramount importance, of maintaining our religious liberties during this time of pandemic. 

What do you mean if? I am very offended. You are the one remolding his words to mean something he didn't mean and then saying I am doing it too. Your apology is not really an apology is it? 

 

Quote

but that is what went down.  

Selective reading much?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

That's probably why we are coming at this discussion a little differently.  I'm not really that concerned with the different perceptions of the message (and there seems to be multiple perceptions of it, depending on the poster).   I'm more focused on trying to figure out the intent (because to me, the intent is what Elder Bednar actually believes and is wanting to say, which is what I'm interested in understanding better).

Normally I would be too, the difference this time is what amounts to a call for public action to prevent the government from being extreme in its restrictions (which I agree with in principle)...without specifying what that extreme is (so I can’t agree or disagree with because he hasn’t given the line which must never be crossed again).
 

I am concerned his talk will be misused as justification for ignoring reasonable government regulation as well as used for promoting unreasonable reactions among Saints by antigovernment individuals. 
 

Also I am concerned that Saints will be less likely to follow the Church’s own recommendations and requirements because of the impression I believe his talk gives that the Church leadership was not proactively involved in deciding they wanted Saints to act in safe and wise fashion. 

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Anijen said:

 I am sure if the Governor of Utah forced you to allow soldiers in your house and they get to pick their bedrooms and they expected you to feed them and do their washing of their clothes etc., you would naturally place the Third Amendment in a paramount position at that time.

Paramount importance does not have to mean it is a right that is supreme over all other rights (your words). I read it that due to the pandemic causing lockdowns at this time, they are affecting religious rights and the right to assemble. The Third amendment rights are not effecting us at this time, neither are the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. Thus, it is natural  to read this as the First Amendment is paramount [at this time]. 

He said religious liberty is "paramount among all other fundamental rights".  He didn't say "at this time".  You are not talking his words at face value as you are expecting of me.  Nor would I agree that religious liberty it is paramount at this time.  At no time is religious liberty paramount to right to life.  Never.   Especially , "at this time" in a deadly pandemic, our rights to life should be paramount to religious liberty.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

these same women are holding up Bednars speech as a freedom flag- saying it’s validating all their thoughts and feelings.  They can’t wait to gather again. No masks. 

This is what I am concerned about. Seen it happen before, figured it would happen again. 
 

Good chance his talk made little difference to these anti-government types. However, they may be more persuasive to those on the borderline.  They have something that can make them appear ‘mainstream’ since they can claim they are acting on instruction from an apostle. 
 

I believe such a position can be rebutted by going to look at what the church has said elsewhere, but that takes time and effort and many will at most read Elder Bednar’s talk.  And where the Church has allowed a wide range of local discretion, it may appear to some upper leadership don’t care about safety precautions (if your bishop or SP is going around without a mask and shaking hands or is not actively involved as I have heard reported in some areas).

[Calm]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Is it possible that Elder Bednar could have made this speech rogue?  Does he represent the church or just himself in this speech?

I don’t see that as likely at all. I suspect it was simply being focused on getting the importance of his message out there that he and others did not consider what some already frustrated with the restrictions or even anti-government would do with it. 
 

Normally not a big issue because the topic can be discussed at different times and in different ways. It is the unique situation where harm will be done next Sunday or the next time someone walks out of the house through less regard to church and government recommendations. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

In my ward masks are required to attend--Bednar speech or not--so these women would really be struggling.  I know what you mean though in that I have some really vocal facebook friends who have gone overboard with conspiracy theories/freedoms and rights/no masks and it's gotten off-putting.  

I would be interested to hear if your bishop gets more complaints now or not. 
 

Unfortunately it is just not behaviour at church that will be affected. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Quote

In other words, it's okay to treat religionists worse than protesters because churchy folks will tolerate it without resorting to violence. The economist in me can't help but think that is a rather perverse incentive structure.

Do you have a viable alternative response?  Serious question. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

In fact, I see churches as being highly favored here.  Does anyone know what maximum capacity is for most LDS chapels?  

He said there was a hard cap of 50, so I am assuming that means no more than even if 25% would be 250. 

[Anijen]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

He said religious liberty is "paramount among all other fundamental rights".  He didn't say "at this time". 

“This time of restriction and confinement has confirmed for me that no freedom is more important than religious freedom,”

Like I said, selective reading much?

 

Quote

You are not talking his words at face value as you are expecting of me. 

I am taking his words at face value. See what I mean, You accuse me of what you're are actually doing. You are the one who said Elder Bednar is advocating putting lives at risk. That is taking away the Apostles meaning and adding your own. And then you accuse me of doing the same thing. I am taking his words at face value

 

Quote

Nor would I agree that religious liberty it is paramount at this time.

 Those who will not support the cause of freedom are put to death. About 73–72 B.C.

19 And when Moroni had said these words, he went forth among the people, waving the ^arent part of his garment in the air, that all might see the writing which he had written upon the rent part, and crying with a loud voice, saying:

20 Behold, whosoever will maintain this title upon the land, let them come forth in the strength of the Lord, and ^aenter into a covenant that they will ^bmaintain their rights, and their religion, that the Lord God may bless them.

Quote

At no time is religious liberty paramount to right to life. Never.

Really, at no time?

 

Quote

Especially , "at this time" in a deadly pandemic, our rights to life should be paramount to religious liberty.  

Your are misinterpreting Elder Bednar's words (again). You are trying to insert a right enumerated under the Declaration of Independence and say Elder Bednar is stating that enumeration is superior to the right enumerated under the Bill of Rights specifically that the First Amendment is subordinate to the Declaration of Independence.

Or I could be wrong, You might be saying that right to life is from the Gettysburg Address because it was said there too. Note: both the Civil War and Revolutionary War were fought at the cost of lives for these freedoms.