Let's try this again. President oaks nailed it imo.

[MustardSeed]

I actually posted a reply to Bluebell at the same minute the other one got shut down for bad behavior.  

Im attempting a restart because his was my favorite talk.  
In response to Bluebell's great (as usual) post, I attempted to state:

 

Personally I suspect it's indicative of the depth and seriousness of the problem, which we might be somewhat unaware of. 

Anecdotally, I am aware that many people have stopped attending church due to (now identified as) inappropriate judgement for political leaning and opinions.  Facebook has destroyed many relationships IMO and has resulted in many hard feelings.  

It is my opinion that Oaks talk was, though surprising, very timely, very appropriate, very intelligent, and it was much appreciated by me.  Maybe he gave it just for me.  I now feel just that much better about showing my  democrat (in 2020 that is) voting face around church town again. 

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I actually posted a reply to Bluebell at the same minute the other one got shut down for bad behavior.  

Im attempting a restart because his was my favorite talk.  
In response to Bluebell's great (as usual) post, I attempted to state:

 

Personally I suspect it's indicative of the depth and seriousness of the problem, which we might be somewhat unaware of. 

Anecdotally, I am aware that many people have stopped attending church due to (now identified as) inappropriate judgement for political leaning and opinions.  Facebook has destroyed many relationships IMO and has resulted in many hard feelings.  

It is my opinion that Oaks talk was, though surprising, very timely, very appropriate, very intelligent, and it was much appreciated by me.  Maybe he gave it just for me.  I now feel just that much better about showing my  democrat (in 2020 that is) voting face around church town again. 

Same, and this is coming from a registered opposite.

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It is my opinion that Oaks talk was, though surprising, very timely, very appropriate, very intelligent, and it was much appreciated by me

I agree. And to keep it from being so surprising, maybe such talks need to be more frequent and widespread in the future. Our people need to come to realize that the rise and progress of the Church in the latter days owe their existence to the establishment of the Constitution and its modeling for people everywhere of the protection of human rights and freedoms. 

[bluebell]

@Vanguard

Quote

The Constitution is inextricably linked to not only the restoration but also to the Gospel's continued existence. 

Are you saying that if the United States fell that the gospel would not continue to exist or could not exist for the rest of the earth?  Not being snarky, I honestly am not sure what you mean by this.

I agree that the constitution is linked to the restoration.  If Oaks had given a talk on that topic specifically it probably wouldn't be seen as at all controversial.  Also, if Americans didn't have a bit of a habit of self-aggrandizement, it probably wouldn't be seen as controversial either.

I think his talk is coming up against some baggage that other countries have with the U.S. and that's some of the reason it's getting some pushback in certain quarters.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I actually posted a reply to Bluebell at the same minute the other one got shut down for bad behavior.  

Im attempting a restart because his was my favorite talk.  
In response to Bluebell's great (as usual) post, I attempted to state:

 

Personally I suspect it's indicative of the depth and seriousness of the problem, which we might be somewhat unaware of. 

Anecdotally, I am aware that many people have stopped attending church due to (now identified as) inappropriate judgement for political leaning and opinions.  Facebook has destroyed many relationships IMO and has resulted in many hard feelings.  

It is my opinion that Oaks talk was, though surprising, very timely, very appropriate, very intelligent, and it was much appreciated by me.  Maybe he gave it just for me.  I now feel just that much better about showing my  democrat (in 2020 that is) voting face around church town again. 

I really liked it too.

I have a close friend who thinks that he will likely be our next prophet and that this talk is a prelude to the coming time when the constitution will be in danger of falling and will need to be propped up by the saints (and maybe not just the saints in the U.S.) to survive.

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree. And to keep it from being so surprising, maybe such talks need to be more frequent and widespread in the future. Our people need to come to realize that the rise and progress of the Church in the latter days owe their existence to the establishment of the Constitution and its modeling for people everywhere of the protection of human rights and freedoms. 

I often mention when telling people about my conversion, that I am grateful for having been born in a free country where religious expression is protected, which ensured the foothold and advancement of the (ongoing) Restoration. The Constitution is also the basis for the other blessings I enumerate in my conversion story: prosperity, education, and a society familiar with Christ's teachings and gospel principles. "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (2 Corinthians 3:17)

[The Nehor]

Predicting we still will not be able to have nice things.

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

@Vanguard

Are you saying that if the United States fell that the gospel would not continue to exist or could not exist for the rest of the earth?  Not being snarky, I honestly am not sure what you mean by this.

I agree that the constitution is linked to the restoration.  If Oaks had given a talk on that topic specifically it probably wouldn't be seen as at all controversial.  Also, if Americans didn't have a bit of a habit of self-aggrandizement, it probably wouldn't be seen as controversial either.

I think his talk is coming up against some baggage that other countries have with the U.S. and that's some of the reason it's getting some pushback in certain quarters.

I can see this; hopefully those in other nations disturbed by the USA's foreign policies will pick up on this statement: "Despite the divinely inspired principles of the United States constitution, when exercised by imperfect mortals their intended effects have not always been achieved."

Hopefully they can focus on the five divinely inspired principles he enumerated (and he suggested there are more).

Early in eh talk: "That is why this constitution is of special concern for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world.  Whether or how its principles should be applied in other nations of the world is for them to decide."

Edited April 5, 2021 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

@Vanguard

Are you saying that if the United States fell that the gospel would not continue to exist or could not exist for the rest of the earth?  Not being snarky, I honestly am not sure what you mean by this.

I agree that the constitution is linked to the restoration.  If Oaks had given a talk on that topic specifically it probably wouldn't be seen as at all controversial.  Also, if Americans didn't have a bit of a habit of self-aggrandizement, it probably wouldn't be seen as controversial either.

I think his talk is coming up against some baggage that other countries have with the U.S. and that's some of the reason it's getting some pushback in certain quarters.

I would think it means the CHURCH requires the freedom to operate that we have under the US Constitution.
That's very different from the gospel existing.  The gospel exists with or without the legally constituted Church corporation.

And I really don't get the controversy.  The talk was perfectly fine.  It probably went too far for the globalists who dislike America.  And not far enough for the constitutionalists who think the document is literally the constitution of God's kingdom.
As a Conference talk it was gospel based, connecting Constitutional principles to the gospel.
All this fuss over basic stuff.

[Meadowchik]

55 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

 Facebook has destroyed many relationships IMO and has resulted in many hard feelings.  

I just wanna comment on this part.

In large part, I think FB has merely exposed viewpoints that have been easier to avoid or ignore in the past. Of course it is also influential, as is any transfer of information.  But when people start expressing their opinions, it takes work to have productive conversations, and lots of people are expressing themselves without putting in that effort.

[InCognitus]

I liked his talk too, and it was one of my favorites of this conference.  And frankly, I don't understand all the controversy: 

• Not on Easter Sunday?   The Easter related topics are traditionally addressed in the Sunday morning session of conference (as was the case yesterday).
• Not for a world audience?  I thought he outlined the principles of the constitution in a way that showed how they are applicable throughout the world and how the principles facilitate God's plan for our existence here on this earth and our use of individual moral agency, and for the restoration of the church and its continued function on earth.
• Self aggrandizing because he knows the topic?   (Sorry, that's just silly.)  I think Elder Oaks, as an apostle of Jesus Christ, has been concerned by the attitudes and behaviors of people in recent events in the nation and throughout the world, and I sensed that he was inspired to reiterate the principles in his talk to help members of the church find the iron rod and hold to it.  He also addressed the proper role of government as it relates to church membership and where it is inappropriate to bring political topics into our church meeting houses.   All of these are appropriate and important topics for an apostle to address, especially now.

In summary, I thought it was a timely topic and he spoke with authority and conviction on some things that really needed to be said.

Edited April 5, 2021 by InCognitus

[Rain]

After really thinking about it and reading President Oak’s talk on the thread I have come to the conclusion it was an important talk to give.  The 2 problems I found with the talk were:

1. The placement of it.  Instead of coming after all the international talks it might have been better placed in a different session prior to them.

2. Instead of coming out as "America was the first" it would have been better to share a little about our constitution and good things in the constitutions of other countries. It may be true that most are built on the US constitution, but coming from a US apostle in a church that has struggled to be global it does, as someone else said, came across as tone deaf to me.

Many have mentioned the timing - being on Easter, but really there wasn't much you can do about that.  You have a lot of stuff in the US that happened since the last conference and another 6 months before we have another conference.  You have the problems in Myranmar and other countries. Six months is a long time to wait for a talk on the topic just so we can distance from Easter.

Honestly, with everything going on in the world saying President Oaks was tone deaf may show how deaf we, myself included, are. He may have been tone deaf in some of his wording, but I may be deaf to the troubles in the world. I may have to think on that more.

Ultimately the core message needed to be said and I can give President Oaks the same grace that I give to those in the Book of Mormon who spoke with imperfect words.

Edited April 5, 2021 by Rain

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Rain said:

Many have mentioned the timing - being on Easter, but really there wasn't much you can do about that.  You have a lot of stuff in the US that happened since the last conference and another 6 months before we have another conference.  You have the problems in Myranmar and other countries. Six months is a long time to wait for a talk on the topic just so we can distance from Easter.

I think somehow we have come to associate April Conference with Easter.
It's NOT an Easter meeting, even if it falls on Easter.  It's a Conference of the Church and all the topics that are included in that.
There is no obligation to make Easter the focus of April conference sessions.

[Rain]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think somehow we have come to associate April Conference with Easter.
It's NOT an Easter meeting, even if it falls on Easter.  It's a Conference of the Church and all the topics that are included in that.
There is no obligation to make Easter the focus of April conference sessions.

Maybe it comes from the history of conference?  It does seem that when conference falls on Easter that we get a lot more Easter centered talks, but maybe that's not really true.  It would be interesting to see if it was.

[Freedom]

My son made the comment "guess that means no more Sunday school in (the  name of the small largely Mormon down he lives in)" with the somewhat joke that if they cannot discuss politics, there will be nothing to talk about. 

I am conservative, but I despite their anti-science stances. For this I lean towards the more liberal parties. But I an frustrated by the unwillingness of the left to make individuals accountable. As such, three is no single party I agree with. There are values with the right and the left, it just comes down to how close any given party is to my values at any given election. 

 

But I ask, where in our doctrine does it state that the U.S. constitution is inspired, or for that matter, any more inspired than any other constitution? 

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Freedom said:

But I ask, where in our doctrine does it state that the U.S. constitution is inspired, or for that matter, any more inspired than any other constitution? 

 

D&C 101: 77, 80 are probably what people refer to the most:

"According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;.... And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."

[Freedom]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

D&C 101: 77, 80 are probably what people refer to the most:

"According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;.... And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."

I think too much is read into this. If may be allowed to be, and whose who wrote it were very cleaver, but it is not scripture. The system of common law established in British law which we enjoy here is also inspired and allowed to be established by God. the US constitution has its values for sure but it is a man made document in the end. 

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Freedom said:

I think too much is read into this. If may be allowed to be, and whose who wrote it were very cleaver, but it is not scripture. The system of common law established in British law which we enjoy here is also inspired and allowed to be established by God. the US constitution has its values for sure but it is a man made document in the end. 

Something can be manmade and also revealed or inspired by God at the same time.

In one sense scriptures are manmade. 

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, Freedom said:

I think too much is read into this. If may be allowed to be, and whose who wrote it were very cleaver, but it is not scripture. The system of common law established in British law which we enjoy here is also inspired and allowed to be established by God. the US constitution has its values for sure but it is a man made document in the end. 

It is not scripture per se, but the principles that underlie it, pertaining to moral agency and preservation of the rights and privileges of all flesh certainly are. And the words of the passages endorsing it are attributed to Jesus Christ. 

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, Freedom said:

I think too much is read into this. If may be allowed to be, and whose who wrote it were very cleaver, but it is not scripture. The system of common law established in British law which we enjoy here is also inspired and allowed to be established by God. the US constitution has its values for sure but it is a man made document in the end. 

This is why he focused on the US Constitution in terms of five, and more, divinely inspired principles, not the text or the document itself (e.g. "There are other threats that undermine the inspired principles of the United States constitution."):

"Our belief that the United States constitution was divinely inspired does not mean that divine revelation dictated every word and phrase, such as the provisions allocating the number of representatives from each state or the minimum age of each.

...

"I believe the United States constitution contains at least five divinely inspired principles."

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

..........................

Anecdotally, I am aware that many people have stopped attending church due to (now identified as) inappropriate judgement for political leaning and opinions.  Facebook has destroyed many relationships IMO and has resulted in many hard feelings. ......................

Attendance at church meetings (virtual or real) may be affected by a great many things, but surely we are not going to know the actual affect of COVID 19 for a little while longer.  If church attendance has not returned to normal a year from now, that will be soon enough to start pointing fingers.  Meantime, it is silly to draw premature conclusions.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

D&C 101: 77, 80 are probably what people refer to the most:

"According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;.... And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."

 

1 hour ago, Freedom said:

My son made the comment "guess that means no more Sunday school in (the  name of the small largely Mormon down he lives in)" with the somewhat joke that if they cannot discuss politics, there will be nothing to talk about. 

I am conservative, but I despite their anti-science stances. For this I lean towards the more liberal parties. But I an frustrated by the unwillingness of the left to make individuals accountable. As such, three is no single party I agree with. There are values with the right and the left, it just comes down to how close any given party is to my values at any given election. 

But I ask, where in our doctrine does it state that the U.S. constitution is inspired, or for that matter, any more inspired than any other constitution? 

Also D&C 98:4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

There's also this one which basically tells members they have to follow Constitutional laws, but nothing they view as unconstitutional.
In fact, God explicitly says here that Constitutional laws are justifiable and those that aren't come of evil.

God's endorsement isn't the same as God spoken, but to some it is.

But then there's stuff like this - http://holyfetch.com/mystery-man-convinces-signing-declaration-independence/
Not the Constitution but I've heard this legend repeated at Church more than once.

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And I really don't get the controversy.  The talk was perfectly fine.  It probably went too far for the globalists who dislike America.  And not far enough for the constitutionalists who think the document is literally the constitution of God's kingdom.
As a Conference talk it was gospel based, connecting Constitutional principles to the gospel.
All this fuss over basic stuff.

I have no problem with the talk. It is the debris from it and I expect for years afterwards I am going to have to listen to people waxing hyperbolic about what President Oaks said and using it to justify statements and activities I expect President Oaks would balk at. Nothing new though.

I find it telling that this is the one talk we have had two threads now specifically about. It is a popular (to use an older term) gospel hobby.

[juliann]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I really liked it too.

I have a close friend who thinks that he will likely be our next prophet and that this talk is a prelude to the coming time when the constitution will be in danger of falling and will need to be propped up by the saints (and maybe not just the saints in the U.S.) to survive.

Is that because of that White Horse prophecy that just won’t die? How does your friend think some Mormons can prop up a constitution? What does that even mean? Will they win debates?  Rewrite it? Organize a militia? Get so many members in the government and judicial system they can control laws? 

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Also D&C 98:4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

There's also this one which basically tells members they have to follow Constitutional laws, but nothing they view as unconstitutional.
In fact, God explicitly says here that Constitutional laws are justifiable and those that aren't come of evil.

God's endorsement isn't the same as God spoken, but to some it is.

But then there's stuff like this - http://holyfetch.com/mystery-man-convinces-signing-declaration-independence/
Not the Constitution but I've heard this legend repeated at Church more than once.

 

I think if you leave out verses 8 to 10 you get an incomplete version of what God is trying to communicate.