Elder Oaks promoting political left

[Santiagodeleon107]

Once again Elder Oaks continues to move more and more to the political left, especially on the issues of gay "rights"
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37033080&nid=12 ... d=queue-16" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As someone who has lived as a Mormon my entire life in Utah I am shocked how far to the left politically that my "leaders" have moved. Not only does this new position toward the "center" goes against everything I have been taught in the church, it goes against the teachings of the scriptures and common sense.

[shadow]

Christ said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. That's the gist what Oaks is saying IMO.

[Zathura]

I'm not sure how I feel about Elder Oaks statement.. My first reaction was disappointment but after I read everything he said, I'm not sure. Perhaps he's right.

[Sunain]

As members of the church We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law, it does not mean we agree with or condone those civil laws that are against the laws of God. That being said, I agree partially with President Oak's in this case. I don't agree with the apostles not breaking free from the Boy Scouts over the gay leaders earlier this year though as I feel its a guilt by association when we had the choice to break way from that organization. We are however, bound by the laws of the land and are currently told to uphold them and the constitution. I do agree though that this year the church is really wavering in their decisions that don't match countless decades of previous steadfastness. It feels like were not standing up for our beliefs and crying repentance anymore and it is a bit of giving in.

[Robin Hood]

This is what happens when we have lawyers rather than theologians in high places.
In my view he is wrong about Kim Davis, and has sent out a very confusing signal.

[zionminded]

Are we so certain that celibate homosexual relations in a civil "marriage" are as "evil" as we have made them out to be? I would be the first person to tell you marriage between a man and a women is required for the CK.

[mes5464]

I disagree with this whole quote. There are simply some laws that can't be harmonized. And even if there is no law today that you can't harmonize, just give it time, eventually there will be a law that even the most liberal LDS can't harmonize. I actually feel that this council of his contradicts scripture and over a century of previous council.

Believers, he said, should seek to harmonize divine and civil laws. They should not assert the free exercise of religion to override every law and government action that could possibly be interpreted to infringe on institutional or personal religious freedom.

They also will be more persuasive if they explain their positions in terms understandable to those who don't share their beliefs.

"None," he said, "should adopt an 'us vs. them' mentality."

Believers also should submit to a law once it is sustained by the highest available authority, he said.

[idahommie]

Are we so certain that celibate homosexual relations in a civil "marriage" are as "evil" as we have made them out to be? I would be the first person to tell you marriage between a man and a women is required for the CK.

Yes, we are. It goes against the plan of salvation. There is no procreation in "homosexuality". I too am dismayed and suffering a crisis in faith of our leaders in the move towards the support of homosexual marriage, because if they support the Boy Scouts of America at this point, support of homosexual marriage is not far behind. What happened to following Gods plan, as we more and more follow mans plan...............

[mes5464]

As members of the church We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law, it does not mean we agree with or condone those civil laws that are against the laws of God. That being said, I agree partially with President Oak's in this case. I don't agree with the apostles not breaking free from the Boy Scouts over the gay leaders earlier this year though as I feel its a guilt by association when we had the choice to break way from that organization. We are however, bound by the laws of the land and are currently told to uphold them and the constitution. I do agree though that this year the church is really wavering in their decisions that don't match countless decades of previous steadfastness. It feels like were not standing up for our beliefs and crying repentance anymore and it is a bit of giving in.

There is a thread somewhere on this site about the 12th article of faith. In my opinion the article should be read, "we believe in being subject . . . as long as they obey, honor, and sustain the law". Today we have "laws" that flat out violate THE law.

I also think it was a mistake for the church not to drop scouting.

I agree with everything you said here, "I do agree though that this year the church is really wavering in their decisions that don't match countless decades of previous steadfastness. It feels like were not standing up for our beliefs and crying repentance anymore and it is a bit of giving in."

[mes5464]

Are we so certain that celibate homosexual relations in a civil "marriage" are as "evil" as we have made them out to be? I would be the first person to tell you marriage between a man and a women is required for the CK.

Yes, we are. It goes against the plan of salvation. There is no procreation in "homosexuality". I too am dismayed and suffering a crisis in faith of our leaders in the move towards the support of homosexual marriage, because if they support the Boy Scouts of America at this point, support of homosexual marriage is not far behind. What happened to following Gods plan, as we more and more follow mans plan...............

Just wait when pedophilia becomes the next "sexual orientation" to be legalized.

[davedan]

Why criticize an Apostle of the Lord?


BSA has been taken over by bad actors. Do you then abandon BSA or take it back?

America has been taken over by bad actors. Do we abandon America or take her back?

Continued support of BSA should NOT be interpreted as any type of support of homosexuality.

[Lizzy60]

Why criticize an Apostle of the Lord?


BSA has been taken over by bad actors. Do you then abandon BSA or take it back?

America has been taken over by bad actors. Do we abandon America or take her back?

Continued support of BSA should NOT be interpreted as any type of support of homosexuality.

America has now legalized both abortion and homosexual marriage, and Elder Oaks says it is our duty as citizens to uphold the laws that have been ratified by the Supreme Court.

How, in the name of heaven, is that taking our country back??? We are being told by one of our eminent leaders to condone grievous sin. It is truly shameful.

[idahommie]

Why criticize an Apostle of the Lord?


BSA has been taken over by bad actors. Do you then abandon BSA or take it back?

America has been taken over by bad actors. Do we abandon America or take her back?

Continued support of BSA should NOT be interpreted as any type of support of homosexuality.

Because witnessing the church leaders support actions that go against the basic principles and tenants of the plan of salvation is disturbing.......and YES, support of BSA SHOULD be viewed as supporting an organization that goes against the teachings of the gospel. No picking and choosing.
I see a time coming that it's ok to be a married gay couple. But don't drink a beer.

[Robin Hood]

Are we so certain that celibate homosexual relations in a civil "marriage" are as "evil" as we have made them out to be? I would be the first person to tell you marriage between a man and a women is required for the CK.

Celibate homosexuals are not the problem.

[OhioState001]

It makes me wonder what Elder Oaks would have said to Rosa Parks. I think he would have went the Delbert Stapley route

[OhioState001]

"It would also be desireable to allow employers to exclude homosexuals from influential positions in media, literature, and entertainment, since those jobs influence the tone and ideals of a society." -- Dallin H. Oaks

Somethings changed

[Darren]

As a Church we should get comfortably complacent in our relationship with Babylon?

The Viking blood in my veins is calling me to arms, to defend the "Liberties of the Gospel"

But alas I know that even this Country will fall of it's own weight, and some few elders will be ready to bear the constitution away and rebuild Zion.

We were commanded to “continue in” the Lord’s “goodness,” and our Church Leaders directed us in how to do that until it was time for Utah to become a State; and Federal Government Politicians prohibited our Church Leaders from continuing to promote this “United Order,” that was a “continuation” of “their Forefathers’ Guild System’s way of Working Together By The Law.”

“So, what do we do now?” “How are we going to obey the Lord’s words to us, to continue in His goodness, as our Forefathers did, and Work Together By The Law, as those “Puritan” Forefathers of the First Leaders of the Restored Church tried to do that as they invented “the World’s First Written Constitution,” to work together by, (copied today by every Government in the World but 6 of them) and who said, in their Second Edition of that, “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual League of the United Colonies of New England” that they had all come to America, “With one and the same end and aim, to advance the Kingdom of Our Lord, Jesus Christ and to enjoy THE LIBERTIES OF THE GOSPEL IN PURITY!” (for which such a holy saying, their Enemies tried to deride them, with their “cooked-up” name for them of, “the Puritans”).

“Seriously, how can ‘the Way’ ‘open up’ for us to keep this, which the LDS people adhered to as a ‘very important instruction to us’ from Our Heavenly Father, when the Politicians who have control of the US Government have forbidden us to adhere to that?”

The Cleansing is coming. Are you ready?

God Bless,
Darren

[Robin Hood]

As a Church we should get comfortably complacent in our relationship with Babylon?

The Viking blood in my veins is calling me to arms, to defend the "Liberties of the Gospel"

But alas I know that even this Country will fall of it's own weight, and some few elders will be ready to bear the constitution away and rebuild Zion.

We were commanded to “continue in” the Lord’s “goodness,” and our Church Leaders directed us in how to do that until it was time for Utah to become a State; and Federal Government Politicians prohibited our Church Leaders from continuing to promote this “United Order,” that was a “continuation” of “their Forefathers’ Guild System’s way of Working Together By The Law.”

“So, what do we do now?” “How are we going to obey the Lord’s words to us, to continue in His goodness, as our Forefathers did, and Work Together By The Law, as those “Puritan” Forefathers of the First Leaders of the Restored Church tried to do that as they invented “the World’s First Written Constitution,” to work together by, (copied today by every Government in the World but 6 of them) and who said, in their Second Edition of that, “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual League of the United Colonies of New England” that they had all come to America, “With one and the same end and aim, to advance the Kingdom of Our Lord, Jesus Christ and to enjoy THE LIBERTIES OF THE GOSPEL IN PURITY!” (for which such a holy saying, their Enemies tried to deride them, with their “cooked-up” name for them of, “the Puritans”).

“Seriously, how can ‘the Way’ ‘open up’ for us to keep this, which the LDS people adhered to as a ‘very important instruction to us’ from Our Heavenly Father, when the Politicians who have control of the US Government have forbidden us to adhere to that?”

The Cleansing is coming. Are you ready?

God Bless,
Darren

"Copied by every government in the world but 6"?
Not true.
Not even nearly true.

[mes5464]

"Copied by every government in the world but 6"?
Not true.
Not even nearly true.

The United States Constitution was the first written constitution in the world. It has served Americans well, enhancing freedom and prosperity during the changed conditions of more than two hundred years. Frequently copied, it has become the United States’ most important export. After two centuries, every nation in the world except six have adopted written constitutions, and the U.S. Constitution was a model for all of them. No wonder modern revelation says that God established the U.S. Constitution and that it “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles.” (D&C 101:77.)

See “The Constitution,” Wilson Quarterly, Spring 1987, pp. 97, 126.

[gkearney]

I believe that there were several nations which had written constitutions prior to the US including the Netherland, Iceland and the Iroquois Confederacy in America.

[iWriteStuff]

I thought this particular quote was very useful for establishing context:

"On the other hand, those skeptical of or hostile to believers and their organizations should recognize the reality — borne out by experience — that religious principles and teachings and their organizations are here to stay and can help create the conditions in which public laws and government institutions and their citizens can flourish."

To me, this sounded like an appeal to raise the degree of spirituality to a level where we, as a society, would want to treat each other fairly while still maintaining an abhorrence of sin. If the abhorrence of sin becomes more prevalent, perhaps society in general wouldn't be so quick to choose and legalize sinful behavior. Society, if raised to a degree of spirituality more akin to scriptural and celestial ideals, wouldn't choose sin anyway.

More to the point, I think his comments reflect the balance as prescribed in scripture:

Alma 30:
7 Now there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds. (In all things, men should be considered as equals)
8 For thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve. (They don't have to choose God, but they should...See below)
9 Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.
10 But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished.
11 For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.

So maybe I'm reading that wrong, but it's no sin to grant equality to others. In fact the sin would be in denying equality. Someone please tell me where I'm wrong? I'm not trying to sound like an apologist, just drawing conclusions based on stuff I've been reading lately...

[Darren]

"Copied by every government in the world but 6"?
Not true.
Not even nearly true.

Fools argue the details and thereby completely miss the point.

There are 196 countries in the world today. Google Search

The study, to be published in June in The New York University Law Review, bristles with data. Its authors coded and analyzed the provisions of 729 constitutions adopted by 188 countries from 1946 to 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we ... .html?_r=0

196 - 188 = 8

Perhaps Mr. Wydner was off by a couple when he wrote that. But that is pretty close to being right, and for the point he was making, it was well done.

Next time try doing a google search to see if your opinion jives with the opinions of those who make a living figuring these things out.

God Bless,
Darren

[iWriteStuff]

And, of course, there's always this little nugget to consider:

Mosiah 29:

21 And behold, now I say unto you, ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood.
22 For behold, he has his friends in iniquity, and he keepeth his guards about him; and he teareth up the laws of those who have reigned in righteousness before him; and he trampleth under his feet the commandments of God;
23 And he enacteth laws, and sendeth them forth among his people, yea, laws after the manner of his own wickedness; and whosoever doth not obey his laws he causeth to be destroyed; and whosoever doth rebel against him he will send his armies against them to war, and if he can he will destroy them; and thus an unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness.
24 And now behold I say unto you, it is not expedient that such abominations should come upon you.
25 Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord.
26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

My take on Elder Oaks' comments is that he would prefer to focus on changing the hearts of the people so that they no longer choose iniquity. The laws are what we make them; if we are righteous, we can make the laws righteous. If we are wicked, such will be our laws. And if that's the case, get ready for the destruction.

[Todd]

As a Church we should get comfortably complacent in our relationship with Babylon?

The Viking blood in my veins is calling me to arms, to defend the "Liberties of the Gospel"

But alas I know that even this Country will fall of it's own weight, and some few elders will be ready to bear the constitution away and rebuild Zion.

We were commanded to “continue in” the Lord’s “goodness,” and our Church Leaders directed us in how to do that until it was time for Utah to become a State; and Federal Government Politicians prohibited our Church Leaders from continuing to promote this “United Order,” that was a “continuation” of “their Forefathers’ Guild System’s way of Working Together By The Law.”

“So, what do we do now?” “How are we going to obey the Lord’s words to us, to continue in His goodness, as our Forefathers did, and Work Together By The Law, as those “Puritan” Forefathers of the First Leaders of the Restored Church tried to do that as they invented “the World’s First Written Constitution,” to work together by, (copied today by every Government in the World but 6 of them) and who said, in their Second Edition of that, “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual League of the United Colonies of New England” that they had all come to America, “With one and the same end and aim, to advance the Kingdom of Our Lord, Jesus Christ and to enjoy THE LIBERTIES OF THE GOSPEL IN PURITY!” (for which such a holy saying, their Enemies tried to deride them, with their “cooked-up” name for them of, “the Puritans”).

“Seriously, how can ‘the Way’ ‘open up’ for us to keep this, which the LDS people adhered to as a ‘very important instruction to us’ from Our Heavenly Father, when the Politicians who have control of the US Government have forbidden us to adhere to that?”

The Cleansing is coming. Are you ready?

God Bless,
Darren

"Copied by every government in the world but 6"?
Not true.
Not even nearly true.

Care to back up your statement mr hood?

[mes5464]

I whole point is made with, "Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds". The problem is laws are putting men on unequal ground. If you don't want to hire a smoker, a homosexual, or a person of color it is illegal. But if you want to fire a Christian for his beliefs it is okay. I think my problem with Elder Oaks' comments is that there are now laws in existence with which I cannot harmonize the gospel.

We have also lost the meaning of crime. Society doesn't understand the meaning of a crime. We also have passed laws to punish people for crimes they didn't commit. We write a speeding ticket because you MIGHT have caused and accident. We arrest a person with a gun because they MIGHT shoot up a movie theater. We search you because you MIGHT have contraband on you.

We violate the agency of man with laws like illegal drugs.

Yet we don't punish murder (abortion) or adultery (fornication, sodomy).

The Book of Mormon is true and these verses are great counsel of what we need to fix in our own laws and government. And I do not think we can harmonize the corrupted laws he have today. And so, like Helaman said, "For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted", we cannot harmonize corrupt laws with the gospel laws. It can't be done.

I thought this particular quote was very useful for establishing context:

"On the other hand, those skeptical of or hostile to believers and their organizations should recognize the reality — borne out by experience — that religious principles and teachings and their organizations are here to stay and can help create the conditions in which public laws and government institutions and their citizens can flourish."

To me, this sounded like an appeal to raise the degree of spirituality to a level where we, as a society, would want to treat each other fairly while still maintaining an abhorrence of sin. If the abhorrence of sin becomes more prevalent, perhaps society in general wouldn't be so quick to choose and legalize sinful behavior. Society, if raised to a degree of spirituality more akin to scriptural and celestial ideals, wouldn't choose sin anyway.

More to the point, I think his comments reflect the balance as prescribed in scripture:

Alma 30:
7 Now there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds. (In all things, men should be considered as equals)
8 For thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve. (They don't have to choose God, but they should...See below)
9 Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.
10 But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished.
11 For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.

So maybe I'm reading that wrong, but it's no sin to grant equality to others. In fact the sin would be in denying equality. Someone please tell me where I'm wrong? I'm not trying to sound like an apologist, just drawing conclusions based on stuff I've been reading lately...