Elder Oaks promoting political left

[Zathura]

Lol.. I knew that you would bring up this quote.

Sounds like you have a good grasp and admiration for your own understanding. Good luck with that.

Do you need a hug buddy?

:ymhug:

[buffalo_girl]

"A county clerk's recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal by her office and staff to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle."

Far worse, he said, are governors or attorneys general who refuse to enforce or defend a law they oppose on personal secular or religious grounds, a reference that could include the Obama administration's past refusal to defend DOMA and some conservative governors' refusal to abide by federal marriage rulings.

Well...this sword cuts both ways!

I'm just wondering where State's Rights - as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution for the United States - apply.

He repudiated the "culture wars," which he defined as the collision of two values, freedom from discrimination and the free exercise of religion. Those conflicts undermine collaboration.

"Differences on precious fundamentals are with us forever," he said. "We must not let them disable our democracy or cripple our society. This does not anticipate that we will deny or abandon our differences, but that we will learn to live with those laws, institutions and persons who do not share them.

"We may have cultural differences, but we should not have 'culture wars.' "

Let's pray that these 'cultural differences' don't lead us to blithely harmonize divine law with civil laws protecting the right of GOVERNMENT to spy upon, imprison without trial, torture, confiscate property, and disappear those suspected of being a threat to its AUTHORITY.

Now, there's a 'cultural difference' to think about!

Could this be the reason Christian leadership is remaining silent about these more egregious crimes committed by Ruling Authority based upon The Patriot Act and countless supporting legislation & Executive Orders being enacted against those considered 'outsiders', 'constitutionalists', farmers, and other ID'd 'trouble makers'?

"These two realms should have a mutually supportive relationship."

...the floods of ungodly men affright me. Psalms 18:4

[ilovetherain]

Elder Oaks supports the Constitution. He isn't supporting homosexuals.

I truly believe that more than one of the 15 wanted to pull from BSA, but I believe it is the Lord who did not want to AT THIS TIME. My belief is because many of these boys and young men HAVE NO STRONG MALE INFLUENCES in this lives - their homes are destroyed, their fathers are addicts, they feel alone, and Scouts is the only thing holding them together. There is still a great need for scouts. Not every boy has a dad at home, and when they don't scouts is huge for them. I believe it is the Lord that loves these boys that instructed our 15 to stay in BSA FOR NOW. I was for them pulling from it, but I quickly humbled myself to see the bigger picture.

[jockeybox]

If the current "king, president, ruler, or magistrate" decides to make unlawful...say some strange marriage practice, like polygamy, what's a young church to do, even if they felt the practice necessary for salvation?

Who governs this people?

[Col. Flagg]

The church is intentionally going out of its way to appease the government in order to preserve its tax-exempt status - it's almost as if they are willing to do and/or say anything, no matter how questionable it is to members or contrary to Christ's teachings and will of the Lord in order to keep the church tax-exempt while existing as a corporation sole under the chains of the IRS. Sad... very sad. So not only do we not challenge evil or speak out against anything wrong that might be considered 'political' over the pulpit, we now suck up to Uncle Sam. I'm sure ancient Prophets like Noah, Abinidi and Samuel the Lamanite 'understand'.

Who says our tax exempt status is in jeopardy? Have they taken away the tax exempt status from any church? Even the Westboro Baptist?

Who says it's not? There are a lot of organized groups trying to get the church's 501c3 status revoked right now, mostly stemming from Prop 8 years ago.

OK.... But they've, without exception, gone nowhere. You're accusing the Brethren of acting out of fear of something that has never happened. I think that they are more sensible than that.

I wish that were so, but Stacy, they've been doing everything in their power to protect their tax-exempt status for a LONG time - just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it never will as that is exactly what they are trying to prevent.

[Col. Flagg]

The church is intentionally going out of its way to appease the government in order to preserve its tax-exempt status - it's almost as if they are willing to do and/or say anything, no matter how questionable it is to members or contrary to Christ's teachings and will of the Lord (

Oh? What would YOU know about what the will of the Lord is to the Church?

Wow. =;

I'm serious, Col. Who are you to receive this for the Church? The Prophet of the Lord, who I heard you sustain once upon a time, got up in Conference and not once but twice said no tithing funds were used on City Creek. Yet here you remain YEARS later complaining about the same things, spreading the same disinformation, and dissing the Church as if you alone have knowledge nobody else has.

So I'm calling you on it. Who do you think you are to speak for the Lord or to know his will for HIS Church???

I'm not claiming to speak for the Lord or his church, but I sure as hell think I know who the Lord and our Savior are and what they expect from his Saints and servants. The Lord does not compromise morality, but that is exactly what his servants are doing... in the name of money... this does not concern you?

[Santiagodeleon107]

The church is intentionally going out of its way to appease the government in order to preserve its tax-exempt status - it's almost as if they are willing to do and/or say anything, no matter how questionable it is to members or contrary to Christ's teachings and will of the Lord in order to keep the church tax-exempt while existing as a corporation sole under the chains of the IRS. Sad... very sad. So not only do we not challenge evil or speak out against anything wrong that might be considered 'political' over the pulpit, we now suck up to Uncle Sam. I'm sure ancient Prophets like Noah, Abinidi and Samuel the Lamanite 'understand'. Do we need to honor, uphold and sustain the law? Yes. But that does not mean we have to take it one step further by essentially abandoning our morals just to stay on the good side of government.

I agree, the Church seems to listen more to their p.r. lawyers than their own members. Ironically the one thing that could lead to their tax exemption being endangered was their very heavy handed involvement in forcing the Utah legislature to pass that very liberal and pro-gay non-discrimination law in March 2015.

[zionminded]

Since LDS people are to be subject to laws of government, the Mormons should have surrendered themselves to Governor Boggs when he gave the extermination order, that ordered all Mormons to be killed. It was the law of the land and those wicked people disobeyed and fled Missouri. Now they will go to hell.

Hmm

Or leave the boundaries of the state, which they did.

[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.

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

We invite people with addictions to be healed in Christ, and give them a place at the table. Why not same gender attraction individuals?

[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.

Oaks=Disgrace

Once again we see an apostle criticized against a personal filter. Oaks is a disgrace? Who do you think YOU are? Just because he stakes a position different than your own doesn't necessarily make him wrong and it most certainly doesn't warrant this kind of un-Christlike condemnation.

I find it continually disappointing that there are those out there like you who hold apostles and prophets up like television shows to be reviewed.

When I wrote this I was upset by Oaks's comments from the article and his recent actions and comments in supporting gay "rights" perhaps Oaks=Disgrace was a bit harsh.

[Col. Flagg]

When I wrote this I was upset by Oaks's comments from the article and his recent actions and comments in supporting gay "rights" perhaps Oaks=Disgrace was a bit harsh.

Oaks a disgrace? No, just doing what lawyers do. Bro. Oaks is a good man, he's just being guided by legalities to keep the church 'in good standing' with Uncle Sam instead of moral conviction from within.

[Stacy Oliver]

When I wrote this I was upset by Oaks's comments from the article and his recent actions and comments in supporting gay "rights" perhaps Oaks=Disgrace was a bit harsh.

Oaks a disgrace? No, just doing what lawyers do. Bro. Oaks is a good man, he's just being guided by legalities to keep the church 'in good standing' with Uncle Sam instead of moral conviction from within.

Again, you're assuming they irrationally fear something, and are acting on that fear, without any evidence.

[Zathura]

When I wrote this I was upset by Oaks's comments from the article and his recent actions and comments in supporting gay "rights" perhaps Oaks=Disgrace was a bit harsh.

Oaks a disgrace? No, just doing what lawyers do. Bro. Oaks is a good man, he's just being guided by legalities to keep the church 'in good standing' with Uncle Sam instead of moral conviction from within.

Again, you're assuming they irrationally fear something, and are acting on that fear, without any evidence.

It's true he's assuming this, but do you think what he suggested might possibly be what is happening?

[Col. Flagg]

When I wrote this I was upset by Oaks's comments from the article and his recent actions and comments in supporting gay "rights" perhaps Oaks=Disgrace was a bit harsh.

Oaks a disgrace? No, just doing what lawyers do. Bro. Oaks is a good man, he's just being guided by legalities to keep the church 'in good standing' with Uncle Sam instead of moral conviction from within.

Again, you're assuming they irrationally fear something, and are acting on that fear, without any evidence.

It's true he's assuming this, but do you think what he suggested might possibly be what is happening?

Precisely, thanks Stahura. Stacy, I don't glean any joy from saying some of the things I do here on the board, but I've always fought against wrongdoing and for what's right. In this case, I don't think I'm off base. Look at what happened in 2007 with Dick Cheney and BYU... Dr. Jones was spreading the truth about what he and other Scientists discovered in the WTC dust as the culprit for what destroyed the buildings and before you knew it, Cheney's office was contacting BYU to request that Cheney speak to their students while Bush meets with the brethren in Salt Lake a day earlier and then after their departure, BYU meets with Dr. Jones and forces him into retirement. If that wasn't sucking up to the feds and what they wanted in order to keep the church and BYU from suffering serious financial repercussions, I don't know what is.

[Thinker]

From Birmingham jail, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote:
"There are two types of laws: just and unjust...one has a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

"To put it in terms of Thomas Aquinas: an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust."

The American people voted against "homosexual marriage" and yet government authorities disobeyed that and DOMA and installed unjust laws anyway. Did Dallin Oaks mention how Obama and others in high positions, have not done their job duties?
No, he chose to join in being a bully to a woman who had the courage to defend the laws she was hired under - and that Americans voted for.

Really, marriage is not any 2 people - but husband and wife.
Statistically, homosexual practices prove to be harmful and medically too with STDs, mental illness, AIDS and anal sex complications.
More concerning is the degrading of many children, by legally forcing them to be denied a mother or father and be subject to statistically dysfunctional homosexual lifestyles.
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/mental-health.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/HIV.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/laurett ... eral-court" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power...group compels [some] to obey but does not make binding on itself."

"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscious tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscious of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."

Dallin Oaks is supposed to be a servant of God first and foremost - that is his paid calling - but he's putting corrupt law before his duties, by saying someone should stick to their job duties! How ironic - hypocritical.

[Stacy Oliver]

Again, you're assuming they irrationally fear something, and are acting on that fear, without any evidence.

It's true he's assuming this, but do you think what he suggested might possibly be what is happening?

Absolutely not. It is paranoia to suggest that someone is acting out of fear of something that has never happened. You might as well say that Elder Oaks did this out if fear of Martians.

[Stacy Oliver]

Precisely, thanks Stahura. Stacy, I don't glean any joy from saying some of the things I do here on the board, but I've always fought against wrongdoing and for what's right. In this case, I don't think I'm off base. Look at what happened in 2007 with Dick Cheney and BYU... Dr. Jones was spreading the truth about what he and other Scientists discovered in the WTC dust as the culprit for what destroyed the buildings and before you knew it, Cheney's office was contacting BYU to request that Cheney speak to their students while Bush meets with the brethren in Salt Lake a day earlier and then after their departure, BYU meets with Dr. Jones and forces him into retirement. If that wasn't sucking up to the feds and what they wanted in order to keep the church and BYU from suffering serious financial repercussions, I don't know what is.

So, they fired a quack professor, not for being a quack, but so that they could get the estimable pleasure of having Cheney speak at some boring event? No, I don't think it is reasonable to infer something like that.

[Zathura]

Again, you're assuming they irrationally fear something, and are acting on that fear, without any evidence.

It's true he's assuming this, but do you think what he suggested might possibly be what is happening?

Absolutely not. It is paranoia to suggest that someone is acting out of fear of something that has never happened. You might as well say that Elder Oaks did this out if fear of Martians.

Fair enough

[Robin Hood]

When gay marriage became legal here, parliament had to debate it and vote for it.
Same in many other countries.
Now, I'm not saying this is foolproof. Here in the UK the majority of people were probably against it (according to opinon polls) but we still got it.
Over in Ireland they had a referrendum and voted in favour.
What I don't really understand is that it appears to have become law in the US without a vote of any kind, either a popular vote or by vote of Congress.
How can this be?

[Zathura]

When gay marriage became legal here, parliament had to debate it and vote for it.
Same in many other countries.
Now, I'm not saying this is foolproof. Here in the UK the majority of people were probably against it (according to opinon polls) but we still got it.
Over in Ireland they had a referrendum and voted in favour.
What I don't really understand is that it appears to have become law in the US without a vote of any kind, either a popular vote or by vote of Congress.
How can this be?

Gadianton

[Stacy Oliver]

When gay marriage became legal here, parliament had to debate it and vote for it.
Same in many other countries.
Now, I'm not saying this is foolproof. Here in the UK the majority of people were probably against it (according to opinon polls) but we still got it.
Over in Ireland they had a referrendum and voted in favour.
What I don't really understand is that it appears to have become law in the US without a vote of any kind, either a popular vote or by vote of Congress.
How can this be?

The Supreme Court makes most of the big decisions in this country.

[Thinker]

When gay marriage became legal here, parliament had to debate it and vote for it.
Same in many other countries.
Now, I'm not saying this is foolproof. Here in the UK the majority of people were probably against it (according to opinon polls) but we still got it.
Over in Ireland they had a referrendum and voted in favour.
What I don't really understand is that it appears to have become law in the US without a vote of any kind, either a popular vote or by vote of Congress.
How can this be?

Short answer: dictatorship replacing democratic process.
Supreme court justices (state and then federal) took it upon themselves to create law - and nobody in power did anything about it.

Long answer: Mind-control has been systematically doing on for decades, to shift public and politicians opinion about homosexuality.
This has affected other countries, besides, the US, as you mentioned.
The homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media
The powerful, sophisticated psychological techniques that the homosexual movement has used to manipulate the public in the media.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issu ... _ball.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ilovetherain]

Our Prophets and Apostles are SEERS! They SEE into the future. We aren't privy to the inspiration that they receive from the Lord. Much more going on than we have any clue.

[Lizzy60]

When gay marriage became legal here, parliament had to debate it and vote for it.
Same in many other countries.
Now, I'm not saying this is foolproof. Here in the UK the majority of people were probably against it (according to opinon polls) but we still got it.
Over in Ireland they had a referrendum and voted in favour.
What I don't really understand is that it appears to have become law in the US without a vote of any kind, either a popular vote or by vote of Congress.
How can this be?

This is why it's unconstitutional. The Supreme Court made law, rather than deciding whether a particular law, made by Congress or other entity, is constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts explains this in his dissent, if you want a better explanation than I can give you, as I am ever-so-grateful not to be a lawyer.

[EmmaLee]

"Shall we be such fools as to be governed by its laws, which are unconstitutional? No."
TPJS p. 279

But a change has been afoot in America. It has been happening quickly, so quickly that few people, even most astute culture warriors, fully appreciate what’s occurring. It has been hard not to hear of Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk jailed for contempt of court after refusing an order to issue “marriage” licenses to same-sex couples. She has been cheered by the Right and chided by the Left, portrayed as both a Christian hero and an oath-breaking zero. And not surprisingly, most of the debate has centered on the legality of her stance. Davis is, of course, defying a court order. But while U.S. District Judge David Bunning, who sent the clerk to prison, has said, “Oaths mean things,” what of the Supreme Court justices who, in issuing the unconstitutional Obergefell v. Hodges faux-marriage ruling, clearly violated their oath to uphold the Constitution? Should one submit to a rule of lawyers contrary to the rule of law? Of course, Davis is also defying Kentucky governor Steve Be­shear, who has ordered state clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. And states do have wide-ranging powers under the Constitution. Yet even a governor doesn’t have the legitimate power to violate his state’s constitution. As to this, the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer recently wrote in “Clerk the Only One Obeying the Law” that the courts have no constitutionally granted power to strike down law and then pointed out:

Here’s how the Kentucky constitution reads:

[“]Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.[”]

… Thus Kim Davis would actually be breaking the law and violating the constitution of the state of Kentucky by issuing same-sex licenses.

Bottom line: Kim Davis is the only one in this sorry saga who is following the law and the Constitution.

When she took her oath of office, it was an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Kentucky. She did not take an oath to uphold the rulings of the Supreme Court, especially when submitting to such rulings would require her to violate her oath to uphold the Constitution.

In the above Fischer is merely echoing Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in 1819 and 1820 that to give “to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres” makes our Constitution “a complete felo de se” (suicide pact) and “would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Full article here - http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/f ... -not-apply" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;