Well this would only be true if everyone in the nation were to engage in homosexual marriage, something which is not going to happen. Even if every single homosexual were to marry another homosexual they would still make up only a tiny faction of the population, well under 2%.OhioState001 wrote:“One generation of homosexual “marriage” would depopulate a nation, and, if sufficiently widespread, would extinguish its people. Our marriage laws should not abet national suicide.” –Dallin H. Oaks Principles to Govern. P. 19. 1984
Elder Oaks promoting political left
- gkearney
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5346
Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1892
Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint
Where's the conflict? He opposed gay marriage and likely still does. Now, its the law of the land and he says that people should follow the law. Why is that in conflict?Todd wrote:This is conflicting, but the views and policies of the church have evolved in step (albeit a little behind) with the cultural climate of the day -- polygamy, interracial marriage, blacks and the priesthood/temple blessings, and now homosexuals.OhioState001 wrote:“One generation of homosexual “marriage” would depopulate a nation, and, if sufficiently widespread, would extinguish its people. Our marriage laws should not abet national suicide.” –Dallin H. Oaks Principles to Govern. P. 19. 1984
Elder Oaks I'm a little confused here. You said pro gay marriage laws would be "national suicide" but now your hitting Kim Davis for standing up for her religious beliefs?
We as members, who sustain the prophet, believe those changes were divinely inspired/revealed -- not done because of social pressure.
Perhaps Elder Oaks is also inspired? I believe so.
I oppose abortion. But, it's the law of the land. If i were a cop, and someone had an abortion, should I arrest them because I think it should be against the law? Or, should I vote for the law to be changed, while enforcing the laws as they are?
Kim Davis should have stood up for her religious beliefs and resigned. A judge ordered her to issue gay marriage licenses; it was immoral for her to refuse. No one says that she HAD to issue the license. She could have just resigned. Then she wouldn't have to issue any licenses.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1585
Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint
You're condescension is almost too much to stomach. You remind of those spoken of that "draw near to me with their lips but their hearts are far from me".Stahura wrote: I pray that your heart isn't too hardened and set upon these 15 men that you cannot understand this.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1585
Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint
Your thinking has been done when you make a choice. And clearly you choose to go against the spoken word of one of the Lord's annointed. That's your choice -- and you can have the consequence too.Thomas wrote:No thinking for yourself allowed. The thinking has been done already. You are not here to test your own sense o right and wrong. You are here to prove if you can be a mindless slave that will obey, even if the orders you receive are wrong and immoral.
God will bless you for being a mindless slave.
- Col. Flagg
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 16961
- Location: Utah County
Re: Elder Oaks promoting political left
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.
Last edited by Col. Flagg on October 21st, 2015, 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1892
Re: Elder Oaks promoting political left
Who says our tax exempt status is in jeopardy? Have they taken away the tax exempt status from any church? Even the Westboro Baptist?Col. Flagg wrote: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'.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1585
Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint
From President Wilford Woodruff --Stahura wrote: Clearly we are supposed to compare their words to the scriptures. Why wouldn't you compare their words to the scriptures? If Thomas Monson tells you to kill anyone who isn't Mormon, would you do it? Of course not, because that contradicts the scriptures.
What a horrifying belief that is, to assume that we shouldn't even question and compare the words of those 15 men to the words of the scripture. This belief will NOT help you progress one bit.
“I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’
“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’” (Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19.)
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1585
Re: Elder Oaks promoting political left
Oh? What would YOU know about what the will of the Lord is to the Church?Col. Flagg wrote: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 (
- Col. Flagg
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 16961
- Location: Utah County
Re: Elder Oaks promoting political left
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.Stacy Oliver wrote:Who says our tax exempt status is in jeopardy? Have they taken away the tax exempt status from any church? Even the Westboro Baptist?Col. Flagg wrote: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'.
- Col. Flagg
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 16961
- Location: Utah County
Re: Elder Oaks promoting political left
Wow. =;ebenezerarise wrote:Oh? What would YOU know about what the will of the Lord is to the Church?Col. Flagg wrote: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 (
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1892
Re: Elder Oaks promoting political left
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.Col. Flagg wrote: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.Stacy Oliver wrote:Who says our tax exempt status is in jeopardy? Have they taken away the tax exempt status from any church? Even the Westboro Baptist?Col. Flagg wrote: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'.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1585
Re: Elder Oaks promoting political left
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.Col. Flagg wrote:Wow. =;ebenezerarise wrote:Oh? What would YOU know about what the will of the Lord is to the Church?Col. Flagg wrote: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 (
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???
-
- captain of 10
- Posts: 31
Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint
Not a good comparison at all with the cop. So no Christian can hold the office of clerk without having to violate their religious beliefs? That's how you want to operate the country?Stacy Oliver wrote:Where's the conflict? He opposed gay marriage and likely still does. Now, its the law of the land and he says that people should follow the law. Why is that in conflict?Todd wrote:This is conflicting, but the views and policies of the church have evolved in step (albeit a little behind) with the cultural climate of the day -- polygamy, interracial marriage, blacks and the priesthood/temple blessings, and now homosexuals.OhioState001 wrote:“One generation of homosexual “marriage” would depopulate a nation, and, if sufficiently widespread, would extinguish its people. Our marriage laws should not abet national suicide.” –Dallin H. Oaks Principles to Govern. P. 19. 1984
Elder Oaks I'm a little confused here. You said pro gay marriage laws would be "national suicide" but now your hitting Kim Davis for standing up for her religious beliefs?
We as members, who sustain the prophet, believe those changes were divinely inspired/revealed -- not done because of social pressure.
Perhaps Elder Oaks is also inspired? I believe so.
I oppose abortion. But, it's the law of the land. If i were a cop, and someone had an abortion, should I arrest them because I think it should be against the law? Or, should I vote for the law to be changed, while enforcing the laws as they are?
Kim Davis should have stood up for her religious beliefs and resigned. A judge ordered her to issue gay marriage licenses; it was immoral for her to refuse. No one says that she HAD to issue the license. She could have just resigned. Then she wouldn't have to issue any licenses.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1585
Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint
This country has operated that way from the very beginning.OhioState001 wrote: Not a good comparison at all with the cop. So no Christian can hold the office of clerk without having to violate their religious beliefs? That's how you want to operate the country?
-
- captain of 10
- Posts: 31
Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint
Absolutely notebenezerarise wrote:This country has operated that way from the very beginning.OhioState001 wrote: Not a good comparison at all with the cop. So no Christian can hold the office of clerk without having to violate their religious beliefs? That's how you want to operate the country?
- Desert Roses
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1017
Re: Elder Oaks promoting political left
Wow...My brother once observed there are three doors out of the church: The one on the left, the one on the right, and the back door. The left and right are fairly obvious--"ordain women", gay rights, "academic freedom", etc., and the right--polygamists, "fundamentalists", and over-zealous spirituality folks. The back is the sliding out of activity till it no longer matters.Col. Flagg wrote: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.
It's been interesting to watch the "left door" folks on this forum, and the more obvious right-door ones, like the Snufferites. But I didn't realize that the door on the right was getting so wide! It reminds me of my father-in-law, who was excommunicated eventually because he could not accept that one of the prophets (I don't recall which one) shook hands with a "known Communist" at some event or another, combined with the "failure" of the leaders to aggressively condemn Russia, China, Cuba, and other Communist nations.
Accusing the leaders of "sucking up" to the government so they can keep tax-exempt status is pretty low, and suggests a lack of humility. Perhaps a re-read of President Benson's talk on pride--April conference, 1989 (it's easily found on lds.org )
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3444
Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint
Is it immoral to refuse the judges order if they don't have the authority to issue the order?Stacy Oliver wrote:Where's the conflict? He opposed gay marriage and likely still does. Now, its the law of the land and he says that people should follow the law. Why is that in conflict?Todd wrote:This is conflicting, but the views and policies of the church have evolved in step (albeit a little behind) with the cultural climate of the day -- polygamy, interracial marriage, blacks and the priesthood/temple blessings, and now homosexuals.OhioState001 wrote:“One generation of homosexual “marriage” would depopulate a nation, and, if sufficiently widespread, would extinguish its people. Our marriage laws should not abet national suicide.” –Dallin H. Oaks Principles to Govern. P. 19. 1984
Elder Oaks I'm a little confused here. You said pro gay marriage laws would be "national suicide" but now your hitting Kim Davis for standing up for her religious beliefs?
We as members, who sustain the prophet, believe those changes were divinely inspired/revealed -- not done because of social pressure.
Perhaps Elder Oaks is also inspired? I believe so.
I oppose abortion. But, it's the law of the land. If i were a cop, and someone had an abortion, should I arrest them because I think it should be against the law? Or, should I vote for the law to be changed, while enforcing the laws as they are?
Kim Davis should have stood up for her religious beliefs and resigned. A judge ordered her to issue gay marriage licenses; it was immoral for her to refuse. No one says that she HAD to issue the license. She could have just resigned. Then she wouldn't have to issue any licenses.
Funny how when building permits are not issued for spurious reasons the clerks are not jailed. Funny how the judges don't require assistant clerks to issue gun permits in DC and Chicago even though the supreme court has found that those laws are unconstitutional.
I smell a double standard here.. Or maybe it is because the judges don't actually have any authority to do those things. The judicial cannot also be the executive.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1892
Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint
OhioState001 wrote:Not a good comparison at all with the cop. So no Christian can hold the office of clerk without having to violate their religious beliefs? That's how you want to operate the country?Stacy Oliver wrote:Where's the conflict? He opposed gay marriage and likely still does. Now, its the law of the land and he says that people should follow the law. Why is that in conflict?Todd wrote:This is conflicting, but the views and policies of the church have evolved in step (albeit a little behind) with the cultural climate of the day -- polygamy, interracial marriage, blacks and the priesthood/temple blessings, and now homosexuals.OhioState001 wrote:“One generation of homosexual “marriage” would depopulate a nation, and, if sufficiently widespread, would extinguish its people. Our marriage laws should not abet national suicide.” –Dallin H. Oaks Principles to Govern. P. 19. 1984
Elder Oaks I'm a little confused here. You said pro gay marriage laws would be "national suicide" but now your hitting Kim Davis for standing up for her religious beliefs?
We as members, who sustain the prophet, believe those changes were divinely inspired/revealed -- not done because of social pressure.
Perhaps Elder Oaks is also inspired? I believe so.
I oppose abortion. But, it's the law of the land. If i were a cop, and someone had an abortion, should I arrest them because I think it should be against the law? Or, should I vote for the law to be changed, while enforcing the laws as they are?
Kim Davis should have stood up for her religious beliefs and resigned. A judge ordered her to issue gay marriage licenses; it was immoral for her to refuse. No one says that she HAD to issue the license. She could have just resigned. Then she wouldn't have to issue any licenses.
What is wrong with the cop comparison?
With the Kim Davis case, her deputies offered to issue the licenses and she stopped them. I think she's since changed her mind, but that was the problem. If there's someone else who can do it, then let someone else do it. I don't see how that conflicts with what Elder Oaks was saying.
It's like if a Quaker joined the army, then refused to allow his troops to go into battle. It's fine to have Quakers as army docs, but if they're refusing to allow others to follow orders then there's a problem.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1892
Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint
In this case, Kim Davis didn't refuse for spurious (but technically valid) reasons. She said that she refused for reasons that the SCOTUS found to be invalid. Any court would have ordered her to issue the license.Serragon wrote:Is it immoral to refuse the judges order if they don't have the authority to issue the order?Stacy Oliver wrote:Where's the conflict? He opposed gay marriage and likely still does. Now, its the law of the land and he says that people should follow the law. Why is that in conflict?Todd wrote:This is conflicting, but the views and policies of the church have evolved in step (albeit a little behind) with the cultural climate of the day -- polygamy, interracial marriage, blacks and the priesthood/temple blessings, and now homosexuals.OhioState001 wrote:“One generation of homosexual “marriage” would depopulate a nation, and, if sufficiently widespread, would extinguish its people. Our marriage laws should not abet national suicide.” –Dallin H. Oaks Principles to Govern. P. 19. 1984
Elder Oaks I'm a little confused here. You said pro gay marriage laws would be "national suicide" but now your hitting Kim Davis for standing up for her religious beliefs?
We as members, who sustain the prophet, believe those changes were divinely inspired/revealed -- not done because of social pressure.
Perhaps Elder Oaks is also inspired? I believe so.
I oppose abortion. But, it's the law of the land. If i were a cop, and someone had an abortion, should I arrest them because I think it should be against the law? Or, should I vote for the law to be changed, while enforcing the laws as they are?
Kim Davis should have stood up for her religious beliefs and resigned. A judge ordered her to issue gay marriage licenses; it was immoral for her to refuse. No one says that she HAD to issue the license. She could have just resigned. Then she wouldn't have to issue any licenses.
Funny how when building permits are not issued for spurious reasons the clerks are not jailed. Funny how the judges don't require assistant clerks to issue gun permits in DC and Chicago even though the supreme court has found that those laws are unconstitutional.
I smell a double standard here.. Or maybe it is because the judges don't actually have any authority to do those things. The judicial cannot also be the executive.
The problem in Chicago and DC was the law, not some rogue clerk. If it were, then a judge WOULD order them to comply. The reason the plaintiffs in those cases sued the govt was because the govt was stopping them from getting a gun. In KY, it was Kim Davis, not the govt, that was stopping them. So, she got sued.
-
- captain of 10
- Posts: 31
Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint
She stopped them because her name would still be on the license. The cop comparison is wrong because no one forced the cop to be involved in an abortion and to violate his religious freedom. Kim Davis is being forced to participate in something that is against her sincerely held religious beliefs. People on here are telling her too bad and to resign her job. That's not how the country operates. The founding fathers knew we couldn't operate without Christian beliefs. We don't force anyone into any one religion and we don't force anyone to believe in God. We make accommodations for Muslims to wear head scarfs and to grow beards in GITMO because we want them to be allowed to practice their religion.What is wrong with the cop comparison?
With the Kim Davis case, her deputies offered to issue the licenses and she stopped them. I think she's since changed her mind, but that was the problem. If there's someone else who can do it, then let someone else do it. I don't see how that conflicts with what Elder Oaks was saying.
It's like if a Quaker joined the army, then refused to allow his troops to go into battle. It's fine to have Quakers as army docs, but if they're refusing to allow others to follow orders then there's a problem.
Since gay marriage has been supported by the Supreme Court gay couples should always be allowed to get licenses. We should not force people who do not want to violate their religious beliefs to do so. I entirely disagree with Oaks statement and fear he is caving in to the PC police.
Why wouldn't he just come out and say we need to work together to come to a solution where a clerk's religious beliefs are not infringed while still allowing gays to get licenses? Meanwhile the Pope of all people took a stand for conscientious objectors.
-
- Follow the Prophet
- Posts: 8801
Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint
Lol.. I knew that you would bring up this quote.ebenezerarise wrote:From President Wilford Woodruff --Stahura wrote: Clearly we are supposed to compare their words to the scriptures. Why wouldn't you compare their words to the scriptures? If Thomas Monson tells you to kill anyone who isn't Mormon, would you do it? Of course not, because that contradicts the scriptures.
What a horrifying belief that is, to assume that we shouldn't even question and compare the words of those 15 men to the words of the scripture. This belief will NOT help you progress one bit.
“I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’
“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’” (Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19.)
Wilford Woodruff said this in 1897.
Joseph Fielding Smith said this sometime between 1930-1950?
So if Brigham said a living prophet's words are more important that a dead ones in 1897, and the Joseph Fielding Smith( A living prophet while Brigham was dead) said 50 years later that even HIS OWN WORDS mean nothing if they don't match what the Bible and BOok of Mormon teach, then by Brigham's own teaching, Joseph Fielding SMith's words are more important that Brigham's and is correct by default, and we do indeed need to measure everything our leaders say and compare them to the scriptures.
Ironically, your quote still shows that what I said is true.
-
- Follow the Prophet
- Posts: 8801
Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint
I know my state before God my friend.ebenezerarise wrote:You're condescension is almost too much to stomach. You remind of those spoken of that "draw near to me with their lips but their hearts are far from me".Stahura wrote: I pray that your heart isn't too hardened and set upon these 15 men that you cannot understand this.
I have nothing but love for you.
-
- Follow the Prophet
- Posts: 8801
Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint
My friend, let us follow Jeremy's example.ebenezerarise wrote:You're condescension is almost too much to stomach. You remind of those spoken of that "draw near to me with their lips but their hearts are far from me".Stahura wrote: I pray that your heart isn't too hardened and set upon these 15 men that you cannot understand this.
Jeremy wrote: I should find it humorous how the universe has a way of fulfilling the law of "what goes around, comes around". Unfortunately, truth be told, it is rather disgusting to me when I see my ignorant and arrogant self show up and assume the intentions of someones heart.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2711
- Location: Canada
Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint
This is where I completely agree with President Oaks. She should have said I can't sign this marriage certificate because it goes again my morals. Someone else in the office could have signed it for her. Her opposition would still be made known but would not have been as big an issue.Stacy Oliver wrote:With the Kim Davis case, her deputies offered to issue the licenses and she stopped them. I think she's since changed her mind, but that was the problem. If there's someone else who can do it, then let someone else do it. I don't see how that conflicts with what Elder Oaks was saying.
He also said it was even worse that the governor try to use his position to overrule a law. I agree here as well with President Oaks, he doesn't have the authority to do so even though it is right.
This is what I don't agree with at all. [-( We believe in sustaining righteous laws. We should be fighting even harder now that this law is passed!Believers also should submit to a law once it is sustained by the highest available authority, he said.
Did members of the church submit to the extermination order by Governor Boggs? Does that mean people in communist countries shouldn't rebel for freedom and democracy?
My Scottish blood is boiling too. We are to call all people to repentance, including the government and the president. "We are all enlisted till the conflict is o'er;."Darren wrote: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"
Is its Caesar's right to make a law contrary to the laws of God? He has the right to do so, its not morally right, but God has said judgements will be brought if it is done.shadow wrote:Christ said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. That's the gist what Oaks is saying IMO.
Last edited by Sunain on October 21st, 2015, 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- h_p
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2811
Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint
"We may have cultural differences, but we should not have 'culture wars.'" --Elder OaksSerragon wrote:Funny how when building permits are not issued for spurious reasons the clerks are not jailed. Funny how the judges don't require assistant clerks to issue gun permits in DC and Chicago even though the supreme court has found that those laws are unconstitutional.
I smell a double standard here.. Or maybe it is because the judges don't actually have any authority to do those things. The judicial cannot also be the executive.
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." --Leon Trotsky