Elder Oaks promoting political left

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
gkearney
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5346

Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint

Post by gkearney »

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
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%.

Stacy Oliver
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1892

Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint

Post by Stacy Oliver »

Todd wrote:
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?
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.

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.
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?

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.

ebenezerarise
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1585

Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint

Post by ebenezerarise »

Stahura wrote: I pray that your heart isn't too hardened and set upon these 15 men that you cannot understand this.
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".

ebenezerarise
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1585

Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint

Post by ebenezerarise »

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.
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.

User avatar
Col. Flagg
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 16961
Location: Utah County

Re: Elder Oaks promoting political left

Post by 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'. :( 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.

Stacy Oliver
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1892

Re: Elder Oaks promoting political left

Post by Stacy Oliver »

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

ebenezerarise
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1585

Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint

Post by ebenezerarise »

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.
From President Wilford Woodruff --

“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.)

ebenezerarise
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1585

Re: Elder Oaks promoting political left

Post by ebenezerarise »

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

User avatar
Col. Flagg
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 16961
Location: Utah County

Re: Elder Oaks promoting political left

Post by Col. Flagg »

Stacy Oliver wrote:
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'. :(
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.

User avatar
Col. Flagg
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 16961
Location: Utah County

Re: Elder Oaks promoting political left

Post by Col. Flagg »

ebenezerarise wrote:
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 (
Oh? What would YOU know about what the will of the Lord is to the Church?
Wow. :( =;

Stacy Oliver
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1892

Re: Elder Oaks promoting political left

Post by Stacy Oliver »

Col. Flagg wrote:
Stacy Oliver wrote:
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'. :(
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.

ebenezerarise
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1585

Re: Elder Oaks promoting political left

Post by ebenezerarise »

Col. Flagg wrote:
ebenezerarise wrote:
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 (
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???

OhioState001
captain of 10
Posts: 31

Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint

Post by OhioState001 »

Stacy Oliver wrote:
Todd wrote:
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?
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.

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.
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?

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.
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?

ebenezerarise
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1585

Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint

Post by ebenezerarise »

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?
This country has operated that way from the very beginning.

OhioState001
captain of 10
Posts: 31

Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint

Post by OhioState001 »

ebenezerarise wrote:
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?
This country has operated that way from the very beginning.
Absolutely not

User avatar
Desert Roses
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1017

Re: Elder Oaks promoting political left

Post by Desert Roses »

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.
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.

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 )

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint

Post by Serragon »

Stacy Oliver wrote:
Todd wrote:
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?
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.

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.
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?

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.
Is it immoral to refuse the judges order if they don't have the authority to issue the order?

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.

Stacy Oliver
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1892

Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint

Post by Stacy Oliver »

OhioState001 wrote:
Stacy Oliver wrote:
Todd wrote:
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?
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.

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.
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?

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.
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?

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.

Stacy Oliver
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1892

Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint

Post by Stacy Oliver »

Serragon wrote:
Stacy Oliver wrote:
Todd wrote:
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?
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.

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.
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?

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.
Is it immoral to refuse the judges order if they don't have the authority to issue the order?

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.
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.

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.

OhioState001
captain of 10
Posts: 31

Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint

Post by OhioState001 »

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.
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.

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.

Zathura
Follow the Prophet
Posts: 8801

Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint

Post by Zathura »

ebenezerarise wrote:
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.
From President Wilford Woodruff --

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

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.

Zathura
Follow the Prophet
Posts: 8801

Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint

Post by Zathura »

ebenezerarise wrote:
Stahura wrote: I pray that your heart isn't too hardened and set upon these 15 men that you cannot understand this.
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".
I know my state before God my friend.

I have nothing but love for you.

Zathura
Follow the Prophet
Posts: 8801

Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint

Post by Zathura »

ebenezerarise wrote:
Stahura wrote: I pray that your heart isn't too hardened and set upon these 15 men that you cannot understand this.
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".
My friend, let us follow Jeremy's example.
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.

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint

Post by Sunain »

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.
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.

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

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?
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"
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;."
shadow wrote:Christ said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. That's the gist what Oaks is saying IMO.
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.
Last edited by Sunain on October 21st, 2015, 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
h_p
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2811

Re: Elder Oaks continues to disappoint

Post by h_p »

Serragon 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.
"We may have cultural differences, but we should not have 'culture wars.'" --Elder Oaks

"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." --Leon Trotsky

Post Reply