Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
https://ldsfreedomforum.com/
Oaks a disgrace? No, just doing what lawyers do.Santiagodeleon107 wrote: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.
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.Col. Flagg wrote:Oaks a disgrace? No, just doing what lawyers do.Santiagodeleon107 wrote: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.
It's true he's assuming this, but do you think what he suggested might possibly be what is happening?Stacy Oliver wrote:Again, you're assuming they irrationally fear something, and are acting on that fear, without any evidence.Col. Flagg wrote:Oaks a disgrace? No, just doing what lawyers do.Santiagodeleon107 wrote: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.
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.Stahura wrote:It's true he's assuming this, but do you think what he suggested might possibly be what is happening?Stacy Oliver wrote:Again, you're assuming they irrationally fear something, and are acting on that fear, without any evidence.Col. Flagg wrote:Oaks a disgrace? No, just doing what lawyers do.Santiagodeleon107 wrote: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.
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.Stahura wrote:It's true he's assuming this, but do you think what he suggested might possibly be what is happening?Stacy Oliver wrote: Again, you're assuming they irrationally fear something, and are acting on that fear, without any evidence.
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.Col. Flagg wrote:
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.
Fair enoughStacy Oliver wrote: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.Stahura wrote:It's true he's assuming this, but do you think what he suggested might possibly be what is happening?Stacy Oliver wrote: Again, you're assuming they irrationally fear something, and are acting on that fear, without any evidence.
GadiantonRobin Hood wrote: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.Robin Hood wrote: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.Robin Hood wrote: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.Robin Hood wrote: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?
Full article here - http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/f ... -not-apply" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;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.”
Any military general will tell you that it is not convenient to attack a distant enemy deep within its territory as the supply lines would invariably be cut. It is better to provide for a defense of your own land and slowly expand from there but not too fast.iWriteStuff wrote:Personally, I bring marshmallows to fires :ymparty:samizdat wrote: The Apostles are trying to keep a type of middle ground and asking for peace from both sides. That is what a peacemaker is supposed to do. Not throw bombs into the fire.
I think the point most folks here are trying to make is that the gulf between good and evil is getting wider. "Middle ground" is somewhere in the gulf. Personally, I'd rather be on the "good" side of the ground.
My personal take on Elder Oaks' words is for us to stake out the high/good ground, invite others to it, but decline from open warfare with those on the other side of the gulf. Time and eternal judgment will take care of that.
That 'quack' Professor not only now has a multitude of Scientists backing him up, including Dr. Jeffrey Farrer at BYU and also a prominent Scientist from the University of Coppenhagen (in addition to thousands of Architects and Engineers), he was also directly threatened by a government thug who told him if he knew what was good for him, he'd cease and desist with his research. The threat forced he and his wife to move to Missouri under the radar. You're not making wise or courageous comments with your posts Stacy. :ymblushing:Stacy Oliver wrote: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.Col. Flagg wrote:
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.
Col. Flagg wrote:That 'quack' Professor not only now has a multitude of Scientists backing him up, including Dr. Jeffrey Farrer at BYU and also a prominent Scientist from the University of Coppenhagen (in addition to thousands of Architects and Engineers), he was also directly threatened by a government thug who told him if he knew what was good for him, he'd cease and desist with his research. The threat forced he and his wife to move to Missouri under the radar. You're not making wise or courageous comments with your posts Stacy. :ymblushing:Stacy Oliver wrote: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.Col. Flagg wrote:
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.
California did have a vote for a constitutional amendment and it passed. For reasons I still don't completely understand, the supreme court decision of the United States makes that void?!Robin Hood wrote: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?
Yes but they are still men and the Lord does permit them to make mistakes. The scriptures are full of examples of Prophets making BIG mistakes. They are not infallible as many church members seem to think these days.ilovetherain wrote: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.
Yes because FED > STATE government now these days. Yes, I know FED = STATE in the original Constitution but that is not the case since the Civil War.Sunain wrote:California did have a vote for a constitutional amendment and it passed. For reasons I still don't completely understand, the supreme court decision of the United States makes that void?!Robin Hood wrote: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?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californi ... %282008%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Canada after it was determined by the court that it was constitutionally legal to for same sex marriage introduced a Bill C-38 to Parliament which eventually got passed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_ ... _in_Canada" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yes but they are still men and the Lord does permit them to make mistakes. The scriptures are full of examples of Prophets making BIG mistakes. They are not infallible as many church members seem to think these days.ilovetherain wrote: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.
This whole talk seems like a way to get the church out of the fire and fight against Gay Marriage and make us look more sympathetic to the authority of the supreme court, the authority of current United States government and immoral laws. I'm sorry, but this is completely the wrong direction that the church and members of the church should be taking. This is not standing up for what we believe in!Thinker wrote: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.
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.
[/color]Mosiah 23
6 And the people were desirous that Alma should be their king, for he was beloved by his people.
7 But he said unto them: Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another; therefore I say unto you it is not expedient that ye should have a king.
13 And now as ye have been delivered by the power of God out of these bonds; yea, even out of the hands of king Noah and his people, and also from the bonds of iniquity, even so I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a king over you.
14 And also trust no one to be your teacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments.
Sam, just curious... what was/is he wrong about RE 9/11?samizdat wrote:One thing that I can tell you is that Dr. Jones is a man of integrity and is not afraid to bring things out that contradict the official accounts. He is wrong on a few things but to ignore him and call him a quack because of his imperfections would be akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Exercise caution.
I see no evidence for this. 501c rules allow a religion or group to take public positions on a variety of subjects. The only thing they really can't do is endorse political candidates or parties. The position is not about being on the good side of government. The government really does not care on what the LDS church view or practice is on the gay marriage issue. Oaks is simply stating that for those who have public jobs and their jobs deal directly with gays and marriage, they have to follow the law even if it repulses them. If they don't like it, they probably should change their job. This comments really are directed at a small group of people in society.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'.