Oaks thinks vax mandates are ok...

[Korsgaard46]

Such a foolish statement from Oaks, especially since he pushes religious freedom. With this mind set governments slowly, through precedent, remove your freedoms. Oaks better hope the 1st Amendment is absolute otherwise the future of his religion may be in peril.

[Gadianton Slayer]

Such a foolish statement from Oaks, especially since he pushes religious freedom. With this mind set governments slowly, through precedent, remove your freedoms. Oaks better hope the 1st Amendment is absolute otherwise the future of his religion may be in peril.

He literally says in the same talk that the first amendment isn’t absolute.

[Subcomandante]

Such a foolish statement from Oaks, especially since he pushes religious freedom. With this mind set governments slowly, through precedent, remove your freedoms. Oaks better hope the 1st Amendment is absolute otherwise the future of his religion may be in peril.

He literally says in the same talk that the first amendment isn’t absolute.

I think he is more qualified than most of us to say what the First Amendment says and doesn't say.

[BroJones]

“...the people must always limit the reach of government this is always necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of all.”

Fixed #4

Isn't that at what 1 of the founding fathers called the chains of the Constitution ?

[Gadianton Slayer]

Such a foolish statement from Oaks, especially since he pushes religious freedom. With this mind set governments slowly, through precedent, remove your freedoms. Oaks better hope the 1st Amendment is absolute otherwise the future of his religion may be in peril.

He literally says in the same talk that the first amendment isn’t absolute.

I think he is more qualified than most of us to say what the First Amendment says and doesn't say.

Wow. Ok. The man who just said it’s ok for the government to strip my rights in order to “protect the welfare of all.”

His statement can go back to Hell back to where it came from. He is an evil man.

[Gadianton Slayer]

Um that um.... Well outright Communion!

What will you share with us at communion?

[Sunain]

Oaks' credibility is completely shot as far as I'm concerned. And the fact that he's next in line for the top job doesn't bode at all well.
But maybe Bishop Koyle is right and three leaders will pop their clogs in quick succession and this nightmare will be over.

I think the 3 that popped in quick succession where Packer, Perry, and Scott. Three solid members of the 12 who were all pretty senior and I feel if they were alive still, we wouldn't have the decisions coming from the church leadership that we've had in recent years. Perry died pretty quickly after his visit to the Vatican...

[Subcomandante]

Such a foolish statement from Oaks, especially since he pushes religious freedom. With this mind set governments slowly, through precedent, remove your freedoms. Oaks better hope the 1st Amendment is absolute otherwise the future of his religion may be in peril.

He literally says in the same talk that the first amendment isn’t absolute.

I think he is more qualified than most of us to say what the First Amendment says and doesn't say.

Wow. Ok. The man who just said it’s ok for the government to strip my rights in order to “protect the welfare of all.”

His statement can go back to Hell back to where it came from. He is an evil man.

I would be very interested in seeing your jurisdoctorate qualifications if you feel like you are more qualified.

[Gadianton Slayer]

He literally says in the same talk that the first amendment isn’t absolute.

I think he is more qualified than most of us to say what the First Amendment says and doesn't say.

Wow. Ok. The man who just said it’s ok for the government to strip my rights in order to “protect the welfare of all.”

His statement can go back to Hell back to where it came from. He is an evil man.

I would be very interested in seeing your jurisdoctorate qualifications if you feel like you are more qualified.

I’d love for you to explain to me exactly how limiting the rights of individuals in the name of “welfare” or “health” is constitutional, especially in the context of our current situation: experimental injections.

I thought you were opposed to mandates?

[Alaris]

Um that um.... Well outright Communion!

What will you share with us at communion?

Dang it! Communism.... There

[Subcomandante]

I think he is more qualified than most of us to say what the First Amendment says and doesn't say.

Wow. Ok. The man who just said it’s ok for the government to strip my rights in order to “protect the welfare of all.”

His statement can go back to Hell back to where it came from. He is an evil man.

I would be very interested in seeing your jurisdoctorate qualifications if you feel like you are more qualified.

I’d love for you to explain to me exactly how limiting the rights of individuals in the name of “welfare” or “health” is constitutional, especially in the context of our current situation: experimental injections.

I thought you were opposed to mandates?

I am generally opposed to mandates when it comes to the government dictating to private organizations what they can and can't do. Individual mandates are even trickier. On principle, they should be opposed because the people should have sufficient common sense to follow public health guidelines.

But unfortunately, there are many people that are not well-versed in common sense. For that reason, fast-food restaurants are mandated to warn people that the coffee cup they are holding is hot. Likewise, you will see in those restaurants saying stuff like "Common Decency and the State Law say that employees must wash their hands before returning to work."

We see these precedents in the Book of Mormon and in the Scriptures. The laws were made strict whenever the people were so hard-hearted, and then those same laws would be twisted to justify different excesses of the people. The laws were relaxed whenever the people were able to follow the laws normally. We shouldn't have so many laws. An excess of laws and mandates happens when the people have grown to become too detached from their intellect to follow common sense.

[Gadianton Slayer]

Wow. Ok. The man who just said it’s ok for the government to strip my rights in order to “protect the welfare of all.”

His statement can go back to Hell back to where it came from. He is an evil man.

I would be very interested in seeing your jurisdoctorate qualifications if you feel like you are more qualified.

I’d love for you to explain to me exactly how limiting the rights of individuals in the name of “welfare” or “health” is constitutional, especially in the context of our current situation: experimental injections.

I thought you were opposed to mandates?

I am generally opposed to mandates when it comes to the government dictating to private organizations what they can and can't do. Individual mandates are even trickier. On principle, they should be opposed because the people should have sufficient common sense to follow public health guidelines.

But unfortunately, there are many people that are not well-versed in common sense. For that reason, fast-food restaurants are mandated to warn people that the coffee cup they are holding is hot. Likewise, you will see in those restaurants saying stuff like "Common Decency and the State Law say that employees must wash their hands before returning to work."

We see these precedents in the Book of Mormon and in the Scriptures. The laws were made strict whenever the people were so hard-hearted, and then those same laws would be twisted to justify different excesses of the people. The laws were relaxed whenever the people were able to follow the laws normally. We shouldn't have so many laws. An excess of laws and mandates happens when the people have grown to become too detached from their intellect to follow common sense.

Like I said, in the context of our current situation Oaks is very clearly implying that it’s ok the government mandates these shots for the well-being of society... do you seriously think that’s ok for him to say?

I don’t care about his credentials, I know he does though. Evil is evil. Biden has some pretty neat credentials too... same with Fauci... credentials mean absolutely nothing. Especially when the holder of said credentials makes statements like the one in the OP.

[Luke]

Oaks is clearly so full of sh1t that you have to be on drugs and/or asleep to not see it. Heaven help us if he sticks around longer than Nelson.

[JohnnyL]

How much plainer could he say it?

“...the government must sometimes limit the right of some to act upon their beliefs when it is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of all.”

- Dallin H. Oaks

In the context of our current situation, he is absolutely implying his stance on the vaxxeen mandates. Remember to "follow the wise and thoughtful recommendations of medical experts and government leaders" (unless of course they advocate for natural immunity, no, we can't have any of that).

What utter nonsense.

Who agrees with this?

It's a true quote, I think we all agree with it.

Its interpretation and limits could make it either extreme (liberty vs. communism).

I believe it is likely he meant it that way.

I would love to have many any true, unbiased, etc. scientist or doctor or ... discuss it with him and the other 14.

[JohnnyL]

Such a foolish statement from Oaks, especially since he pushes religious freedom. With this mind set governments slowly, through precedent, remove your freedoms. Oaks better hope the 1st Amendment is absolute otherwise the future of his religion may be in peril.

He literally says in the same talk that the first amendment isn’t absolute.

My religion tells me I can kill anyone at any time for any reason. Can I freely exercise that right, and be free?

[Subcomandante]

I would be very interested in seeing your jurisdoctorate qualifications if you feel like you are more qualified.

I’d love for you to explain to me exactly how limiting the rights of individuals in the name of “welfare” or “health” is constitutional, especially in the context of our current situation: experimental injections.

I thought you were opposed to mandates?

I am generally opposed to mandates when it comes to the government dictating to private organizations what they can and can't do. Individual mandates are even trickier. On principle, they should be opposed because the people should have sufficient common sense to follow public health guidelines.

But unfortunately, there are many people that are not well-versed in common sense. For that reason, fast-food restaurants are mandated to warn people that the coffee cup they are holding is hot. Likewise, you will see in those restaurants saying stuff like "Common Decency and the State Law say that employees must wash their hands before returning to work."

We see these precedents in the Book of Mormon and in the Scriptures. The laws were made strict whenever the people were so hard-hearted, and then those same laws would be twisted to justify different excesses of the people. The laws were relaxed whenever the people were able to follow the laws normally. We shouldn't have so many laws. An excess of laws and mandates happens when the people have grown to become too detached from their intellect to follow common sense.

Like I said, in the context of our current situation Oaks is very clearly implying that it’s ok the government mandates these shots for the well-being of society... do you seriously think that’s ok for him to say?

I don’t care about his credentials, I know he does though. Evil is evil. Biden has some pretty neat credentials too... same with Fauci... credentials mean absolutely nothing. Especially when the holder of said credentials makes statements like the one in the OP.

You might personally not care about his credentials. But you know who does?

Pretty much the rest of the world that would be interested in what he has to say.

It's one thing for some random religious leader, or even a random ONLINE religious leader, or a dozen or a hundred of them that boasts of his lack of education by the worldly institutions to spout off some mumbo jumbo about how the vaccines are Satanic and are going to kill us all in two years time. The rest of the world is going to look at that, and rightly, condemn the people that say that, especially when 2023 comes and the dire predictions of half the world dying off due to the shot do NOT come to fruition.

It's another thing for a random religious leader, or a few others, spout off some more mumbo jumbo about the restrictions that are impacting us and say, "We don't like them, but we need to follow them. Governments have this right to temporarily restrict these freedoms of movement that we enjoy in order to contain the pandemic." A person might go off and say, who's this crazy religious nutjob from the Intermountain West? But when looking at his credentials, seeing that his is a Juris Doctorate Cum Laude from a prestigious law school, clerked for a Supreme Court justice, was a state supreme court judge, and was on the short list of TWO presidents of the United States to be considered for a NATIONAL Supreme Court pick, and taught constitutional law, people will start to say, "OK, this guy ain't crazy. He knows his stuff. Maybe the mumbo jumbo is not mumbo jumbo."

Believe it or not, credentials DO matter in these situations. Also keep in mind that the Elder in question has, in fulfilling his apostolic requirements, traveled around the world, is very familiar with many legal proceedings in many of the countries that he has visited, and has come into contact with many cultures, several of which have a very radically different approach to how the laws are viewed and how people see themselves on an individual versus societal spectrum.

Based off of all of these experiences he has spoken, and will continue to speak. And will, in all likelihood, continue messing with many people's minds who have a very narrow viewpoint due to their lack of study, or lack of travel, or lack of knowledge. The good thing is, this can be remedied.

[Gadianton Slayer]

Such a foolish statement from Oaks, especially since he pushes religious freedom. With this mind set governments slowly, through precedent, remove your freedoms. Oaks better hope the 1st Amendment is absolute otherwise the future of his religion may be in peril.

He literally says in the same talk that the first amendment isn’t absolute.

My religion tells me I can kill anyone at any time for any reason. Can I freely exercise that right, and be free?

This and your other reply both come down to intention and interpretation. I believe he has made this statement specifically in context to the current situation regarding vax mandates.

They’ve been slowly moving towards it, and I feel it will happen. This quote is another step in that direction.

[Reluctant Watchman]

You might personally not care about his credentials. But you know who does?

Nobody. Seriously, nobody cares about his credentials. That's the problem with church hierarchy as well, they worship these men as if they are the Lord Himself.

[BKColt]

But in a nation with citizens of many different beliefs, the right of some to act upon their religious principles must sometimes be limited by the government’s responsibility to protect the health and safety of all. Otherwise, for example, the government could not protect its citizen’s person or property from neighbors whose intentions include taking human life or stealing in circumstances purportedly rationalized by their religious beliefs.

Claremont talk 2016

[Subcomandante]

You might personally not care about his credentials. But you know who does?

Nobody. Seriously, nobody cares about his credentials. That's the problem with church hierarchy as well, they worship these men as if they are the Lord Himself.

This is an opinion that is simply not based on fact.

Why did the University invite President Oaks and not ReluctantWatchman or GadiantonSlayer or Fred, or Subcomandante?

He has the credentials. We do not.

[Reluctant Watchman]

You might personally not care about his credentials. But you know who does?

Nobody. Seriously, nobody cares about his credentials. That's the problem with church hierarchy as well, they worship these men as if they are the Lord Himself.

This is an opinion that is simply not based on fact.

Why did the University invite President Oaks and not ReluctantWatchman or GadiantonSlayer or Fred, or Subcomandante?

He has the credentials. We do not.

He has a title, that's why. I'll let you do the man worshipping.

[Subcomandante]

You might personally not care about his credentials. But you know who does?

Nobody. Seriously, nobody cares about his credentials. That's the problem with church hierarchy as well, they worship these men as if they are the Lord Himself.

This is an opinion that is simply not based on fact.

Why did the University invite President Oaks and not ReluctantWatchman or GadiantonSlayer or Fred, or Subcomandante?

He has the credentials. We do not.

He has a title, that's why. I'll let you do the man worshipping.

That title means something. From both a worldly perspective and a godly one.

One backed up by worldly institutions, and the other backed up by Godly institutions.

We have the Godly institutions one, anyone that holds the Melchizedek Priesthood has it.

But for a worldly function, it's also beneficial to have a worldly title. Especially one that requires YEARS of preparation followed by YEARS of practice to obtain. Nothing comes easy in this life.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Nobody. Seriously, nobody cares about his credentials. That's the problem with church hierarchy as well, they worship these men as if they are the Lord Himself.

This is an opinion that is simply not based on fact.

Why did the University invite President Oaks and not ReluctantWatchman or GadiantonSlayer or Fred, or Subcomandante?

He has the credentials. We do not.

He has a title, that's why. I'll let you do the man worshipping.

That title means something. From both a worldly perspective and a godly one.

One backed up by worldly institutions, and the other backed up by Godly institutions.

We have the Godly institutions one, anyone that holds the Melchizedek Priesthood has it.

But for a worldly function, it's also beneficial to have a worldly title. Especially one that requires YEARS of preparation followed by YEARS of practice to obtain. Nothing comes easy in this life.

Wolf in sheep's clothing. That's a title as well. And has probably required years of corruption to obtain.

[BroJones]

But in a nation with citizens of many different beliefs, the right of some to act upon their religious principles must sometimes be limited by the government’s responsibility to protect the health and safety of all. Otherwise, for example, the government could not protect its citizen’s person or property from neighbors whose intentions include taking human life or stealing in circumstances purportedly rationalized by their religious beliefs.

Claremont talk 2016

Who said this??
Reference?
Thanks

[Gadianton Slayer]

You might personally not care about his credentials. But you know who does?

This logic is such a large issue in the world today.

He's a prophet.... so he's right.
He's an "expert"... so he's knowledgeable.
He had a PhD... so he's intelligent.

Maybe I wasn't clear, someone's opinion doesn't trump another's solely because they have "credentials". Titles mean absolutely nothing when they act alone.

I take issue with your initial statement... "well he has credentials so he knows better that us"...