Oaks thinks vax mandates are ok...

[Subcomandante]

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

I believe he was referring to a talk from Elder Oaks at Claremont in 2016.

Here it is: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... conference

It's about two thirds of the way down.

[Gadianton Slayer]

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

It all comes down to intention.

This is similar to the FP message in August...

• "We know that protection from the diseases they cause can only be achieved by immunizing a very high percentage of the population."

Is this true? To immunize simply means gaining immunity, so yes. But why is this statement so manipulative? The only option they give is vaxxination, completely ignoring natural immunity which is superior. Why?

Just because their statement is "true" on paper doesn't mean they are telling the truth.

The way he worded this is obviously (IMO) a reference to the vaxxeen mandates. Read the whole talk in context, it's basically saying we need to be willing to give things up for the greater good. This is straight NWO garbage. They've already begun mandating the vax, it won't be long before you need it to enter the temple and go to church.
viewtopic.php?p=1202211#p1202211

[mahalanobis]

I had a chance to take a look at the talk. Oaks' address wasn't about vaccines or mandates. And the quoted line isn't the payload of the message.

My summary of what I saw is this:
* Oaks says religious freedom is good (implied context is traditional families)
* Oaks says nondiscrimination laws are good (implied context is gays and lesbians, I'll address this below)
* Oaks goes on for a long time and "strongly urges" certain behaviors and attitudes in order to keep both sides happy.
* Oaks urges people to settle disputes out of court <<<< (THIS IS FAR MORE TELLING, THAN THE QUOTE IN THE OP.).

My criticisms are:
* I can do without the vague platitudes and word salads
* I disagree with his premise about nondiscrimination laws. He is taking it as an axiomatic truth that nondiscrimination laws are good. But I disagree. Such laws are a major infringement on freedom of association. What business does the government have in making sure that market transactions do or don't consider the race or ethnicity of those participating? That is not the government's job.

Does Oaks think vax mandates are okay? Maybe. Probably. But this address does not prove or disprove that.

[Subcomandante]

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"...

And how do you think these people got those titles, of "prophet", of "expert", or of PhD?

They don't come because you want them. They come because of literally YEARS of preparation. By study, as well as by faith. He definitely knows a lot more than what any of us know because he is a prophet as well as an expert in his field, specifically law. And as what BKColt quoted and I looked up and found, this is NOT the first time that President Oaks has mentioned what he mentioned in Charlottesville the other day.

This is why people ask the current contrarians to the current flow, "what are your credentials?"

"I saw a lot of videos on Google for days" does not count as one.

"I have the correct interpretation of Isaiah" is not another one. Especially if it would not pass basic scrutiny for anyone that is even remotely versed in Hebrew or Aramaic to make that determination.

"I have a Juris Doctorate from the University of Chicago, and I graduated Cum Laude, and taught many years at that school" is a credential. Quite a few of them.

"I have been ordained an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, to act as a Special Witness of His Name" is a credential. As is "I am a representative of Jesus Christ, called by God to serve the people of this region" is another credential. When the followup is "Who ordained you?" then you can go through the priesthood line of authority. Or show the letters of your mission call and your ministerial certificate that was given you before you left the MTC.

[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"...

And how do you think these people got those titles, of "prophet", of "expert", or of PhD?

They don't come because you want them. They come because of literally YEARS of preparation. By study, as well as by faith. He definitely knows a lot more than what any of us know because he is a prophet as well as an expert in his field, specifically law. And as what BKColt quoted and I looked up and found, this is NOT the first time that President Oaks has mentioned what he mentioned in Charlottesville the other day.

This is why people ask the current contrarians to the current flow, "what are your credentials?"

"I saw a lot of videos on Google for days" does not count as one.

"I have the correct interpretation of Isaiah" is not another one. Especially if it would not pass basic scrutiny for anyone that is even remotely versed in Hebrew or Aramaic to make that determination.

"I have a Juris Doctorate from the University of Chicago, and I graduated Cum Laude, and taught many years at that school" is a credential. Quite a few of them.

"I have been ordained an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, to act as a Special Witness of His Name" is a credential. As is "I am a representative of Jesus Christ, called by God to serve the people of this region" is another credential. When the followup is "Who ordained you?" then you can go through the priesthood line of authority. Or show the letters of your mission call and your ministerial certificate that was given you before you left the MTC.

Well, some people get titles they don't deserve. Nelson isn't a seer.

How about Fauci, do you trust him? He has all the right credentials, do you think he's telling the truth?

Just because someone went to school doesn't mean they can't be evil or a liar.

I honestly can't believe that you're even trying to argue this.

[Subcomandante]

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"...

And how do you think these people got those titles, of "prophet", of "expert", or of PhD?

They don't come because you want them. They come because of literally YEARS of preparation. By study, as well as by faith. He definitely knows a lot more than what any of us know because he is a prophet as well as an expert in his field, specifically law. And as what BKColt quoted and I looked up and found, this is NOT the first time that President Oaks has mentioned what he mentioned in Charlottesville the other day.

This is why people ask the current contrarians to the current flow, "what are your credentials?"

"I saw a lot of videos on Google for days" does not count as one.

"I have the correct interpretation of Isaiah" is not another one. Especially if it would not pass basic scrutiny for anyone that is even remotely versed in Hebrew or Aramaic to make that determination.

"I have a Juris Doctorate from the University of Chicago, and I graduated Cum Laude, and taught many years at that school" is a credential. Quite a few of them.

"I have been ordained an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, to act as a Special Witness of His Name" is a credential. As is "I am a representative of Jesus Christ, called by God to serve the people of this region" is another credential. When the followup is "Who ordained you?" then you can go through the priesthood line of authority. Or show the letters of your mission call and your ministerial certificate that was given you before you left the MTC.

Well, some people get titles they don't deserve. Nelson isn't a seer.

How about Fauci, do you trust him? He has all the right credentials, do you think he's telling the truth?

Just because someone went to school doesn't mean they can't be evil or a liar.

I honestly can't believe that you're even trying to argue this.

President Nelson is perhaps the most powerful seer the Church has had since at least Ezra Taft Benson, if not David O. McKay.

There are many doctors out there that have said different things about this virus. That should not be surprising, given that it is a new virus. Fauci is definitely one that should have been removed from his post a long time ago, as well as the media apparatchiks. Our doctor Gatell, likewise is one that is not at all respected by most Mexican doctors, and that is despite the fact that his positions have largely contradicted Fauci's at one point or another.

People can use their preparation for evil things, that is true. But in order to have access to many things in this world, that preparation is necessary. And hopefully your ethics are such that that title can bring upon you and your posterity reward instead of cursings.

It's called the parable of talents for a reason. Use your talents, and use them for good.

[Gadianton Slayer]

President Nelson is perhaps the most powerful seer the Church has had since at least Ezra Taft Benson, if not David O. McKay.

What in the world?

[Subcomandante]

President Nelson is perhaps the most powerful seer the Church has had since at least Ezra Taft Benson, if not David O. McKay.

What in the world?

It may be hard for people to believe, but this is the case. And I have several points of evidence backing that up.

[Gadianton Slayer]

This comes down to whether or not you feel his statement was meant to be applied to the vaxxeens. I absolutely think it is, you may not. That's fine. Time will tell... more flaxen cords will be wrapped... more evidence of their involvement with Babylon... or maybe I'm completely wrong we shall see. I've placed my bet.

[Gadianton Slayer]

President Nelson is perhaps the most powerful seer the Church has had since at least Ezra Taft Benson, if not David O. McKay.

What in the world?

It may be hard for people to believe, but this is the case. And I have several points of evidence backing that up.

It's definitely hard to believe a lie. But, you're entitled to your opinion. I've had many people try to explain why they feel Nelson is a seer or prophet of God, I'm not willing to do a full-on yoga routine just to establish that though. To stretch that far would break my back.

[GeeR]

Oaks is not wasting a manufactured crises in using it to justify taking away our freedoms! I will testify against him at the judgement bar of God, count on it!

[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

Who said this??
Reference?
Thanks

Forgot to put it in full quotes. Pres. Oaks is the speaker. Found on the church website. Claremont speech, puts this thread in a better context than just the jab.

Other thread getting similar contextual pushback and rightly so. IMHO

[Robin Hood]

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...

I know that's the common interpretation, I just don't agree with it. I think we'll literally have three church presidents die in quick succession.
The reason is that we also had 3 apostles die in 1906, and nothing happened.

[mudflap]

Moses 4:1

AND I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying--Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.
2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me--Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.
3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;
4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.

.

How was Satan going to redeem all mankind? by destroying the agency of man - it's right there in the scriptures. Satan's plan was to take away our agency. How did he get 1/3 to follow him - and why would anyone give up their agency to him? I know how: Fear. "If you don't follow me, you won't make it back here. Under my plan, everyone will be safe..." Sound familiar? "if you don't take this shot, you will die..." Everywhere you look, it's all fear porn these days. If you watched MSM all day, you have seen on video billions of clotshots being administered. every clip shows someone getting a jab. that's not just by accident. It's about fear. and power and control. Does that sound like Jesus's modus operandi. No.

Does Jesus want you to give up your agency? No. He wants you to use your agency to choose to follow him. He wants you to put off the natural fearful man and choose Him. But that's the great distinction - He doesn't want to take your agency from you - He wants you to willingly choose to follow Him. Your choice. Your will. Freely given. An entire war in heaven was fought over this one principle. It was so important to preserve that the Father chose to lose 1/3 of His children over it. Not just dead - eternally unable to return to Him. And we have folks at the top of our church apparently worried more about physical death than preserving an individual's right to choose. That's scary.

There are two plans - one ensures your liberty, the other lied and said it was trying to ensure your safety. Safety is just another word for "under control". Under Satan's control, in this context. This war between liberty and "safety" (power and control) has been going on for thousands of years, going back at least as far as the war in heaven.

[silverado]

“...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 ?

"In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson, the Kentucky Resolutions.

[Robin Hood]

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.

Now you need to be "qualified" in order to understand the US constitution?
Maybe God was wrong then.

[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.

Now you need to be "qualified" in order to understand the US constitution?
Maybe God was wrong then.

You guys should know what I mean when I say "qualified."

[Reluctant Watchman]

qualified = anointed

[Godislove]

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.

f7922e19b5aeec66c0de7834f04cbe4b.jpg (91.57 KiB) Viewed 574 times

He also said we should each understand the constitution the way the founders meant it to be understood. I have seen so much gross misrepresentation of what the founders actually wrote....for example implying that 'promoting the general welfare' justifies the use of vaccine mandates.
Oaks is no better qualified on knowing what the first Amendment says than each church member who studies the constitution should be.

[mudflap]

folks are confusing "peace" with "relief" when they think the vaccine is a godsend.

[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.

f7922e19b5aeec66c0de7834f04cbe4b.jpg

He also said we should each understand the constitution the way the founders meant it to be understood. I have seen so much gross misrepresentation of what the founders actually wrote....for example implying that 'promoting the general welfare' justifies the use of vaccine mandates.
Oaks is no better qualified on knowing what the first Amendment says than each church member who studies the constitution should be.

But when an acclaimed university is going to have a person give a talk on the Constitution, who do you think they are going to select?

A. A person who has a juris doctorate at a prestigious law school, and who taught constitutional law for multiple years, clerked for a Supreme Court justice, was himself a state supreme court justice, and was considered by two presidents for a federal supreme court pick?

B. Some random online poster whose claim to fame on the Constitution is an originalist setting as described by well known John Birch Society members? No credentials, no degrees, just informal studies on the Constitution.

This is what I mean by "Credentials" and "Qualifications." Yes, having those papers are indeed important in this day and age. This is why he is more qualified than any of us to opine in that specific setting what the First Amendment says and doesn't say. And it is VERY clear that the First Amendment DOES have limitations and is no way absolute, and court after court has ruled on this.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I'm glad God doesn't care about those "Credentials" and "Qualifications."

[Subcomandante]

I'm glad God doesn't care about those "Credentials" and "Qualifications."

He doesn't. But the responsibilities of those who have those credentials and qualifications are bigger. And God entrusts bigger things to those that make the effort to gain as much education as they can.

[Godislove]

I'm glad God doesn't care about those "Credentials" and "Qualifications."

He doesn't. But the responsibilities of those who have those credentials and qualifications are bigger. And God entrusts bigger things to those that make the effort to gain as much education as they can.

Joseph Smith was quite uneducated yet God entrusted him with MUCH bigger things.

[Lizzy60]

I'm glad God doesn't care about those "Credentials" and "Qualifications."

He doesn't. But the responsibilities of those who have those credentials and qualifications are bigger. And God entrusts bigger things to those that make the effort to gain as much education as they can.

Totally false.