Elder Oaks says Kim Davis was wrong

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I thought this was interesting.  

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865639497/Elder-Oaks-suggests-center-path-of-mutual-understanding-instead-of-wall-between-church-and-state.html

 

"All government officers should exercise their civil authority according to the principles and within the limits of civil government," he added before commenting on Kim Davis:

"A county clerk’s recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal by her office and staff to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle."

Far worse, he said, are governors or attorneys general who refuse to enforce or defend a law they oppose on personal secular or religious grounds, a reference that could include the Obama administration's past refusal to defend DOMA and some conservative governors' refusal to abide by federal marriage rulings.

[prisonchaplain]

Outsider question:  Does Elder Oaks statement stand as the official view of the church--as a prophetic proclammation, or is this something that some members will be able to say he was only sharing his personal view on? 

[Vort]

Or Governor Moonbeam's refusal to uphold California state law.

[Guest MormonGator]

Elder Oaks is right. What if a anti-gun person wants to deny me a concealed carry permit because it's against her religion?  

[pam]

Outsider question:  Does Elder Oaks statement stand as the official view of the church--as a prophetic proclammation, or is this something that some members will be able to say he was only sharing his personal view on? 

 

I would say he's talking as personal opinion.  If it is coming as an official statement from the Church, it would say so.

[Guest]

Outsider question:  Does Elder Oaks statement stand as the official view of the church--as a prophetic proclammation, or is this something that some members will be able to say he was only sharing his personal view on? 

You may also find that it depends on whom you ask and how visceral their ties to their political views are, and of course whether or not his statements compliment said views.

[prisonchaplain]

You may also find that it depends on whom you ask and how visceral their ties to their political views are, and of course whether or not his statements compliment said views.

 

If, as Pam suggested, this statement did come with an indication that the Church considered it prophetic, would some still say, "Well, yes, but it's not doctrine--not scripture?"

[The Folk Prophet]

If, as Pam suggested, this statement did come with an indication that the Church considered it prophetic, would some still say, "Well, yes, but it's not doctrine--not scripture?"

 

Some will say anything.

 

As a general rule, it is unwise to disregard an apostle of the Lord.

Edited October 21, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[priesthoodpower]

Outsider question:  Does Elder Oaks statement stand as the official view of the church--as a prophetic proclammation, or is this something that some members will be able to say he was only sharing his personal view on? 

 

It says that the "Mormons", which Im assuming the church leaders, "..chose Oaks to deliver the message."  So it sounds like it was a collaborated message between peers which would be the quorum of the 12.  

 

Now there is no excuse for ALL members not to inherit these same sentiments of equality and respectfulness on this subject. Because a few years ago when all these samesex bills were up for vote, some of my local LDS leaders had that "us against them" stance.

[The Folk Prophet]

when all these samesex bills were up for vote, some of my local LDS leaders had that "us against them" stance.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the whole idea of voting is a matter of "us against them", at least by way of policy. Voting is, by it's nature, yes or no -- polar opposition -- clear, plain, flat, contrast.

[prisonchaplain]

Would it be fair to say that an LDS member who sympathized with Kim Davis could still say she stood up for what she believed, but would now be more cautionary about encouraging her to continue, or others to do likewise?

[Guest]

I'm not sure why this is an issue.  Elder Oaks has spoken about this very issue (gay marriage) multiple times to non-Mormon audiences as well as LDS audiences.  He's been pretty clear.  

 

1) He states what our religious beliefs are regarding homosexual activities.  

2) He describes the political/legal situation.

3) He proposes a social/political course of action.

 

I saw no doctrinal statement in the article that changes anything doctrinally. 

 

While religion tells us right v. wrong or righteous v. sin, society and government define what is acceptable public behavior and what is not (defined as what is punishible by law).  

 

I do not believe he said Davis was sinning.  I believe he was of the opinion that her course of action was not helping our cause.  Remember that he is one of the most accomplished lawyers that most of us will ever hear from.  His legal analyses are always top notch.

 

To look at it another way:  

 

We usually agree that if the life or health of the mother are in jeopardy, she should be able to have an abortion.  But I knew a woman who said even if her life were in jeopardy, she just couldn't bring herself to have an abortion.  Was she sinning?

 

Even if Davis were LDS and she knew that the Church's position was that she could issue the certificates without being in danger of punishment from God, she may still just not be able to bring herself to do it.  Is she sinning?

Edited October 21, 2015 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

Would it be fair to say that an LDS member who sympathized with Kim Davis could still say she stood up for what she believed, but would now be more cautionary about encouraging her to continue, or others to do likewise?

 

It would be fair to say that those who believe she is a hero will continue to do so. As for encouraging, I'm not sure very many of us have access to encourage or discourage anything she does.  Practically speaking, however, for any LDS people who hold court positions who were considering doing the same -- they might want to reconsider.

 

Realistically, the opinion comes down to what is "within the limits of civil government". There are certainly those who may well hold opinions such as that the the government has overstepped its bounds, and that doing so has stepped into incivility territory. In that point, some may disagree with Elder Oaks, even if they agree with the principle.

 

My takeaway is that we need to be very, very careful about when and if we choose to engage in civil disobedience.

[Just_A_Guy]

Elder Oaks seems to be establishing precedent that says Church members can and should accept political dhimmitude as it becomes the norm for democratic governments to engage in ever-more-reprehensible activities.

 

Politically, I dislike it and I suspect it foreshadows a much more painful form of marginalization.  But ecclesiastically, I sustain Elder Oaks' statement.  I trust that he, of all people, understands the implications of what he's doing; and wouldn't have done it if he didn't believe he had divine sanction.  If God's plan is for the Church to quietly endure a redux of Edmunds-Tucker (or worse)--so be it.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Colirio]

Sounds to me like Elder Oaks just stated the obvious...

D&C 134:9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

Articles of faith 1: 12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

I might not like the law. I might believe the law is unjust. I dare say that this particular law will lead to the breakdown of the family in society and thereby will be society's undoing. However, there is no denyng our resonsibility as members of the church towards obeying the laws of the land.

However, if such a particular unjust law caused others to be in immediate danger, common sense would dictate to do what must be done.

D&C 134:11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

Again, it seems cut and dry to me.

[prisonchaplain]

Comparisons have been made between Kim Davis and MLK.  Critics discard this with a sniff.  Proponents say, "Why?  Because Kim Davis is espousing traditional values instead of progressive ones?"  Has there been LDS commentary on Dr. King's non-violent civil disobedience?

[Guest]

Take a gander.

 

https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=%22martin+luther+king%22

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Again, it seems cut and dry to me.

 

 

Comparisons have been made between Kim Davis and MLK.  Critics discard this with a sniff.  Proponents say, "Why?  Because Kim Davis is espousing traditional values instead of progressive ones?"  Has there been LDS commentary on Dr. King's non-violent civil disobedience?

 

 

Take a gander.

 

https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=%22martin+luther+king%22

 

I think it's not cut and dried at all.  PC makes a good point.  I don't see Kim Davis as the same as MLK, but some do, where does one draw the line between acceptable civil disobedience and unacceptable?  Is it because of Ms. Davis' employment?  

[Just_A_Guy]

Sounds to me like Elder Oaks just stated the obvious...

D&C 134:9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

Articles of faith 1: 12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

I might not like the law. I might believe the law is unjust. I dare say that this particular law will lead to the breakdown of the family in society and thereby will be society's undoing. However, there is no denyng our resonsibility as members of the church towards obeying the laws of the land.

However, if such a particular unjust law caused others to be in immediate danger, common sense would dictate to do what must be done.

D&C 134:11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

Again, it seems cut and dry to me.

 

Important scriptures, to be sure; but I think we need to be really, really careful about the implications of these sorts of arguments.  When you parse things carefully, WW2-era German speech codes were not in and of themselves an "unlawful assault and encroachment" or "caus[ing] others immediate danger"--but no one would argue that Helmuth Hubener's excommunication was appropriate due to Hubener's having actually flouted a lawful government decree.

 

I'm not necessarily saying Davis is right; but I'm wondering where the contours of this argument actually lie.  And, yeah; so far it strikes me that it ultimately boils down to whether one agrees with the government policy being protested.

 

Oaks' statement strikes me as the beginnings of an institutional tactical retreat in the name of weathering the coming storm; rather than an ultimate decree of right versus wrong.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

Oaks' statement strikes me as the beginnings of an institutional tactical retreat in the name of weathering the coming storm; rather than an ultimate decree of right versus wrong.

 

My thoughts exactly.

[prisonchaplain]

I checked the link and can see that TODAY there is honor and memorial given to Dr. King.  How was it in his day?  I am guessing that most of the churches in my fellowship would have rejected civil disobedience in matters they might have perceived as cultural.

 

One difference I see is that Dr. King did not use the office of government to deny opponents.  He used the righteous indignation of society.  Nobody accused Dr. King of being mean, but blocking the lawful marriages of a group that the public now perceives as having been aggrieved is not the act of one oppressed.  It's likely to backfire.

[The Folk Prophet]

but blocking the lawful marriages of a group that the public now perceives as having been aggrieved is not the act of one oppressed. 

 

That depends on what you consider oppression I suppose. Personally, I consider myself highly oppressed by this and a variety of other things.

 

I mean, isn't that the whole point of the argument? No one is out there arguing that the act or attitude of homosexuality itself ought to be illegal because two folk engaged in something in the privacy of their own lives isn't oppressive (arguably). But it is the view of many that when you move that privacy into the public sphere by way of law it does, indeed, become oppressive in a great many ways.

[Just_A_Guy]

. . . but blocking the lawful marriages of a group that the public now perceives as having been aggrieved is not the act of one oppressed.  It's likely to backfire. . .

 

There's a difference between blocking the lawful marriage versus simply saying "not me".  Unfortunately, few have any interest in pointing out that nuance.

[prisonchaplain]

Wow, I do not want to defend Davis' critics.  I'm tracking with Folk Prophet all the way up to the SCOTUS decision.  BUT, now gay marriage is the law of the land, and the sad sorry truth is that most Americans are okay with it.  I hate it, but I'm not sure losing the public's approval counts as me being oppressed.  Not yet.

 

As for JAG's suggestion that Davis was merely saying, "Not me," I may have read this differently.  I perceived that she could have avoided signing her own name, but she was going further--preventing anyone under her supervision from facilitating these marriages.  So, she was not trying to avoid personal support--she was pro-actively using her govt position to hinder the marriages.  At least, that's how I read this.

 

I doubt too many people would have criticized her if she had said, "As a believer in Jesus, and his righteous standards, I cannot be party to gay marriage.  I resign."  Then, she would have gotten props for giving up her position to maintain righteousness.

 

If I'm missing details here, let me know. 

[Guest]

...No one is out there arguing that the act or attitude of homosexuality itself ought to be illegal because two folk engaged in something in the privacy of their own lives isn't oppressive (arguably). But it is the view of many that when you move that privacy into the public sphere by way of law it does, indeed, become oppressive in a great many ways.

But for a long long time the act or attitude of homosexuality itself was illegal. And folk who engaged in it were persecuted. And folk who spoke out against the persecution were also persecuted. There are many who dislike drawing similarities between gay rights and civil rights, or between gays and blacks in terms of what they endured and of course drawing comparisons is never precise. But since Prison Chaplain brought up attitudes regarding MLK, he was not revered by our church and today there are many many Mormons who don't revere him at all. And there were many who believed and spoke out that "civil rights" for blacks was a tool of Satan, a tool of communism and anything else they could think of to disdain it and to prevent it.  Moreover, there were many who made the same complaint that allowing blacks to be in public with whites in what had previously been whites-only situations was oppressive to whites.

Edited October 21, 2015 by UT.starscoper