April 2021 conference

[Bo Diddley]

Is it possible most of that was from anarchists hijacking what started as a legitimate protest movement?

Would violence from anarchists also be considered a political statement? Would that also fit what President Oaks was referring to?

[Moliere]

That was an interesting experience. When Oaks started listing his legal bonafides at the beginning of his talk, I was bracing myself to be disappointed. By the end of the talk everyone in our house was shouting "Amen!" and high-fiving.

I had the exact same experience of going from terrified to impressed and even inspired. It was a great talk and sorely needed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Northwestcoug]

Wow did Oaks pull a Oliver Wendell Holmes on the constitution?

[Non Sequitur]

Dallin Oaks' talk was one of the few I listened to live. I was pleasantly surprised, but the cynic in me doubts the talking points would have been the same if Russell Nelson weren't President of the Church and setting the tone. Not that I believe in God, but President Nelson is a Godsend to the Church. The Church is at a cultural crossroads, and he's the perfect person to be at the helm right now.

[BlueK]

Would violence from anarchists also be considered a political statement? Would that also fit what President Oaks was referring to?

I think we can agree that being somewhat supportive or tolerant of the violent actions of either mob is an extremist position and Elder Oaks was admonishing against extremism in politics from the members. I guess I would ask among the audience Elder Oaks was addressing which extreme is more prevalent right now? You have people like Sen Ron Johnson flat out saying the Capitol attackers were not really a threat. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think within church membership right now there are more who would share that opinion with Sen. Johnson than who think the rioters burning things in the summer were ok. Thats why I would say I think Oaks probably had the former group more in mind although of course he would consemn the violence on both ends.

[Bo Diddley]

I think we can agree that being somewhat supportive or tolerant of the violent actions of either mob is an extremist position and Elder Oaks was admonishing against extremism in politics from the members. I guess I would ask among the audience Elder Oaks was addressing which extreme is more prevalent right now? You have people like Sen Ron Johnson flat out saying the Capitol attackers were not really a threat. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think within church membership right now there are more who would share that opinion with Sen. Johnson than who think the rioters burning things in the summer were ok. Thats why I would say I think Oaks probably had the former group more in mind although of course he would consemn the violence on both ends.

Totally agree there are more members in the minimize the Capitol mob actions group. I'm simply saying there's no way he's confining his remarks to address them.

[BlueK]

Dallin Oaks' talk was one of the few I listened to live. I was pleasantly surprised, but the cynic in me doubts the talking points would have been the same if Russell Nelson weren't President of the Church and setting the tone. Not that I believe in God, but President Nelson is a Godsend to the Church. The Church is at a cultural crossroads, and he's the perfect person to be at the helm right now.

Maybe, but Oaks politically, based on his judicial career I'd categorize as traditional Republican conservative, not quite like Reagan, more like Bush Sr. Or Mitt Romney. Translated to today's GOP = flaming liberal.

[Moliere]

Maybe, but Oaks politically, based on his judicial career I'd categorize as traditional Republican conservative, not quite like Reagan, more like Bush Sr. Or Mitt Romney. Translated to today's GOP = flaming liberal.

Totally agree with this. I bet he was pissed when he saw the mob at the capital building. Nothing is more unconstitutional than what that mob did and they did it in the name of the constitution which probably pissed him off even more. In fact, I remember him taking a shot at people that saw they are following the constitution when in fact they are doing the opposite and trampling on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[All-American]

Here we go, President Oaks' talk on the Constitution is on the Church's website.

Let's look at a few quotes. Does he actually put forth the opinion on the side of the "Constitution is a living document" idea? Wowzers.

"The Constitution was not “a fully grown document,” said President J. Reuben Clark. “On the contrary,” he explained, “we believe it must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world.”³ For example, inspired amendments abolished slavery and gave women the right to vote. However, we do not see inspiration in every Supreme Court decision interpreting the Constitution."

-- Ok, this is hardly radical to anyone who resides on the normal side of the political spectrum.

That's not inconsistent with dead constitutionalism; if you want to change it, pass an amendment.

"The source of government power is the people. In a time when sovereign power was universally assumed to come from the divine right of kings or from military power, attributing sovereign power to the people was revolutionary. Philosophers had advocated this, but the United States Constitution was the first to apply it. Sovereign power in the people does not mean that mobs or other groups of people can intervene to intimidate or force government action."

--- seriously, if you don't think this is a reference to the mob on January 6th you are nuts. A mob seeking to intimidate or force government action (ie, illegally overturn the election to keep a losing President in power) cannot fit the definition of this statement any better.

Agreed-- but they'll find a way to ignore it. I'm sure it was all about BLM riots, amirite?

Next:
"What else are faithful Latter-day Saints to do? We must pray for the Lord to guide and bless all nations and their leaders. This is part of our article of faith. Being subject to presidents or rulers⁷ of course poses no obstacle to our opposing individual laws or policies. It does require that we exercise our influence civilly and peacefully within the framework of our constitutions and applicable laws. On contested issues, we should seek to moderate and unify." - I don't think he's a fan of political parties or political discourse moving more and more to the extremes.

Finally:

"In the United States and in other democracies, political influence is exercised by running for office (which we encourage), by voting, by financial support, by membership and service in political parties, and by ongoing communications to officials, parties, and candidates. To function well, a democracy needs all of these, but a conscientious citizen does not need to provide all of them.

There are many political issues, and no party, platform, or individual candidate can satisfy all personal preferences. Each citizen must therefore decide which issues are most important to him or her at any particular time. Then members should seek inspiration on how to exercise their influence according to their individual priorities. This process will not be easy. It may require changing party support or candidate choices, even from election to election.

Such independent actions will sometimes require voters to support candidates or political parties or platforms whose other positions they cannot approve.⁹ That is one reason we encourage our members to refrain from judging one another in political matters. We should never assert that a faithful Latter-day Saint cannot belong to a particular party or vote for a particular candidate. We teach correct principles and leave our members to choose how to prioritize and apply those principles on the issues presented from time to time."

Amen and amen.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/...1oaks?lang=eng

I thought it was excellent and timely.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I'm with All-American here, I'm not convinced from what I've read here that Oaks is a believer in the Constitution as a living document. When his examples are pass an Amendment, that sounds more like being against the position of the constitution as a living document.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm with All-American here, I'm not convinced from what I've read here that Oaks is a believer in the Constitution as a living document. When his examples are pass an Amendment, that sounds more like being against the position of the constitution as a living document.

So what would his statements look like if he believed the constitution was a living document?

[MartyFunkhouser]

So what would his statements look like if he believed the constitution was a living document?

Not have the 2 examples that followed the statement be amendments to the constitution. I'm NOT being critical here. It is valid if someone believes it is a dead document. Not something that I agree with, but not something that is inherently wrong. I'm just saying that it is not 100% clear from the statement made there that he believes it is a living document.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Not have the 2 examples that followed the statement be amendments to the constitution. I'm NOT being critical here. It is valid if someone believes it is a dead document. Not something that I agree with, but not something that is inherently wrong. I'm just saying that it is not 100% clear from the statement made there that he believes it is a living document.

I am not accusing you of being critical. I am genuinely curious what the distinction is. Come on, you guys are the lawyers here.

[All-American]

I am not accusing you of being critical. I am genuinely curious what the distinction is. Come on, you guys are the lawyers here.

A living constitution would grow by Supreme Court decisions, or maybe even super-wise circuit court decisions, by super-wise circuit court judges who will be more than happy to let you know how super-wise they are.

Living constitutionalism would make judges the ones that push the change. Dead constitutionalism still allows for change, but by the amendment process (which ultimately means by elected officials and the voters who elected them).

[Joe Public]

A living constitution would grow by Supreme Court decisions, or maybe even super-wise circuit court decisions, by super-wise circuit court judges who will be more than happy to let you know how super-wise they are.

See, e.g., Sonia Sotomayor