April 2021 conference

[All-American]

See, e.g., Sonia Sotomayor

I decided some time ago that out of respect for the office itself I would restrain myself from personal criticism of any particular Supreme Court Justice.

I believe I am not breaking that rule when I confess that I have to invoke that rule disproportionately on behalf of Justice Sotomayor.

[Northwestcoug]

I know next to nothing about her ethics or judicial opinion. I’ll just say that sotomayor is a kick ass last name.

[Non Sequitur]

I decided some time ago that out of respect for the office itself I would restrain myself from personal criticism of any particular Supreme Court Justice.

I believe I am not breaking that rule when I confess that I have to invoke that rule disproportionately on behalf of Justice Sotomayor.

I'm sure she would be equally gracious towards you if you were on her radar.

[All-American]

I'm sure she would be equally gracious towards you if you were on her radar.

I actually met her once. She was, indeed, a very gracious person. Knew how to work the room too.

[Mr Bean]

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.

"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.

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 disagree with oaks. You cannot hold religious moral principles and support trump at the same time. It’s blatant hypocrisy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bo Diddley]

I disagree with oaks. You cannot hold religious moral principles and support trump at the same time. It’s blatant hypocrisy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is hard to take seriously. So from one anti Trump guy to another, can you tell me what candidates are religiously and morally approved?