Moral Discipline

When Elder Christofferson spoke at our stake conference in February 2008, little did we know that he would be called to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles just two months later. Little were we surprised that he was.

Speaking of societies’ failure to teach the rising generation moral values:

As a consequence, self-discipline has eroded and societies are left to try to maintain order and civility by compulsion. The lack of internal control by individuals breeds external control by governments. One columnist observed that “gentlemanly behavior [for example, once] protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior. . . .

“Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.” (Walter Williams, “Laws Are a Poor Substitute for Common Decency, Moral Values,” Deseret News, April 29, 2009)

On the parental responsibility to teach their children:

I have heard a few parents state that they don’t want to impose the gospel on their children but want them to make up their own minds about what they will believe and follow. They think that in this way they are allowing children to exercise their agency. What they forget is that the intelligent use of agency requires knowledge of the truth, of things as they really are (see D&C 93:24). Without that, young people can hardly be expected to understand and evaluate the alternatives that come before them. Parents should consider how the adversary approaches their children. He and his followers are not promoting objectivity but are vigorous, multimedia advocates of sin and selfishness.

View / Download ⇣

Religious Freedom

On October 13, 2009, Elder Dallin H. Oaks spoke on Religious Freedom at BYU-Idaho.

The inherent conflict between the precious religious freedom of the people and the legitimate regulatory responsibilities of the government is the central issue of religious freedom.

For reference, the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We tend to just hear about the first clause – “no law respecting an establishment of religion” – and ignore the “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” There is obviously a balance between the two clauses, but neither can be protected at the expense of the other.

Religious belief is obviously protected against government action. The practice of that belief must have some limits, as I suggested earlier. But unless the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of religious freedom? Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution. (Emphasis in original.)

Elder Oaks concludes with five points of council how Latter-day Saints should conduct themselves to enhance religious freedom in this period of turmoil and challenge:

1. We must speak with love, always showing patience, understanding and compassion toward our adversaries.
2. We must not be deterred or coerced into silence by … intimidation.
3. We must insist on our freedom to preach the doctrines of our faith.
4. We must nevertheless be wise in our political participation.
5. We must be careful never to support or act upon the idea that a person must subscribe to some particular set of religious beliefs in order to qualify for a public office. Wise religious leaders and members will never advocate religious tests for public office.

In that fifth point, it totally sounds like he’s talking about Mitt Romney. He continues:

If a candidate is seen to be rejected at the ballot box primarily because of religious belief or affiliation, the precious free exercise of religion is weakened at its foundation, especially when this reason for rejection has been advocated by other religionists. Such advocacy suggests that if religionists prevail in electing their preferred candidate this will lead to the use of government power in support of their religious beliefs and practices. The religion of a candidate should not be an issue in a political campaign.

“Religious Freedom” by Elder Dallin H. Oaks
BYU-Idaho Devotional, October 13, 2009

View / Download ⇣