The Church supported the Respect for Marriage Act because it protects religious freedom and provide other protection to churches, Elder Oaks clarified in a talk today.

Speaking this morning, Elder Oaks pointed out that many Church members are unsure why the Church, long opposed to same-sex marriage, supported the Respect for Marriage Act, which codifies same-sex unions.

While the Respect for Marriage Act codified same-sex marriage in federal law, the act also provided needed protections for religious expression. “Putting such protections in the federal law was a big step forward,” said President Oaks, a former Utah state supreme court justice and professor of law at the University of Chicago. 

He explained that the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges had already established a federal right to same-sex marriage in the United States.

The focus of the Church’s efforts in support of the national Respect for Marriage Act “was not on same-sex marriage, but on ensuring the act contained the necessary protections for religious freedom,” he said, adding that at the time the act was adopted, “the Church publicly reaffirmed our Church doctrine approving only marriage between one man and one woman.”

Marriage bills previously proposed in Congress made no attempt to protect religious freedom, said President Oaks. “The Church came out in favor of amendments that added religious freedom protections to the proposed Respect for Marriage Act,” he said. “The amended bill was signed into law, but its overall effect was misunderstood because many news stories focused on only the part of the act that affirmed same-sex marriage.

Continue reading →

I am the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth. In my feelings I am always ready to die for the protection of the weak and oppressed in their just rights. The only fault I find with the Constitution is, it is not broad enough to cover the whole ground.

Although it provides that all men shall enjoy religious freedom, yet it does not provide the manner by which that freedom can be preserved, nor for the punishment of Government officers who refuse to protect the people in their religious rights, or punish those mobs, states, or communities who interfere with the rights of the people on account of their religion. Its sentiments are good, but it provides no means of enforcing them. It has but this one fault. Under its provision, a man or a people who are able to protect themselves can get along well enough; but those who have the misfortune to be weak or unpopular are left to the merciless rage of popular fury.

The Constitution should contain a provision that every officer of the Government who should neglect or refuse to extend the protection guaranteed in the Constitution should be subject to capital punishment; and then the president of the United States would not say, “Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you.”

( Source: Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 326-27 )

It is important to understand Joseph Smith’s perspective. The U.S. Constitution promises Americans that they will have freedom to worship as they please, but nevertheless the prophet was persecuted for his religion all of his adult life.

Because of this persecution, Joseph Smith traveled to Washington, DC in November 1839 to appeal directly to President Martin Van Buren and the U.S. Congress. And he was told that for political reasons very little could be done for the early Latter-day Saints. President Van Buren told Joseph Smith that his cause was just but nothing could be done without losing the votes of the state of Missouri, where a lot of the persecution took place.

Continue reading →

On Friday, New York State Supreme Court Judge Gerard Neri held that the COVID vax mandate for healthcare workers was immediately “null, void, and of no effect.” The court found that the mandate was “arbitrary and capricious” since the shots don’t stop transmission, destroying any rational basis for a mandate in the first place.

In fact, the judge underlined, italicized, and boldfaced the words in his order:

This happened almost exactly a year after the worst newspaper in the world, the Salt Lake Tribune, called for martial law against the unvaxxed.

As we reported a year ago:

If you want to see yet another example of crazy COVID hysteria in action, you only have to look as far as Utah’s largest newspaper, the increasingly out of control Salt Lake Tribune. There, we find an editorial with this paragraph:

“Were Utah a truly civilized place, the governor’s next move would be to find a way to mandate the kind of mass vaccination campaign we should have launched a year ago, going as far as to deploy the National Guard to ensure that people without proof of vaccination would not be allowed, well, anywhere.”

Civilized? Only if you consider Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Cambodia under Pol Pot civilized.

A year later, I will note that the SL Tribune is no longer calling for people to be starved to death if they don’t get the jab. So, perhaps there is some progress. Will the SL Tribune ever apologize for its tyrannical and unscientific opinions on the COVID vax? I am not holding my breath.

In case you need a reminder why this is important: the worst things in society happen during times of pressure and fear. This is when people are tested to see whether they will keep their principles, whether they will uphold the liberty and dignity of others, whether they will engage in true tolerance. During the pandemic M* remained virtually alone in the LDS intellectual space in calling for people to avoid being motivated by fear, to avoid government mandates, to avoid destroying the liberty of others.

For this, we were insulted and pilloried endlessly, including by many former writers for this blog. It turns out we were right and they were wrong. I have gotten a few apologies, but there are literally hundreds of people who should be writing or calling to apologize. This is not a personal thing, although that of course would be nice. It is really about learning from our mistakes and from history. There will be another pandemic again someday, or there will be other international crises. How will you react when those crises happen? Will you act rationally or will you let your fear cause panic?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ view on porn is unequivocal: the Church is against pornography.

A new law in Louisiana may be a way to restrict kids’ viewing porn. The law asks for age verification, and only adults can visit porn websites. These websites are defined as having more than a third of sexual content without “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

I am against porn, but I am also against censorship, which doesn’t work in the long run. Unfortunately, the widespread viewing of porn is a sign of our times, and getting rid of porn altogether will never work until the Millennium.

But fewer kids viewing porn? Sure, we should all favor that.

The Church web site points out:

Physical intimacy is a sacred part of Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. However, the adversary tries to thwart the Lord’s plan of happiness by suggesting that physical intimacy is only for personal gratification. Pornography is a tool of the adversary and its use causes the Spirit of the Lord to withdraw from us (see Doctrine and Covenants 63:16).

Potential effects of pornography include isolation, secrecy, and deceit that damage relationships and leave one vulnerable to poor self-esteem, anxiety, and depression; unrealistic expectations and misinformation about sexual intimacy; conditioning us to see people as objects to be used and abused; and the development of obsessive thoughts and compulsive behaviors.

There are unconfirmed reports that porn sites have stopped offering porn in Louisiana because of this new law, which of course is a sign that the porn promoters were indeed aiming at kids. It also might be that they have no way to verify their users’ ages and are unwilling to do so.

Will kids still be able to see porn in Louisiana? Sure. There are VPNs and other way of getting around this new law. But will fewer kids see porn? I think the answer is yes.

A lot of prominent United States men in the 18th and 19th centuries were extremely physical men. They were competitive in the sports of their days, including the martial arts that were practiced, such as boxing and wrestling.

George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were extremely proficient grapplers and practiced a form of submission wrestling that was common for men of the time. Several other 19th century presidents were wrestlers, including Grant, Garfield and Jackson. Friendly and not so friendly boxing matches were also common among men in the 19th century.

Another common physical sport was called the stick pull, some examples of which you can see here:

I mention this because by all accounts Joseph Smith was a relatively large and muscular man, and he had spent most of his youth working hard around the farm, so of course he would have done what other men of his day did, ie, engage in physical contests of one kind or another.

George Q. Cannon said of the prophet: “When he had achieved the prime of his manhood, he seemed to combine all attractions and excellencies. His Physical person was the fit habitation of his exalted spirit. He was more than six feet in height, with [an] expansive chest an clean cut limbs—a staunch and graceful figure.” By all accounts, Joseph Smith was at least six feet tall and about 200 pounds, which would have been larger than average for the time.

In the article “Joseph Smith: The Prophet” in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Richard L. Bushman and Dean C. Jessee said of the prophet: “It was not uncommon to see him involved in sports activities with the young and vigorous men of a community. He is known to have wrestled, pulled sticks, engaged in snowball fights, played ball, slid on ice with his children, played marbles, shot at a mark, and fished.”

There are numerous stories of Joseph Smith challenging other men to wrestle. And remember that in those days wrestling was not freestyle wrestling we see in high school or college. It involved manipulating limbs and fiercely competitive takedowns where competitors would throw each other around, much like modern-day jiu jitsu.

Continue reading →