Comments about ‘Don't marginalize religion, Elder Oaks says to Harvard law students’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Feb. 27 2010 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Let's use Logic 2

To make an accurate DNA analysis, one would need a sample of the DNA of Lehi's ancestors, then link that DNA to Lehi, then again link it to the Mayans, assuming they are indeed Book of Mormon decendants which I am perfectly fine believing.

Hence Science will one day prove a DNA link between Mayans and the ancestors of Lehi, assuming a person believes that Lehi is from biblical times.

So it would still take a leap of faith for one to believe The Book of Mormon to be the Word of God.

So we are back to square one. Do you need to touch and see God to believe in Him? If so, then I have no answers for you in regards to His existence other than All Things denote there is a God.

God is in the miracle of the details.

I see God in the details of scientific discovery. The stars, the moon, the Sun, the waves of the sea, our eco-system all witness to me there is a God.

I feel no need to prove there is a God, but you have no proof, there isn't a God.


Illogical happenings. Just another manic Friday.


How deluded that not hyping religion means a college is VALUES-FREE.
Socrates tackled most subjects of good and evil and he wasn't a devout Greek, he used LOGIC, he invented it.

Let's use Logic 3

Let's assume there is no God. If there is no God, then there is no evil, all things being relevant, hence Murder, Rape, Abuse and other crimes are neither heinous or bad, but neutral, man having no conscience of these things.

But man has a conscience and and can discern when things are hideous. And if man can act in a hideous manner, then man can act in a good way, having followed a sense of conscience.

And if man has a sense of conscience, then he has a sense of right and wrong, and if there is a sense of right or wrong, then there is good and evil, and man knows that by following the good, then good is added upon and light, truth and knowledge are its fruit.

If man follows evil, then heinous crime follows heinous crime and darkness is added upon.

And we can "see" a contrast of good and evil, light and darkness, right from wrong.

Again, Science can not disprove these things and its purpose is not to disprove good and evil and/or God and Satan, but to make and report discoveries.

Religion's greatest quest must be God!


mark at 11:29 p.m

Actually, I took a fabulous World Religions class at BYU. We learned about Hinduism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. It was taught with respect for other religions and cultures.


Lets use logic.....sophistry, pure sophistry.

Re: mark

You're losing it. Apollo gave us medicine? BYU should offer classes on Wiccanism? Your arguments used to make sense. Now you're so blinded by anger that you're stark raving mad.

Re: logica

"higher education = less mormon conversions."

How so? Mormons are among the most educated - if not THE most educated - people in the US. Most of the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency have graduate degrees, several from Ivy League schools.

As a person with two Master's degrees, I find your comment stereotypical and way off base.

byu alum

I don't think today's students are interested in the superstitions of yesterday.

thank goodness.


To John Pack Lambert--Please don't even bring up the New World Archaeological Foundation. You know what organization was founded by a devout Mormon named Thomas Ferguson. His group began digging in 1955 and after five years they found nothing. He promised they would have evidences of Book of Mormon artifacts by ten years. They continued to dig until the early seventies and Thomas Ferguson concluded that the Book of Mormon was a nineteenth century work of fiction. He said that what was in the book and what was in the ground were two different things. Not one iota of evidence has been found that substantiates Book of Mormon claims. Not one non-member archaeologist and many Mormon archaeologists agree that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. The foremost expert in Mayan studies, Michael Coe, said Mormonisn has nothing to do with Mayans. Grab at different straws, John Pack Lambert.


People like Dallin H. Oaks pose a problem for critics of the church and religion. He is educated, successful and yet also devoted to his religion. This flies in the face of the stereotypes that are so frequently bantered about.

Religion and Science

Science and religion are not at odds with each other, science is just to young to understand. (Dan Brown "The Lost Symbol") Science by it's own definition cannot disprove the existence of God or anything that delves in the spiritual realm. Science can only prove things in the physical world that are TESTABLE. This excludes anything on a spiritual realm. Besides, science is ever-evolving and constantly changing. 100 years from now our grandchildren will laugh at the "facts" we theorized, although, science need not be ashamed for its short-comings. Science does the best it can with the information and technology given.

Logic schmojik!

Just because you say it's logic don't make it so.

John C.

To Mark: Your arguments are becoming more illogical every time you post. If a school is founded and ran by a protestant faith what will they concentrate on? Or a Catholic school. BYU was founded by the church and is ran by the church mainly for our church members though we do accept a smaller percentage of non-members as well. What in the world do you think a church ran school would focus on?
Your hatred is blinding you so badly that you can’t see clearly at all. You need some help badly. There are a lot of people who disagree with our faith just as you do as you have a right to. But they can allow us to believe the way we choose and live their own lives. But you are letting hate consume your soul. GET HELP!!!


Education should teach people how to read, research, and evaluate. It is not to teach what to believe or what is true. They will find that on their own if they search for it.

There are many theories buy only one truth. And the world simply hates those that say they have found it.


Very interesting that this article, and the one about education at the University level producing more liberal students, appears on the same page. This one provides the answer, which is YES! The Liberal teachers of the 60's and 70's are producing the secularists of the present. It is an evil plan, and we know where that comes from, but oh the despair and unhappiness it engenders.


The very mention of religion (in any form) makes many in todays society uncomfortable, to the point of wanting to get away from the source. Elder Oaks did nothing but bring to light that the American Education system (at all levels in my opinion) is in some way or another alienating the subject of diety and religion.

I have found in my own experiences that conversing on the subject with others who have a solid religious value system is quite easy. We may not all worship diety the same, but still recognize God for what he is, which fundamentally doesn't change.

I also note the great successes of Religion owned institutions of Higher Learning. BYU, SMU, Notre Dame... All have high standards, and well educated, well rounded alumnus. There will always be exceptions of course, but for the most part their graduates seem to have a better grasp on the realities of life and how to put their education and their beliefs to work for themselves and others.

Poor logic...

If there was no God, that doesn't mean anything goes and it's all moral relativism. Science cannot disprove God because the burden of proof is on those who say something exists. Just saying that God exists or a spiritual world exists does not make it so. You have zero evidence for anything supernatural. Science and religion cannot coexist because science actually has empirical evidence while religion has none.


What happens when intelligent life is found on other planets in the universe and these beings are of another form other than "men?" If God is an "exalted man" then who is the "God" of these creatures? Just asking.


Based on prior statements of Oaks and others, they are more concerned with institutions and adherence to dogma, and less about individual religious beliefs. There is a difference. Their preference for the organization and dogma is what troubles me.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments