Dallin Oaks one of "Worst People in the World"?

http://utahpolicy.com/featured_article/lds-church-leader-makes-list-worlds-worst-people

Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=cc52b4f40c9db010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Ezra Taft Benson, "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,"
Tambuli, Jun 1981, 1

(Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University)

My beloved brothers and sisters. I am honored to be in your presence
today. You students are a part of a choice young generation—a
generation which might well witness the return of the Lord.

Not only is the Church growing in number today, it is growing in
faithfulness and, even more important, our young generation, as a
group, is even more faithful than the older generation. God has
reserved you for the eleventh hour—the great and dreadful day of the
Lord (D&C 110:16). It will be your responsibility not only to help to
carry the kingdom to a triumph but to save your own soul and strive to
save those of your family and to honor the principles of the inspired
constitution of the United States.

To help you pass the crucial tests which lie ahead, I am going to give
you today several aspects of a grand key which, if you will honor,
will crown you with God's glory and bring you out victorious in spite
of Satan's fury.

Soon we will be honoring our prophet on his 85th birthday. As a Church
we sing the hymn, "We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet." (Hymn no.
196). Here then is the grand key—Follow the prophet—and here are
fourteen fundamentals in following the prophet, the President of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

In section 132 verse 7 of the Doctrine and Covenants [D&C 132:7] the
Lord speaks of the prophet—the president—and says:

"There is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and
the keys of this priesthood are conferred."

Then in section 21 verses 4–6 [D&C 21:4–6], the Lord states:

"Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his
words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth
them, walking in all holiness before me;

"For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all
patience and faith.

"For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you."

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that
occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

"I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland
in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have
been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with
regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented,
although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in
the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: 'You have got
the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and
Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who
give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as
what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine
ourselves to them.'

"When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and
said, 'Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium and tell us your
views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.'
Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it
down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the
Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he
said: 'There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of
God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,'
said he, 'when compared with the living oracles those books are
nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us
now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood
in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than
all the writing in the books.' That was the course he pursued. When he
was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; 'Brother Brigham
has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.' "
(Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19.)

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

God's revelation to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the Ark.
Noah needed his own revelation. Therefore the most important prophet
so far as you and I are concerned is the one living in our day and age
to whom the Lord is currently revealing His will for us. Therefore the
most important reading we can do is any of the words of the prophet
contained each month in our Church Magazines. Our instructions about
what we should do for each six months are found in the General
Conference addresses which are printed in the Church magazine.

Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living
prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

President Wilford Woodruff stated:

"I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who
stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the
program. It is not in the mind of God." (The Discourses of Wilford
Woodruff, pp. 212–13.)

President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident which happened to him:

"I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J.
Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home … Standing
by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: 'My boy, you always
keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you
to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless
you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't
need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people
astray.' " (Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78.)

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly
training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at
any time.

Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a
certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives
to his prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have
the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before
they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict
their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith
have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven't yet
had a prophet who earned a doctorate degree in any subject. We
encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember if there is
ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the
prophet, you stand with the prophet and you'll be blessed and time
will show you have done the right thing.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give
us scripture.

Sometimes there are those who argue about words. They might say the
prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obliged to follow it
unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet,
"Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he
shall give unto you." (D&C 21:4.)

And speaking of taking counsel from the prophet, in D&C 108:1, the Lord states:

"Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are
forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither
this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed."

Said Brigham Young, "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it
out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture."
(Journal of Discourses, 13:95.)

Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we
want to know.

"Thou has declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to
bear," complained Nephi's brethren. But Nephi answered by saying, "The
guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very
center." (1 Ne. 16:1–2.)

Said President Harold B. Lee:

"You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may
conflict with your political views. It may contradict your social
views. It may interfere with some of your social life … Your safety
and ours depends upon whether or not we follow … Let's keep our eye on
the President of the Church." (Conference Report, October 1970, p.
152–153.)

But it is the living prophet who really upsets the world. "Even in the
Church," said President Kimball, "many are prone to garnish the
sepulchres of yesterdays prophets and mentally stone the living ones."
(Instructor, 95:527.)

Why? Because the living prophet gets at what we need to know now, and
the world prefers that prophets either be dead or worry about their
own affairs. Some so-called experts of political science want the
prophet to keep still on politics. Some would-be authorities on
evolution want the prophet to keep still on evolution. And so the list
goes on and on.

How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what
we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our
faithfulness.

Said President Marion G. Romney, "It is an easy thing to believe in
the dead prophets, but it is a greater thing to believe in the living
prophets." And then he gives this illustration:

"One day when President Grant was living, I sat in my office across
the street following a general conference. A man came over to see me,
an elderly man. He was very upset about what had been said in this
conference by some of the Brethren, including myself. I could tell
from his speech that he came from a foreign land. After I had quieted
him enough so he would listen, I said, 'Why did you come to America?'
'I am here because a prophet of God told me to come.' 'Who was the
prophet?' I continued. 'Wilford Woodruff.' 'Do you believe Wilford
Woodruff was a prophet of God?' 'Yes, sir.'

"Then came the sixty-four dollar question, 'Do you believe that Heber
J. Grant is a prophet of God?' His answer, 'I think he ought to keep
his mouth shut about old-age assistance.'

"Now I tell you that a man in his position is on the way to apostasy.
He is forfeiting his chances for eternal life. So is everyone who
cannot follow the living prophet of God." (Conference Report, April
1953, p. 125.)

Eighth: The Prophet is not limited by men's reasoning.

There will be times when you will have to choose between the
revelation of God and reasoning of men—between the prophet and the
professor. Said the Prophet Joseph Smith,

"Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may
not see the reason thereof until long after the events transpire."
(Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, vol. 2, p. 173).

Would it seem reasonable to an eye doctor to be told to heal a blind
man by spitting in the dirt, making clay and applying it to the man's
eyes and then telling him to wash in a contaminated pool? Yet this is
precisely the course that Jesus took with one man, and he was healed.
(See John 9:6–7.) Does it seem reasonable to cure leprosy by telling a
man to wash seven times in a particular river, yet this is precisely
what the prophet Elisha told a leper to do, and he was healed. (See 2
Kgs. 5.)

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,
saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are
my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
(Isa. 55:8–9.)

Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.

Said Brigham Young:

"Some of the leading men in Kirtland were much opposed to Joseph the
Prophet, meddling with temporal affairs …

"In a public meeting of the Saints, I said, 'Ye Elders of Israel, …
will some of you draw the line of demarcation, between the spiritual
and temporal in the kingdom of God, so that I may understand it?' Not
one of them could do it …

"I defy any man on earth to point out the path a Prophet of God should
walk in, or point out his duty, and just how far he must go, in
dictating temporal or spiritual things. Temporal and spiritual things
are inseparably connected, and ever will be." (Journal of Discourses,
10:363–64.)

Tenth: The prophet may well advise on civic matters. When a people are
righteous, they want the best to lead them in government. Alma was the
head of the Church and of the government in the Book of Mormon; Joseph
Smith was mayor of Nauvoo and Brigham Young was governor of Utah.
Isaiah was deeply involved in giving counsel on political matters and
of his words the Lord himself said, "Great are the words of Isaiah."
(3 Ne. 23:1.)

Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following
the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

The learned may feel the prophet is only inspired when he agrees with
them, otherwise the prophet is just giving his opinion—speaking as a
man. The rich may feel they have no need to take counsel of a lowly
prophet.

In the Book of Mormon we read:

"O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the
frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they
think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for
they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their
wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall
perish.

"But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

"And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the
learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their
learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom
he despiseth; and save they shall cast things away, and consider
themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility,
he will not open unto them." (2 Ne. 9:28–29, 42; italics added.)

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or
the worldly.

As a prophet reveals the truth it divides the people. The honest in
heart heed his words but the unrighteous either ignore the prophet or
fight him. When the prophet points out the sins of the world, the
wordly either want to close the mouth of the prophet, or else act as
if the prophet didn't exist, rather than repent of their sins.
Popularity is never a test of truth. Many a prophet has been killed or
cast out. As we come closer to the Lord's second coming you can expect
that as the people of the world become more wicked, the prophet will
be less popular with them.

Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First
Presidency—The highest quorum in the Church.

In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord refers to the First Presidency
as "the highest council of the Church" (D&C 107:80) and says
"whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I
have sent …" (D&C 112:20).

Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the
First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

President Harold B. Lee relates this incident from Church history:

"The story is told in the early days of the Church—particularly, I
think, at Kirtland, Ohio—where some of the leading brethren in the
presiding councils of the Church met secretly and tried to scheme as
to how they could get rid of the Prophet Joseph's leadership. They
made the mistake of inviting Brigham Young to one of these secret
meetings. He rebuked them, after he had heard the purpose of their
meeting. This is part of what he said: 'You cannot destroy the
appointment of a prophet of God, but you can cut the thread that binds
you to the prophet of God, and sink yourselves to hell.' " (Conference
Report, April 1963, p. 81.)

In a general conference of the Church, President N. Eldon Tanner stated:

"The Prophet spoke out clearly on Friday morning, telling us what our
responsibilities are …

"A man said to me after that, 'You know, there are people in our state
who believe in following the Prophet in everything they think is
right, but when it is something they think isn't right, and it doesn't
appeal to them, then that's different.' He said, 'Then they become
their own prophet. They decide what the Lord wants and what the Lord
doesn't want.'

"I thought how true, and how serious when we begin to choose which of
the covenants, which of the commandments we will keep and follow, we
are taking the law of the Lord into our own hands and become our own
prophets, and believe me, we will be led astray, because we are false
prophets to ourselves when we do not follow the Prophet of God. No, we
should never discriminate between these commandments, as to those we
should and should not keep." (CR, October 1966, p. 98.)

"Look to the Presidency and receive instruction," said the Prophet
Joseph Smith. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 161.) But
Almon Babbitt didn't, and in the Doctrine and Covenants section 124,
verse 84 [D&C 124:84], the Lord states:

"And with my servant Almon Babbitt, there are many things with which I
am not pleased; behold, he aspireth to establish his counsel instead
of the counsel which I have ordained, even that of the Presidency of
my Church."

In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these "Fourteen
Fundamentals in Following the Prophet", for our salvation depends on
them.

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.

5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training
or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any
time.

6. The prophet does not have to say "Thus Saith the Lord," to give us scripture.

7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

8. The prophet is not limited by men's reasoning.

9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.

11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the
prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the
highest quorum in the Church.

14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First
Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living
prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord
then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal
captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord's anointed—the
living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the
First Presidency.

May God bless us all to look to the Prophet and the Presidency in the
critical and crucial days ahead is my prayer.

At Risk: Our Children's Imagination

http://www.ldsmag.com/familyconnections/091012imagination.html

Developing a healthy imagination in childhood creates the skills in
adulthood necessary to cope with an ever-changing world. So why are
our children constantly being programmed according to someone else's
imagination?
Try this simple experiment at home: Place an ordinary brick on the
kitchen table and tell your children they have exactly two and a half
minutes to list as many uses for the brick as possible. Anything
counts no matter how absurd, ridiculous, or indefensible. As a rough
guide (by no means scientific) a child who comes up with over 30 uses
is creative. More than that, highly creative. OK, I hate categorizing
children, I was tagged with a "learning disability" when I was in
elementary school. What that really meant was the way I learned didn't
conform to the way educators taught. My mother later told me that I
simply had too much imagination and to not worry about what other
people said. Good answer mom.

I was introduced to the brick exercise as a freshman in college, 18
years old. In two and a half minutes I had a list of over fifty uses.
The average in the class was over 30. Today I do the same exercise in
my class of visual arts majors. The average is below 15. And these are
the creative kids. And it seems that every semester they come up with
less and less answers, as if their minds can't untie themselves from
reality.
Why the disparity? Over stimulation comes to mind: video games,
music, texting, facebook, internet surfing, movies, TV, cell phones.
And play time, what do we do with it now? We structure it. We have
play dates where everything is planned. There are no pick-up games of
basketball or baseball or backyard football; we have leagues for that.
Music and art have been eliminated from our schools. Even a casual
visit by a friend is a thing of the past. And parents, wow, they
prowl the hallways in the junior highs making sure their kids are
sitting with the popular group, patrol the sidelines making sure their
kids are getting enough game minutes, and hovering over homework
nudging their children toward the right answer---all because, Heaven
forbid, our children fail and we, the perfect parents, are publicly
humiliated.

The only media I was exposed to as a kid was old black and white
episodes of Tarzan on Saturday mornings. We had long summer days to
catch frogs in the canal, build enormous paper airplanes and launch
them from our garage roof. We played pick-up games of baseball in the
pasture or made up funny games in the basement when it was raining
like bowling with food storage. People my age like to lament the loss
of those days, as if they were somehow better than the days our
children are growing up in. The truth is, our children have it far
better than we did. I remember President Hinckley saying at Conference
a few years ago that we "live in a time of a thousand opportunities."
So if our children have too little imagination, or have abdicated it
to video games; it's our fault.

A few years ago I did some work for the American Toy Institute. Their
slogan is: "The Power of Play." They had done numerous studies on
child development and determined that at the heart of the
well-adjusted child was a fearless imagination. Play to a child is
where they imagine all kinds of situations in a safe, non-punishing
environment. It's where they try on behaviors and learn traits such as
mercy, kindness, assertiveness, forgiveness; not to mention innovation
and problem solving in relationships. In short, they learn to succeed.
But how can this be? Children need structure 24/7, they need
discipline, and they need grown-up mentors to learn those traits.

Says who?

I've never read anything anywhere that says the best thing for our
children is for someone else to make all decisions for them. In fact,
aren't we robbing them of their free agency when we program every
minute of their day? Can you imagine God having so little faith in us?
I recall a plan of total control being pushed aside in favor of
agency. And agency can be fettered by so many forces---media
over-stimulation, to be sure. But also parents who fear the result of
a child left to their own choices. And that brings us back to
imagination---the process of visualizing situations and consequences
without actually engaging in them. Sort of like role playing. Sort of
like wondering. Sort of like wishing. Sort of like dreaming---all of
which are good skills to have as say a scientist, an industrial
designer, a parent…anybody that lives in an unpredictable world and
needs the confidence to adapt, learn and make the best of a real
situation.

When my boys were in junior high school, the three of them were
huddled around the TV with friends playing a video game. It wasn't a
violent game, it wasn't lewd in any way. It was just a video game. I
turned off the game and asked them why they wanted to play somebody
else's game rather than make up their own. "Look," I said. "When you
read a book or build a Roman city out of sticks and boxes or map the
neighborhood with chalk symbols on the sidewalk, you are using your
imagination. When you play a video game you let someone else's
imagination do the work for you." They waited for a minute then
answered: "So?" To which I replied: "So what will happen is eventually
the brain cells that control your ability to communicate will die and
you'll only be able to utter one word sentences and grunts."
"Nuh uhh," they grunted. Suddenly they realized the curse was real.
They ran outside and spent the afternoon building a boxcar out of a
garbage can, scrap wood and whatever discarded wheels they could find.
After crashing into the neighbor's rock garden they modified the
steering. They crashed into the rose garden next. What better thing
for kids to be doing than trying and failing and trying again?
Let me be the first to say media hysteria is to blame for the anxiety
that drives us to don night goggles and follow our children home from
dates, or pick up the extension phone and listen to our six-year old
talk about movies with a friend. When media outlets exploded into a
million channels on cable, internet, and now Twitter; the competition
for advertising dollars drove news folks to search out the
sensational. Admit it; a child abducted in Sweden makes you, the
parent in Northern California, walk your kids home from school for the
next three days; even though they are in high school.
This over-protectedness has driven us to mad levels of control over
our children's lives. There's even a GPS system you can install on
your teenager's car that tells you where they've been. So now you
don't have anything to talk to them about when they get home; you know
where they've been! You just nod, like the all-knowing parent that you
are. From that fabulous 80's movie Footloose, John Lithgow delivers
this great line: "If we don't trust our children, how will they ever
learn how to be trustworthy."

I would add, if we don't allow our children time to exercise their
imagination when they are young, how can we expect them to solve
problems, innovate, achieve greatness when they grow-up.
Imagination. Creativity. Problem Solving. Innovation. Progress. Joy.
If our children are going to experience the greatest joys in this
life, they have to learn how to do the work themselves, learn how to
imagine a better way and figure out how to get there.

It all starts with unstructured time. And that doesn't mean in front
of the TV or with a video game; again that would be letting somebody
else's imagination do the work, and reap all the rewards. It starts
with a blank afternoon, a box of chalk; or 300 paper cups, or a pile
of branches pruned from the apple tree, or just the tree. Add a few
kids, ask a few questions like: what if an alien dressed like a
giraffe was on the roof, what would you make with these old pillow
cases? Then walk away. The kids will be fine. Really.

Oaks speech given at BYU-Idaho on 13 October 2009

13 October 2009 Transcript of Elder Dallin H. Oaks speech given at
BYU-Idaho on 13 October 2009.

My dear young friends, I am pleased to speak to this BYU-Idaho
audience. I am conscious that I am also speaking to many in other
places. In this time of the Internet, what we say in one place is
instantly put before a wider audience, including many to whom we do
not intend to speak. That complicates my task, so I ask your
understanding as I speak to a very diverse audience.

In choosing my subject I have relied on an old military maxim that
when there is a battle underway, persons who desire to join the fray
should "march to the sound of the guns."[i] So it is that I invite you
to march with me as I speak about religious freedom under the United
States Constitution. There is a battle over the meaning of that
freedom. The contest is of eternal importance, and it is your
generation that must understand the issues and make the efforts to
prevail.

I.

An 1833 revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith declared that the Lord
established the United States Constitution by wise men whom he raised
up for that very purpose (Doctrine and Covenants 101:80). The Lord
also declared that this constitution "should be maintained for the
rights and protection of all flesh" (Doctrine and Covenants 101:77;
emphasis added).

In 1833, when almost all people in the world were still ruled by kings
or tyrants, few could see how the infant United States Constitution
could be divinely designed "for the rights and protection of all
flesh." Today, 176 years after that revelation, almost every nation in
the world has adopted a written constitution, and the United States
Constitution profoundly influenced all of them. Truly, this nation's
most important export is its constitution, whose great principles
stand as a model "for the rights and protection of all flesh." On the
vital human right of religious freedom, however, many constitutions
fall short of the protections that are needed, so we are grateful that
the United States government seeks to encourage religious freedom all
over the world.[ii]

II.

To illustrate the importance of basic human rights in other countries,
I refer to some recent history in Mongolia, which shows that the
religious freedom we have taken for granted in the United States must
be won by dangerous sacrifice in some other nations.

Following the perestroika movement in the Soviet Union, popular
demonstrations in Mongolia forced the Communist government to resign
in March 1990. Other political parties were legalized, but the first
Mongolian elections gave the Communists a majority in the new
parliament, and the old repressive attitudes persisted in all
government departments. The full functioning of a democratic process
and the full enjoyment of the people's needed freedoms do not occur
without a struggle. In Mongolia, the freedoms of speech, press and
religion — a principal feature of the inspired United States
Constitution — remained unfulfilled.

In that precarious environment, a 42-year-old married woman, Oyun
Altangerel, a department head in the state library, courageously took
some actions that would prove historic. Acting against official
pressure, she organized a "Democratic Association Branch Council."
This 12-member group, the first of its kind, spoke out for democracy
and proposed that state employees have the freedoms of worship, belief
and expression, including the right to belong to a political party of
their choice.

When Oyun and others were fired from their state employment, Oyun
began a hunger strike in the state library. Within three hours she was
joined by 20 others, mostly women, and their hunger strike, which
continued for five days, became a public demonstration that took their
grievances to the people of Mongolia. This demonstration, backed by
major democratic movement leaders, encouraged other government
employees to organize similar democratic councils. These dangerous
actions expanded into a national anti-government movement that voiced
powerful support for the basic human freedoms of speech, press and
religion. Eventually the government accepted the demands, and in the
adoption of a democratic constitution two years later Mongolia took a
major step toward a free society.

For Latter-day Saints, this birth of constitutional government in
Mongolia has special interest. Less than two years after the historic
hunger strike, we sent our first missionaries to Mongolia. In 1992
these couples began their meetings in the state library, where Oyun
was working. The following year, she showed her courage again by being
baptized into this newly arrived Christian church. Her only child, a
22-year-old son, was baptized two years later. Today, the Mongolian
members of our Church number 9,000, reportedly the largest group of
Christians in the country. A few months ago we organized our first
stake in Mongolia. Called as the stake president was Sister Oyun's
son, Odgerel. He had studied for a year at BYU-Hawaii, and his wife,
Ariuna, a former missionary in Utah, graduated there.[iii]

III.

One of the great fundamentals of our inspired constitution, relied on
by Oyun of Mongolia and countless others struggling for freedom in
many countries in the world, is the principle that the people are the
source of government power. This principle of popular sovereignty was
first written and applied on the American continent over 200 years
ago. A group of colonies won independence from a king, and their
representatives had the unique opportunity of establishing a new
government. They did this by creating the first written constitution
that has survived to govern a modern nation. The United States
Constitution declared the source of government power, delegated that
power to a government, and regulated its exercise.

Along with many other religious people, we affirm that God is the
ultimate source of power and that, under Him, it is the people's
inherent right to decide their form of government. Sovereign power is
not inherent in a state or nation just because its leaders have the
power that comes from force of arms. And sovereign power does not come
from the divine right of a king, who grants his subjects such power as
he pleases or is forced to concede, as in Magna Carta. As the preamble
to our constitution states: "We the People of the United States . . .
do ordain and establish this Constitution."

This principle of sovereignty in the people explains the meaning of
God's revelation that He established the Constitution of the United
States "that every man may act . . . according to the moral agency
which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his
own sins in the day of judgment" (Doctrine and Covenants 101:78). In
other words, the most desirable condition for the effective exercise
of God-given moral agency is a condition of maximum freedom and
responsibility — the opposite of slavery or political oppression.
With freedom we can be accountable for our own actions and cannot
blame our conditions on our bondage to another. This is the condition
the Lord praised in the Book of Mormon, where the people — not a king
— established the laws and were governed by them (see Mosiah
29:23–26). This popular sovereignty necessarily implies popular
responsibility. Instead of blaming their troubles on a king or tyrant,
all citizens are responsible to share the burdens of governing, "that
every man might bear his part" (Mosiah 29:34).

IV.

"For the rights and protection of all flesh" the United State
Constitution includes in its First Amendment the guarantees of free
exercise of religion and free speech and press. Without these great
fundamentals of the Constitution, America could not have served as the
host nation for the restoration of the gospel, which began just three
decades after the Bill of Rights was ratified.

The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The prohibition against "an establishment of religion" was intended to
separate churches and government, to prevent a national church of the
kind still found in Europe. In the interest of time I will say no more
about the establishment of religion, but only concentrate on the
direction that the United States shall have no law "prohibiting the
free exercise" of religion.

The guarantee of the free exercise of religion, which I will call
religious freedom, is the first expression in the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution. As noted by many, this "pre-eminent
place" identifies freedom of religion as "a cornerstone of American
democracy."[iv] The American colonies were originally settled by
people who, for the most part, had come to this continent to be able
to practice their religious faith without persecution, and their
successors deliberately placed religious freedom first in the nation's
Bill of Rights. So it is that our national law formally declares: "The
right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence
of the United States."[v]

The free "exercise" of religion obviously involves both the right to
choose religious beliefs and affiliations and the right to "exercise"
or practice those beliefs. But in a nation with citizens of many
different religious beliefs, the right of some to act upon their
religious principles must be qualified by the government's
responsibility to protect the health and safety of all. Otherwise, for
example, the government could not protect its citizens' person or
property from neighbors whose intentions include taking human life or
stealing in circumstances rationalized on the basis of their religious
beliefs.

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. Here are just a
few examples of current controversial public issues that involve this
conflict: laws governing marriage and adoption; laws regulating the
activities of church-related organizations like BYU-Idaho in
furtherance of their religious missions — activities such as who they
will serve or employ; and laws prohibiting discrimination in
employment or work conditions against persons with unpopular religious
beliefs or practices.

The problems are not simple, and over the years the United States
Supreme Court, which has the ultimate responsibility of interpreting
the meaning of the lofty and general provisions of the Constitution,
has struggled to identify principles that can guide its decisions when
government action is claimed to violate someone's free exercise of
religion. As would be expected, most of the battles over the extent of
religious freedom have involved government efforts to impose upon the
practices of small groups like Mormons. Not surprisingly, government
officials sometimes seem more tolerant toward the religious practices
of large groups of voters.

Unpopular minority religions are especially dependent upon a
constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion. We are
fortunate to have such a guarantee in the United States, but many
nations do not. The importance of that guarantee in the United States
should make us ever diligent to defend it. And it is in need of being
defended. During my lifetime I have seen a significant deterioration
in the respect accorded to religion in our public life, and I believe
that the vitality of religious freedom is in danger of being weakened
accordingly.

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.

V.

Religious freedom has always been at risk. It was repression of
religious belief and practice that drove the Pilgrim fathers and other
dissenters to the shores of this continent. Even today, leaders in all
too many nations use state power to repress religious believers.

The greatest infringements of religious freedom occur when the
exercise of religion collides with other powerful forces in society.
Among the most threatening collisions in the United States today are
(1) the rising strength of those who seek to silence religious voices
in public debates, and (2) perceived conflicts between religious
freedom and the popular appeal of newly alleged civil rights.

As I address this audience of young adults, I invite your careful
attention to what I say on these subjects, because I am describing
conditions you will face and challenges you must confront.

Silencing Religious Voices in the Public Square

A writer for The Christian Science Monitor predicts that the coming
century will be "very secular and religiously antagonistic," with
intolerance of Christianity "ris[ing] to levels many of us have not
believed possible in our lifetimes."[vi] Other wise observers have
noted the ever-growing, relentless attack on the Christian religion by
forces who reject the existence or authority of God.[vii] The extent
and nature of religious devotion in this nation is changing. The tide
of public opinion in favor of religion is receding, and this probably
portends public pressures for laws that will impinge on religious
freedom.

Atheism has always been hostile to religion, such as in its arguments
that freedom of or for religion should include freedom from religion.
Atheism's threat rises as its proponents grow in numbers and
aggressiveness. "By some counts," a recent article in The Economist
declares, "there are at least 500 [million] declared non-believers in
the world — enough to make atheism the fourth-biggest
religion."[viii] And atheism's spokesmen are aggressive, as recent
publications show.[ix] As noted by John A. Howard of the Howard Center
for Family, Religion, and Society, these voices "have developed great
skills in demonizing those who disagree with them, turning their
opponents into objects of fear, hatred and scorn."[x]

Such forces — atheists and others — would intimidate persons with
religious-based points of view from influencing or making the laws of
their state or nation. Noted author and legal commentator Hugh Hewitt
described the current circumstance this way:

"There is a growing anti-religious bigotry in the United States. . . .

"For three decades people of faith have watched a systematic and very
effective effort waged in the courts and the media to drive them from
the public square and to delegitimize their participation in politics
as somehow threatening."[xi]

For example, a prominent gay-rights spokesman gave this explanation
for his objection to our Church's position on California's Proposition
8:

"I'm not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful
things. Nicest people. . . . My single goal is to get them out of the
same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane
victims."[xii]

Aside from the obvious fact that this objection would deny free speech
as well as religious freedom to members of our Church and its
coalition partners, there are other reasons why the public square must
be open to religious ideas and religious persons. As Richard John
Neuhaus said many years ago, "In a democracy that is free and robust,
an opinion is no more disqualified for being 'religious' than for
being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain
dumb."[xiii]

Religious Freedom Diluted by Other "Civil Rights"

A second threat to religious freedom is from those who perceive it to
be in conflict with the newly alleged "civil right" of same-gender
couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage.

We have endured a wave of media-reported charges that the Mormons are
trying to "deny" people or "strip" people of their "rights." After a
significant majority of California voters (seven million — over 52
percent) approved Proposition 8's limiting marriage to a man and a
woman, some opponents characterized the vote as denying people their
civil rights. In fact, the Proposition 8 battle was not about civil
rights, but about what equal rights demand and what religious rights
protect. At no time did anyone question or jeopardize the civil right
of Proposition 8 opponents to vote or speak their views.

The real issue in the Proposition 8 debate — an issue that will not
go away in years to come and for whose resolution it is critical that
we protect everyone's freedom of speech and the equally important
freedom to stand for religious beliefs — is whether the opponents of
Proposition 8 should be allowed to change the vital institution of
marriage itself.

The marriage union of a man and a woman has been the teaching of the
Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice
of marriage in Western culture for thousands of years. Those who seek
to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend
that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights.
The supporters of Proposition 8 were exercising their constitutional
right to defend the institution of marriage — an institution of
transcendent importance that they, along with countless others of many
persuasions, feel conscientiously obliged to protect.

Religious freedom needs defending against the claims of newly asserted
human rights. The so-called "Yogyakarta Principles," published by an
international human rights group, call for governments to assure that
all persons have the right to practice their religious beliefs
regardless of sexual orientation or identity.[xiv] This apparently
proposes that governments require church practices and their doctrines
to ignore gender differences. Any such effort to have governments
invade religion to override religious doctrines or practices should be
resisted by all believers. At the same time, all who conduct such
resistance should frame their advocacy and their personal relations so
that they are never seen as being doctrinaire opponents of the very
real civil rights (such as free speech) of their adversaries or any
other disadvantaged group.

VI.

And now, in conclusion, I offer five points of counsel on how
Latter-day Saints should conduct themselves to enhance religious
freedom in this period of turmoil and challenge.

First, we must speak with love, always showing patience, understanding
and compassion toward our adversaries. We are under command to love
our neighbor (Luke 10:27), to forgive all men (Doctrine and Covenants
64:10), to do good to them who despitefully use us (Matthew 5:44) and
to conduct our teaching in mildness and meekness (Doctrine and
Covenants 38:41).

Even as we seek to speak with love, we must not be surprised when our
positions are ridiculed and we are persecuted and reviled. As the
Savior said, "so persecuted they the prophets which were before you"
(Matthew 5:12). And modern revelation commands us not to revile
against revilers (Doctrine and Covenants 19:30).

Second, we must not be deterred or coerced into silence by the kinds
of intimidation I have described. We must insist on our constitutional
right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on
public issues and to participate in elections and debates in the
public square and the halls of justice. These are the rights of all
citizens and they are also the rights of religious leaders. While our
church rarely speaks on public issues, it does so by exception on what
the First Presidency defines as significant moral issues, which could
surely include laws affecting the fundamental legal/cultural/moral
environment of our communities and nations.

We must also insist on this companion condition of democratic
government: when churches and their members or any other group act or
speak out on public issues, win or lose, they have a right to expect
freedom from retaliation.

Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced
in the aftermath of California's adoption of Proposition 8, including
vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members by
firings and boycotts of member businesses and by retaliation against
donors. Mormons were the targets of most of this, but it also hit
other churches in the pro-8 coalition and other persons who could be
identified as supporters. Fortunately, some recognized such
retaliation for what it was. A full-page ad in the New York Times
branded this "violence and intimidation" against religious
organizations and individual believers "simply because they supported
Proposition 8 [as] an outrage that must stop." [xv] The fact that this
ad was signed by some leaders who had no history of friendship for our
faith only added to its force.

It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in
connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at
religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such.
These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who
disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public
contest. As such, these incidents of "violence and intimidation" are
not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they
are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of
blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights
legislation.

Third, we must insist on our freedom to preach the doctrines of our
faith. Why do I make this obvious point? Religious people who share
our moral convictions feel some intimidation. Fortunately, our leaders
do not refrain from stating and explaining our position that
homosexual behavior is sinful. Last summer Elder M. Russell Ballard
spoke these words to a BYU audience:

"We follow Jesus Christ by living the law of chastity. God gave this
commandment, and He has never revoked or changed it. This law is clear
and simple. No one is to engage in sexual relationships outside the
bounds the Lord has set. This applies to homosexual behavior of any
kind and to heterosexual relationships outside marriage. It is a sin
to violate the law of chastity.

"We follow Jesus Christ by adhering to God's law of marriage, which is
marriage between one man and one woman. This commandment has been in
place from the very beginning."[xvi]

We will continue to teach what our Heavenly Father has commanded us to
teach, and trust that the precious free exercise of religion remains
strong enough to guarantee our right to exercise this most basic
freedom.

Fourth, as advocates of the obvious truth that persons with religious
positions or motivations have the right to express their religious
views in public, we must nevertheless be wise in our political
participation. Preachers have been prime movers in the civil rights
movement from the earliest advocates of abolition, but even the civil
rights of religionists must be exercised legally and wisely.

As Latter-day Saints, we should never be reticent to declare and act
upon the sure foundations of our faith. The call of conscience —
whether religious or otherwise — requires no secular justification.
At the same time, religious persons will often be most persuasive in
political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that
are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and
that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is
essential in a pluralistic society.[xvii]

Fifth and finally, Latter-day Saints 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. The
framers of our constitution included a provision that "no religious
Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public
Trust under the United States" (Article VI). That constitutional
principle forbids a religious test as a legal requirement, but it of
course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of any
preference they choose. But wise religious leaders and members will
never advocate religious tests for public office.

Fragile freedoms are best preserved when not employed beyond their
intended purpose. 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.

Conclusion

It was the Christian principles of human worth and dignity that made
possible the formation of the United States Constitution over 200
years ago, and only those principles in the hearts of a majority of
our diverse population can sustain that constitution today. Our
constitution's revolutionary concepts of sovereignty in the people and
significant guarantees of personal rights were, as John A. Howard has
written,

"generated by a people for whom Christianity had been for a century
and a half the compelling feature of their lives. It was Jesus who
first stated that all men are created equal [and] that every person .
. . is valued and loved by God."[xviii]

Professor Dinesh D'Souza reminds us:

"The attempt to ground respect for equality on a purely secular basis
ignores the vital contribution by Christianity to its spread. It is
folly to believe that it could survive without the continuing aid of
religious belief."[xix]

Religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the
origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the
influence of Christianity in the public square without seriously
jeopardizing our freedoms. I maintain that this is a political fact,
well qualified for argument in the public square by religious people
whose freedom to believe and act must always be protected by what is
properly called our "First Freedom," the free exercise of religion.

Judge releases beaten teen, citing state's abortion law

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705336508/Beaten-teen-released-on-abortion-law.html

A 17-year-old girl who paid a man to beat her in the hopes of
terminating her pregnancy has been released following a judge's ruling
that her actions were legal based on the state's abortion laws.

Judge Larry Steele said that while the girl's actions were "shocking
and crude," they were, nonetheless, legal under the state's current
definition of abortion. The ruling cites Utah code in defining
abortion as "the intentional termination or attempted termination of
human pregnancy … and includes any and all procedures undertaken to
kill a live unborn child and includes all procedures undertaken to
produce a miscarriage."

The 8th District juvenile-court judge issued the ruling last week. He
said this incident, in which the pregnant girl told police she had
taken the actions because she wanted to have a miscarriage, fits that
definition of the law. The girl is then protected from being held
criminally liable.

The teen initially entered a no-contest plea to the charge of
solicitation of murder but is now protected from criminal action based
on the judge's decision.
Story continues below

Ultimately, the judge said his hands were tied because of the way the
statute was written.

"Simply put, this is not a choice the court has to make," the ruling
states. "The Utah State Legislature has spoken on the issue of
abortion and, for policy reasons, chose not to hold a woman liable in
situations such as these."

Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, said the judge "stretched" the law, and
Wimmer is already taking action to amend the statute. Wimmer said he
was "absolutely outraged" at the decision and is already planning a
bill that will "close that loophole for good."

"I have questions on whether there was really a loophole there in the
first place, but I can guarantee that that loophole will be closed in
the next legislative session," Wimmer said.

The lawmaker said he is working with legislative attorneys to ensure
the bill will prevent "disgusting situations" like this in the future.

"We're going to make sure that that never happens again," Wimmer said.
"Abortion and right to life is the top issue for me, and it is
something I feel very passionate about."

Prosecutors had argued that the woman should be charged because she
was trying to solicit the felony act of murder, but the judge refuted
the position. "The problem with this argument is that the abortion
statute specifically states that a woman cannot be criminally liable
for soliciting the abortion of her unborn child," Steele wrote.

Apostle Says Religious Freedom Is Being Threatened

SALT LAKE CITY 13 October 2009 An apostle for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said religious freedom is being threatened by societal forces intimidating those with religious points of view from having a voice in the public square.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks made the comments today in a major address to Brigham Young University-Idaho students on the importance of preserving the religious freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Elder Oaks has had a front-row seat in observing what he calls the “significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion” in public life. Prior to his appointment to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elder Oaks had an illustrious law career. He served as a justice on the Utah Supreme Court, was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School and clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court.

Although his address on religious freedom was not written in response to the Proposition 8 battle over same- sex marriage in California, Elder Oaks likened the incidents of outrage against those who prevailed in establishing marriage between a man and a woman to the “widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South.”

He said members of the Church should not be deterred or coerced into silence by threats. “We must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues, and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice.”

Elder Oaks also said religious freedom is being jeopardized by claims of newly alleged human rights. As an example, he referred to a set of principles published by an international human rights group which calls for governments to assure that all persons have the right to practice their religious beliefs regardless of sexual orientation or identity. Elder Oaks said, “This apparently proposes that governments require church practices to ignore gender differences. Any such effort to have governments invade religion to override religious doctrines should be resisted by all believers.”

Noting that the students he was addressing were among the generation that would face continuing challenges to religious freedom, Elder Oaks offered five points of counsel:

• Speak with love and show patience, understanding and compassion to those with differing viewpoints.
• Do not be deterred or coerced into silence by intimidation from opponents, insisting that churches and their members be able to speak out on issues without retaliation.
• Insist on the freedom to preach the doctrines of their faith.
• Be wise in political participation, remaining respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and contributing to reasonable discussion.
• Be careful to never support or act on the idea that a person must subscribe to a specific set of religious beliefs in order to qualify for public office.

“Religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of Christianity in the public square without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms,” Elder Oaks concluded. “I maintain that this is a political fact, well qualified for argument in the public square by religious people whose freedom to believe and act must always be protected by what is properly called our ‘First Freedom,’ the free exercise of religion.”

New York Eagle Scout Suspended From School for 20 Days for Keeping Pocketknife in Car

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,565520,00.html

A 17-year-old Eagle Scout in upstate New York has been barred from
stepping foot on school grounds for 20 days — for keeping a 2-inch
pocketknife locked in a survival kit in his car.

Matthew Whalen, a senior at Lansingburgh Senior High School, says he
follows the Boy Scout motto and is always prepared, stocking his car
with a sleeping bag, water, a ready-to-eat meal — and the knife, which
was given to him by his grandfather, a police chief in a nearby town.

But Lansingburgh High has a zero-tolerance policy, and when school
officials discovered that Whalen kept his knife locked in his car, he
says, they suspended him for five days — and then tacked on an
additional 15 after a hearing.

Click here for video.

The incident is similar to the case of Zachary Christie, a 6-year-old
Cub Scout in Delaware who faces up to 45 days in his district's reform
school for bringing a scout utensil that can be used as a fork, spoon
and knife to school. But for Whalen — who has received an award from
the Boy Scouts of America for saving a life and completed 10 weeks of
basic military training last summer — the stakes are much higher:

He is concerned that the blot on his school record could kill his
dream of attending West Point.

In an interview with Foxnews.com, Whalen recalled the incident that
led to his suspension.

He said his school's assistant principal, Frank Macri, approached him
on Sept. 21 and asked him if he was carrying a knife.

"I was taken down to the office, and they told me that a student told
them that I was carrying a knife," Whalen said.

He said he told them "they could search me and everything, and they
said, 'There's no need for that.'"

Whalen said he doesn't know who might have said he was carrying a
knife, but he was open with school officials.

"And they said, 'Do you own a knife?' I said, 'Yes, I'm a soldier and
an Eagle Scout — I own a knife.'

"And they were like, 'Well, is it in your car or anything?' And I told
them, 'Yeah, it's in my car right now.'

"And they asked me to show it to them. I didn't realize it was going
to be a problem. I knew it wasn't illegal — my police chief
grandfather gave the knife to me."

Whalen said he took school administrators to his car because he
thought their fears would be allayed when they saw it was just a
2-inch knife.

"They thought I had a dagger in my car or something like that, so I
thought yeah, I'd show it to them," Whalen said.

"I showed it to them, and they told me I had a knife on school
property and had to be suspended."

But things didn't end there, Whalen said.

"They brought a cop in, who told them 'he's not breaking any laws, so
I can't charge him with anything.'"

Whalen said he asked Macri why a 2-inch pocketknife would be
considered more dangerous than other everyday items around the school.

"I said to him, 'What about a person who has a bat, on a baseball
team? That could be a weapon.' And he said, 'Well, it's not the same
thing.'"

The school district's policy lists "Possessing a weapon" under
"examples of violent conduct," which "may be subject to disciplinary
action, up to and including suspension from school."

School district officials did not reply to requests for comment.

Whalen says Macri gave him the longest suspension possible — five school days.

"They gave me the five-day suspension, because that is all a principal
can suspend a student for," he said. "And from there, they had a
superintendent hearing to see if the superintendent wanted to suspend
me for longer.

"But the superintendent wasn't even at the hearing. It was the
principal and the athletic director. The vice principal who originally
suspended me wasn't even there, and neither was the superintendent.
They basically asked me, 'Did you have the knife in your car?' And I
said 'Yes, I did.' The meeting was recorded and they told me they were
going to play the tape to the superintendent.

"They asked me if I wanted to say anything, and I told them all my
accomplishments and what I've done, and the principal even admitted
that I had no intent to use the knife, that I had no accessibility to
the knife."

But school officials decided to suspend Whalen for an extra 15 days
anyway, he said. And unless the decision is changed, he will not be
allowed on school grounds until Oct. 21.

Whalen said he does not know why the 15 days were added, but he said a
school district employee told him it was because the school wanted to
apply its policies consistently.

"I've been told by someone who works for the district that they had to
do it, because if someone else had a knife and they saw that I didn't
get a suspension, that it would look bad for the school."

School superintendent George Goodwin and Lansingburg Senior High
School Principal Angelina Bergin did not return calls for comment
Tuesday morning.

Whalen said he has no record of disciplinary problems.

"I think I have a detention from like 10th grade for being late or
something like that," he said.

He said the suspension has put his college dreams in jeopardy by
keeping him out of class, while making him still responsible for
assignments.

Though he is provided with a tutor for 90 minutes a day, he said,
"I've been suspended for something like a ninth of my school year, so
I'm falling behind drastically in my classes."

In addition to getting back to school as soon as possible, Whalen
wants the school to drop the incident from his transcript.

"My dream college would be West Point, and having a pock mark like
this on my record could be detrimental. They're looking for the best
of the best, and if someone didn't take the time to look through it
and examine the case, they would just say, 'hey, this guy had a weapon
on school property, and we don't want him at our college.'"

Whalen said that he has received support from the community during the
last few weeks.

"I've received tremendous communal support. Almost everyone I've
talked to has said they're behind me 100 percent, that it's ridiculous
that [the school has] done this me."

Whalen said he is not considering a lawsuit.

"I don't know what I could do, because technically ... I did break the
rules, and I'll accept that punishment," he said.

"Perhaps I should have been more aware of the rules. However, I'm more
upset about the additional 15 days.... That was entirely optional, and
they decided to go through with that."