The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

[Ma'ake]

(Apologies up front to any Mormons who may be offended by what I say below. My intent is certainly not to offend, but to offer my views on how there can be a path for LDS homosexuals within LDS theology.)

Religion and religious thought evolves over time. Today, we no longer believe slavery is sanctioned by the Bible, and Mormons believe that race and skin color have nothing to do with one's heritage, ability to achieve certain levels of atonement/salvation, current levels of righteousness, etc, but those issues were seen quite differently in the past.

In the past 10 years, we've seen a sizable movement in understanding on the issue of homosexuals, both in society at large and within LDS thought. Top leaders (perhaps excluding Boyd Packer) have expressed that we don't fully understand homosexuality, but it's likely that some people are born with a different orientation, though that doesn't change the commandments we've been given, etc.

Here's how I think the homosexuality issue could play out over the long term in Mormonism, but it may take multiple decades, and we might not be around to witness it (and hopefully Utah football is still in existence at that point.)

Without a doubt, there would have to be very, very big changes in the Mormon theology for homosexuals to be able to be sealed in a marriage in the temple. The role of gender in LDS theology is central, and procreation within marriage is at the very core of LDS belief.

(Quick sidebar: In talking with a devout Catholic who is pretty discouraged about the situation with very good young men avoiding the Catholic priesthood because of the requirement for celibacy, we both agreed that Mormonism has an enviable ability to evolve and change. I told her to cheer up, that the new Pope has the potential to help the Catholic church make long needed adjustments, and that we may see a Vatican III.)

Anyway, for homosexuals to get to full acceptance within Mormonism, a mostly forgotten point has to be re-visited and changed: Women and the Priesthood. If men and women can both hold priesthood callings and perform priesthood ordinances, then the role of gender is more equalized, and the path toward same gender relationships becomes "within reach".

After some amount of time after that sizable change, it becomes more conceivable that LDS thought could evolve, revelations could be received, etc, to facilitate an equality for homosexuals within LDS theology.

Something like, "we don't fully understand why some couples cannot have children and some do, although we know the Lord loves all his children and wants them to be happy and travel the road to eternal salvation. Accordingly, we have received a revelation that all worthy members are eligible to be sealed to the loved ones of their choice, as revealed and confirmed by the Holy Ghost, and to fully partake in the blessings of the gospel and temple marriage".

Again, my intent is not to be disrespectful of Mormons, or mock or otherwise diminish their beliefs. Completely on the contrary, the LDS lifestyle has much to offer, Mormonism has (arguably) a much more attractive message of hope and redemption, among the Christian religions (specifically, that there is no vicious hell awaiting non-believers).

I'm no prophet, I'm no oracle. I'm just a guy who's seen a lot of life over 5 decades, and as I look back at how things have evolved and changed, I believe there is reason for LDS homosexuals to have hope that things will be seen quite differently in the future, though it may be quite a ways out.

I work with a remarkable young woman from Springville, Utah, who is bi-racial and very, very bright. (She just got a PhD from a joint program in Boston between MIT and Harvard.) She is devout LDS, her father was Nigerian, her mother is of LDS pioneer stock. She told me her father joined the LDS church *before* the 1978 revelation on blacks and the priesthood, and it really didn't bother him. As she got older and asked her dad about how he could join a church that overtly denied him the blessings of the priesthood, he told her "truth is truth, and just because some humans are getting it wrong doesn't dissuade me from following the truth".

Think whatever you want, that was a man who had faith and had hope that some (then) current mistakes would be corrected, and they were. For LDS homosexuals, I think there's reason to hope things will evolve in the future.

(For those who are truly offended by my speculation/hunch, I'm drinking my second cup of coffee as a write, and I haven't paid tithing in decades, so you can easily surmise I don't have the spirit guiding me and I really don't know what I'm talking about, if it helps bring some peace back to a Saturday morning. :))

[Scratch]

Thanks for the thoughts. However, I just don't see it happening because of how far the core doctrines would have to change for it to happen. I see it compared to racial issues (you brought up biblical slavery and pre-1978 priesthood) all the time. While there are certainly some similarities, the race-related issues just didn't have any relationship on the truly core doctrines of the church. Having every race hold the priesthood didn't require any major doctrinal changes. Frankly, the same would be true for women holding the priesthood, which is why I think there's a decent chance that could happen in some way at some point in the future (not predicting it, just saying it's a possibility).

Same sex marriage, on the other hand, would require a complete overhaul of the very core doctrinal principle of eternal families (and eternal progression through families). Quite simply, LDS doctrine is that the highest levels of exaltation and progression cannot be achieved without eternal (as opposed to temporal) reproduction. This is also why it is irrelevant if heterosexual couples can't procreate in this life. LDS doctrine pretty clearly teaches that they will be able to procreate in the next life.

I suppose that you could argue that there could be some sort of celestial spiritual adoption could occur, or that spiritual procreation is asexual, but that would also contradict a lot of pretty thoroughly disseminated teachings.

[Ma'ake]

No question it's a bigger jump from Women & the Priesthood to Homosexual Celestial Marriage, and there is no comparable change that big in LDS theological history, but if you look at how much has changed over time in Christian - or even Jewish - theological thought over the centuries, I think it's a gap that can be bridged, but it will certainly take time and evolution in thought, unattainable by the current generation.

The Creation Story, the Great Flood, most of the stuff in Leviticus, are seen quite differently today by many, many people than they have been historically. Nobody is stoned to death, we eat hot dogs without a second thought.

Then when you consider the new gospels being found that were (presumably) thrown out at Nicea, such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene (which is not at all incompatible with LDS theology, but is completely sacrilegious among other Christians), and the movement on a larger mosaic of evolutionary belief becomes feasible.

IMO, it would be an easier jump within Mormonism to work homosexuals into full equality than it would be for Christians everywhere - LDS included - to accept the main, highly provocative, highly disruptive concept in the Gospel of Judas, ie, that Judas' betrayal of Jesus was a set up, an agreement between the two of them.

A bigger jump in LDS thought would be to consider the Book of Mormon as inspired scripture containing truths and wisdom and not necessarily as literal history, but that gap has been bridged before in the minds of many, in the Great Flood story and the Creation story, in the Theory of Evolution. Does the story of the Stripling Warriors lose it's importance as a lesson if it didn't actually occur?

I think the BOM-as-not-being-actual-history view could become more widely accepted in LDS thought in the future (as it becomes clearer the text doesn't line up with archeological and other scientific evidences), but that would be a massive jump, larger than homosexual marriage, IMO.

If you took any given Mormon from the 1840s and plopped them down in today's Mormon church, they would have a massive, massive paradigm change to navigate. Jesus didn't return by the 1880s, blacks have the priesthood, white people are mixing with blacks in marriage and not getting the death penalty, etc. I see a similar thing among many current LDS who have real difficulty reconciling the early polygamy issues, even when it's coming from a faithful source, such as Bushman.

Who's to say that the paradigms of the future won't be similarly radical, to us?

[Ma'ake]

I don't think it would be as massive as all that. I mean, they would have to get used to cars and toilets and TVs and modern stuff, but as far as churchy stuff goes, it wouldn't be such a huge transition.

Uhh.... I beg to differ, just a bit. Joseph Smith prophesized that the 2nd Coming would definitely occur by some time in the 1880s. I believe the explanation on why that didn't happen was that prophesies can be conditional, and whatever the condition was that needed to happen, didn't, but I think most LDS from the 1800s would be surprised that the 2nd Coming hasn't happened yet.

This is a really minor point, but instructive. When I moved into my current neighborhood, in 2000, we got the usual reception from the neighbors, who quickly learned I was a fallen away Mormon and my wife was black Baptist, and they began a positive engagement with her, and also with me. In an informal discussion, my wife was asking about the different levels of the priesthood, and I recited from my youth the three Aaronic levels and the three Melchesidik(sp?) levels, (Elder, Seventy and High Priest), to which my neighbor corrected me that they no longer have Seventies, within wards, like they did when I was a kid. No biggie, I was out of circulation, and it was a minor difference.

But the neighbor was noticeably nervous making this correction, I suspect feeling vulnerable to counter arguments over the assertion that the gospel never changes.

Back in the 1800s the notion of using revelation for all kinds of things, both spiritual and temporal (depending on the level of authority you have) was more prevalent, and I think most LDS truly believed their leaders could not be wrong on issues, since they were being directed by the Almighty.

The history of the Dream Mine in Utah County makes for an interesting read on the topic of personal revelation, along with the School of the Prophets that the Lafferty Brothers were engaged in when they got the revelation to kill their sister in law. Even when I was a teenager, the people across the street prayed about whether to invest in a financial scheme one of the Bishopric members was offering, and they got a positive answer, announced their decision, and invested. Later, as the pyramid scheme crashed, the neighbors lost their house and the Bishopric member went to federal prison for fraud. Today there is lots of caution about exercising discretion when getting offers from fellow ward members, and to really study things out before asking for revelation.

We were under the distinct impression (from Sunday School, Seminary, etc) in the 70s and 80s that the President of the Church would go up in to the Holy of Holies and have literal conversations with Jesus about what day-to-day decisions needed to be made, etc. We definitely believed the Q12 and FP were infallible. Definitely not the view of today.

The press release from a couple of years ago that admitted previous leaders were wrong on issues of race would be a big shock to a Mormon from the 1800s. In 1949 the First Presidency issued a clarification on whether the priesthood ban was policy, stating it was not policy, but a direct commandment from God. Beyond the 1978 revelation, in 2012 the PR department more or less threw the First Presidency from 1949 under the bus, which I think would be a shock to LDS from the 1800s.

So, back to my original point, things change, interpretations change, we move forward. Brigham Young stated the consequence for a man mixing his seed with the seed of Cain would be death, so there's another reason I'm personally grateful that whole topic has changed. In the 1980s, had I still been a practicing Mormon, I might very well have not married my wife, there would have been good reason to hesitate, based on (then) near history.

To buttress that last point, a young woman I work with, who went to BYU in the early 2000s, said one of her best friends was a beautiful young black woman from France, and all the guys in the student ward were enamored by her, but they hesitated to date her. When my friend pressed them on why they were so enthralled by her but wouldn't ask her out, the response from multiple guys was "she's very beautiful, but I couldn't take her home to my mom". Things change, sometimes more slowly than we want, sometimes more rapidly than we want (eg, gay marriage).

[LA Ute]

Interesting observations, Ma'ake. I wonder if there is any faith tradition whose followers from a prior century would not be at least a little surprised by the current practices. Not disputing your point; you've simply raised an interesting question.

[Two Utes]

I don't think it would be as massive as all that. I mean, they would have to get used to cars and toilets and TVs and modern stuff, but as far as churchy stuff goes, it wouldn't be such a huge transition.

You clearly need to read more church history. If Brigham Young were reincarnated right now he would absolutely flip.

[Two Utes]

Meh. What does absolutely flip mean? I'm sure he'd be surprised at a few things. He'd be far more surprised at changes in society, technology, transportation, medicine, etc that he would at any changes in LDS doctrine or operations.

Wrong. Go read church history.

[Solon]

I believe that women will hold priesthood offices in the LDS church in my lifetime (within the next 50 years, say). There is really no doctrinal reason to prevent women from exercising priesthood offices. In fact, the only decent argument anyone has ever presented me with is, "Well, that's never been done before."

If one believes the LDS narrative, then one can identify the overall trend of inclusion throughout history. Old Testament Hebrews were all about exclusion. Jesus commanded Peter to take the gospel to the unclean Gentiles (although LDS believe that this idea of inclusiveness shows up in the Book of Mormon hundreds of years before Jesus). Similarly, the restored LDS gospel went to all peoples, and the highest orders of covenant-making in the LDS church went from an elite circle, to everyday membership, to everyone who has ever lived (i.e., vicarious ordinances). In the same vein, the injunctions of D&C 132 that allow only those in polygamous unions to attain the highest orders of exaltation initially were offered to only a select few, then to a wider group, then (with the abolition of polygamy) to every worthy member.

Yet another example is the extension of priesthood to all worthy males, regardless of race/ethnicity/skin color.

I see the inclusion of women in this same long-term trend. Regardless of how much any of us might accept the notion of "Restoration," it is a church with strong American roots and strong American sensibilities / culture. Just as the USA has extended civil rights and liberties to more and more of its own population, so the church has invited more and more of its membership into the folds of leadership, priesthood, and authority. It's just a matter of time.

Similarly, we will see the same thing with same-sex marriages. There really is no doctrinal massaging that needs to happen in order to have this come about. Very little of that talk about family, gender, etc. is grounded in actual scripture. All that has to happen is for the leadership to decide (or receive revelation, if that's your persuasion) that it's okay for homosexuals to get married. Nothing serious would change. The world wouldn't fall apart. It would just be two more people getting married. Not a big deal, despite the hysteria that this idea threatens the very fabric of society.




Did you even see Just Visiting? The original Les Visiteurs was better, but it's the same idea. They actually adjust pretty well, and they are from far further in the past than what we are talking about.

I liked this movie. On va festoyer!

[UtahsMrSports]

(Apologies up front to any Mormons who may be offended by what I say below. My intent is certainly not to offend, but to offer my views on how there can be a path for LDS homosexuals within LDS theology.)

Religion and religious thought evolves over time. Today, we no longer believe slavery is sanctioned by the Bible, and Mormons believe that race and skin color have nothing to do with one's heritage, ability to achieve certain levels of atonement/salvation, current levels of righteousness, etc, but those issues were seen quite differently in the past.

In the past 10 years, we've seen a sizable movement in understanding on the issue of homosexuals, both in society at large and within LDS thought. Top leaders (perhaps excluding Boyd Packer) have expressed that we don't fully understand homosexuality, but it's likely that some people are born with a different orientation, though that doesn't change the commandments we've been given, etc.

Here's how I think the homosexuality issue could play out over the long term in Mormonism, but it may take multiple decades, and we might not be around to witness it (and hopefully Utah football is still in existence at that point.)

Without a doubt, there would have to be very, very big changes in the Mormon theology for homosexuals to be able to be sealed in a marriage in the temple. The role of gender in LDS theology is central, and procreation within marriage is at the very core of LDS belief.

(Quick sidebar: In talking with a devout Catholic who is pretty discouraged about the situation with very good young men avoiding the Catholic priesthood because of the requirement for celibacy, we both agreed that Mormonism has an enviable ability to evolve and change. I told her to cheer up, that the new Pope has the potential to help the Catholic church make long needed adjustments, and that we may see a Vatican III.)

Anyway, for homosexuals to get to full acceptance within Mormonism, a mostly forgotten point has to be re-visited and changed: Women and the Priesthood. If men and women can both hold priesthood callings and perform priesthood ordinances, then the role of gender is more equalized, and the path toward same gender relationships becomes "within reach".

After some amount of time after that sizable change, it becomes more conceivable that LDS thought could evolve, revelations could be received, etc, to facilitate an equality for homosexuals within LDS theology.

Something like, "we don't fully understand why some couples cannot have children and some do, although we know the Lord loves all his children and wants them to be happy and travel the road to eternal salvation. Accordingly, we have received a revelation that all worthy members are eligible to be sealed to the loved ones of their choice, as revealed and confirmed by the Holy Ghost, and to fully partake in the blessings of the gospel and temple marriage".

Again, my intent is not to be disrespectful of Mormons, or mock or otherwise diminish their beliefs. Completely on the contrary, the LDS lifestyle has much to offer, Mormonism has (arguably) a much more attractive message of hope and redemption, among the Christian religions (specifically, that there is no vicious hell awaiting non-believers).

I'm no prophet, I'm no oracle. I'm just a guy who's seen a lot of life over 5 decades, and as I look back at how things have evolved and changed, I believe there is reason for LDS homosexuals to have hope that things will be seen quite differently in the future, though it may be quite a ways out.

I work with a remarkable young woman from Springville, Utah, who is bi-racial and very, very bright. (She just got a PhD from a joint program in Boston between MIT and Harvard.) She is devout LDS, her father was Nigerian, her mother is of LDS pioneer stock. She told me her father joined the LDS church *before* the 1978 revelation on blacks and the priesthood, and it really didn't bother him. As she got older and asked her dad about how he could join a church that overtly denied him the blessings of the priesthood, he told her "truth is truth, and just because some humans are getting it wrong doesn't dissuade me from following the truth".

Think whatever you want, that was a man who had faith and had hope that some (then) current mistakes would be corrected, and they were. For LDS homosexuals, I think there's reason to hope things will evolve in the future.

(For those who are truly offended by my speculation/hunch, I'm drinking my second cup of coffee as a write, and I haven't paid tithing in decades, so you can easily surmise I don't have the spirit guiding me and I really don't know what I'm talking about, if it helps bring some peace back to a Saturday morning. :))

Women holding Priesthood office could happen. I don't know that its likely but it could happen. The LDS church relaxing their stance on gay marriage to the point that they don't fight it when it comes up in votes, could happen. Gay marriage performed in LDS temples will never happen. You bring up interesting points, though and as always, I enjoy your posts.

[LA Ute]

You bring up interesting points, though and as always, I enjoy your posts.

No! Don't encourage him! ;)

[Rocker Ute]

Maake, I just read two interesting biographies that cover much of what you talked about, both were excellent and help put some of this stuff in perspective, or at least they did for me.

The first is David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism. That one was written by two LDS people, although I believe one is not a practicing Mormon.

The second is Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet written by John G Turner, who is not LDS, but I believe has full access to church historical records, and is viewed as the authoritative resource on the subject.

The McKay biography covers much about the blacks and the priesthood and is a fascinating insight. There was definitely a rift among the first presidencies at the time and the Twelve, and that might help you with why one thing was said in 1949 and another later.

The Brigham Young biography really emphasized to me the change in the church from JS to BY in the valley. I might maintain that JS would be much more amenable to changes today than BY would be. I also might maintain that BY was the man for the job of settling the west and surviving than JS would have been, or JS would have undergone a significant personality change himself. After reading this biography I have been fascinated by how much BY is still prevalent in the church today. The most prominent is the unquestionable authority of the leaders. That wasn't there, at least at BY levels when JS was prophet, and not even for a number of years with BY at the helm.

Now if you want to see contrasts in the church today versus times of old, my conversations with midnightversion would indicate they his brand of Mormonism (laying aside the whole polygamy thing and speaking about the day to day versus the nuances of the doctrine - but even some of those things) is much closer to the BY years than the mainstream LDS church is.

By the way, he is not one of the FLDS, but belongs to The Work, which is based in Centennial Park AZ.

I'd be interested to see what a non-believer thinks of these books versus my views as a believer. For me the were both challenging but also affirming to me, but then again I was never taught any of these men were infallible nor unquestionable.

For me, seeing human beings do very human things and have many shortcomings, yet doing extraordinary things was faith inspiring and should be for any person who live flawed lives (meaning everyone).

That outcome may not be the same for all or maybe most, but I think even Turner came away with a measure of respect for a man he probably initially believed was a charlatan.

I think today the challenge is that believers need to be able to think. Faith might be easier and less fulfilling if we can view people from afar and see them as infallible and unquestionable and mark things up as the 'mysteries of God'. Faith becomes much more difficult but also more fulfilling and personal when we seek out things more ourselves and to see in reality that God can make prophets out of stones.

[LA Ute]

This is not a perfect fit for this thread, but it's close:

Australian Prime Minister Offers Christian and Moral Defense of Gay Marriage (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/approachingjustice/2013/09/04/australian-prime-minister-offers-christian-and-moral-defense-of-gay-marriage/)
Kevin Rudd is the prime minister of Australia. In a recently televised Q & A, Rudd offered a response to a question about why he changed his position on gay marriage. His response is both philosophical and theological....

It's a very interesting bit, and I admire very much Rudd's promotion of a respectful dialogue on the issue. That's rare, unfortunately.

[cald22well]

This is not a perfect fit for this thread, but it's close:

Australian Prime Minister Offers Christian and Moral Defense of Gay Marriage (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/approachingjustice/2013/09/04/australian-prime-minister-offers-christian-and-moral-defense-of-gay-marriage/)



It's a very interesting bit, and I admire very much Rudd's promotion of a respectful dialogue on the issue. That's rare, unfortunately.

I think that it is perfect for this thread because these discussion are exactly what are going to put pressure on people's religious views of homosexuality. As it becomes more accepted that homosexuality is natural and people do not choose to be gay, the LDS Church will have to answer as to why they feel it's wrong. Many people have made religious arguments discrediting that the Bible says that homosexuality and gay marraige are wrong. It's only a matter of time before the first presidency has this discussion, IMO.

[NorthwestUteFan]

The way the FP/Q12 works is they need to be unanimous on a decision before they will make a statement on a policy.

There are rumors that a number of them are amenable to allowing full activity and fellowship to gay and lesbian couples, including allowing temple recommends but short of allowing temple sealing for these couples. We can speculate as to which ones will support or oppose such a proposition, but suffice to say there is zero chance we will see anything like this so long as Boyd Packer draws a breath.

We have a friend whose teenaged daughter is living life as a boy (self-selected transgendered) . While he's is genetically female, he has a boy's name, dresses like a boy, acts like a boy, and is for all intents and purposes a well-adjusted teenaged boy. He also will not attend church because frankly there simply is no place for a person like that in the church. His parents are supportive, as is our bishop who agrees that church might not be a healthy situation psychologically.

[NorthwestUteFan]

One point my wife likes to reference is the fact that homosexuality is mentioned very early in the bible is proof that homosexuality has been a part of human nature for a very, very long time. The early books of the Old Testament (Pentateuch/writings of Moses) were combined from various writings into actual books around 650-700 BCE, but were based on oral traditions that were around a few thousand prior to that.

[cald22well]

The way the FP/Q12 works is they need to be unanimous on a decision before they will make a statement on a policy.

There are rumors that a number of them are amenable to allowing full activity and fellowship to gay and lesbian couples, including allowing temple recommends but short of allowing temple sealing for these couples. We can speculate as to which ones will support or oppose such a proposition, but suffice to say there is zero chance we will see anything like this so long as Boyd Packer draws a breath.

I don't expect a policy change anytime soon, but the discussion is very important to future change. Who knows how many generations it may take, but I do think that it will happen eventually.

[wuapinmon]

The way the FP/Q12 works is they need to be unanimous on a decision before they will make a statement on a policy.

There are rumors that a number of them are amenable to allowing full activity and fellowship to gay and lesbian couples, including allowing temple recommends but short of allowing temple sealing for these couples. We can speculate as to which ones will support or oppose such a proposition, but suffice to say there is zero chance we will see anything like this so long as Boyd Packer draws a breath.

We have a friend whose teenaged daughter is living life as a boy (self-selected transgendered) . While he's is genetically female, he has a boy's name, dresses like a boy, acts like a boy, and is for all intents and purposes a well-adjusted teenaged boy. He also will not attend church because frankly there simply is no place for a person like that in the church. His parents are supportive, as is our bishop who agrees that church might not be a healthy situation psychologically.

LDS ideology works well for heterosexual people. It calls sinful all those who fall outside the norm. It cannot account for them, so it makes them an Other without any solution other than a promise of a better time in the eternities. Theologically, to an intersex person, that could (and probably does) feel almost like God does not love you as much as others, because the ordinances are denied to you for something that you 'know' is not a choice.

The consequences of that 'knowledge' in the homosexual Church member are pathological. They 'know' that they are sinful. They 'know' that others will reject them. They 'know' that their sexuality is forbidden. The pathology of these knowledges causes a lifetime of self-loathing and spiritual despair, leading, I would imagine, the vast majority to leave the Church. Current Church ideology presents the situation as welcoming them back, providing they remain chaste, repent, and only engage in heterosexual relations with their spouse.

Until the Church's ideology can account for biological mutations that fall outside of the current conceptions of gender (read: normal male and normal female) then it (the Church's ideology) will remain pathologically (in the sense of the suffering/consequences this ideology causes in gays' and their families' lives) opposed to actions that it deems contrary to the 'knowledge' that it currently has about gender, same-sex attraction, and homosexual sex acts. It's not homosexuality being a choice that causes the ideology to balk at change. That's easy enough to justify in the current one. The real rub lies in the ones that you cannot explain away easily (this link is safe for work) (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003269.htm). The biologically male children with vaginas and clitorises and the biologically female children with penises and the 250,000 kids born with ambiguous genitalia each year. How does the ideology convince them that they're made in the image of God when their gender is female, they're attracted to men, but their penis is going to be there next to their husband's when they go to have sex on their sealing day?

Until the LDS ideology can justify the existence and acceptance of these people as whole and natural children of our Heavenly Father, then the ideology for most members will continue to function thusly:

MEMBER:"I have several homosexual friends. They have adopted children, are loving parents, faithful companions, and great neighbors. I don't know why the Brethren are always saying that the calamities foretold by prophets will come about because of these people."

GENERAL CONFERENCE: "THAT'S PRECISELY WHY YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL!"

We still don't know what causes someone to be homosexual. If it's genetic or environmental in the womb, then calling it a sin robs us of our agency.

The ideology currently denies that this is the case. We've seen the ideology change in the past about other things that were once considered immoral. This one, however, does not appear as simple to resolve given the other theological ramifications.

[cald22well]

People have gone on about nature vs nurture with homosexuality for a long time (the answer, as with all nature/nurture arguments, is some of both), and I just don't see why it matters all that much. It shouldn't change anything about how we see or treat people, and it shouldn't change anything about whether or not homosexual sex is sinful. From the LDS perspective, the entire purpose of the gospel is to help us overcome harmful behaviors that are natural.

I agree that the reason why shouldn't change how we treat people, and thus, regardless of religious beliefs same sex marriage should be legal. As far as not changing whether it is a sin or not, I disagree.

First off, many theologists make arguments as to why homesexual sex is not a sin but the scriptures that mention it deal with other issues. It can be argued that homosexual sex is fine, but some things that come with it in these modern days are not. I.E. it should be treated as heterosexual relations with sex before marraige, infidelity, etc being bad.

Second, if it is accepted that people do not choose to be gay-they were created that way, then it raises the question, why would God create someone as a sinner? If they are true to themselves, they sin. To not sin, they can't be true to themselves. Personally, I don't beleive that God would create someone with inherant sin wired into them. Nurture goes a long way into how open a person is with their sexuality and the lifestyle they choose to live, but it doesn't determine what you're attracted to.

[Scratch]

why would God create someone as a sinner?

I may be splitting hairs here, but God creates everyone as a sinner, with inherent sin wired into them. I certainly know that's the case with me.

[wuapinmon]

but it doesn't determine what you're attracted to.

I don't know about you, but I don't remember choosing to notice how soft Susan Granger's hands were one day in 6th grade gym class when she got assigned to me for a game of "Down Down, Baby." I just knew that that was the first time I had ever felt any kind of sexual attraction to another human being, and she was a girl, and I've never deviated from my sincere and pure appreciation and lust for the female form since that time. I don't remember it being a choice. It just was for me. I didn't choose to be straight.

[cald22well]

I understand the concept that every man is a sinner. There will be no man to live a perfect life and that is why there is the process of repentance. But there is a difference in me succumbing to the temptation to steal or drink alcohol. You can argue that some people are more prone to those things, but they are not created in such a way that they can only do that. Alcoholics and kleptos can get help and reform their lives. You can't simply just stop being gay.

With homosexuality, it becomes a black and white with religion. Either A) You are heterosexual and good, which is easy if you're attracted to the opposite sex or B) You are homosexual and bad. I can't choose to be attracted to red heads any more that someone who is homosexual can choose to be attracted to the opposite sex.

[NorthwestUteFan]

And further, the LDS concept of Heaven (exaltation in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom) isn't particularly attractive to a gay man. Why would a gay man look forward to spending an eternity with a woman, unless he will somehow be 'fixed' after this life?

And to be 'fixed' in the next life presupposes that he is irrevocably 'broken' in this life. It is no wonder that so many of them choose to commit suicide rather than live in such conflict.

[Scorcho]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/gay-mormons-wendy-montgomery-_n_4064834.html

found this today thought it was interesting

[LA Ute]

Seems to fit here:

Church Responds to Inquiries on ENDA, Same-Sex Marriage (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-inquiries-on-enda--same-sex-marriage)


Salt Lake City —

Media outlets are reporting that in an informal press gathering Wednesday, Senator Harry Reid made comments about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and gay rights.


As the Church has said before (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/political-neutrality), elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position.


On the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the Church has not taken a position. On the question of same-sex marriage, the Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with kindness and understanding. If it is being suggested that the Church’s doctrine on this matter is changing, that is incorrect.


Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. As such, traditional marriage is a foundational doctrine and cannot change.

What Reid said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08/harry-reid-mormon_n_4240125.html

[wuapinmon]

Seems to fit here:

Church Responds to Inquiries on ENDA, Same-Sex Marriage (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-inquiries-on-enda--same-sex-marriage)



What Reid said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08/harry-reid-mormon_n_4240125.html

I think some cardiologists in Salt Lake may get some business if Reid keeps talking that way.

[LA Ute]

This also seems to fit here:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage

It's interesting. The church seems to be drawing a theological line in the sand.

[concerned]

and then there is this. Don Gale wrote and gave the editorials on KSL for years and years. I assume he is a devout member in good standing.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57369574-82/church-reality-leaders-practices.html.csp

Sort of suggests that the current generation of leaders is drawing a theological line in the sand.

[LA Ute]

and then there is this. Don Gale wrote and gave the editorials on KSL for years and years. I assume he is a devout member in good standing.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57369574-82/church-reality-leaders-practices.html.csp

Sort of suggests that the current generation of leaders is drawing a theological line in the sand.

Not 100% sure but I don't think he'd describe himself as devout. Anyway, thought-provoking piece. I'm sympathetic to his views on polygamy and the WOW. On gay marriage I think we'll continue to see softening and accommodation from a tolerance standpoint but not doctrinally. E.g., we're not going to see same-sex weddings in Mormon chapels or performed by Mormon bishops anytime soon.

[LA Ute]

Gay support group issues challenge: Read Book of Mormon daily (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/58237617-180/book-mormon-challenge-affirmation.html.csp)

Interesting. I like it.

[LA Ute]

Another interesting piece. Peggy Fletcher Stack linked to this on her Facebook page:

Gay, Christian and … celibate: The changing face of the homosexuality debate (http://www.religionnews.com/2014/08/04/gay-christian-celibate-changing-face-homosexuality-debate/)


Yes, Peggy and I are Facebook friends. I've known her for 30+ years. I haven't been summoned to any meetings as a result.

[LA Ute]

Interesting point of view:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/mormons-can-gay-just-cant-gay

[Ma'ake]

We're in a fairly early phase of evolution of thinking, within the LDS community, on the topic of homosexality. It wasn't long ago that SSA was viewed as a fundamental moral failing, like perhaps 10 years ago?

I think in general with our connected world things change more quickly, and institutions - in this case, religions - are under a lot of ideological pressure to moderate historical views on some topics. But changing doctrine involves more time, kind of like the difference between legislation and a constitutional amendment.

I was having friends with a black LDS friend, and explaining why I left the church, back in the late 70s, primarily on the issue of race (even though I'm white). He asked what we were taught previously about the priesthood ban, and I conveyed the explanations I was taught... less valiant in pre-existence, some unspecified lineage deficiency issue, Ham, etc.

Then it occurred to me one fundamental belief - not just Mormon, but in Judaism & Christianity, in general - had changed since the 1970s, at least in my exposure to religious thinking: the notion that specific lineages were either blessed or cursed. "The Jews are God's chosen people." What does this really mean, anymore? "Descendants of Ham are cursed." This idea is definitely in the dumpster. Nephites & Lamanites exchanging the good guy / bad guy role, largely an exercise of assigning good/bad to entire groups.

Now the "sins of the father are not sins of his children" thinking is much more predominant, a more individualized world view, an opportunity for anyone to rise above their circumstances without prejudice of their lineage.

Back to homosexuality, even though thinking evolves more quickly in our connected world, I think it will be multiple decades before homosexuality is fully accepted by the LDS church.

Using the evolution of thought on the topic of slavery as an example, when the abolitionist movement first arose, the overwhelmingly dominant religious view was that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible. There were four Quakers in 1688 who issued their opposition to slavery, which in hindsight was stunningly forward thinking, but it wasn't until much later in the debate that the religious thinking disavowed the view that the Bible made slavery OK.

Today, nobody thinks the Bible supports slavery, except perhaps a certain rancher in southern Nevada.

One significantly beneficial part of today's evolved thinking in the LDS world is it is letting some parents of gay kids know it wasn't their moral failing that led to the child becoming gay. The two large families on my street who've had multiple kids come out of the closet have had a nearly unbearable struggle reconciling their role as parents and the reality that their offspring have gone so wildly off track, but I think they've received some comfort that it wasn't because they weren't good enough parents.

In 10 years, I think we'll see more & more smaller, Protestant Christian churches de-emphasize Biblical edicts against homosexuality as being important for that time period, but like bans on eating pork, things have evolved. In 10 years I think we'll see significant movement in the thinking among LDS on the topic of women & the priesthood, and on homosexuality.

I'd be very, very surprised if we see doctrine changes in 10 years. *Maybe* 20.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Ma'ake, I agree with your general point but would modify your statement slightly.

The Bible absolutely condones slavery in multiple places, in multiple ways, and the only prohibitions related to slavery were to never beat your slaves to the point where they cannot walk after two days, or to the point that they die within a week (can't recall exact # of days?).

The difference is now the overwhelming majority of humanity is possessed of a morality far superior to that of the Bible on this matter, and nearly all of humanity views slavery as utterly abhorrent and wholly unrelated to any God worth worshipping.

There are of course a few holdouts, including Somalia and other African countries, and a few random jackwagons such as the dude in Nevada. One could also argue that the sex slave trade in Asia/Europe/Americas is alive and well, though it is not tolerated in the open.

Other examples where modern humanity possesses a morality far superior to that of provincial writings of iron-age nomads is in the proclamation that we must beat to death our children if they argue with their parents, as well as the death penalty for working on the Sabbath, eating shellfish, wearing clothing made of mixed fibers, and numerous other areas.

The more places in which our modern morality surpasses that of the Bible, the better and safer our society will be.

Whether the LDS church will ever fully accept gay people, condone gay marriage, or even perform temple sealings remains to be seen. But there may be places within the existing doctrinal structure to allow full acceptance, but that might not happen until the church is run by the generation of people currently in their teens/20s/30s/40s.

[mUUser]

......In 10 years I think we'll see significant movement in the thinking among LDS on the topic of women & the priesthood, and on homosexuality......

I get the sense that perhaps not my kids' generation (teens/low 20's), but maybe the generation after that won't stand for it and will leave the church in droves forcing the hand of the church. Will it implode on its own doctrine? Adapt and build a bigger tent? Turn even further right to attract more fringe elements to grow? Now is a fascinating time to study the church.

[LA Ute]

Not sure where to post this. Today's press conference on religious freedom in the context of the marriage rights debate:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid3998144320001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAut5OBKE~,0d8kPD-tlibt_M8DBhjTsPZTyg-xobdt&bclid=3993832879001&bctid=4015167009001

This is pretty unusual.

EDIT: Here's one Deseret News article about the news conference:

LDS leaders reemphasize protection of religious freedoms, support for LGBT nondiscrimination laws (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865620483/LDS-leaders-reemphasize-protection-of-religious-freedoms-support-for-LGBT-nondiscrimination-laws.html?pg=1)

And here's the Tribune's article:

In major move, Mormon apostles call for statewide LGBT protections (http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2106982-155/in-major-move-mormon-apostles-call)

The church seems to calling for a live-and-let-live approach. What's not to like about that?

[NorthwestUteFan]

I for one am happy to see the church officially support the 11th Article of Faith...

I wonder whether Mitt Romney had anything to do with this.

[Sullyute]

The church seems to calling for a live-and-let-live approach. What's not to like about that?

I had a whole diatribe going and erased it as I was writing angry. Lets just say that I disagree.

[LA Ute]

I had a whole diatribe going and erased it as I was writing angry. Lets just say that I disagree.

I'm beyond debating this issue at this point. Do you think the church should have gone farther? I'm really just curious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

I'm beyond debating this issue at this point. Do you think the church should have gone farther? I'm really just curious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They seem to support every equality, except marriage equality was explicitly missing. This has to be from design.

So in other words they said nothing at all that was new.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

I for one am happy to see the church officially support the 11th Article of Faith...

I wonder whether Mitt Romney had anything to do with this.

While apparently trying to circumvent #12 at the same time. Interesting strategy.


I had a whole diatribe going and erased it as I was writing angry. Lets just say that I disagree.

I can honestly say that angry diatribes are always better to read than happy ones. Color me disappointed in your editing.

It's been interesting following the #fairness4all on Twitter. (Seriously, can divine inspiration please step in this brainstorm next time?) It seems that both sides are getting exactly what they want with today's news conference. The faithful get a nice message of "yes we should love everyone" with a mix of "please let us worship how, where and what we may." And by worship, we mean conduct our work duties. (Did they really want to give pharmacists the freedom to pick and choose what drugs their willing to pharm?!?!) Of course the non-believers got another entertaining, albeit frustrating, moment in church history of "do what we say, not what we do."

[concerned]

They seem to support every equality, except marriage equality was explicitly missing. This has to be from design.

So in other words they said nothing at all that was new.

Even though they said nothing new, the reason they said it was to get the legislature to pass statewide legislation. Several years ago, the Church supported the same none discrimination ordinance when SLC passed it. Perhaps 20 other cities have passed similar ordinances since then. The last couple of years, the legislature buried similar legislation in committee and refused to act on it. That is the reason for the press conference.

Immigration is another area where the legislature is far right of the Church and wont listen to it.

[USS Utah]

The legislature is not listening to the church on certain issues? Don't tell Tom Barberi.

[LA Ute]

Even though they said nothing new, the reason they said it was to get the legislature to pass statewide legislation. Several years ago, the Church supported the same none discrimination ordinance when SLC passed it. Perhaps 20 other cities have passed similar ordinances since then. The last couple of years, the legislature buried similar legislation in committee and refused to act on it. That is the reason for the press conference.

Immigration is another area where the legislature is far right of the Church and wont listen to it.

During the FDR years the First Presidency was vocally opposed to him and to the New Deal, but he carried Utah every time he ran, usually by a landslide, IIRC.

[Sullyute]

I'm beyond debating this issue at this point. Do you think the church should have gone farther? I'm really just curious.

Ok, so I will try and be as diplomatic as possible. I know that these same points have been brought up in numerous debates, so I agree it gets old rehashing them.

I would have liked to see the church call for anti-discrimination laws, period, without adding the religion rights reservations. It comes off as very disingenuous. It is like they are jumping on a sailing ship (one they fought hard to keep in port) and once onboard still think they can bargain for their accommodations.

I think the claimed infringement on religious rights is a mountain being made out of a mole hill. People, pastors, and parochial institutions are simply being held responsible for the rhetoric that is preached from their pulpits and prayers. Society is slowing shifting away from organized religion because of the historical hate and bigotry that has been taught, directly and indirectly, from its hallow grounds. This is not a legislative or constitutional issue, but a popular opinion issue.

I really wish that the church would just back away from all of these political issues and simply focus on service and love of our fellow beings (what religion does best).

[NorthwestUteFan]

They did try to carve out an interesting set of exemptions in the news conference. Granted, I think this is a step in the right direction for the church to take, considering it usually takes them decades to change.

This is a good read: https://thelordsuniversity.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/lds-press-conference-on-nondiscrimination-feels-like-a-slap-in-the-face/



The fact that Jeffrey Holland, a former President of BYU, mentioned church employment, honor code statements, and college accreditation as specific exemptions for nondiscrimination means that the Church intends to continue fostering the hostile environment I experienced at BYU. They intend for the scenario in which my friend was evicted from his home simply because he had previously been in a gay relationship to remain a legal and actual reality.

So, yes, it’s great the Church supports nondiscrimination and rejects anti-gay harassment. But. Having experienced anti-gay bullying at the hands and mouths of LDS members, leaders, and official publications, such statements implying they have always been against such persecution, feels more like a slap in the face than a sincere change of heart.

[LA Ute]

If a Catholic physician refuses, as a matter of religious conscience, to perform an elective abortion, has he or she violated the prospective patient's rights? If the same physician refuses, on the same grounds, to artificially inseminate a lesbian mom, and there are other physicians who are willing to perform that procedure, has he or she discriminated against the prospective mother? It's not an easy question, in my opinion.
California's Supreme Court ruled against the physician in the artificial insemination case, based on the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act. So in my state, a physician in that situation is legally required to provide the fertility service. My guess is that the church's leaders are aware of that case and don't want to see similar legislation popping up. (That will never happen in Utah, of course.)

Of all the amendments in the Bill of Rights, the First may be the one that the Supreme Court has wrestled with the most, and the tension between the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment clause is probably the most challenging of any two provisions in the Constitution.

[concerned]

Of all the amendments in the Bill of Rights, the First may be the one that the Supreme Court has wrestled with the most, and the tension between the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment clause is probably the most challenging of any two provisions in the Constitution.

Moreso than the due process and equal protection clauses, which have much broader application?

[LA Ute]

Moreso than the due process and equal protection clauses, which have much broader application?

Notice how I hedged -- I said "may be" and "probably." Dr. Scanland taught me that. ;)

It's just my impression. I took a First Amendment class in law school and was really struck by the knottiness of the issues raised by the Free Exercise-Establishment tension.

[NorthwestUteFan]

LA I see those as two seperate issues. A doc who refuses to perform an abortion is probably able to refuse to do that for everybody. His employer should be allowed to accept that, or fire him. I know plenty of OBs who refuse to provide abortions and will give a referral for another who will.

With the insemination, he already provides that exact same service to non-lesbian clients so to refuse the service to a lesbian woman is pure discrimination. There is zero difference between that va-jay-jay and the next 14 he sees that same day, with the only exception being that the lesbian V. is less likely to have a P. in it. So he is choosing only to serve a patient who goes for the P in V action. If he walks in on 15 patients (one if whom is a lesbian) without knowing anything about their background he will be exceptionally unlikely to pick the lesbian out of the group.

If a doc is so small-minded that he won't squirt a syringe full of baby batter into the uterus of a patient solely for the reason that her female life partner is holding her hand at the time, then he deserves to lose the discrimination lawsuit.

[tooblue]

LA I see those as two seperate issues. A doc who refuses to perform an abortion is probably able to refuse to do that for everybody. His employer should be allowed to accept that, or fire him. I know plenty of OBs who refuse to provide abortions and will give a referral for another who will.

With the insemination, he already provides that exact same service to non-lesbian clients so to refuse the service to a lesbian woman is pure discrimination. There is zero difference between that va-jay-jay and the next 14 he sees that same day, with the only exception being that the lesbian V. is less likely to have a P. in it. So he is choosing only to serve a patient who goes for the P in V action. If he walks in on 15 patients (one if whom is a lesbian) without knowing anything about their background he will be exceptionally unlikely to pick the lesbian out of the group.

If a doc is so small-minded that he won't squirt a syringe full of baby batter into the uterus of a patient solely for the reason that her female life partner is holding her hand at the time, then he deserves to lose the discrimination lawsuit.

That someone supposedly deserves "something" is what this is all about isn't it? And what is that "something?" The tone of your post intimates that not only is the doctor in question in the wrong but he or she should rightfully be punished for their actions. Potentially asserting that said actions are ... criminal? Does that therefore render the doctor prosecutable? I'm not making a slippery slope argument here, just analyzing the language you have used in your post. Perhaps I have misread your tone? If not, is there an inherent danger in what you have written?

This is a complex issue that is not nearly as simply codified as you suggest by stating they are merely two separate issues. You seem to support the notion that refusal to perform one procedure is distinct and provisional as compared to the other. But, at what point can the doctor not only be compelled, by law (bullying / social pressure) to perform the insemination, as well as the abortion? How can a system enforce only one of the actions and not the other? Ironically, your defence of the provisions governing one procedure as compared to the other aren't all that different from what the Church is championing. That LGBT rights can be upheld along with religious freedoms.

I guess you too want to have your cake and eat it too ... unless of course I am misreading you?

[Solon]

LA I see those as two seperate issues. A doc who refuses to perform an abortion is probably able to refuse to do that for everybody. His employer should be allowed to accept that, or fire him. I know plenty of OBs who refuse to provide abortions and will give a referral for another who will.

With the insemination, he already provides that exact same service to non-lesbian clients so to refuse the service to a lesbian woman is pure discrimination. There is zero difference between that va-jay-jay and the next 14 he sees that same day, with the only exception being that the lesbian V. is less likely to have a P. in it. So he is choosing only to serve a patient who goes for the P in V action. If he walks in on 15 patients (one if whom is a lesbian) without knowing anything about their background he will be exceptionally unlikely to pick the lesbian out of the group.

If a doc is so small-minded that he won't squirt a syringe full of baby batter into the uterus of a patient solely for the reason that her female life partner is holding her hand at the time, then he deserves to lose the discrimination lawsuit.
From my understanding, the majority of these anti-discrimination ordinances have exceptions written in for small-time landlords (<4 units, iirc). The basic premise is that guy-who-rents-out-his-basement should be free to rent to pretty much anyone he wants, even if he decides to discriminate unfairly.

Many businesses reserve the right to refuse service, although I'm sure this can get complicated.
My principal objection to exemptions or exceptions to non-discrimination laws is when the job or service falls in the public sector, as a duty of a public employee. There is no place for discrimination in the public sector. Get another job if you are unwilling to do your job for all members of the public.

My other thought is that, while obviously receiving harassment & ridicule & bad PR for religious beliefs is bad form (indeed, persecution), it's not a loss of religious liberty. Not really. To claim as much is a disservice to the world's people who live under truly oppressive circumstances, whose lives are endangered from state-sponsored reprisals targeted at religious organizations & their members.

Holding unpopular religious beliefs only proves that a person enjoys the freedom to hold them.

[tooblue]

From my understanding, the majority of these anti-discrimination ordinances have exceptions written in for small-time landlords (<4 units, iirc). The basic premise is that guy-who-rents-out-his-basement should be free to rent to pretty much anyone he wants, even if he decides to discriminate unfairly.

Many businesses reserve the right to refuse service, although I'm sure this can get complicated.
My principal objection to exemptions or exceptions to non-discrimination laws is when the job or service falls in the public sector, as a duty of a public employee. There is no place for discrimination in the public sector. Get another job if you are unwilling to do your job for all members of the public.

My other thought is that, while obviously receiving harassment & ridicule & bad PR for religious beliefs is bad form (indeed, persecution), it's not a loss of religious liberty. Not really. To claim as much is a disservice to the world's people who live under truly oppressive circumstances, whose lives are endangered from state-sponsored reprisals targeted at religious organizations & their members.

Holding unpopular religious beliefs only proves that a person enjoys the freedom to hold them.

That's an emotional red herring. Thrown out to bolster a weak argument. This issue has no concern for the millions living in abject oppressive circumstances. The inability to practice one's religion due to harassment and ridicule, and to be prohibited from pursuing a particular career path is a blatant loss of religious liberty.

[Solon]

That's an emotional red herring. Thrown out to bolster a weak argument. This issue has no concern for the millions living in abject oppressive circumstances. The inability to practice one's religion due to harassment and ridicule, and to be prohibited from pursuing a particular career path is a blatant loss of religious liberty.

Ridicule by private citizens is not loss of religious freedom. Not in the USA, anyway.
I can't speak for your silly country.
It's unseemly, sure.

[tooblue]

Ridicule by private citizens is not loss of religious freedom. Not in the USA, anyway.
I can't speak for your silly country.
It's unseemly, sure.

The two countries aren't that different, except homosexuals right to marry was secured by law more than ten years ago. The result, and a preview of what is to come in the states: the loss of the religious voice in public discourse. Fewer marriages period, especially among homosexuals. More children raised in unconventional family circumstances. More social and behavioural issues as a result that the government is compelled to address through social programs and services, which coincides with the loss in the rights of parents in the raising of their children. Which results in higher taxes levied against the middle class, to pay for said programs. Which results in fewer middle class having children. Which results in fewer future tax payers to pay for social programs. Which results in governments raiding pensions and Retired savings plans ...

All the above likely would've happened regardless, I guess. It is what it is.

[LA Ute]

LA I see those as two seperate issues. A doc who refuses to perform an abortion is probably able to refuse to do that for everybody. His employer should be allowed to accept that, or fire him. I know plenty of OBs who refuse to provide abortions and will give a referral for another who will.

With the insemination, he already provides that exact same service to non-lesbian clients so to refuse the service to a lesbian woman is pure discrimination. There is zero difference between that va-jay-jay and the next 14 he sees that same day, with the only exception being that the lesbian V. is less likely to have a P. in it. So he is choosing only to serve a patient who goes for the P in V action. If he walks in on 15 patients (one if whom is a lesbian) without knowing anything about their background he will be exceptionally unlikely to pick the lesbian out of the group.

If a doc is so small-minded that he won't squirt a syringe full of baby batter into the uterus of a patient solely for the reason that her female life partner is holding her hand at the time, then he deserves to lose the discrimination lawsuit.

Clearly sweet reason is not working with you, so I will start yelling at you now. But I'm tired, so that will have to wait until morning. :D

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

LA I see those as two seperate issues. A doc who refuses to perform an abortion is probably able to refuse to do that for everybody. His employer should be allowed to accept that, or fire him. I know plenty of OBs who refuse to provide abortions and will give a referral for another who will.

With the insemination, he already provides that exact same service to non-lesbian clients so to refuse the service to a lesbian woman is pure discrimination. There is zero difference between that va-jay-jay and the next 14 he sees that same day, with the only exception being that the lesbian V. is less likely to have a P. in it. So he is choosing only to serve a patient who goes for the P in V action. If he walks in on 15 patients (one if whom is a lesbian) without knowing anything about their background he will be exceptionally unlikely to pick the lesbian out of the group.

If a doc is so small-minded that he won't squirt a syringe full of baby batter into the uterus of a patient solely for the reason that her female life partner is holding her hand at the time, then he deserves to lose the discrimination lawsuit.


From my understanding, the majority of these anti-discrimination ordinances have exceptions written in for small-time landlords (<4 units, iirc). The basic premise is that guy-who-rents-out-his-basement should be free to rent to pretty much anyone he wants, even if he decides to discriminate unfairly.

Many businesses reserve the right to refuse service, although I'm sure this can get complicated.
My principal objection to exemptions or exceptions to non-discrimination laws is when the job or service falls in the public sector, as a duty of a public employee. There is no place for discrimination in the public sector. Get another job if you are unwilling to do your job for all members of the public.

My other thought is that, while obviously receiving harassment & ridicule & bad PR for religious beliefs is bad form (indeed, persecution), it's not a loss of religious liberty. Not really. To claim as much is a disservice to the world's people who live under truly oppressive circumstances, whose lives are endangered from state-sponsored reprisals targeted at religious organizations & their members.

Holding unpopular religious beliefs only proves that a person enjoys the freedom to hold them.

Both well said.

[LA Ute]

If I were a baker I'd sell wedding cakes to anyone. If I were a physician/fertility specialist I'd help anyone. But I think it's important to recognize that the question, What should the government be able to force you to do that violates a deeply-held religious conviction, and under what circumstances? is not easy to answer. If you think it is easy, you haven't really thought about it.

[NorthwestUteFan]

If I were a baker I'd sell wedding cakes to anyone. If I were a physician/fertility specialist I'd help anyone. But I think it's important to recognize that the question, What should the government be able to force you to do that violates a deeply-held religious conviction, and under what circumstances? is not easy to answer. If you think it is easy, you haven't really thought about it.

LA, you are just more kind and display more Christian charity than other people. Bravo!

In the insemination example the doctor who refuses to inseminate a lesbian woman is deciding for himself that they are not fit to be biological parents. This is entirely out of the scope of his authority. The sole reason why he is refusing that one service to his patient, especially if he provides her with other services, is due to her sexuality. If you replace the word 'lesbian' with any other modifier (Jewish, Asian, Black, left-handed) the argument is just as obtuse.

And for him to conflate insemination with abortion, IN THE SAME SENTENCE, is cheap tactic. He is attempting to generate contempt for a loving and exciting event (creating a baby) with a cold, difficult, and highly emotional event (abortion). And as I said earlier these things are only related because they include a doc, a woman, and a baby. Beyond that they are entirely separate issues.

I have to deal with a serious emergency right now. Perhaps later I will be able to discuss Elder Oaks grave misstatement of facts in the Houston HERO case he cited.

[Scorcho]

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/on-discrimination-the-mormon-church-gives-and-takes-away/?fb_ref=Default&_r=0

biting opinion piece in the NY Times today about yesterday's press conference.

[Mormon Red Death]

The two countries aren't that different, except homosexuals right to marry was secured by law more than ten years ago. The result, and a preview of what is to come in the states: the loss of the religious voice in public discourse. Fewer marriages period, especially among homosexuals. More children raised in unconventional family circumstances. More social and behavioural issues as a result that the government is compelled to address through social programs and services, which coincides with the loss in the rights of parents in the raising of their children. Which results in higher taxes levied against the middle class, to pay for said programs. Which results in fewer middle class having children. Which results in fewer future tax payers to pay for social programs. Which results in governments raiding pensions and Retired savings plans ...

All the above likely would've happened regardless, I guess. It is what it is.

You are probably right. I mean I bet the amount of unwed mothers in America will increase a lot when Gays can marry in America.

[Mormon Red Death]

The two countries aren't that different, except homosexuals right to marry was secured by law more than ten years ago. The result, and a preview of what is to come in the states: the loss of the religious voice in public discourse. Fewer marriages period, especially among homosexuals. More children raised in unconventional family circumstances. More social and behavioural issues as a result that the government is compelled to address through social programs and services, which coincides with the loss in the rights of parents in the raising of their children. Which results in higher taxes levied against the middle class, to pay for said programs. Which results in fewer middle class having children. Which results in fewer future tax payers to pay for social programs. Which results in governments raiding pensions and Retired savings plans ...

All the above likely would've happened regardless, I guess. It is what it is.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8

[Two Utes]

If I were a baker I'd sell wedding cakes to anyone. If I were a physician/fertility specialist I'd help anyone. But I think it's important to recognize that the question, What should the government be able to force you to do that violates a deeply-held religious conviction, and under what circumstances? is not easy to answer. If you think it is easy, you haven't really thought about it.

The problem LA, is that if your religious conviction told you not to sell cakes to people of the color, the government would clearly have an issue with it. Times are changing. People are recognizing the rights of homosexual people, just like people of color. If the church is unwilling to bend, so be it, but people aren't going to be, and shouldn't have to, "play nice" as Dallin Oaks wants them to. And it is going to hurt members of the church financially.

Look at it this way LA, there are plenty of southerners who still believe in segregation and are members of the Klu Klux Klan and that is their right. But those people are marginalized as a result of their beliefs.

[Mormon Red Death]

Fake LDS Newsroom is absolutely killing it.

https://twitter.com/FakeLDSNewsroom/status/560268809961873408

https://twitter.com/FakeLDSNewsroom/status/560268964245159937

[Two Utes]

Gotta love the cynicism. Only a church could be so maligned for taking a stand in favor of anti-discrimination laws. The centerpiece of his argument doesn't even come from the news conference. It comes from some AP writer's opinion on what the LDS Church is seeking. He also includes the following quote:



Again, I haven't read the original news conference, but isn't that what the Church is seeking by supporting anti-discrimination legislation?

They are. But they also said it was contingent on people not being mean to the Mormon church for taking the positions they've taken about homosexuality and that is why they are getting hammered. But it certainly is easier to just believe it's more persecution.

[concerned]

If I were a baker I'd sell wedding cakes to anyone. If I were a physician/fertility specialist I'd help anyone. But I think it's important to recognize that the question, What should the government be able to force you to do that violates a deeply-held religious conviction, and under what circumstances? is not easy to answer. If you think it is easy, you haven't really thought about it.

the problem is that any bigot can conjure up a sincerely held religious belief. Can you refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple? Or rent an apartment? Once you enter the marketplace, you should not be allowed to discriminate. Religious institutions and their representatives should be exempt on first amendment grounds, i.e., not performing same sex services, but if you are offering economic services (including medical) you have to treat everybody the same. Otherwise the loophole swallows the rule. You only enforce non-discrimination laws against people who dont want to abide by them for whatever reason.

[Mormon Red Death]

Gotta love the cynicism. Only a church could be so maligned for taking a stand in favor of anti-discrimination laws. The centerpiece of his argument doesn't even come from the news conference. It comes from some AP writer's opinion on what the LDS Church is seeking. He also includes the following quote:



Again, I haven't read the original news conference, but isn't that what the Church is seeking by supporting anti-discrimination legislation?

Fake LDS Newsroom said it best

See how we did that? We hold a press conference on gays, and now we're the victim. That's not as easy as we make it look. #Fairness4all (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Fairness4all?src=hash)

[Two Utes]

Maybe it is as easy as they make it look. I think they can hold any press conference on any subject, and people will line up to criticize it. It's not very different from political parties. It doesn't matter what President Obama says tomorrow in a press conference, Fox News will be sure to oppose it.

Read the Rosenthal thing again. It's pretty far over the top in terms of what actually happened. The Church announced support of anti-discrimination law, and he responds with a mostly off-topic rant. I'm not keyed in on Utah politics, but I'm guessing this legislation now has a decent chance of passing. Is anyone happy about that, or are they too worried that the Church also wants respect for religious freedom?

Yep. It is all persecution.

[LA Ute]

Look at it this way LA, there are plenty of southerners who still believe in segregation and are members of the Klu Klux Klan and that is their right. But those people are marginalized as a result of their beliefs.

I think that is where we are headed if people equate sexual orientation with race -- a debatable equation. The only way to avoid completely the marginalization you predict would be for the church to start marrying same-sex couples in the LDS temples. Isn't that so? I don't see that happening, ever. So the church is trying to preserve some space for itself in civil society, when so many people want to marginalize LDS believers as bigots.

Jonathan Chait, not exactly a right-wing writer, had this to say in a New York Magazine piece yesterday:


But it would be a mistake to categorize today’s p.c. culture as only an academic phenomenon. Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate. Two decades ago, the only communities where the left could exert such hegemonic control lay within academia, which gave it an influence on intellectual life far out of proportion to its numeric size.Today’s political correctness flourishes most consequentially on social media,where it enjoys a frisson of cool and vast new cultural reach. And since social media is also now the milieu that hosts most political debate, the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.

In a short period of time, the p.c.movement has assumed a towering presence in the psychic space of politically active people in general and the left in particular. “All over social media,there dwell armies of unpaid but widely read commentators, ready to launch hashtag campaigns and circulate Change.org petitions in response to the slightest of identity-politics missteps,” Rebecca Traister wrote (http://link.nationalreview.com/547f9c4a3b35d0210c8baab12807l.1c18/U6wZRcPofLpoLl5kAabfa) recently in The New Republic.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html

So yes, Mormons will be swimming upstream on these issues for some time to come.

[Diehard Ute]

I think that is where we are headed if people equate sexual orientation with race -- a debatable equation. The only way to avoid completely the marginalization you predict would be for the church to start marrying same-sex couples in the LDS temples. Isn't that so? I don't see that happening, ever. So the church is trying to preserve some space for itself in civil society, when so many people want to marginalize LDS believers as bigots.

Jonathan Chait, not exactly a right-wing writer, had this to say in a New York Magazine piece yesterday:



http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html

So yes, Mormons will be swimming upstream on these issues for some time to come.

The fact that you think it's up for debate is part of the problem LA.

Honest question, have you spent any time talking to someone who is gay?

[LA Ute]

the problem is that any bigot can conjure up a sincerely held religious belief. Can you refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple? Or rent an apartment? Once you enter the marketplace, you should not be allowed to discriminate. Religious institutions and their representatives should be exempt on first amendment grounds, i.e., not performing same sex services, but if you are offering economic services (including medical) you have to treat everybody the same. Otherwise the loophole swallows the rule. You only enforce non-discrimination laws against people who dont want to abide by them for whatever reason.

You've pinpointed a key part of the issue -- the use of religion to justify invidious discrimination --"treating a class of persons unequally in a manner that is malicious, hostile, or damaging (http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/invidious-discrimination/)." The federal civil rights laws outlaw such discrimination based on race, gender, religious beliefs, etc., but not sexual orientation (yet). The Unruh Act in CA adds sexual orientation to the list. So that's the law. In the fertility doctors' case, the physicians explained to the woman their discomfort with doing the procedure and referred her to another physician who had no reservations and who provided the services -- successfully. I don't think the doctors' actions were malicious, hostile or damaging. Yet the upshot of the Supreme Court's interpretation of Unruh (a 7-0 decision) is that the physicians had no choice but to provide the services. I see your side of the argument, and NW Ute's side. Can you guys see the other side -- how that outcome is disturbing to many people of good will?

[LA Ute]

The fact that you think it's up for debate is part of the problem LA.

Honest question, have you spent any time talking to someone who is gay?

Diehard, you know me personally but we've never discussed issues like this one. I don't live in a bubble. I've lived in L.A. for 32 years and have practiced law in large law firms that entire time. I've worked in the entertainment industry and so has my wife. I have a gay colleague right now who works with me every day. I fought for the firm to hire because she is such an excellent lawyer. She and her partner have been to my home for parties. She and I have agreed to disagree on these issues. My law firm receives awards every year for its approach to LGBT issues. We have probably a dozen gay attorneys in the firm in various offices. Two of them are my friends. I just finished a term on my firm's executive committee. So please stop.

[Diehard Ute]

Diehard, you know me personally but we've never discussed issues like this one. I don't live in a bubble. I've lived in L.A. for 32 years and have practiced law in large law firms that entire time. I've worked in the entertainment industry and so has my wife. I have a gay colleague right now who works with me every day. I fought for the firm to hire because she is such an excellent lawyer. She and her partner have been to my home for parties. She and I have agreed to disagree on these issues. My law firm receives awards every year for its approach to LGBT issues. We have probably a dozen gay attorneys in the firm in various offices. Two of them are my friends. I just finished a term on my firm's executive committee. So please stop.

Then I fail to see how you could ever post that such a thing is up for debate. I'm certain all those you know would scoff at such a suggestion

[UtahsMrSports]

The problem LA, is that if your religious conviction told you not to sell cakes to people of the color, the government would clearly have an issue with it. Times are changing. People are recognizing the rights of homosexual people, just like people of color. If the church is unwilling to bend, so be it, but people aren't going to be, and shouldn't have to, "play nice" as Dallin Oaks wants them to. And it is going to hurt members of the church financially.

Look at it this way LA, there are plenty of southerners who still believe in segregation and are members of the Klu Klux Klan and that is their right. But those people are marginalized as a result of their beliefs.

Lol. a comparison between the LDS church and the KKK.

At least we all are keeping this debate within a reasonable realm. :TrainWreck1:

[UtahsMrSports]

They are. But they also said it was contingent on people not being mean to the Mormon church for taking the positions they've taken about homosexuality and that is why they are getting hammered. But it certainly is easier to just believe it's more persecution.

There was not one thing in there saying that anything was "contingent" on anything else.

Good grief.........

[LA Ute]

Then I fail to see how you could ever post that such a thing is up for debate. I'm certain all those you know would scoff at such a suggestion

This is one of the problems I see in this issue generally. One side has decided that a key aspect of the debate is settled and beyond further discussion: Opposition to same-sex marriage is the same as opposition to interracial marriage. If one side accepts that as a truth, set in stone, then talking these matters over reasonably and rationally is pretty hard.

Ryan Anderson is one of several scholars who have discussed the issue of whether opposition to interracial marriage is the same as opposition to same-sex marriage. Here's an article he wrote on the subject. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/marriage-reason-and-religious-liberty-much-ado-about-sex-nothing-to-do-with-racev) I think you'll see he's a rational guy:


Abstract
Whatever one’s views of marriage and however the state defines it, there is no compelling state interest in forcing all citizens to facilitate, participate in, or celebrate a same-sex relationship as a marriage. Believing that marriage is the union of man and woman is a reasonable position held by many. Bans on interracial marriage, by contrast, were grossly unreasonable. Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not restrict anyone’s freedom to enter into whatever romantic partnerships he or she wishes. Americans should remain free to speak and act in the public square based on their belief that marriage is the union of a man and woman without fear of government penalty. No one should demand that government coerce others into celebrating their relationships.

Anyway, agree of disagree, but don't tell me the debate is over.

[Diehard Ute]

This is one of the problems I see in this issue generally. One side has decided that a key aspect of the debate is settled and beyond further discussion: Opposition to same-sex marriage is the same as opposition to interracial marriage. If one side accepts that as a truth, set in stone, then talking these matters over reasonably and rationally is pretty hard.

Ryan Anderson is one of several scholars who have discussed the issue of whether opposition to interracial marriage is the same as opposition to same-sex marriage. Here's an article he wrote on the subject. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/marriage-reason-and-religious-liberty-much-ado-about-sex-nothing-to-do-with-racev) I think you'll see he's a rational guy:



Anyway, agree of disagree, but don't tell me the debate is over.

But your statement wasn't that marriage between races and between gays was debatable.

You said that "I think that is where we are headed if people equate sexual orientation with race -- a debatable equation."

Now if you were meaning that in terms of marriage there may be more of a debate. But I took that to mean saying sexual orientation and race aren't the same thing in general, which to me goes back to the idea that people choose their orientation.

My stance is based on race and orientation both being non choices and that is not up for debate, perhaps you were just referring to marriage, which wasn't clear.

[Solon]

Diehard, you know me personally but we've never discussed issues like this one. I don't live in a bubble. I've lived in L.A. for 32 years and have practiced law in large law firms that entire time. I've worked in the entertainment industry and so has my wife. I have a gay colleague right now who works with me every day. I fought for the firm to hire because she is such an excellent lawyer. She and her partner have been to my home for parties. She and I have agreed to disagree on these issues. My law firm receives awards every year for its approach to LGBT issues. We have probably a dozen gay attorneys in the firm in various offices. Two of them are my friends. I just finished a term on my firm's executive committee. So please stop.

I will vouch for LA Ute: whatever stance he has on this issue (or any others) is the result of principled thought & his faith. His opinion is a valuable one.

[mpfunk]

The press conference was disappointing. So basically, the church should be allowed to discriminate and needs legal protection to discriminate. However, we are good people, because we think that homosexuals should be allowed to have jobs and places to live. Also, we even let a women speak, see we don't oppress women either. #fairness4all

[LA Ute]

But your statement wasn't that marriage between races and between gays was debatable.

You said that "I think that is where we are headed if people equate sexual orientation with race -- a debatable equation."

Now if you were meaning that in terms of marriage there may be more of a debate. But I took that to mean saying sexual orientation and race aren't the same thing in general, which to me goes back to the idea that people choose their orientation.

My stance is based on race and orientation both being non choices and that is not up for debate, perhaps you were just referring to marriage, which wasn't clear.

I just meant in the context of marriage.

[Diehard Ute]

I just meant in the context of marriage.

Then debate away my friend.

[Rocker Ute]

I've got my opinions on this, but growing up my family felt an incessant need to argue both sides of the argument for arguments sake. So here goes:

We've just talked about one instance where a professional person has moral or personal reservations, there are likely many more. For example:

You are a fertility doctor and Warren Jeff's protege walks in with three women just a day north of 18 and they request that you inseminate each of them (er... the women). You see no signs of abuse or coercion of these women, and no material reason to believe that the children as a result of this procedure will be harmed physically or mentally. However, familiar with his clan and being opposed to polygamy in general you have reservations about performing the procedure. Should you be required to perform the procedure, particularly if you could refer them, at no inconvenience to them, to another doctor in your office who holds no such reservations?

On another note - and this isn't me trying to justify bigotry - but I personally would prefer to know if someone harbored bad feelings towards me or what I was doing rather than force them to do business with me, or worse a medical procedure. I'd prefer to not give them my business and be referred to someone who is motivated to do their very best, or at least not harbor reservations that may affect their thinking and performance for me.

Since this board is lousy (I'm kidding) with attorneys, have any of you declined a client for personal or moral reasons? What about if there was a conflict of interest? Could it be considered a conflict of interest to require a doctor to perform a procedure against his wishes, particularly one that isn't life threatening?

[tooblue]

You are probably right. I mean I bet the amount of unwed mothers in America will increase a lot when Gays can marry in America.

There has been a precipitous drop in marriages period. Which means the amount of unwed mothers in Canada has increased ... along with an increase in unwed fathers, and a decrease in good people regardless their sexuality choosing to have children. And the correlative effect is: higher taxes to pay for more social programs and the unhealthy evolution of the nanny state. It is what it is. I am living in YOUR future.

[tooblue]

Can I Leave Home?
http://jfcy1.blogspot.ca/2012/11/can-i-leave-home.html


The law and your rights at home, work, and school

http://kidshelpphone.ca/Teens/InfoBooth/Money-jobs-laws/Laws/The-law-and-your-rights-at-home-work-and-school.aspx


Leaving school-aged children home alone could become illegal if court convicts Winnipeg mother

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/21/manitoba-court-case-could-lead-to-canadian-legal-ban-on-school-aged-children-staying-home-alone/#__federated=1

And in the US:


Are you considering emancipation? Emancipation is a legal process that grants teenagers independence from their parents or guardians.
http://www.wikihow.com/Get-Emancipated-as-a-Teen


Maryland family under investigation for letting their kids walk home alone
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/20/living/feat-md-free-range-parents-under-attack/

[tooblue]

Then debate away my friend.

Unfortunately, as LA has previously eluded to, the debate is done. He or any one who thinks like he does is a bigot. That is how this will play out in the US. It's inevitable. There is no going back.

[tooblue]

the problem is that any bigot can conjure up a sincerely held religious belief. Can you refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple? Or rent an apartment? Once you enter the marketplace, you should not be allowed to discriminate. Religious institutions and their representatives should be exempt on first amendment grounds, i.e., not performing same sex services, but if you are offering economic services (including medical) you have to treat everybody the same. Otherwise the loophole swallows the rule. You only enforce non-discrimination laws against people who dont want to abide by them for whatever reason.

Therefore, a doctor can be compelled to perform an abortion regardless, his or her convictions.

[concerned]

Therefore, a doctor can be compelled to perform an abortion regardless, his or her convictions.


No. He or she cant perform abortions for some and not oihers based on status. He or she can stay out of the procedure altogether, obviously.

[tooblue]

No. He or she cant perform abortions for some and not oihers based on status. He or she can stay out of the procedure altogether, obviously.

And therefore his or her right to pursue medicine as a life career choice is prohibited then. I just want to make that clear.

[Applejack]

And therefore his or her right to pursue medicine as a life career choice is prohibited then. I just want to make that clear.

Lol, toolblue is killing this thread, as usual. keep fighting the good fight, so that all those aspiring abortion docs don't have their dreams shattered by gay marriage.

I never thought traditional marriage fans would be standing arm in arm with those poor abortion doctors, demanding the right to abort fetuses according to the dictates of their conscience.

Really, really amazing work, toolblue.

[concerned]

And therefore his or her right to pursue medicine as a life career choice is prohibited then. I just want to make that clear.

What? that is quite a non-sequiter. it doesnt even make any sense at all. He or she can practice medicine by performing abortions or not.

[mUUser]

Our children's children will look at at our generation and shake their heads at our bigotry for homosexuals, just as we look back at our grandparents with disgust for their racism.

[tooblue]

What? that is quite a non-sequiter. it doesnt even make any sense at all. He or she can practice medicine by performing abortions or not.

How do you practice medicine by not performing an abortion if that is a fundamental aspect of the type of medicine you were trained to practice? I can understand not performing the abortion based purely on well informed medical opinion—to the benefit of the patient(s). But, we seem to agree that a moral objection is not sufficient reasoning to not performing the abortion. If I train to be a doctor and an abortion procedure is an essential part of that training then I should be prepared to perform abortions, regardless my convictions. It's insufficient to suggest I just don't perform the procedure because there is always some one else who will ... that's the non-sequiter here.

[tooblue]

So it stands to reason that if there is always someone else to perform an abortion, then there is always someone else to make the wedding cake or take the wedding photos.

[Solon]

Lol, toolblue is killing this thread, as usual. keep fighting the good fight, so that all those aspiring abortion docs don't have their dreams shattered by gay marriage.

I never thought traditional marriage fans would be standing arm in arm with those poor abortion doctors, demanding the right to abort fetuses according to the dictates of their conscience.

Really, really amazing work, toolblue.

I think tooblue's next allies will be the poor folks of Iran & Pakistan & Niger & Russia & elsewhere who are upset that Charlie Hebdo still dared to publish those cartoons of Muhammad last week.

Their religious freedom is being compromised by Charlie Hebdo!

[concerned]

How do you practice medicine by not performing an abortion if that is a fundamental aspect of the type of medicine you were trained to practice? I can understand not performing the abortion based purely on well informed medical opinion—to the benefit of the patient(s). But, we seem to agree that a moral objection is not insufficient reasoning to not performing the abortion. If I train to be a doctor and an abortion procedure is an essential part of that training then I should be prepared to perform abortions, regardless my convictions. It's insufficient to suggest I just don't perform the procedure because there is always some one else who will ... that's the non-sequiter here.

That is not how medicine works, so give it up already. BTW, what have abortions got to do with gay marriage? It is pretty hard for a gay married couple of either gender to get pregnant by accident on a drunken Saturday night, they have to plan it, as Posner pointed out in his 7th Circuit decision. If a doctor performs abortions, he or she should not be able to refuse to perform them solely because the patient is gay, whether married or not.

[UTEopia]

I'm beyond debating this issue at this point. Do you think the church should have gone farther? I'm really just curious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not sure what to make of this press conference. On its face, it seemed like an effort was being made to support non-discrimination of LGBT. However, the more I listen, the more confused I become. If you read the 4 main principals listed by Elder Oaks, it appears that they are not really advocating non-discrimination.
"1. We claim for everyone the God-given and Constitutional right to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience, without harming the health or safety of others.
2. We acknowledge that the same freedom of conscience must apply to men and women everywhere to follow the religious faith of their choice, or none at all if they so choose.
3. We believe laws ought to be framed to achieve a balance in protecting the freedoms of all people while respecting those with differing values.
4. We reject persecution and retaliation of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief, economic circumstances or differences in gender or sexual orientation.”

No. 1 clearly takes the position that constitutional protection of religious freedom trumps everything, including other constitutional and legal protections, unless it harms the health and safety of others.

No. 4 stops short of rejecting discrimination.

Personally, I don't believe that there is anything in my religious practice of mormonism that requires or encourages me to discriminate against any person. However, I know too many who will read this to mean that because I believe God opposes LGBT conduct it is my religious obligation to oppose all efforts to legitimize LGBT conduct. More disturbing is the argument that those expressing anti-LGBT opinions should be protected from the consequences of such expressions. If a shopowner refused to sell to Mormons, should I be prohibited from picketing that business owner? No. If a CEO of a large public corporation expresses anti-Mormon opinions should I refrain from seeking to have that person removed? No.

Unfortunately, I don't believe the church did anything to address the issue of discrimination and may in fact have tacitly supported the position that if your actions are based on religious belief you should be allowed to discriminate so long is it doesn't harm the health or safety of others.

[tooblue]

That is not how medicine works, so give it up already. BTW, what have abortions got to do with gay marriage? It is pretty hard for a gay married couple of either gender to get pregnant by accident on a drunken Saturday night, they have to plan it, as Posner pointed out in his 7th Circuit decision. If a doctor performs abortions, he or she should not be able to refuse to perform them solely because the patient is gay, whether married or not.

I'm not the one who brought up abortions versus inseminations. I'm just following the logic of the thread that suggests there could be accommodations for moral objections on important social issues. But, based upon your post above, you (and the decision you cite) are saying that personal moral conviction is not sufficient grounds to refuse to perform a procedure such as abortion. Therefore the non-sequiter here is the idea that there is always someone else who can perform the abortion.

[tooblue]

I think tooblue's next allies will be the poor folks of Iran & Pakistan & Niger & Russia & elsewhere who are upset that Charlie Hebdo still dared to publish those cartoons of Muhammad last week.

Their religious freedom is being compromised by Charlie Hebdo!

I have worked with an artist from Pakistan. She tells a very moving story of being in a cafe with family and friends on 911-912. When the attacks were reported, the cafe—her family and friends included—erupted with cheers of elation. There were celebrations in the streets and in homes. She wasn't making an argument for or against the terrorist attacks or the celebrations. Just pointing out that there are always many perspectives to consider concerning controversial, social and moral issues. It's easy to say you are on the right side of history, when in fact you may only be on the right side of short-sighted thinking.

[tooblue]

Lol, toolblue is killing this thread, as usual. keep fighting the good fight, so that all those aspiring abortion docs don't have their dreams shattered by gay marriage.

I never thought traditional marriage fans would be standing arm in arm with those poor abortion doctors, demanding the right to abort fetuses according to the dictates of their conscience.

Really, really amazing work, toolblue.

To be fair Applejack, I'm not a caricature, except maybe in your mind. You assume I am on one side versus another (making an ass out of you and me: tee hee). But, maybe I've already lived the debate and been a first hand witness to how it evolves and what if any consequences (not making judgment of good or bad) follow.

Did you survive the storm of the century?

[Solon]

I have worked with an artist from Pakistan. She tells a very moving story of being in a cafe with family and friends on 911-912. When the attacks were reported, the cafe—her family and friends included—erupted with cheers of elation. There were celebrations in the streets and in homes. She wasn't making an argument for or against the terrorist attacks or the celebrations. Just pointing out that there are always many perspectives to consider concerning controversial, social and moral issues. It's easy to say you are on the right side of history, when in fact you may only be on the right side of short-sighted thinking.

what about this story is "moving?"
cheering at the news of the deaths of innocent civilians is a lot of things, but "moving" is not a descriptor that I would have anticipated. I really can think of no scenario where that response would be ethically justified.

extremist views can really mess people up.
this story doesn't really help the case for religious freedom.
It just reminds people how religion in the wrong hands can oppress as well as any tyrant or dictator

[tooblue]

what about this story is "moving?"
cheering at the news of the deaths of innocent civilians is a lot of things, but "moving" is not a descriptor that I would have anticipated. I really can think of no scenario where that response would be ethically justified.

extremist views can really mess people up.
this story doesn't really help the case for religious freedom.
It just reminds people how religion in the wrong hands can oppress as well as any tyrant or dictator

She is not religious. She certainly is not an extremist. She did not cheer. She merely recounted the anecdote in response to a larger discussion about terrorism and it was deeply "moving" because she was describing the emotions of real people. People which you so easily dismissed as "Pakistani" or "Iraqi," or as extremist. Real people who feel marginalized and helpless—pawns, pitted in a battle of ideologies between the extremists within their own country and the extremists without who demonize their faith and traditions ... and summarily deem their response to 911 as unethically justifiable.

[Applejack]

To be fair Applejack, I'm not a caricature, except maybe in your mind. You assume I am on one side versus another (making an ass out of you and me: tee hee). But, maybe I've already lived the debate and been a first hand witness to how it evolves and what if any consequences (not making judgment of good or bad) follow.

Did you survive the storm of the century?

Are you undecided on gay marriage? That is certainly surprising. Those poor abortion doctors need people like you to fight for their right to abort only those fetuses for which they feel morally justified in aborting. It would be a shame to lose such advocates.

And we did survive the blizzard! I even had to shovel/broom my walks.

[Rocker Ute]

Are you undecided on gay marriage? That is certainly surprising. Those poor abortion doctors need people like you to fight for their right to abort only those fetuses for which they feel morally justified in aborting. It would be a shame to lose such advocates.

And we did survive the blizzard! I even had to shovel/broom my walks.

Off-topic. I'm watching Bottlerocket right now.

[tooblue]

She is not religious. She certainly is not an extremist. She did not cheer. She merely recounted the anecdote in response to a larger discussion about terrorism and it was deeply "moving" because she was describing the emotions of real people. People which you so easily dismissed as "Pakistani" or "Iraqi," or as extremist. Real people who feel marginalized and helpless—pawns, pitted in a battle of ideologies between the extremists within their own country and the extremists without who demonize their faith and traditions ... and summarily deem their response to 911 as unethically justifiable.

Solon: have you figure out yet why they cheered? It wasn't due to extremism or desires for revenge. It wasn't for the death of thousands of innocent Americans. They cheered because maybe now, Americans would truly understand what it means to be terrorized. Maybe now Americans would be more empathetic.

Guess that was only a fools hope.

[tooblue]

Are you undecided on gay marriage? That is certainly surprising. Those poor abortion doctors need people like you to fight for their right to abort only those fetuses for which they feel morally justified in aborting. It would be a shame to lose such advocates.

And we did survive the blizzard! I even had to shovel/broom my walks.

It's not me that's undecided on the issue. It's the others in the thread that introduced the arguments about abortion doctors. Your questions are best directed at them. They seem confused, save concerned. He and I appear to be in agreement.

You need sons. Then you wouldn't have to do it yourself ;-)

[LA Ute]

I used the abortion example because it involves a right on one side and often, on the other, a religiously-based moral objection. It's not a perfect example. This is an unrewarding discussion, guys. Very little is actually being discussed by most here.

Look, the LDS Church is not going to say gay behavior is acceptable and it's not going to start marrying gays to each other, inside or outside its temples. Given the direction society is going on the gay marriage issue, the church is just trying to preserve a space for itself and is saying, "We're going to teach kindness and charity and against persecution of anyone. We ask you to respect our religious beliefs also." What else do you guys think they should do?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tooblue]

I used the abortion example because it involves a right on one side and often, on the other, a religiously-based moral objection. It's not a perfect example. This is an unrewarding discussion, guys. Very little is actually being discussed by most here.

Look, the LDS Church is not going to say gay behavior is acceptable and it's not going to start marrying gays to each other, inside or outside its temples. Given the direction society is going on the gay marriage issue, the church is just trying to preserve a space for itself and is saying, "We're going to teach kindness and charity and against persecution of anyone. We ask you to respect our religious beliefs also." What else do you guys think they should do?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not a perfect example. The problem is those who initially contested your ideas haven't considered the full ramifications of their position on that particular subject or on this one. Why should they? They are supposedly on the right side of history, and empathy of any kind is in short supply, so why bother? It's just easier to label someone a bigot or extremist and expect them to go away.

EDIT: Before it's pointed out, yes I am aware of the irony in calls for empathy. Especially considering the churches past ... Because, the church or any one of us can only ever be defined by our history.

[#1 Utefan]

Our children's children will look at at our generation and shake their heads at our bigotry for homosexuals, just as we look back at our grandparents with disgust for their racism.


Or not. Outside of the government officially sanctioning same sex marriage, what discrimination exists that prevent gay people from finding a good job, getting ahead in the workplace, living where they want to live, riding public transportation, etc, etc.?

The notion that the LGBT community's plight to legalize gay marriage is comparable to what American blacks faced as it pertains to civil rights is just going too far IMHO. I know that has been the rallying cry but if I were African American and had had to endure what many had to throughout the nations pre-civil rights history, I think I might find it somewhat off putting that this issue is being sold as the equivalent of that longstanding plight & issue.

I have no doubt some that are heavily invested in this debate will disagree but that is how I see it. Personally, I have grown weary of the entire discussion and debate. It is now in the Supreme Courts hands and will be decided soon enough regardless of where any of us fall on the issue.

[UTEopia]

I used the abortion example because it involves a right on one side and often, on the other, a religiously-based moral objection. It's not a perfect example. This is an unrewarding discussion, guys. Very little is actually being discussed by most here.

Look, the LDS Church is not going to say gay behavior is acceptable and it's not going to start marrying gays to each other, inside or outside its temples. Given the direction society is going on the gay marriage issue, the church is just trying to preserve a space for itself and is saying, "We're going to teach kindness and charity and against persecution of anyone. We ask you to respect our religious beliefs also." What else do you guys think they should do? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I expect the LDS Church to say that it is inconsistent with LDS Church doctrine for the Church or its members to discriminate against any person based on color, creed, religion, sexual orientation when the Church or its members are engaged in commercial activities not directly related to the operation of the Church. As such, I would expect Church owned businesses such as KSL to not engage in discrimination. I would expect the Church would teach Bishop Joe that he should not discriminate in the people he rents his apartments to. I would expect the Church to teach Sister Dr. Jane to not discriminate in providing medical services. I would expect that the Church would teach members to include Bill and Jim, their gay neighbors, in neighborhood functions where all neighbors are invited. I would expect the Church to promote inviting the boy of Jane and Nancy, their lesbian neighbors, to participate in cub scouts and other similar activities where non-members are typically invited.

I believe the Church's statement has fallen woefully short of doing any of the things I have mentioned and might have tacitly suggested that it is okay for the Church and its members to discriminate so long as it is based on a religious belief.

As with all beliefs and opinions, whether religious or not, I do not believe that people or institutions can reasonably expect to be immune from reasonable opposition to the expression of such beliefs. What is reasonable opposition? Personally, I believe that boycotting and picketing businesses are legitimate forms of reasonable opposition. The Church apparently believes that no opposition to the expression of such beliefs is appropriate.

[Two Utes]

I expect the LDS Church to say that it is inconsistent with LDS Church doctrine for the Church or its members to discriminate against any person based on color, creed, religion, sexual orientation when the Church or its members are engaged in commercial activities not directly related to the operation of the Church. As such, I would expect Church owned businesses such as KSL to not engage in discrimination. I would expect the Church would teach Bishop Joe that he should not discriminate in the people he rents his apartments to. I would expect the Church to teach Sister Dr. Jane to not discriminate in providing medical services. I would expect that the Church would teach members to include Bill and Jim, their gay neighbors, in neighborhood functions where all neighbors are invited. I would expect the Church to promote inviting the boy of Jane and Nancy, their lesbian neighbors, to participate in cub scouts and other similar activities where non-members are typically invited.

I believe the Church's statement has fallen woefully short of doing any of the things I have mentioned and might have tacitly suggested that it is okay for the Church and its members to discriminate so long as it is based on a religious belief.

As with all beliefs and opinions, whether religious or not, I do not believe that people or institutions can reasonably expect to be immune from reasonable opposition to the expression of such beliefs. What is reasonable opposition? Personally, I believe that boycotting and picketing businesses are legitimate forms of reasonable opposition. The Church apparently believes that no opposition to the expression of such beliefs is appropriate.

This is an excellent analysis. The press conference was a huge fail.

[Two Utes]

Diehard, you know me personally but we've never discussed issues like this one. I don't live in a bubble. I've lived in L.A. for 32 years and have practiced law in large law firms that entire time. I've worked in the entertainment industry and so has my wife. I have a gay colleague right now who works with me every day. I fought for the firm to hire because she is such an excellent lawyer. She and her partner have been to my home for parties. She and I have agreed to disagree on these issues. My law firm receives awards every year for its approach to LGBT issues. We have probably a dozen gay attorneys in the firm in various offices. Two of them are my friends. I just finished a term on my firm's executive committee. So please stop.

You nailed it. This is exactly why the church's position should be so troubling to you. You love your religion and that is the ONLY reason you are defending the church's position. I have no doubt that you harbor no ill-will towards the gay community. But your love and belief of your religion is forcing you to defend a position that is ultimately going to marginalize you (and, even moreso, your children).

I find that absolutely unacceptable as I think you are a great guy. But if you are going to allow them to marginalize you, then it is your responsibility. WTF are they doing to their members? And do they even care? They might once it really affects their pocket book.

[concerned]

You nailed it. This is exactly why the church's position should be so troubling to you. You love your religion and that is the ONLY reason you are defending the church's position. I have no doubt that you harbor no ill-will towards the gay community. But your love and belief of your religion is forcing you to defend a position that is ultimately going to marginalize you (and, even moreso, your children).

I find that absolutely unacceptable as I think you are a great guy. But if you are going to allow them to marginalize you, then it is your responsibility. WTF are they doing to their members? And do they even care? They might once it really affects their pocket book.

LA Ute--exactly what are you saying--that you would not discriminate but that someone else in your law firm should have the right to do so because of a sincerely held religious belief?

[LA Ute]

LA Ute--exactly what are you saying--that you would not discriminate but that someone else in your law firm should have the right to do so because of a sincerely held religious belief?

I'm afraid I don't understand your question.

[concerned]

I'm afraid I don't understand your question.

Seems pretty straigtforward to me.

[tooblue]

I expect the LDS Church to say that it is inconsistent with LDS Church doctrine for the Church or its members to discriminate against any person based on color, creed, religion, sexual orientation when the Church or its members are engaged in commercial activities not directly related to the operation of the Church. As such, I would expect Church owned businesses such as KSL to not engage in discrimination. I would expect the Church would teach Bishop Joe that he should not discriminate in the people he rents his apartments to. I would expect the Church to teach Sister Dr. Jane to not discriminate in providing medical services. I would expect that the Church would teach members to include Bill and Jim, their gay neighbors, in neighborhood functions where all neighbors are invited. I would expect the Church to promote inviting the boy of Jane and Nancy, their lesbian neighbors, to participate in cub scouts and other similar activities where non-members are typically invited.

I believe the Church's statement has fallen woefully short of doing any of the things I have mentioned and might have tacitly suggested that it is okay for the Church and its members to discriminate so long as it is based on a religious belief.

As with all beliefs and opinions, whether religious or not, I do not believe that people or institutions can reasonably expect to be immune from reasonable opposition to the expression of such beliefs. What is reasonable opposition? Personally, I believe that boycotting and picketing businesses are legitimate forms of reasonable opposition. The Church apparently believes that no opposition to the expression of such beliefs is appropriate.

The purpose of the press conference was for the Church to openly support legislation that would secure the rights of the LGBT community, in the State of Utah, in all of the above stated scenarios. Ergo, the church has now directly taught it's members what you suggest be taught to Bishop Joe. It's an indisputable matter of record. It's also a continuation of the implied teaching that has already been going on for several years through a variety of channels. These are also indisputable matters of record which exist in the form of Conference talks and First Presidency letters read from the pulpit.

Secondarily, and in conjunction with the direct support of the legislation, the Church would be remiss if it did not also assert support for the constitutionally guaranteed right to free exercise of religion. In conjunction with that assertion comes the tacit understanding that reasonable opposition could include boycotting and picketing, which the church has endured since it's inception.

[LA Ute]

Seems pretty straigtforward to me.

Looking at this more carefully I think I understand the question. (I was doing a fly-by of the board earlier.) I am in an airport now but promise to respond further later.

[UTEopia]

The purpose of the press conference was for the Church to openly support legislation that would secure the rights of the LGBT community, in the State of Utah, in all of the above stated scenarios. Ergo, the church has now directly taught it's members what you suggest be taught to Bishop Joe. It's an indisputable matter of record. It's also a continuation of the implied teaching that has already been going on for several years through a variety of channels. These are also indisputable matters of record which exist in the form of Conference talks and First Presidency letters read from the pulpit.

Secondarily, and in conjunction with the direct support of the legislation, the Church would be remiss if it did not also assert support for the constitutionally guaranteed right to free exercise of religion. In conjunction with that assertion comes the tacit understanding that reasonable opposition could include boycotting and picketing, which the church has endured since it's inception.

This may be clear to you from the press conference, but it is not clear to me and it appears to not be clear to many others commenting on the subject.

[tooblue]

This may be clear to you from the press conference, but it is not clear to me and it appears to not be clear to many others commenting on the subject.

OK, fair to a degree. But here is a list of individuals or organizations for whom the Press Conference was clear, and who went on record with their actual names to state such:



Rep. Brian King, D-Salt Lake City, House minority leader
Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams, Democrat
Sutherland Institute, conservative Salt Lake City-based think tank
Gayle Ruzicka, president of the Utah Eagle Forum
Sen. Jim Dabakis, D-Salt Lake City
Utah Democratic Party Chairman Peter Corroon
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
Spencer W. Clark, executive director of Mormons for Equality
Mayor Ralph Becker, Democrat
Mitch Mayne, board member of Mormons for Equality
Mormons Building Bridges, an outreach group between the LDS and LGBT communities
Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission


http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2107737-155/reaction-to-lds-church-announcement-on

I think's it's disingenuous to suggest a lack of clarity on the purpose of the News Conference. Clarity isn't the problem.

[Solon]

Solon: have you figure out yet why they cheered? It wasn't due to extremism or desires for revenge. It wasn't for the death of thousands of innocent Americans. They cheered because maybe now, Americans would truly understand what it means to be terrorized. Maybe now Americans would be more empathetic.

Guess that was only a fools hope.

Yeah, because America had terrorized Pakistan so much before 2001. Sanctions, i guess, when Pakistan's gov't ramped up its nuclear program, but hardly terrorism.

Maybe the real reason they cheered was because a crazy version of a respectable religion f***ed them up.

Getting this discussion back on track: are you really going to advocate for a morally relativistic approach to all of the world's problems? Aren't human rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) non-negotiable?
How can you possibly cast stones at gay marriage, then?

[tooblue]

Yeah, because America had terrorized Pakistan so much before 2001. Sanctions, i guess, when Pakistan's gov't ramped up its nuclear program, but hardly terrorism.

Maybe the real reason they cheered was because a crazy version of a respectable religion f***ed them up.

Getting this discussion back on track: are you really going to advocate for a morally relativistic approach to all of the world's problems? Aren't human rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) non-negotiable?
How can you possibly cast stones at gay marriage, then?

To many rational, peace loving Pakistani's or Iraqis' you are an extremist. Failure to recognize this basic truth is a failure to empathize. Yes, US foreign policy has terrorized much of the world for a long time. The US is the ONLY nation to have used nuclear weapons against an enemy. The same justifiable ethics that paved the way for that decision has allowed modern US administrations the hubris to justify torture of enemy combatants. It's that same hubris that justifies the current administrations clandestine drone operations in sovereign nations, violating international law. So, clearly, according to the American school of ethics, human rights are negotiable, especially if you are on the right side of history.

Furthermore, I am not casting stones at gay marriage. I am casting stones at the arguments that aim to belittle individuals or an institution and summarily codify them as bigoted.

[Solon]

To many rational, peace loving Pakistani's or Iraqis' you are an extremist. Failure to recognize this basic truth is a failure to empathize. Yes, US foreign policy has terrorized much of the world for a long time. The US is the ONLY nation to have used nuclear weapons against an enemy. The same justifiable ethics that paved the way for that decision has allowed modern US administrations the hubris to justify torture of enemy combatants. It's that same hubris that justifies the current administrations clandestine drone operations in sovereign nations, violating international law. So, clearly, according to the American school of ethics, human rights are negotiable, especially if you are on the right side of history.

Furthermore, I am not casting stones at gay marriage. I am casting stones at the arguments that aim to belittle individuals or an institution and summarily codify them as bigoted.

So essentially you are making the argument that "might makes right"? (A lousy argument, but seemingly the one you are making -that different peoples construct their own moralities as they can, at the expense of those who can't)

Then you have no leg to stand on, as a cultural minority in North America, in demanding these so-called religious freedoms to avoid granting rights/privileges/services to gay people. The majority is going to take those claimed "rights" from you, and you can go complain about your lost religious freedoms with your friends in Boko Haram.

the fact is, there are in fact some absolutes in the world. Justice, rule of law, the right to life, etc. are among them. We don't always achieve them, but we should always try. Spinning out this relativist nonsense is the kind of crap I expect from a freshman, not from someone like you who is well educated. The world needs to speak out against the oppression that goes on under the guise of religious liberty, whether it is female circumcision, Sati, prohibiting girls from getting education, or whatever.

you're just pissed because there is no really good argument for forcing the public to be nice to people who espouse unpopular religious beliefs.

[tooblue]

So essentially you are making the argument that "might makes right"? (A lousy argument, but seemingly the one you are making -that different peoples construct their own moralities as they can, at the expense of those who can't)

Then you have no leg to stand on, as a cultural minority in North America, in demanding these so-called religious freedoms to avoid granting rights/privileges/services to gay people. The majority is going to take those claimed "rights" from you, and you can go complain about your lost religious freedoms with your friends in Boko Haram.

the fact is, there are in fact some absolutes in the world. Justice, rule of law, the right to life, etc. are among them. We don't always achieve them, but we should always try. Spinning out this relativist nonsense is the kind of crap I expect from a freshman, not from someone like you who is well educated. The world needs to speak out against the oppression that goes on under the guise of religious liberty, whether it is female circumcision, Sati, prohibiting girls from getting education, or whatever.

you're just pissed because there is no really good argument for forcing the public to be nice to people who espouse unpopular religious beliefs.

I am not being the moral relativist here. You and many posters here are. The only absolute is you summarily dismissed or "orientalized" entire populations of humans with comments that are ignorant at best and racist at worst. Something I didn't expect from you. Which is extremely disappointing. I'm not pissed. It's clear that you are though. This isn't about good arguments for forcing "a" public to be nice. This should be about respectful and dignified dialogue. Unfortunately, you continue to vomit derision in place of thoughtful commentary. You have made assumptions about my position on all subjects because its easy and requires little thought. I hope this new way of looking at the world serves you well.

[Solon]

I am not being the moral relativist here. You and many posters here are. The only absolute is you summarily dismissed or "orientalized" entire populations of humans with comments that are ignorant at best and racist at worst. Something I didn't expect from you. Which is extremely disappointing. I'm not pissed. It's clear that you are though. This isn't about good arguments for forcing "a" public to be nice. This should be about respectful and dignified dialogue. Unfortunately, you continue to vomit derision in place of thoughtful commentary. You have made assumptions about my position on all subjects because its easy and requires little thought. I hope this new way of looking at the world serves you well.

LOL.
Now you just sound ridiculous.
When in doubt, scream "racist!"

I am all about encouraging respectful dialogue, especially with people of religious faith.
I am also all about protecting people's freedom-of-speech rights to be less-than-respectful if they should so choose. If their lack of respect turns into a crime, I would expect law enforcement to act accordingly.

I'm done interacting with you tooblue. Good luck with all of that.

[tooblue]

LOL.
Now you just sound ridiculous.
When in doubt, scream "racist!"

I am all about encouraging respectful dialogue, especially with people of religious faith.
I am also all about protecting people's freedom-of-speech rights to be less-than-respectful if they should so choose. If their lack of respect turns into a crime, I would expect law enforcement to act accordingly.

I'm done interacting with you tooblue. Good luck with all of that.

And the difference between "racist" and "bigot" is? You're right. It is over ... before it even began.

[Two Utes]

LOL.
Now you just sound ridiculous.
When in doubt, scream "racist!"

I am all about encouraging respectful dialogue, especially with people of religious faith.
I am also all about protecting people's freedom-of-speech rights to be less-than-respectful if they should so choose. If their lack of respect turns into a crime, I would expect law enforcement to act accordingly.

I'm done interacting with you tooblue. Good luck with all of that.

Can't get the cartoon to come up.

[tooblue]

Can't get the cartoon to come up.

You mean this one:

http://41.media.tumblr.com/a23b37a7765d2a4c731fb3e9934632cb/tumblr_ngdzcmY3UN1qkc62lo1_1280.jpg

[LA Ute]

OK, I'm now aboard my luxurious Southwest Airlines flight heading down the left coast and will comment further. I know you've all been waiting anxiously to see what pearls of wisdom I, who apparently have had thrust upon me the mantle of Defender of the Faith, will spread.

I don't have very many, sadly. In response to UTEopia, I think all the statements that he wishes the church would make are worthy and I'd follow them myself, but, but....I don't think it's realistic for the church to get into that level of detail in guiding members' personal conduct on a societal issue. I know some of you will scoff at that idea, but I don't think the church has done that on any similar issue. Yes, they've taken positions on what they consider to be moral issues (e.g., the ERA, parimutuel betting, public lotteries, liquor laws, and the infamous Prop 8) but that's different from giving detailed instruction on multiple subissues that will come up from day to day. I just don't see it. Their approach overwhelmingly has always been to "teach correct principles and let [members] govern themselves."

I agree with you about picketing and such. Open discourse in the public square. Notably, many of those on the opposite side of this issue from me don't seem to believe in that. They'd rather silence opposing voices, perhaps by shouting them down literally or figuratively or by otherwise inhibiting others' speech or expression.

This Deseret New interview of Elders Christofferson and Oaks is an example of teaching correct principles. They are both very smart and articulate men (both former Supreme Court judicial clerks and very distinguished in their pre-GA lives). I liked this from the interview:


"Religious conscience is real," Elder Christofferson said, "and though some may or may not have it doesn't detract or take away from the fact that it's a very critical part of many peoples' lives.

"In general, the idea of saying 'this is just a license to discriminate' or 'you're seeking a license to discriminate' is a way of avoiding the hard work of finding a way to balance competing values that are both critically important. Frankly, what we're saying is, we gotta do the hard work. We can't just throw out a slogan and get away with that. It's not good enough."
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865620730/LDS-leaders-respond-to-reaction-over-their-call-to-balance-gay-religious-rights.html

A perfect expression of what I've tried to say here, but poorly.

Concerned, I don't think it's OK for my partners (to use your example) to "discriminate," assuming you mean the word in the legal sense. But I do think people should be able to make decisions about their personal conduct and how they live their lives that are consistent with that religious conscience mentioned above. We're having a huge debate in this country right now about what boundaries we should set on exercising that right. It's a very important debate and the LDS Church is trying hard to make its voice heard in it.

[Solon]

LA - do you think the LDS church will/should come out with a stronger statement about cases when its members support gay marriage?

My wife (a devout LDS) is convinced that the leadership of the church would have no problem with her supporting gay marriage as a political position, not a religious one (which she does; she doesn't believe the church needs to start marrying gay people, although I assume that she would be in favor of that).

I have told her that I'm not so sure, but I do agree that someone in her shoes is very unlikely to receive any kind of correction or rebuke, unless it's from a local bishop or whatever, and even then I mostly doubt it.

Is there room in the LDS Church for someone to disagree with the officially established viewpoint on this, yet still remain in good standing?
Certainly, there's room in an individual's local church (lower-case 'c'), but with regards to The Church, I'm not so sure.

Ma'ake's initial post in this thread opens the door to a change in doctrinal position, but is there a way for a devout member to support gay marriage under the current situation?

The last General Conference had some fairly generalized reminders that "there is no middle ground in that contest [between truth and error]" (http://There is no middle ground in that contest.) and "The scornful often accuse prophets of not living in the 21st century or of being bigoted. They attempt to persuade or even pressure the Church into lowering God’s standards (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/which-way-do-you-face?lang=eng), but these don't exactly have the force of "if you support gay marriage, you are an opponent of The Church and committing an act of disobedience or even apostasy."

(and, before it comes up, the Dehlin circumstance is an outlier; I'm interested in an ordinary, reasonably devout, non-podcasting member)

So, to re-state, is there a way for a devout member to support gay marriage under current circumstances?

[Solon]

I know you aren't asking me, but the answer seems to be a clear yes. I think we all know many Mormons "in good standing" who support gay marriage. Many on this board fit that description if I'm not mistaken.

I feel like there's a subtlety in your question that I am missing. I'm not sure there is a difference between being in good standing with a ward and with the Church. Maybe if you explain the difference, I will understand the question better.

Oh, of course I was asking you too. Please, everyone but tooblue should feel free to chime in.

I believe that there is a certain amount of "slippage" between what The Church in SLC directs and what individual congregations will tolerate. Obviously, geography and other factors weigh in, but I've attended some very conservative wards and some very progressive ones (relatively speaking). The wiggle-room in here seems to to be a pretty interesting phenomenon about which rules congregations decide that they're going to favor, and which rules seem more optional. The gay-marriage issue, though, is such a hot-button topic, that I wonder if it would do any good (or not) for a more firm directive on this. Essentially, my wife is thinking to herself, "the guys in SLC are wrong on this". Others in the ward are thinking, "Solon's old lady is an apostate on this." In addition, I suspect that the leadership in SLC would have a problem with her point-of-view and consider her to be believing incorrectly.

Somehow, she can square what she hears in General Conference & reads in Church Magazines with what she believes, hears, and teaches (she's a RS teacher) in the local ward.
I would like more insight into how that mindset is interpreted, both from hierarchical authorities and from other Mormons in other parts of the country (we live in a pretty Mormony place in Southern Utah, although not as exclusive as Jarid's neighborhood).

[#1 Utefan]

Seems pretty straigtforward to me.


I don't understand your question (or was it political commentary) either.

[#1 Utefan]

So essentially you are making the argument that "might makes right"? (A lousy argument, but seemingly the one you are making -that different peoples construct their own moralities as they can, at the expense of those who can't)

Then you have no leg to stand on, as a cultural minority in North America, in demanding these so-called religious freedoms to avoid granting rights/privileges/services to gay people. The majority is going to take those claimed "rights" from you, and you can go complain about your lost religious freedoms with your friends in Boko Haram.

the fact is, there are in fact some absolutes in the world. Justice, rule of law, the right to life, etc. are among them. We don't always achieve them, but we should always try. Spinning out this relativist nonsense is the kind of crap I expect from a freshman, not from someone like you who is well educated. The world needs to speak out against the oppression that goes on under the guise of religious liberty, whether it is female circumcision, Sati, prohibiting girls from getting education, or whatever.

you're just pissed because there is no really good argument for forcing the public to be nice to people who espouse unpopular religious beliefs.


Dude, get over yourself.

[Scratch]

I know you aren't asking me, but the answer seems to be a clear yes. I think we all know many Mormons "in good standing" who support gay marriage. Many on this board fit that description if I'm not mistaken.

I feel like there's a subtlety in your question that I am missing. I'm not sure there is a difference between being in good standing with a ward and with the Church. Maybe if you explain the difference, I will understand the question better.

I agree with sancho.

[tooblue]

Oh, of course I was asking you too. Please, everyone but tooblue should feel free to chime in.

I believe that there is a certain amount of "slippage" between what The Church in SLC directs and what individual congregations will tolerate. Obviously, geography and other factors weigh in, but I've attended some very conservative wards and some very progressive ones (relatively speaking). The wiggle-room in here seems to to be a pretty interesting phenomenon about which rules congregations decide that they're going to favor, and which rules seem more optional. The gay-marriage issue, though, is such a hot-button topic, that I wonder if it would do any good (or not) for a more firm directive on this. Essentially, my wife is thinking to herself, "the guys in SLC are wrong on this". Others in the ward are thinking, "Solon's old lady is an apostate on this." In addition, I suspect that the leadership in SLC would have a problem with her point-of-view and consider her to be believing incorrectly.

Somehow, she can square what she hears in General Conference & reads in Church Magazines with what she believes, hears, and teaches (she's a RS teacher) in the local ward.
I would like more insight into how that mindset is interpreted, both from hierarchical authorities and from other Mormons in other parts of the country (we live in a pretty Mormony place in Southern Utah, although not as exclusive as Jarid's neighborhood).

Interestingly, we received some good training in High Council meeting last night. The Church's press conference was the focus. Even though we have been doing so for more than 10 years—because gay marriage has been legal for that long—it was reinforced that members primary responsibility is to treat all persons with respect and Christ like love. To invite all to worship with us. The Lord expects nothing less. We must teach this to the Ward leaders we visit and to the youth of the church. And hope that our right to freedom of religious expression is upheld. It's a tenuous hope.

To be clear, putting my bombast aside, I am indifferent towards gay marriage. I always have been. I can see no good reason why homosexauls should not be allowed to get married in a society that has thoughtfully passed legislation to secure such rights. My concern has only ever been directed towards how that society will support marriage in general and the traditional family unit. Not too well, unfortunately, as priorities are misplaced and will continue to be misplaced. The focus is very different and that is a consequence. It is what is.

As for freedom of religious expression conflicts? Generally, there haven't been many. Except for Bar associations in several provinces vowing they would not recognized law degrees from Christian Trinity Law School in Alberta, which has an honour code nearly identical to BYU's. The Bar Association's actions where shot down by the Canadian supreme court recently (this time around).

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/30/chris-selley-those-opposed-to-twu-law-are-being-awfully-picky-about-which-civil-rights-they-believe-in/#__federated=1

As I've said: I am living in your future. Good luck.

[Applejack]

As for freedom of religious expression conflicts? Generally, there haven't been many. Except for Bar associations in several provinces vowing they would not recognized law degrees from Christian Trinity Law School in Alberta, which has an honour code nearly identical to BYU's. The Bar Associations actions where shot down by the Canadian supreme court recently (this time around).


This is perhaps the first good suggestion from this entire thread: legally ignore all BYU law degrees!

Thanks Canada!

[Applejack]

Oh, of course I was asking you too. Please, everyone but tooblue should feel free to chime in.

I believe that there is a certain amount of "slippage" between what The Church in SLC directs and what individual congregations will tolerate. Obviously, geography and other factors weigh in, but I've attended some very conservative wards and some very progressive ones (relatively speaking). The wiggle-room in here seems to to be a pretty interesting phenomenon about which rules congregations decide that they're going to favor, and which rules seem more optional. The gay-marriage issue, though, is such a hot-button topic, that I wonder if it would do any good (or not) for a more firm directive on this. Essentially, my wife is thinking to herself, "the guys in SLC are wrong on this". Others in the ward are thinking, "Solon's old lady is an apostate on this." In addition, I suspect that the leadership in SLC would have a problem with her point-of-view and consider her to be believing incorrectly.

Somehow, she can square what she hears in General Conference & reads in Church Magazines with what she believes, hears, and teaches (she's a RS teacher) in the local ward.
I would like more insight into how that mindset is interpreted, both from hierarchical authorities and from other Mormons in other parts of the country (we live in a pretty Mormony place in Southern Utah, although not as exclusive as Jarid's neighborhood).

I think there are two questions here:

1. Can you remain a member in good standing and support (openly) gay marriage? I think the answer, in most cases, is yes. The Church cracks down on podcasters and visible dissidents, but most members can go into a temple recommend interview and say "Bishop, I want to marry gays" and walk out with a recommend. Mileage may vary by ward, of course.
2. Can you be a fully believing member and support (openly) gay marriage? The answer to this one is much murkier. I am not a fully-believing member (whatever that may mean), so I'm not the best representative of this viewpoint. But while it is perhaps intellectually possible, it seems like a real stretch to believe 1000% in the prophetic claims of the church and still believe that the prophetic leaders have whiffed on gay marriage. But again, I'm not the best spokesman for that view.

[LA Ute]

LA - do you think the LDS church will/should come out with a stronger statement about cases when its members support gay marriage?

My wife (a devout LDS) is convinced that the leadership of the church would have no problem with her supporting gay marriage as a political position, not a religious one (which she does; she doesn't believe the church needs to start marrying gay people, although I assume that she would be in favor of that).

I have told her that I'm not so sure, but I do agree that someone in her shoes is very unlikely to receive any kind of correction or rebuke, unless it's from a local bishop or whatever, and even then I mostly doubt it.

Is there room in the LDS Church for someone to disagree with the officially established viewpoint on this, yet still remain in good standing?
Certainly, there's room in an individual's local church (lower-case 'c'), but with regards to The Church, I'm not so sure.

Ma'ake's initial post in this thread opens the door to a change in doctrinal position, but is there a way for a devout member to support gay marriage under the current situation?

The last General Conference had some fairly generalized reminders that "there is no middle ground in that contest " (http://There is no middle ground in that contest.) and "The scornful often accuse prophets of not living in the 21st century or of being bigoted. They attempt to persuade or even pressure the Church into lowering God’s standards (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/which-way-do-you-face?lang=eng), but these don't exactly have the force of "if you support gay marriage, you are an opponent of The Church and committing an act of disobedience or even apostasy."

(and, before it comes up, the Dehlin circumstance is an outlier; I'm interested in an ordinary, reasonably devout, non-podcasting member)

[B]So, to re-state, is there a way for a devout member to support gay marriage under current circumstances?

I'll answer autobigraphically. In my experience, yes. The church treats gay marriage as a political issue, and there are people in my ward and stake who support gay marriage and have significant callings. But they are as quiet about their views on that issue as they are about politics generally. I don't really know who's a Democrat and who's a Republican in my ward here, although after 20 years I kind of have an idea about many. I wonder -- do LDS people in Utah who oppose the liquor laws there ever talk about that in church? Does anyone talk about the politics of Utah liquor laws in church? Serious questions.

Now, if someone starts openly raising the gay marriage issue and their views, criticizing the church's position etc., I don't know what would happen. It probably wouldn't be good. But I remember in my youth when the John Birch Society had some loud adherents in Salt Lake. (I was probably 10 years old, maybe 12.) Those guys stayed quiet in church too. Still, I think it was probably easier to be a Bircher in the church back then than it is to be a gay marriage supporter in the church today.

[LA Ute]

Interesting and contrasting views on the church statement from gay activists:

Jonathan Rauch thinks it's an opportunity:

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/jonathan-rauch-gays-move-mormons-article-1.2097078#bmb=1

Another from HuffPost, which seems to demand total surrender:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6564238





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Solon]

Dude, get over yourself.
Sure.

[LA Ute]

LA - do you think the LDS church will/should come out with a stronger statement about cases when its members support gay marriage?

...

Certainly, there's room in an individual's local church (lower-case 'c'), but with regards to The Church, I'm not so sure....

So, to re-state, is there a way for a devout member to support gay marriage under current circumstances?


I saw this excerpt (or maybe it is a transcription) from Elder Christofferson's interview with the Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/news/2112602-155/trib-talk-lds-leaders-oaks-christofferson) and thought it was responsive to your question:


"We have members in the Church with a variety of different opinions and beliefs and positions on these issues…but…in our view it doesn’t become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders, trying to get others to follow them, to draw others away, trying to pull people out of the church, or away from its teachings and doctrines. That’s very different for us, than someone who feels one way or another on a political stance or a particular action to support a group, Affirmation or any others that you named."

[LA Ute]

Also this from my town's newspaper:

An embrace that swayed the Mormon Church on gay rights
(http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-mormon-talks-20150131-story.html#page=1)

[mUUser]

Did anyone read this article about a police officer that refused to ride his motorcycle, for religious liberty reasons, in a gay pride parade while on duty?.....

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865622777/Officer-in-parade-controversy-speaks-out-on-religious-liberty.html

[Sullyute]

Did anyone read this article about a police officer that refused to ride his motorcycle, for religious liberty reasons, in a gay pride parade while on duty?.....

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865622777/Officer-in-parade-controversy-speaks-out-on-religious-liberty.html

Very Interesting read. I actually thought that the officer was very reasonable in his attempts to mesh his work and beliefs. And I was actually siding with him until I read this paragraph from the department chief:


Once someone outwardly expresses bias towards an individual or group, Burbank said, "how are you ever going to limit the liability and the exposure that you give to the public for someone who may be in plain bias? How can they ever say, 'No, I never let it come into play when it came into play in other aspects of their job?'

I never thought of that. It does seem like there should have been some sort of compromise, and maybe there would be had he stayed on. Life is not black and white and there definitely a lost of gray in this area.

[Rocker Ute]

Very Interesting read. I actually thought that the officer was very reasonable in his attempts to mesh his work and beliefs. And I was actually siding with him until I read this paragraph from the department chief:



I never thought of that. It does seem like there should have been some sort of compromise, and maybe there would be had he stayed on. Life is not black and white and there definitely a lost of gray in this area.

It is an interesting question. Everyone has biases and I don't know that expressing them means that suddenly it has changed something. Conversely, should an openly gay police officer be required to ride choreographed formations in the Days of '47 parade if he feels like it is representing his endorsement of the LDS church? If the KKK wanted to have a peaceful parade and requested that the police ride formation in it, should a black officer be required to do that, should the police be required to do that at all?

I guess for me as an employer I see things as part of the job and other things as beyond that. For example, I expect people to show up to work and do their job, and sometimes as an organization we do some service or donate to charities. I would never require anyone to do that work, even when we take time out of the work day to do so.

This request seems to fall in that same strain to me (if indeed what the officer described is what happened). If he said he didn't want to protect people at the Pride Parade as part of his job because of his objections to it, then yes that is a problem as Burbank described. If he said he didn't want to entertain people and feel like he was endorsing it, I don't think you should require an officer to do that. It seems like two different roles one mandatory and one voluntary. That may change if perhaps the officers then couldn't do what they promised to do if he didn't participate, but that doesn't sound like it would be the case.

But attorney's defend people all the time they may object to or what they do or did. Does that mean that the person doesn't get a fair trial? I don't really think so if that attorney does his job to the best of his ability and ethically. I feel like an officer could protect gay people despite objecting to their lifestyle, just like I believe an officer can protect me even if he really dislikes Mormons.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I never thought of that. It does seem like there should have been some sort of compromise, and maybe there would be had he stayed on. Life is not black and white and there definitely a lost of gray in this area.


Isn't this effectively the way that Robert Kardashian and Johnnie Cochrane destroyed the credibility of Mark Fuhrman? They showed him as a person who used the 'N-word' in casual conversation, showed him as a biased investigator, and created reasonable doubts in the minds of jurors.

A community can ill-afford to have its police force seen as hostile to any single group. Ferguson, Missouri comes to mind.

[mUUser]

Also a weird coincidence that he was the same officer that responded to the infamous gay kiss on the Church Plaza in 2009. Ended up giving the couple a citation.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Also a weird coincidence that he was the same officer that responded to the infamous gay kiss on the Church Plaza in 2009. Ended up giving the couple a citation.

In 50 years that citation will seem as absurd as an interracial couple in the 1950s getting a citation in for a public kiss seems today.

[#1 Utefan]

Very Interesting read. I actually thought that the officer was very reasonable in his attempts to mesh his work and beliefs. And I was actually siding with him until I read this paragraph from the department chief:



I never thought of that. It does seem like there should have been some sort of compromise, and maybe there would be had he stayed on. Life is not black and white and there definitely a lost of gray in this area.


Does anyone know how the news of this officer being put on administrative leave and what had transpired first become public? If I recall, it was within days and before any type of internal review had really even begun by SLCPD. After reading this article, I don't think this case was as black and white as Chief Burbank makes it out to be for a couple of reasons.

First, an internal review of at any public sector (or private for that matter) department or group should handled as the name implies, internally. Who leaked this story to the media so early in the process? This type of leak made it impossible for the department and this officer to have a fair review of what transpired and whether it truly violated department policy minus the politically charged media and public storm that ensued. I would like Chief Burbank to account for when and how the leak occurred. If it wasn't from within his department, fine. If it did, he needs to better explain what happened and what steps he is taking to make sure these matters are better dealt with in the future.

Secondly, Burbank stated in the article that it is fairly routine for officers to swap and trade these type of shifts and that it is common and allowed. I am not privvy to how the officer may have gone about requesting trading with someone else for this assignment. However, Burbank's own comments would at least dictate a thorough review of department policy and more in depth explanation of this area and why Burbank chose to handle this situation differently and so hastily.

Finally, whether Burbank was within department policy and his rights with how he chose to handle the situation, given the terse, black and white nature of his commentary in the article, one thing is for sure: he is the type of boss most people dread working for. I don't know this cops history and whether he may have been on a short leash already but it seemed like a warning and reprimand handled internally would have sufficed in this situation. Burbank really comes off as a bit of a inflexible, ego/power driven tyrant in the article.

I am ultimately not condoning how the officer may have chose to handle this situation as I don't pretend to have all the details of SLCPD policy and the details of this case. That said, it sure does seem that it could have been handled a lot better on all sides with cooler heads, open dialogue and understanding, and a warning letter and/or reprimand.

[#1 Utefan]

Isn't this effectively the way that Robert Kardashian and Johnnie Cochrane destroyed the credibility of Mark Fuhrman? They showed him as a person who used the 'N-word' in casual conversation, showed him as a biased investigator, and created reasonable doubts in the minds of jurors.

A community can ill-afford to have its police force seen as hostile to any single group. Ferguson, Missouri comes to mind.


Ferguson, MO comes to mind? Really, please do explain.

[#1 Utefan]

Also a weird coincidence that he was the same officer that responded to the infamous gay kiss on the Church Plaza in 2009. Ended up giving the couple a citation.


I haven't read anything to that effect. He responded after police were called by LDS security. The information I read was that he helped calm both sides and didn't cite the couple even though one was heavily intoxicated and could of been.

If you have information to the contrary, please provide the link.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Ferguson, MO comes to mind? Really, please do explain.

The riots were fueled by the common belief that the cops were racists who hated one segment of the population, which led to the unjustified shooting of an unarmed man.

The facts do not bear that out, of course, but since when do mobs check all the facts before grabbing their pitchforks?

I can see how the police chief could be taking preemptive action against the officer in an attempt to show the police Dept to be objective.

[mUUser]

I haven't read anything to that effect. He responded after police were called by LDS security. The information I read was that he helped calm both sides and didn't cite the couple even though one was heavily intoxicated and could of been.

If you have information to the contrary, please provide the link.

Here...

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2009/0714/20090714_063104_templepolicereport.pdf


A Youtube representation of the encounter with church security....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGrWxg0-ZVc

[LA Ute]

Very interesting transcription of Elder Christofferson's KUTV interview here:

http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/lds-apostle-d-todd-christofferson-on-disagreeing-with-the-church-about-same-sex-marriage/

One excerpt:


[Just as the interview seems over and Elder Christofferson begins to stand up, a different voice from somewhere behind the camera and without a mic, interrupts to ask his own additional question.]

Unidentified Man:

“This has been a divisive issue, in all of society, but I think also within the church– that people are still trying to sort out exactly how they think and feel and how to act and they don’t like feeling like they’re in opposition to the church but they may in their heart feel like marriage equality is something that they have a personal conviction of. What would be your message to those individuals within the church, that are trying desperately to stay within the church, but feel like that because they’re so at odds with what is publicly stated that they no longer feel like might fit– your message to them? You know the church has done a lot with the I’m a Mormon campaign to emphasize the diversity of the backgrounds and perspectives within the church, but on this issue specifically I think people sometimes feel like it’s in or out.”

Elder Christofferson:

“Well it’s, it’s not an easy thing, and I believe we recognize that. Our hope is that overtime, as we stay together and worship together and search for inspiration together, that ways open up for people of all persuasions to come to feel but they’re comfortable here. While they don’t know the eventual outcome and what’s going to happen in the near term– I should say what’s going to happen in the near term, they know the end result can be happiness– a state of happiness, a state of fulfillment, something that God desires for all– and we firmly believe no one is predestined to a second class status and… have a… no one who is is faithful to the commandments and the principles that we teach even though that may involve some very significant sacrifice in the short term (even all of mortal life, if you can call that short term) is all worth it in the end because nothing is denied anyone who is faithful. We don’t see all how that comes together, but we have the faith that it does because we have a God who created us all, loves us all, and is gonna give everyone who tries and who is loyal to him everything that he has to give.”

[concerned]

Very interesting transcription of Elder Christofferson's KUTV interview here:

http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/lds-apostle-d-todd-christofferson-on-disagreeing-with-the-church-about-same-sex-marriage/

One excerpt:

FWIW, I have heard second hand that several GA's have close gay relatives--maybe children--and that this Prop 8 issue, etc. was very, very hard on them. I think Elder Christofferson is one. They have been instrumental in moving this along.

[hostile]

FWIW, I have heard second hand that several GA's have close gay relatives--maybe children--and that this Prop 8 issue, etc. was very, very hard on them. I think Elder Christofferson is one. They have been instrumental in moving this along.
Elder Christofferson has a brother who is gay. Lives in CT and is pretty active in the ward there, from what I have heard.

[LA Ute]

FWIW, I have heard second hand that several GA's have close gay relatives--maybe children--and that this Prop 8 issue, etc. was very, very hard on them. I think Elder Christofferson is one. They have been instrumental in moving this along.

Probably. I think anyone who even has gay friends struggles with the impact of the church's position. (I do.) Even so, here's what Elder C. said about that:


Daniel Woodruff:
“We’ve reported on your situation, you have a brother who is gay, and you’ve talked about how that has impacted your family. Has that, personally for you, has that family dynamic impacted at all how you’ve approached this issue– how you’ve approached publicly advocating, as an apostle, for SB296?”


Elder Christofferson:
“No. The the real genesis of, of the movement, if you will, behind these issues has been a matter of counseling together as we do in the church. We operate by councils: there’s the Quorum of the Twelve, which is a council, the First Presidency, is a council, and at the ward, the local levels, and the stake levels, we rely heavily on counseling together to determine which way to go and to, as a way of facilitating revelation and inspiration and receiving guidance that way. So it’s not one person says, you know, because of this experience that I’ve had in my life this is how we need to do it. But it’s this sharing of past experience, sharing of knowledge and background, but it’s after everything else a search for revelation– a search to know what the Lord’s will is and that’s what we try to follow.”

[#1 Utefan]

The riots were fueled by the common belief that the cops were racists who hated one segment of the population, which led to the unjustified shooting of an unarmed man.

The facts do not bear that out, of course, but since when do mobs check all the facts before grabbing their pitchforks?

I can see how the police chief could be taking preemptive action against the officer in an attempt to show the police Dept to be objective.

Maybe he was referring to the fact he didn't detain them or cite them for public intoxication. Either way, this report hardly paints the picture of a guy targeting gay people.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Maybe he was referring to the fact he didn't detain them or cite them for public intoxication. Either way, this report hardly paints the picture of a guy targeting gay people.

I agree with you. But the Police Dept must be cognizant of public perception in situations like these.

In Ferguson the officer who shot Michael Brown was cleared of all wrongdoing via the federal investigation (NOT just an internal review), but the department itself was shown to have significant problems with systemic racism.

LA, the quote you posted sounds as though Elder Christofferson expects lgbt people or people who support marriage equality to sacrifice and fall in line with the church's way of thinking for a 'short time', and then all things will be made right.

But then he defines 'short time' as meaning 'this life'. If you are lgbt then you are not allowed to have a comfortable sexual component to your life. You must choose the sexuality preferred by the church. It must be Male & Female, inside marriage only, and we will still oppose gay marriage at the legislative level.

In other words this new openness and acceptance is merely a change in tone, and not a change of substance. And it still doesn't explicitly clarify whether church members can truly speak their minds on 'social media'. Will this filter down to the local leadership?

[Diehard Ute]

Maybe he was referring to the fact he didn't detain them or cite them for public intoxication. Either way, this report hardly paints the picture of a guy targeting gay people.

Or perhaps there is far more to the story than what the public knows.

[Rocker Ute]

Or perhaps there is far more to the story than what the public knows.

Such as...

[#1 Utefan]

Or perhaps there is far more to the story than what the public knows.


Please share. I don't pretend to know what happened behind the scenes of this incident or the gay parade motorcycle show but I do think the latter was handled poorly by SLCPD. Handle things internally, not in the media and public court of opinion.

Chief Burbank still has some explaining regarding several aspects of that case. Who leaked the information, were they disciplined, and did he himself possibly use the incident as a means to score political points with his boss and a potential future run at public office? I just think he was far too public and outspoken over an incident that probably should have been handled quietly in house.

[Diehard Ute]

Please share. I don't pretend to know what happened behind the scenes of this incident or the gay parade motorcycle show but I do think the latter was handled poorly by SLCPD. Handle things internally, not in the media and public court of opinion.

Chief Burbank still has some explaining regarding several aspects of that case. Who leaked the information, were they disciplined, and did he himself possibly use the incident as a means to score political points with his boss and a potential future run at public office? I just think he was far too public and outspoken over an incident that probably should have been handled quietly in house.

You do realize the officer resigned before any investigation was completed. He wasn't fired by the department.

I'm not privy to any details, but do know most of the information people are relying on came in the 6 page letter the former officer released. Little information was released by the department.

Reality is personnel issues such as these always have more than one version of events and rarely does anyone know the whole story.

My point is you really can't make any judgement one way or the other when you're not part of what occurred, because you're working with only bits and pieces of information

[Rocker Ute]

You do realize the officer resigned before any investigation was completed. He wasn't fired by the department.

I'm not privy to any details, but do know most of the information people are relying on came in the 6 page letter the former officer released. Little information was released by the department.

Reality is personnel issues such as these always have more than one version of events and rarely does anyone know the whole story.

My point is you really can't make any judgement one way or the other when you're not part of what occurred, because you're working with only bits and pieces of information

I'm curious as an officer what you think... And maybe you can't really say, but is it possible to fully protect someone while also objecting to what they do/believe/represent?

I would guess that probably happens all the time, whether you come to the aid to a drug dealer with a medical problem or whatever else.

If what that officer said was remotely true I guess I don't have a problem with what he wanted to do, my guess is it is more complex than that.

I think officers should be required to do their job to protect etc, but things I consider to be more elective, like participating in a parade, an officer should be able to opt out without penalty. For example if an officer didn't want to ride formation in the Days of 47 parade because he objects to the LDS church I don't think he should have to. However if he is on shift and asked to provide security for the event then he should.

Maybe I've simplified things but it seems like a pretty easy line to draw. And I also think someone is fully capable to carrying out their job while having personal objections to the people they serve.

[LA Ute]

Interesting factoid:

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865624686/Salt-Lake-City-has-7th-highest-rate-of-LGBT-population-in-US.html?ref=http://m.facebook.com

[LA Ute]

This seems to fit best here:

Op-ed: Start a conversation with someone on the other side of LGBT debate

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2714502-155/op-ed-start-a-conversation-with-someone#sthash.SWVBbOvU.gbpl&st_refDomain=m.facebook.com&st_refQuery=


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Interesting piece by Tom Christofferson, brother of Elder Todd Christofferson.

A North and South Heart

http://ldslights.org/a-north-and-south-heart/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UTEopia]

[QUOTE=LA Ute;57195]Interesting piece by Tom Christofferson, brother of Elder Todd Christofferson.

A North and South Heart

http://ldslights.org/a-north-and-south-heart/

That is a very interesting article and I would love to meet that man. He has made a choice to honor his God and his belief in that God over himself, his sexual orientation and his (I assumer former) partner. Tough choice to make. Tough line to toe.

[LA Ute]

[QUOTE=LA Ute;57195]Interesting piece by Tom Christofferson, brother of Elder Todd Christofferson.

A North and South Heart

http://ldslights.org/a-north-and-south-heart/

That is a very interesting article and I would love to meet that man. He has made a choice to honor his God and his belief in that God over himself, his sexual orientation and his (I assumer former) partner. Tough choice to make. Tough line to toe.

I can't begin to empathize, so I simply stand in awe of him. I don't know that I could do what he's done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[concerned]

[QUOTE=UTEopia;57202]

I can't begin to empathize, so I simply stand in awe of him. I don't know that I could do what he's done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. That is a powerful article. He is certainly an extremely thoughtful person. Isn't he a sinner in the eyes of the church, or am I wrong? That takes a lot of courage to embrace it and it obviously touches him very very deeply. He has a huge heart.

[LA Ute]

[QUOTE=LA Ute;57215]

Agreed. That is a powerful article. He is certainly an extremely thoughtful person. Isn't he a sinner in the eyes of the church, or am I wrong? That takes a lot of courage to embrace it and it obviously touches him very very deeply. He has a huge heart.

It appears that he's chosen the celibate path, at considerable personal cost. He's a rare man indeed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[concerned]

[QUOTE=concerned;57218]

It appears that he's chosen the celibate path, at considerable personal cost. He's a rare man indeed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It is a different choice at 65-75 than it is at 20-30.

[Ma'ake]

I think the imprint of Tom's upbringing is very strong, and he obviously derives inner rewards for adhering to his church's beliefs and expectations. Good for him.

I suspect over the centuries there have been innumerable Catholic priests and nuns who may have taken that route in life because their innate orientation could not have been more taboo, and I'm sure many were edified both by their sacrifice and the positive response they got for serving.

(This sort of reminds me of the stories in my wife's family about what life was like when the Civil Rights movement was picking up steam. After Selma, many black communities in the South had similar "marches", my wife's little hometown was one of them. My father in law, the Baptist Pastor, wouldn't let any of his children participate in the marches. "We have to know our place! We have to know our place!" He wasn't motivated to push school integration, and eventually his kids went to integrated schools, 9 years after Brown vs Board of Education. The Pastor eventually became the first African American city councilman, with a resilient and forgiving personality, kind of like Jackie Robinson. "Dad was a safe choice", one of his sons told me.)

Related to my original thesis about Homosexuals in LDS theology needing women to get the priesthood first, here's an article from the D-News that's interesting:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865633581/Working-miracles-at-any-age.html

On the face of it, there's nothing earth shattering here. But even discussing the topic is a change in tone, I would argue, and the questions that arise, combined with working through a strong adherence to faith, start to lay the foundation for change. Obviously not quick enough for Kate Kelly, but nonetheless, women can now give prayers in church, etc.

[Ma'ake]

Taking the spotlight off Mormonism for a minute, it's interesting to see how gay marriage is starting to impact Christianity, over all. The Episcopalians announced they'll allow gay marriage in their churches, I would guess Presbyterians will be "next", or soon. This will alter the marketplace of ideas within Christianity, in the next few years.

A co-worker's sibling is a Pentecostal minister, in Virginia, and the topic has stirred interesting discussions within their family. Essentially, the minister admits that while the Bible appeared to be very clear about justifying slavery, that was a case of humans mis-interpreting what God's meaning was, but on this issue there is no such confusion.

I found a website called "Homosexuals for Jesus" that claims that Jesus never directly condemned homosexuality, while noting the previous views on slavery and how nobody today views the Bible as justification for slavery.

I think in the next decade there will be a lot of parsing of the Bible on the issue, and given the unprecedented connectedness we now have, there will be similar reflection within Mormon theology.

It could be that "evolved" understandings of homosexuality, including the benefit to gays in having marriage as an option, will impact the women and the priesthood issue. (Kind of the cart before the horse, but if you have a cart, you'd better be looking to get a horse.)

[#1 Utefan]

Taking the spotlight off Mormonism for a minute, it's interesting to see how gay marriage is starting to impact Christianity, over all. The Episcopalians announced they'll allow gay marriage in their churches, I would guess Presbyterians will be "next", or soon. This will alter the marketplace of ideas within Christianity, in the next few years.

A co-worker's sibling is a Pentecostal minister, in Virginia, and the topic has stirred interesting discussions within their family. Essentially, the minister admits that while the Bible appeared to be very clear about justifying slavery, that was a case of humans mis-interpreting what God's meaning was, but on this issue there is no such confusion.

I found a website called "Homosexuals for Jesus" that claims that Jesus never directly condemned homosexuality, while noting the previous views on slavery and how nobody today views the Bible as justification for slavery.

I think in the next decade there will be a lot of parsing of the Bible on the issue, and given the unprecedented connectedness we now have, there will be similar reflection within Mormon theology.

It could be that "evolved" understandings of homosexuality, including the benefit to gays in having marriage as an option, will impact the women and the priesthood issue. (Kind of the cart before the horse, but if you have a cart, you'd better be looking to get a horse.)

Wouldn't bet on it. The Mormon Church has been pretty clear about their definition of family and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Some religions may morph to accommodate the trends of the day but I just don't see that happening with the LDS Church anytime soon.

[Ma'ake]

Wouldn't bet on it. The Mormon Church has been pretty clear about their definition of family and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Some religions may morph to accommodate the trends of the day but I just don't see that happening with the LDS Church anytime soon.

I agree the LDS church is not the most "progressive", but modern revelation makes it quite nimble, compared to the Catholic Church, who took 500 years to apologize about Galileo.

A friend puts it well - the Mormons can make a 45 degree course change at any time, eg, 1978, the Manifesto ditching polygamy. (I remember after the 1978 revelation, there was still "counsel" that people should marry within their own race, probably mostly to reduce potential trouble spots for young couples. So, 1978 wasn't a full 180 degree turn, at least arguably. Brigham said blacks wouldn't have the priesthood until after the Millennium, so 1978 was definitely a shock.)

The Catholics can only change course about 3 degrees at a time, because they don't have a prophet.

Here's a possible pathway within Mormonism: One of the controversial aspects of Joseph Smith was Polyandry, but there are clear instances where JS was getting sealed to women - and even men - where there was no conjugal relationship involved. Same with Brigham.

There are 2 families on my street that have had multiple kids come out of the closet. (Yes, the water has been tested! lol) One of the families just had one of their gay sons marry his "partner", but with a twist: the partner has a very young daughter, from a failed attempt at the regular kind of marriage. To their great credit, this family posted on Facebook a big family photo, including the new son-in-law, and his daughter.

I don't think it would be a massive reversal to bring back the JS-era temple sealings, eg, in the case of step-kids. (Can step-kids be sealed to both their original parent, and to a step-parent? If not, why not? Are there different types of sealings? From the days of JS, obviously there were, but I'm definitely not an expert.)

Anyway, yeah, I'm not betting money on any of this, but as understandings evolve, a path could emerge. Just the evolution in understanding about homosexuality itself - among good, faithful Mormons - has been pretty remarkable.

(EDIT - Ironically, "Internet Speculation" probably has an inhibiting effect on changes, it seems to me.)

[#1 Utefan]

I agree the LDS church is not the most "progressive", but modern revelation makes it quite nimble, compared to the Catholic Church, who took 500 years to apologize about Galileo.

A friend puts it well - the Mormons can make a 45 degree course change at any time, eg, 1978, the Manifesto ditching polygamy. (I remember after the 1978 revelation, there was still "counsel" that people should marry within their own race, probably mostly to reduce potential trouble spots for young couples. So, 1978 wasn't a full 180 degree turn, at least arguably. Brigham said blacks wouldn't have the priesthood until after the Millennium, so 1978 was definitely a shock.)

The Catholics can only change course about 3 degrees at a time, because they don't have a prophet.

Here's a possible pathway within Mormonism: One of the controversial aspects of Joseph Smith was Polyandry, but there are clear instances where JS was getting sealed to women - and even men - where there was no conjugal relationship involved. Same with Brigham.

There are 2 families on my street that have had multiple kids come out of the closet. (Yes, the water has been tested! lol) One of the families just had one of their gay sons marry his "partner", but with a twist: the partner has a very young daughter, from a failed attempt at the regular kind of marriage. To their great credit, this family posted on Facebook a big family photo, including the new son-in-law, and his daughter.

I don't think it would be a massive reversal to bring back the JS-era temple sealings, eg, in the case of step-kids. (Can step-kids be sealed to both their original parent, and to a step-parent? If not, why not? Are there different types of sealings? From the days of JS, obviously there were, but I'm definitely not an expert.)

Anyway, yeah, I'm not betting money on any of this, but as understandings evolve, a path could emerge. Just the evolution in understanding about homosexuality itself - among good, faithful Mormons - has been pretty remarkable.

(EDIT - Ironically, "Internet Speculation" probably has an inhibiting effect on changes, it seems to me.)

Not going to happen. Lost in this entire discussion is the fact that the traditional family which is central to LDS doctrine, is necessary to procreate and have children which are also a key component of LDS families and doctrine.

I think the reason the LDS Church no longer has LDS Social Services performing adoptions is because they saw where the gay marriage issue was going and did not want the government and courts trying to force them to adopt to gay couples. Gay activists in other areas of the country had already forced other Catholic and religiously affiliated adoption agencies to close by taking away government not for profit status (pretty odd the government played along when a group like Planned Parenthood still has that designation despite their controversial history and recent barbaric allegations of selling aborted baby and fetus organs).

I have never seen the gay marriage push as comparable to the Civil Rights movement, race, and blacks receiving the Priesthood. You are born with an ethnicity and while I do think some gays and lesbiens are born with that predisposition, many others choose the lifestyle based on their life experiences. I also think the type of discrimation that bore any resemblance to what African Americans endured was largely well behind us. I don't recall having ever seen person or gay couple asked to sit at the back of a bus, put in segregated schools, or beaten by police or government authority figures. I am sure some will disagree and/or flame away but that is my opinion.

[LA Ute]

This will soon be seen (and already is seen) as the latest, most authoritative statement of the church's views on same-sex marriage.

Disciples and the Defense of Marriage (https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/08/disciples-and-the-defense-of-marriage?lang=eng)

[Rocker Ute]

The more probable outcome will be a more general acceptance but a 'it'll all get sorted out in heaven' sort of a thing. We see that often with things like my best friend's wife who died from leukemia 12 years ago. She has since remarried another guy, have kids together and will likely spend 60 years together vs their just over a year. Does she remain sealed to my friend?

As far as women getting ordained to he priesthood that will take as big of a doctrinal shift as homosexuality. People say there isn't doctrinal precedent to deny women the priesthood, but temple ordinance pretty clearly indicate priesthood ordination is necessary for the salvation of men. The church would have to say either the priesthood isn't necessary for salvation, or redo all previous temple ordinances for women live or vicarious.

I don't see either happening but I can picture a sort of one off acceptance of homosexuality before I can see female ordination in my lifetime. On this issue my guess is societal norms will shift faster than the church will.

[Ma'ake]

On this issue my guess is societal norms will shift faster than the church will.

I think this is definitely true, but I also think the LDS church has the ability to adjust much more quickly than most religions, which I view as a virtue.

Actually, I don't think present day assertions that things will "never change" will be viewed too negative if/when things *do* change, because there have been plenty of pronouncements in the past that were pretty strong that fell by the wayside.

- On Polygamy: "It is God's law and everlasting - we will always follow God's law over man's law". (paraphrasing)

- Brigham's statements on blacks getting the priesthood

- (Others I don't care to look up or even cite, they're really not that important.)

I want to re-iterate that I'm no oracle or purveyor of infinite truth, either. Just observing and connecting the dots the best I can. The amount of good that comes from Mormonism (and most other religions) outweighs the bad, in my view.

[jrj84105]

I may be splitting hairs here, but God creates everyone as a sinner, with inherent sin wired into them. I certainly know that's the case with me.
That's not true in Mormon theology. I think that Mormons view people as intrinsically divine yet intrinsically corruptible. I actually like that take better than the original sin one. I think it's the reason why Mormons are so fixated on this issue, because it speaks to an intrinsic "defect" rather than corruption by "choosing" to sin.

Otherwise I find it incredibly perplexing that so many people here are so fixated on something that really shouldn't have such priority in their minds. At least this is the only way it made sense to me other than assuming it's a reaction formation phenomenon.

Isn't it time to move along? Calling this board a Utah sports forum is like calling Brokeback Mountain a ranching movie. You have to ignore a lot of gay sex to get there.

[Rocker Ute]

Why couldn't it be necessary for men and optional for women?

I too feel that changes on gay marriage / female ordination are unlikely. The changes Maake mentions required no major changes in doctrine. Polygamy was always going to be a temporary thing according to the Book or Mormon, and there was never an official doctrinal reason for blacks and the priesthood. There are, however, clear doctrinal explanations for the LDS position on gay sealings. I guess doctrine regarding women and the priesthood is a little less clear.

On the other hand, I don't pretend to know the mind of God. It's certainly possible that I am wrong about these things. He does move in mysterious ways.

'It would be the first 'optional for some' saving ordinance I'm aware of.

[Ma'ake]

Isn't it time to move along? Calling this board a Utah sports forum is like calling Brokeback Mountain a ranching movie. You have to ignore a lot of gay sex to get there.

That's funny. Well done. lol. :)

I think the reason people care is because everyone knows somebody who's gay, and the pivot in understanding, from thinking they must have made some horrendously bad choices, to now recognizing that many didn't choose that predicament, to possibly thinking they may achieve full parity, is fascinating, and compelling.

(For me, personally, I can relate, because of my marriage and my bi-racial kids, and my memories when I was kid wondering what exactly black people had done wrong to deserve being on God's bad side.)

Now that we're in August, there are bigger fish to fry, for sure.

:)

[Solon]

LA - do you think the LDS church will/should come out with a stronger statement about cases when its members support gay marriage?

My wife (a devout LDS) is convinced that the leadership of the church would have no problem with her supporting gay marriage as a political position, not a religious one (which she does; she doesn't believe the church needs to start marrying gay people, although I assume that she would be in favor of that).

I have told her that I'm not so sure, but I do agree that someone in her shoes is very unlikely to receive any kind of correction or rebuke, unless it's from a local bishop or whatever, and even then I mostly doubt it.

Is there room in the LDS Church for someone to disagree with the officially established viewpoint on this, yet still remain in good standing?
Certainly, there's room in an individual's local church (lower-case 'c'), but with regards to The Church, I'm not so sure.

Ma'ake's initial post in this thread opens the door to a change in doctrinal position, but is there a way for a devout member to support gay marriage under the current situation?

The last General Conference had some fairly generalized reminders that "there is no middle ground in that contest [between truth and error]" (http://There is no middle ground in that contest.) and "The scornful often accuse prophets of not living in the 21st century or of being bigoted. They attempt to persuade or even pressure the Church into lowering God’s standards (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/which-way-do-you-face?lang=eng), but these don't exactly have the force of "if you support gay marriage, you are an opponent of The Church and committing an act of disobedience or even apostasy."

(and, before it comes up, the Dehlin circumstance is an outlier; I'm interested in an ordinary, reasonably devout, non-podcasting member)

So, to re-state, is there a way for a devout member to support gay marriage under current circumstances?



during these perilous times, life will not be comfortable for true disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ (http://www.mormon.org/beliefs/jesus-christ). But we will have His approval.
[. . .]
There is no such thing as a part-time disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus invites anyone who wants to be His disciple to take up his cross and follow Him (see Matthew 16:24 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/16.24?lang=eng#23);Mark 8:34 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/mark/8.34?lang=eng#33); D&C 56:2 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/56.2?lang=eng#1); 112:14 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/112.14?lang=eng#13)). Are you ready to join the ranks? Or will you be ashamed of the gospel? Will you be ashamed of your Lord and His plan? (see Mormon 8:38 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/morm/8.38?lang=eng#37)). Will you yield to voices of those who would have you join them on the popular side of contemporary history?
No! The youth of Zion will not falter! I believe you will be courageous and proclaim God’s truth with clarity and kindness, even when His truth is politically unpopular! Paul set that pattern when he declared, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Romans 1:16 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rom/1.16?lang=eng#15); see also 2 Timothy 1:8 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-tim/1.8?lang=eng#7)).
Disciples of the Lord are defenders of traditional marriage. We cannot yield. History is not our judge. A secular society is not our judge. God is our judge!
[. . .]
God is the Father of all men and women. They are His children. It was He who ordained marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Marriage was not created by human judges or legislators. It was not created by think tanks or by popular vote or by oft-quoted bloggers or pundits. It was not created by lobbyists. Marriage was created by God!
https://www.lds.org/liahona/2015/08/disciples-and-the-defense-of-marriage?cid=HP_MO_8-3-2015_dPTH_fLHNA_xLIDyL2-4_&lang=eng

If disciples of Jesus "are defenders of traditional marriage", I suppose that Elder Nelson considers opponents of traditional marriage not to be disciples of Jesus.
Not exactly haul-yer-butt-into-church-disciplinary-court stuff, but a stinging rebuke nonetheless for believing LDS who support legalized same-sex marriage.

[concerned]

I realize his has been said many times before and doesn't affect the way anybody thinks about it, but it just astonishes me that the Church that practiced polygamy for a century more or less (above ground and below ground), and changed the doctrine so that Utah could become a state (so outsiders assert), purports to follow the immutable laws of God that have not changed for millennia, and does not succumb to pressure of evanescent political fads. You could argue that polygamy is as radical a departure from traditional marriage (Christian, anyway) as is gay marriage.

[LA Ute]

I realize his has been said many times before and doesn't affect the way anybody thinks about it, but it just astonishes me that the Church that practiced polygamy for a century more or less (above ground and below ground), and changed the doctrine so that Utah could become a state (so outsiders assert), purports to follow the immutable laws of God that have not changed for millennia, and does not succumb to pressure of evanescent political fads. You could argue that polygamy is as radical a departure from traditional marriage (Christian, anyway) as is gay marriage.

I'd respond, but I can't find a pole longer than 10 feet.

[SeattleUte]

I realize his has been said many times before and doesn't affect the way anybody thinks about it, but it just astonishes me that the Church that practiced polygamy for a century more or less (above ground and below ground), and changed the doctrine so that Utah could become a state (so outsiders assert), purports to follow the immutable laws of God that have not changed for millennia, and does not succumb to pressure of evanescent political fads. You could argue that polygamy is as radical a departure from traditional marriage (Christian, anyway) as is gay marriage.

Christianity was all about eradicating polygamy. Augustine dealt with it as a serious issue--not unlike the way same sex marriage is addressed today. Eradicating polygamy is one of Christianity's great contributions to civilization. Of the various ancient roots that underlie our current civilization, today Classical, i.e., Greco-Roman civilization is the most influential. Those ancient civilizations had a lot of problems, and I think we're better. But it's interesting that the Greeks and Romans never practiced polygamy. Polygamy has always been prevalent among peoples who lived outside the Greco-Roman orbit--Bedouins, barbarians, etc.

[Scorcho]

SALT LAKE CITY — The LDS Church confirmed Thursday that children living with same-sex parents or guardians will not be allowed membership in the church until reaching "legal age" and the individual "disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage."

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37248288&nid=148&title=lds-church-children-of-same-sex-couples-not-eligible-for-membership&fm=home_page&s_cid=topstory

this is a head-scratcher for me

[SeattleUte]

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37248288&nid=148&title=lds-church-children-of-same-sex-couples-not-eligible-for-membership&fm=home_page&s_cid=topstory

this is a head-scratcher for me

Photo shopped?

[Sullyute]

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37248288&nid=148&title=lds-church-children-of-same-sex-couples-not-eligible-for-membership&fm=home_page&s_cid=topstory

this is a head-scratcher for me
What. The. Heck?!?!?!

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[Jarid in Cedar]

"Umm, nevermind."-Oaks

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

The path just got a lot clearer. Away from the church. This new instruction has left me extremely uncomfortable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleUte]

Now they have to excommunicate the kids who are already baptized of same sex parents. If not, why not! I demand an explanation for this illogic!

[Scratch]

The path just got a lot clearer. Away from the church. This new instruction has left me extremely uncomfortable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, made me uncomfortable. The more I think about it the more I think it's about preventing discord in these homes. There's no other explanation, as the church had to know what the PR reaction would be.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Yep, made me uncomfortable. The more I think about it the more I think it's about preventing discord in these homes. There's no other explanation, as the church had to know what the PR reaction would be.

It just doesn't makes sense? What about part member family homes? Does membership cause discord? Homes with parents who consume alcohol, or watch football on Sunday, or participate in any one of the hundreds of church sanctioned "violations" there are to chose from? So if a kid spends every other weekend with his gay dad and husband, is that enough to make them ineligible for baptism?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jarid in Cedar]

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

Time to scratch this one from the Canon.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

Time to scratch this one from the Canon.

Is this where the Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve quote comes into play?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Is this where the Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve quote comes into play?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They could revise the quote thusly: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgressions; and we believe that children will be punished for their own, as well as their parents' sins, but not for Adam's transgression.
Women will continue to be punished for Eve's transgression, as well as their own. Now shake that pretty little Fanny back to the kitchen and make me a sammich".

[SeattleUte]

Yep, made me uncomfortable. The more I think about it the more I think it's about preventing discord in these homes. There's no other explanation, as the church had to know what the PR reaction would be.

Scratch, I don't follow your logic. Discord because one same sex spouse may want it but the other may not? Why is there not as much risk of this happening in straight marriages? Discord because the child wants it but the same sex parents don't? Why is there not as much risk of this happening in straight marriages? Is this a plausible scenario? Is the premise that all same sex couples would oppose their child's baptism?

[NorthwestUteFan]

This may be all about 'the children', but not in the sense Scratch intends. I believe they do not want all of the rest of the children to see that Heather (who has two mommies) is perfectly normal, as happy, and as well-adjusted as they are. The church thrives on establishing Us vs. Them dichotomies, and when those lines of division break down they outpunt their coverage and get exposed.

To be honest this development should be the least shocking bit of news with respect to the church on this front. This is perfectly true to form. One could argue this is a logical extension of the Proclamation on the Family. I guess I am only shocked because it is so bold, and because it will further damage so many people.

[SeattleUte]

This may be all about 'the children', but not in the sense Scratch intends. I believe they do not want all of the rest of the children to see that Heather (who has two mommies) is perfectly normal, as happy, and as well-adjusted as they are. The church thrives on establishing Us vs. Them dichotomies, and when those lines of division break down they outpunt their coverage and get exposed.


That's part of it but it runs deeper than that. They don't want these children to appear as accepted components of "families", because the same sex "families" must be non-entities in LDS eyes. If the children come to church with same sex parents and are recognized as members in good standing--being baptized, ordained deacons and such--even though the parents aren't, the same sex families begin to take root as a form of LDS family. These same sex families are therefore Untermensch in LDS eyes--in the same way that Jews, Roma, Slavs, blacks and even Asians were labeled Untermensch ("under man") by the Nazis. This policy is ultimately grounded in hate.

[jrj84105]

It's going to be interesting to see how schism looks in the Mormon church in this era. I can only imagine the skin crawl that I'll get from the reformed Mormon version of Joel Osteen.

[Scorcho]

last conference, Elder Holland told the story of the struggles of a gay LDS Missionary. That story led me to believe that the LDS Church was evolving and more compassionate towards those with same sex attraction. Yesterday's announcement feels more like a line drawn in the sand by some hard liners declaring you are either with us or against us.

[LA Ute]

Yep, made me uncomfortable. The more I think about it the more I think it's about preventing discord in these homes. There's no other explanation, as the church had to know what the PR reaction would be.

I can only guess at the rationale. For the reason you state -- discord in the home -- children under 18 can't be baptized under any circumstances without parental permission. Are children in polygamous or otherwise apostate families allowed to be baptized before the age of 18? I honestly don't know.

[mpfunk]

This policy is indefensible.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

It's pretty clear this is a pre-emptive defense against litigation, which is understandable.

But the PR damage from this will be pretty high.

I'm sure this wasn't the intent of the handbook change, but in the longer mosaic of time and evolving understanding, this will be a pivotal event. This will probably sharpen millennial's doubts about the authenticity of the church.

"Since when did God begin speaking through lawyers?"

(Again, this is just my opinion. I have no dog in this hunt, which is a nice position to be in.)

[Mormon Red Death]

It's pretty clear this is a pre-emptive defense against litigation, which is understandable.

But the PR damage from this will be pretty high.

I'm sure this wasn't the intent of the handbook change, but in the longer mosaic of time and evolving understanding, this will be a pivotal event. This will probably sharpen millennial's doubts about the authenticity of the church.

"Since when did God begin speaking through lawyers?"

(Again, this is just my opinion. I have no dog in this hunt, which is a nice position to be in.)

I've always found it ironic that the church has a ton of lawyers in Leadership and yet Jesus hated Lawyers.
Luke 11:46
46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

[Mormon Red Death]

Fake LDS Newsroom ‏@FakeLDSNewsroom (https://twitter.com/FakeLDSNewsroom) 1h1 hour ago (https://twitter.com/FakeLDSNewsroom/status/662624028960493568)
A few questions from the mailbag: Yes, children of pedophiles, rapists, felons, murderers, and Bruce Jessen can still be baptized.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/2768563865/f6d701661df7d6cf733e69ab0c108b8e_bigger.jpegFake LDS Newsroom ‏@FakeLDSNewsroom (https://twitter.com/FakeLDSNewsroom) 10h10 hours ago (https://twitter.com/FakeLDSNewsroom/status/662490366772314112)
Of course...OF COURSE...gay couples and their kids are still MORE than welcome to shop at City Creek. Just don't bring them to church.

Quick update to the scriptures... "Suffer little children to come into me. Unless their parents are gay. Then screw them."

[SeattleUte]

It's pretty clear this is a pre-emptive defense against litigation, which is understandable.

But the PR damage from this will be pretty high.

I'm sure this wasn't the intent of the handbook change, but in the longer mosaic of time and evolving understanding, this will be a pivotal event. This will probably sharpen millennial's doubts about the authenticity of the church.

"Since when did God begin speaking through lawyers?"

(Again, this is just my opinion. I have no dog in this hunt, which is a nice position to be in.)

Ma'ake, not trying to draw you into the hunt. Just wondering what kind of litigation you think they fear. I don't follow.

[SeattleUte]

I can only guess at the rationale. For the reason you state -- discord in the home -- children under 18 can't be baptized under any circumstances without parental permission. Are children in polygamous or otherwise apostate families allowed to be baptized before the age of 18? I honestly don't know.

One of the most interesting things about this is that they won't give a reason and it won't matter to some LDS.

[SeattleUte]

I'm next to certain this was prompted by same sex parents presenting their kids at the Bishop's office with big smiles and saying, "Please baptize our child! And we look forward to seeing you in curch."

[UTEopia]

I can only guess at the rationale. For the reason you state -- discord in the home -- children under 18 can't be baptized under any circumstances without parental permission. Are children in polygamous or otherwise apostate families allowed to be baptized before the age of 18? I honestly don't know.

I can't get my head around this. All children under the age of 18 need parental permission for baptism. Why carve out a special condition for children of same gender relationships?

The more troubling issue to me is that children raised in a same gender parent family are required to "specifically disavow the practice of same gender cohabitation and marriage." I don't really know what is required to "specifically disavow", but this special requirement certainly flies in the face of Elder Christofferson's statement that you can be a member in good standing and not oppose gay marriage.

We have a family in our Ward. The man and woman had a son. They divorced. The woman is gay and is now in a same gender relationship. The man remarried. The man and woman have joint custody and the boy lives with both families on alternating weeks. He was baptized after his parents split. He is now a Deacon.

[LA Ute]

Ma'ake, not trying to draw you into the hunt. Just wondering what kind of litigation you think they fear. I don't follow.

I'm speculating, because I don't understand the policy either. What gay married couple would want their child blessed, baptized, ordained, etc., in a church that won't allow them to be members? Seems like it would be a very small number. Some might do it just to make trouble, and maybe the church leaders don't want to allow them an opening. I'm not offering a defense, again -- just speculating.

[SeattleUte]

I'm speculating, because I don't understand the policy either. What gay married couple would want their child blessed, baptized, ordained, etc., in a church that won't allow them to be members? Seems like it would be a very small number. Some might do it just to make trouble, and maybe the church leaders don't want to allow them an opening. I'm not offering a defense, again -- just speculating.

Let's assume for argument's sake that there are same sex married couples out there who are wanting their kids baptized for impure motives in the sense that deep down they don't really like or believe in the LDS Church. What kind of "trouble" would they be capable of causing? Actually, isn't there a rather large number of gays who like Kate Kelly claim the Church is atavistic and they want to remain members and reform it?

[SeattleUte]

I'm speculating, because I don't understand the policy either. What gay married couple would want their child blessed, baptized, ordained, etc., in a church that won't allow them to be members? Seems like it would be a very small number. Some might do it just to make trouble, and maybe the church leaders don't want to allow them an opening. I'm not offering a defense, again -- just speculating.

Apropos of your comment here, an interesting personal vignette from JL on Cougaruteforum.


http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?70745-Same-sex-marriage-coming-to-Utah&p=1224039&viewfull=1#post1224039

[UtahsMrSports]

Im going to wait for an official announcement from the Church. At first glance, this is...........puzzling.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I reread the policy statement from the CHoI. This applies to children who live in a home with a gay parent. But it also applies to children who have a non-custodial parent who is OR HAS EVER BEEN(!!) in a gay relationship. And even then the child requires clearance from the First Presidency (which will likely be exceedingly rare) prior to receiving a Name and Blessing, getting baptized and confirmed, or going on a mission. And they also have to disavow the gay parent's lifestyle. This new policy has very broad implications.

I think of my own wonderful nephew who was raised by my brother-in-law and his husband. My nephew graduated from high school at the top of his class, went to USU on an academic scholarship, and is on his way to a great career and life. While he was there he met an amazing woman who brings out the best in him. He started attending church with her, and a few months ago he got baptized. And last week they got married. Had this policy been in place a few months ago he would have been forced to disavow his dads, and obtain First Presidency clearance before getting baptized.

They are so completely clueless. The church is chock full of members who get married too young, have a few kids, one spouse comes out as gay, marriage breaks up, and the straight spouse remains active and takes the kids to church. Under this new policy a married, actively church-attending woman with a gay ex-husband will be unable to baptize her children from the first husband even if everybody supports their baptism. This policy serves only to punish a child who wishes to get baptized along with the other kids in their primary class.

Child whose father has multiple affairs and patronizes a brothel in Ely, Nevada every other week = no problem, get baptized.

Child whose father is in a stable, monogamous, loving, gay relationship = you are welcome to attend, but as a non-member outsider.

[UTEopia]

I'm speculating, because I don't understand the policy either. What gay married couple would want their child blessed, baptized, ordained, etc., in a church that won't allow them to be members? Seems like it would be a very small number. Some might do it just to make trouble, and maybe the church leaders don't want to allow them an opening. I'm not offering a defense, again -- just speculating.

I'm just speculating here, but I think this is an analogous situation. My wife has a brother who is totally inactive. However, her parents really wanted his children baptized. The brother did not care but did not want to hurt his parents and so he and his wife gave the okay. I could see that scenario played out in order to placate grandparents.

[LA Ute]

Apropos of your comment here, an interesting personal vignette from JL on Cougaruteforum.


http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?70745-Same-sex-marriage-coming-to-Utah&p=1224039&viewfull=1#post1224039

You forgot to link Cowboy's response:

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?70745-Same-sex-marriage-coming-to-Utah&p=1224060&viewfull=1#post1224060

[LA Ute]

Yep, made me uncomfortable. The more I think about it the more I think it's about preventing discord in these homes. There's no other explanation, as the church had to know what the PR reaction would be.

I dug around a bit. A child can't be baptized without approval from both custodial parents. A spouse can't be baptized alone without his or her spouse's consent. If a child's parents practice polygamy, the child can't be baptized until age 18 and after disavowing polygamy. The church policy generally is to protect children from being taught one thing at home and another thing at church, and to avoid introducing discord into a home. I'm very confident there will be exceptions made in individual cases.

Having said all this I wish there had been some explanatory context for the new policy. I read somewhere that this was leaked, so maybe that is why.

[mUUser]

An overly aggressive solution to this so-called "problem." On its face it comes across as just plain ludicrous. The mental gymnastics that will be required to defend this policy should be fun to watch though.

Also not certain what is being "taught" in these gay homes. Polygamy is often passed from generation to generation, indoctrination beginning with the very young. You cannot teach gayness from generation to generation any more than you can teach blackness or blue-eyed'ness.

I hate that SU nailed it. But, the church cannot risk an "anchor child" in good standing, in a family led by gay parents, as it gives credibility to a family unit that is an unacceptable form of LDS family.

Truly hoping this is false news, otherwise I fear the church has jumped the shark on this one -- should've left the kids out of it. Never mess with kids and puppies, man!!

[UTEopia]

I dug around a bit. A child can't be baptized without approval from both custodial parents. A spouse can't be baptized alone without his or her spouse's consent. If a child's parents practice polygamy, the child can't be baptized until age 18 and after disavowing polygamy. The church policy generally is to protect children from being taught one thing at home and another thing at church, and to avoid introducing discord into a home. I'm very confident there will be exceptions made in individual cases.

Having said all this I wish there had been some explanatory context for the new policy. I read somewhere that this was leaked, so maybe that is why.

I can understand the rationale for waiting until 18. I don't understand the disavow part. To be a member in good standing I understand that I cannot practice polygamy or have a same gender sexual relation. Do I have to disavow(whatever that means) the practice of polygamy and same gender cohabitation and marriage? What if I simply do not care what others practice with respect to polygamy and same gender relationships?

[LA Ute]

I can understand the rationale for waiting until 18. I don't understand the disavow part. To be a member in good standing I understand that I cannot practice polygamy or have a same gender sexual relation. Do I have to disavow(whatever that means) the practice of polygamy and same gender cohabitation and marriage? What if I simply do not care what others practice with respect to polygamy and same gender relationships?

I'm going to have to think about this in order to say anything intelligent. I know a guy who was bishop when a child of a polygamous family wanted to be baptized at age 18. She didn't have to disavow anything but there were a few extra approvals needed. So I don't know how all that is supposed to work.

I did run across this very calm and thoughtful discussion of this news. I thought his comments about how this new came out, and the church's unpreparedness for it, were interesting:

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2015/11/05/the-children-of-marriedcohabiting-gay-parents/

[Utah]

This makes no sense. I spent all night last night going through the scriptures about homosexuality. In EVERY CASE homosexuality is listed next to fornication and adultery. In God's eyes, all three are equally egregious.

Here is my problem:

If a man and a woman fornicate, they can get married, have kids and have those kids named, blessed, baptized, etc.

BUT, if a man and man or woman and woman fornicate and then get married, their kids cannot be blessed, named, given the priesthood, baptized, etc, until the child is 18 and renounced their parents' actions.

It's the same with adultery.

Why is the church singling out a group of people and not the others? Why is it ok for fornicators/adulterers to get married and have their children get "blessings" but the kids of a gay couple have to wait. Shouldn't all have to wait? Shouldn't the fornicators and adulterers who were married have to divorce and move onto to other partners before their kids can have those ordinances? Or shouldn't the children of fornicators/adulterers have to wait until they are 18 to be baptized?

And if your next response is that they don't want the kids making covenants they probably won't keep (growing up in a same sex household you probably won't stay Mormon) then why do they allow 8-9 year old children where one parent is an member and the other isn't to get baptized? My half sisters were baptized at 8 and 9 years old. I baptized one of my sisters. Their dad is a non-Mormon. They do not follow the faith anymore. Why were they allowed to be baptized but not children of a homosexual relationship?

This is nothing more than bigotry.

[Utah]

I can understand the rationale for waiting until 18. I don't understand the disavow part. To be a member in good standing I understand that I cannot practice polygamy or have a same gender sexual relation. Do I have to disavow(whatever that means) the practice of polygamy and same gender cohabitation and marriage? What if I simply do not care what others practice with respect to polygamy and same gender relationships?


You bring up polygamy, but we DO practice polygamy. Many apostles practice polygamy. My father practices polygamy. My father is a single guy right now. Been divorced three times. BUT, he was sealed to two women and those sealing's have never been cancelled. According to the Temple Ordinances, he is married to two women. How many Apostles are "sealed" to multiple women? How is that not practicing polygamy?

[Scorcho]

The next time the LDS Church decides to draw a line in the sand, they should be careful not to nick the millions of us who have our heads buried there.

#Westboro Baptists got our back

[Rocker Ute]

I dug around a bit. A child can't be baptized without approval from both custodial parents. A spouse can't be baptized alone without his or her spouse's consent. If a child's parents practice polygamy, the child can't be baptized until age 18 and after disavowing polygamy. The church policy generally is to protect children from being taught one thing at home and another thing at church, and to avoid introducing discord into a home. I'm very confident there will be exceptions made in individual cases.

Having said all this I wish there had been some explanatory context for the new policy. I read somewhere that this was leaked, so maybe that is why.

It was obvious it was leaked as it is part of Handbook 1 which isn't generally distributed. I want to believe this is the reasoning behind it, and I am curious about the wording. It would seem that if this is indeed the intent (and my bias will point me that direction) you could achieve the same goal by explaining how it should be done versus 'it can't be done with limited exception', if that makes sense. So in other words, "For a child of SSM to be baptized a bishop or stake president must receive consent from both parents, must be committed to not personally enter into a SSM and must receive First Presidency approval..."

For the record, on the surface First Presidency approval may seem like a HUGE barrier, but there are many things on a ward or stake level that require the same approval that are fairly routine, including baptizing someone practicing polygamy, someone getting baptized who has committed certain felonies, approval for Bishops, reinstatement of blessings after excommunication, mission calls and more.

Like others, I too am not comfortable with this or the current wording, but am hopeful the intent is to protect the relationship of the child with their parents, etc.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Rocker, the second condition also applies. A person who has a parent who is or has been in a same sex relationship must also be 18 yrs or older, and not living with the lgbt parent.

The way this is written there isn't a path for anybody under the age of 18 to get baptized, confirmed, or ordained. I wonder what will happen to boys with a gay parent who were previously baptized, and are now a Deacon, and turn 14 in a few months. Will the Bishop now be require to force the young man to wait until he turns 18 to be ordained a Teacher?

I hope bishops go off the beaten path and ignore this new requirement, when it would be in the boy's best interest to continue along with his classmates.

[Scratch]

This makes no sense. I spent all night last night going through the scriptures about homosexuality. In EVERY CASE homosexuality is listed next to fornication and adultery. In God's eyes, all three are equally egregious.

Here is my problem:

If a man and a woman fornicate, they can get married, have kids and have those kids named, blessed, baptized, etc.

BUT, if a man and man or woman and woman fornicate and then get married, their kids cannot be blessed, named, given the priesthood, baptized, etc, until the child is 18 and renounced their parents' actions.

It's the same with adultery.

Why is the church singling out a group of people and not the others? Why is it ok for fornicators/adulterers to get married and have their children get "blessings" but the kids of a gay couple have to wait. Shouldn't all have to wait? Shouldn't the fornicators and adulterers who were married have to divorce and move onto to other partners before their kids can have those ordinances? Or shouldn't the children of fornicators/adulterers have to wait until they are 18 to be baptized?

And if your next response is that they don't want the kids making covenants they probably won't keep (growing up in a same sex household you probably won't stay Mormon) then why do they allow 8-9 year old children where one parent is an member and the other isn't to get baptized? My half sisters were baptized at 8 and 9 years old. I baptized one of my sisters. Their dad is a non-Mormon. They do not follow the faith anymore. Why were they allowed to be baptized but not children of a homosexual relationship?

This is nothing more than bigotry.

I'm still trying to get my head around why this is necessary and why, as Rocker noted, it wasn't phrased a little better. That said, there's a big difference between having parents who are (or were) fornicators/adulterers and parents who are in a same sex marriage. The gay rights movement itself has been extremely instructive on this point; sexuality is about innate identity. It's easy to imagine how a child wanting to join a church that is outspokenly opposed to gay marriage could cause significant strife in a household with gay parents. It would not be (or is much, much less likely to be) an issue in the fornication/adultery realm, just like there aren't people up in arms about the LDS church discriminating against them because they don't comply with the heterosexual aspects of the law of chastity. It's all about identity and the implications of that.

[Scratch]

By the way, I was a missionary in a country (Thailand) with a decent sized Muslim population. Under no circumstances were we allowed to teach a Muslim minor, let alone baptize one, nor were we allowed to teach Muslim adults except under very strict conditions. Now, the possible consequences for conversion are obviously different (death as opposed to familial discord), but it isn't like there aren't similar protections in place out of concern for the possible convert and their families.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

I live in Vegas. I'm friends with many members of the Brown family of Sister Wives notoriety. (I heard I was even on last Sunday's episode.) Janelle Brown, the second wife, was raised LDS. one of her daughter's has been dating an LDS kid and they're currently engaged. Despite being 19, she was required to get special permission before getting baptized. Her request was recently denied. I don't get that. I don't get this.
http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/11/06/a9f4458add7f9da9dcaf9c206a0b8745.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chrisrenrut]

I live in Vegas. I'm friends with many members of the Brown family of Sister Wives notoriety. (I heard I was even on last Sunday's episode.) Janelle Brown, the second wife, was raised LDS. one of her daughter's has been dating an LDS kid and they're currently engaged. Despite being 19, she was required to get special permission before getting baptized. Her request was recently denied. I don't get that. I don't get this.
http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/11/06/a9f4458add7f9da9dcaf9c206a0b8745.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Visitors welcome, Membership restricted.

[Utah]

It is different in LDS doctrine. When the man and woman marry, they are repenting of their fornication and can therefore be baptized. When the man and man marry, they continue to engage in the sin of homosexual sex. The only repentance option for them doctrinally is to split up.

But gay people can marry now. What is the difference? Or do you have to be sealed before your kids can get baptized, get the priesthood, name their baby, etc?

And the answer is "no".

So, why are we singling out a certain behavior while excusing others?

Where is the scripture that says that homosexuality is different than fornication and adultery? I looked all last night and I didn't find it.

So, why can an adulterer or fornicator get married and have everything be ok, but not a homosexual?

Why are we singling them out?

[Rocker Ute]

Rocker, the second condition also applies. A person who has a parent who is or has been in a same sex relationship must also be 18 yrs or older, and not living with the lgbt parent.

The way this is written there isn't a path for anybody under the age of 18 to get baptized, confirmed, or ordained. I wonder what will happen to boys with a gay parent who were previously baptized, and are now a Deacon, and turn 14 in a few months. Will the Bishop now be require to force the young man to wait until he turns 18 to be ordained a Teacher?

I hope bishops go off the beaten path and ignore this new requirement, when it would be in the boy's best interest to continue along with his classmates.

You note another issue that makes me think that this wasn't ready for prime time yet, or if it was, was not remotely well-reasoned even ignoring the PR standpoint. Usually they'll state conditions where these rules don't apply or where things like you mentioned, are essentially grandfathered in. I would assume that any child who has been blessed, baptized, received the priesthood etc would be able to retain those and continue down that path.

The other question is really how would you KNOW if a same sex couple was married? Would you have to look up public record? What of children of gay couples who aren't married? Can they be in full fellowship? Lots of questions around this one still.

[LA Ute]

It was obvious it was leaked as it is part of Handbook 1 which isn't generally distributed. I want to believe this is the reasoning behind it, and I am curious about the wording. It would seem that if this is indeed the intent (and my bias will point me that direction) you could achieve the same goal by explaining how it should be done versus 'it can't be done with limited exception', if that makes sense. So in other words, "For a child of SSM to be baptized a bishop or stake president must receive consent from both parents, must be committed to not personally enter into a SSM and must receive First Presidency approval..."

For the record, on the surface First Presidency approval may seem like a HUGE barrier, but there are many things on a ward or stake level that require the same approval that are fairly routine, including baptizing someone practicing polygamy, someone getting baptized who has committed certain felonies, approval for Bishops, reinstatement of blessings after excommunication, mission calls and more.

Like others, I too am not comfortable with this or the current wording, but am hopeful the intent is to protect the relationship of the child with their parents, etc.

I'll make a huge speculative leap and wonder if this was a draft that was leaked? Usually the wording of Handbook stuff about such matters is a bit more nuanced.

[Rocker Ute]

I'll make a huge speculative leap and wonder if this was a draft that was leaked? Usually the wording of Handbook stuff about such matters is a bit more nuanced.

Agreed. The first part about apostasy is no surprise, but the second part has a lot of issues just even from a general direction to avoid confusion for leaders standpoint. Edit: In short, even if there was no controversy surrounding this and it is being intentionally released as currently constructed, they'd certainly have to go back to the drawing board on much of it.

[mUUser]

I can only guess at the rationale. For the reason you state -- discord in the home -- children under 18 can't be baptized under any circumstances without parental permission.....


.....am hopeful the intent is to protect the relationship of the child with their parents, etc.


Still makes zero sense. The gospel that is taught to those that are baptized is the same gospel that is taught to those that are not baptized. The teachings are one in the same. If the goal is as stated above, then the solution is to bar entry to gay couples and their children -- no Sacrament, SS, Primary, YM/YW, seminary etc....

In either case, the child takes the same teachings back into the home. No?

[Rocker Ute]

Still makes zero sense. The gospel that is taught to those that are baptized is the same gospel that is taught to those that are not baptized. The teachings are one in the same. If the goal is as stated above, then the solution is to bar entry to gay couples and their children -- no Sacrament, SS, Primary, YM/YW, seminary etc....

In either case, the child takes the same teachings back into the home. No?

I'm purely speculating on all of it, for the record, and am not trying to rationalize anything. However, as far as I know, as long as you aren't disruptive or a danger to the congregation, any person is welcome to attend Sunday church services, regardless of church standing or personal behavior. Excommunicated people are encourage to continue to attend, they just can't teach or pray, pay tithing, etc. In my estimation barring entry to gay couples and their children would be unprecedented.

However, as LA has noted, children need parental permissions today and there is plenty of pain and rifts that come when people do join their church and their family has not. They would bring it into the home as you mentioned, but membership takes it to another level.

[Utah]

Again, my understanding (limited) of LDS doctrine is that homosexual sex is considered a sin in and of itself. The question of marriage is irrelevant to this doctrine. I don't know if it's scriptural, but it doesn't have to be in order to be doctrine.

This is tangential at best to the real questions though, which all relate to these new baptism/blessing rules for children of gay couples.

Thanks. My next question would be, it's not so much the act then, but where you stick your genitals that is the problem. Where in the scriptures does it outline where we can stick our genitals?

[Sullyute]

Thanks. My next question would be, it's not so much the act then, but where you stick your genitals that is the problem. Where in the scriptures does it outline where we can stick our genitals?
I believe the 1st presidency came out with a message on that in the early 80's and then quickly retracted it.

[Utah]

You're welcome! I don't think it's in the scriptures. I also don't think the presence or absence of anything in the scriptures is necessary to be considered LDS doctrine.

The post that LA threw up earlier includes one guy's explanation of what makes gay relationships different in the eyes of the LDS church:

Thanks again. The polygamy thing is tough to swallow when many of our current apostles are practicing polygamy and currently sealed to more than one woman. Heck, a lot of members are practicing polygamy. My currently single father is sealed to two women. According to God, he is a practicing polygamist even though he hates his wives and they hate him.

My next question is then this: What revelation/scripture do we have that defines that man can only be married to a woman? Because that seems to be the big hangup. Marriage. Sealings. Who decided that Men can only be sealed to Women?

Thanks again.

[Utah]

I believe the 1st presidency came out with a message on that in the early 80's and then quickly retracted it.

Links?

[NorthwestUteFan]

Links?

The ban in the early 80s referred specifically to (straight) oral...

1681

[LA Ute]

I believe the 1st presidency came out with a message on that in the early 80's and then quickly retracted it.

Things went badly quickly and one result of that effort was that bishops and other temple recommend interviewers were instructed to ask only the questions on the form. Too many of them got too inquisitive.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Pat Bagley wins the internetz.
http://www.sltrib.com/csp/mediapool/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=Ju9nD 8xoa2$JuwLYZIjtr8$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYufQ7jjyfVSQjE _kX0P2abXWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4 uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_C ryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Pat Bagley wins the internetz.
http://www.sltrib.com/csp/mediapool/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=Ju9nD 8xoa2$JuwLYZIjtr8$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYufQ7jjyfVSQjE _kX0P2abXWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4 uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_C ryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg

"Stay in the moat" was a great talk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chrisrenrut]

I'll make a huge speculative leap and wonder if this was a draft that was leaked? Usually the wording of Handbook stuff about such matters is a bit more nuanced.

Not a draft. This wording appears in the current online version of Handbook 1. I checked personally.

[LA Ute]

Not a draft. This wording appears in the current online version of Handbook 1. I checked personally.

Yeah, they've come out and said it's accurate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Just out -- An official church video on the new policy:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UtahsMrSports]

Just out -- An official church video on the new policy:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That makes a lot of sense to me.

[Rocker Ute]

Either way the church was completely tone deaf when they released this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sullyute]

It wasn't released, right? It was leaked?
Kind of. The change was officially made to the handbook for bishops and stake presidents. But it was leaked to the media. But it would have gotten out when bishops started enforcing it.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

This whole situation leaves me feeling sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk