Page 30 of 31 FirstFirst ... 20262728293031 LastLast
Results 871 to 900 of 903

Thread: The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

  1. #871
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    Didn't the Supreme Court rule in favor of the baker 7-2? Did they also not rule in favor of Hobby Lobby?

    When it comes the this bill, I think the compromise the Church is seeking has already been modeled in SLC, which has law for equal rights for LGBTQ people. On the other hand, have those protections of religious freedoms expressed in the law locally actually eroded the rights of LGBTQ in any way?

    And yes I think the reason the Church is being preemptive in this is because of weddings and perhaps other religious ceremonies. The ruling in the Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage affirmed it was a human right. It wouldn't seem to be too much of a leap for someone to challenge the church that if they are going to perform weddings for some, they need to perform weddings for all. (A side note on this, but I also think the recent policy change regarding civil marriages is to counteract this possibility - that if they do ultimately lose that battle they'll get out of the wedding business altogether and just perform sealings).
    The Supreme Court ruled on procedural grounds in the baker case that allow Colorado to go through it all again if it chooses.

    Here is the language added to the Utah law:

    34A-5-111.Application to the freedom of expressive association and the free
    688 exercise of religion.
    689 This chapter may not be interpreted to infringe upon the freedom of expressive
    690 association or the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment of the United
    691 States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1, 4, and 15 of the Utah Constitution.
    692 Section 10. Section 34A-5-112 is enacted to read:
    693 34A-5-112.Religious liberty protections -- Expressing beliefs and commitments in
    694 workplace -- Prohibition on employment actions against certain employee speech.
    695 (1) An employee may express the employee's religious or moral beliefs and
    696 commitments in the workplace in a reasonable, non-disruptive, and non-harassing way on
    697 equal terms with similar types of expression of beliefs or commitments allowed by the
    698 employer in the workplace, unless the expression is in direct conflict with the essential
    699 business-related interests of the employer.
    700 (2) An employer may not discharge, demote, terminate, or refuse to hire any person, or
    701 retaliate against, harass, or discriminate in matters of compensation or in terms, privileges, and

    702 conditions of employment against any person otherwise qualified, for lawful expression or
    703 expressive activity outside of the workplace regarding the person's religious, political, or
    704 personal convictions, including convictions about marriage, family, or sexuality, unless the
    705 expression or expressive activity is in direct conflict with the essential business-related
    706 interests of the employer.


    I don't know if there were any problems with this prior to this change in the law. I really don't have any problem with this as long as it applies equally to matters in addition to religion. As a former employment law lawyer, I see this as almost impossible to enforce. Essential business related interests must include image, profit, and workplace harmony. Then again, plaintiff lawyers never lack for creativity.

    I think the LDS Church should get out of the wedding business. From a religious standpoint, I believe mixing the wedding stuff with a sacred ordinance many times makes sacred ordinance second to all of the wedding stuff.
    Last edited by UTEopia; 05-16-2019 at 08:08 AM.

  2. #872
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,638
    Quote Originally Posted by UTEopia View Post
    I think the LDS Church should get out of the wedding business. From a religious standpoint, I believe mixing the wedding stuff with a sacred ordinance many times makes sacred ordinance second to all of the wedding stuff.
    I think we are headed in this direction.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  3. #873
    Define "getting out of the marriage business"....

    No marriages in lds chapels?

  4. #874
    Q: what happens if you get married in a civil ceremony and have a sealing later that day? Can you make the traditional dash to the hotel after the wedding breakfast, or do you have to wait until after the sealing?

  5. #875
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I think we are headed in this direction.
    Why? There really is nothing to be afraid of re:gay marriage and the temple. And I don't think the mormon church wants to "get out" of the marriage business. I mean, they might stop marrying couples, but why do this? For legal liability reasons? For pragmatic reasons? I'm truly interested to hear your thoughts on this.

  6. #876
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,638

    The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    Why? There really is nothing to be afraid of re:gay marriage and the temple. And I don't think the mormon church wants to "get out" of the marriage business. I mean, they might stop marrying couples, but why do this? For legal liability reasons? For pragmatic reasons? I'm truly interested to hear your thoughts on this.
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahsMrSports View Post
    Define "getting out of the marriage business"....

    No marriages in lds chapels?
    I haven't thought about this for some time. I've heard the idea floated that maybe the temple sealing (or the Catholic/Episcopalian/Adventist/Presbyterian ceremonies) should be sort of a church blessing on the civil ceremony, which would be done outside of a church. In many countries only the state has authority to perform marriages, and the couples involved later go to church to "solemnize" the union. The new policy actually allows that, so it is effectively, if not intentionally, a step in that direction.

    I don't know about weddings in chapels. I suppose that if a gay couple wanted to be married in a chapel and were refused, it's not outlandish to imagine a legal challenge based on state law. If a chapel is open to the public and state law requires equal access, there might be a case, and the church might just say, "No more weddings in our chapels." But I'm speculating off the top of my head. I really hope it never comes to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    Q: what happens if you get married in a civil ceremony and have a sealing later that day? Can you make the traditional dash to the hotel after the wedding breakfast, or do you have to wait until after the sealing?
    I have no idea. I doubt the church would get into that level of detail, which would only cause more problems, IMO. Enforcement would become kind of ridiculous.
    Last edited by LA Ute; 05-16-2019 at 03:14 PM.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  7. #877
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    Q: what happens if you get married in a civil ceremony and have a sealing later that day? Can you make the traditional dash to the hotel after the wedding breakfast,
    Yes, you can, but I imagine few couples will do this. I bet there will also be some sealings that wait until after the honeymoon for logistic reasons.

  8. #878
    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    Why? There really is nothing to be afraid of re:gay marriage and the temple.
    I think you are more trusting in the reasonableness of people and in the logic of law than I am. More trusting in the constitution. The constitutions seems rather flexible to this outsider.

    I'm not saying I think anything crazy is imminent; I can just imagine crazy things happening in the future.

  9. #879
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    I think you are more trusting in the reasonableness of people and in the logic of law than I am. More trusting in the constitution. The constitutions seems rather flexible to this outsider.

    I'm not saying I think anything crazy is imminent; I can just imagine crazy things happening in the future.
    It's true that I am more patriotic than you. Thanks for the aknowledgement.

    The Constitution is pretty vague about a lot of things and completely silent about a whole host of things. But on freedom of religion it is pretty clear. The government is not going to be able to dictate who religions choose to marry.

  10. #880
    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    It's true that I am more patriotic than you. Thanks for the aknowledgement.
    You are in capital city - of course you are more patriotic than me. But I'm the one here campaigning for "This Land Is Your Land" in the LDS hymnbook, so I'm no slouch.

  11. #881
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    Q: what happens if you get married in a civil ceremony and have a sealing later that day? Can you make the traditional dash to the hotel after the wedding breakfast, or do you have to wait until after the sealing?
    Short answer is the dash would certainly be allowed. The law of chastity as stated by the church is that you have no sexual relations except with the person you are "legally and lawfully" married. If you are married civilly you aren't breaking the law of chastity. Pre-reception disappointment is still on the table.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #882
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahsMrSports View Post
    Define "getting out of the marriage business"....

    No marriages in lds chapels?
    I’ve seen receptions but never a marriage ceremony in a chapel. Is that a thing?

  13. #883
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,638
    Quote Originally Posted by UTEopia View Post
    I’ve seen receptions but never a marriage ceremony in a chapel. Is that a thing?
    No weddings in LDS chapels. They have to be in another room. It's a long-standing policy. That's all I know about it. [EDIT: I mean the chapel portion of the building. Relief Society room, cultural hall, etc., are all ok for weddings.]
    Last edited by LA Ute; 05-17-2019 at 10:09 AM.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  14. #884
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    Pre-reception disappointment is still on the table.
    Lol, at least for one of them.

  15. #885
    This news isn't religious, and it's not unique, but that it's in Utah and being reported - at least in the Trib, perhaps not/never in the D-News - is a data point in my thesis:

    https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/06/...y-utah-family/

    Prebirth, the doctors said it was a girl, so the parents gave the name "Victoria". Later in the term, they switched and said it was a boy, so the name became "Victor". After birth, it became apparent the child has two X chromosomes and one Y chromosome, so it's an intersex baby. Unlike previous practice, where parents tried to swerve the baby in one direction or another with surgery and hormones, these parents are letting this play out until "Victory" is old enough to decide which way to go... or not to choose.

    Before the Information Age, these kinds of cases were rare enough that the genie could be kept in the bottle, ideology/theology could be kept tidy.

    This is a small dot, but it may become a significant one, if young people start asking questions.

  16. #886
    I haven’t read all of this yet, so I’m mostly just putting it somewhere that I can come back to later.

    https://www.outsports.com/2019/6/11/...-bi-coming-out


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  17. #887
    Minor milestone in my thesis: Ed Smart

    His coming out would have peeled paint off walls closer to when Elizabeth was kidnapped in 2002, but it's mostly a non-event now, which is both a good thing, and is another small brick in the wall, helps set up a "why did we exclude them in the past?" question somewhere in the future.

    Certainly, the way Ed Smart handled the public communications on his situation is a far, far cry from the more provocative, anti-LDS departures, and in itself lays the seeds for some introspective thought.

    Certainly doesn't change my opinion that Ed Smart is a good guy, before & after.
    Last edited by Ma'ake; 08-18-2019 at 10:06 AM.

  18. #888
    Quote Originally Posted by Ma'ake View Post
    but it's mostly a non-event now, which is both a good thing
    I agree that it's a good thing. Why does he feel the need to do this publicly? Does he miss the spotlight?

    I think it's possible that this could not have happened back when Elizabeth was kidnapped because he may not have had these feelings back then. At any rate, I don't think what he did is anything to celebrate.

  19. #889
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    I agree that it's a good thing. Why does he feel the need to do this publicly? Does he miss the spotlight?

    I think it's possible that this could not have happened back when Elizabeth was kidnapped because he may not have had these feelings back then. At any rate, I don't think what he did is anything to celebrate.
    Supposedly he meant the message to go to family & friends, but he made it public, then it was quickly withdrawn, but with the cat out of the bag, he decided might as well go public. Ed's 64 years old, so that story is certainly plausible.

    Lois filed for divorce July 5, so apparently this has had some time in the making. From the generic faithful LDS perspective, he did a lot of damage, it could be seen as a betrayal, I'm sure emotions are raw within the family.

    From the perspective of the LDS LGTBQ community, it's a big deal. In the past, there was no such thing as a LDS LGTBQ community, at least publicly, so that's a milestone in itself. I think the default direction is still to bail out and be gone, go the ex-Mormon route.

    It's those folks who are openly gay but still faithful in their beliefs that are the pioneers of 2019. That's not an easy row to hoe.

    My sense is there will be some unofficial, localized sentiment here & there to keep supporting people like Ed, encourage them to keep coming to church, keep the family together, "it will all be revealed at some later point". There's still a big chasm to jump, but between folks bailing out in general, and the ongoing story of more people coming out, there's a bridge that needs building.

    Kind of like "we're still here, we've acknowledged some of the tough issues that people struggle with, but we're still here. Why should we let this issue push us apart?"

    The Mormons Building Bridges group and a site called MormonAndGay have some commonsense ideas: 1- stop assuming gays are pedophiles. 2 - don't isolate us, let us continue serving in callings, etc.

    Kendall Wilcox, of the Bridges group, says "listen to us and try to emphasize with us and then let that empathy unsettle their settled assumption about the doctrine". Wilcox doesn't elaborate on that statement, but suffice it to say the specifics of belief (in general, not confined to LDS ideology) change quite a bit, over time.

    I see a yearning for more than just another "well, XYZ just came out, so these must be the very last days" kind of reaction.
    Last edited by Ma'ake; 08-18-2019 at 10:56 AM.

  20. #890
    Quote Originally Posted by Ma'ake View Post
    Minor milestone in my thesis: Ed Smart

    His coming out would have peeled paint off walls closer to when Elizabeth was kidnapped in 2002, but it's mostly a non-event now, which is both a good thing, and is another small brick in the wall, helps set up a "why did we exclude them in the past?" question somewhere in the future.

    Certainly, the way Ed Smart handled the public communications on his situation is a far, far cry from the more provocative, anti-LDS departures, and in itself lays the seeds for some introspective thought.

    Certainly doesn't change my opinion that Ed Smart is a good guy, before & after.
    Disagree that this is a non-event. Front page of can means that this is an event.

  21. #891
    This guy has been through hell and back, and this latest chapter in his life must be emotionally exhausting. I feel nothing but empathy for this family.
    “Children and dogs are as necessary to the welfare of the country as Wall Street and the railroads.” -- Harry S. Truman

    "You never soar so high as when you stoop down to help a child or an animal." -- Jewish Proverb

    "Three-time Pro Bowler Eric Weddle the most versatile, and maybe most intelligent, safety in the game." -- SI, 9/7/15, p. 107.

  22. #892
    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    Front page of can means that this is an event.
    Front page of can?

  23. #893
    Quote Originally Posted by Ma'ake View Post
    I see a yearning for more than just another "well, XYZ just came out, so these must be the very last days" kind of reaction.
    "Another"? Have I missed a bunch of bizarre reactions?

  24. #894
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    "Another"? Have I missed a bunch of bizarre reactions?
    I'm assuming on that reaction, based on what I heard growing up. We used to hear about the imminence of the 2nd Coming all the time in the 70s, but then I think that died down as we got closer to Y2K.

    In terms of "another", I would have to put Sterling Van Waggoner in the category of high-profile crashes, though what he did was infinitely worse than Ed Smart impacting his family.

  25. #895
    Regardless of Ed Smart's sexual orientation I know of a few people familiar with with him who agree he is not a good guy and that has character flaws have been well known long before this latest announcement.

    And no this isn't based in Elizabeth Smart conspiracy theories either.

    I only say that if there is LDS LGBTQ basing some hope on him that he will be a foundation for a path for them it will likely be a very sandy foundation.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  26. #896
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    Regardless of Ed Smart's sexual orientation I know of a few people familiar with with him who agree he is not a good guy and that has character flaws have been well known long before this latest announcement.

    And no this isn't based in Elizabeth Smart conspiracy theories either.

    I only say that if there is LDS LGBTQ basing some hope on him that he will be a foundation for a path for them it will likely be a very sandy foundation.
    Well, I've been on the outside looking in for 35 years, so I have no idea what constitutes a character flaw within the flock these days, other than noting one of the locally celebrated "good guys" just published a book on how high end investors can make big returns by investing in MLMs. (He was the CFO at a major MLM, which kind of shocked me, as he really is an affable, decent dude. Does that make MLMs honorable enterprises to get involved in? Or still just a thin veneer way of fleecing the less informed?)

    I don't think Ed Smart is *the* path... but maybe just another brick on the road.

    (You have to remember from my perspective, BY wasn't a good guy, as the prescription he laid out for somebody like me was unambiguous, "death on the spot". I'm not a scholar on the topic, but Young's role in at least setting the stage for MMM was not good, and the Priesthood ban appears to have come from him, since it was only policy. Somebody like David O. McKay, who struggled with it after signing a 1st Prez document asserting it was a direct commandment, laying the foundation for SLK to lead the change... he seems like a pretty good guy.)

  27. #897
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    Regardless of Ed Smart's sexual orientation I know of a few people familiar with with him who agree he is not a good guy and that has character flaws have been well known long before this latest announcement.
    I mean, we all have character flaws, and as mUU pointed out, this guy has been through a lot. I just think this decision doesn't need to be celebrated. It is immensely hurtful to someone who he committed to, someone who gave him everything.

  28. #898
    Quote Originally Posted by Ma'ake View Post
    I have no idea what constitutes a character flaw within the flock these days
    It's pretty much the same things that are considered character flaws outside of the flock.

  29. #899
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,638
    I've known Ed and his wife Lois since college. They're solid people -- especially Lois -- who've both been through a horrifying ordeal from which most of us pray fervently to be spared and that none of us would wish on anyone. I am not sure I agree with lots of Ed's decisions during and after Elizabeth's kidnapping, including the way he handled this one, but I cut all the Smarts an awful lot of slack. I wish them well.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  30. #900
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    I mean, we all have character flaws, and as mUU pointed out, this guy has been through a lot. I just think this decision doesn't need to be celebrated. It is immensely hurtful to someone who he committed to, someone who gave him everything.
    I used the term 'character flaw' but Ed Smart's issues go far beyond character flaws, I was trying, poorly, to be a bit polite. Not my business to publish them here for obvious reasons and I only know a small portion of it - I'll just say that when people who deal with the scum of the earth have to excuse themselves from a church meeting he is attending it is worth noting. There is nothing noble or courageous about Ed Smart, regardless of his recent announcement. So my heart goes out to his ex-wife and his children in all of this and beyond. My ultimate point is if there is hope of hanging a hat on him as a 'good guy' it would be sorely mistaken.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •