Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

A New Mormon [Double] Standard?


Recommended Posts

On a related note, elder Christofferson was interviewed yesterday about members who support SSM. (I'm on a mobile device and can't post a link but it's on the tribune). He said that members can publicly support SSM and remain in good standing. The line is crossed when they attack the church or it's leaders.

So while yesterday's press conference has left a lot of questions unanswered, at least this one has been made much more clear. Thank you Elder Christofferson.

Link to comment

On a related note, elder Christofferson was interviewed yesterday about members who support SSM. (I'm on a mobile device and can't post a link but it's on the tribune). He said that members can publicly support SSM and remain in good standing. The line is crossed when they attack the church or it's leaders.

So while yesterday's press conference has left a lot of questions unanswered, at least this one has been made much more clear. Thank you Elder Christofferson.

I need this link Buckeye as this would help  a specific person who has not mentioned the church but supported the public policy in politics

Link to comment

I need this link Buckeye as this would help  a specific person who has not mentioned the church but supported the public policy in politics

 

Ask and ye shall receive ....

 

...

 

What does the LDS Church think of members who back same-sex marriage?

 

"There hasn't been any litmus test or standard imposed that you couldn't support that if you want to support it," Christofferson said, "if that's your belief and you think it's right." Any Latter-day Saint can have a belief "on either side of this issue," he said. "That's not uncommon." Problems arise only when a member makes "a public, sustained opposition to the church itself or the church leaders and tries to draw others after them," he said, and that support swells into "advocacy."

 

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2108746-155/we-all-can-be-more-civil

 

 

FWIW, I read this as a general principle that applies equally to women's ordination and other controversial issues.

Link to comment

He said that members can publicly support SSM and remain in good standing. The line is crossed when they attack the church or it's leaders.

There is ambiguity in some minds what the difference is. Can you specify some examples? While I could think of some, I'm mostly too lazy/disinterested to put much thought into it.

Link to comment

Mormonnewb,

 

To answer your question, I believe Elder Oaks draws a stark line between the US democracy and the LDS theocracy. I remember a quote from Oaks being put up in the Lee Library at BYU when I was a student. It went something like this: "The Church is Theocracy, Not a Democracy." I can't find the source online, but I believe it is found in his book The Lord's Way.

 

I believe that Elder Oaks would argue that different standards apply to LDS members than US citizens. The LDS church is top-down, guided by revelation and priesthood authority. The US government is bottom-up, guided by elected representatives; the Constitution begins "We the People ..." Membership in the LDS church is to a large extent completely voluntary. Citizenship in the US is much less so. Because of this, I would expect Elder Oaks to find that different levels of speech are protected in the church verses the democracy, and in particularly that speech amounting to advocacy is not acceptable in the church but vitally necessary in the democracy.

 

Now, as for private businesses, you are correct to point out a tension inherent in Oak's critique of Mozilla. Just like with religions, I believe Oaks would argue that private businesses have some rights to restrict speech and advocacy. Perhaps less so than with religions, but a business can take action against a CEO who's public advocacy causes harm to the business (e.g., a restaurant chain who's CEO strongly advocates for gun rights and goes on TV shows after school shootings to call for more, not less, guns in people's hands)

 

The real issue for Oaks (and the church) is not whether speech should be allowed here or there, but whether religious speech should be treated with special respect. That's where the tension is. Oaks would say that Mozilla is fine to take action against a gun-advocating CEO, but he would draw a line at a religious-advocating CEO. In Oak's mind, religious speech is unique and special.

 

What's really behind the angst felt by Elder Oaks and other church leaders is that purely religious viewpoints, while still tolerated in the public sphere, no longer carry much persuasive value. Back when Loving v. Virginia was decided, the lower court could cite to God as an authority and say that states have a right to keep the races separate because God set things up that way. Fast-forward to today and you see that no court would rely on God as a source. Yes, churches can file amicus briefs in support or marriage restrictions (ours certainly did), but they can only make arguments based on scientific studies or other generally acceptable bases. They can't say "God says so." The public sphere simply doesn't care.

 

So that's the bottom line. Our democracy used to care what our theocracies thought (LDS, Catholic, etc.). Increasingly, the democracy does not. Religion is fine as long as it is kept to oneself. But the minute "God says so" becomes an argument in the public sphere, the speaker is denounced as a bigot. That's what has our church leaders so concerned.

Link to comment

On a related note, elder Christofferson was interviewed yesterday about members who support SSM. (I'm on a mobile device and can't post a link but it's on the tribune). He said that members can publicly support SSM and remain in good standing. The line is crossed when they attack the church or it's leaders.

So while yesterday's press conference has left a lot of questions unanswered, at least this one has been made much more clear. Thank you Elder Christofferson.

 

Because I know how we like to parse every word that preceding forth, here is the language from the Trib piece:

 

Problems arise only when a member makes "a public, sustained opposition to the church itself or the church leaders and tries to draw others after them," he said, and that support swells into "advocacy." [And yes, I realize that I probably should go back and get the actual quote, but I'm much too lazy for that]

 

 

 

Interestingly, I'm not sure that the line is even crossed when one makes a "public, sustained opposition to the church itself or the church leaders."  It seems that one must ALSO try to draw others after them and cross over into the "Land of Apostovacy."

 

Of course, I know that I'm the only Mormon who finds it creepy that someone would actually say ... IN PUBLIC ... that some line has been crossed when a member of this Church opposes HIM (a Church leader).  Wow!  That type of sentiment is really something that we should keep sacred [but not secret] because the "swine" of the world find that pearl really difficult to swallow.  Trust me on that one.  Oink! Oink!

Link to comment

Mormonnewb,

To answer your question, I believe Elder Oaks draws a stark line between the US democracy and the LDS theocracy. I remember a quote from Oaks being put up in the Lee Library at BYU when I was a student. It went something like this: "The Church is Theocracy, Not a Democracy." I can't find the source online, but I believe it is found in his book The Lord's Way.

I believe that Elder Oaks would argue that different standards apply to LDS members than US citizens. The LDS church is top-down, guided by revelation and priesthood authority. The US government is bottom-up, guided by elected representatives; the Constitution begins "We the People ..." Membership in the LDS church is to a large extent completely voluntary. Citizenship in the US is much less so. Because of this, I would expect Elder Oaks to find that different levels of speech are protected in the church verses the democracy, and in particularly that speech amounting to advocacy is not acceptable in the church but vitally necessary in the democracy.

Now, as for private businesses, you are correct to point out a tension inherent in Oak's critique of Mozilla. Just like with religions, I believe Oaks would argue that private businesses have some rights to restrict speech and advocacy. Perhaps less so than with religions, but a business can take action against a CEO who's public advocacy causes harm to the business (e.g., a restaurant chain who's CEO strongly advocates for gun rights and goes on TV shows after school shootings to call for more, not less, guns in people's hands)

The real issue for Oaks (and the church) is not whether speech should be allowed here or there, but whether religious speech should be treated with special respect. That's where the tension is. Oaks would say that Mozilla is fine to take action against a gun-advocating CEO, but he would draw a line at a religious-advocating CEO. In Oak's mind, religious speech is unique and special.

What's really behind the angst felt by Elder Oaks and other church leaders is that purely religious viewpoints, while still tolerated in the public sphere, no longer carry much persuasive value. Back when Loving v. Virginia was decided, the lower court could cite to God as an authority and say that states have a right to keep the races separate because God set things up that way. Fast-forward to today and you see that no court would rely on God as a source. Yes, churches can file amicus briefs in support or marriage restrictions (ours certainly did), but they can only make arguments based on scientific studies or other generally acceptable bases. They can't say "God says so." The public sphere simply doesn't care.

So that's the bottom line. Our democracy used to care what our theocracies thought (LDS, Catholic, etc.). Increasingly, the democracy does not. Religion is fine as long as it is kept to oneself. But the minute "God says so" becomes an argument in the public sphere, the speaker is denounced as a bigot. That's what has our church leaders so concerned.

Bravo, well said Buckeye!
Link to comment

There is ambiguity in some minds what the difference is. Can you specify some examples? While I could think of some, I'm mostly too lazy/disinterested to put much thought into it.

 

Acceptable

  • Write a public blog post that says, "My brother is getting married to his boyfriend. I'm so happy for them."
  • Say "yes I do" when asked in the church foyer if you support gay marriage.
  • Vote for a state statute to expand marriage rights to LGBT.
  • Put an equality bumper sticker on your car.

 

Unacceptable

  • Write a public blog post that calls on employers to fire all Mormon bigots who supported Prop 8.
  • Give a testimony in church that "the spirit has born witness to me that President Monson is wrong on gay marriage."
  • Picket in front of the SLC Temple to force the church to change its stance on SSM.

 

Debatable (i.e., acceptability will turn on local leaders' judgment)

  • Write a public blog post that says "I'm a Relief Society President and I support SSM."
  • March in a gay pride parade with a group named "Mormons for Marriage Equality."
  • Teach a sunday school lesson on eternal marriage to 16-17 year olds in which you mention that many active members support SSM and that's fine with the church as long as they do not criticize leaders or advocate for change of church doctrine. 
Link to comment

Mormonnewb,

 

To answer your question, I believe Elder Oaks draws a stark line between the US democracy and the LDS theocracy. I remember a quote from Oaks being put up in the Lee Library at BYU when I was a student. It went something like this: "The Church is Theocracy, Not a Democracy." I can't find the source online, but I believe it is found in his book The Lord's Way.

 

I believe that Elder Oaks would argue that different standards apply to LDS members than US citizens. The LDS church is top-down, guided by revelation and priesthood authority. The US government is bottom-up, guided by elected representatives; the Constitution begins "We the People ..." Membership in the LDS church is to a large extent completely voluntary. Citizenship in the US is much less so. Because of this, I would expect Elder Oaks to find that different levels of speech are protected in the church verses the democracy, and in particularly that speech amounting to advocacy is not acceptable in the church but vitally necessary in the democracy.

 

Now, as for private businesses, you are correct to point out a tension inherent in Oak's critique of Mozilla. Just like with religions, I believe Oaks would argue that private businesses have some rights to restrict speech and advocacy. Perhaps less so than with religions, but a business can take action against a CEO who's public advocacy causes harm to the business (e.g., a restaurant chain who's CEO strongly advocates for gun rights and goes on TV shows after school shootings to call for more, not less, guns in people's hands)

 

The real issue for Oaks (and the church) is not whether speech should be allowed here or there, but whether religious speech should be treated with special respect. That's where the tension is. Oaks would say that Mozilla is fine to take action against a gun-advocating CEO, but he would draw a line at a religious-advocating CEO. In Oak's mind, religious speech is unique and special.

 

What's really behind the angst felt by Elder Oaks and other church leaders is that purely religious viewpoints, while still tolerated in the public sphere, no longer carry much persuasive value. Back when Loving v. Virginia was decided, the lower court could cite to God as an authority and say that states have a right to keep the races separate because God set things up that way. Fast-forward to today and you see that no court would rely on God as a source. Yes, churches can file amicus briefs in support or marriage restrictions (ours certainly did), but they can only make arguments based on scientific studies or other generally acceptable bases. They can't say "God says so." The public sphere simply doesn't care.

 

So that's the bottom line. Our democracy used to care what our theocracies thought (LDS, Catholic, etc.). Increasingly, the democracy does not. Religion is fine as long as it is kept to oneself. But the minute "God says so" becomes an argument in the public sphere, the speaker is denounced as a bigot. That's what has our church leaders so concerned.

 

Excellent points!  And agree with ALL of them.

 

For one, the standard for tolerating dissent must be MUCH higher for government than for ANY private actor, including the Church.  Second, private actors should be allowed to restrict a member's expression of belief to the extent that this expression is detrimental to the institution.

 

Now, as for whether religious belief should be elevated to some special status whereby its expression should be tolerated (even if it works to the detriment of the institution) is unclear.  The example you cite shows very clearly why religious belief is not inherently more worthy of protection than any other type of belief.  And I don't think that even Elder Oaks would say that a company should tolerate a CEO who publicly espoused a religious belief about blacks and the mark of Cain.  At least, I would HOPE that Elder Oaks would acknowledge that company's right to terminate such a CEO.

 

So what is the difference here?  Why does the current Mormon belief of "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" deserve greater protection than our beliefs of 40 years ago?

Link to comment

Excellent points!  And agree with ALL of them.

 

For one, the standard for tolerating dissent must be MUCH higher for government than for ANY private actor, including the Church.  Second, private actors should be allowed to restrict a member's expression of belief to the extent that this expression is detrimental to the institution.

 

Now, as for whether religious belief should be elevated to some special status whereby its expression should be tolerated (even if it works to the detriment of the institution) is unclear.  The example you cite shows very clearly why religious belief is not inherently more worthy of protection than any other type of belief.  And I don't think that even Elder Oaks would say that a company should tolerate a CEO who publicly espoused a religious belief about blacks and the mark of Cain.  At least, I would HOPE that Elder Oaks would acknowledge that company's right to terminate such a CEO.

 

So what is the difference here?  Why does the current Mormon belief of "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" deserve greater protection than our beliefs of 40 years ago?

 

The difference is ... 40 years!

 

Uncontroversial religious beliefs will always be tolerated. A CEO who says "I love puppies because Jesus said to be kind" will be fine.

 

Societally-rejected religious beliefs will not be tolerated. A CEO who says "God revealed that blacks are to be slaves in the eternities" will never be okay.

 

The rub comes when societal values change. Keeping the races separate on religious grounds was acceptable 60 years ago. Today, no way. Opposing gay marriage because God revealed that marriage is only to be man-woman was acceptable 2 years okay. Today .... we're still working that out. Tomorrow, who knows?

 

That's the whole point of yesterday's conference. Church leaders are trying to keep purely religious beliefs re: homosexuality from going the way of religious beliefs on race.

Edited by Buckeye
Link to comment

Now, as for private businesses, you are correct to point out a tension inherent in Oak's critique of Mozilla. Just like with religions, I believe Oaks would argue that private businesses have some rights to restrict speech and advocacy. Perhaps less so than with religions, but a business can take action against a CEO who's public advocacy causes harm to the business (e.g., a restaurant chain who's CEO strongly advocates for gun rights and goes on TV shows after school shootings to call for more, not less, guns in people's hands)

What is public advocacy? Did the CEO do anything more than donate? (I don't know). I know a lot of people donated not knowing/realizing that their names would become not only public knowledge, but also paraded in public.

Link to comment

What is public advocacy? Did the CEO do anything more than donate? (I don't know). I know a lot of people donated not knowing/realizing that their names would become not only public knowledge, but also paraded in public.

 

I believe in the Mozilla case that the CEO simply donated money. He made no speeches or other advocacy. And the donation itself didn't come to light for some time, after which was the public outcry and the company forced him out. Personally, I think it was a bad call. The guy seems genuinely good and from all accounts he was fair and kind to LGBT at Mozilla. He tried as best as possible to keep his private actions private. But donations are of public record and so can't be kept entirely private.

 

FWIW, there were a number of strong LGBT activists (e.g., Andrew Sullivan) who came to the defense of the CEO.

Link to comment

Apples and oranges. If the CEO had been expressing opposition against Mozilla rather than against SSM then your example would have worked.

What the Mozilla CEO expressed through his prop 8 contribution was in opposition to mozilla's corporate culture as well as those of Mozilla's customers and affiliates. It's apples and apples.

Edited by rockpond
Link to comment

I believe in the Mozilla case that the CEO simply donated money. He made no speeches or other advocacy. And the donation itself didn't come to light for some time, after which was the public outcry and the company forced him out. Personally, I think it was a bad call. The guy seems genuinely good and from all accounts he was fair and kind to LGBT at Mozilla. He tried as best as possible to keep his private actions private. But donations are of public record and so can't be kept entirely private.

FWIW, there were a number of strong LGBT activists (e.g., Andrew Sullivan) who came to the defense of the CEO.

For the record, I do think that asking the Mozilla CEO to resign Was a mistake by Mozilla. But I think they should have the right to make that mistake.

Link to comment

What is public advocacy? Did the CEO do anything more than donate? (I don't know). I know a lot of people donated not knowing/realizing that their names would become not only public knowledge, but also paraded in public.

Yes, donating money to a cause is advocacy. In my stake, donating money to OW is cause to question your recommend status.

Link to comment

The difference is ... 40 years!

Uncontroversial religious beliefs will always be tolerated. A CEO who says "I love puppies because Jesus said to be kind" will be fine.

Societally-rejected religious beliefs will not be tolerated. A CEO who says "God revealed that blacks are to be slaves in the eternities" will never be okay.

The rub comes when societal values change. Keeping the races separate on religious grounds was acceptable 60 years ago. Today, no way. Opposing gay marriage because God revealed that marriage is only to be man-woman was acceptable 2 years okay. Today .... we're still working that out. Tomorrow, who knows?

That's the whole point of yesterday's conference. Church leaders are trying to keep purely religious beliefs re: homosexuality from going the way of religious beliefs on race.

And since religious beliefs on race were wrong, there is the possibility that religious beliefs on homosexuality will to that same direction.

In another 40 years our Church will have accepted gay marriage or it will be withering on the vine.

Link to comment

And since religious beliefs on race were wrong, there is the possibility that religious beliefs on homosexuality will to that same direction.

In another 40 years our Church will have accepted gay marriage or it will be withering on the vine.

 

I have a testimony in Alma 32's test for truth. As the seeds of SSM and SS families are sown we will see whether the fruit is good. If it is, I trust that the church will accept that good just as it has done for other good things in the past. There will be struggle, but eventually we do embrace the light.

Link to comment

I have a testimony in Alma 32's test for truth. As the seeds of SSM and SS families are sown we will see whether the fruit is good. If it is, I trust that the church will accept that good just as it has done for other good things in the past. There will be struggle, but eventually we do embrace the light.

I agree. It's the pattern we see with the church's struggle with race. But, I find it sad that we have to follow the evidence rather than lead by prophetic revelation.

Link to comment

I agree. It's the pattern we see with the church's struggle with race. But, I find it sad that we have to follow the evidence rather than lead by prophetic revelation.

I wonder the same thing

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...