Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rockpond

Church statement on Equality Act

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Valentinus said:

The argument for "traditional" marriage is marred with issues and cannot be supported by scripture. If an argument on the subject is to be made then it has to come from a sociological and philosophical perspective.

Exactly. There is little agreement among Christians as to the interpretation of the Bible on religious matters,  and even less so on secular issues.  That is why I steer clear of scripture when discussing political matters on public forums. I hope you noticed that I have been using secular reasoning and examples when discussing the issues of this thread.

Quote

Good grief. There is no pleasing everyone. Someone is always going to feel marginalized. This is when we need to persevere and not let marginalization get us down.

That makes sense to me,  but it is  not exceptable to political correctness.  It will be viewed as though you are telling trans women to suck it up and man up,  To them, that may be viewed as bigoted and highly offensive, and being offended  is the coin of the political realm these days. Expect to have such statements dismissed as "sexist" and "trans-phobic,  etc.  Besides, the trans women ended up getting their way in 2018, which reinforced their overly sensitive behavior.  So, expect more of the same.

Quote

This is seriously problematic. Trans women need to remember that there is and always be a definitive difference between them and biological women. There is no way to get around it.

Again, I hear you, but your reasoned sentiments won't play well within identity politics. Ironically, they ignore the science of biology, and resort instead to selectively considering gender as a social construct. To them, body parts and body functions are irrelevant. All that matters is how a person identifies. To suggest otherwise is bigotry. It is a word game that gives the illusion that identity politics is winning, but it is a lose-lose for everyone. Hence, the unsolvable problems.

Quote

But this does not address the trans women who are attracted to men. A serious issue is a disingenuous assumption that predatory activity is inevitable. SeeHERE, HERE, and HERE. Trans men are in my locker room almost every day and sometimes they are around children as well. HERE is an interesting essay on female sex offenders from 2007. Here is the abstract from an essay written on female sex offenders:

Yes, the problem is even worse than I intimated.  Not only isn't there a clear and easy solution, there seems to be no acceptable solution at all--which, from certain perspectives, may be intended, though I won't go into that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by Wade Englund
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I'm sure the statement had the backing of the brethren, I wasn't attempting to suggest otherwise.  I just think it was poor judgement to make such a statement, and I can't for the life of me see how it helps the church from a PR perspective to make a statement like that.  

I'm not sure what you even mean by God or his ancestors, I thought God was Alpha and Omega, but what do I know, perhaps you're more of an Adam God doctrine believer?  

Also, if you believe God is behind this PR statement, can you explain how you reconcile the infamous 2015 exclusion policy being a revelation from God, and the recent revocation of that same policy also being a revelation from God?  I haven't heard any satisfactory answers as to how people who believe God is directly pulling the strings on these kinds of things, explain to me how they reconcile the events around the 2015 exclusion policy and its fairly quick revocation.  

Thanks Hope for your response. Here's my take on it and as a warning, I'm not mainstream, in any of this-

When you think about it, if Jesus did only what He saw His Father do - and His Father when He was in His own mortality, likely did the same thing - only what He saw His Father do.

Take that, plus the creation which was an organization of existing materials (and I would suggest, that organization was done using existing principles like physics, math, science - I dont think Jesus, God, etc. created physics, math, science, morality, human biology, etc.)

I have a hard time picturing a radical departure by God the Father from what His Parents put in place.  Jesus did only what He saw the Father do. Ya know?

-

So for the 2015 policy -

Just as background which you probably know, children of Islamic parents as well as children of parents of polygamists were (and are now, I believe) not allowed to be baptized until they were 18.  

Trying to reconcile varying orientations with the revealed word, reasonably would have (and dodes) cause anxiety, distress, and concern in families.

So - the Church either attempts to compromise - on principles they did not create (physics, math, science, biology, procreation) or the Church tries to maintain the boundaries it feels God has put in place.

Perhaps the 2015 policy was canceled due to commonplace acceptance of alternative lifestyles?  Perhaps since President Nelson is a change-maker?

Since I am an advocate for legalizing polyamory so that the Church might reinstitute polygamy, these all seem to suggest the moral arc of the universe is slowly ebbing my way. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

Exactly. There is little agreement among Christians as to the interpretation of the Bible on religious matters,  and even less so on secular issues.  That is why I steer clear of scripture when discussing political matters on public forums. I hope you noticed that I have been using secular reasoning and examples when discussing the issues of this thread.

That makes sense to me,  but it is  not exceptable to political correctness.  It will be viewed as though you are telling trans women to suck it up and man up,  To them, that may be viewed as bigoted and highly offensive, and being offended  is the coin of the political realm these days. Expect to have such statements dismissed as "sexist" and "trans-phobic,  etc.  Besides, the trans women ended up getting their way in 2018, which reinforced their overly sensitive behavior.  So, expect more of the same.

Again, I hear you, but your reasoned sentiments won't play well within identity politics. Ironically, they ignore the science of biology, and resort instead to selectively considering gender as a social construct. To them, body parts and body functions are irrelevant. All that matters is how a person identifies. To suggest otherwise is bigotry. It is a word game that gives the illusion that identity politics is winning, but it is a lose-lose for everyone. Hence, the unsolvable problems.

Yes, the problem is even worse than I intimated.  Not only isn't there a clear and easy solution, there seems to be no acceptable solution at all--which, from certain perspectives, may be intended, though I won't go into that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The best option, for me at least, is to not stress about it. Also, there seems to be a conflation between equality and inclusivity. 

Just for fun...didn't Miley Cyrus come out as being without gender?

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

What do you make of the fact that it was characterized as revelatory and changed by the same person, President Nelson. 

My personal speculation on this topic based on everything I've heard is that the 2015 policy was pushed through while some of the brethren were out of town or unaware (we know of other instances in the past when this happened like the infamous Hugh B. Brown incident attempting to roll back the racist priesthood ban).  After it was pushed through and the church had to respond to the negative public blow back, President Nelson (a supporter of the policy), made an attempt at supporting the policy's authoritative weight by giving a talk where he communicated a narrative about the revelatory nature of the policy and the unanimity of the brethren on the subject.  This made it very unlikely that those in opposition would be able to walk the policy backwards.  

However, in spite of all that, over the past 4 years the church received so much negative press and actual impact to its membership in the form of people leaving the church, becoming less active, writing letters to the leaders, and a barrage of negative feedback that was relentless, that the brethren were essentially forced to reconsider and they ended up reversing course on the topic.  Because Elder Oaks and President Nelson wanted to characterize their reversal in as positive terms as possible, they also called this same process of reversal a revelatory event.  I guess they didn't even think for a second that your average Joe Mormon would even pick up on it.  And I think for the most part, the average active member doesn't care, and as usual the collateral damage will impact that small group of people that who do see the two events as contradictory.  At least that will be just a one time event, and the bleeding from the dubious policy can be mitigated going forward.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I didn't see pushback. I think Hinkley was skeptical it would work. I remain so skeptical because they haven't yet found shorthands that don't end up being the same as what came before. But Hinkley talked about it and at the time they even changed the Church logo.

See: https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2018/08/whats-in-a-name/

Are you suggesting that Hinckley would have approved of Nelson's characterization of the use of Mormon as pleasing Satan and all the other accompanying rhetoric as articulated by Nelson?  Surely you see a difference in approaches besides just the media savvy of Hinckley.  I agree that he was much more media savvy, but I also don't think he was as dogmatic as Nelson on the topic.  I think Hinckley was not only attempting to be savvy with his talk on the virtues of the term Mormon, but that he genuinely believed it and therefore was in favor of promoting it through media campaigns because he saw the influence on the world as a net positive for the church.  Clearly he also wanted to emphasize the name Jesus Christ, but I don't think he even considered that the two efforts were in conflict, I think he saw them as complimentary, which is clearly different than Nelson's approach.  And like I said earlier, I suspect there was more discussion on the topic behind the scenes and Nelson's perspective was shut down because he was a junior apostle.  

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Because Elder Oaks and President Nelson wanted to characterize their reversal in as positive terms as possible, they also called this same process of reversal a revelatory event.  I guess they didn't even think for a second that your average Joe Mormon would even pick up on it.

Just curious -- where was the reversal called a "revelatory event"?  I thought all we had on this was from the 4-Apr news release.  Was three something else said?

 

FYI... still no change to the policy in the online version of the handbook.  Given the lack of an update and the letter recently sent to local leaders (instructing us to get ride of paper copies), I am wondering if the next revision will be dramatically different.  Hopefully they'll ditch the concept of two handbooks - one public and one with limited distribution.  At this point they might as well let all members have access to everything.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

While you are processing my last post, please permit me one more example of how subsequent "equal rights" initiatives have undermined the women's movement.

At the core of feminism, at least in its early days, was the rightful objective to elevate the value of women in society from second class status to equal that of men. It was argued that women offer unique talents, perspectives, and insight that were/are just as beneficial as the same that were/are unique to men. And, on this rational basis, it was convincingly argued that women should be allowed to vote and to hold public offices and own property and participate in and run businesses, etc., thereby expanding the roles of women.

Yet, in later waves of feminism, the notion of unique but equal value of women began to be supplanted with the notion that women and men are the same--i.e. they are equal in that they are not different in talents, perspectives, insights, etc.. It was argued that women should be equally represented in public offices and business, not because they add unique value, but because it is their right. In other words, women's equality of value was stepped on or crushed by women's "equal rights."

Whether intended or not, this new notion devalued women.  No longer were they assessed on their admirable individual merits, but rather on government enforced group classification. 

However, the most serious blow to the notion of unique and equal value of women, came from gay men by way of the same-sex marriage movement, which took the ongoing devaluation of women in the workplace and public sphere,  right on into the one space that women had traditionally been held up as having particularly unique, if not greater value in some respects--i.e. the family and home. It was argued, and questionable studies commissioned for support, that two men were as capable as a man and a woman in rightly raising children. Women became expendable in the one domain where they were once considered not expendable.  

Ironically, later waves of feminism, and subsequent "equal rights" initiatives from homosexuals, made it so that biological men were once again displacing biological women.,

homem-amamentando2.jpg?w=284&h=300

Even more ironic is that, by and large, it has been women supporting the movements which have undermined their unique and equal value, though they likely have little or no clue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

But a gay male couple isn't replacing a woman. Likewise, a lesbian couple isn't replacing a man.  You can't replace something that was never going to be there in the first place. Same-sex marriage isn't destroying heterosexual marriage. Adultery isn't destroying heterosexual marriage. 

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

The best option, for me at least, is to not stress about it.

That is wise. It isn't as if you or I can change things much if at all. So why fret?  My intent is to spread awareness where I can and devote my other time and energy to bettering the much smaller world around me.

42 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Also, there seems to be a conflation between equality and inclusivity. 

To them,  failing to include people is to discriminate against them, or in other words, treat them unequally.  This kind of "thinking" creates unsolvable problems since much of life is unavoidably not inclusive--in particular language and words, since each word can't feasibly mean and include everything. Yet, their efforts to redefine certain words attempt to do just that.

42 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Just for fun...didn't Miley Cyrus come out as being without gender?

Probably.  Add that to the 63 genders that some people assume exist. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Thanks Hope for your response. Here's my take on it and as a warning, I'm not mainstream, in any of this-

When you think about it, if Jesus did only what He saw His Father do - and His Father when He was in His own mortality, likely did the same thing - only what He saw His Father do.

Take that, plus the creation which was an organization of existing materials (and I would suggest, that organization was done using existing principles like physics, math, science - I dont think Jesus, God, etc. created physics, math, science, morality, human biology, etc.)

I have a hard time picturing a radical departure by God the Father from what His Parents put in place.  Jesus did only what He saw the Father do. Ya know?

Thanks, this is very similar to Adam God doctrine, and its similar to a lot of what I heard earlier in my life, without the "Adam" label being put to it, the idea that there are generations of God's going backwards in time is part of Mormon history, even if its somewhat out of favor today.  

51 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

So for the 2015 policy -

Just as background which you probably know, children of Islamic parents as well as children of parents of polygamists were (and are now, I believe) not allowed to be baptized until they were 18.  

Trying to reconcile varying orientations with the revealed word, reasonably would have (and dodes) cause anxiety, distress, and concern in families.

So - the Church either attempts to compromise - on principles they did not create (physics, math, science, biology, procreation) or the Church tries to maintain the boundaries it feels God has put in place.

Perhaps the 2015 policy was canceled due to commonplace acceptance of alternative lifestyles?  Perhaps since President Nelson is a change-maker?

Since I am an advocate for legalizing polyamory so that the Church might reinstitute polygamy, these all seem to suggest the moral arc of the universe is slowly ebbing my way. 

Thanks for the additional comments on this.  So it sounds like you don't believe that the 2015 policy was revelation, even though President Nelson explicitly said it was?  If it was revelation, how do you explain God changing his mind less than 4 years later?  Wouldn't God have had the foresight to know what would happen with to increasing acceptance of alternative lifestyles?  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Just curious -- where was the reversal called a "revelatory event"?  I thought all we had on this was from the 4-Apr news release.  Was three something else said?

 

FYI... still no change to the policy in the online version of the handbook.  Given the lack of an update and the letter recently sent to local leaders (instructing us to get ride of paper copies), I am wondering if the next revision will be dramatically different.  Hopefully they'll ditch the concept of two handbooks - one public and one with limited distribution.  At this point they might as well let all members have access to everything.

Quote

These policy changes come after an extended period of counseling with our brethren in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and after fervent, united prayer to understand the will of the Lord on these matters.

Its just that bottom part of the official announcement that characterizes the reversal in revelatory type terms, but they didn't use the word revelation.  

Interesting that they haven't updated the handbook yet, I wonder whats taking so long, its been over a month.  I agree with you that they should just open the access to everyone, its pretty open anyway if someone really wants to find the information they can.  

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its just that bottom part of the official announcement that characterizes the reversal in revelatory type terms, but they didn't use the word revelation.  

Interesting that they haven't updated the handbook yet, I wonder whats taking so long, its been over a month.  I agree with you that they should just open the access to everyone, its pretty open anyway if someone really wants to find the information they can.  

Thanks.

And, WRT the handbook, I think if it was just the changes to the two sections impacted by the Nov 2015 policy, we would have seen it already.  I'm anticipating more large scale changes with the next revision but, who knows, they could just be busy with other things.  Although, it seems like they would have agreed on new handbook language before announcing the reversal.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Thanks.

And, WRT the handbook, I think if it was just the changes to the two sections impacted by the Nov 2015 policy, we would have seen it already.  I'm anticipating more large scale changes with the next revision but, who knows, they could just be busy with other things.  Although, it seems like they would have agreed on new handbook language before announcing the reversal.

It is perplexing, I agree.  Maybe there has been push back after the policy roll back was announced, and the people supporting the original policy are asserting their influence?  I wish we could take a peek behind the scenes.  :crazy:

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Valentinus said:

But a gay male couple isn't replacing a woman. Likewise, a lesbian couple isn't replacing a man.  You can't replace something that was never going to be there in the first place. Same-sex marriage isn't destroying heterosexual marriage. Adultery isn't destroying heterosexual marriage. 

That is a reasonable objection.

However, I was  speaking at the macro rather than micro level. My point wasn't about replacement in practice by gay couples on an individual basis, but rather where societies as a whole assigns value conceptually and by definition.   The successful effort to radically redefine the word "Marriage,"  along with the government's stamp of legitimacy,  the inadvertent message sent to society as a whole was: you don't need women in a marriage or home with children because two men will do just as good.  This, unavoidably devalues women.. It likewise devalues traditional marriage and families.

And, while adultery does destroy heterosexual marriages, radically redefining  "marriage" has had, statistically as well as in terms of social valuation, the significant unintended but predicted delirious effect on heterosexual marriage and the concept of marriage as a whole.  I provide extensive analysis and supportive documentation in a series of blogs posts on the topic as introduced HERE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by Wade Englund

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you suggesting that Hinckley would have approved of Nelson's characterization of the use of Mormon as pleasing Satan and all the other accompanying rhetoric as articulated by Nelson?

I don't think I alluded to anything regarding that. Just the Hinckley didn't do pushback to Nelson during the last name push. Pretty narrow claim. I've no idea what Hinckley would think of Nelson's current push beyond thinking it would likely fail. But that's more just due to Hinckley's familiarity with media.

I can see some difference in approaches, but honestly that seems style more than anything. I actually think that if Hickley thought it worth attempting (as he clearly did by his comments especially in the Churchwide letter read at Sacrament) that he'd have been much wiser to set the example by renaming various things. In that regard I think Nelson is far more apt to have a larger effect than Hinckley's efforts did.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think Hinckley was not only attempting to be savvy with his talk on the virtues of the term Mormon, but that he genuinely believed it and therefore was in favor of promoting it through media campaigns because he saw the influence on the world as a net positive for the church. 

Why did he make statements to the contrary then in the 2001 letter to all wards?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Good to see the Equality Act passed the house today, and I'm glad we got McAdams into office in Utah as he was the only house representative in Utah to vote for the Act.  I hope it has a chance in the Senate.  

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-passes-sweeping-anti-discrimination-bill-to-expand-protections-of-lgbt-people/

 

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think I alluded to anything regarding that. Just the Hinckley didn't do pushback to Nelson during the last name push. Pretty narrow claim. I've no idea what Hinckley would think of Nelson's current push beyond thinking it would likely fail. But that's more just due to Hinckley's familiarity with media.

I can see some difference in approaches, but honestly that seems style more than anything. I actually think that if Hickley thought it worth attempting (as he clearly did by his comments especially in the Churchwide letter read at Sacrament) that he'd have been much wiser to set the example by renaming various things. In that regard I think Nelson is far more apt to have a larger effect than Hinckley's efforts did.

Why did he make statements to the contrary then in the 2001 letter to all wards?

 

I'm not familiar with the full contents of the 2001 letter that you're referring to, do you have a link you can share?  Was it an adnomishion of sorts, or just a recommendation?  The I'm a Mormon media campaign pictured members of the church smiling and proudly professing to be "Mormon".  So it seems to me that unless the letter clarified that the church has to put forward a different public image and that Hinckley really wants people using the full name of the church, but just to make everyone else happy, we're going to promote the term Mormon, but thats just for everyone else, that my point about the two being very compatible is more accurate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The I'm a Mormon media campaign pictured members of the church smiling and proudly professing to be "Mormon".  

The "I'm a Mormon" campaign was two years after Hinckley's death. So I think it's Monson you need to be looking at.

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not familiar with the full contents of the 2001 letter that you're referring to, do you have a link you can share?  Was it an adnomishion of sorts, or just a recommendation? 

I've not found a PDF. Here's an excerpt that I think has most of the text:

"As the Church grows across boundaries, cultures and languages, the use of the revealed name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (D&C 115:4), is increasingly important in our responsibility to proclaim the name of the Savior throughout all the world. Accordingly, we ask that when we refer to the Church we use its full name wherever possible. While this official name is not being shortened, the contractions ‘The Church’ or ‘The Church of Jesus Christ’ are acceptable. We discourage referring to the Church as ‘The Mormon Church,’ ‘The Latter-day Saints Church’ or ‘The LDS Church.’ When referring to Church members, we suggest ‘members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.’ As a shortened reference, ‘Latter-day Saints’ is preferred, but ‘Mormons’ is acceptable. We of course will continue to use the word Mormon in proper names like The Book of Mormon or Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and as an adjective in such references as ‘Mormon pioneers.’"

It's worth noting that the letter was in the winter. By the fall 9/11 happened which really changed everyone's focus.

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

They would have agreed on new handbook language before announcing the reversal

My nephew has been in charge of lds.org (and is still but higher up so his job includes lots of other things as well).  Several years ago in discussing changes, he stated things are planned way in advance of making the changes on lds.org, it may take many months to get something rolled out. Lots of stuff was waiting for its turn. 

If that condition remains the same (and given the increased size of the Church’s website offerings, I see it as likely even a longer timeline), I can see leadership believing it more important to get the change activated rather than waiting until the programming is caught up. 

Changing the handbook online may involve more than just changing text given how much hyperlinking (I think that is the term) is present on lds.org and other websites. I will try and remember to ask my son the programmer what it might involve. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, Calm said:

My nephew has been in charge of lds.org (and is still but higher up so his job includes lots of other things as well).  Several years ago in discussing changes, he stated things are planned way in advance of making the changes on lds.org, it may take many months to get something rolled out. Lots of stuff was waiting for its turn. 

If that condition remains the same (and given the increased size of the Church’s website offerings, I see it as likely even a longer timeline), I can see leadership believing it more important to get the change activated rather than waiting until the programming is caught up. 

Changing the handbook online may involve more than just changing text given how much hyperlinking (I think that is the term) is present on lds.org and other websites. I will try and remember to ask my son the programmer what it might involve. 

I agree that it’s more involved than changing the text on a webpage.   It needs to be published across multiples platforms:  the website as well as the gospel library app on multiple platforms. 

But, revisions to the handbook aren’t rare.  The last one was two months ago.  If it takes multiple months to publish a change, that means the Nov 2015 policy would have been decided in August of that year or earlier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree that it’s more involved than changing the text on a webpage.   It needs to be published across multiples platforms:  the website as well as the gospel library app on multiple platforms. 

But, revisions to the handbook aren’t rare.  The last one was two months ago.  If it takes multiple months to publish a change, that means the Nov 2015 policy would have been decided in August of that year or earlier. 

Iirc, the blog by one of the people who first posted it included a comment that it had been mentioned in June in a training session.  I will see if I can find it.

Quote

Perhaps one reason why the brethren didn’t expect such an explosive reaction is that they were already disseminating the policy in stake leadership conferences as early as June 2015. One reddit user [commented on it here\(https://np.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/39z3am/mormon_women_to_have_more_say_in_plans_for_weekly/cs92jfz/?context=3) (mouseover the “Last edited 1 year ago” text to see the exact date).

https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/11/05/who-leaked-the-policy/

Quote

I was at a Stake training where this (Ward Council to plan Sacrament meetings and talks), as well as that women should be included in baby blessings (holding the baby during the blessing was discussed as reasonable, if desired).

Our Stake Presidency mentioned, when asked, that in the Area training it was mentioned that this was directly in response to OW and similar.

I found this interesting.

There was something that I have mixed feelings towards: children of same-sex parents now require first presidency approval to be baptized.

Link in comment leads to the above.  The mousing over doesn't work for me, so taking the previous comment as the source of date.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/16/2019 at 3:45 PM, MiserereNobis said:

The issue isn't as clear cut as those pictures make it out to be. If a transgender man (woman transitioned to man) has to use the women's bathroom, then you are going to have some very mainly looking men in the women's bathroom.

Do a google image search of "ftm beard" (female to male)

What should be done in that situation? Which bathroom should those trans men use?

The question is are the rights of the transgender above the rights of everyone else.  If 25 women are in a bathroom and they don't want a transgender "woman" in that bathroom with them, are their rights thrown away because the transgender is allowed to go in? 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The question is are the rights of the transgender above the rights of everyone else.  If 25 women are in a bathroom and they don't want a transgender "woman" in that bathroom with them, are their rights thrown away because the transgender is allowed to go in? 

I think you missed the point of my post. If there are 25 women in a bathroom and someone walks in looking like a man, bearded and muscular, what are those 25 going to think? Because if transgender men (women who have transitioned to men) are going to have to go into the women's bathroom, then you are going to have people who look like men in the bathroom with women. Is that what women want?

I'm just trying to say that those cartoons don't represent the full situation -- it is more complex than caricature. I don't know the answer.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Calm said:

Iirc, the blog by one of the people who first posted it included a comment that it had been mentioned in June in a training session.  I will see if I can find it.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/11/05/who-leaked-the-policy/

Link in comment leads to the above.  The mousing over doesn't work for me, so taking the previous comment as the source of date.

I believe that.  I seem to recall MormonLeaks showing emails that showed the policy was being recommended (at the area authority and SP level) during the summer of 2015.  But I don’t know where to find the emails.  

What makes me think that significant changes are coming in the next handbook revision is not just the how long the change is taking, since the 4-April announcement, but also the letter telling local leadership to stop using the printed copies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/17/2019 at 10:04 AM, hope_for_things said:

I called it the 2015 Utah Act a strong step in the right direction, not a baby step.  Today is 2019 and the Equality Act looks to be another strong step in the right direction from my vantage point.  

Yes you did: "a strong step in the right direction.  One step at a time, don't bite off more than you can chew, kind of approach" Babies are strong enough to take baby steps and the parents applaud wildly!

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, rockpond said:

While I would assume that the PR statement was approved by at least some of the Brethren, I'd challenge anyone who believes it was inspired or revealed of God.  The headline proclaimed the Church's support of "fairness for all" but the writing of the statement revealed such a bias against the LGBTQ population and their supporters that it immediately threw the fairness claim into question.  It reads more like a propaganda piece meant to rally the base.

"Fairness for All"* is a political strategy based on the 2015 "Utah Compromise" which remains the only statewide SOGI law enacted over the last seven years.** An opposing strategy which is not oppression in the vaguest sense: protect the constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom while also protecting basic civil rights for LGBT persons through congressional act. Opposing the EA while maintaining that bias and strategy is not a matter of oppression as the Constitution is upheld while the act expands the protected class.

* https://world.wng.org/sites/default/files/assets/NAEBoardResolution_0.pdf

** https://world.wng.org/2018/12/boards_back_sogi_compromise

As shown in expressing her voice and support for the Utah Compromise, I think the Church's "bias" continues to be for "wise policymakers to end this destructive conflict and protect the rights of all Americans" and "encourage mutually respectful dialogue and outcomes." It is most worthy of emulation.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...