Daniel2

I've been meaning to circle back and thank you for the above post, Smac. After the isolation inflicted on the world due to a global pandemic, the last few years have certainly seemed strained, both socially and politically. Disconnection is corrosive to unity at all levels, it would seem. I love the imagery of easing and relaxing strained communication through respectful dialogue and building relationships of trust. It's always a breath of fresh air when people of disparate viewpoints find that consensus. Thanks for the positive post encouraging dialogue in that direction. Best, Daniel

Polygamy has never been fully abandoned or renounced by the church from both an eternal or doctrinal perspective. Men are still sealed to multiple women today (the only qualification being only one at a time while in her mortal state), while women have to have any prior sealings cancelled before being sealed to another husband (unless this has been changed since I left ~20 years ago). I’m not sure that enough members have a desire to return active polygamy for it to ever make a comeback (active, as in its practice while all parties are still living). I’m curious if you read the links I posted previously about how the church could allow same-sex sealings from a doctrinal perspective?

From the first link: This essay has been long, but the change it contemplates could be easily and simply explained. The Church could say:

While we don't believe the same things, I fully stand in favor of you both advocating for your beliefs that church doctrine won't change on this issue. It's no skin off my nose that you believe as you do--at least, not now that we (meaning, all couples, regardless of orientation and/or religious affiliation) share equal access to civil marriage. In no way am I holding my breath or hope for the LDS Faith to change its policies on the matter; if it does so in my lifetime, it will not change my current affiliation as a Unitarian Universalist. I do not forsee me ever returning to membership in your church. I've just seen enough change within it and it's history--even after "doubling down" on some doctrines in proclamations by the full First Presidency--to believe that the church will never change on this issue, especially in light of the church’s historical and ongoing changes with what marriage and sealings mean. Devout members who aren’t aware of or don’t understand those numerous changes may not know their own history. Smac, I absolutely see a few different paths the church could take to integrate the acceptance of sealed same-gender couples into its doctrinal tapestry without unravelling the whole. And I am certainly not alone in this thread of thinking (though I certainly agree a majority of Latter-day Saints might not agree--yet). A couple links to articles illustrating that others, even devout members of the Faith in good standing, are searching, pondering, and praying their way towards such possibilities: "A Welding Link of Some Kind": Exploring a possible theology of same-sex marriage sealings Oman, A Possible Theology of Same-Sex Marriage Sealings (the comments on this post are also a worthy read and illustrate diversity in reactions to these types of discussions, too). As for whether or not following one's own spiritual answers/revelations counts as marked and calculated disobedience to revealed doctrines... well, I leave that between each of us and the divine. Personal revelation is personal, and this recent poll in a separate thread on this very board demonstrated the vast majority of those who post here support following personal revelation, even when it contradicts what a prophet may say. And thanks for your support, Scott--I'll cast my lot with God. Best, D

I stand by my belief and prediction that the LDS Faith will eventually recognize, allow, and authorize martial temple sealings between committed same-gender couples after newer, future leadership replaces many/most of the current quorum. After all, this is not the first time in which former prophets have affirmed “this [thing] will never change,” only to see changes to said thing in subsequent generations. In fact, it's happened quite a few times over multiple aspects of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since it's inception. But you keep doing you, Pres. Oaks and Scott Lloyd! 👍

Yeah, although california boy and I agree on many things, in this case, I also disagree… Food CAN certainly be art, and some food can also be expressive speech (depending on the context). That said, not all food is art nor expressive speech.

I agree with the above.

Couple of my thoughts: 1) I can see a case being made that music is, itself, inherently expressive, similar to how words or some types of images made in frosting on a cake are inherently expressive. Therefore, cake decorators declining to produce cakes with specific words or expressive images (i.e. swastikas, burning crosses, violent or satanic images, etc.) and musicians declining the use of their songs fall under protected speech, not commodities, according to public accommodation laws. 2) As it currently stands, political affiliation isn’t widely held to be a protected class (I realize there are some exceptions, mainly in and around D.C.) 3) I believe copyright laws (including licensing, royalties, etc.) apply to music and lyrics, which clearly wouldn’t apply to an inherently non-expressive pink and blue cake. So that’s an apples to oranges comparison. EDIT: looks like several others already made similar points. Well said.

My apologies. I’ll have to go back and reread that… Lol

Interesting. You sound a bit defensive of Jack Phillips’ victimization, instead of acknowledging his personal choice to humbly/proudly stand for Christ/his beliefs.

Your point focuses on the concept of the availability of goods and services as it relates to public accommodation law. If that were the sole intent of this type of law, you may have a point. However, beyond merely having access to goods and services, the Supreme Court has also repeatedly held that the Government has a compelling interest in ensuring the elimination of discrimination on the basis of select enumerated protected classes.

When it’s a matter of a competing right to protect free speech, yes. But companies cannot deny selling their routine commodities (i.e. a nondescript, non-communicative cake or meal or any other regularly sold item) if it’s on the basis of protected-class discrimination. And therein lies the difference, from a legal perspective.

While I empathize that any of us may question or struggle with where we personally may draw the line, as I understand it, the law makes the distinction by naming protected classes. A business may refuse goods or services as long as the refusal doesn’t fall within discriminating against a protected class. I don’t believe the KKK falls within a protected class.

Indeed. This case, like many cases on both sides of the issue, are custom-engineered to both craft and challenge legal precedent (see here for one just so from the conservative side) Mr. Phillips and his company certainly aren’t hurting for money, full financial and legal backing, business, or famous accolades/notoriety (depending on one’s viewpoint). 😉

Agreed. I think this is a clear cut case of a custom-colored cake NOT being speech. Regardless of what a cake symbolizes to the recipient, if a baker is willing to make the exact same custom cake for someone else, I think it’s clear they can’t refuse service to another customer based on the meaning behind the occasion being celebrated. A baker who’s happy to bake a custom white cake with white frosting to celebrate a Catholic’s first communion (or any other occasion) could not refuse to sell the very same custom white cake with white frosting to celebrate a Latter-day Saint’s baptism without violating public accommodation laws—and rightly so, IMO.

Another update on a related case… As noted, The Alliance Defending Freedom has vowed to appeal, so we’ll see where it goes from here: Colorado appeals court rules against Jack Phillips, Masterpiece Cakeshop in trans cake case; baker to appeal By Michael Gryboski, Mainline Church Editor A three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled against Christian baker Jack Phillips, having concluded that he was wrong to refuse, on religious grounds, to bake a cake celebrating transgenderism. In a decision released Thursday, Judge Timothy Schutz authored the panel's opinion affirming an earlier trial court decision against Phillips, concluding that the baker violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act by not creating a cake to celebrate a person's new trans identity. A complaint was lodged against Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop after a man who self-identified as a woman and changed his name to Autumn Scardina demanded that the baker create a cake with the colors of the trans flag in pink and blue frosting to celebrate Scardina’s self-professed sexual identity. “Scardina testified [he] requested a custom pink and blue cake with no message or other design elements. The trial court found that Debra agreed to make that cake but then retracted the commitment once Scardina told her what the cake was for,” wrote Schutz. “It was only after Scardina disclosed that [he] was transgender and intended to use the cake to celebrate both [his] birthday and [his] transition that Masterpiece and Phillips refused to provide the cake. Thus, it was Scardina’s transgender status, and [his] desire to use the cake in celebration of that status, that caused Masterpiece and Phillips to refuse to provide the cake.” The appeals court rejected Phillips’ claims that he was being forced to convey a message that went against his beliefs because the cake he was asked to make “expressed no message,” adding that “not all conduct constitutes speech.” Phillips had previously won a United States Supreme Court case in 2018 that centered on his refusal to bake a wedding cake that celebrated a same-sex marriage in 2012 when same-sex marriage was not legal in Colorado. https://www.christianpost.com/news/appeals-court-rules-against-jack-phillips-in-trans-cake-lawsuit.html

I, too, am grateful to be a citizen of the United States of America, which preserves both freedom of and freedom from religion and freedom of speech to the greatest degree that any country is likely able to do so without infringing upon other prescribed freedoms. It's true that Norway and many other countries who don't operate according to U.S. law don't recognize the same freedoms of and from religion and or speech; sometimes the ramifications of such alarm conservative-leaning minds; sometimes they alarm liberal-leaning minds. While others may focus on the legal complexities surrounding the issue of pronouns. for me and my house, our general rule is to treat others as we wish to be treated. For example: to me, the man I married is my husband. I recognize and call him as such and ask others to do the same--he is not my partner, my friend, my roommate, or any other nomenclature. I've asked those who interact with me to respect and refer to him as such, even though sometimes it's hard to remember or challenging to use such a designation when it's outside one's comfort zone. Whatever others' personal beliefs may be to the contrary, I appreciate it when others are speaking to me respect my use of the term 'husband' and refer to him as such (or by other appropriate designations, such as his shorter, first name) when appropriate. Another example: to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Faith they believe in and belong to is called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." They recognize and call it as such--not The Mormon Church, the LDS Church, the Latter-day Saint Church, or any other nomenclature. Said Faith's members have asked those who refer to their Faith refer to it by its full designation. Whatever my or others' personal beliefs to the contrary, I strive to extend respect and have received appreciation from church members when I and others not of their Faith use the full, preferred term "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (or by any other appropriate preferred shorter designations) when appropriate in conversation or reporting. I don't always remember to get it right, but at least I'm trying and always attempt to self-correct and apologize when I make mistakes. Final example: transgender and/or nonbinary prefer to use non-traditional pronouns when referring to themselves and ask others to do the same. Doing so when conversing with such individuals is sometimes hard to remember or challenging to use non-traditional pronouns a designation when it's outside my comfort zone. Whatever my or others' personal beliefs are regarding gender identity, I strive to extend the same respect towards those who identify differently than my own preferred pronouns. At the end of the day, when it comes to calling someone by their preferred pronouns or referring to a member of another Faith by using the full, preferred name of said Faith, from my perspective, it's about treating others as I wish to be treated. It's no more complex than that.

I’m glad to see the Church’s statements and efforts are far more positive and supportive of the bill, its passage, its contents and potential ramifications than even by many of its members here (not referring to Smac). I am grateful to Iive in a country that requires legal recognition and civic respect for my (same-sex) marriage and interracial marriages just as it requires marital recognition and respect for both opposite-sex and intraracial couples. I will continue to work toward and look forward to a future where citizens across all LGBT, straight, mixed, biracial, intraracial, inter-faith, secular, and religious communities can peacefully, even supportively, coexist on the basis of shared respect, even when the law has to step in to encourage growth toward such.

A huge kudos to the Church. Heartening to see how far it's leaders and members have come. The Church's actions are in keeping with a September 2022 poll showing broad support among Utahn's for marriage equality for same-sex couples: Do Utahns support same-sex marriage? Dennis Romboy - Sep 29 Do Utahns support same-sex marriage? (msn.com)Do Utahns support same-sex marriage? (msn.com) As the Senate considers legislation to protect same-sex marriage a new poll shows nearly three-fourths of Utahns support legal same-sex marriage. The new Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics survey found 72% of residents agree that marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. The poll shows 23% disagree, while 5% don’t know. “For a state that less than 20 years ago passed laws and a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, there has been a seismic shift in opinion,” said Jason Perry, director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah. When same-sex marriage became recognized in Utah in 2014 — a year ahead of the Supreme Court decision — it had support from less than half of Utahns. A January 2014 Deseret News/KSL poll amid the legal battle and contentious public debate over the issue found a majority of Utahns (57%) opposed same-sex marriage. “Now, it has majority support from nearly every group across the political, demographic and religious spectrum,” Perry said. The Desere Troy Williams, executive director of Equality Utah, said he’s not surprised to see that a majority of Utahns now support marriage equality. “Utah is a pro-family state, and we recognize that families come in all shapes and sizes. When we see loving, committed couples joining in matrimony, our natural impulse is to support and encourage that love. This gives me great hope for the future,” he said. Williams said he also hopes Utah Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Mitt Romney will follow the example of their congressional colleagues in the House and vote in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act, “so that all Utah families will be protected by state and federal law.” RPoll results come amid negotiations in the Senate over the Respect for Marriage Act, which the House passed in July with 47 Republicans, Utah’s four GOP congressmen among them, joining all Democrats in supporting the bill.

Mormon church comes out in support of same-sex marriage law Support for the federal Respect for Marriage Act is the church’s latest step to stake out a more welcoming stance toward the LGBTQ community. The Salt Lake Temple in Salt Lake City, on Oct. 5, 2019.Rick Bowmer / AP file Nov. 15, 2022, 4:17 PM MST / Source: Associated Press By Associated Press SALT LAKE CITY — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Tuesday it would back proposed federal legislation to safeguard same-sex marriages, marking the latest show of support for the measure from conservative-leaning groups. The nearly 17-million member, Utah-based faith said in a statement that church doctrine would continue to consider same-sex relationships to be against God’s commandments. Yet it said it would support rights for same-sex couples as long as they didn’t infringe upon religious groups’ right to believe as they choose. “We believe this approach is the way forward. As we work together to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ individuals much can be accomplished to heal relationships and foster greater understanding,” the church said in a statement posted on its website. Support for the Respect for Marriage Act under consideration in Congress is the church’s latest step to stake out a more welcoming stance toward the LGBTQ community while holding firm to its belief that same-sex relationships are sinful. Still, its stance toward LGBTQ people — including those who grow up in the church — remains painful for many. Patrick Mason, a professor of religious studies at Utah State University, said the church’s position was both a departure from and continuation of its past stances — respecting laws yet working to safeguard religious liberty and ensuring they won’t be forced to perform same-sex marriages or grant them official church sanction. “This is part of the church’s overall theology essentially sustaining the law of the land, recognizing that what they dictate and enforce for their members in terms of their behavior is different than what it means to be part of a pluralistic society,” he said. The faith opposes same-sex marriage and sexual intimacy, but it has taken a more welcoming stance to LGBTQ people in recent years. In 2016, it declared that same-sex attraction is not a sin, while maintaining that acting on it was. The bill, which has won support from Democrats and Republicans, is set for a test vote in the Senate Wednesday, with a final vote as soon as this week or later this month. It comes after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion, with Justice Clarence Thomas issuing a concurring opinion indicating that an earlier high court decision protecting same-sex marriage could come under threat. The legislation would repeal the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act and require states to recognize all marriages that were legal where they were performed. It would also protect interracial marriages by requiring states to recognize legal marriages regardless of “sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.” It makes clear that the rights of private individuals and businesses wouldn’t be affected. Utah’s four congressmen — who are all Latter-day Saints — each came out in support of the legislation earlier this year. The church’s public stance is a stark contrast from 14 years ago, when its members were among the largest campaign contributors in support of California’s Prop. 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman in response to cities such as San Francisco granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It has since made incremental changes, including allowing the children of same-sex couples to get baptized. Troy Williams, the executive director of Equality Utah, said it was “thrilling” to see the church part of the coalition in support of the legislation. “Despite differences we may have, we can always discover common ground on laws that support the strengthening of all families,” Williams, who grew up a church member, said. The faith opposes laws that would make it illegal for churches to not allow to same-sex couples to marry on their property. But it has supported state-based efforts to pass laws that prohibit employment and housing discrimination as long as they clarify respect for religious freedom. Mormon church comes out in support of same-sex marriage law (nbcnews.com) Associated Press