Harry Reid & Enda

[Scott Lloyd]

Could you have, maybe, slipped the notes from that interview to someone over at the Tribune? (It's a shame they had to go to ... uhhh ... waste. Because, you know, I just hate the thought of killing trees needlessly. )

I probably should give some context here.

The story was on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and how the Mormons in Congress were supporting its passage.

Earlier, there had been a story in the Church News supplied to us by local LDS Public Affairs people in Washington. But they had failed to mention the part Reid was playing, and he was miffed. (He may have been the lone Democrat among the Mormon Congressmen involved; then, as now, Mormons in Congress were mostly Republican.)

So I was assigned to do a story that was something of a fence-mending measure, in which Reid would be interviewed and be allowed to give his own account of what he was doing and get whatever political benefit might be derived thereby.

Problem is, nobody bothered to fill me in on just how angry Reid was.

So when I reached him by phone, he unleashed the full measure of his fury on me, and I felt ambushed.

His feelings on that occasion are somewhat understandable; I grant that. And some may say he was just being candid, and that I should chalk it up to his characteristic crustiness. To me, it just showed a lack of class, civility and decency. I was a stranger to him, and he had no idea of what part, if any, I may have played in the prior debacle.

That was 20 years ago. Perhaps I should be able to laugh the whole thing off by now. But I still have a sour taste in my mouth from the experience, with my memory of it freshened by his comments last year about Romney's quality as a Mormon. How does he account for his own behavior on that prior occasion and whether it is exemplary of a Latter-day Saint?

[rockpond]

It is rare for the Church to endorse any specific legislation, though there may be some conceptual or theoretical agreement.

As for Reid's statement, I don't think the Church was all that different before from how he sees it now. I think he's trying to make political points -- as when he slandered Romney during the campaign.

I've not held him in very high regard since the occasion years ago when he behaved very boorishly toward me during a phone interview. I've never had anyone be that uncivil toward me in my entire career, Mormon or non-Mormon, politician or not.

The irony is that the interview was for an article that was intended to make him look good, and he knew it.

 

It is mostly rare except when it comes to the issues surrounding gay rights.  The church has endorsed specific legislation denying gay marriage rights and it has endorsed the SLC legislation similar to ENDA.  For that reason, I thought that they might actually come out in support of this legislation.  But I'm okay that they didn't - I prefer that they not delve too far into politics.

 

Regarding Reid's statement, if he was referring specifically to attitudes about non-discrimination towards homosexuals, I do think that attitudes among church members have softened a bit.  That's been my perception, especially since I've watched myself go from someone who actually fought for anti-gay-marriage legislation back in 2000 to where I am at now.  And, anecdotally, I know quite a few others who have shifted opinions as well.

 

As for Reid himself, I may have less respect for him than you... if that's possible.

[thesometimesaint]

Actually it doesn't.  That kind of discrimination was based on something immutable and highly visible.  Hence it involved a protected 'suspect classification' of people.

 

Incorrect. Religion is neither immutable nor highly visible.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-relig_ethnic.html

 

Even the Church finally figured out it was impossible to determine race by sight.

[california boy]

The homosexual agenda is not comparable to the civil rights movement.  Nor does it qualify for strict scrutiny in Equal Protection cases.  But we haven't even progressed to being able to justify a behavior as putting one in a "minority" status or being subject to any type of discrimination beyond judging between good and evil or right and wrong.

You are talking about two entirely different things.  Court after court has affirmed that equal protection does indeed apply to gay Americans.  They however are not gay simply because they have sex with someone of the same sex.  

 

If you think that gays should be discriminated against because they are having immoral sex, then do you also want to pass laws that discriminate against straights that are having immoral sex?  Should we let the government be the one handing out judgement for sexual sins? 

[thesometimesaint]

You are talking about two entirely different things.  Court after court has affirmed that equal protection does indeed apply to gay Americans.  They however are not gay simply because they have sex with someone of the same sex.  

 

If you think that gays should be discriminated against because they are having immoral sex, then do you also want to pass laws that discriminate against straights that are having immoral sex?  Should we let the government be the one handing out judgement for sexual sins? 

 

Unfortunately there are some whom DO want to do just that.

[Scott Lloyd]

It is mostly rare except when it comes to the issues surrounding gay rights. The church has endorsed specific legislation denying gay marriage rights and it has endorsed the SLC legislation similar to ENDA. For that reason, I thought that they might actually come out in support of this legislation. But I'm okay that they didn't - I prefer that they not delve too far into politics.

Regarding Reid's statement, if he was referring specifically to attitudes about non-discrimination towards homosexuals, I do think that attitudes among church members have softened a bit. That's been my perception, especially since I've watched myself go from someone who actually fought for anti-gay-marriage legislation back in 2000 to where I am at now. And, anecdotally, I know quite a few others who have shifted opinions as well.

.

Not a valid indicator as ENDA is about discrimination in the workplace, not marriage. Your softening your stance on homosexual marriage cannot logically be viewed as indicating the Church (be it the institution or the membership) has changed regarding workplace discrimination. They are two different things.

I maintain it was not that common before for Mormons to approve of employment discrimination, Reid's remarks notwithstanding.

And even now, I think it is safe to say the Church is just as adamantly opposed to redefining marriage as it has ever been, though it may be choosing its battles carefully as to how activist it will be.

[rockpond]

Not a valid indicator as ENDA is about discrimination in the workplace, not marriage. Your softening your stance on homosexual marriage cannot logically be viewed as indicating the Church (be it the institution or the membership) has changed regarding workplace discrimination. They are two different things.

I maintain it was not that common before for Mormons to approve of employment discrimination, Reid's remarks notwithstanding.

And even now, I think it is safe to say the Church is just as adamantly opposed to redefining marriage as it has ever been, though it may be choosing its battles carefully as to how activist it will be.

It's not a valid indicator to you because you see marriage equality as separate from the broader battle for equality.

And yes, my stance alone does not indicate a shift among membership but I have, like Reid, seen a shift among the members who I know. Especially among the youth, including those who are now in their 20's beginning their own families.

I agree that the Brethren have not softened their position on gay marriage. That was made clear in October's conference.

That said, why do you think the Church has backed away from its activism regarding gay marriage?

[Scott Lloyd]

It's not a valid indicator to you because you see marriage equality as separate from the broader battle for equality. And yes, my stance alone does not indicate a shift among membership but I have, like Reid, seen a shift among the members who I know. Especially among the youth, including those who are now in their 20's beginning their own families. I agree that the Brethren have not softened their position on gay marriage. That was made clear in October's conference. That said, why do you think the Church has backed away from its activism regarding gay marriage?

It's not strategically viable right now.

The Church only got involved with Prop 8 when invited to do so by a coalition of faith groups. The elements were in place to carry forth a successful campaign if the Church was to lend its organizational expertise. Prospects looked good. And, indeed, the effort was successful initially.

There has not been a situation since then where prospects were that good. As I said, the Church chooses its battles carefully. For now it is focusing on the effort to safeguard religious liberty and is joining with like-minded groups in doing so.

Regarding the people you know who are shifting their attitudes, if ithe shift has to do with opposing discrimination in employment, housing, etc., well, that is not inconsistent with the Church's own stance.

If you mean they are now favoring gay marriage and think the Church ought to embrace it, they are due for some education. The very clear pronouncements by the apostles at conference may have been eye-opening for some members. And that's all to the good. That's what prophets are supposed to do.

I grew up during the sexual revolution of the sixties and seventies, when sexual promiscuity and shacking up without being married became acceptable. It was proclaimed as "the new morality." Our Church leaders at the time told us "the new morality" was really just the old immorality. Sister Bonnie Oscarson recalled that in her general conference talk in October. Her talk resonated with me. She and I are of the same generation.

For all of the lasting impacts the sexual revolution has had on society, there are still plenty of people who reject it as a sham, including leaders and faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Within a couple of generations, it will be so regarding the redefinition of marriage. It will be just one more way in which the Church of Jesus Christ will be distinctive in that it has rejected societal trends that conflict with the laws and commandments of God.

[rockpond]

It's not strategically viable right now.

The Church only got involved with Prop 8 when invited to do so by a coalition of faith groups. The elements were in place to carry forth a successful campaign if the Church was to lend its organizational expertise. Prospects looked good. And, indeed, the effort was successful initially.

There has not been a situation since then where prospects were that good. As I said, the Church chooses its battles carefully. For now it is focusing on the effort to safeguard religious liberty and is joining with like-minded groups in doing so.

Regarding the people you know who are shifting their attitudes, if ithe shift has to do with opposing discrimination in employment, housing, etc., well, that is not inconsistent with the Church's own stance.

If you mean they are now favoring gay marriage and think the Church ought to embrace it, they are due for some education. The very clear pronouncementd by the apostles at conference may have been eye-opening for some members. And that's all to the good. That's what prophets are supposed to do.

I grew up during the sexual revolution of the sixties and seventies, when sexual prmiscuity and shacking up without being married became acceptable. It was proclaimed as "the new morality." Our Church leaders at the time told us "the new morality" was really just the old immorality. Sister Bonnie Oscarson recalled that in her general conference talk in October. Her talk resonated with me. She and I are of the same generation.

For all of the lasting impacts the sexual revolution has had on society, there are still plenty of people who reject it as a sham, including leaders and faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Within a couple of generations, it will be so regarding the redefinition of marriage. It will be just one more way in which the Church of Jesus Christ will be distinctive in that it has rejected societal trends that conflict with the laws and commandments of God.

 

"Not strategically viable."  Translation:  They can no longer win.  And, possibly, they are tired of upsetting their members and hindering missionary work through those political efforts.

 

Do you think it's possible that the very clear pronouncements by the apostles in this most recent conference might have been because they are noting a slight shift in membership attitudes toward gay marriage?  Or that they are seeing a small but possibly increasing number of members coming out in support of the cause of marriage equality?

[Scott Lloyd]

"Not strategically viable."  Translation:  They can no longer win.

Yes, that would be another way to put it. Obviously, the political and cultural landscape has changed a great deal in a very short time period.

 

 

 And, possibly, they are tired of upsetting their members and hindering missionary work through those political efforts.

 

This part is sheer conjecture. The Church's values are what they are, and there can be no meaningful benefit derived from abandoning or diluting those values or being reticent about doing what needs to be done. The Brethren are wise enough to understand this.

 

Do you think it's possible that the very clear pronouncements by the apostles in this most recent conference might have been because they are noting a slight shift in membership attitudes toward gay marriage?  Or that they are seeing a small but possibly increasing number of members coming out in support of the cause of marriage equality?

 

Just as the Church leaders spoke up clearly and boldly on the matter of chastity and sexual purity during the turbulent era of the sexual revolution, I believe they feel a similar urgency to give timely direction regarding standards of morality in the face of societal trends today.

 

Beyond that, I believe individual speakers at general conference seek -- and receive -- divine inspiration regarding what they should address in their sermons.

[rockpond]

The Church's values are what they are, and there can be no meaningful benefit derived from abandoning or diluting those values or being reticent about doing what needs to be done.

 

Well, sometimes there is a meaningful benefit to abandoning or diluting certain values:

 

"The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?"

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, sometimes there is a meaningful benefit to abandoning or diluting certain values:

 

"The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?"

If you are hinting here that the Church of Jesus Christ may one day be forced to accept and implement a redefinition of marriage due to governmental coercion and oppression similar to what was inflicted on the Church and its members in the late 1800s -- when members were imprisoned, the Church was disincorporated, it was deprived of its funds and there was a threatened confiscation of its temples and other properties -- that is an alarming thought indeed. It is because of such concerns, I suppose, that the Church has joined with other faith groups in a movement now to safeguard religious freedom in the future (see portal for web resources here). I have expressed concern about erosion of religious freedom here on this board, possibly connected with the gay rights issue, but some here have been dismissive of my concern.

 

If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that the Church may one day feel compelled to abandon its principles and values with regard to the defintion of marriage because of changing societal trends and social pressure that does not involve government coercion, I would submit there is no comparable precedent for such a thing. I would further submit that mine is a more appropriate comparison than yours; i.e. despite the social pressure of the 1960s and beyond, the Church refused to abandon its long-held values regarding sexual purity, chastity, condemnation of any sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, etc., and continues that refusal to this day.

[rockpond]

If you are hinting here that the Church of Jesus Christ may one day be forced to accept and implement a redefinition of marriage due to governmental coercion and oppression similar to what was inflicted on the Church and its members in the late 1800s -- when members were imprisoned, the Church was disincorporated, it was deprived of its funds and there was a threatened confiscation of its temples and other properties -- that is an alarming thought indeed. It is because of such concerns, I suppose, that the Church has joined with other faith groups in a movement now to safeguard religious freedom in the future (see portal for web resources here). I have expressed concern about erosion of religious freedom here on this board, possibly connected with the gay rights issue, but some here have been dismissive of my concern.

If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that the Church may one day feel compelled to abandon its principles and values with regard to the defintion of marriage because of changing societal trends and social pressure that does not involve government coercion, I would submit there is no comparable precedent for such a thing. I would further submit that mine is a more appropriate comparison than yours; i.e. despite the social pressure of the 1960s and beyond, the Church refused to abandon its long-held values regarding sexual purity, chastity, condemnation of any sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, etc., and continues that refusal to this day.

I wasn't suggesting either. Neither of those examples strike me as a good comparison. I was demonstrating that there is more nuance to this than your statement allowed.

[Scott Lloyd]

I wasn't suggesting either. Neither of those examples strike me as a good comparison. I was demonstrating that there is more nuance to this than your statement allowed.

In that case, your attempt fails -- unless you really do believe the government may one day try to force the Church to recognize gay marriage.

[rockpond]

In that case, your attempt fails -- unless you really do believe the government may one day try to force the Church to recognize gay marriage.

 

Nah, my attempt didn't fail.  You said that " there can be no meaningful benefit derived from abandoning or diluting those values".  Per President Woodfruff, we have found meaningful benefit in abandoning some values.  Your absolute statement seemingly ignores that the restoration just isn't always so simple.

 

And, no, I don't believe that the U.S. government will ever force the Church to recognize gay marriage.

[Scott Lloyd]

Nah, my attempt didn't fail.  You said that " there can be no meaningful benefit derived from abandoning or diluting those values".  Per President Woodfruff, we have found meaningful benefit in abandoning some values.  Your absolute statement seemingly ignores that the restoration just isn't always so simple.

Your example was not on point.

 

The context of my statement was societal trends and social pressure, not government coercion and oppression.

 

And, no, I don't believe that the U.S. government will ever force the Church to recognize gay marriage.

 

Which makes your comparison all the more contrived.

[rockpond]

Your example was not on point.

 

The context of my statement was societal trends and social pressure, not government coercion and oppression.

 

Which makes your comparison all the more contrived.

 

I'm confident my point was demonstrated but I never expected you to agree with it.

 

If I understand correctly, you are saying that there would be no meaningful benefit to abandoning our values under societal trends or social pressure, only due to government coercion?

[CV75]

Nah, my attempt didn't fail.  You said that " there can be no meaningful benefit derived from abandoning or diluting those values".  Per President Woodfruff, we have found meaningful benefit in abandoning some values.  Your absolute statement seemingly ignores that the restoration just isn't always so simple.

 

And, no, I don't believe that the U.S. government will ever force the Church to recognize gay marriage.

Plural marriage is not in and of itself the value at hand, because it is only the expression or practice of the principle or standard of behavior for marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman is the actual value, which has not been abandoned.

[rockpond]

Plural marriage is not in and of itself the value at hand, because it is only the expression or practice of the principle or standard of behavior for marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman is the actual value, which has not been abandoned.

Yes, CV, I know that's your belief but such a view ignores much of what was taught by our leaders in the 19th century church.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm confident my point was demonstrated but I never expected you to agree with it.

 

If I understand correctly, you are saying that there would be no meaningful benefit to abandoning our values under societal trends or social pressure, only due to government coercion?

No, that's not what I said.

 

And I haven't conceded there was any abandonment of principle even in the case of plural marriage. I would tend to agree with CV75 on that point.

[CV75]

Yes, CV, I know that's your belief but such a view ignores much of what was taught by our leaders in the 19th century church.

They taught marriage between a man and a woman, the basis for everythig they practiced about marriage. Teaching a practice, and valuing it, is still different than teaching the funadmental value, just as valuing something is different than the value itself.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, CV, I know that's your belief but such a view ignores much of what was taught by our leaders in the 19th century church.

Some of them spoke with limited understanding on the subject. We now understand better the conditional nature of the principle of plural marriage as taught in Jacob 2:27.

[rockpond]

Some of them spoke with limited understanding on the subject. We now understand better the conditional nature of the principle of plural marriage as taught in Jacob 2:27.

 

Are you also willing to admit that our latter day prophets and apostles could be speaking with limited understanding on the subject of homosexuality and gay marriage as well?

[rockpond]

They taught marriage between a man and a woman, the basis for everythig they practiced about marriage. Teaching a practice, and valuing it, is still different than teaching the funadmental value, just as valuing something is different than the value itself.

 

Got it.  I also used to be able to live in a faith realm where that kind of logic worked for me.

[rockpond]

No, that's not what I said.

 

Feel free to clarify.