Are Our Values Under Attack?

[Calm]

Comparisons are odious, eh?

 

There was a bunch of stats on marriage, family, and sex, given to show the increasing wickedness of our society.

 

What about stats on slavery, discrimination, economic oppression?  What would those show?

 

And why use stats from 1960 to now?  Why not use "stats" from 2000 years ago?

 

Comparisons are odious.

Yep. Society is not monolithic, advancing in all areas at once, degrading in all areas the same way. Somethings get better, somethings get worse. You would have to decide how importance in the overall context each measure is before one can come up with reliable stats...and since it is likely no one will agree on what weight to give each measure, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[Stone holm]

Of course it's a shock when a religious person or organization would dare to speak in the public square. Horror of horrors!

I don't think that is what he suggested. If you take the lead in attacking a group, then you should expect to be singled out. There are a myriad of religious organizations which disapprove of homosexual behavior. Their members and the world know their position. Yet, they do not strive to force conformity to their beliefs.

[USU78]

I don't think that is what he suggested. If you take the lead in attacking a group, then you should expect to be singled out. There are a myriad of religious organizations which disapprove of homosexual behavior. Their members and the world know their position. Yet, they do not strive to force conformity to their beliefs.

That'll teach us to take the Archbishop's calls

[Stone holm]

That'll teach us to take the Archbishop's calls

Is that suppose to mean something?

[why me]

Of course, we haven't been guilty of such barbarism for at least, say, the last 100 years, right? And look at the "Greatest Generation," men and women who sacrificed for truth, justice and the American way. Well, at least, one Monday through Saturday. Sunday was reserved for church ... and lynchings; at least, in more than 6,000 cases in the first 90 years after the Civil War. Of course, they did wear their Sunday best to the lynchings, so at least, they had some "reverence" for the Sabbath.

 

You seem to be lumping everyone in one brush which is quite unfair for people whose mothers and fathers may have been apart of the

'greatest generation'. if we look at history, people have been cruel to people and they have also been kind to people. This is not a white/black thing but a humanity thing. We as human beings come up short in many regards. In terms of slavery, one must also look to arabia, the americas, and to africa where african tribes  willing gave the people of other tribes to the europeans to be slaves. What to do with human nature?

 

However, we certainly can fight those aspects of our current life that seems to distort human nature and to move our human nature in certain directions. What is happening today with the rise of the secular media and with various special interest groups is a fracturing of society, a sense that there is no community except small aspects of community united by single issues and beliefs. Thus, we have the gay community, the african american community, the bi-sexual community, the hispanic community, the asian community, the jewish community etc. However, the meta-community that ties all together is disappearing at least in the united states. And with the disappearance of the meta-community, we have a disappearance of common values. And with it, an attack on what has been considered traditional values for quite some time. .

Edited April 9, 2014 by why me

[why me]

Christians of all brands love to claim that the end is nigh; that the world is reaching a fever pitch of inequity. However, the truth is that this world has NEVER been so moral as it is today. In EVERY conceivable measure, people are kinder, more generous, less violent and more loving. Let's be clear that in only the last 500 years would something as horrific as a genocide even be considered newsworthy. Up until then, it was standard practice for one group of people to kill/enslave another group of people just because they could. Now, I know that doesn't compare to rap music and women wearing thong bikinis, but it was pretty bad.

 

Not just christians. We also have muslims, hindus, buddhists etc. No religion is without hypocrisy demonstrated in the members of such groups. You need to take a step outside the US paradigm to see humanity and its flaws. The world is far from being moral. Poverty is increasing in the US and in Europe. And the disparity between the rich and the poor continues to grow. What happened in 2007-2008 with the economic crisis was far from moral. People lost their jobs, their homes, families were broken etc. And why? because of the morality of greed by a few. And lets take a look at the world. Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, many African states and Asian states are in disarray with many people in a state of helplessness. And the US is no exception ad I mentioned with more people on food stamps and the increase in people living in poverty too. No, we are far from building a moral society where people come first and we can be ruled by our humanity and not by our search for profits. And the worst poverty is spiritual poverty, something that is no longer is short supply these days.

Edited April 9, 2014 by why me

[why me]

Supporters of Prop 8 were NOT "targeted" for upholding their values. No one complained that Brother So-and-So was married to Sister So-and-So and therefore, their business should be boycotted.

They were "targeted" for trying to impose that value on others. Since when did living our values require others to do likewise?

 

Unfortunately, the minority ruled anyway when the courts decided to impose the values of the minority on the majority. So, it is all relative. Quite often regardless of what the majority want in a referendum, the minority can still win through court procedures. In the battle of values, both sides usually attempt to impose their will on the other. Usually in the name of religious freedom, equal rights and human justice.

[why me]

Funny, the impression that I get from the "other side", i.e. believers, is one reminiscent of the Chicken Little scenario....."the sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

 

Despite the dire warnings from various religious groups regarding the world going to hell in a handbasket, all you have to do is perform a quick review of world history to understand that we are living on the most peaceful, most just, most democratic and most enlightened era of recorded human history. 

Please don't tell that to the Iraqis or to the Serbs, or to the Afghans or to many other people's in the world. They may disagree with you. One can always export a war. However, I think that what people are more or less exclaiming today is the spiritual poverty that they may find in their societies. To assume that our values are not influenced by a governing ideology would be a mistake. Lets look at it this way. Up until 2008 many people were doing the american dream: buy a home, build a fence, get a dog, have a job, pay a mortage etc. Why? Because the system made these things available and the advertising machine went into overdrive luring people into the good life. More is good...the bigger the more beautiful mentality. And then,all was pulled out from under them. What was just about that? Was was peaceful about removing people from their homes and firing people by video interview? And where was democracy to protect these people? And who can claim to be enlightened?

 

However, what happened in 2008 did show the spiritual poverty of a people on both sides of the coin: the bankers and their victims but especially the bankers. And all who lost their home in the US during that time know what I am writing.

 

A great book is Mike Taibbi's The Divide.

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Divide-American-Injustice-Wealth/dp/081299342X

Edited April 9, 2014 by why me

[USU78]

Is that suppose to mean something?

I guess you missed the part where Archbishop Wiegand requested LDS involvement in prop 8.

[mormonnewb]

You seem to be lumping everyone in one brush which is quite unfair for people whose mothers and fathers may have been apart of the

'greatest generation'. if we look at history, people have been cruel to people and they have also been kind to people. This is not a white/black thing but a humanity thing. We as human beings come up short in many regards. In terms of slavery, one must also look to arabia, the americas, and to africa where african tribes willing gave the people of other tribes to the europeans to be slaves. What to do with human nature?

However, we certainly can fight those aspects of our current life that seems to distort human nature and to move our human nature in certain directions. What is happening today with the rise of the secular media and with various special interest groups is a fracturing of society, a sense that there is no community except small aspects of community united by single issues and beliefs. Thus, we have the gay community, the african american community, the bi-sexual community, the hispanic community, the asian community, the jewish community etc. However, the meta-community that ties all together is disappearing at least in the united states. And with the disappearance of the meta-community, we have a disappearance of common values. And with it, an attack on what has been considered traditional values for quite some time. .

As Mormons, we are in a position to decry the creation of separate communities, or "traditional family values" for that matter? Edited April 9, 2014 by mormonnewb

[mormonnewb]

Please don't tell that to the Iraqis or to the Serbs, or to the Afghans or to many other people's in the world. They may disagree with you. One can always export a war. However, I think that what people are more or less exclaiming today is the spiritual poverty that they may find in their societies. To assume that our values are not influenced by a governing ideology would be a mistake. Lets look at it this way. Up until 2008 many people were doing the american dream: buy a home, build a fence, get a dog, have a job, pay a mortage etc. Why? Because the system made these things available and the advertising machine went into overdrive luring people into the good life. More is good...the bigger the more beautiful mentality. And then,all was pulled out from under them. What was just about that? Was was peaceful about removing people from their homes and firing people by video interview? And where was democracy to protect these people? And who can claim to be enlightened?

 

However, what happened in 2008 did show the spiritual poverty of a people on both sides of the coin: the bankers and their victims but especially the bankers. And all who lost their home in the US during that time know what I am writing.

 

A great book is Mike Taibbi's The Divide.

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Divide-American-Injustice-Wealth/dp/081299342X

And where does our church stand on this issue? Bueller? Anyone? Bueller? I listened fairly closely to GC and I don't remember a single comment about loving the banker but hating the banking. Is it because bankers have the resources to fight back?

I heard condemnation of women killing their innocent unborn babies through abortion, but not a mumbling word about our government killing innocent women and children in drone attacks. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the federal government has the power to fight back.

Perhaps, the perception of our church might be a little different if we FOR ONCE stood against the powerful on behalf of the weak.

The Prophet Samuel stood up to KING Saul. He didn't reserve all of his condemnation for the poor and the lepers. Likewise, the Prophet Nathan stood up to KING David and chastised him for his affair with Bathsheba. And we seem to forget that Christ was turned over for prosecution by the religious LEADERS of His day and executed by the most powerful government in the world at that time. He wasn't stoned by an angry mob of lepers who were offended with His teachings on cleanliness.

Now, I do agree with many of you that Christ was concerned with sexual purity and preached about it (although not as often as we might think). And still, He wasn't hated by the sinners of His day because they knew that He was just as willing to confront the sins of the rich and powerful. When we start doing the same, then perhaps we can begin to change hearts and minds as well.

[mormonnewb]

Unfortunately, the minority ruled anyway when the courts decided to impose the values of the minority on the majority. So, it is all relative. Quite often regardless of what the majority want in a referendum, the minority can still win through court procedures. In the battle of values, both sides usually attempt to impose their will on the other. Usually in the name of religious freedom, equal rights and human justice.

How is the marriage of a gay couple imposing its values on ME? Unless, the argument is that I have some right to make other people live by MY values.

[why me]

As Mormons, we are in a position to decry the creation of separate communities, or "traditional family values" for that matter?

The family on a individual level represents a small community of individuals. However, the family on a more generalized level represents how the family structure is preserved in society. Mormons would say that the traditional structure of individual families (Wife/ husband)  have changed in the wrong direction.

[why me]

How is the marriage of a gay couple imposing its values on ME? Unless, the argument is that I have some right to make other people live by MY values.

It doesn't. But then, how is a marriage between brother and a sister imposing its values on you? Or a woman marrying her cat? Or a man marrying his parrot? Or a muslim family with 7 wives? Or a woman who wishes to have a child without knowing who the father is? However, on a collective scale when we consider the changing definitions of what a family is, it just may have an impact as lines become blurred and it becomes an anything goes mentality. What the family was considered 50 years ago is no longer even considered to be viable now.

[why me]

And where does our church stand on this issue? Bueller? Anyone? Bueller? I listened fairly closely to GC and I don't remember a single comment about loving the banker but hating the banking. Is it because bankers have the resources to fight back?

I heard condemnation of women killing their innocent unborn babies through abortion, but not a mumbling word about our government killing innocent women and children in drone attacks. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the federal government has the power to fight back.

Perhaps, the perception of our church might be a little different if we FOR ONCE stood against the powerful on behalf of the weak.

The Prophet Samuel stood up to KING Saul. He didn't reserve all of his condemnation for the poor and the lepers. Likewise, the Prophet Nathan stood up to KING David and chastised him for his affair with Bathsheba. And we seem to forget that Christ was turned over for prosecution by the religious LEADERS of His day and executed by the most powerful government in the world at that time. He wasn't stoned by an angry mob of lepers who were offended with His teachings on cleanliness.

 

What is that slogan in relief society? Charity never failth. The church is very clear that we should do all that we can do to help the poor even offer a fast offering for the weakest. I do think that the church has a great concern for how we live our lives in mortality. I see nowhere that it tells its members to eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you will die. And I certainly don't hear the gospel of wealth as may be acclaimed from some pulpits. And wasn't there mention of helping one's neighbor at general conference? And to help the one's in need?

 

However, it was said meekly and humbly. I can understand why it was missed.

[mormonnewb]

Huh. the old woman who had the largish crucifix taken from her by force and having it p!$$ed on by the anti Prop 8 activists in California outside her church deserved what she got then, right?

Why would you conflate motive with justification? I simply identified the REASON for the attack. That does not mean that I think it was justified. For the record, it was NOT.

For example, if Mr. T was mugged in NYC (and who isn't?), I would surmise that the REASON was because of the monetary value of his jewelry (as opposed to, say, his being a devout Christian). In neither case would he DESERVED to be robbed, but for the sake of preventing future crimes, it might be helpful to know that the criminals are targeting the bejeweled and not the "beloved." That way, when we assign extra security details, we won't have all of our forces guarding the monk who has taken a vow of poverty.

[mormonnewb]

What is that slogan in relief society? Charity never failth. The church is very clear that we should do all that we can do to help the poor even offer a fast offering for the weakest. I do think that the church has a great concern for how we live our lives in mortality. I see nowhere that it tells its members to eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you will die. And I certainly don't hear the gospel of wealth as may be acclaimed from some pulpits. And wasn't there mention of helping one's neighbor at general conference? And to help the one's in need?

 

However, it was said meekly and humbly. I can understand why it was missed.

Don't you see the difference in emphasis?

We are encouraged to change OUR behavior when it comes to alleviating material poverty. However, when it's time to deal with SSM, abortion, etc., it isn't enough to simply curb our behavior. We must work to get all of society to change because living in a cesspool of sexual immorality "offends" our values. Yet, living in a cesspool of greed and materialism is something we're fine with. We're certainly not so disturbed by it that we would consider taking any someone else's agency to achieve our ideals of a charitable and just society.

[Stone holm]

Unfortunately, the minority ruled anyway when the courts decided to impose the values of the minority on the majority. So, it is all relative. Quite often regardless of what the majority want in a referendum, the minority can still win through court procedures. In the battle of values, both sides usually attempt to impose their will on the other. Usually in the name of religious freedom, equal rights and human justice.

When it comes to individual liberties protected by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment talking about majority/minority is a little irrelevant. It is assumed that a statute or State Constitutional Amendment is always the will of the majority at the time it is passed. It was the will of the majority to drive us Mormons from Missouri. However, with regards to SSM the will of the majority appears to be changing in many States as to whether homosexual couples should be allowed to marry. I have been reading articles about States which have more difficult constitutions to amend which adopted constitutional bans on SSM in the early reaction to the first Hawaiian court case, where the majority now favors SSM but they are saddled with the earlier ban. Popularity of a group is a thin reed upon which to rely when it comes to individual rights, we Mormons of all religious minorities should know that.

[Walden]

Of course it's a shock when a religious person or organization would dare to speak in the public square. Horror of horrors!

No, the shock is not in response to a "religious person or organization [that] would dare to speak in the public square." I encourage free speech.

 

The shock is in the fact that the religious person or organization who attempts to codify their particular brand of morality into public policy seems shocked themselves when there is public backlash against codifying a particular religion's morality.

 

I am fine with the LDS church taking their stand, I just find it laughable when they then cry about persecution because the courts and/or public opinion did not support the codification of their LDS morality.

[Storm Rider]

No, the shock is not in response to a "religious person or organization [that] would dare to speak in the public square." I encourage free speech.

 

The shock is in the fact that the religious person or organization who attempts to codify their particular brand of morality into public policy seems shocked themselves when there is public backlash against codifying a particular religion's morality.

 

I am fine with the LDS church taking their stand, I just find it laughable when they then cry about persecution because the courts and/or public opinion did not support the codification of their LDS morality.

 

Strange thing that. The people of the USA have long supported those old fuddy-duddy Christian moral - not LDS morals. The only thing that has changed is that of activist judges and those in the legal profession either unilaterally overriding the will of the people or not to prosecute the law of the land.  Now that is laughable.

[Gray]

Strange thing that. The people of the USA have long supported those old fuddy-duddy Christian moral - not LDS morals. The only thing that has changed is that of activist judges and those in the legal profession either unilaterally overriding the will of the people or not to prosecute the law of the land.  Now that is laughable.

 

The will of the people can't overturn the rights of minorities. If it could we'd be in trouble as a church. 

[california boy]

I'm sorry you apparently lack reading comprehension skills.  I think my points throughout this discussion have been pretty clear. You may disagree with them (and of course, if you were honest, you would admit that that's the real problem, wouldn't you?) but pretending I haven't made any points is not an effective argumentation tactic.

 

If you don't want to deal with the substance of my arguments, just say so: an accusation that I'm simply fear mongering isn't necessary.

 

Well I first have to understand what you are saying before I feel like I should comment on it.  It seems like a logical and curteous thing to do.  I don't think I am know as someone who doesn't speak his mind.

 

 

 

That's incorrect.  Four justices must vote to grant certiorari.  So it doesn't tell me much of anything about the photographer's case.

 

Cases rarely, if ever, reach the state or federal Supreme Court without any legal basis whatsoever. Reasonable minds can (and often do) disagree about the underpinnings of legal argument, but that doesn't mean that the litigants don't have a sound legal basis for them.

 

On the contrary.  As I mentioned earlier, I believe First Amendment religious protections have been eroding for at least twenty years.

 

Thank you for correcting me on the actual number of justices it takes to hear a case.  But I will argue that at least this particular case has much merit.  This case lost in EVERY SINGLE court it was heard.  Anyone can keep appealing to the Supreme Court no matter what the facts of the case are.  It is how our judicial system is set up.  Whether a case is argued all the way to the Supreme Court has no bearing on the legitimacy of the case.  The fact that the Supreme Court did not hear the case does speak to the legal justification for a case.

 

 

 

 

If you want to argue that the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution are superfluous, that is your right. Conversely, I believe the Founders had a sound basis for putting the principles and provisions found in the First Amendment first. However, as I mentioned earlier, leaving that aside, the prospect of religious people being forced to do things which violate their consciences is simply the tip of the iceberg.  Earlier in the thread, I mentioned some of the consequences I believe are likely to result if the courts continue down their current jurisprudential path will portend deleterious consequences, not only to religion, morality, and civic virtue, but also to churches politically, sociologically, and legally.  You dismissed all of that with a wave of your hand.  Only time will tell which one of us is right.

 

 

Yes this is the crux of what I would like to comment on.  I think most people in this country feel that we have moved beyond the "We don't serve your kind here"  mentality.  The issue of discriminating because someone doesn't like "those people"  has been settled, and this nation is better for it.  You may disagree, but you will have a rough road ahead of you if you favor bringing back a culture of discriminating against minorities.  But for most Americans, that ship has sailed. 

 

Lets explore the concept you advocate that a religious belief should exempt someone from following the law.  Do you really think the courts should set forth such a precedence?  Are you really willing to say that because of religious beliefs, a person does not have to follow the laws of this country?  Is that what freedom of religion means to you?  Because this is what THIS CASE is about.  The photographer broke the discrimination laws.  

 

I would also like to take a moment and comment on the religious reasoning part of this case.  Maybe this is just my perception of who Christ was, but I really don't think of Christ as someone who wouldn't reach out to the outcasts of His day.  It seems to me that He set a clear example of behavior that is just the opposite of what the photographer is trying to advocate.  Christ was not someone who would shun the sinners.  He gave a great parable about another group of people who were shunned because of who they married.  You might want to reacquaint yourself with the parabel of the Good Samaritian.  Did Christ ever teach that to serve a sinner was a sin?  Is taking a picture of a gay couple a sin in the eyes of God? I personally find it offensive for a person that calls himself a "christian" to, in the name of Christ, not reach out to sinners let alone refuse service to one.  It is personally sad to me that any church member would support such behavior.  But we are all given our agency.  I realize who Christ is, is probably not relivant to the legal aspects of this case, but I do find Christians supporting this very unChristlike behavior disturbing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Walden]

Strange thing that. The people of the USA have long supported those old fuddy-duddy Christian moral - not LDS morals. The only thing that has changed is that of activist judges and those in the legal profession either unilaterally overriding the will of the people or not to prosecute the law of the land.  Now that is laughable.

 

I love the "activist judges" argument, which insinuates that the legal system is circumventing and overiding public opinion. Fortunately, basic rights in this country are not based in the domain of popular opinion, or there still might be "colored" drinking fountains and service counters, or bans on interracial marriages, in some counties in the South. Fortunately, our wise forefathers who created this great country, and whom many Mormons will contend were led by God's hand in the formation of this great nation, had the foresight to create a judicial branch that ensured that rights in this country were not dictated by the opinions of the "majority."

 

Furthermore, does it matter that the most current public opinion polls regarding same sex marriage report the following:

 

Bloomberg National Poll, conducted 3/7/2014 - 3/10/2014 (n = 1001 adults nationwide):

"Do you support or oppose allowing same-sex couples to get married?".........Support = 55%, Oppose = 36%,  Unsure = 9%

 

ABC News/Washington Post poll, conducted 2/27 - 3/2/14 (n = 1002 adults nationwide):

"Overall, do you support or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?.......Support = 59%,  Oppose = 34%,  Unsure = 7%

 

Public Religion Research Institute, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates, 11/12/2013 - 12/18/2013  (n = 4509 adults nationwide):

"All in all, do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally?....Strongly Favor = 22%,  Favor = 31%,                Oppose = 21%,  Strongly Oppose = 20%,  Unsure = 5%

[california boy]

Hi California boy.  I am saying that I think it is better for society to uphold virtue rather than condone vice.  It there are those who do not subscribe to the upheld values, it is not society that is responsible.  It is not society which is offering the poor moral example, but those individuals.  

 

 

Read my last response to mormonnewb.  It might help you understand my concern better.  I am not fearful of gay marriage.  It is not a threat to the church or to me individually.  I think it is a small part of the threat which faces future generations.  Why should I budge an inch for immorality?  

I do completely understand your concerns about the slipping away of morality.  I also share those concerns.  I just don't think that gay marriage is a moral issue.  It is difficult to argue that gays are more moral if they are not allowed to marry.  Or that straights are more moral if gays are not allowed to marry.  Just who is more moral by not allowing gays to marry?  I actually would argue the opposite.  By telling a group of people it is not important for you to marry because it is a religious sacrament that you can not partake of, you devalue the importance of marriage.  Do not some people who are not religious question why they should also get married?  Of course we all know that marriage is not JUST a religious sacrament, but preventing a group from marrying civilly is just as disturbing.  Where is the morality of denying some citizens of equal protection under the law.

 

 

You are right, it is not worse for society for gay couples to marry rather than shacking up together.  But it is worse for society to vote contrary to their values in favor of immorality simply because they are going to be immoral anyway.  That is like making prostitution or any other personal vice legal because people are going to do it anyway.  What is the harm?  Prostitution could be a potential economic stimulus.  What is the harm in a little sexual promiscuity between two consenting adults?  It's in our nature!  It relieves stress and makes you feel good.  It doesn't hurt any individual or society.  All of these arguments are just as good as any gay marriage argument that I have ever heard, but I will not waver despite all of your logical appeals to immorality.   We wouldn't want that to become a habit of society to vote against their values would we?  Therein lies the potential harm to society. 

I don't think that anyone should vote against their conscience.  I certainly would not.  But again, is gay marriage a moral issue?  Unlike prostitution, or other personal vice, allowing someone to marry seems to be a step towards morality rather than a step away.  Doesn't marriage reduce sexual promiscuity?  It is not like anyone is asking or expecting Mormons to recognize gay marriage.  If that were the case, then I certainly would understand this fight against gay marriage.  

[CV75]

Thanks for pointing out politics can result in disagreement and even be adversarial. If we put our values in the political arena then they will be attacked and ridiculed like any other issue.  Just because you hold them sacred doesn't mean everyone else must have the same standard. 

 

Which talks were you referring to?  I'll ask you to read AoF 11.

By limiting your focus to the political arena, you eliminate consideration of the spiritual arena and how it plays out in the political. The General Conference talks are fundamentally spiritual, so if you are willing to identify where and how our values are under attack in the spiritual arena, you can discern where and how the same plays out in the political arena. There are many tricks to doing that. Hence the conference talks about holding to our standards, not condoning the compromise or ridicule of them, and treating our brothers and sisters in the world as Heavenly Father would. Holland’s, Reeves', Anderson’s, Nelson’s, and Uchtdorf’s (priesthood session) talks come to the top of my mind, but read them all!

Articles of Faith 11 is about both how we treat others and how we expect to be treated.