Any Word On The 10:00 Am Press Conference?

[rongo]

I have a message from my wife that states it will be related to marriage. KSL currently reports that the content is not not yet known, but she's a RS president, so maybe the bishop called her (i.e., maybe priesthood leaders know something).

[bluebell]

I haven't heard of any press conference so clearly i am out of the loop.

[Duncan]

it's about discrimination and religious toleration and that kind of stuff

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865620479/LDS-Church-announces-10-am-news-conference-watch-live.html

Edited January 27, 2015 by Duncan

[Buckeye]

I was also out of the loop. Thanks Duncan for the link. I imagine this will be just a more lengthy version of what has been said the last few years - LGBT have civil rights and religious liberty is paramount. Maybe there will be some discussion of the SCOTUS case. And maybe a pleasant announcement that the church supports non-discrimination ordinances for housing, employment, etc., while retaining the right for religious institutions to discriminate.

 

Edit to add: actually, I predict the church will finally take a formal position on barn sparrows.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Buckeye

[MorningStar]

Live stream keeps cutting out for me.

[Duncan]

Live stream keeps cutting out for me.

 

same, I just keep restarting it

[stemelbow]

Try here: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-news-conference-on-religious-freedom-and-nondiscrimination

Working a little better.

[rodheadlee]

The Illuminati are melting the polar caps with HAARP. That is all.

[Tacenda]

http://fox13now.com/2015/01/27/lds-church-to-address-religious-freedom-and-nondiscrimination-at-news-conference/

 

Hope this link helps.  

[Buckeye]

I also had problems accessing the video. Here is the write up from DN:

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865620483/LDS-leaders-reemphasize-protection-of-religious-freedoms-support-for-LGBT-nondiscrimination-laws.html

[tonie]

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said ..."Rights are best guarded, when each person and group guards for others those rights they wish guarded for themselves."

Sister Neill F. Marriott, second counselor in the church's Young Women General Presidency ... Most of American society recognizes that "such basic human rights as securing a job or a place to live should not depend on a person's sexual orientation,"

Elder Oaks said: “Because we are frequently asked for our position on these matters, the Church asserts the following principles based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, and on fairness for all, including people of faith:

We claim for everyone the God-given and Constitutional right to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience, without harming the health or safety of others.

We acknowledge that the same freedom of conscience must apply to men and women everywhere to follow the religious faith of their choice, or none at all if they so choose.

We believe laws ought to be framed to achieve a balance in protecting the freedoms of all people while respecting those with differing values.

We reject persecution and retaliation of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief, economic circumstances or differences in gender or sexual orientation.”

[stemelbow]

After listening I fear they are missing the point of those on the other side of this issue.

The opposite side is not saying a religion has a right to their beliefs and thus be able to take political stands, but that a religion does not have the right to vote to take away the rights of another people. Getting married civilly and in the eyes of the law is a right that should be allowed for their benefit and happiness. To the other side to fight politically against SSM is to do something akin to saying people who have blue eyes can't marry another.

I get that the side against SSM has a whole different perspective, in that marriage can't be defined as anything other than male-female relationship binding.

This is a case of speaking past each other--and not a case of religious persecution. At least I don't think so.

[stemelbow]

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said ..."Rights are best guarded, when each person and group guards for others those rights they wish guarded for themselves."

Sadly, as is the case these days, marriage granted by the civil government is such a right. So to say one can't marry whom they choose is not doing as Holland suggests. It is doing the opposite--trying to limit rights for others because of your personal perspective.

[Scott Lloyd]

After listening I fear they are missing the point of those on the other side of this issue.

The opposite side is not saying a religion has a right to their beliefs and thus be able to take political stands, but that a religion does not have the right to vote to take away the rights of another people. Getting married civilly and in the eyes of the law is a right that should be allowed for their benefit and happiness. To the other side to fight politically against SSM is to do something akin to saying people who have blue eyes can't marry another.

I get that the side against SSM has a whole different perspective, in that marriage can't be defined as anything other than male-female relationship binding.

This is a case of speaking past each other--and not a case of religious persecution. At least I don't think so.

I think you are missing the point.

 

People of faith have a right to express themselves -- and to make their views known in the political arena -- whether they do so individually or under the auspices of a church or other religious organization.

 

To deny them that right is to do violence to First Amendment liberties, even though some might pay lip service to the Constitution while they are doing it.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

What I took away from the press conference:

 

• The church is clearly worried about future impositions on religious freedom now that SSM is becoming the law of the land. I didn't hear many specifics, but it seems concerns center around church-owned businesses and schools.
• The church reiterated its support for LGBT non-discrimination ordinances regarding housing, employment, and basic social services. Yeah.
• At the same time, the church suggested that religious rights are held at both the individual and the group level, which seems to suggest support for individuals to be able to discriminate against LGBT on religious grounds, at least for things other than housing, employment, and social services. Think wedding photos and cakes. I wish there was more clarity on this point as can't see a realistic way to draw lines that allow public businesses to discriminate on religious grounds. Does the church mean to say that the photographer cannot discriminate in hiring LGBT as employees, but can discriminate against providing services to LGBT? Does the church mean to include all religious beliefs - so that the photographer could also refuse service to an interracial couple, or the publicly-available day care in my community could kick out my kids because they are Mormon? Frankly, if history is any lesson, Mormons have a lot more to lose than gain by allowing religious discrimination by businesses.
• The church spokesman referred to LGBT using the terms "gays" and "sexual orientation" rather LDS-speak "same sex attraction." That's helpful.
• One of the 4 church spokesmen was Sister Neill F. Marriott, second counselor in the church's Young Women General Presidency. I imagine this will be a trend going forward. A positive one in my opinion.

[stemelbow]

I think you are missing the point.

 

People of faith have a right to express themselves -- and to make their views known in the political arena -- whether they do individually or under the auspices of a church or other religious organization.

 

To deny them that right is to do violence to First Amendment liberties, even though some might pay lip service to the Constitution while they are doing it.

I didn't miss that at all. I agree--religious organizations and those who are part of them ought to be able to express themselves. But when it comes to denying others their rights, we run into a problem that needs addressing.

This is more just talking right past each other, sadly.

[stemelbow]

What I took away from the press conference:

 

• • The church is clearly worried about future impositions on religious freedom now that SSM is becoming the law of the land. I didn't hear many specifics, but it seems concerns center around church-owned businesses and schools.

As it becomes the law of the land, I think it'll be a long time before the Church is going to be trusted for many things. As it becomes law, more and more, people will see marriage as a right, granted to it's citizens. And the Church will be seen as an organization which attempted to stop certain people from participating in that right. the worry is real and it'll be hard to get past it, because there are tons of hurt feelings all around.

[Buckeye]

As it becomes the law of the land, I think it'll be a long time before the Church is going to be trusted for many things. As it becomes law, more and more, people will see marriage as a right, granted to it's citizens. And the Church will be seen as an organization which attempted to stop certain people from participating in that right. the worry is real and it'll be hard to get past it, because there are tons of hurt feelings all around.

 

Unfortunately, I think you're right. It used to be that the church was defined in the public eye by three things - polygamy, WOW, and racial discrimination. I used to wish "if only we could be known for something else." Well, now we are. I've learned to stop wishing.

[Ahab]

Having a right to do something shouldn't necessarily include the right to force or coerce others to do it for you, or to you.

If government officials want to allow people to marry other people, for example, that should not include the right to force or coerce another person to perform the marriage ceremony, or to bake them a cake, or to smile as if everybody should approve of that marriage. Same sex, opposite sex, people to animals, whatever. Neither government or religous institutions have a right to do something that violates their conscience.

That's what I got out of it, anyway. And I approve of this message.

[thesometimesaint]

I think the best solution is to get government out of the religion business altogether. In terms of SSM make all marriages legally enforceable civil contracts first, and then let churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc., etc., etc., have whatever religious ceremony they want. 

Edited January 27, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't miss that at all. I agree--religious organizations and those who are part of them ought to be able to express themselves. But when it comes to denying others their rights, we run into a problem that needs addressing.

This is more just talking right past each other, sadly.

It's not foregone that opposing the redefinition of marriage is denying others their rights. That's still a very debatable and controversial view, the recent heavy-handed fiat from the federal judiciary notwithstanding.

 

So it appears you are saying people of faith have a right to express themselves in the political arena -- so long as they agree with you on this controversial point.

 

That's not tolerance. And it's not reverencing First Amendment freedoms.

[stemelbow]

I think the best solution is to get government out of the religion business altogether. In term of SSM make all marriages legally enforceable civil contracts first, and then let churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc., etc., etc., have whatever religious ceremony they want.

Best solution is allow SS couples to marry.

[Buckeye]

I think the best solution is to get government out of the religion business altogether. In term of SSM make all marriages legally enforceable civil contracts first, and then let churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc., etc., etc., have whatever religious ceremony they want. 

 

By this do you mean that the government should stop actively supporting marriage? So no more tax, visitation, medical decision, death/accident payment, etc. rights that are based on one's marital status? Politicians should not attempt to create policies that encourage fathers and mothers to get married?

[Scott Lloyd]

As it becomes the law of the land, I think it'll be a long time before the Church is going to be trusted for many things. As it becomes law, more and more, people will see marriage as a right, granted to it's citizens. And the Church will be seen as an organization which attempted to stop certain people from participating in that right. the worry is real and it'll be hard to get past it, because there are tons of hurt feelings all around.

The Church of Jesus Christ has never shied away from standing up for principle.

 

For over a generation now, there has been a common view in society that marriage is optional when it comes to having sex. The Church of Jesus Christ has never accepted that societal trend. I'm confident it will continue to hold fast to the truth on this and other public issues -- and that good people will continue to trust it.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Brian 2.0]

This was the notification I received on my phone from CNN:

"Mormon Church announces new, more open policy on gay rights"

Couldn't have been more excited to open it up. Wow!

Then I read it. Same ol same ol.

You got me CNN. You got me.