A New Mormon [Double] Standard?

[Buckeye]

...

 

The real issue for Oaks (and the church) is not whether speech should be allowed here or there, but whether religious speech should be treated with special respect. That's where the tension is. Oaks would say that Mozilla is fine to take action against a gun-advocating CEO, but he would draw a line at a religious-advocating CEO. In Oak's mind, religious speech is unique and special.

 

What's really behind the angst felt by Elder Oaks and other church leaders is that purely religious viewpoints, while still tolerated in the public sphere, no longer carry much persuasive value. Back when Loving v. Virginia was decided, the lower court could cite to God as an authority and say that states have a right to keep the races separate because God set things up that way. Fast-forward to today and you see that no court would rely on God as a source. Yes, churches can file amicus briefs in support or marriage restrictions (ours certainly did), but they can only make arguments based on scientific studies or other generally acceptable bases. They can't say "God says so." The public sphere simply doesn't care.

 

So that's the bottom line. Our democracy used to care what our theocracies thought (LDS, Catholic, etc.). Increasingly, the democracy does not. Religion is fine as long as it is kept to oneself. But the minute "God says so" becomes an argument in the public sphere, the speaker is denounced as a bigot. That's what has our church leaders so concerned.

 

I left something important off this comment. Because others have already responded to the comment, I will make another comment in lieu of editing this one.

 

Here's what I left off:

 

One of the major concerns for Elder Oaks is how the federal courts - particularly in Utah - dismissed the will of the voters with regard to SSM. It's not just that these courts found that constitutional protections trump majority views. That's been the basis for many rulings. It's that the courts were dismissive of the majority view precisely because their view was founded on religious grounds. The courts looked to see if there was any secular reason for the citizens to vote as they did. Finding none, they concluded that the only basis was an invalid one - religious belief - and therefore gave no weight to the citizen's views.

 

This development is very concerning to Oaks and other leaders. It's one thing for religious arguments themselves to have no weight in a court of law - i.e., when you're sued for excluding interracial couples from your hotel, it's no defense to say "God wants to keep the races separate." But it's something new to say that voters cannot legitimately rely on their religious convictions at the voting booth.

[Buckeye]

I agree. It's the pattern we see with the church's struggle with race. But, I find it sad that we have to follow the evidence rather than lead by prophetic revelation.

 

Has it ever worked differently? A Ouija-board prophet has some appeal to me, but the more I live, the more I find that I prefer the messy reality of experience-based knowledge.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, but an actual revelation that gave clarity to God's wishes for his homosexual children could be a game changer.

Such wishful thinking if I ever saw it. It is not ever going to happen.

[stemelbow]

In yesterday's press conference, Elder Oaks said:

 

"When religious people are publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election, our democracy is the loser."

 

Preach, Elder!  Preach!  Believe it or not, I agree 100% with Elder Oaks.  And I hope it now means that Mormons won't be forced from their Church employment or made to suffer personal loss because they raise their voice in opposition to the Church or lend their support to groups like OW.  Because, if not, it seems like the Church wants to have its cake and eat it too.  Mormons with the "correct" views should be shielded from the consequences of holding those views, but the Church is perfectly free to impose whatever consequences it likes on those with the "wrong" views.  So much for religious "freedom."

 

And I know that some of you will say, "The Church is a private entity and can do whatever it pleases."  And, of course, you're right.  But Elder Oaks seeks to protects opponents of SSM from the actions of their private employers.  For instance, Elder Oaks specifically mentioned the Mozilla CEO who was forced to resign because he had donated money to support the passage of Prop 8.  This man was not forced to step down by the government, but by private actors (e.g., shareholders, customers, LGBT activities).  So why should those private actors respect the Mozilla CEO's opposing viewpoint and allow him to keep his position in their organization, but the Church can continue to fire employees or discipline members for expressing an opposing viewpoint on the same question?

 

It would seem to me that what's good for the gay should be good for the salamander.  If the Church wants other private actors to respect its dissenting views, then it should start respecting dissenting views within its own ranks.  And if you say that the Church can not possibly continue to function with so much dissension in the ranks, then why do you think a corporation can operate under the same conditions?  If people who have the light of Christ and are operating under the power of the priesthood can not exercise grace towards those with dissenting viewpoints, then how can we expect those "heathens" to extend us a grace that we can't even muster for our own brothers and sisters?

Ouch. I don't think there is any clearer case of a double standard.

[bluebell]

Yes, but an actual revelation that gave clarity to God's wishes for his homosexual children could be a game changer.

 

I agree about a clarifying revelation, but speaking to the first part of your answer, do you really see the church either choosing to accept something God says is a sin in the next 40 years, or dying?

[ksfisher]

And since religious beliefs on race were wrong, there is the possibility that religious beliefs on homosexuality will to that same direction.

In another 40 years our Church will have accepted gay marriage or it will be withering on the vine.

 

By this same logic you could call into question any doctrine that the church teaches.  "Since the church was wrong about A it may be wrong about B as well."  Take this far enough and you've changed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from a place you go to learn the gospel of Jesus Christ into just another church where you go to have a feel good hour and drink coffee afterwards.

[ksfisher]

 

It would seem to me that what's good for the gay should be good for the salamander.  If the Church wants other private actors to respect its dissenting views, then it should start respecting dissenting views within its own ranks. 

 

"And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."

Mark 3:25

 

Just a thought.

[Buckeye]

By this same logic you could call into question any doctrine that the church teaches.  "Since the church was wrong about A it may be wrong about B as well."  Take this far enough and you've changed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from a place you go to learn the gospel of Jesus Christ into just another church where you go to have a feel good hour and drink coffee afterwards.

 

How about the School of Prophets approach - learn the gospel, learn some hebrew, confess your sins to your brethren, feel good for an hour, and drink coffee afterwards.

[california boy]

The difference is ... 40 years!

 

Uncontroversial religious beliefs will always be tolerated. A CEO who says "I love puppies because Jesus said to be kind" will be fine.

 

Societally-rejected religious beliefs will not be tolerated. A CEO who says "God revealed that blacks are to be slaves in the eternities" will never be okay.

 

The rub comes when societal values change. Keeping the races separate on religious grounds was acceptable 60 years ago. Today, no way. Opposing gay marriage because God revealed that marriage is only to be man-woman was acceptable 2 years okay. Today .... we're still working that out. Tomorrow, who knows?

 

That's the whole point of yesterday's conference. Church leaders are trying to keep purely religious beliefs re: homosexuality from going the way of religious beliefs on race.

I completely agree.  And you have hit the nail on the head with this statement.

 

That's the whole point of yesterday's conference. Church leaders are trying to keep purely religious beliefs re: homosexuality from going the way of religious beliefs on race.

 

 

That is why I stated in the other thread that the church was taking a stand that the anti-discrimination laws should be repealed will brand the church as racist, bigoted and anti-gay.  It is a further tarnishing of the churches reputation and reinforces all the negative publicity the church received for their past baring of blacks from the priesthood and support of Prop 8.  You haven't seen anything yet.  Taking a stand against the anti-discrimination laws will be the biggest PR disaster the church has ever faced.  The church is essentially siding with George Wallace, who has become the poster boy for bigotry and racism.  By siding against the civil right laws the name of the church will forever be linked to that same bigotry, racism and unChristlike behavior towards others.  They are basically saying, "George Wallace was right.  Americans do have the right to discriminate for any reason we want, even skin color if we think it is against our religious beliefs."  

 

This stance brings nothing but sadness for me.  But like many have said, and I have always stated, the church has every right to state and fight for it's beliefs in the public square.   I have also repeatedly stated that the church has a right to rally it's members to fight for issues at the ballot box.  But the church also has to take responsibility for it's political activism and not blame others if they succeed.  And just like Prop 8 which took away the civil rights of gays, it doesn't mean the courts will agree with them.  Laws allowing for discrimination of gays based on religious beliefs may very well get passed by popular vote or legislative bodies in some states.  If those laws violate a gay citizens civil rights, the courts will throw them out.  Until the Civil Right laws of the 60's are repealed, these laws will be struck down.  And the church will gain nothing but a furthering of a very bad reputation.

[stemelbow]

I agree about a clarifying revelation, but speaking to the first part of your answer, do you really see the church either choosing to accept something God says is a sin in the next 40 years, or dying?

Really makes ya wonder what they were thinking all those years ago when interracial marriage would result in death on the spot, and thinking blacks were somehow unworthy of the priesthood because of their pre-mortal sins.

It's probably always been the case when people take off on ideas and teachings calling them the will of God and revelation.

as it is, we could be wrong about this whole issue and be told something like, "it doesn't matter what we've said in the past on this topic. We were wrong. Time to get in line and accept our modern day revelation."

[Buckeye]

I completely agree.  And you have hit the nail on the head with this statement.

 

 

That is why I stated in the other thread that the church was taking a stand that the anti-discrimination laws should be repealed will brand the church as racist, bigoted and anti-gay.  It is a further tarnishing of the churches reputation and reinforces all the negative publicity the church received for their past baring of blacks from the priesthood and support of Prop 8.  You haven't seen anything yet.  Taking a stand against the anti-discrimination laws will be the biggest PR disaster the church has ever faced.  The church is essentially siding with George Wallace, who has become the poster boy for bigotry and racism.  By siding against the civil right laws the name of the church will forever be linked to that same bigotry, racism and unChristlike behavior towards others.  They are basically saying, "George Wallace was right.  Americans do have the right to discriminate for any reason we want, even skin color if we think it is against our religious beliefs."  

 

This stance brings nothing but sadness for me.  But like many have said, and I have always stated, the church has every right to state and fight for it's beliefs in the public square.   I have also repeatedly stated that the church has a right to rally it's members to fight for issues at the ballot box.  But the church also has to take responsibility for it's political activism and not blame others if they succeed.  And just like Prop 8 which took away the civil rights of gays, it doesn't mean the courts will agree with them.  Laws allowing for discrimination of gays based on religious beliefs may very well get passed by popular vote or legislative bodies in some states.  If those laws violate a gay citizens civil rights, the courts will throw them out.  Until the Civil Right laws of the 60's are repealed, these laws will be struck down.  And the church will gain nothing but a furthering of a very bad reputation.

 

In yesterday's conference the church said that is supports anti-discrimination laws for housing and employment, while not extending such laws to all businesses, as least where there are options available from non-discriminating sources. Here is the how the DN describes the position:

 

Members of the church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and a member of the Young Women General Presidency called on government leaders to preserve religious freedom while also protecting LGBT people from discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations such as restaurants, hotels and transportation.

Church leaders also emphasized that people should not be forced to perform services that go against their religious beliefs if others are readily available to provide them

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865620495/LDS-statement-could-move-Utah-nondiscrimination-religious-freedom-debate-forward.html

 

I see this as mostly a positive step. The church supports some LGBT rights. The church wants balance for other rights. I'm somewhat doubtful that our democracy could strike this balance, but we will see. I fear that if our society does allow the balance, there will be many more businesses who rely on a religious-exemption deny services to Mormons than to LGBT.

[Ahab]

The 2 standards that are at issue here involve the right to the free exercise of religion and the right to freely express sexual orientation.

I understand Elder Oaks and other leaders of the Church to be saying that he supports everyone's right to the free expression of their sexual orientation as long as everyone still has the right to the free exercise of their religion. I think they're just expressing concern that one may trump the other, instead of both standards being upheld.

I expect that our Church leaders will continue to express their religous convictions that sexual relations between people of the same sex is still a sin, but that everyone still has the right through their free agency to commit sin if they want to.

[carbon dioxide]

 

Ask and ye shall receive ....

 

 

 

FWIW, I read this as a general principle that applies equally to women's ordination and other controversial issues.

It does apply to women being ordained.  Kate Kelly was not exed for her view that women should be ordained.  She was exed because she continued with Ordained women which seeks to force change on the church.   We can believe whatever we want but our actions on that belief might get us in trouble.

[Tacenda]

I agree with the church's stance on this.  But where does that sit well when the church goes past that and wants to disable the rights of the LGBT from equal rights to marry?  No side believes either side shouldn't have freedom of speech.  It's fine when the church tells it's members that it should be between a man and woman, it's quite another for the church to tell non members this, isn't it?  Of course this has been discussed ad nauseam. ETA:  This in response to Ahab above. 

Edited January 28, 2015 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

By this same logic you could call into question any doctrine that the church teaches.  "Since the church was wrong about A it may be wrong about B as well."  

 

I think you have a point, and i sometimes wonder if this is not a small part of the reason that the race issue played out the way it did.  

 

I think the church was allowed to be wrong on some of it's race teachings precisely because we needed to really understand what it means to be a church made up of infallible people.  We needed to see that sometimes the teachings of our leaders are wrong.  Most of our prophets have taught that we can't blindly follow them because that is spiritually immature, and when stuff like this happens we are reminded of that.

 

Society, and the deep feelings of some members, were allowed to be right to teach us that lesson.

 

However, because the church changed it's teachings on matters of race, many people now seem to believe that that set a precedent and whenever the church and socially acceptable opinions disagree (or a member's personal opinions disagree), that society (or that member) is going to be proven right and the church will eventually come along (or wither, according to some). 

 

Of course that is also a very shallow way to determine what God's will is.  Believing that God would never have as doctrine something we don't understand or disagree with, or that society disagrees with, is a spiritually immature way to determine whether something is of God or not.  It's not more enlightened than blindly following a church leader-it's just the opposite side of the same coin.

 

For this reason, i think that there will definitely be things that society loves and champions loudly that will not be acceptable to God.  And i think sometimes there will be things our leaders fully support that won't be.  I think He will use these times to show us that we can't use society or our leaders as our only measuring stick.  

 

I don't think God minds when we start out spiritually immature (because we all do), but I don't think He's happy when we set up camp there either.  I think it's because most of us are really comfortable in our spiritual immaturity that He does stuff that forces us to engage with Him on another level or falter.  

 

And letting the church be right sometimes and letting it be wrong sometimes is a good way to force that engagement if we are willing. 

[carbon dioxide]

And since religious beliefs on race were wrong, there is the possibility that religious beliefs on homosexuality will to that same direction.

In another 40 years our Church will have accepted gay marriage or it will be withering on the vine.

I can't say what the Church will do in decades to come but I can say what my and my family (immediate and extended) will do.  If the Church was to ever accept SSM and allow members to practice it, it would be great evidence that the Church has taken a huge step towards apostasy.  I fully believe a great schism in the Church would occur and based on the views of my immediate and extended family are, we would chose to follow what we believe to be true that SSM is pure wickedness.  We would become members of the division of the Church that continued to see it that way. 

[stemelbow]

By this same logic you could call into question any doctrine that the church teaches.  "Since the church was wrong about A it may be wrong about B as well."  Take this far enough and you've changed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from a place you go to learn the gospel of Jesus Christ into just another church where you go to have a feel good hour and drink coffee afterwards.

Unfortunately the opposite is perhaps the larger problem--"Since the Church was right about A is must be right about B" which seems to be the accepted view of most members and those who supported the explanations for why the ban. They merely assumed the Church was right when in fact it was not.

I think it far more healthy to be able to ask, "well is that right? I shall determine for myself." Then to say, "well I'm going to go with the Church no matter what".

[carbon dioxide]

I agree with the church's stance on this.  But where does that sit well when the church goes past that and wants to disable the rights of the LGBT from equal rights to marry?  No side believes either side shouldn't have freedom of speech.  It's fine when the church tells it's members that it should be between a man and woman, it's quite another for the church to tell non members this, isn't it?  Of course this has been discussed ad nauseam. ETA:  This in response to Ahab above. 

The Church simply wanted to hold the definition of marriage to what it always has been.  I don't see the Church actions as a purposely driven action to deny rights but just uphold a standard.  If we simply allow standards to be destroyed for the sake of giving rights, why even have standards?

[rpn]

Haven't read the other posts. 

 

It will never be alright for employees to express views that will undermine the work and purpose of the organization who pays them.   Sure there is lots of room in most jobs that doesn't interfere with that.   But in cause organizations, you can't have someone saying it is alright to train dogs to fight if  they are working for PETA, etc.    Further, government cannot require that religious organizations pay for and support those who disagree with their truth claims, or even do not believe in the cause enough to live like practicing members do.   That would be compelling the religious support for things with which they disagree.

[california boy]

In yesterday's conference the church said that is supports anti-discrimination laws for housing and employment, while not extending such laws to all businesses, as least where there are options available from non-discriminating sources. Here is the how the DN describes the position:

 

 

I see this as mostly a positive step. The church supports some LGBT rights. The church wants balance for other rights. I'm somewhat doubtful that our democracy could strike this balance, but we will see. I fear that if our society does allow the balance, there will be many more businesses who rely on a religious-exemption deny services to Mormons than to LGBT.

 

Yeah I heard what you quoted.  But I also heard Elder Oaks say a person has a right to discriminate based on religious beliefs.  So the church is essentially saying that gays should not be discriminated against in housing unless the landlord believes on religious grounds that gays are immoral.  Then he can refuse to rent to them.  So essentially, allowing for discrimination against gays.  

 

The first statement means nothing if the second statement is to be adopted.  Do you see something I am not seeing on this double talk news conference?

[rockpond]

Has it ever worked differently? A Ouija-board prophet has some appeal to me, but the more I live, the more I find that I prefer the messy reality of experience-based knowledge.

Then what's the point of a prophet if we're just going to make our decisions by looking at the evidence after the fact?

[carbon dioxide]

The teachings that are found in Lehi dream really determines what we as members need to do going forward.  We are taught that there are those in the Church who will let go of the iron rod and drift to unknown paths. Some partake of the fruit but they notice the people in the great and spacious building mocking them.  They become ashamed, walk away from the tree of life and then join those who are in the building at mocking and scorning those still at the tree of life.  We are instructed to ignore those in the great and spacious building.  Eventually that building will fall and all those who are a part of it get their eternal reward of damnation. Apply this to SSM, we just need to ignore what society says of the Church.  If the Church gets fewer converts because of its position than so be it.  If some people leave the Church than that is fulfillment of the dream and so be it.  The prize we should be seeking is eternal life and not the praise of the world (those in the building who cast scorn on the Church).    There will be plenty of time in the eternities to appear to those who mocked the Church to meet them personally and ask them who overcame and who was right in the end.  All of them will confess that SSM was authored by the devil.  We know this to be the case as Christ and Satan are polar opposites.  If Christ is for SSM than Satan is against it.  If Satan is for SSM than Christ is against it.  This is not a case where they both are in agreement.

[rockpond]

I can't say what the Church will do in decades to come but I can say what my and my family (immediate and extended) will do. If the Church was to ever accept SSM and allow members to practice it, it would be great evidence that the Church has taken a huge step towards apostasy. I fully believe a great schism in the Church would occur and based on the views of my immediate and extended family are, we would chose to follow what we believe to be true that SSM is pure wickedness. We would become members of the division of the Church that continued to see it that way.

If such a change were to happen today, I would expect such a division. And you should follow your beliefs.

But, as with the change regarding race, I think the general church population will be ready and anticipating such an announcement by that time. I don't think it will create a schism.

[rockpond]

I agree about a clarifying revelation, but speaking to the first part of your answer, do you really see the church either choosing to accept something God says is a sin in the next 40 years, or dying?

I don't see God ever saying that it is a sin.

[Buckeye]

Then what's the point of a prophet if we're just going to make our decisions by looking at the evidence after the fact?

 

Looking at evidence is not all we do. Evidence is the basis for knowledge. Getting to that point, though, requires faith and testing. Prophets serve very important roles in that process. Though not perfect, the inspiration they receive helps guide those who listen to learn for themselves and, eventually, to know. Just as with individuals, prophets are not failures if they get things wrong. They are only failures if they stop trying to get things right. I try not to judge our prophet any differently than I would the deacon's quorum president in my ward.