Npr: The Latest From John Dehlin

[bluebell]

That's fine. But some people will always see it as an effort to withhold civil rights from others.

 

 

Like i said, i'm fine with that.

 

As long as they don't say something like "well, I believe this is a civil right so you are obviously denying someone's civil rights because you disagree with me."  

[rockpond]

That's fine.  Believe it to be very very very egregious.  Just don't believe it to be an issue of religious freedom because it's not.

 

 

 

Yes, having the right to work for or against SSM is a matter of religious freedom if someone does so based on their religious beliefs.  

 

Having a SSM recognized by the government is not a matter of religious freedom.

  

Disagreeing with someone is not persecuting them.  That seems absurd.  Here in Utah right now there is a huge debate about wood burning.  Some people want to ban it altogether because of the inversion problem, while others believe it should continue to be allowed.

 

According to your point of view, this debate and attempt to create new laws is an act of persecution.  I don't think many would agree with you.

 

You think SSM should be legal, other's don't.  You aren't persecuting them by working to get your beliefs made legal and they aren't persecuting you by working to get their beliefs made legal.

I completely agree that disagreeing is not persecution.

You argument is that legalization of SSM is not a matter of religious freedom. Advocating for or against SSM is a matter of religious freedom. Being able to enter into a gay marriage is a matter of religious freedom. But the legal recognition of the gay marriage is not a matter of religious freedom. Did I get that right? I can agree with that to a point.

So let me ask you this... Why did the church in 2008 advocate in favor of Prop 8?

[stemelbow]

Like i said, i'm fine with that.

 

As long as they don't say something like "well, I believe this is a civil right so you are obviously denying someone's civil rights because you disagree with me."  

That's a little confusing. Are you saying they can't think it was an effort to deny civil rights because you disagree?

[stemelbow]

I don't think Oaks would suggest that it was o.k. for an atheist to be denied a spot on Olympic team because he supported prop. 8 either.  

 

I don't think anyone's suggesting that people's religious beliefs are more important than non religious beliefs.

Sure they are. What's exactly why their is political opposition to SSM. If the Church thought the beleifs of those who support SSM were equal in importance as the Church's belief that SSM is an abomination, then we wouldn't be talking about this at all.

What is being argued is that they are not less important than non religious beliefs.

Where is the argument presented that religious beliefs are less important than non religious beliefs?

[mormonnewb]

My testimony of this Church is based on "your love for one another." Why? Because that is precisely how CHRIST told me to judge His Church. He didn't say to wait for a burning in the bosom. He said that I would know you by your love for one another. And for a while, I thought that this Church passed this test with flying colors, but I'm starting to think that perhaps I've mistaken nice words and kind deeds for true love.

For a church that preaches so much about the importance of family, you are so willing to break up that family. Dehlin is a MORMON. He was born and raised in the Church, went on a mission and married in the temple. Yet, the moment he becomes a "threat" (real or imagined) to the Church, good riddance!

I have an autistic child who became a physical threat to his mother and younger siblings. If only we had been Mormons at the time, we could have ex'd him from the family (or institutionalized him as recommended). Because we didn't know any better, we kept him. And that meant that each of us took a few blows (particularly, our cherished "leaders" -- mom and dad). And we were all inconvenienced. In fact, there are many things that we don't experience as a family (eg, ski trips). If only we had known that, when someone becomes difficult, we just throw them aside. But hey, we're new here. Pray for us!

And even if we had removed Matty (in some situations, it's unavoidable), we would have failed miserably in mustering the disdain that many of you have for Dehlin. "But that's not fair, Newb! Your son has a disability. Dehlin has made a conscious decision to become an apostate." Really?

Brother Dehlin is currently UNABLE to believe what many of you believe about the Church's truth claims. Perhaps, it's due to a lack of information or maybe even the influence of Satan. In any event, in his unbelief, he acts out in ways that you find disturbing, hurtful, etc. My Matty is no different. He is incapable of properly integrating the stimuli around him. Two centuries ago, we would have thought it was due to demon possession. Yet, regardless of the cause, he often acts out in ways we find disturbing, hurtful, etc.

"Now, come on! You're equating apostasy with autism." Well, they both start with "a" but not exactly. My "normal" kids often don't have the ability to comprehend the effects of their actions. Likewise, they too act in ways we find disturbing, hurtful, etc. For example, my 10 yo believes that his bedtime is a 21st century invention. And he would tell NPR the same if they asked. Furthermore, he's trying to cause contention in our household by convincing his brothers of the same. At what point should I send Brendan packing?

I'll cut to the chase. Brendan stays for the same reason that Matty stays -- THEY ARE OURS. HF gave them to US. We trust that HF knows us better than we know ourselves and that we are strong enough to face the challenge (even if it doesn't always feel that way). But apparently, HF doesn't trust this Church all that much at all. Because as soon as it gets tough, we feel free to cut and run. In fact, we go further and vilify those who were once your kin. To me this would be like being forced to break down and institutionalize our son and saying, "Good riddance" on his way out the door. We would hug and kiss him so tight and we'd cry the most bitter tears.

But hey, we haven't been sealed in the temple, so we really don't understand the concept of "family" like many of you. Perhaps, line upon line and precept upon precept, we'll learn to enthusiastically cut our bonds with those we claim to love most deeply ... But for some reason I doubt it.

And yes, I'm being self-righteous, but given the situation, I stand by it. I've often felt morally deficient in the presence of the saints. When measuring my (lack of) humility/generosity/discipline against my fellow saints, I've often felt like I was 2 feet tall. But when I witness this shallowness of love for a fellow saint, I know that I don't need to look up quite so much.

[KevinG]

Hey Mormonnewb - your posts are well thought out.

 

I will agree with you to the point that apostasy should bring us to tears for the souls of those who leave us...  but I also fear for the souls of those who would follow them.  There is a terrible cost for those well spoken and charismatic, yet prideful souls, who can draw people away from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  No matter how well meaning and sincere they are.

[mormonnewb]

Hey Mormonnewb - your posts are well thought out.

I will agree with you to the point that apostasy should bring us to tears for the souls of those who leave us... but I also fear for the souls of those who would follow them. There is a terrible cost for those well spoken and charismatic, yet prideful souls, who can draw people away from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. No matter how well meaning and sincere they are.

Agreed, Kevin. And even if excommunication is necessary (not sure what it accomplishes in this case), the disdain is not necessary; and surprising to me.

[bluebell]

I completely agree that disagreeing is not persecution.

You argument is that legalization of SSM is not a matter of religious freedom. Advocating for or against SSM is a matter of religious freedom. Being able to enter into a gay marriage is a matter of religious freedom. But the legal recognition of the gay marriage is not a matter of religious freedom. Did I get that right? I can agree with that to a point.

So let me ask you this... Why did the church in 2008 advocate in favor of Prop 8?

Let me clarify.

Advocating for something CAN be a religious freedom. It's not ALWAYS a religious freedom though.

Otherwise yep, you got it right.

I think the church had more than one reason for advocating for prop 8. I think they were afraid of the idea of a slippery slope and that the legalization of SSM would result in children being taught it as acceptable in school and such similar things. I also think they supported it on the grounds of religious morality as well. There were probably other reasons too that were a mixture of both issues.

[bluebell]

That's a little confusing. Are you saying they can't think it was an effort to deny civil rights because you disagree?

I'm saying they can't state that it was a civil rights issue as a fact when it wasn't a fact but their opinion.

[rockpond]

Let me clarify.

Advocating for something CAN be a religious freedom. It's not ALWAYS a religious freedom though.

Otherwise yep, you got it right.

I think the church had more than one reason for advocating for prop 8. I think they were afraid of the idea of a slippery slope and that the legalization of SSM would result in children being taught it as acceptable in school and such similar things. I also think they supported it on the grounds of religious morality as well. There were probably other reasons too that were a mixture of both issues.

 

Both of those issues are religious.  We were trying to get our religious views legally enforced for everyone in California, even those who did not believe the same.  The face that some people had differing beliefs was not relevant to our cause.  How were their religious freedoms protected?

 

Oaks wants to argue that a state university which denies unfettered access to its facilities for a Christian student group who doesn't abide by school rules is an attack on religious freedoms.  But you believe that denying legal recognition to the marriage of a gay couple is okay in his (and your) view?

[Calm]

I don't think many LDS look at excommunication as kicking someone out of the family for misbehaving. Even when it is for apostasy, the same hope/expectation is held by many as it would be for getting excommunicated for adultery...the hope being the person will continue to come to church and through repentance once more be in alignment with God in order to receive all the blessings/responsibilities of membership. All blessings are responsibilities because God has tied his blessings to commandments. Excommunication removes the godgiven and godly responsibilities from those who have demonstrated they are not ready to have them through misuse. Just as children below the age of 8 or those who are not accountable are not given membership until a certain level of understanding and acceptance of God's responsibilities through the blessings he gives or those who have not been taught sufficiently sothey do not understand the implications of membership yet.

I've had friends who were excommunicated who expressed gratitude for that experience because it reminded them of the difference between being in full membership and not in regards to their relationship with God. They knew the difference again between living with and without the Gift of the Holy Ghost in their daily life. They knew the difference of the internal experience ofbeing in covenant with the Lord and not having those covenants. And knowing what the lack would mean to them in this life was as much or more meaningful to them than not being able to perform any external or social acts that are the responsibility of membership. They also knew they were wanted in church, to be there on the pews as one of us even if for a time they were not able to be the voice of the congregation through giving of vocal prayers and teaching.

Excommunication in this life imo is more like taking away the license of a teenage son that has repeatedly demonstrated he does not drive safely until there is demonstration he is willing to accept the responsibility of using that power to drive wisely than kicking the son out of the family. No one is refused membership in the family of God which is ultimately what the Church is save those few sons of perdition who know the truth and still deny it to the point they would willingly crucify Christ, their brother and their God themselves.

Edited February 4, 2015 by calmoriah

[mormonnewb]

I don't think many LDS look at excommunication as kicking someone out of the family for misbehaving. Even when it is for apostasy, the same hope/expectation is held by many as it would be for getting excommunicated for adultery...the hope being the person will continue to come to church and through repentance once more be in alignment with God in order to receive all the blessings/responsibilities of membership. All blessings are responsibilities because God has tied his blessings to commandments.

I've had friends who were excommunicated who expressed gratitude for that experience because it reminded them of the difference between being in full membership and not in regards to their relationship with God. They knew the difference again between living with and without the Gift of the Holy Ghost in their daily life. They knew the difference of the internal experience ofbeing in covenant with the Lord and not having those covenants. And knowing what the lack would mean to them in this life was as much or more meaningful to them than not being able to perform any acts that are the responsibility of membership.

Excommunication in this life imo is more like taking away the license of a teenage son that has repeatedly demonstrated he does not drive safely until there is demonstration he is willing to accept the responsibility of using that power to drive wisely than kicking the son out of the family. No one is refused membership in the family of God which is ultimately what the Church is save those few sons of perdition who know the truth and still deny it to the point they would willingly crucify Christ, their brother and their God themselves.

Are you really going to make me go through this thread to demonstrate all of the comments that do NOT reflect this view of reconciliation, but more pointedly say, "'See Ya!"?

Edited February 3, 2015 by mormonnewb

[Calm]

I've added some stuff and will add a bit more, so please reread when you get a chance for responding.

[bluebell]

Sure they are. What's exactly why their is political opposition to SSM. If the Church thought the beleifs of those who support SSM were equal in importance as the Church's belief that SSM is an abomination, then we wouldn't be talking about this at all.

You have to remember what we're talking about here. Of course they aren't saying that in God's eyes all opinions are equal. What they are saying is that in the eyes of the law religious beliefs and non religious beliefs should be treated fairly. Religious belief should not be dismissed because it's religious.

Where is the argument presented that religious beliefs are less important than non religious beliefs?

I think they gave some examples in one of the press conferences. I'll see if I can find them v

[bluebell]

Both of those issues are religious. We were trying to get our religious views legally enforced for everyone in California, even those who did not believe the same. The face that some people had differing beliefs was not relevant to our cause. How were their religious freedoms protected?

How were they harmed?

How was a gay atheist's religious rights violated by prop 8?

[Calm]

Are you really going to make me go through this thread to demonstrate all of the comments that do NOT reflect this view of reconciliation, but more pointedly say, "'See Ya!"?

Just because some members are currently frustrated or angry with Dehlin because they believe he has misused his membership (think of how many would react to a family member who repeatedly drives drunk even though he has caused previous injury including with other members of the family in the car) to the point that they no longer want him as part of the community until he honestly changes does not mean they are the ones who determine what excommunication truly means any more than siblings who refuse to speak to a brother who has offended them have the ability to disinherit them. Only the parents (God) or those they give their power of attorney to (church leadership) have that right, both to excommunicate and to limit or expand what is being disinherited or when such is restored.

Just as the prodigal son was always part of the family even when he preferred the company of others or had foolishly wasted his inheritance or when his brother refused to recognize him, so those who are excommunicated still a part of our family.

[rockpond]

How were they harmed?

How was a gay atheist's religious rights violated by prop 8?

 

How were they harmed?  Their marriages were no longer legally recognized.

 

How was retired gymnast Peter Vidmar harmed by not being able to serve as the chef de mission for the 2012 olympics?

 

A gay atheist's religious rights were harmed by having the legal recognition of his marriage dictated by the religious views of others.

 

But there are plenty of gay Christians who believe that God affirms their marriages.  Their religious views were trumped by ours.

[Bob Crockett]

 

A gay atheist's religious rights were harmed by having the legal recognition of his marriage dictated by the religious views of others.

 

As I have pointed out previously, fairly reliable Pew poling results showed that the single most significant factor in the successful passage of Prop 8 was the black voter.  (I'd have to review my research, but I think that 74% of black voters turned out against Prop 8.)  Then, the black religious voter.   Mormons didn't even factor in the polling results.

 

But it isn't politically correct to blame blacks, now is it?

Edited February 4, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, we led the charge of persecuting the beliefs of others by enforcing our beliefs on the legal definition of marriage.  Oaks made no reference to it last Tuesday so one can hope (as I do) that we're done with that part of our history.  That we've moved forward and are no longer opposed to legal recognition of SSM.

There has been no apology or expression of regret on the part of the leaders for supporting Prop 8, nor is there likely to be. Don't fool yourself into believing that the Brethren regret it.

 

An analogy: Even though Romney lost in 2012, I don't regret voting for him. I would do it again if he were to run again. I stand by my vote in that election, even though the Romney campaign didn't succeed.

 

But that's in the past now, and there's not much point in my discoursing about it, so I rarely bring it up.

[rockpond]

As I have pointed out previously, fairly reliable Pew poling results showed that the single most significant factor in the successful passage of Prop 8 was the black voter. (I'd have to review my research, but I think that 74% of black voters turned out against Prop 8.) Then, the black religious voter. Mormons didn't even factor in the polling results.

But it isn't politically correct to blame blacks, now is it?

Is your argument here that without LDS involvement in Prop 8, that it still would have passed?

[rockpond]

There has been no apology or expression of regret on the part of the leaders for supporting Prop 8, nor is there likely to be. Don't fool yourself into believing that the Brethren regret it.

An analogy: Even though Romney lost in 2012, I don't regret voting for him. I would do it again if he were to run again. I stand by my vote in that election, even though the Romney campaign didn't succeed.

But that's in the past now, and there's not much point in my discoursing about it, so I rarely bring it up.

Yeah, as embarrassing as it was, I got the "no apology" message that came from an apostle of the Lord.

Not sure what point you were making with the Romney comment. I also voted for him. The fact that Prop 8 was overturned isn't what made it wrong to support.

[bluebell]

How were they harmed? Their marriages were no longer legally recognized.

That's not the question you asked. You asked how were their religious rights protected? In response I asked how were their religious rights harmed.

Government sanction marriages are not a religious right.

But there are plenty of gay Christians who believe that God affirms their marriages. Their religious views were trumped by ours.

How does prop 8 affect God's affirmation of a SSM? How did the passage of prop 8 trump that view?

When prop 8 was rescinded I didn't view that as harming my religious views. Should I have?

[bluebell]

A gay atheist's religious rights were harmed by having the legal recognition of his marriage dictated by the religious views of others.

That doesn't make sense.

[Ferdinand55]

How were they harmed?  Their marriages were no longer legally recognized.

 

How was retired gymnast Peter Vidmar harmed by not being able to serve as the chef de mission for the 2012 olympics?

 

A gay atheist's religious rights were harmed by having the legal recognition of his marriage dictated by the religious views of others.

 

But there are plenty of gay Christians who believe that God affirms their marriages.  Their religious views were trumped by ours.

Rockpond, the way I see it, someone's religious rights are going to be infringed no matter what way you cut it.

 

We always talk about the courts being neutral. While this is true in the sense that their rulings should not be influenced by personal preferences, their judgements cannot be purely neutral. Someone is going to come away from any court case or legislation feeling like someone else's morals were imposed upon them. No matter what laws you pass, someone is going to feel like their morals were given less weight than another's.

 

This is why I think that the church's recent news conference was, in my opinion, extremely wise. They are encouraging law makers to create a piece of legislation which, when passed, doesn't impose morals on either side. Of course, like I said, such legislation is extremely difficult, almost impossible. The GA's recognize this. That is why they said that a little give and take is necessary on both sides. 

[rockpond]

That's not the question you asked. You asked how were their religious rights protected? In response I asked how were their religious rights harmed.

Government sanction marriages are not a religious right.

How does prop 8 affect God's affirmation of a SSM? How did the passage of prop 8 trump that view?

When prop 8 was rescinded I didn't view that as harming my religious views. Should I have?

If government sanctioned marriages are not a religious right, how is it a religious right to discriminate against those marriages? How do you justify that?

And by advocating against legal recognition for gay marriage, how are we following Elder Holland's counsel to guard the rights we want guarded for ourselves?

Prop 8 obviously doesn't affect God's affirmation of marriage. And, assuming you are heterosexual, Prop 8 didn't affect you at all. So why, if it isn't about religion, did our church get involved?