rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Maybe. It would depend on the change and the impact.If the change was that temple marriages were no longer legal, no I don't think that would impede my religious freedom any. Agreed. But that was not what was at stake for gays back in 2008. What if the laws of the land changed saying that two Mormons couldn't get married to each other... is that a matter of religious freedom?
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 That's precisely what you said. Filing an amicus brief is a political act. It is political speech. If you object to the Church's filing amicus briefs, you would silence the Church. This ain't a difficult concept. But I didn't say that I object to the church filing an amicus brief. I don't object. I absolutely think that the church should participate in the process, where relevant, through amicus briefs and other means. I don't think the church should be silenced. I object to the position we took in the amicus brief that violates what was said in last week's press conference. Does that make sense?
bluebell Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Agreed. But that was not what was at stake for gays back in 2008.What if the laws of the land changed saying that two Mormons couldn't get married to each other... is that a matter of religious freedom?What was at stake in 2008 that had to do with religious freedom?We've already established that it's not a violation of religious freedom for the state not to recognize a religious ceremony, as long as the state does not try to keep the ceremony from taking place. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Many LDS who support gay marriage find that the Proclamation on the Family is ambiguous in its terminology with respect to homosexual unions. They also feel that it's not doctrine, strictly speaking, as it hasn't been ratified by common consent. Not every communication from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve is subject to ratification by common consent. There have been many such communications over the years (see the multi-volume book "Messages of the First Presidency" for examples). "The Father and the Son: a Doctrinal Exposition" issued in 1914 by the First Presidency and the Twelve is a prominent example of such a message. It was not presented to a conference of the Church for ratification. Many people fail to recognize the fact that "The Family: a Proclamation to the World," though it was issued under divine inspiration, did not declare new doctrine; rather, it reaffirmed existing doctrine. It is like the 1914 doctrinal exposition in this respect. Edited to add: The wording of the family proclamation, viewed in its context, is not ambiguous. Edited February 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
bluebell Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I object to the position we took in the amicus brief that violates what was said in last week's press conference. Does that make sense?Have you considered that you aren't understanding last weeks press conference correctly?Considering that it was given by people who very much supported the brief, it would be very odd to think they supported both the brief and the news release if they were in fact contradictory. 2
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 What was at stake in 2008 that had to do with religious freedom?We've already established that it's not a violation of religious freedom for the state not to recognize a religious ceremony, as long as the state does not try to keep the ceremony from taking place. On Tuesday Oaks said: " Yet today we see new examples of attacks on religious freedom with increasing frequency. Among them are these: Several years ago, an Olympic gold-medal gymnast—a Latter-day Saint, as it happened—had been selected to lead the American delegation to the Olympic Games. He was pressured to resign as the symbolic head of the team because gay rights advocates protested that he had supported Proposition 8 in California. Ironically, he was denied the same freedom of conscience that commentators demanded for the gay athletes he would symbolically represent." Per Oaks, it is an attack on religious freedom to deny a position to Peter Vidmar because he supported Prop 8. Vidmar's opposition to legal recognition for gay marriage is being declared a matter of religious freedom. If that is the case, than how is it that the gay marriage itself is not a matter of religious freedom?
ERayR Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Because I don't believe those relationships will prevent that. But this is not a gay marriage debate thread. So we can't go down that road. The point is... my support for gay marriage is based in religious beliefs. It is part of my religion. You don't have to agree. But how can someone tell me that it's a matter of religious freedom to be able to advocate against gay marriage but not a matter of religious freedom to actually enter into a gay marriage. That just does not makes sense for me. I do not think it is religious freedom that provides the basic right to protest SSM as I do not look on civil marriage ceremonies as a religious rite(ceremony). My right to protest SSM is derived in my rights to civil protest of any government activity I think detrimental to society. Edited February 3, 2015 by ERayR
USU78 Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 But I didn't say that I object to the church filing an amicus brief. I don't object. I absolutely think that the church should participate in the process, where relevant, through amicus briefs and other means. I don't think the church should be silenced.I object to the position we took in the amicus brief that violates what was said in last week's press conference. Does that make sense?Sure. You want veto power over the First Presidency and the Twelve 3
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Have you considered that you aren't understanding last weeks press conference correctly? It's possible. You'll note that repeatedly I have cited quotes from the press conference to support my position. I'm not aware of anyone here having countered those quotes, told me where I misunderstood them, or shown quote from the press conference to support their positions. But anyone is welcome to do so and show me what I have misunderstood. Considering that it was given by people who very much supported the brief, it would be very odd to think they supported both the brief and the news release if they were in fact contradictory. Which brief? There have been multiple briefs over the years. Which individuals have specifically stated their support for those briefs? And, is it not possible that they could change positions? We certainly have changed positions over the years.
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I do not think it is religious freedom that provides the basic right to protest SSM as I do not look on civil marriage ceremonies as a religious rite(ceremony). My right to protest SSM is derived in my rights to civil protest of any government activity I think detrimental to society. As you and I discussed previously, I think a good case can be made for it being a matter of individual freedom. But I am trying to operate within the context provided by our leaders last Tuesday.
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Sure. You want veto power over the First Presidency and the Twelve Nope. And you know that's not what I said.
ERayR Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 As you and I discussed previously, I think a good case can be made for it being a matter of individual freedom. But I am trying to operate within the context provided by our leaders last Tuesday. Although it is not as explicit as I would like I interpret it that way. I certainly understand that you interpret it differently.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) On Tuesday Oaks said: " Yet today we see new examples of attacks on religious freedom with increasing frequency. Among them are these: Several years ago, an Olympic gold-medal gymnast—a Latter-day Saint, as it happened—had been selected to lead the American delegation to the Olympic Games. He was pressured to resign as the symbolic head of the team because gay rights advocates protested that he had supported Proposition 8 in California. Ironically, he was denied the same freedom of conscience that commentators demanded for the gay athletes he would symbolically represent." Per Oaks, it is an attack on religious freedom to deny a position to Peter Vidmar because he supported Prop 8. Vidmar's opposition to legal recognition for gay marriage is being declared a matter of religious freedom. If that is the case, than how is it that the gay marriage itself is not a matter of religious freedom? Because it was never illegal for gays to marry. It was just not recognized. There is a colossal difference you know. YOu are confusing things here. Edited February 3, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Because it was never illegal for gays to marry. It was just not recognized. There is a colossal difference you know. YOu are confusing things here. Not relevant. Vidmar's advocacy was against legal recognition of gay marriage (nothing to do with non-legally-recognized gay marriages). And Oaks has instructed us that that is a matter of religious freedom.
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 On Tuesday Oaks said: Ironically, he was denied the same freedom of conscience that commentators demanded for the gay athletes he would symbolically represent." no he wasn't
bluebell Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 On Tuesday Oaks said:" Yet today we see new examples of attacks on religious freedom with increasing frequency. Among them are these:Several years ago, an Olympic gold-medal gymnast—a Latter-day Saint, as it happened—had been selected to lead the American delegation to the Olympic Games. He was pressured to resign as the symbolic head of the team because gay rights advocates protested that he had supported Proposition 8 in California. Ironically, he was denied the same freedom of conscience that commentators demanded for the gay athletes he would symbolically represent."Per Oaks, it is an attack on religious freedom to deny a position to Peter Vidmar because he supported Prop 8. Vidmar's opposition to legal recognition for gay marriage is being declared a matter of religious freedom. If that is the case, than how is it that the gay marriage itself is not a matter of religious freedom?I would imagine it is because Oaks views Vidmar's opposition as stemming from a religious belief and that it was because of his religious belief that he was pressured to resign. And that Oaks views the pressure to resign as NOT existing because of religious conviction. In other words, he believes that there are religions that teach that SSM is immoral but doesn't seem to believe that any religion teaches that it is immoral for someone against SSM to swim in the Olympics. I doubt that Oaks would support someone trying to keep a gay or lesbian off the swim team, and I doubt that he would support anyone trying to keep someone off the team because they didn't support prop 8. 2
bluebell Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Not relevant. Vidmar's advocacy was against legal recognition of gay marriage (nothing to do with non-legally-recognized gay marriages). And Oaks has instructed us that that is a matter of religious freedom.Him being able to advocate for that without persecution is the religious freedom Oaks is talking about protecting. Where is the double standard? Where does Oaks suggest that certain groups should be persecuted for their religious beliefs while others shouldn't? 2
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I agree. That's the kind of thing that has really frustrated me about last week's press conference and, frankly, other statements from the Church on this topic and a few others. It feels like to me, they are being patronizing to us members, as if we can't easily see the mistake in logic, the slick side-steps and, as in this case, the misrepresentation. It's a big problem and it will come back to bite them/us. 1
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 In other words, he believes that there are religions that teach that SSM is immoral but doesn't seem to believe that any religion teaches that it is immoral for someone against SSM to swim in the Olympics. There are religions that teach that SSM is moral, whether Oaks recognizes them or not. How is advocating against gay marriage an issue of religious freedom but the actual gay marriage is not a matter of religious freedom? 1
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 That's the kind of thing that has really frustrated me about last week's press conference and, frankly, other statements from the Church on this topic and a few others. It feels like to me, they are being patronizing to us members, as if we can't easily see the mistake in logic, the slick side-steps and, as in this case, the misrepresentation. It's a big problem and it will come back to bite them/us. I agree. We continually put Oaks up front as our "legal expert" but his "legal" arguments really tend to be heavily mixed with a religious viewpoint. He pointed out several cases in his presser speech, I agreed with some but saw others as a stretch. 1
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I would imagine it is because Oaks views Vidmar's opposition as stemming from a religious belief and that it was because of his religious belief that he was pressured to resign. And that Oaks views the pressure to resign as NOT existing because of religious conviction. In other words, he believes that there are religions that teach that SSM is immoral but doesn't seem to believe that any religion teaches that it is immoral for someone against SSM to swim in the Olympics. I doubt that Oaks would support someone trying to keep a gay or lesbian off the swim team, and I doubt that he would support anyone trying to keep someone off the team because they didn't support prop 8. Not supporting prop 8 was not an effort to deny others civil rights, as was the effort in supporting it was. Freedom of conscious, particularly when it supports an effort to deny other's civil rights, can follow with repercussions. The guy was no denied his freedom of conscious. he was asked to step down because his expressed freedom of conscious conflicted with the members' views. They have as much right as religion to take away an honor if that someone's views conflicts with their own. 1
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Him being able to advocate for that without persecution is the religious freedom Oaks is talking about protecting. For it to be a matter of religious freedom he had to be advocating for something religious, right? Where is the double standard? Where does Oaks suggest that certain groups should be persecuted for their religious beliefs while others shouldn't? 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.
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Not supporting prop 8 was not an effort to deny others civil rights, as was the effort in supporting it was. Freedom of conscious, particularly when it supports an effort to deny other's civil rights, can follow with repercussions. The guy was no denied his freedom of conscious. he was asked to step down because his expressed freedom of conscious conflicted with the members' views. They have as much right as religion to take away an honor if that someone's views conflicts with their own. I was mocked back in 2008 for suggesting that our involvement in Prop 8 was a bad idea. 7 years later it has proven to be a failed attempt and actually helped propel the matter to SCOTUS. Worse yet, our church is now public enemy #1 when it comes to the issue of gay marriage. 1
bluebell Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 That's the kind of thing that has really frustrated me about last week's press conference and, frankly, other statements from the Church on this topic and a few others. It feels like to me, they are being patronizing to us members, as if we can't easily see the mistake in logic, the slick side-steps and, as in this case, the misrepresentation. It's a big problem and it will come back to bite them/us. What has frustrated me is their lack of clarity. When you have some people upset because you are telling people to accept gays and lesbians and then other people upset because you are telling people to discriminate against gays and lesbians you know that there has been a fail of communication. I don't believe they were being patronizing. I think they are very very sincere-but that the nature of the topic is hard to explain and that they didn't do a good enough job making sure they were as clear as possible before going to the press with it.
Recommended Posts