CV75 Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 By "prevailing sentiments" I didn't mean a prevailing sentiment toward civil rights. I meant a prevailing sentiment of feeling that we have a complete understanding of the Lord's will.If it is not meant for the advancement of civil rights, it can’t be meant for the adoption of gay marriage in the Church, or any other social issue either. But as far as what we as a people understand of the Lord’s will, I think it is safe to say the general understanding is that He is leading the saints through His servants. Individual saints may hold to that with varying degrees, but that’s the general understanding. In your opinion, why did the Lord not allow a reversal of the race-based priesthood and temple ban when President McKay was praying for it?I don’t know enough about the interaction between the Lord and President McKay to have much of an opinion on His timing. I do believe that whatever and whenever the Lord directs, it is to position His kingdom in preparation for His Second Coming given the circumstances at hand. Sometimes those circumstances require His direct intervention (D&C 88:87-onward), but typically He operates through invitation (88:73-86). I say this because the means to exalt each of His children is already in place and no one will be denied any blessing because of a lack of opportunity through no poor choice of their own. While the Lord can accomplish is own work, He brings the rest of us along in our progress through the process according to His expectations of us in our own time. I think that technically the church is dedicated to protecting religious freedom. They were clear in their message to media outlets, after their press conference, that they did not want headlines portraying them as solely in favor of LGBT rights. Their support of LGBT rights is conditioned upon the Church and its members maintaining the right to discriminate based on religious grounds.I agree—the Church is clearly not “solely in favor of LGBT rights.” That is why it is framed as supporting a legislative compromise in Utah. That thought can be expanded to the Church’s attitude towards anyone’s rights vis-a-vis religious freedom rights--when there is a conflict, sometimes "everybody gets something but not everything" is the best that can be expected through the legislative process. In some cases, I'm sure the Church also supports win-win and win-lose (if it's the winner!) solutions.
rockpond Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 If it is not meant for the advancement of civil rights, it can’t be meant for the adoption of gay marriage in the Church, or any other social issue either. I'm not sure what you meant by this if you care to explain.
rockpond Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 I agree—the Church is clearly not “solely in favor of LGBT rights.” That is why it is framed as supporting a legislative compromise in Utah. That thought can be expanded to the Church’s attitude towards anyone’s rights vis-a-vis religious freedom rights--when there is a conflict, sometimes "everybody gets something but not everything" is the best that can be expected through the legislative process. In some cases, I'm sure the Church also supports win-win and win-lose (if it's the winner!) solutions.It's so good of the Church to support a "compromise" that makes sure it gets everything it wants while supporting some of what the LGBT community wants. All while refusing to apologize for denying those things in the past. Makes me so proud.
CV75 Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 I'm not sure what you meant by this if you care to explain.I was acknowledging the comparison that is often made between the "prevailing sentiments" in favor of the US civil rights struggle for blacks and the "prevailing sentiments" in the US and elsewhere in favor of the LGBT advocacy for marriage more recently as drivers for the 1978 revelation about priesthood and a proposed revelation granting gay marriage (respectively), and observing that instead, whether a member is for or against any particular social issue, the more common "prevalent sentiment" is that the Lord leads them through His servants (though there may be specific points of disagreement to varying degrees for some members who still sustain the Brethren). I see no "prevailing sentiment" on a specific issue, even if it is only "we don't know enough" or even "we want to pray about it" necessarily / always driving a specific revelation. As a matter is discussed and reviewed over and over, some general agreement may be found, but that does not predict the outcome of the revelation, or even that one is sought or sent. I do think there is unanimity among the Brethren in accepting the revelation, whatever their personal sentiments may be on a particular issue. It does seem that the Prophet may seek it on his own, with much or little conversation from the Twelve. I think revelation helps create a common sentiment once the saints unite around the Lord's will as revealed through His servants.
CV75 Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 It's so good of the Church to support a "compromise" that makes sure it gets everything it wants while supporting some of what the LGBT community wants. All while refusing to apologize for denying those things in the past. Makes me so proud.While the Church clarified for those who asked, "We did not compromise our principles," I think it needs to be recognized that the Church supports the compromise between those who did the actual negotiating/legislating/politicking and who actually did compromise something in the deal. Like I said, I don't see the Church as having taken a side in this legislation requiring it to compromise anything herself, but only as advocating a proper process. I see her acting appropriately for an organization that has members in both camps and that is a neighbor to all Utahans, member and non-member alike.
Stone holm Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 While the Church clarified for those who asked, "We did not compromise our principles," I think it needs to be recognized that the Church supports the compromise between those who did the actual negotiating/legislating/politicking and who actually did compromise something in the deal. Like I said, I don't see the Church as having taken a side in this legislation requiring it to compromise anything herself, but only as advocating a proper process. I see her acting appropriately for an organization that has members in both camps and that is a neighbor to all Utahans, member and non-member alike.I agree with this to the extent that the Church's aim, rhetoric aside, appears to have been to give those who wish to continue to discriminate another arrow for their quiver. This really wasn't about protecting LGBT or granting them rights.
rockpond Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 I was acknowledging the comparison that is often made between the "prevailing sentiments" in favor of the US civil rights struggle for blacks and the "prevailing sentiments" in the US and elsewhere in favor of the LGBT advocacy for marriage more recently as drivers for the 1978 revelation about priesthood and a proposed revelation granting gay marriage (respectively), and observing that instead, whether a member is for or against any particular social issue, the more common "prevalent sentiment" is that the Lord leads them through His servants (though there may be specific points of disagreement to varying degrees for some members who still sustain the Brethren).I see no "prevailing sentiment" on a specific issue, even if it is only "we don't know enough" or even "we want to pray about it" necessarily / always driving a specific revelation. As a matter is discussed and reviewed over and over, some general agreement may be found, but that does not predict the outcome of the revelation, or even that one is sought or sent. I do think there is unanimity among the Brethren in accepting the revelation, whatever their personal sentiments may be on a particular issue. It does seem that the Prophet may seek it on his own, with much or little conversation from the Twelve. I think revelation helps create a common sentiment once the saints unite around the Lord's will as revealed through His servants.That's fine and understandable but members' feelings about civil rights and social issues wasn't what I was referring to at all.
rockpond Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 While the Church clarified for those who asked, "We did not compromise our principles," I think it needs to be recognized that the Church supports the compromise between those who did the actual negotiating/legislating/politicking and who actually did compromise something in the deal. Like I said, I don't see the Church as having taken a side in this legislation requiring it to compromise anything herself, but only as advocating a proper process. I see her acting appropriately for an organization that has members in both camps and that is a neighbor to all Utahans, member and non-member alike.The Church acted in its own best interest. If that is what you mean by "appropriate" than we agree. We seem to agree that the Church didn't actually compromise anything in the recent legislation. Who did compromise and what concession did they make?
CV75 Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 I agree with this to the extent that the Church's aim, rhetoric aside, appears to have been to give those who wish to continue to discriminate another arrow for their quiver. This really wasn't about protecting LGBT or granting them rights.Of course it was, inasmuch as the Church supported the compromise which protects the rights of those in both camps. The Church acted in its own best interest. If that is what you mean by "appropriate" than we agree.We seem to agree that the Church didn't actually compromise anything in the recent legislation. Who did compromise and what concession did they make?It would be appropriate for an organization that has members and neighbors on both sides to support a compromise for the benefit of all concerned. “In state after state, advocates for religious liberties on the one side and advocates for LGBT rights on the other have clashed repeatedly. The result has frequently been the failure of either side to advance their cause, and anger and bitterness has been the end product.” This doesn't serve anyone well and is not what the Church seeks as a participant in the public square. “The Church believes that collective protections in these three bills strike a healthy balance between religious freedom and LGBT rights and achieve the “fairness for all” that was being sought.” The article focuses on what was gained by both camps in the State of Utah as a result of the compromise. I think each party can articulate better than I what it feels it compromised, and each party can better articulate what its feels was not fair of the other to seek, LOL.
rockpond Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Of course it was, inasmuch as the Church supported the compromise which protects the rights of those in both camps. It would be appropriate for an organization that has members and neighbors on both sides to support a compromise for the benefit of all concerned. “In state after state, advocates for religious liberties on the one side and advocates for LGBT rights on the other have clashed repeatedly. The result has frequently been the failure of either side to advance their cause, and anger and bitterness has been the end product.” This doesn't serve anyone well and is not what the Church seeks as a participant in the public square. “The Church believes that collective protections in these three bills strike a healthy balance between religious freedom and LGBT rights and achieve the “fairness for all” that was being sought.” The article focuses on what was gained by both camps in the State of Utah as a result of the compromise. I think each party can articulate better than I what it feels it compromised, and each party can better articulate what its feels was not fair of the other to seek, LOL. Good dodge... pass the question off to those who aren't on this board and won't speak to us. Oaks, in his TribTalk interview, was asked what the "religious side" compromised and he couldn't (or wouldn't answer). Here's the problem, what the "religious freedom camp" conceded is so embarrassing that we'd really rather not discuss it... as demonstrated by you in the above response and Oaks in his TribTalk interview. What the Church gave up in supporting the "compromise" was the right to evict gay people or terminate their employment on the grounds of sexual orientation except in certain circumstances and with certain organizations.
Stone holm Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Good dodge... pass the question off to those who aren't on this board and won't speak to us. Oaks, in his TribTalk interview, was asked what the "religious side" compromised and he couldn't (or wouldn't answer). Here's the problem, what the "religious freedom camp" conceded is so embarrassing that we'd really rather not discuss it... as demonstrated by you in the above response and Oaks in his TribTalk interview. What the Church gave up in supporting the "compromise" was the right to evict gay people or terminate their employment on the grounds of sexual orientation except in certain circumstances and with certain organizations.Correct they gave up that which they undoubtedly would be losing in fairly short order, so what was the point? The other side of the deal, which is popping up all over the former Confederacy at the behest of the various groups that Elder Oaks has become a fellow traveller with and the association with will eventually become an embarrassment to the Church and its members. 2
CV75 Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Good dodge... pass the question off to those who aren't on this board and won't speak to us. Oaks, in his TribTalk interview, was asked what the "religious side" compromised and he couldn't (or wouldn't answer). Here's the problem, what the "religious freedom camp" conceded is so embarrassing that we'd really rather not discuss it... as demonstrated by you in the above response and Oaks in his TribTalk interview. What the Church gave up in supporting the "compromise" was the right to evict gay people or terminate their employment on the grounds of sexual orientation except in certain circumstances and with certain organizations. Correct they gave up that which they undoubtedly would be losing in fairly short order, so what was the point? The other side of the deal, which is popping up all over the former Confederacy at the behest of the various groups that Elder Oaks has become a fellow traveller with and the association with will eventually become an embarrassment to the Church and its members.It is to be expected that there are some on the fringes in both camps who nurse their “anger and bitterness” toward compromise. Typically such hard-liners isolate themselves out of a healthy process and solution.
rockpond Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 It is to be expected that there are some on the fringes in both camps who nurse their “anger and bitterness” toward compromise. Typically such hard-liners isolate themselves out of a healthy process and solution. I love it... asking questions that challenge your assumptions on this legislation is being angry and bitter. Discussing the consequences of Church actions with Scott is "emotional blackmail". What's next? For the Church, I see this legislation as a step forward. I've tried to be clear about that. But I don't think it's worthy of patting ourselves on the back and saying "look how we're following Christ's example".
Scott Lloyd Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) I love it... asking questions that challenge your assumptions on this legislation is being angry and bitter. Discussing the consequences of Church actions with Scott is "emotional blackmail". What's next? For the Church, I see this legislation as a step forward. I've tried to be clear about that. But I don't think it's worthy of patting ourselves on the back and saying "look how we're following Christ's example".Maybe you personally can't do that; after all, you are criticizing the Church over it. As for the Church collectively? Well, Christ admonished His disciples to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves" (see Matthew 10:16). Promoting laws that preserve and safeguard religious liberty and freedom of conscience is applying the "wise as serpents" portion of that formula. Favoring and influencing others to favor legislation that promotes the general well-being of all people with regard to basic needs such as employment and housing is applying the "harmless as doves" portion. In so doing, are the Church and its leaders being Christlike? Well, it is the admonition of Christ they are heeding. To the leaders of the Church, I say "Bravo!" :clapping: Edited March 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 Maybe you personally can't do that; after all, you are criticizing the Church over it.As for the Church collectively?Well, Christ admonished His disciples to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves" (see Matthew 10:16).Promoting laws that preserve and safeguard religious liberty and freedom of conscience is applying the "wise as serpents" portion of that formula.Favoring and influencing others to favor legislation that promotes the general well-being of all people with regard to basic needs such as employment and housing is applying the "harmless as doves" portion.In so doing, are the Church and its leaders being Christlike? Well, it is the admonition of Christ they are heeding.To the leaders of the Church, I say "Bravo!" :clapping: Protecting religious freedoms is wise. I agree. But insisting that the legislation also ensures your right to fire and/or evict people for being gay doesn't strike me as Christlike.
mormonnewb Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 To the leaders of the Church, I say "Bravo!" :clapping: And when have you ever NOT said, "Bravo"? Is it even possible for Church leaders to do something that you disagree with?
CV75 Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 I love it... asking questions that challenge your assumptions on this legislation is being angry and bitter. Discussing the consequences of Church actions with Scott is "emotional blackmail". What's next? For the Church, I see this legislation as a step forward. I've tried to be clear about that. But I don't think it's worthy of patting ourselves on the back and saying "look how we're following Christ's example".But my response (applicable to both sides in the legislative debate) was not to your questions, but to your last statement, which is nothing more than rehashing one side of the debate through polemics and rhetoric, which didn’t contribute to the healthy balance represented in the compromise. Stay in the present! LOL Protecting religious freedoms is wise. I agree.But insisting that the legislation also ensures your right to fire and/or evict people for being gay doesn't strike me as Christlike.See above. P.S. Christ reserved His right to do some things to clean out the temple, and I'm sure there were complaints and accusations about that; the basic principle is the same. In this case. we're only talking about legislation in Utah.
california boy Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 I am away from my computer for a couple of days. Have to attend a funeral unfortunately. But it was I think what Elder Oaks said that seemed to be addressed in hb322. When I get back I will provide more info. I tried finding the thread that we talked about the press conference but couldn't locate it. I hope I am wrong. It would be such a shame for the church to support a bill like hb322. I don't see any explicit support of H.B. 322. Here is what the church said it would support from the conference: Show me any evidence that the LDS church was involved in or sponsored H.B. 322 like it clearly did SB 296. None of your links mention any sort of support or sponsorship for H.B. 322 by the LDS church. It is clear to me that the press conference encouraged "fairness", "balance", "compromise", "mutual respect and dialogue". The church is sponsoring bills where both religious liberty and non-discrimination are included, nothing more. They have made statements that they hope that this becomes a model for the rest of the country. H.B. 322 does not fit that model. I can't imagine that the church would sponsor a bill that contradicts the very bill that it publicly endorsed. Show me the smoking gun or retract your conspiracy theory. Sorry it took me a while to get back to this question. I was away attending a funeral. It is still very clear that the church was involved in all three bills recently passed by the Utah legislation, one of which codified into law the right to discriminate against gays and any other minority based on "religious belief". Here is an article from the churches web site about those three bills. Note this paragraph from that article. Church representatives, working under the direction of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, then met with Utah legislators and key stakeholders in an effort to support legislation that enshrines vital religious freedom protections while providing fundamental protections to LGBT people in housing and employment. Bills dealing with nondiscrimination and religious freedom, plus protections relating to marriage and parental rights, resulted and were passed by the legislature on March 11. The Church believes that collective protections in these three bills strike a healthy balance between religious freedom and LGBT rights and achieve the “fairness for all” that was being sought. It is clear from this statement that the church was directly involved in meeting with legislatures in passing all three bills together to insure that the church got what it wanted, the ability to discriminate against gays or anyone else using the excuse of religious beliefs. All three were passed as a comprehensive effort made by the church with statestate legislatures to get what the church wanted all along. We will see where this all leads to in the next couple of years. I personally believe that codifying into law the ability to discriminate is going to be challenged in the courts since it directly is in conflict with the civil rights laws passed 50 years ago. And when those laws are challenged, the church will be singled out as the leading force behind the instituting of those discrimination laws. Does anyone really disagree with that? Does anyone really thing the church can hide from it's part in the passing of those laws?
california boy Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) Take a look at this light hearted video that looks at the very serious repercussions of these "religious freedom" bills. When the discrimination starts using these laws to justify discrimination, people are going to group the church with those that have instituted that discrimination. The church put itself in that discrimination camp. There is no real upside for the church. These laws will be overturned and the church will continue to have a reputation of discrimination policies. Sorry I don't know how to embed the video Edited March 26, 2015 by california boy
pogi Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) Sorry it took me a while to get back to this question. I was away attending a funeral. It is still very clear that the church was involved in all three bills recently passed by the Utah legislation, one of which codified into law the right to discriminate against gays and any other minority based on "religious belief". Here is an article from the churches web site about those three bills. Note this paragraph from that article. It is clear from this statement that the church was directly involved in meeting with legislatures in passing all three bills together to insure that the church got what it wanted, the ability to discriminate against gays or anyone else using the excuse of religious beliefs. All three were passed as a comprehensive effort made by the church with statestate legislatures to get what the church wanted all along. We will see where this all leads to in the next couple of years. I personally believe that codifying into law the ability to discriminate is going to be challenged in the courts since it directly is in conflict with the civil rights laws passed 50 years ago. And when those laws are challenged, the church will be singled out as the leading force behind the instituting of those discrimination laws. Does anyone really disagree with that? Does anyone really thing the church can hide from it's part in the passing of those laws? We have been debating wether the church sponsored or supported HB322 specifically. Your claim is that it did. Show me the evidence. The 3 bills that the church supported, according to your link are: (1) Senate Bill 296 - a non-discrimination bill that the Church publicly supported and which carefully balances LGBT rights with religious liberty rights; (2) Senate Bill 297 - a bill that provides religious liberty protections on same-sex marriage issues; and (3) House Bill 447 - a bill that gives parents the final say about what their children learn in school about human sexuality. Note, H.B. 322 is not one of those bills. Also note that none of those bills allow a public accommodations business to discriminate against homosexuals as you falsely claim that the church supports. Edited March 26, 2015 by pogi
california boy Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) We have been debating wether the church sponsored or supported HB322 specifically. Your claim is that it did. Show me the evidence. The 3 bills that the church supported, according to your link are: Note, H.B. 322 is not one of those bills. Also note that none of those bills allow a public accommodations business to discriminate against homosexuals as you falsely claim that the church supports. I guess why I believe the church was actively involved with HB322 is because of the recent statements by Elder Oaks about the very issues that the "relgious freedom" bill addresses. For example this recent address by Elder Oaks to Chapman University. He uses these examples of threats against relgion. In New Mexico, the state's Human Rights Commission held that a photographer who had declined on religious grounds to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony had engaged in impermissible conduct and must pay over $6,000 attorney's fees to the same-sex couple. A state judge upheld the order to pay.31 In New Jersey, the United Methodist Church was investigated and penalized under state anti-discrimination law for denying same-sex couples access to a church-owned pavilion for their civil-union ceremonies. A federal court refused to give relief from the state penalties.32 HB322 addresses these exact issues and codifies into law the right to discriminate against gay couples based on "religious freedom". Are you arguing that church leaders have not been speaking out about the very issues that HB322 addressed? Edited March 26, 2015 by california boy
Scott Lloyd Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 And when have you ever NOT said, "Bravo"? Is it even possible for Church leaders to do something that you disagree with?"Possible"? Oh, theoretically speaking, I suppose it's possible. In theory, a great many things are possible. But as a practical matter, the Church of Jesus Christ is a very good fit for me and has been throughout my three-score years of mortality. Such a good fit, in fact, that it's highly unlikely they would say or do anything of significance that rubbed me the wrong way, especially given the fact that they are in constant communion with God, and I aim ultimately to be one with God. It's unfortunate if that bugs you, but them's the facts.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) Protecting religious freedoms is wise. I agree.But insisting that the legislation also ensures your right to fire and/or evict people for being gay doesn't strike me as Christlike.Your last sentence is so generalized, simplistic and slanted, it's hard to discuss it intelligently. Suffice it to say that there inevitably will be occasions when one person's purported "gay rights" collide with another's religious liberty and freedom of conscience. In that event, reasonable people will try to strike a balance on a case-by-case basis. I reject the charge that endeavoring in good faith to find such a balance amounts to being unChristlike. I'd say it's just the opposite. Edited March 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
pogi Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) If you read the press release it specifically says that the church worked with the legislature on "religious freedom protection bills and lumps all three together. I think it is pretty obvious that all three were a package deal. Right, but HB322 is not in the package. I have already showed you what those bills are. HB322 is contrary to those bills in many ways. If the church supported that bill, why is it not mentioned anywhere? Only the other three are mentioned. HB322 addresses the exact intent of what Elder Oaks has outlined as "religious freedom" in several of his recent statements. If the author of HB322 took some of Oak's comments out of context with everything else that has been said and drafted a bill on that false premise, that does not equal sponsorship or support of the bill by the church. Why are you clumping HB322 in the package of 3?I know HB322 passed in the house, but what about the Senate? Has it been signed into law? Edited March 26, 2015 by pogi 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 And when have you ever NOT said, "Bravo"? Is it even possible for Church leaders to do something that you disagree with?And when have you ever said "Bravo"? Is it even possible for Church leaders to do something that you agree with?
Recommended Posts