Lds Church Backs Utah Lgbt Anti-Discrimination Bill

[Ahab]

You are right. There are a heck of a lot of people who believe that discrimination from providing a service is NOT a religious value.

So you both think that baking a cake for a gay couple is the same thing as slavery huh. And your argument to defend your discrimination is that a man should not have to be compelled to do something against his will or it is the same as being a slave huh?

How about paying your taxes. How about serving in the military when the draft is enforce? There are numerous things that being a citizen in this country is required of you whether you want to do them or not. This involuntary servitude has been tried as a defense numerous times and have always been rejected by the Supreme Court. Or do you think that submitting to the Supreme Court and the laws of this country is also the same as being forced against your will to do something. heck why even have laws that compel us to do something we don't want to do.

So do you still stand by your belief that the laws of this country should not force you to do something against your will? Can I attach your post to my taxes come April 15th?

I may be considered a bit of an extremist, but yes I also include government officials (who are people too just like me and you are people) when I say nobody, that is NOBODY, should have the legal right to force or coerce someone else into doing something that goes against that person's religious principles.

You can imagine any example you like and I would still uphold that principle. And I realize that doesn't mean everybody should be entitled to the same rewards or blessings when everybody isn't doing the same thing. If someone doesn't pay their taxes or tithes then they shouldn't necessarily be entitled to the same rewards and blessings as someone who does. But still, nobody should force or coerce someone else to do something that goes against their religious principles or conscience. In the Church that is what we call unrighteous dominion.

Persuasion or just outright asking is okay though, as long as nobody is being forced or coerced.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Ahab

[pogi]

NOBODY, should have the legal right to force or coerce someone else into doing something that goes against that person's religious principles.

 

What about preventing someone from fulfilling a religious obligation?  Should there be no force there either?

[Ahab]

What about preventing someone from fulfilling a religious obligation? Should there be no force there either?

If someone feels obligated to do something nobody should force or coerce that person to think they are not obligated. Someone else could say or suggest they are not obligated, like if someone said they felt obligated to do something for me how I could say or suggest that they not feel obligated, but nobody should force or coerce them to not feel obligated if they felt obligated.

Generally, forcing or coercing another person to do sonething or not do something is not a good thing to do.

[pogi]

Generally, forcing or coercing another person to do sonething or not do something is not a good thing to do.

 

So, no intervention with Jihadists?  Pedophilia in the name of God (FLDS, The Children of God, etc.)? Human sacrifice? Mass suicide (Order of the solar temple, the peoples temple, etc.)?  Really, I could do anything I wanted so long as I claimed that God told me to do it. 

 

You see, there has to be a point in which the state steps in and says this is ok and this is not ok, because religion can get out of hand.  I admit that it is a tough balancing act as we don't want to give too much power to the state or religion.  To be extreme on either side is dangerous.  That is why the church was very wise in suggesting to balance nondiscrimination with religious freedom and not be extreme one way or the other.   

[Ahab]

So, no intervention with Jihadists? Pedophilia in the name of God (FLDS, The Children of God, etc.)? Human sacrifice? Mass suicide (Order of the solar temple, the peoples temple, etc.)? Really, I could do anything I wanted so long as I claimed that God told me to do it.

You see, there has to be a point in which the state steps in and says this is ok and this is not ok, because religion can get out of hand. I admit that it is a tough balancing act as we don't want to give too much power to the state or religion. To be extreme on either side is dangerous.

I said "Generally,..." because I realize there are and need to be some exceptions to the general rule. So let's talk about the exceptions, when force or coercion should be used. And I'll say again, generally, those exceptional situations are when someone uses or tries to use force or coercion against others to make them do or not do something that goes against their religious principles or conscience.

For example, when someone threatens to kill someone else unless they do or don't do something, and just asking or trying to persuade the potential killer to not kill doesn't change the potential killer's mind, then force or coercion is justifiable to stop the potential killer before he kills. It still wouldn't be good to use force or coercion, on either side, but it is sometimes necessary if good people want to prevent evil people from ruling the world.

And the dividing line is and should be between good and evil. Not state or secular authority against religion or divine authority, but good vs evil. Whatever is good is on God's side and whatever is evil is on Satan's side. We shouldn't just assume that whatever a secular authority says or approves of is good and in line with God's will.

That is why the church was very wise in suggesting to balance nondiscrimination with religious freedom and not be extreme one way or the other.

Religious freedom needs to be our core value because nothing is more important. Religion involves matters of conscience, what we think of as good and what we think of as evil. We shouldn't be mindlessly doing or not doing whatever someone says we should do or not do. Secular authorities and secular laws aren't necessarily good and we should be following God and God's will above all, and without force or coercion to either support us or stop us.

[tonie]

Yes.

 

Behold the revival of involuntary servitude in America.

 

What is sad is that you are serious. What an absurd and offensive thing to post. 

 

It is modern slavery that a member of the KKK, who operates a resturaunt,  must serve blacks, jews, homosexuals; even though the KKK members religious beliefs are opposed to doing such.

 

It is slavery that a Mormon business owner (16 + employeess) can not refuse to hire, or terminate a persona, simply because the individual is not Mormon.

 

What a sad state we must abide that Mormons can not discriminate against non-Mormons....wo unto us.

 

Poster has been removed for race baiting.

[mormonnewb]

Yes.

Behold the revival of involuntary servitude in America.

I'm confused. The link you posted defines a number of possible forms of involuntary servitude, but none of them are being paid thousands of dollars a month to rent your property to gay people.

Instead, it talked about things like military conscription and the possible challenge to pro-life laws as a form of involuntary servitude ("forcing" a woman to carry a child to term). Could you not find an article that you disagree with more? Was the ACLU's website down at the time?

As members of a society, we must ALL deal with things that we find distasteful. To term baking a cake or hiring a gay person as one of the most odious forms of social compunction is too much hyperbole for even me (and I love me some hyperbole).

[Ahab]

I'm confused. The link you posted defines a number of possible forms of involuntary servitude, but none of them are being paid thousands of dollars a month to rent your property to gay people.

Instead, it talked about things like military conscription and the possible challenge to pro-life laws as a form of involuntary servitude ("forcing" a woman to carry a child to term). Could you not find an article that you disagree with more? Was the ACLU's website down at the time?

As members of a society, we must ALL deal with things that we find distasteful. To term baking a cake or hiring a gay person as one of the most odious forms of social compunction is too much hyperbole for even me (and I love me some hyperbole).

I'm sure you can understand the principle involved. You seem intent on disrespecting someone's right to refuse to violate their own religious principles or conscience.

[Stone holm]

I'm sure you can understand the principle involved. You seem intent on disrespecting someone's right to refuse to violate their own religious principles or conscience.

There are limits as to how far one can press this position. It is clearly a slippery slope. Especially, when one purports to run a business servicing the public. It is amazing, how much social damage can hinge on a wedding cake.

[Pahoran]

What is sad is that you are serious. What an absurd and offensive thing to post.

 

There it is, Scott. You've posted something "offensive."

And this provides objective, measurable information about your post, right?

Well, wrong.

It turns out, upon inspection, that the term "offensive" merely means that someone is offended. It's an entirely subjective judgement.

And it doesn't take a whole lot to offend Tonie, board-nanny extraordinaire. Which is to say, there do seem to be rather a lot of things that offend her, but you only have to stray close to any one of them. Here, for future reference, is a short list:

• Anything that supports, or agrees with, any action by the leaders of the Church.
• Anything that contradicts the popular canons of political correctness.
• As a corollary of 1 and 2, suggesting that normative LDS doctrine is right, and apostate innovations are wrong.

Try not to trespass in this way again.

 

It is modern slavery that a member of the KKK, who operates a resturaunt,  must serve blacks, jews, homosexuals; even though the KKK members religious beliefs are opposed to doing such.

See, once upon a time, something that spiteful would have received an immediate Godwin's Law slap-down from the moderators. Today, not so much.

Never mind that not one LDS participant here, including you, has made that equation; Tonie has to make it for you, so that she can find a straw man to beat up.

 

It is slavery that a Mormon business owner (16 + employeess) can not refuse to hire, or terminate a persona, simply because the individual is not Mormon.

And another poor, harmless straw man bites the dust. Who has made such a complaint? Nobody, that I can see.

 

What a sad state we must abide that Mormons can not discriminate against non-Mormons....wo unto us.

It's such a pity that Tonie considers it beneath her to respond to my post. Because I'd love to ask: just who, exactly, is included in that "us?"

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited March 15, 2015 by Pahoran

[tonie]

I agree with Scott on the above. The church didn't have to publicly advocate for LGBT protections, and their doing so generated the discussion in venues that previously refused to acknowlegement the subject.

 

Scott, presented the backing of the Church as the, or a, compromise.  The Churh has made it very clear that it should be able to speak on political moral topics. The Church published that securing housing and employment are "basic human rights". So there was no "compromise" with the Church backing this legislation.  That is like saying the Church "compromised" in backing Prop 8.  Regardless, religions should not be bound to certain laws. 

 

 

I also agree with all those that point out the serious flaws in the legislation. By advocating for religious exemptions, the church has inadvertently opened the door to discrimination based on religion (and the lack thereof).

Thst is why I see this piece of law as temporary... it will not withstand the constitutional challenges that will invariably come.

However, the symbolic power at play here is the church advocating for at least some civil rights for gays. That alone is progress, even with the serious (albeit temporary) flaws

 

.

 

2 other laws passed the same day as SB296. One of those laws is that no one authorized by the State to officiate a marriage ceremony is required to officiate a ceremony. What is interesting about this particular law, is that if a court determines that the county clerk exemption or judicial exemption violates the law, then  ONLY THAT part of the law fails. 

 

However, with the anti-discrimination law, if ANY PART of the law fails the entire law is nullified; then the People of Utah can be loosed from the satanic chains that prohibit them from discriminating.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm confused. The link you posted defines a number of possible forms of involuntary servitude, but none of them are being paid thousands of dollars a month to rent your property to gay people.

Instead, it talked about things like military conscription and the possible challenge to pro-life laws as a form of involuntary servitude ("forcing" a woman to carry a child to term). Could you not find an article that you disagree with more? Was the ACLU's website down at the time?

As members of a society, we must ALL deal with things that we find distasteful. To term baking a cake or hiring a gay person as one of the most odious forms of social compunction is too much hyperbole for even me (and I love me some hyperbole).

For some, being forced to engage in non-essential labor or service that directly violates one's conscience can be just as distasteful, if not more so, than being compelled to work without remuneration. As the article I linked to makes clear:

 

Involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.

 

 

That's the beauty of our Constitution: It safeguards freedom of conscience along with the other freedoms we enjoy.

 

As for my linking to the article, it was merely for the purpose of explaining the broad concept of involuntary servitude. Like other Wikipedia articles, it attempts to cover the gamut of the topic. While it does give examples of what some libertarians regard as involuntary servitude, it does not say they are right or that one has to agree with them in how he himself applies the concept.

 

At some point newb, you ought to become acquainted with the distinction between narrative and advocacy.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[teddyaware]

I'm not sure if the following has already been posted on this board, but questions and answers pertaining to the recent Utah legislation were published by the Church Newsroom on Friday:

 

 

Answers to basic questions

 

1. Why is religious freedom such an important issue right now?

Religion in the United States has historically enjoyed constitutional protections.  However, the past few years have seen many examples of those religious freedoms being overturned. Some of these changes – but not all - resulted from efforts by LGBT activists to pursue their own protections. If churches and faith communities do not assert their constitutional rights, many of the freedoms we have taken for granted will be lost, including the ability of the Church and its members to live their religion without government interference.

 

1. What examples do we have of the loss of such freedoms?

Examples include religious universities facing threats of losing their accreditation because the school’s religious beliefs run contrary to popular opinion. Some companies face legal consequences or boycotting because the owner guides the company using religious principles.  Business and community leaders have been bullied and forced to step down because of their support of traditional marriage. Judges in California can no longer be members of the Boy Scouts of America because of the organization’s stance on gay leaders. Many religious individuals are now being shamed and silenced because their beliefs are no longer popular or in accord with what is considered politically acceptable.

 

1. Why did the Church support Proposition 8 in California?

Proposition 8 provided an opportunity for Church members to stand for the principle of marriage between a man and a woman. The Church is grateful for the thousands of Church members and many others who worked so hard and sacrificed so much for that principle and who made a difference in California affirming marriage as we have known it for centuries. Subsequently, as we all know, that decision of the electorate was overturned by court order. Like everyone else, the Church must accept those court rulings, and it will respect the fact that gay marriages are now legal in two-thirds of the states. However, its doctrinal position remains the same, and we will continue to preach that to those who will listen.

 

1. Has the Church’s tone on gay issues changed since Proposition 8?

The doctrine has not changed, but there has been a clear need for the Church to push back on assertions that its position was motivated by “hate” for LGBT people.  As we have become more aware of those with same-sex attraction who have struggled in LDS families for understanding and acceptance, we have encouraged sensitivity and compassion and urged people to act like the Savior. That continues to be our message.

The Church’s "fairness for all" approach seeks to treat others as the Savior would, with fairness and respect. While the Savior cannot condone sin, He also does not advocate hateful speech or taking away someone’s home or livelihood because of his or her choices.

 

1. Is the Church conceding significant principle on the gay issue?

The Church has always stood for compassion and trying to follow the example of Jesus Christ. The Church has worked under the direction of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to find common ground where reasonable rights could be afforded to all.  While there has been no change in doctrine, the Church seeks to protect individuals, both religious and not religious, against retaliation, firing and eviction. We do not believe individuals should be disparaged or persecuted simply for identifying with the LGBT community. The Church supported Utah Senate Bill 296 because it seeks to protect basic rights of the LGBT community that are not currently protected in areas such as housing and employment. This bill does not support gay marriage. 

 

1. What rights did the Church waive to achieve this legislative compromise?

The Church did not waive any of its rights in Senate Bill 296. This bill takes basic rights provided to the LGBT community in Salt Lake City and extends them to the rest of the state of Utah. The Church gained important protections in this legislation, such as the right to operate the Church and its entities, including universities, according to its principles. 

 

1. Will Church ecclesiastical officers be protected from performing gay marriages in the state of Utah?

Yes. Most constitutional scholars assume that the U.S. Constitution protects religious leaders from being coerced into performing civil marriages for same-sex couples. However, Utah law now explicitly states that religious officials and religiously affiliated organizations cannot be required to solemnize any marriage that is contrary to their religious beliefs.   

 

1. Will the Church support gay marriage if it becomes law?

No. The Church is not sanctioning gay marriage or allowing its ecclesiastical leaders to perform gay marriages. The Church recognizes that it is now legal in most states and accepts the reality in those places as far as the law of the land is concerned. But same-sex marriage will not become a part of Church doctrine or practice.

 

1. How do I explain a balanced approach to my friends, family, coworkers and others?

The Church, as well as several other major religious denominations in the United States, has sought to find a balanced approach where neither religious groups nor LGBT supporters stand on such polarized ground. The Church hopes to change the emotionally charged dialogue to include more considerate discussions where each side will accommodate the other to achieve a balance that both can live with.

By working with both sides of the debate, the Church hopes to set the example of a productive and Christ-like dialogue.  While standing firm on principle, the Savior taught us to act with civility and respect for those with whom we disagree.  There is room to help those who may be disadvantaged while protecting individual rights of conscience.

 

1. Does this legislation protect the religious liberty and rights of conscience of individuals and families, or does it just cover the Church and its affiliates?

Individuals are protected in several ways.  Neither religious people nor LGBT people can be penalized by employers for sharing their views outside the workplace. Neither can they be barred from discussing their views inside the workplace as long as it is not disruptive to the working environment or fundamentally at odds with the purpose of the business.

In addition, small businesses with fewer than 15 employees – which would include most family businesses – are exempt from the legislation. Also exempt are property owners with fewer than four units.

Of course, the legislation covers all churches and faith groups, not just The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

1. What about protections for bakers, photographers or other business owners who cannot in good conscience provide services to same-sex weddings?

Protections are automatically extended for small businesses or property owners as described above. However, the legislation does not address this issue, which is known as “public accommodation.” This remains a highly controversial area. LGBT people fear that overly broad exemptions would allow a server in a fast food restaurant to refuse to serve a hamburger or deny basic services that have nothing to do with religious faith. For their part, some religious people, especially those with expressive businesses such as photography, do not want to be forced to use their creative art to celebrate something (such as a same-sex wedding) with which they fundamentally disagree, especially when there are other businesses nearby who are willing to provide the service. This is a difficult area to legislate, and all parties agreed to leave public accommodation for another time.

 

1. How does the Church justify supporting non-discrimination by others in housing and employment while seeking exemptions for itself? 

If the Church cannot maintain gospel standards in its operations and hiring decisions, it can no longer fulfill its mission.  The same is true for its affiliated organizations.  By its support for this new legislation in Utah, the Church is encouraging protections for LGBT people in housing and employment because it is right to do so, and because those actions do not pose a threat to religious liberty, family or marriage. At the same time, it is asking for fair treatment for all religious faiths in order to prevent further erosion of one of the most cherished freedoms of the U.S. Constitution – namely, that of religious conscience and free exercise.

 

1. What is to stop parts of this legislation being steadily eroded by court challenges or other efforts to limit its effect?

Senate Bill 296 was legislated as a package to carefully balance the legitimate rights of different groups. Inserted into the bill is what lawyers term a “non-severability clause,” which means that if any one part of the bill is ever challenged and fails in court, the entire bill fails. This is an important disincentive to those who might wish to overturn the remarkable work that the Utah legislature accomplished in its 2015 session.

Edited March 16, 2015 by teddyaware

[california boy]

Thanks for posting this teddy, but I have to say I am pretty angry about this press release.  I am beginning to just distrust what the church says and find their approach pretty much consistently a distortion of the truth.  In my opiinion, they are handling this issue the same way they handle some of the difficult issues of their history.  They are just not being forthright about a lot of things.  And I find it very sad that a church who claims to be the church of Christ feels it is ok to not really be truthful in what it says.

 

 Just when you think the church is doing something positive to imporve relationships with the gay community they issue something like this.  Few members of the LGBT community trust what the church says already.  They only reinforce that belief with press releases like this.  As much as I want the church to succeed and be an orgainzation that strengthens families and its members, I am beginning to think that is not going to be possible.  And while I have always encouraged my children to stay active and involved in the church, I am beginning to think that I should just back away from that.  

[Hamilton Porter]

The Church certainly didn't bill it as a compromise, just reaffirming principles it as always taught.

 

And frankly, I don't give a crap whether it was.

 

The Church untied a Gourdian knot with this one; maintaining doctrinal integrity in the face of sweeping social change. If we're going to protect gay rights, go all the way without allowing it to encroach on the Church's ability to advance the kingdom.

 

I don't understand the mullahs who fear an infringement on individual liberty, who think their own interests are more important than those of the Church.

 

I have no problem renting rooms to gays, I have before. On the other hand, if one day the Church is forced to perform gay marriages or lose its tax-exempt status, Lord help us.

[Hamilton Porter]

Brookings held a panel on whether Utah's bill could be a model for other states:

 

http://www.brookings.edu/events/2015/03/16-gays-mormons-religion

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not sure if the following has already been posted on this board, but questions and answers pertaining to the recent Utah legislation were published by the Church Newsroom on Friday:

 

 

Thanks for posting this. I hadn't yet seen it. Very enlightening.

 

To highlight and comment on a couple of the elements:

 

Answers to basic questions

1.  

1. Why did the Church support Proposition 8 in California?

Proposition 8 provided an opportunity for Church members to stand for the principle of marriage between a man and a woman. The Church is grateful for the thousands of Church members and many others who worked so hard and sacrificed so much for that principle and who made a difference in California affirming marriage as we have known it for centuries. Subsequently, as we all know, that decision of the electorate was overturned by court order. Like everyone else, the Church must accept those court rulings, and it will respect the fact that gay marriages are now legal in two-thirds of the states. However, its doctrinal position remains the same, and we will continue to preach that to those who will listen.

 

1. Has the Church’s tone on gay issues changed since Proposition 8?

The doctrine has not changed, but there has been a clear need for the Church to push back on assertions that its position was motivated by “hate” for LGBT people.  As we have become more aware of those with same-sex attraction who have struggled in LDS families for understanding and acceptance, we have encouraged sensitivity and compassion and urged people to act like the Savior. That continues to be our message.

The Church’s "fairness for all" approach seeks to treat others as the Savior would, with fairness and respect. While the Savior cannot condone sin, He also does not advocate hateful speech or taking away someone’s home or livelihood because of his or her choices.

 

 

So here we have a direct repudiation of the notion I've seen propounded on this very board that the Church regrets its action with regard to Prop. 8 or that the Church is in any way softening its stance on homosexual behavior being inappropriate and unacceptable. Let's lay those suppositions to rest.

 

 

 

1. What is to stop parts of this legislation being steadily eroded by court challenges or other efforts to limit its effect?

Senate Bill 296 was legislated as a package to carefully balance the legitimate rights of different groups. Inserted into the bill is what lawyers term a “non-severability clause,” which means that if any one part of the bill is ever challenged and fails in court, the entire bill fails. This is an important disincentive to those who might wish to overturn the remarkable work that the Utah legislature accomplished in its 2015 session.

 

 

 

I very much like this portion.

 

As I recall, it was Daniel the other day (see post #81, this thread) who smirkingly implied that he will bide his time waiting for federal courts to overturn the religious-freedom provisions of the bill while leaving the rest of it intact, giving the gay-rights pressure groups what they want but leaving people of faith with nothing. According to this, that can't happen.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks for posting this teddy, but I have to say I am pretty angry about this press release.  I am beginning to just distrust what the church says and find their approach pretty much consistently a distortion of the truth.  In my opiinion, they are handling this issue the same way they handle some of the difficult issues of their history.  They are just not being forthright about a lot of things.  And I find it very sad that a church who claims to be the church of Christ feels it is ok to not really be truthful in what it says.

 

This is outlandish.

 

The Church is absolutely being forthright in declaring and clarifying its intent here. There is no and has been no untruthfulness on the part of the Church on this matter. If you think otherwise, perhaps it is because you have talked yourself into believing the Church was making concessions it did not make and never intended to make.

 

 Just when you think the church is doing something positive to imporve relationships with the gay community they issue something like this.  Few members of the LGBT community trust what the church says already.  They only reinforce that belief with press releases like this.  As much as I want the church to succeed and be an orgainzation that strengthens families and its members, I am beginning to think that is not going to be possible.  And while I have always encouraged my children to stay active and involved in the church, I am beginning to think that I should just back away from that.

 

 

And here we have yet another example of attempted emotional blackmail (see my sig line, the portion in royal blue). In effect: "Shame on the Church for ticking off 'the LGBT community.' I'm going to get my kids to not be involved in the Church now because it won't shut up about this public issue."

Edited March 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1. Will the Church support gay marriage if it becomes law?

No. The Church is not sanctioning gay marriage or allowing its ecclesiastical leaders to perform gay marriages. The Church recognizes that it is now legal in most states and accepts the reality in those places as far as the law of the land is concerned. But same-sex marriage will not become a part of Church doctrine or practice.

 

This is good too.

 

Another strong, unequivocal declaration and verification of doctrine in this respect, notwithstanding vain predictions that in 40 years or 30 years or 25 years or whatever it be, the Church will cave in on this doctrinal principle.

 

By the way, the clock is still running on Dehlin's 40-year prediciton. Here's where it stands now:

 

39 years, 10 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 6 hours, 56 minutes and 58 seconds. And counting down.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Another strong, unequivocal declaration and verification of doctrine in this respect...

 

...published as a news release with no identified author.  It should be easy to disavow that one when the "Dehlin prediction" occurs.  

 

Keep that clock running!

[Scott Lloyd]

...published as a news release with no identified author.  It should be easy to disavow that one when the "Dehlin prediction" occurs.  

 

Keep that clock running!

As I've said repeatedly, the Church Public Affairs Department doesn't free-lance, and an official statement from the Church can confidently be regarded as the authoritative position of said Church.

 

And the clock now stands at 39 years, 10 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 6 hours, 18 minutes, and 6 seconds.

 

You're losing time, and the Church hasn't budged.

 

To wit:

 

Same-sex marriage will not become a part of Church doctrine or practice.

 

Edited March 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

As I've said repeatedly, the Church Public Affairs Department doesn't free-lance, and an official statement from the Church can confidently be regarded as the authoritative position of said Church.

 

Absolutely, it is an authoritative position of the Church.  I don't disagree.

 

But without a prophet/apostle name attached to it, it's easier to disavow in the future.  Not that statements made by prophets/apostles aren't also disavowed.

 

And I wouldn't expect any significant changes over the next 10-20 years.  It'll take some time to move your generation out of the way.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Absolutely, it is an authoritative position of the Church.  I don't disagree.

 

But without a prophet/apostle name attached to it, it's easier to disavow in the future.  Not that statements made by prophets/apostles aren't also disavowed.

It won't be disavowed.

 

 

And I wouldn't expect any significant changes over the next 10-20 years.  It'll take some time to move your generation out of the way.  

 

So the engine that drives change in the Church is social pressure not revelation. You just have to hang tough waiting for old people to die off.

 

That's just the sort of cynical secularism to which a Church founded and governed by Jesus Christ by revelation to apostles and prophets is immune.

 

If it ever ceases to be so, it will cease to be the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

But that won't happen. The promise is that the gospel with its attendant priesthood authority and keys will never again be taken from the earth.

 

And the clock is at 39 years, 10 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 5 hours, 57 minutes and 55 seconds.

 

Shall I start a 10-year one for "any significant changes"? I'll wait until you've defined that a bit better.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

It won't be disavowed.

 

 

So the engine that drives change in the Church is social pressure not revelation. You just have to hang tough waiting for old people to die off.

 

That's just the sort of cynical secularism to which a Church founded and governed by Jesus Christ by revelation to apostles and prophets is immune.

 

If it ever ceases to be so, it will cease to be the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

But that won't happen. The promise is that the gospel with its attendant priesthood authority and keys will never again be taken from the earth.

 

And the clock is at 39 years, 10 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 5 hours, 57 minutes and 55 seconds.

 

Shall I start a 10-year one for "any significant changes"? I'll wait until you've defined that a bit better.

 

Nope, not social pressure.  If it was social pressure we'd be closer, but that's clearly not how the Church works.

 

We need church membership to be desirous and receptive to the possibility of further revelation on the matter.  Doesn't look like we're there yet.

[Storm Rider]

I think the membership is always desirous of new or continuing revelation; what the membership is not willing is to throw out the entire history of God's dealings with humanity through the family unit.  Your proposal is such that nothing is sacred, there are no constants, and all is acceptable IF carnal humans desire it.  In your opinion where is the line that differentiates the sacred and eternal from the desires of the flesh?