Church Statement On New Utah Legislation

[rockpond]

The Church released a very nice statement/article about the newly passed legislation in Utah.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/explaining-religious-freedom-and-lgbt-rights?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LDSNewsRoomTop15+%28RSS%3A+LDS+Newsroom%29#_Answers_to_Basic

 

Unfortunately, they had to end it with this statement that begins the process of re-writing the Church's history on this matter:

 

"In all of this, Church leaders have followed the example of the Savior. While He never condoned sin, Jesus Christ was the first to reach out to the marginalized, the oppressed, those without a voice or those who struggled in one way or another.  It is His example that we follow."

 

We weren't the first to reach out to the marginalized and oppressed.  In fact, the Church didn't really reach out until we felt that we were becoming the marginalized and oppressed.

[Buckeye]

To be fair, I don't read the statement as saying the church is following Christ's example of being first. That's his role alone. The church is just saying its trying to follow his example of reaching out.

 

I also wish the church had made these efforts earlier, but hey, it seems to be our lot that we are always late to the party on social change. This is true regardless of whether the change is judged good or ill.  Increasing divorce rates, racial civil rights, women entering the work force, acceptable of same-sex couples, etc. - we're always about 20-30 years behind.

[Brian 2.0]

To be fair, I don't read the statement as saying the church is following Christ's example of being first. That's his role alone. The church is just saying its trying to follow his example of reaching out.

I also wish the church had made these efforts earlier, but hey, it seems to be our lot that we are always late to the party on social change. This is true regardless of whether the change is judged good or ill. Increasing divorce rates, racial civil rights, women entering the work force, acceptable of same-sex couples, etc. - we're always about 20-30 years behind.

It'd really help the case of the church being led by God if it were ahead of the curve on some of these things instead of pretty much in step with the cultural norms of 80 year old males.

[Daniel2]

Reading the church's statements in the link makes me wonder again if it will be signing on to any amicus briefs in the upcoming cases at the Supreme Court this April...

[Daniel2]

Dup

Edited March 13, 2015 by Daniel2

[cinepro]

It'd really help the case of the church being led by God if it were ahead of the curve on some of these things instead of pretty much in step with the cultural norms of 80 year old males.

 

But if that were the case, then it wouldn't take faith to have a testimony.

[The Nehor]

It'd really help the case of the church being led by God if it were ahead of the curve on some of these things instead of pretty much in step with the cultural norms of 80 year old males.

Being ahead of the curve carries with it the implicit assumption that society is going the right way.

[teddyaware]

The Church released a very nice statement/article about the newly passed legislation in Utah.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/explaining-religious-freedom-and-lgbt-rights?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LDSNewsRoomTop15+%28RSS%3A+LDS+Newsroom%29#_Answers_to_Basic

 

Unfortunately, they had to end it with this statement that begins the process of re-writing the Church's history on this matter:

 

"In all of this, Church leaders have followed the example of the Savior. While He never condoned sin, Jesus Christ was the first to reach out to the marginalized, the oppressed, those without a voice or those who struggled in one way or another.  It is His example that we follow."

 

We weren't the first to reach out to the marginalized and oppressed.  In fact, the Church didn't really reach out until we felt that we were becoming the marginalized and oppressed.

 

So I guess all those years of incredibly sacrificial missionary work devoted to fulfilling the Lord's great commission to reach out to the meek and spiritually oppressed of the earth doesn't count in your book?

Edited March 13, 2015 by teddyaware

[Scott Lloyd]

So I guess all those years of incredibly sacrificial missionary work devoted to fulfilling the Lord's great commission to reach out to the meek and spiritually oppressed of the earth doesn't count in your book?

The unique way in which the Church of Jesus Christ reaches out to the spiritually oppressed is to teach and administer the ordinances of salvation, thus bringing the saving power of the Atonement into the lives of those who have lost their way.

 

If the Church were to embrace and declare that which is sinful as being no longer sinful -- as many, including some here, would want it to do -- the Church would be rejected as a people by the Founder Himself, and it would no longer have power to rescue the sin-oppressed souls in this unique way, as it has been commissioned to do by Christ Himself.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

So I guess all those years of incredibly sacrificial missionary work devoted to fulfilling the Lord's great commission to reach out to the meek and spiritually oppressed of the earth doesn't count in your book?

Yes that counts but I was taking their statement in the context of the article about the LGBT community.

[rockpond]

The unique way in which the Church of Jesus Christ reaches out to the spiritually oppressed is to teach and administer the ordinances of salvation, thus bringing the saving power of the Atonement into the lives of those who have lost their way.

 

If the Church were to embrace and declare that which is sinful as being no longer sinful -- as many, including some here, would want it to do -- the Church would be rejected as a people by the Founder Himself, and it would no longer have power to rescue the sin-oppressed souls in this unique way, as it has been commissioned to do by Christ Himself.

 

Is granting civil rights and protections equivalent to declaring something to no longer be sinful?

[Scott Lloyd]

Is granting civil rights and protections equivalent to declaring something to no longer be sinful?

The Church of Jesus Christ has never opposed the granting of civil rights and protections. But some seem to want it to go beyond that to the point of changing/renouncing its deeply held beliefs and doctrines.

 

As I said, that would change the fundamental character of the Church, and it would no longer possess the divine power to aid in the rescue of lost souls that it now possesses.

 

Edited to add:

 

This conversation reminds me of the rejection of Jesus by the religious leaders and most of the people in the days of His mortal ministry.

 

They had been expecting a messiah who would deliver them from political domination and oppression.

 

He came to rescue them from the bondage of falsehood, doctrinal error and personal sin.

 

They misunderstood His mission, and they rejected Him.

 

Some things don't change much despite the passage of two millennia.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

The Church of Jesus Christ has never opposed the granting of civil rights and protections. 

 

That seems to be a matter of interpretation.

 

I agree with the rest of what you wrote.

[CV75]

The Church released a very nice statement/article about the newly passed legislation in Utah.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/explaining-religious-freedom-and-lgbt-rights?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LDSNewsRoomTop15+%28RSS%3A+LDS+Newsroom%29#_Answers_to_Basic

 

Unfortunately, they had to end it with this statement that begins the process of re-writing the Church's history on this matter:

 

"In all of this, Church leaders have followed the example of the Savior. While He never condoned sin, Jesus Christ was the first to reach out to the marginalized, the oppressed, those without a voice or those who struggled in one way or another.  It is His example that we follow."

 

We weren't the first to reach out to the marginalized and oppressed.  In fact, the Church didn't really reach out until we felt that we were becoming the marginalized and oppressed.

“In all of this [the aforementioned “compromise in the truest sense”], Church leaders have followed the example of the Savior. While He never condoned sin, Jesus Christ was the first to reach out to the marginalized, the oppressed, those without a voice or those who struggled in one way or another.  It is His example that we follow.”

 

It clearly says “…Christ was the first… It is His example we follow.” Why are you accusing the Church of beginning the process of re-writing the Church's history on the legislation / compromise?

[rockpond]

“In all of this [the aforementioned “compromise in the truest sense”], Church leaders have followed the example of the Savior. While He never condoned sin, Jesus Christ was the first to reach out to the marginalized, the oppressed, those without a voice or those who struggled in one way or another.  It is His example that we follow.”

 

It clearly says “…Christ was the first… It is His example we follow.” Why are you accusing the Church of beginning the process of re-writing the Church's history on the legislation / compromise?

 

Because they (Church leaders) have not shown a desire to reach out to the LGBT community in support of rights and protections until recently.  They finally decided to support those rights and protections but only on the condition that their rights and freedoms come first.  Go back as little as 7 years and the Church was fighting against LGBT rights.  Go further back and they weren't even supporting the basic protections that are in this bill.

 

I don't see the Church following the Savior's example here.  They waited until the LGBT community had gained enough support that the Church feared its own marginalization and potential oppression.  They were clear with their support of this legislation... it was primarily about religious protections, not protections for the LGBT community.  But now they wish to "re-write" by patting themselves on the back for following the Savior's example.  Sorry, it's just not there.

[Mystery Meat]

“In all of this [the aforementioned “compromise in the truest sense”], Church leaders have followed the example of the Savior. While He never condoned sin, Jesus Christ was the first to reach out to the marginalized, the oppressed, those without a voice or those who struggled in one way or another.  It is His example that we follow.”

 

It clearly says “…Christ was the first… It is His example we follow.” Why are you accusing the Church of beginning the process of re-writing the Church's history on the legislation / compromise?

 

It does raise some questions about Rockpond's intentions or at the very least the lens through which he views the Church. I like Rockpond and generally think he is an honest (if not often wrong) disciple of Christ. However, the fact that he jumped to the conclusion he did so quickly tells me a little about how he feels about the Church and its leaders.

[CV75]

Because they (Church leaders) have not shown a desire to reach out to the LGBT community in support of rights and protections until recently.  They finally decided to support those rights and protections but only on the condition that their rights and freedoms come first.  Go back as little as 7 years and the Church was fighting against LGBT rights.  Go further back and they weren't even supporting the basic protections that are in this bill.

 

I don't see the Church following the Savior's example here.  They waited until the LGBT community had gained enough support that the Church feared its own marginalization and potential oppression.  They were clear with their support of this legislation... it was primarily about religious protections, not protections for the LGBT community.  But now they wish to "re-write" by patting themselves on the back for following the Savior's example.  Sorry, it's just not there.

But the article doesn't assert that the Church did that which you accuse it of not doing. All it says is that the Church followed the example of Christ. You may be critiquing how well the leaders followed it, but the article made no such claims about that, give them credit for the outcome, "re-write" the history, nor pat them on the back for anything else. All any disciple can do is follow the Savior's example, and I think it is fair to say that is a consistent value our leaders share on any issue.

[rockpond]

But the article doesn't assert that the Church did that which you accuse it of not doing. All it says is that the Church followed the example of Christ. You may be critiquing how well the leaders followed it, but the article made no such claims about that, give them credit for the outcome, "re-write" the history, nor pat them on the back for anything else. All any disciple can do is follow the Savior's example, and I think it is fair to say that is a consistent value our leaders share on any issue.

The article claims that the Church has followed the Savior's example by reaching out to the marginalized and oppressed. What do you think they are trying to suggest with that concluding paragraph?

[mormonnewb]

It does raise some questions about Rockpond's intentions or at the very least the lens through which he views the Church. I like Rockpond and generally think he is an honest (if not often wrong) disciple of Christ. However, the fact that he jumped to the conclusion he did so quickly tells me a little about how he feels about the Church and its leaders.

Wow! You played the "no true Mormon would say that" card in the FIRST page of the thread? You could at least wait until we debunked all of your other arguments before going to this old stand-by.

[rockpond]

It does raise some questions about Rockpond's intentions or at the very least the lens through which he views the Church. I like Rockpond and generally think he is an honest (if not often wrong) disciple of Christ. However, the fact that he jumped to the conclusion he did so quickly tells me a little about how he feels about the Church and its leaders.

What questions does it raise about my intentions? Seriously, please tell me.

I love the Church and it's leaders. That's one reason why I stay and why I serve my ward each week. The Church does many great and wonderful things. But it's 2015 and they are congratulating themselves for their compassion for having finally agreed that a person shouldn't get fired/evicted for being gay (as long as it's not the church or the BSA doing the firing/evicting). I don't think that's worthy of a concluding paragraph highlighting how they are following the Savior's example.

[mormonnewb]

What questions does it raise about my intentions? Seriously, please tell me.

I love the Church and it's leaders. That's one reason why I stay and why I serve my ward each week. The Church does many great and wonderful things. But it's 2015 and they are congratulating themselves for their compassion for having finally agreed that a person shouldn't get fired/evicted for being gay (as long as it's not the church or the BSA doing the firing/evicting) [emphasis added]. I don't think that's worthy of a concluding paragraph highlighting how they are following the Savior's example.

 

This is the part that gets me.  The Church is lauding that it has reached out to the marginalized by stopping OTHER people from discriminating against them in housing and employment.  The Church still reserves the right to "throw the bums out," but it is following the Savior's example by stopping other people from doing so?

 

To me, that would have been like Jesus shaming the men that were going to stone the woman caught in adultery and then turning around and hitting her with a few rocks himself.

 

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John 8:10-11)

And yes, I know, someone will surely point out that the Savior told the woman to "sin no more."  Yes, he did.  However, He didn't say, "Sin no more or I will throw you out of your house."  Nor did He say, "Sin no more or I will fire you from your job."  Jesus refrained from exercising His condemnation without so much as an insincere promise that the woman would change her ways.  In fact, we are not told that the woman did change her ways.  And given human nature, there is no reason to suspect that she did.  So why does the Church get to pick up the rocks that our Savior so graciously laid down?

P.S.  I'm going to give MYSELF a rep point for that one.  Preach newb, preach!

[CV75]

The article claims that the Church has followed the Savior's example by reaching out to the marginalized and oppressed. What do you think they are trying to suggest with that concluding paragraph?

In the 2015 Utah legislative action which is a compromise in the truest sense, "Church leaders have followed the example of the Savior. While He never condoned sin, Jesus Christ was the first to reach out to the marginalized, the oppressed, those without a voice or those who struggled in one way or another.  It is His example that we follow." Stay with what the article is actually about (it isn't a trash-talkng blog), and stay in the present!

[mormonnewb]

In the 2015 Utah legislative action which is a compromise in the truest sense, "Church leaders have followed the example of the Savior. While He never condoned sin, Jesus Christ was the first to reach out to the marginalized, the oppressed, those without a voice or those who struggled in one way or another.  It is His example that we follow." Stay with what the article is actually about (it isn't a trash-talkng blog), and stay in the present!

 

Compromise?  What did the Church give up?  What ONE thing can it not do now that it could do yesterday?

[rockpond]

In the 2015 Utah legislative action which is a compromise in the truest sense, "Church leaders have followed the example of the Savior. While He never condoned sin, Jesus Christ was the first to reach out to the marginalized, the oppressed, those without a voice or those who struggled in one way or another. It is His example that we follow." Stay with what the article is actually about (it isn't a trash-talkng blog), and stay in the present!

Yes, stay in the present, because if you look in the past you'll see aspects of the church that we'd now like to ignore.

So how is the "compromise" following the Savior's example?

[rockpond]

Compromise? What did the Church give up? What ONE thing can it not do now that it could do yesterday?

I'd love to hear an answer to that because Oaks and Elder Christofferson were asked a similar question in their TribTalk interview and they couldn't identify anything either.