Rain Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Not today. I would just like to know what we are doing because I am subbing in RS. Our bishop has been out of town and won't be back till the end of the week so I may not know for awhile.
tonie Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) I wasn't at my home ward today. I was in Manhattan with the Tabernacle Choir.At our special sacrament meeting in the hotel, Elder Ronald A. Rasband declared that religious freedom is being trampled upon and urged us all to uphold it. He said those whose eyes glaze over when the subject is brought up need to educate themselves by examining the Church website on the subject, etc.This has been my sentiment for quite a while now, and I have expressed it on this board.Does religious freedom entail unlawful discrimination? Edited July 6, 2015 by tonie 1
sethpayne Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Seems like a snarky thing for a bishop to do. If this has been the reality in Canada for 10 years, maybe Church leaders in Canada should have been ahead of the curve in dealing with it instead of complaining about the Church being U.S.-driven. As I indicated earlier, the principles have been in place all along, and nothing in this latest communication really adds anything new. Shame on that bishop for telling the truth. 2
JLHPROF Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Does religious freedom entail discrimination? Sometimes.
David13 Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Does religious freedom entail discrimination?Uh, yes. We are to discriminate between right and wrong, and to do right, and avoid wrong, and sin, etc.You discriminate. In all your selections, from the clothes you wear, or don't wear, to what you eat, or don't eat, and everything in between.And we are to discriminate against sin by not approving of it, not celebrating it, not accepting it, and not committing it.dc 2
JAHS Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Uh, yes. We are to discriminate between right and wrong, and to do right, and avoid wrong, and sin, etc.You discriminate. In all your selections, from the clothes you wear, or don't wear, to what you eat, or don't eat, and everything in between.And we are to discriminate against sin by not approving of it, not celebrating it, not accepting it, and not committing it.dcOuch! Thank you David.
tonie Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Uh, yes. We are to discriminate between right and wrong, and to do right, and avoid wrong, and sin, etc.You discriminate. In all your selections, from the clothes you wear, or don't wear, to what you eat, or don't eat, and everything in between.And we are to discriminate against sin by not approving of it, not celebrating it, not accepting it, and not committing it.dcDidn't think I need to specify unlawful/illegal discrimination. Does religous freedom mean a religous person is free from any legal reprocusions to engage in illegal discriminatory practices? 1
JAHS Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Didn't think I need to specify unlawful/illegal discrimination.Does religous freedom mean a religous person is free from any legal reprocusions to engage in illegal discriminatory practices?If a religious person claims that it is against his religion to perform a particular practice he should be protected by the constutution from being prosecuted. But we will probably have to see how any such cases are handled in the courts.
David13 Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65620-pres-packer-died/page-4dc
canard78 Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Our ward read it in priesthood opening exercises and they read it in RS, two seperate mtgs. In ours the Bishop read it and made some comment about How Canada has had this for 10 years and now the Leadership responds when the States gets it and no one said anything so I don't know how it was received in RSIndeed! I can imagine this went down like a lead balloon in Canada. Talk about closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Why not include European countries too in the late response. 3
Duncan Posted July 6, 2015 Author Posted July 6, 2015 Indeed! I can imagine this went down like a lead balloon in Canada. Talk about closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Why not include European countries too in the late response. Interestingly enough our Stake President in 2005, his bro died of AIDS because he was gay, RM, grew up in the Church. I don't know what he thought or now thinks about all this but
Calm Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) Indeed! I can imagine this went down like a lead balloon in Canada. Talk about closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Why not include European countries too in the late response.Having lived in Canada, there is likely lots more crossover of news and political discussion than there is with Europe. Unfortunately much less for the reverse of the US for Canada. There might be concern that members have a fuller picture of the Church's position than what might be appearing in some of the media.And of course they didn't need to send out any reminders/encouragement to treat others with charity, etc, Canadians being so polite already, you know. We left in 2003 and I am vague on details, but didn't it pretty much come from the federal level with little chance for individuals or organizations to get involved? If so, there seems little opportunity for any to be confused by Church actions or how they were presented or little expection that there was motivation for the Church to change as there has been extensive discussion in the States.When we were up in Canada, I remember a letter being read (probably early 90s) that dealt with the state lottery issue and urging people to get involved, but the details are vague. It was definitely a Canadian or at least an Albertan issue. I don't remember announcements being made for elections and being involved in that process though. Might have happened though but since I couldn't vote, I might have ignored them. If I remember tomorrow I will ask my husband if he remembers any political issues being officially discussed by the Church there.I do wish there was more international stuff coming out for the various countries from SLC or a more obvious voice from the Church within the country where it is safe for it to do so. Granted almost half LDS live in the States, so lots of the news should reflect events happening here...but I have to wonder what percentage of news is nonAmerican coming out of the Mormonnewsroom. Maybe someday we will have a Mormonnewsroom Europe, Mormon Newsroom Africa, etc. Edited July 6, 2015 by calmoriah
Scott Lloyd Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Didn't think I need to specify unlawful/illegal discrimination.Does religous freedom mean a religous person is free from any legal reprocusions to engage in illegal discriminatory practices?I don't think anybody here is advocating violating the law.
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) Uh, yes. We are to discriminate between right and wrong, and to do right, and avoid wrong, and sin, etc.You discriminate. In all your selections, from the clothes you wear, or don't wear, to what you eat, or don't eat, and everything in between.And we are to discriminate against sin by not approving of it, not celebrating it, not accepting it, and not committing it.dc If you are (or were) an employer, would you hire a SSM husband? Edited July 6, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Scott Lloyd Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) Seems like a snarky thing for a bishop to do. If this has been the reality in Canada for 10 years, maybe Church leaders in Canada should have been ahead of the curve in dealing with it instead of complaining about the Church being U.S.-driven. As I indicated earlier, the principles have been in place all along, and nothing in this latest communication really adds anything new. Shame on that bishop for telling the truth.Had I been in such a setting with such an occurrence, I think I might have commented that there are many things on which we can act on our own initiative on a local level in accordance with sound principles and doctrine without waiting for "Salt Lake" to tell us specifically what to do. That's why we have bishops and stake presidents. And we need not resent it when specific direction eventually comes from Church headquarters to do things we should have been doing all along. Edited July 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
GingerRed Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Nothing was said in my ward yesterday...however we are having a special stake fireside next Sunday at 7 pm. Our Sacrament program had this announcement: The Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles invites all adults, 14 and up to a special fireside July 12th at 7 pm at the Stake Center. So that must be it. Red
sethpayne Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) Had I been in such a setting with such an occurrence, I think I might have commented that there are many things on which we can act on our own initiative on a local level in accordance with sound principles and doctrine without waiting for "Salt Lake" to tell us specifically what to do. That's why we have bishops and stake presidents. And we need not resent it when specific direction eventually comes from Church headquarters to do things we should have been doing all along. Scott -- correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't you have condemned local Canadian leaders for taking up a local political issue without sanction from SLC? Do you really think a local LDS Stake or Ward should get involved in local politics *without* the explicit direction of SLC? So if Canadian Saints had spoken out as Latter-day Saints they would be wrong. And now, because they didn't speak out, they are wrong. Seems like the only thing that stays constant hereis that SLC is never wrong nor can it ever be mistaken or make bad judgments. Edited July 6, 2015 by sethpayne 1
LoudmouthMormon Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) I've heard from two different LDS folks on the more gay-supportive side who said they declined to attend church in order to avoid hearing the letter read. But this is my favorite account. From another message board, related by a sister on the Oregon coast: Read in Gospel Doctrine to the adults, then read to the youth in their ss class. We had one older gentleman who was really angry that those *perverts* (his word) are able to hold callings, receive their endowment and go to the temple and receive the sacrament. He didn't want to hear that ALL worthy adults can be endowed, have callings, go to the temple, and receive sacrament. So the Branch President asked him to come to his office after SS so that they could discuss this further and not hold up Gospel Doctrine class. I had read it prior to going to church today - so listening to the Branch President read it just clarified it more for me. Also our Branch President is an emotional man. He doesn't hold back the tears when the Holy Ghost *whispers* to him. He had a few teary moments reading the letter. He did state, clearly and enunciated each and every word - clearly: I will NOT be performing same gender marriages, and this House of the Lord will not be host to any reception of same gender marriages. Edited July 6, 2015 by LoudmouthMormon
Scott Lloyd Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) Scott -- correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't you have condemned local Canadian leaders for taking up a local political issue without sanction from SLC? Do you really think a local LDS Stake or Ward should get involved in local politics *without* the explicit direction of SLC? So if Canadian Saints had spoken out as Latter-day Saints they would be wrong. And now, because they didn't speak out, they are wrong.Seems like the only thing that stays constant hereis that SLC is never wrong nor can it ever be mistaken or make bad judgments.No, I certainly wouldn't have condemned local leaders anywhere for applying sound principles and doctrine to give specific instruction to members of their flock on a <moral> (not merely a political) issue. Furthermore, it's my impression that the late President Packer, based on what I've heard him say, would have encouraged such initiative. Edited July 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
sethpayne Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) No, I certainly wouldn't have condemned local leaders anywhere for applying sound principles and doctrine to give specific instruction to members of their flock on a <moral> (not merely a political) issue. Furthermore, it's my impression that the late President Packer, based on what I've head him say, would have encouraged such initiative. Huh? Do you think local bishops in Ottowa have been teaching their members that SSM or engaging in same-sex relations is OK? No. I'm certain that Canadian leaders have been teaching the same principles their US counterparts. What evidence do you have that they did not teaching same-sex relationships were outside the bounds and doctrine of the Church? You have said they were "behind the curve" on this one.... so I'd love to see some examples of Canadian local leaders teaching false doctrine on SSM or otherwise leading their flocks astray. Edited July 6, 2015 by sethpayne
Nevo Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 In my ward, the HP group leader read out the letter to the elders and high priests and presumably someone read it in RS too. It was a non-event. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005 and the Church's opposition to it has always been clear. It was hardly necessary to advise members that Church leaders won't be officiating in same-sex marriages and that church buildings won't be used for SSM receptions. Nobody expected otherwise.
bluebell Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 In my ward, the HP group leader read out the letter to the elders and high priests and presumably someone read it in RS too. It was a non-event. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005 and the Church's opposition to it has always been clear. It was hardly necessary to advise members that Church leaders won't be officiating in same-sex marriages and that church buildings won't be used for SSM receptions. Nobody expected otherwise. It seems that the subject of SSM is seen differently in each country. It makes me wonder why the church had the letter read in Canadian wards at all. I have a friend who is a bishop who is over the moon excited about SSM. He celebrated the new law and his Facebook feed has been busy with pro SSM articles and memes. He is a really good guy (i'm better friends with his wife but i see his stuff) but if there was any way that he could officiate at a SSM, even without accepting the partners involved as members in good standing in the church, he would be all over it. I doubt he is the only bishop that has such feelings. I'm guessing that the letter read was for people such as him.
Duncan Posted July 6, 2015 Author Posted July 6, 2015 It seems that the subject of SSM is seen differently in each country. It makes me wonder why the church had the letter read in Canadian wards at all. I have a friend who is a bishop who is over the moon excited about SSM. He celebrated the new law and his Facebook feed has been busy with pro SSM articles and memes. He is a really good guy (i'm better friends with his wife but i see his stuff) but if there was any way that he could officiate at a SSM, even without accepting the partners involved as members in good standing in the church, he would be all over it. I doubt he is the only bishop that has such feelings. I'm guessing that the letter read was for people such as him. that's the thing about Bishops marrying folks, what if you get a Bishop who doesn't mind marrying a SS couple at say a beach or underwater or something? The Government gave him the license to marry folks so he has a choice to make I gather-marry them and say something to someone in the Church or don't marry them and the same sex couple could squeel like a pig to someone and he gets in trouble with the law or the Church would
mfbukowski Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 I'm interested to know if your ward had that meeting today about SSM and how it went. Do tell!Here in the One True Country it was the Fourth of July. Instead of 125 or so people in sacrament meeting there was- literally- 43. The Bishop postponed it in at least 3 wards I know of.
Recommended Posts