Elder Rasband Speaks At Byu Today On Religious Freedom

[Scott Lloyd]

A heads-up that in a few minutes Elder Ronald A. Rasband will deliver an important address at the weekly BYU devotional. His topic is religious freedom.

 

Edited to add:

 

The talk will be telecast on BYUtv and live streamed on their website.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[TheSkepticChristian]

A head-up that in a few minutes Elder Ronald A. Rasband will deliver an important address at the weekly BYU devotional. His topic is religious freedom.

 

I hope he repeats what the Church said

 

 

Our individual right to religious freedom is protected by the First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution and by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/top-church-leaders-counsel-members-after-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision

 

 

There is no need for the alarmism. Gay marriage will not take away religious freedom. 

 

"gay advocacy groups, now that BSA has caved in, could sue and win to make chartering organizations such as the Church appoint sexually active homosexuals as Scoutmasters, and why it would be prudent for the Church to step away now." - Scott Lloyd

Edited September 15, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Scott Lloyd]

I hope he repeats what the Church said

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/top-church-leaders-counsel-members-after-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision

 

 

There is no need for the alarmism. Gay marriage will not take away religious freedom. 

 

"gay advocacy groups, now that BSA has caved in, could sue and win to make chartering organizations such as the Church appoint sexually active homosexuals as Scoutmasters, and why it would be prudent for the Church to step away now." - Scott Lloyd

The fact that those protections are enshrined in the First Amendment and in other nations' documents such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not mean that courts have always or will always honor those guarantees.

 

In any event, I hope this thread will deal with what Elder Rasband actually did say (he has just concluded his talk) and not deteriorate into dredging up and misapplying and misinterpreting things that the Church or I or others have said in the past.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[churchistrue]

Unfortunate comparison between the gay guy that was denied advancement opportunities at work and the Mormon girl that was told by her boss not to talk religion at work and got butt hurt and quit.

[Scott Lloyd]

So much good content in this address.

 

I will be busy writing a news report of it so I won't immediately have time to discuss individual aspects of it, but for now, let me point out something he said by way of introduction:

 

One of my Church assignments is to serve on the Public Affairs Committee of the Church.  This is a First Presidency directed committee and I am very honored to serve under their leadership.  The chairman over the committee has been a member of the Quorum of the Twelve.  In my tenure, those chairmen have been, Elder L. Tom Perry, and before him, Elder M. Russell Ballard.  Elder D. Todd Christofferson is currently acting chairman.

 

He said he had prepared his talk with the assistance of that committee.

 

So we now have names to put with the supposedly "rogue" General Authorities who do serve or have served on the Public Affairs Committee of the Church and, some critics say, function without supervisory oversight from the leadership of the Church.    (sarcasm alert)

Edited September 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Unfortunate comparison between the gay guy that was denied advancement opportunities at work and the Mormon girl that was told by her boss not to talk religion at work and got butt hurt and quit.

I quite disagree with you. I felt the comparison was quite apt. Both stories were hypothetical but reflected real-life circumstances.

 

Let's let others judge for themselves whether or not the comparison was "unfortunate" or whether you have accurately or fairly characterized the hypothetical scenario that Elder Rasband presented:

 

The first story is about someone I will call Ethan. He recently started his first job in a career he has longed for, and wants to make a good impression. He comes early to work and stays late. He picks up extra projects and does excellent work. He is well liked by many of his colleagues and is enjoying his job. One day at lunch with a couple of coworkers he feels comfortable telling them that he is gay. An awkward silence develops because no one knows how to respond and the work environment is rather conservative. Ethan is disappointed by their cold response and feels hurt and rejected. He begins to feel vulnerable at work and less valued.

 

After that lunch meeting things become increasingly awkward for Ethan at work. He finds himself excluded from large projects and social activities after work. His productivity begins to suffer as he feels he does not belong and is not wanted. After a few months he is let go because his boss feels he is not keeping up. Despite claims to the contrary, Ethan knows he has been fired for being gay.

 

Now I want to tell you about Samantha.  Samantha has just started work in the administrative offices of a local university. She is excited to work in a stimulating environment full of diverse thoughts, ideas and backgrounds. One day at work a coworker approaches Samantha and says she has heard that Samantha is Mormon, and asks if that is true. Samantha cheerfully responds that it is, but the question that follows brings her up short. “So why do you hate gays?” her coworker asks.   Samantha is surprised by her question, but tries to explain her belief in God’s plan for His children, which she believes includes guidelines on moral and sexual behavior. Her coworker counters by telling her that the rest of society has progressed beyond those beliefs. “And besides,” she says, “history is full of people using religious teachings to wage wars and marginalize vulnerable groups.”

 

Samantha restates her convictions and her understanding of God’s love for all people and then asks her coworker to respect her right to believe. The coworker feels compelled to tell other employees about their conversation and over the next few weeks, Samantha feels increasingly isolated as more and more coworkers confront her with questions and attacks.

 

Samantha’s boss, seeing the increase in religious conversations in the workplace, cautions her against proselytizing in their work environment or her job will be in jeopardy.  Her work, like Ethan’s, begins to suffer. Rather than risk being fired, Samantha starts to look for another job.

 

These are hypothetical stories, and yet they are not.  There are many Samantha’s and Ethan’s. However we choose to live and whatever choices we make, we all share a common humanity and desire for fairness and kindness. Ethan should not have been fired for being gay and Samantha should not have been intimidated for being religious.  Both were wrongly criticized, judged and retaliated against.

 

(Emphasis mine).

Edited September 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

These paragraphs contain the kernel of Elder Rasband's address:

 

We need you to engage in dialogue regarding the complexities of this issue and find solutions for how to best extend fairness to everyone, including people of faith. These conversations need to be occurring in our schools, homes and relationships with friends and coworkers.

 

When you have these conversations, please remember the principles we have discussed today which are to see others through a lens of fairness, treat them with respect and kindness and expect the same treatment in return.  

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

Words to live by.

[Teancum]

I quite disagree with you. I felt the comparison was quite apt. Both stories were hypothetical but reflected real-life circumstances.

 

Let's let others judge for themselves whether or not the comparison was "unfortunate" or whether you have accurately or fairly characterized the hypothetical scenario that Elder Rasband presented:

 

(Emphasis mine).

 

 

I agree with you. The hypothetical stories were spot on in both cases.

[Teancum]

Quote

We need you to engage in dialogue regarding the complexities of this issue and find solutions for how to best extend fairness to everyone, including people of faith. These conversations need to be occurring in our schools, homes and relationships with friends and coworkers.

 

When you have these conversations, please remember the principles we have discussed today which are to see others through a lens of fairness, treat them with respect and kindness and expect the same treatment in return.

 

Sounds like a good talk.

[cinepro]

A heads-up that in a few minutes Elder Ronald A. Rasband will deliver an important address at the weekly BYU devotional. His topic is religious freedom.

 

Edited to add:

 

The talk will be telecast on BYUtv and live streamed on their website.

 

I missed the talk.  Was he for or against it?

[Scott Lloyd]

I missed the talk.  Was he for or against it?

You can watch the recording of it here.

[churchistrue]

I missed the talk.  Was he for or against it?

lol, I see what you did there.  

[Buckeye]

These paragraphs contain the kernel of Elder Rasband's address:

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

Words to live by.

 

Scott, what "issue" what Elder Rasband discussing here? And a more general question - did he name any specific threats to religious freedom, or was it more of a concern for the general decline in the public's religiosity?

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, what "issue" what Elder Rasband discussing here? And a more general question - did he name any specific threats to religious freedom, or was it more of a concern for the general decline in the public's religiosity?

I think the paragraphs I quoted encapsulate the talk better than any very brief summary I could give here.

 

I'm writing a news story on it now and invite you to read it when it is online or this weekend when it is in print.

 

Better yet, you can view the talk itself here. It is only about 40 minutes in length.

 

Edited to add:

 

The antecedent to his word "issue" appears to be religious freedom and the "complex social issues" associated therewith, i.e. religion's role in society, politics and civic issues; moral convictions and matters of conscience vs. redressing wrongful discrimination, etc.

 

Again, best to view the talk online as he delivered it. He made himself very clear (to me, at least).

Edited September 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

lol, I see what you did there.  

I did too. As my waggish 12-year-old said to me last night, "Good job, Captain Obvious!"

Edited September 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

Thanks Scott. I've started listening, but have other things to attend to before I finish it. I'm glad that Elder Rasband clearly states that workplace discrimination against gays is wrong to the same degree that workplace discrimination against religious beliefs. But unfortunately, the Church is (once again) a little late to the punch. If we'd been saying that a few decades ago (or even a few years ago) it could have mattered. Now it just comes across as an attempt to protect our own interests.

 

I'm also confused by his statement that it is wrong for businesses to make employment decisions based on an employee's religious belief (citing the Mozilla CEO situation) and for universities to have non-discrimination policies to exclude religious conscience, but at the same time failing to see the hypocrisy in BYU's own policy of suppressing beliefs (i.e., BYU faculty can't support SSM) and in suppressing religious freedom (i.e., LDS students at BYU are expelled if they convert to another faith). It is a hollow defense to claim that the Church's discrimination should be tolerated because the discrimination is based on religious, God-given, beliefs, but to not allow the same privilege for other business, universities, and non-religious organizations to decide what beliefs are central enough to their core principles that they will not tolerate dissent. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks Scott. I've started listening, but have other things to attend to before I finish it. I'm glad that Elder Rasband clearly states that workplace discrimination against gays is wrong to the same degree that workplace discrimination against religious beliefs. But unfortunately, the Church is (once again) a little late to the punch. If we'd been saying that a few decades ago (or even a few years ago) it could have mattered. Now it just comes across as an attempt to protect our own interests.

 

 

In response to that, I would cite this passage from Elder Rasband's address:

 

Despite what you may have heard or read over the years, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has stood consistently for freedom of choice and conscience.  The Prophet Joseph Smith wrote, “We believe that… all men are created equal, and that all have the privilege of thinking for themselves upon all matters relative to conscience…” He went on to say, “[if] I have been willing to die for a ‘Mormon,’… I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights… of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves

 

 

So what is the position of the Church on religious freedom? I can assure you that Apostles and Prophets, under the inspiration of heaven, have given significant consideration to this issue. We believe in following the commandments of God which are designed to secure our eternal happiness, however, God will “force no man to heaven.” We believe in creating a space for everyone to live their conscience without infringing on the rights and safety of others. When the rights of one group collide against the rights of another, we must follow the principle of being as fair and sensitive to as many people as possible.  The Church believes in “fairness for all.”

 

 

 

I'm also confused by his statement that it is wrong for businesses to make employment decisions based on an employee's religious belief (citing the Mozilla CEO situation) and for universities to have non-discrimination policies to exclude religious conscience, but at the same time failing to see the hypocrisy in BYU's own policy of suppressing beliefs (i.e., BYU faculty can't support SSM) and in suppressing religious freedom (i.e., LDS students at BYU are expelled if they convert to another faith). It is a hollow defense to claim that the Church's discrimination should be tolerated because the discrimination is based on religious, God-given, beliefs, but to not allow the same privilege for other business, universities, and non-religious organizations to decide what beliefs are central enough to their core principles that they will not tolerate dissent.

 

 

I flatly reject the charge of hypocrisy.

 

BYU is a religious institution with specific mission to fulfill, and frankly a certain degree and quantity of shared belief and values is requisite among its faculty to make them competent to participate in the fulfillment of that mission.

 

The day an institution like BYU is forced to employ faculty or administrators who blatantly oppose the values and position of the Church on certain core issues is the day I despair for the wonderful experiment in democracy and liberty that we call the United States of America.

[Buckeye]

In response to that, I would cite this passage from Elder Rasband's address:

 

 

I flatly reject the charge of hypocrisy.

 

BYU is a religious institution with specific mission to fulfill, and frankly a certain degree and quantity of shared belief and values is requisite among its faculty to make them competent to participate in the fulfillment of that mission.

 

The day an institution like BYU is forced to employ faculty or administrators who blatantly oppose the values and position of the Church on certain core issues is the day I despair for the wonderful experiment in democracy and liberty that we call the United States of America.

 

So you wouldn't have an objection to UC-Berkeley (or Mozilla) expelling a faculty (or CEO) who oppose SSM under the following rationale:

 

UC-Berkeley (Mozilla) is a secular institution with specific mission to fulfill, and frankly a certain degree and quantity of shared belief and values is requisite among its faculty (management) to make them competent to participate in the fulfillment of that mission.

The day an institution like UC-Berkeley (Mozilla) is forced to employ faculty or administrators (or management) who blatantly oppose the values and position of the school (company) on certain core issues is the day I despair for the wonderful experiment in democracy and liberty that we call the United States of America.

 

 

You see the core problem. We want to say that our discrimination against others is "core" to our belief system, but that other's discrimination against us should be suspect. That just doesn't fly.

[KevinG]

Mozilla has the right to fire their CEO for any fool reason they want.

 

Keep in mind that BYU as an institution includes traditional marriage and other Christian ideals as a part of its product.  Mozilla's product on the other hand had nothing to do with morality and marriage.

[Buckeye]

Mozilla has the right to fire their CEO for any fool reason they want.

 

Keep in mind that BYU as an institution includes traditional marriage and other Christian ideals as a part of its product.  Mozilla's product on the other hand had nothing to do with morality and marriage.

 

Not according to Elder Rasband. He was critical of Mozilla's decision to oust its CEO because of his opposition to civil SSM. Shouldn't Mozilla have a right to decide whether approval of civil SSM is a core part of its work-place environment?

Edited September 15, 2015 by Buckeye

[KevinG]

Not according to Elder Rasband. He was critical of Mozilla's decision to oust its CEO because of his opposition to civil SSM. Shouldn't Mozilla have a right to decide whether approval of civil SSM is a core part of its work-place environment?

 

Yes they do.  Yet they fired the CEO because of his personal views, not company policy towards employees.

 

Here is Mozilla's Mission Statement

 

 

Our mission is to promote openness, innovation & opportunity on the Web.

At Mozilla, we’re a global community of technologists, thinkers and builders working together to keep the Internet alive and accessible, so people worldwide can be informed contributors and creators of the Web. We believe this act of human collaboration across an open platform is essential to individual growth and our collective future.

 

Here is part of BYU's Mission Statement

 

 

 

• All students at BYU should be taught the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Any education is inadequate which does not emphasize that His is the only name given under heaven whereby mankind can be saved. Certainly all relationships within the BYU community should reflect devout love of God and a loving, genuine concern for the welfare of our neighbor.

 

Which of these organizations has a core principle that directly influences the stance on traditional marriage its employees might take?

[Buckeye]

Yes they do.  Yet they fired the CEO because of his personal views, not company policy towards employees.

 

Here is Mozilla's Mission Statement

 

 

Here is part of BYU's Mission Statement

 

 

Which of these organizations has a core principle that directly influences the stance on traditional marriage its employees might take?

 

First thing, the record needs to be set straight about Mozilla. According to the company, its CEO was not ousted and certainly not ousted because of his support of Prop 8 (see https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/).In my comments above, I was going with Elder Rasband's (erroneous) description of what happened. You are correct to point out the actual facts of Mozilla's statement of core principles. Just realize that that same statement undermine's Elder Rasband's commentary.

 

With that it mind, consider instead a hypothetical company which decided that support of civil SSM was part of its core mission. Any problem there?

 

Edit to add:

 

If link does not work, trying cutting/pasting the following url: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/

Edited September 15, 2015 by Buckeye

[KevinG]

 

 

With that it mind, consider instead a hypothetical company which decided that support of civil SSM was part of its core mission. Any problem there?

 

Your link is busted on the Mozilla issue - I'd be interested in being set straight on that if you can repair it.

 

If a company had SSM as part of its core mission then I'd be careful not to order chick-fil-a for a company meeting.

 

The best parallel for me would be someone like the Utah Aids Foundation wanting an Executive Director that supported GBLTIQ rights.  I can see that as a valid selection criteria.  

[Buckeye]

Your link is busted on the Mozilla issue - I'd be interested in being set straight on that if you can repair it.

 

If a company had SSM as part of its core mission then I'd be careful not to order chick-fil-a for a company meeting.

 

The best parallel for me would be someone like the Utah Aids Foundation wanting an Executive Director that supported GBLTIQ rights.  I can see that as a valid selection criteria.  

 

That's fair. Link should work now.

[thesometimesaint]

While two wrongs never equal a right. When in someone employ barring actual illegal discrimination it is best to follow that employers lead. If anyone doesn't understand the difference between voluntarily looking for another job and being fired they have serious understanding problems .