Elder Rasband Speaks At Byu Today On Religious Freedom

[rockpond]

So here's a primer on religious liberty.

Complete this sentence:

"Religious liberty to me means that I am free to ...."

A) "... express and exercise my deeply held religious beliefs, values and principles in public or in private, and join with like-minded believers in doing so, without fear of interference from the government or anyone else."

B) "... invade any religious group and demand to be included in its association and fellowship, whether or not I share its beliefs and values in any meaningful way, and whether or not I stridently criticize that group in public."

One of the above is an expression of reverence for the principle of religious liberty enshrined in our Bill of Rights.

The other is an expression borne of an excessive and distorted sense of personal entitlement, and, in fact, is an infringement on religious liberty.

I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is which.

A. Definitely.

I haven't noticed anyone here arguing in favor of B.

Edited September 18, 2015 by rockpond

[HappyJackWagon]

 

So here's a primer on religious liberty.

 

Complete this sentence:

 

"Religious liberty to me means that I am free to ...."

 

A) "...  express and exercise my deeply held religious beliefs, values and principles in public or in private, and join with like-minded believers in doing so, without fear of interference from the government or anyone else."

 

B) "... invade any religious group and demand to be included in its association and fellowship, whether or not I share its beliefs and values in any meaningful way, and whether or not I stridently criticize that group in public."

 

One of the above is an expression of reverence for the principle of religious liberty enshrined in our Bill of Rights.

 

The other is an expression borne of an excessive and distorted sense of personal entitlement, and, in fact, is an infringement on religious liberty.

 

I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is which.

Nice false dichotomy.

I choose C. I am free to do everything you suggest in the first choice provided I'm not infringing on the rights of others AND others are free to do the exact same thing. Religious liberty isn't one sided.

[Gray]

So you're telling me that the average non-Mormon, upon hearing the word "gay," thinks it denotes someone who is celibate?

 

I don't think the word says anything at all about celibacy or sexual activity. It just says who you're attracted to - much like the equivalent word for heterosexuals (straight). 

[Gray]

So here's a primer on religious liberty.

 

Complete this sentence:

 

"Religious liberty to me means that I am free to ...."

 

A) "...  express and exercise my deeply held religious beliefs, values and principles in public or in private, and join with like-minded believers in doing so, without fear of interference from the government or anyone else."

 

B) "... invade any religious group and demand to be included in its association and fellowship, whether or not I share its beliefs and values in any meaningful way, and whether or not I stridently criticize that group in public."

 

One of the above is an expression of reverence for the principle of religious liberty enshrined in our Bill of Rights.

 

The other is an expression borne of an excessive and distorted sense of personal entitlement, and, in fact, is an infringement on religious liberty.

 

I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is which.

 

There are problems with both A and B

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.theguardi...cution-iraq-war

 

Christianity is under siege in the very place where it was born. Hundreds of thousands of Christians have fled Iraq and Syria in the face of Islamic extremism and conflict. After a six-week trip across the Middle East in which I met church leaders and embattled congregations, it is clear to me that Christianity is hanging by a thread, and may not survive in some places. Some Christians said that after the brutality they had suffered and witnessed, they feared that relations with their Muslim neighbours could never be restored.

 

http://www.nytimes.c...-east.html?_r=0

 

I think that the wiki needs to be updated. Please read the guardian and the times for more current information before you call me a bigot for defending the defenseless christians in the middle east. They are being exterminated. Also, it is these people that need our help. If these people are considered 'people of the book' some muslims have a strange way of showing it. However, it is Assad that is protecting the ones that make it to his areas of control and have freedom to practice their faith.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3219288/I-want-blue-eyed-Yazidi-teen-describes-IS-slave-market.html

 

Sad that such christians are no longer free to practice their faith.

 

Did the US Christians declare war on the European Christians in WW1 and 2?

 

I defend the defenseless of all faiths and non-faiths. Sorry you have such a hard time with that concept.

 

Yes it is sad. It is also sad when Mosques are blown up. Over one million people in Iraq/Afghanistan have been killed since 2002. The vast majority of whom have been Muslim.

[Sleeper Cell]

 

Nice false dichotomy.

I choose C. I am free to do everything you suggest in the first choice provided I'm not infringing on the rights of others AND others are free to do the exact same thing. Religious liberty isn't one sided.

Which is a meaningless statement, unless there is general consensus on just what these “rights” are. There is a downside to changing the fundamental definitions of words and blurring the distinction between rights created by statute or court decision (whose decisions can be reversed by future legislatures/courts), and unalienable rights granted by God

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Which is a meaningless statement, unless there is general consensus on just what these “rights” are. There is a downside to changing the fundamental definitions of words and blurring the distinction between rights created by statute or court decision (whose decisions can be reversed by future legislatures/courts), and unalienable rights granted by God

 

Different religions have different definitions for many words, including marriage, so it would be wrong to think that our definition is the only definition.

If I am going to accept Scott's definition (A) "express and exercise my deeply held religious beliefs, values and principles in public or in private, and join with like-minded believers in doing so, without fear of interference from the government or anyone else, don't I at least need to be willing to offer the same religious liberty to others.

In other words, if I feel it is the exercise of my religion NOT to perform SSM shouldn't I allow the Episcopals or Community of Christ the liberty TO perform SSM according to their religion?

Of course. If Religious liberty is one sided it is a tyranny.

Edited September 18, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[thesometimesaint]

The US is not nor has it ever been based on the unalienable rights granted by God. We(The US) is based on the US Constitution which permits the taking of life, liberty, and property by due process of mortal human law.

Edited September 18, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Sleeper Cell]

Ha. Good point on the word "gay". I have no idea how that word came to mean what it means today but I don't think it can be attributed to the "gay rights movement".

As for marriage, no, they aren't trying to redefine it.

 

I hardly think that it was invented by those who opposed the “gay rights movement”  or were indifferent to it.  If memory serves, the intent was to have a one syllable word for “homosexual” to replace the one syllable slurs.  Also, as I recall, the word gay was even strongly preferred over the word “homosexual” because the former carried a strong positive connotation, while the latter was, at best, neutral.   

 

Can you name one society in history (prior to a few decades ago) that ever defined marriage to include a relationship between two men or two women?  IIRC, even those societies that accepted gay relationships, and even those which seem to have institutionalized long term gay relationships (some of which may have considered them more important than non-gay relationships) did not call them marriages.   

[thesometimesaint]

The word Gay may have came to be associated with sexual immorality in the 14th Century,and homosexuality in the late 19th Century.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay.

Edited September 18, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Sleeper Cell]

 

 

Different religions have different definitions for many words, including marriage, so it would be wrong to think that our definition is the only definition.

If I am going to accept Scott's definition (A) "express and exercise my deeply held religious beliefs, values and principles in public or in private, and join with like-minded believers in doing so, without fear of interference from the government or anyone else, don't I at least need to be willing to offer the same religious liberty to others.

In other words, if I feel it is the exercise of my religion NOT to perform SSM shouldn't I allow the Episcopals or Community of Christ the liberty TO perform SSM according to their religion?

Of course. If Religious liberty is one sided it is a tyranny.

 

Prior to a few decades ago, did any of these different churches define marriage to include “SSM?”  

 

But that has nothing to do with my point -- that your statement:

I am free to do everything you suggest in the first choice provided I'm not infringing on the rights of others 

 

is meaningless, unless there is general consensus on just what those "rights" are.

 

No church has a “religious liberty” right to act as an agent for the state.  A pastor can only conduct a legally binding marriage because the state gives him/her permission to do so.  When doing so, the pastor must conform to state law.  The pastor does have a “religious liberty" right to conduct a religious but not legally binding marriage ceremony.

 

I am not aware of anyone (outside of the Westboro types) who opposes someone else’s church performing a SSM religious ceremony. The objection was about state sanctioned marriages.  The government still forbids churches (and everyone else) from performing state sanctioned marriages that do not conform to government regulations.  For example, a church cannot perform a state sanctioned marriage between brother and sister (which, at least, has historical precedent in other societies).  But I see nothing preventing another church from performing a religious marriage ceremony between a brother and sister.  

 

BTW, would you defend the right of another church to perform a religious -- but not legally binding --  marriage ceremony between a currently married man and an unmarried woman?

[Daniel2]

 

Can you name one society in history (prior to a few decades ago) that ever defined marriage to include a relationship between two men or two women?  IIRC, even those societies that accepted gay relationships, and even those which seem to have institutionalized long term gay relationships (some of which may have considered them more important than non-gay relationships) did not call them marriages.   

 

 

Wikipedia's entry under History of Same-Sex unions confirms a portion of what you've said (that some societies accepted gay relationships in some institutionalized form but didn't use the term 'marriage'), however, it also indicates that other societies did use the term 'marriage':

 

 

While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by opposite-sexed couples, there is some history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.^[2] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

 

A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,^[2]ancient Mesopotamia,^[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.^[4]

Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt. The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.^[5]

 

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.^[6] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.^[7]

 

An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.^[8]...

 

Among the Romans, there were instances of same-sex marriages being performed, as evidenced by emperors Nero who married an unwilling young boy ^[18][19][20] and (possibly - though it is doubted by many historians) the child emperor Elagabalus,^[21] who both supposedly married a man, and by its outlaw by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans in 342 AD,^[22] but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist.^[23]

 

In Hellenic Greece, the pederastic relationships between Greek men (erastes) and youths (eromenos) were similar to marriage in that the age of the youth was similar to the age at which women married (the mid-teens, though in some city states, as young as age seven), and the relationship could only be undertaken with the consent of the father.^{[citation needed]} This consent, just as in the case of a daughter's marriage, was contingent on the suitor's social standing. The relationship consisted of very specific social and religious responsibilities and also had a sexual component. Unlike marriage, however, a pederastic relation was temporary and ended when the boy turned seventeen.

 

At the same time, many of these relationships might be more clearly understood as mentoring relationships between adult men and young boys rather than an analog of marriage. This is particularly true in the case of Sparta, where the relationship was intended to further a young boy's military training. While the relationship was generally lifelong and of profound emotional significance to the participants, it was not considered marriage by contemporary culture, and the relationship continued even after participants reached age 20 and married women, as was expected in the culture.^{[citation needed]}

 

Numerous examples of same sex unions among peers, not age-structured, are found in Ancient Greek writings. Famous Greek couples in same sex relationships include Harmodius and Aristogiton, Pelopidas and Epaminondas and Alexander and Bogoas. However in none of these same sex unions is the Greek word for "marriage" ever mentioned. The Romans appear to have been the first to perform same sex marriages.

 

At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.^[24] The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. First with one of his freedman, Pythagoras, to whom Nero took the role of the bride, and later as a groom Nero married a young boy to replace his young teenage concubine whom he had killed ^[25] named Sporus in a very public ceremony... with all the solemnities of matrimony, and lived with him as his spouse. A friend gave the "bride" away "as required by law." The marriage was celebrated separately in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies.^[26] The Child Emperor Elagabalus referred to his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, as his husband.^[27] He also married an athlete named Zoticus in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.^[28]

 

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).^[29]

 

Same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law specifically outlaws marriages between men and reads as follows:

When a man “marries” in the manner of a woman, a “woman” about to renounce men, what does he wish, when sex has lost its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed into another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)

[30]

According to Robin Lane Fox, among the unusual customs of the isolated oasis of Siwa (now Egypt, once Libya), one of great antiquity which survived to the 20th century was male homosexuality and same-sex marriage.^[31]

Policy of the early Christian Church and Middle Ages[edit]

As did other philosophies and religions of the time,^[32] increasingly influential Christianity promoted marriage for procreative purposes. The teachings of the Talmud and Torah, and the Bible, were seen as specifically prohibiting the practices as contrary to nature and the will of the Creator, and a moral shortcoming. Even after the passing of the Theodosian code the Christian emperors continued to collect taxes on male prostitutes until the reign of Anastasius (491–518). In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public.^[33] The Christian emperor Justinian (527–565) made homosexuals a scapegoat for problems such as "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences."^[34] While homosexuality was tolerated in pre-Christian Rome, it was still nonetheless controversial. For example, arguments against same-sex relationships were included in Plutarch's Moralia.^[35]

 

In pre-Christian Rome and Greece, there had been some debate on which form of sexuality was preferable. While many people seemed to not oppose bisexuality, there were those who preferred to be exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. For example, a debate between homosexual and heterosexual love was included in Plutarch's Moralia.^[35]

 

 

Historian John Boswell claimed the 4th century Christian martyrs Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus were united in the ritual of adelphopoiesis, which he calls an early form of religious same-sex marriage.

 

After the Middle Ages in Europe, same-sex relationships were increasingly frowned upon and banned in many countries by the Church or the state. Nevertheless, Historian John Boswell argued that Adelphopoiesis, or brother-making, represented an early form of religious same-sex marriage in the Orthodox church. Alan Bray saw the rite of Ordo ad fratres faciendum ("Order for the making of brothers") as serving the same purpose in the medieval Roman Catholic Church. However, the historicity of Boswell's interpretation of the ceremony is contested by the Greek Orthodox Church^{[citation needed]}, and his scholarship critiqued as being of dubious quality by theologian Robin Darling Young.^[36]

 

In late medieval France, it is possible the practice of entering a legal contract of "enbrotherment" (affrèrement) provided a vehicle for civil unions between unrelated male adults who pledged to live together sharing ‘un pain, un vin, et une bourse’ – one bread, one wine, and one purse. This legal category may represent one of the earliest forms of sanctioned same-sex unions.^[37]

While the church father, Augustine of Hippo, presented marriage as an important sacrament of the Christian Church in the 5th century CE,^[38] it wasn't until the "Sentences" of Peter Lombard, in the middle of the 12th century, that marriage became a part of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Christian Church.^[39][40]

 

A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.^[41]

 

 

^{In North America, among the Native Americans societies, same-sex unions have taken place with persons known as Two-Spirit types. These are individuals who fulfill one of many mixed gender roles in First Nations and Native American tribes. "In many tribes, individuals who entered into same-sex relationships were considered holy and treated with utmost respect and acceptance," according to anthropologist Brian Gilley.[43]}

 

^{In the United States during the 19th century, there was recognition of the relationship of two women making a long-term commitment to each other and cohabitating, referred to at the time as a Boston marriage; however, the general public at the time likely did not assume that sexual activities were part of the relationship.[44]}

 

^{The above demonstrates that the exclusion of same-sex couples from the term "marriage" has not been as fixed and immutable as has been suggested.}

 

^{Additionally, the term "marriage" among opposite-sex couples has hitorically been defined and redefined according to the contemporary values of the time.}

Edited September 18, 2015 by Daniel2

[rockpond]

 

I hardly think that it was invented by those who opposed the “gay rights movement”  or were indifferent to it.  If memory serves, the intent was to have a one syllable word for “homosexual” to replace the one syllable slurs.  Also, as I recall, the word gay was even strongly preferred over the word “homosexual” because the former carried a strong positive connotation, while the latter was, at best, neutral.   

 

Can you name one society in history (prior to a few decades ago) that ever defined marriage to include a relationship between two men or two women?  IIRC, even those societies that accepted gay relationships, and even those which seem to have institutionalized long term gay relationships (some of which may have considered them more important than non-gay relationships) did not call them marriages.   

 

 

Marriage has had varying definitions and broad applications throughout the history of man.  The inclusion of gay couples is hardly a "redefinition".

 

But, we've ventured too far from the topic of religious freedom and Elder Rasband's talk.  I'm going to cut my involvement on this tangent and try to avoid the thread derailing too far.

[why me]

Did the US Christians declare war on the European Christians in WW1 and 2?

 

I defend the defenseless of all faiths and non-faiths. Sorry you have such a hard time with that concept.

 

Yes it is sad. It is also sad when Mosques are blown up. Over one million people in Iraq/Afghanistan have been killed since 2002. The vast majority of whom have been Muslim.

Let me try this again when it come to religious freedom. The Christians will soon be gone from the middle east. Either they will be killed or forced to leave because a certain group of people want them gone. It is a systematic genocide which seems to be ignored by western countries. What muslims do to muslims is one thing. But what they are doing  to this minority is quite another thing. Also, the jews in france are leaving france for isreal because they feel threatened.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/11340173/15000-Jews-to-leave-France-for-Israel-Jewish-Agency-says.html

 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/feb/05/is-there-really-a-jewish-exodus-from-western-Europea

 

These facts need to be recognized when there is a talk on religious freedom. And my other point was to pick out the plight of a minority within a majority. I really have no idea what your problem is.  Please accept my apology for defending the Christians.

Edited September 18, 2015 by why me

[thesometimesaint]

Millions of Christians fled, or were killed in parts of Europe during WW1 and 2. Was that a systematic genocide of Christians?

 

There are lots of sects and schools of thought within Islam. 

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches

 

Not all of them like each other. Just like Christians.

SEE http://www.christianpost.com/news/mitt-romney-obviously-not-a-christian-fox-news-host-says-52430/

SEE http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/franklin-graham-Romney-Mormon/2012/02/21/id/430049/

SEE

 

SEE

SEE

 

The persecution of one minority doesn't make the persecution of another minority good.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

 

BTW, would you defend the right of another church to perform a religious -- but not legally binding --  marriage ceremony between a currently married man and an unmarried woman?

 

You're describing the LDS practice of polygamy. Though I may not personally like the practice, why would I think I have the power to dictate to another religion what kind of religious ceremony they can have? The only trouble comes in when such practices break the law.

Allowing others to practice their religion, that does not infringe on the legal rights of others and isn't breaking the law, is religious liberty. The church wanted the liberty to practice polygamy and felt persecuted when they weren't allowed. Now the church has done a 180 degree turn and is fighting against what is now a legal (& in some cases religious ceremony), thus persecuting others in the way they feel they were persecuted in the past.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Elder Oaks just said, "religionists should not seek a veto over all non-discrimination laws that offend their religion"

http://news.yahoo.com/mormon-leader-kentucky-clerk-takes-wrong-approach-gays-223518952--election.html

 

Mormon leader: Kentucky clerk taking wrong approach on gays

Edited October 20, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Russell C McGregor]

Elder Oaks just said, "religionists should not seek a veto over all non-discrimination laws that offend their religion"

http://news.yahoo.com/mormon-leader-kentucky-clerk-takes-wrong-approach-gays-223518952--election.html

 

Mormon leader: Kentucky clerk taking wrong approach on gays

"...and the proponents of non-discrimination should not seek a veto over all assertions of religious freedom."

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Elder Oaks just said, "religionists should not seek a veto over all non-discrimination laws that offend their religion"

http://news.yahoo.com/mormon-leader-kentucky-clerk-takes-wrong-approach-gays-223518952--election.html

 

Mormon leader: Kentucky clerk taking wrong approach on gays

 

He said a lot of things in that speech. It was a very important talk. He also said extreme adversaries of religion should refrain from violating or ignoring freedoms of speech and assembly as they apply to religious people or institutions.

[Scott Lloyd]

The Skeptic Christian is no doubt resurrecting this thread because, being on "limited" status, he is not permitted to start a thread of his own.

 

But once my story of Elder Oaks's speech is posted online, I'll start a new thread and link to my story.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[TheSkepticChristian]

But once my story of Elder Oaks speech is posted online, I'll start a new thread and link to my story.

 

Make sure you say that Davis is no Rosa Parks at all. Elder Oaks criticized Kentucky clerk Kim Davis for refusing to license gay marriages. 

[Scott Lloyd]

My story is up now, and I've started a thread linking to it.

 

I recommend everyone go there to continue this discussion on Elder Oaks's speech.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Russell C McGregor]

Make sure you say that Davis is no Rosa Parks at all. Elder Oaks criticized Kentucky clerk Kim Davis for refusing to license gay marriages.

And when Rosa Parks refused to shift seats on that now-famous bus, it was really only an issue because the white guy she wasn't vacating her seat for was disabled.

Few things in this world are really black and white (NPI).

If you want to make that point in Scott's thread, you make it. He has no obligation to obey your directives.

[Calm]

And when Rosa Parks refused to shift seats on that now-famous bus, it was really only an issue because the white guy she wasn't vacating her seat for was disabled.

CFR

 

Also wiki states she moved over to the window seat which would have allowed the white guy to sit on the aisle seat.

 

And why weren't the other whites getting up for him if he was disabled?

[Scott Lloyd]

Closing this thread because it's not a thread about Elder Oaks's speech. I've opened a new thread for discussing that subject.