Elder Ballard Speaks At World Congress Of Families Conference

[rockpond]

Given that the federal courts have ruled that such teachings by public schools are legal and lawful, and given Oaks' recent speech advocating respect for the rule of the courts' ultimate decisions, it would seem that Ballard's take on this particular topic conflicts with Oaks' calls for abiding by court rulings...?

 

It took Oaks a while to come around to the idea that LGBT folks should have some level of protection from discrimination.  Elder Ballard hasn't spent as much time speaking in public on this subject, he may need some time as well.

 

Heavenly Father created a world in which homosexuality exists.  LDS leaders have long suggested that our US Constitution was divinely inspired.  It is that constitution that guarantees the rights of LGBT persons.  Given that, I see no reason why we wouldn't expect our schools to prepare our children to live in our society.

 

Schools will always teach things that we disagree with as parents.  My 6th grade son's math teacher is instructing them in a technique that I find ridiculous when easier methods are available.  Should I demand that the school notify me before such a technique is taught?  Or, just sit down with my son at home and discuss it with him.

 

I opt for the latter.

[Daniel2]

By way of an update, I found that:

 

A three judge panel Court of Appeals upheld Federal Court Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf's ruling, see here.

 

The Parkers and the Wirthlins (the two sets of parents involved in a combined case) appealed the Federal Judge's ruling and the Court of Appeal's ruling to the Supreme Court. 

 

The Supreme Court denied the parents' appeal, thereby upholding the federal court's and the Court of Appeals previous rulings:

 

US Supreme Court turns down David Parker's appeal:

 

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker_lawsuit/sc_petition/100608zor.pdf

 

(page 9, 22nd from the top)

 

So, apparently at least 13 judges ruled on the matter, and all sided with the school's ability to allow teachers to read such books without parental notification.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Daniel2

[CV75]

No, you didn't actually answer my questions.  Your constant obfuscating and dancing around simple questions tells me what I need to know:  your argument falls apart on close examination.   That's the only conclusion I can come to.  Feel free to prove me wrong by going back to my last few questions and giving direct, clear answers.

Are you talking about "Answered?" I did answer it (post #39). When you explained and then asked:"Yes, by male and female union, I meant marriage.  So do we agree that when Elder Ballard said "traditional families" he was referring to those headed by a male-female marriage?" (bold yours) I answered, "Of course he was talking about marriage," using the very definition you provided.

 

I have answered your questions simply, directly and clearly -- ask for clarification if you need it.

 

Here are some questions of mine that you didn't answer; please provide direct, clear answers: What is uniquely LDS about the term “traditional marriage?” His audience was the World Congress of Families; do you think he was being parochial by using LDS vernacular?

 

Considering the context, the bright thing to do is to use WCF's definition of "traditional" or "natural" families: "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state". According to WCF, its purpose is to "stand up for the position of the traditional family, in a time of eroding family life and declining appreciation for families in general". The coalition defines "the natural family" as the "union of a man and a woman in a lifelong covenant of marriage" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Congress_of_Families

[CV75]

Are you saying such lawful policies exist somewhere, and if so, can you please provide citations?

 

Given that the federal courts have ruled that such teachings by public schools are legal and lawful, and given Oaks' recent speech advocating respect for the rule of the courts' ultimate decisions, it would seem that Ballard's take on this particular topic conflicts with Oaks' calls for abiding by court rulings...?

No, I said "If that is their lawful policy and lawfully administered, of course," in response to your general question; in any case, I have no citations for your more specific application.

 

I think Elder Ballard is saying that better compromises are possible and the process for achieving such should continue--I see no conflict between that and respecting the law.

[rockpond]

Are you talking about "Answered?" I did answer it (post #39). When you explained and then asked:"Yes, by male and female union, I meant marriage.  So do we agree that when Elder Ballard said "traditional families" he was referring to those headed by a male-female marriage?" (bold yours) I answered, "Of course he was talking about marriage," using the very definition you provided.

 

I have answered your questions simply, directly and clearly -- ask for clarification if you need it.

 

Here are some questions of mine that you didn't answer; please provide direct, clear answers: What is uniquely LDS about the term “traditional marriage?” His audience was the World Congress of Families; do you think he was being parochial by using LDS vernacular?

 

Considering the context, the bright thing to do is to use WCF's definition of "traditional" or "natural" families: "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state". According to WCF, its purpose is to "stand up for the position of the traditional family, in a time of eroding family life and declining appreciation for families in general". The coalition defines "the natural family" as the "union of a man and a woman in a lifelong covenant of marriage" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Congress_of_Families

 

So if we agree that Elder Ballard was referring to man-woman marriages and their children when he said that we nurture traditional families, why do you think he felt the need to qualify it?  Don't you think we should nurture all families?

 

I don't think that the term "traditional families" is uniquely LDS.  And I think that his audience, WCF attendees, probably understood it to be what we've discussed (as you've illustrated with the definition you provided).

 

I find that sad.  I think we should be supporting and nurturing all families not just those that fit our belief structure.

 

Now, how about this question that you haven't answered:  If Elder Ballard is suggesting that parents must be notified prior to a school reading of a story with homosexual characters falling in love, why wouldn't the school also be required to notify parents prior to reading a story about heterosexual characters falling in love?

[Daniel2]

No, I said "If that is their lawful policy and lawfully administered, of course," in response to your general question; in any case, I have no citations for your more specific application.

I think Elder Ballard is saying that better compromises are possible and the process for achieving such should continue--I see no conflict between that and respecting the law.

OK, so, you admit that your qualifier of "if that is their lawful policy and lawfully admistered" was entirely hypothetical and not based in reality.

The reality we live in, in the United States, is that:

 

"under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy. Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation. . . . It is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students about individuals with different sexual orientations and about various forms of families, including those with same-sex parents, in an effort to eradicate the effects of past discrimination, to reduce the risk of future discrimination and, in the process, to reaffirm our nation's constitutional commitment to promoting mutual respect among members of our diverse society,"

that

 

"Parents have a right to inform their children when and as they wish on the subject of sex; they have no constitutional right, however, to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so,"

and that

 

"An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students. . . . It might also undermine the defendants' efforts to educate the remaining other students to understand and respect differences in sexual orientation."

Given the above, regarding your assertion that Elder Ballard is suggesting that "compromises are possible and that the process of achieving such should continue," what do you believe Elder Ballard is actually, specifically calling for, when he uses the word "compromise"?

What "compromise" are either of you advocating for?

 

(EDIT:  The selections above are all direct quotes from the court rulings I posted in my previous post #50 above).

Edited October 29, 2015 by Daniel2

[Senator]

"We demonstrate our discipleship when we refuse strident tones, when we refuse derisive labels." - M. Russell Ballard

Except on apologetic boards. There, discipleship operates on an entirely different plane.

[california boy]

You can't complain about not feeling the love we have for you because you cut yourself off from that love.

And contrary to your opinion, you very much have a choice on getting married and trying for children. You cannot blame others for making choices incompatible with that.

 

A couple of things.  I wasn't actually only referring to myself, though your solution for me to marry shows just how much you want me to fit into that mold I was talking about.  As others have said, the church has moved away from such counsel.  

 

But I am also talking about other situations.  Single parents, single adults that are past the normal marrying age.  I certainly have heard complaints that they too don't fit the church mold and feel disconnected with this push to be married and have children.  Sometimes it is not up to them.  It takes two to make it happen.  Sometimes it never happens.

[CV75]

So if we agree that Elder Ballard was referring to man-woman marriages and their children when he said that we nurture traditional families, why do you think he felt the need to qualify it?  Don't you think we should nurture all families?

 

I don't think that the term "traditional families" is uniquely LDS.  And I think that his audience, WCF attendees, probably understood it to be what we've discussed (as you've illustrated with the definition you provided).

 

I find that sad.  I think we should be supporting and nurturing all families not just those that fit our belief structure.

 

Now, how about this question that you haven't answered:  If Elder Ballard is suggesting that parents must be notified prior to a school reading of a story with homosexual characters falling in love, why wouldn't the school also be required to notify parents prior to reading a story about heterosexual characters falling in love?

I do not know whether Elder Ballard "felt the need" to use the term or used it on some other basis. From what I can tell from the link I provided, he used the term “traditional family” because that is the ideal WCF and its member organizations stand for. Rather than sad, I find the Church’s and WCF’s nurturing of traditional families to be a valid mission, just as I do the nurturing of all individuals that do not belong to a traditional family. But I’ve said that a number of times and that wasn’t my argument anyway. *

 

The suggestion that “traditional marriage” juxtaposes his statements about being loving, kind, and tolerant people essentially caricaturizes “traditional marriage” as hate speech is a horrible way to set up an argument. And "feeling “sad” makes for a horribly weak argument!

 

I answered your bolded question in #42, consistent with my argument all along: notification requirements would depend on that district’s policy, ideally reflecting community norms and developed through healthy compromise and attendant attitudes. *

 

*going in circles!

[CV75]

OK, so, you admit that your qualifier of "if that is their lawful policy and lawfully admistered" was entirely hypothetical and not based in reality.

The reality we live in, in the United States, is that:

 

Given the above, regarding your assertion that Elder Ballard is suggesting that "compromises are possible and that the process of achieving such should continue," what do you believe Elder Ballard is actually, specifically calling for, when he uses the word "compromise"?

What "compromise" are either of you advocating for?

 

It was the hypothetical you presented and I was accommodating you in principle.

 

You collected some quotes (court rulings?) without citing their reference. But I think the realities of the respective communities and the affected individuals run a bit deeper than that, and those decisions do not necessarily reflect them.

 

From the DN article (SLT has too many pop-ups):

 

“Elder Ballard said some people and groups find those beliefs and statements to be "irrational religious voices." However, he contended that when the U.S. Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriage in June 2015, it "went out of its way" to acknowledge in the majority opinion that "reasonable and sincere people'" could hold a different opinion.

 

“Understanding that reasonable and sincere people may view marriage as only between people of the opposite gender," Elder Ballard said, "the public square must accommodate and religious freedom must protect such views. Indeed, since religious beliefs can affect how believers view the very purpose of life, such views will inform how they interact with society."

 

So I think Elder Ballard is saying that better compromises than the three examples you provided are possible and the public square should continue to operate freely. I see no conflict between private citizens, churches, etc. engaging in that process while their elected officials uphold the law. The specifics would depend on the community and the circumstances.

[Buckeye]

By way of an update, I found that:

 

A three judge panel Court of Appeals upheld Federal Court Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf's ruling, see here.

 

The Parkers and the Wirthlins (the two sets of parents involved in a combined case) appealed the Federal Judge's ruling and the Court of Appeal's ruling to the Supreme Court. 

 

The Supreme Court denied the parents' appeal, thereby upholding the federal court's and the Court of Appeals previous rulings:

 

 

So, apparently at least 13 judges ruled on the matter, and all sided with the school's ability to allow teachers to read such books without parental notification.

 

Good sleuthing. Thanks.

[rockpond]

I find the Church’s and WCF’s nurturing of traditional families to be a valid mission, just as I do the nurturing of all individuals that do not belong to a traditional family. But I’ve said that a number of times and that wasn’t my argument anyway.

 

Well, at least we agree on that part (bolded).

 

 

The suggestion that “traditional marriage” juxtaposes his statements about being loving, kind, and tolerant people essentially caricaturizes “traditional marriage” as hate speech is a horrible way to set up an argument. 

 

It isn't hate speech.  But needing to qualify which families we feel are worthy of our nurturing efforts certainly doesn't come across as a kind, loving, and tolerant approach.

[CV75]

Well, at least we agree on that part (bolded).

We may agree for your purposes, but somehow I think perhaps in different ways, or not entirely! LOL And that's OK.

It isn't hate speech.  But needing to qualify which families we feel are worthy of our nurturing efforts certainly doesn't come across as a kind, loving, and tolerant approach.

I know it isn't hate speech, but seems to me you've been suggesting that. You say that using the term “traditional family” is “sad” for you, and comes across as unkind, unloving and intolerant, but in the context of the article, I take it to mean that Elder Ballard is being very clear about what he means in order to express alignment with the view that “the natural human family is established by the Creator and essential to good society.” The significance of that terminology is explained here:  http://worldcongress.org/WCF/wcf_tnf.htm

[rockpond]

We may agree for your purposes, but somehow I think perhaps in different ways, or not entirely! LOL And that's OK.

I know it isn't hate speech, but seems to me you've been suggesting that. You say that using the term “traditional family” is “sad” for you, and comes across as unkind, unloving and intolerant, but in the context of the article, I take it to mean that Elder Ballard is being very clear about what he means in order to express alignment with the view that “the natural human family is established by the Creator and essential to good society.” The significance of that terminology is explained here:  http://worldcongress.org/WCF/wcf_tnf.htm

 

Well then, let me be clear that I am not suggesting that Elder Ballard is guilty of hate speech.

[CV75]

Well then, let me be clear that I am not suggesting that Elder Ballard is guilty of hate speech.

Great--that would not advance the dialogue...!

[Bomgeography]

Elder Ballard is awesome

[Buckeye]

Elder Ballard is awesome

 

Yes, but he would be more awesome with lipstick!

[KevinG]

Elder Ballard is awesome

 

You are a man of few words I see.  Or are you just trying to get to 25 posts real fast so you can start a thread on BOMGeorgraphy?

[Daniel2]

You collected some quotes (court rulings?) without citing their reference. But I think the realities of the respective communities and the affected individuals run a bit deeper than that, and those decisions do not necessarily reflect them.

 

The collected quotes from my last post were all re-postings of portions of the court rulings I cited and bolded (with references) in my previous earlier in this thread.... I figured you'd recognize them from the previous post.  Since you didn't, I edited that post to include the previous post number, which included linked citations.

 

So I think Elder Ballard is saying that better compromises...are possible and the public square should continue to operate freely. I see no conflict between private citizens, churches, etc. engaging in that process while their elected officials uphold the law. The specifics would depend on the community and the circumstances.

 

Let me rephrase my question again. 

 

Elder Ballard cited a real-world scenario of a 2nd grader who's school teacher read a book called "King and King" (about a prince who decided to marry another prince) as part of the school's diversity curriculum, without notification of the students' parents, in 2007.

 

That incident was challenged in federal, appeals, and the Supreme Courts with a similar scenario in which a kindergartener's teacher read two books called "Who's in a Family" and "Molly's Family," (about different kinds of families, and a young girl who was being teased at school because she had two moms) to her class after one of her students was being teased for having two moms, again, without parental notification or consent.

 

The school asserted that parental notification would be inappropriate in both of the above cases, as it would allow opting-out of curriculum targeting teaching students good citizenship in a diverse community, and how to get along well with others of divergent backgrounds, both in the school and in the world, at large.

 

Since you suggest (along with Elder Ballard) that "better compromises are possible" than the court rulings that I cited, I am asking you to specifically share what "compromises" you would promote, in the two real-world scenarios that Elder Ballard cited, and which I've elaborated on, via quotations from the court rulings specific to the cases Elder Ballard spoke of.

 

At the risk of being overly repetitious, I'm trying to understand what specific, concrete, and/or measurable comprisable/accommodating actions are being sought, here.  Assuming you agree with Elder Ballard that the school should/could handle these situations differently/better and/or with more what you would consider "middle ground," what specific "compromise" do you think is reasonable?  What actionable "accommodations" do you believe are reasonable in Elder Ballard's example of students being exposed to age-appropriate, non-sexual information/literature about families headed by gay parents within the context of fostering mutual respect for everyone?

Edited October 29, 2015 by Daniel2

[Traela]

King and King is a stupid book. Here's the plot, such as it is: Prince needs to get married, his father parades a bunch of princesses in front of him, he doesn't like any of them. He sees a young man peeking around the curtains, likes him, they get married, the end. How is that not blatant propaganda? There is no way a book company would publish a heterosexual-themed romance, even in kids' books, with that lame a plot.

There's also the problem that there is no way the prince could have a legitimate heir: adopted children generally can't be royal heirs, and he wouldn't be married to a biological child's mother. So yes, same-sex unions are in that respect inferior to heterosexual marriages.

[bluebell]

The collected quotes from my last post were all re-postings of portions of the court rulings I cited and bolded (with references) in my previous earlier in this thread.... I figured you'd recognize them from the previous post. Since you didn't, I edited that post to include the previous post number, which included linked citations.

Let me rephrase my question again.

Elder Ballard cited a real-world scenario of a 2nd grader who's school teacher read a book called "King and King" (about a prince who decided to marry another prince) as part of the school's diversity curriculum, without notification of the students' parents, in 2007.

That incident was challenged in federal, appeals, and the Supreme Courts with a similar scenario in which a kindergartener's teacher read two books called "Who's in a Family" and "Molly's Family," (about different kinds of families, and a young girl who was being teased at school because she had two moms) to her class after one of her students was being teased for having two moms, again, without parental notification or consent.

The school asserted that parental notification would be inappropriate in both of the above cases, as it would allow opting-out of curriculum targeting teaching students good citizenship in a diverse community, and how to get along well with others of divergent backgrounds, both in the school and in the world, at large.

Since you suggest (along with Elder Ballard) that "better compromises are possible" than the court rulings that I cited, I am asking you to specifically share what "compromises" you would promote, in the two real-world scenarios that Elder Ballard cited, and which I've elaborated on, via quotations from the court rulings specific to the cases Elder Ballard spoke of.

At the risk of being overly repetitious, I'm trying to understand what specific, concrete, and/or measurable comprisable/accommodating actions are being sought, here. Assuming you agree with Elder Ballard that the school should/could handle these situations differently/better and/or with more what you would consider "middle ground," what specific "compromise" do you think is reasonable? What actionable "accommodations" do you believe are reasonable in Elder Ballard's example of students being exposed to age-appropriate, non-sexual information/literature about families headed by gay parents within the context of fostering mutual respect for everyone?

Wouldn't it be possible to read books teaching general ideas of not teasing people who are different without having to teach that every possible lifestyle choice is good?

For example, if someone is being teased because their mother's a Wiccan, you don't have to read a book extolling the virtues of pagan religions to little kids to handle that.

Likewise, if a Mormon was being teased for that, the teacher wouldn't have to read a book on how valid Mormonism is.

Perhaps that's the kind of thing Elder Ballard was talking about.

[CV75]

At the risk of being overly repetitious, I'm trying to understand what specific, concrete, and/or measurable comprisable/accommodating actions are being sought, here.  Assuming you agree with Elder Ballard that the school should/could handle these situations differently/better and/or with more what you would consider "middle ground," what specific "compromise" do you think is reasonable?  What actionable "accommodations" do you believe are reasonable in Elder Ballard's example of students being exposed to age-appropriate, non-sexual information/literature about families headed by gay parents within the context of fostering mutual respect for everyone?

I’m really not equipped to comment on the politics of a community I don’t belong to, but I do support the general principle Elder Ballard put forth.

 

It seems the common goal was (in 2007) to establish curriculum “teaching students good citizenship in a diverse community, and how to get along well with others of divergent backgrounds, both in the school and in the world, at large.” In hindsight, the specific materials and methods would have been selected to reflect a sufficient level of concordance with community mores to avoid controversy where people’s feelings about their second graders are very strong.

[Meadowchik]

This morning a read a report on the Conference by attendee John Gustav-Wrathall. He pointed this out:
 

 

"My sense was that there were a lot of people at WCF with whom I and other LGBT rights supporters could dialog. There were many people whose genuine concern was the welfare of children and the promotion of marital stability and happiness, who didn't have a particularly anti-gay ax to grind. To the extent that they were worried about same-sex marriage, it seemed to me that it was because they had a lack of information or because they had only been exposed to lurid rhetoric about the gay lifestyle or fear-mongering about "religious freedom." In light of the language of compromise in Elder Ballard's keynote, it seemed to me that many of those folks might be moved once they realized that promoting stable, loving relationships of same-sex couples was actually part of the solution to the challenges facing families in the 21st century.

My sense was also that there are some hard-core anti-gay activists at WCF who do have an ax to grind, and who have made gay people the scapegoat for everything they think is wrong about the world. NOM President Brian S. Brown and Raphael Cruz were the standard bearers there for that hard-line position. The Mormon Church -- as conservative as it is on this issue -- is clearly not in the same camp with these folks. And I can't help but think that the anti-gay extremists will leave Salt Lake feeling frustrated by the lack of help coming to them from Mormon quarters. I believe that MBB had more in common with all the other Mormons at the conference than any Mormon had with many Fundamentalist Christians there."  Young Stranger:Of Mormons and Bridges and the World Congress of Families blog post

 

 

I cannot say I agree with everything John says but I've really enjoyed how much I have learned from his perspective.

 

[rockpond]

 

This morning a read a report on the Conference by attendee John Gustav-Wrathall. He pointed this out:

 

 

I cannot say I agree with everything John says but I've really enjoyed how much I have learned from his perspective.

 

 

 

Good quote.  Thanks for posting that.

 

I'm happy to read his observation that the Church has now put some clear distance between itself and NOM.

[Russell C McGregor]

He gave an example of inflexibility, when a school district in 2006 refused to provide parents with advance warning when a teacher read a story about two princes falling in love.

"If those who oppose us are genuine in their commitment to the values of diversity and equality, we should be able to work together to find compassion and peace," he said. "Forcing the beliefs of one onto another, as was done with the children being read material contrary to their parents’ wishes, diminishes diversity and skews the scales of equality. By engaging in compromise and extending love to all God’s children, who are our brothers and sisters, we can create a peaceful, diverse tapestry of ideals and beliefs."

 

I'm curious... Is the school district required to provide parents with advance warning when a teacher reads a story about a prince and a princess falling in love?

Why should they have to?

Are you offended by any allusion to the process by which human life is propagated and perpetuated?