TheSkepticChristian Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 (edited) http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-religious-freedom-pluralism?cid=social_20151208_56114146&adbid=10153562121672013&adbpl=fb&adbpr=53305042012 Do we also need to defend the religious freedom of churches that perform Same-Sex marriages and have adoption centers for SSM couples? Do we also need to defend Atheism (many here see it as a religion)? Do we also need to defend the religious freedom of the Satanic Church? Do we also need to defend the religious freedom of the FLDS Church? Edited December 8, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian 1
oremites Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 What do you mean "also"? Why do you think they were excluded from that statement? 2
Duncan Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 I guarantee you some will have a trial of faith over this more so than the gay baptism policy, if they do we can send the Westboro Baptist Church some potential leads 1
halconero Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 (edited) Yes to all. And with regards to the reason behind the statement a certain political figure's rhetoric is leading many down a path of ultranationalism, pseudo-fascism, and hellfire. Edited December 9, 2015 by halconero 1
Popular Post Hamba Tuhan Posted December 9, 2015 Popular Post Posted December 9, 2015 As we discussed in my Gospel Principles class on Sunday, agency only works if people are free to make both good and bad choices. A defence of liberty means we must of necessity seek to secure freedoms of worship, speech, conscience and assembly for those with whom we disagree. 5
Popular Post Buckeye Posted December 9, 2015 Popular Post Posted December 9, 2015 I'm avoiding the SSM questions in OP as that has been discussed to death elsewhere. I do think the church statement is quite remarkable. It's rare for the church to take a stand on political issues. The church only does so for "moral issues" (see the animated video in the link in the OP). In this statement, the church expressly does not take a stand on any candidate, but does expressly take a stand on Trump's policy arguments that muslims should be excluded from immigration and those already here put on lists, forced to carry documentation, or possibly even placed into WW2-style camps. Those policies arguments are now expressly contrary to current LDS policy. So they should not be taught or supported in LDS forums, though members are free to personally disagree. If there are any questions as to whether this is directed at Trump, just look at the DN article discussing the church statement: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865643265/LDS-Church-releases-statement-on-religious-freedom-as-Donald-Trumps-Muslim-controversy-swirls.html Also see this opinion piece on the DN: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765682480/Trumps-Muslim-ban-idea-pushes-GOP-toward-chaos.html In my ward there have been some anti-muslim comments made during the past few years. I'm very grateful for this official church statement that I can use to shut down such nonsense. 7
hope_for_things Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 I spoke with my Dad last night about this. He's pro-Trump and from his generation holds some pretty strong opinions about Muslims and the direction the world is coming to. He's a very strong orthodox member, and I told him about the church's statement and he pretty much just dismissed it. Which I found surprising, but ultimately I remember him dismissing some of the church's more moderate statements during illegal immigration debates in the past as well. I'm glad the church made this statement yesterday, but I wonder how much of an impact it will have on those conservative members who listen to talk radio and already have strong opinions about these topics. Trump didn't create this view point out of thin air. Many citizens already held these beliefs and Trump is just echoing their sentiments.
HappyJackWagon Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 28 minutes ago, Buckeye said: I'm avoiding the SSM questions in OP as that has been discussed to death elsewhere. I do think the church statement is quite remarkable. It's rare for the church to take a stand on political issues. The church only does so for "moral issues" (see the animated video in the link in the OP). In this statement, the church expressly does not take a stand on any candidate, but does expressly take a stand on Trump's policy arguments that muslims should be excluded from immigration and those already here put on lists, forced to carry documentation, or possibly even placed into WW2-style camps. Those policies arguments are now expressly contrary to current LDS policy. So they should not be taught or supported in LDS forums, though members are free to personally disagree. If there are any questions as to whether this is directed at Trump, just look at the DN article discussing the church statement: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865643265/LDS-Church-releases-statement-on-religious-freedom-as-Donald-Trumps-Muslim-controversy-swirls.html Also see this opinion piece on the DN: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765682480/Trumps-Muslim-ban-idea-pushes-GOP-toward-chaos.html In my ward there have been some anti-muslim comments made during the past few years. I'm very grateful for this official church statement that I can use to shut down such nonsense. I totally agree. This is a huge step for the church to take a stance on a current candidates position. I don't recall they've ever done that before. The church seems to be more comfortable wading into the political fray nowadays. So does this mean that any good, faithful LDS member who supports the Q15 should disavow the Trump candidacy? Or can people have different opinions about how religious freedom is realized and promoted by supporting Trump and his policy positions? Can they share those positions on FB and other social media. Can they campaign for and contribute to a candidate who is a danger to religious freedom without risk of censure? My guess is, conservatives who like Trump will continue to hold their same political opinions just like they still hold conservative immigration opinions despite the church's stance on that. IOW- If conservatives can disagree with the church on policy and political issues, then it would seem fair to allow liberals the same opportunity.
rockpond Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 I'm glad that Mormon Newsroom has brought out those quotes. I wish they had found them back in 2008 but better late than never. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 12 minutes ago, rockpond said: I'm glad that Mormon Newsroom has brought out those quotes. I wish they had found them back in 2008 but better late than never. These quotes apply to others...not the church. If the church believed in the universal application of religious liberty they would not have been fighting against the legal right of other religions to perform and endorse SSM. Remember, they have fought against SSM and therefore religious liberty of other churches THIS year. I honestly don't think they see how this applies to anyone other than themselves. 1
oremites Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: So does this mean that any good, faithful LDS member who supports the Q15 should disavow the Trump candidacy? I think you're reading too much into this. Do we have to disavow a candidacy if we disagree with even one of their positions? Can you name any candidate that completely agrees with all church teachings? 1
oremites Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 (edited) double post Edited December 9, 2015 by oremites
Buckeye Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 3 minutes ago, oremites said: I think you're reading too much into this. Do we have to disavow a candidacy if we disagree with even one of their positions? Can you name any candidate that completely agrees with all church teachings? When Joseph Smith ran for US President I imagine that his platform was synonymous with church teachings - considering that he was the final word on church doctrine.
oremites Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: If the church believed in the universal application of religious liberty they would not have been fighting against the legal right of other religions to perform and endorse SSM. The church never fought against the right of other religions to perform or endorse SSM. Let other religions perform all the SS marriages they want. We didn't care. They fought against the rest of us being legally forced to recognize those marriages. In other words, their religious beliefs have been forced on us. 4
mtomm Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 24 minutes ago, oremites said: The church never fought against the right of other religions to perform or endorse SSM. Let other religions perform all the SS marriages they want. We didn't care. They fought against the rest of us being legally forced to recognize those marriages. In other words, their religious beliefs have been forced on us. Since SSM is not a religious belief I'm not sure how it is being forced on anyone. SSM is a civil contract between two people. The marriage can be performed by clergy as a courtesy afforded to them from the state.
HappyJackWagon Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 48 minutes ago, oremites said: The church never fought against the right of other religions to perform or endorse SSM. Let other religions perform all the SS marriages they want. We didn't care. They fought against the rest of us being legally forced to recognize those marriages. In other words, their religious beliefs have been forced on us. What do you think the entire fight against legalizing SSM was about? Where it wasn't legal, churches did not have the religious liberty to perform those ceremonies. The church fought against that. Now that SSM is legal all churches have the liberty to choose for themselves if they support and perform SSM. They have a liberty that the church fought against. 2
oremites Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Where it wasn't legal, churches did not have the religious liberty to perform those ceremonies. Of course they could. Why couldn't they perform such a ceremony? It wouldn't have been legally binding, but that's a different question. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 9 minutes ago, oremites said: Of course they could. Why couldn't they perform such a ceremony? It wouldn't have been legally binding, but that's a different question. That's ridiculous. You're claiming that they had the liberty of breaking the law and not having the marriages recognized. Great. That sure sounds like they have the same freedom to practice their religion as other churches. These churches were denied the liberty of practicing their religion as it relates to marriage. Does that sound at all familiar to you? Do you see any similarities to our church's liberty to live polygamy in the late 19th century? In fact, I don't know what our church was worried about. We always had the liberty to practice polygamy even if it meant we were breaking the law and would have our assets seized.
oremites Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: You're claiming that they had the liberty of breaking the law If they had a ceremony marrying two same-sex individuals and said, "In our religion, we now consider you married," what law would they have broken? Who would have arrested them and what would they have been charged with? 1
Teancum Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I spoke with my Dad last night about this. He's pro-Trump and from his generation holds some pretty strong opinions about Muslims and the direction the world is coming to. He's a very strong orthodox member, and I told him about the church's statement and he pretty much just dismissed it. Which I found surprising, but ultimately I remember him dismissing some of the church's more moderate statements during illegal immigration debates in the past as well. I'm glad the church made this statement yesterday, but I wonder how much of an impact it will have on those conservative members who listen to talk radio and already have strong opinions about these topics. Trump didn't create this view point out of thin air. Many citizens already held these beliefs and Trump is just echoing their sentiments. Oh sure. Many uber members dismiss things the Church says when it flies in the face of their conservative politics.
hope_for_things Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 42 minutes ago, Teancum said: Oh sure. Many uber members dismiss things the Church says when it flies in the face of their conservative politics. I think with my Dad and others like him, they have a distrust of the PR wing of the church, and they don't consider those statements as authoritative. If this statement was made by President Monson in general conference, I think my Dad would take it more seriously.
Zakuska Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 (edited) 3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I think with my Dad and others like him, they have a distrust of the PR wing of the church, and they don't consider those statements as authoritative. If this statement was made by President Monson in general conference, I think my Dad would take it more seriously. Just saying if President Monson where to ever do that it would be go against church Doctrine and Policy concerning Civil Government. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjhpqyA78_JAhVwpIMKHZiIACoQFggdMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lds.org%2Fscriptures%2Fdc-testament%2Fdc%2F134%3Flang%3Deng&usg=AFQjCNFY1lC7lmmmwJ84_DO9mvbgNAghkQ&sig2=rUJRuIliYxfiEfIKoCNSIw Edited December 9, 2015 by Zakuska
hope_for_things Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 21 minutes ago, Zakuska said: Just saying if President Monson where to ever do that it would be go against church Doctrine and Policy concerning Civil Government. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjhpqyA78_JAhVwpIMKHZiIACoQFggdMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lds.org%2Fscriptures%2Fdc-testament%2Fdc%2F134%3Flang%3Deng&usg=AFQjCNFY1lC7lmmmwJ84_DO9mvbgNAghkQ&sig2=rUJRuIliYxfiEfIKoCNSIw Are you saying they never talk politics in General Conference?
Zakuska Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 (edited) 35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Are you saying they never talk politics in General Conference? If they do their not following the Doctrines and Covenants we have made as a people. It's also why I think we as a people "over stepped our bounds" getting involved with Prop. 8 in California. Edited December 9, 2015 by Zakuska
Avatar4321 Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: That's ridiculous. You're claiming that they had the liberty of breaking the law and not having the marriages recognized. Great. That sure sounds like they have the same freedom to practice their religion as other churches. These churches were denied the liberty of practicing their religion as it relates to marriage. Does that sound at all familiar to you? Do you see any similarities to our church's liberty to live polygamy in the late 19th century? In fact, I don't know what our church was worried about. We always had the liberty to practice polygamy even if it meant we were breaking the law and would have our assets seized. It was never against the law to perform whatever ceremony you want and call your relationship whatever you want. It was always a matter of legal recognition. You could call your relationship a ham and cheese sandwich but the government has no obligation to give it the legal standing of such a sandwich. There were no laws criminalizing someone from having some private same sex ceremony. There were and still are laws criminalizing plural marriage. The push has never been about allowing a ceremony it's been about allowing the government to regulate and recognize the relationship.
Recommended Posts