The Church speaks up on SSM again

[TheSkepticChristian]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

we’re concerned that legalizing same-sex marriage

 

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

What the heck are you talking about?

I don't think tax-exempt churches should have the right to express their opinion on political issues. 

I know the IRS allows churches to take a position on political issues, but that is simply not right in my opinion. 

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Traela]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 

I don't think tax-exempt churches should have the right to express their opinion on political issues. 

I know the IRS allows churches to take a position on political issues, but that is simply not right in my opinion. 

 

Until about 60 years ago, the general opinion was that churches not only had the right, but the responsibility to speak on all social issues.  Or would you have silenced the Reverend Martin Luther King, jr.?

Today's politicians and judges (and some members of this board, apparently) have forgotten that the Bill of Rights is to protect our freedoms from government intrusion.  Churches are not taxed because Separation of Church and State dictates that the State has no jurisdiction over religion.  In return, no single church has the right to dictate public policy, but they all have the right to say, "This is not right."

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

18 minutes ago, Traela said:

Until about 60 years ago, the general opinion was that churches not only had the right, but the responsibility to speak on all social issues.  Or would you have silenced the Reverend Martin Luther King, jr.?

1. Martin Luther King jr was not a church

2, dr. king was not an official representative of the baptist church. 

Big difference. Why should churches give religious reasons for secular laws and politics? Our constitution is secular. Imagine if Jehovah's Witnesses make blood transfusion illegal? 

18 minutes ago, Traela said:

Today's politicians and judges (and some members of this board, apparently) have forgotten that the Bill of Rights is to protect our freedoms from government intrusion.  

I support religious freedom. I don't like it when tax-exempt churches get involved in politics.

Edited July 7, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Stargazer]

It appears that the word "space" is being used in a figurative sense.

Iowa is leading the pack!  I realize that this has nothing directly to do with SSM, but space is no longer granted in Iowa and other places to keeping men separated from women's facilities and vice versa.  Iowa's Civil RIghts Commission has made it clear that if you think you're a female, regardless of the sexual equipment you were assigned at birth, those who refuse to let you use the women's bathroom are breaking the law.  Check out these forward-thinking state regulations.

Quote

DOES THE LAW PROHIBIT GENDER - SEGREGATED REST ROOMS ?

No. It is still legal in Iowa for businesses to maintain gender-segregated restrooms. The new law does require, however, that individuals are permitted to access those restrooms in accordance with their gender identity, rather than their assigned sex at birth. And, just as non-transgender individuals are entitled to use a restroom appropriate to their gender identity without having to provide documentation or respond to invasive requests, transgender individuals must also be allowed to use a gender-identity appropriate restroom without being harassed or questioned.

DOES THE LAW PROHIBIT SEX - SEGREGATED LOCKER ROOMS AND LIVING FACILITIES ?

No. Iowa law does not prohibit places of public accommodation from maintaining separate facilities for the different sexes, so long as they are comparable. The new law does require, however, that individuals are permitted to access those facilities in accordance with their gender identity, rather than their assigned sex at birth, without being harassed or questioned.

DOES THIS LAW APPLY TO CHURCHES ?

Sometimes. Iowa law provides that these protections do not apply to religious institutions with respect to any religion-based qualifications when such qualifications are related to a bona fide religious purpose. Where qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious purpose, churches are still subject to the law’s provisions. (e.g. a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public).

Of course all you folks who are all for "progressive policies" are just going to fall over yourselves approving all this.

And who decides what is a "bona fide" religious purpose?  The Iowa Human Rights Commission, of course.

Edited to add: NOTE THAT IF YOUR CHURCH SERVICE IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC YOU MAY NOT PREVENT MALES FROM ENTERING FEMALE RESTROOMS OR SHOWER FACILITIES OR VICE VERSA.  I feel I have to shout this because the SPACE for practicing one's religious beliefs is now about one foot square in Iowa.  

From the same page:

Quote

W H A T I S I L L E G A L
D I S C R I M I N A T I O N ?

Directly or indirectly advertising or publicizing that
the patronage of persons of any particular sexual
orientation or gender identity is unwelcome, objectionable,
not acceptable, or not solicited. 

Meaning, preaching that homosexual behavior is not acceptable before God is a violation of Iowa's civil rights laws.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Stargazer

[Johnnie Cake]

54 minutes ago, Traela said:

Until about 60 years ago, the general opinion was that churches not only had the right, but the responsibility to speak on all social issues.  Or would you have silenced the Reverend Martin Luther King, jr.?

Today's politicians and judges (and some members of this board, apparently) have forgotten that the Bill of Rights is to protect our freedoms from government intrusion.  Churches are not taxed because Separation of Church and State dictates that the State has no jurisdiction over religion.  In return, no single church has the right to dictate public policy, but they all have the right to say, "This is not right."

 

All the constitution guarantees is that Congress shall Make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, Traela said:

Until about 60 years ago, the general opinion was that churches not only had the right, but the responsibility to speak on all social issues. 

Are you saying that a person or a society can't be good without religion?

Of course religions have the right to speak on all social issues, but politics is something else! 

The problem with your thinking is that no everyone shares your religious beliefs, that is why religions needs to stay out of politics. 

2 hours ago, Traela said:

 In return, no single church has the right to dictate public policy, but they all have the right to say, "This is not right."

Imagine if 60% of Americans were Jehovah's Witnesses, imagine if many states made blood transfusion illegal. Would you like that? 

Edited July 7, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

"A great many people seem to thing that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine." — C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." — Thomas Jefferson

Edited July 7, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[california boy]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

Up until this point the gay community has only been defending their civil rights to marry and their right to not be discriminated against in the market place just like every single other minority group including the legal protection every Mormon enjoys.  Just what would happen if people finally got fed up with the aggressive tacts the Mormon church continually uses against the gay community. What if people started taking away the constitunal rights given to Mormons?  What if they no longer allowed the church to build buildings to worship in or allowed them to legally marry or to assemble in groups over 5. Would you still just be saying OHHHH PLEASE/. 

THE MORMON CHURCH IS WORKING TO TAKE AWAY CIVIL RIGHTS OF GAYS.  Shame on them. They deserve every single pushback they get. They deserve their own constitutional rights to be threatened.   And do you know what I am going to say to you?

 

(See above picture)

[california boy]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

"A great many people seem to thing that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine." — C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." — Thomas Jefferson

Forcing others to follow your religious beliefs was the plan of Satan. I thought we fought a war in heaven over this ides. I guess a few of Gods children decided to take this war with them down to earth to continue this battle. THIS IS AGAINST THE WILL AND PLAN OF GOD. 

But out then so is refusing to baptize children because of the sins of their parents. 

Yet the church seems to be shocked that some members are troubled by these policies and in some cases LEAVING such an organization  when the history AND the doctrine is not of God then it is time to pray for guidance  

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by california boy

[Stargazer]

Here's some more. 

Deseret News: LDS Singles and other religious dating sites must now serve LGBT singles

LDS Singles is where I found my wife, btw.

I can't believe I just did this: I googled "religious-based gay dating website" and the results go on for pages and pages...  Actually, I'm not sure all of these were religious-based, because I didn't click on any of the links.  Yeah, I'm a wuss.

Apparently there were just too few gay dating websites and the only way to solve the problem was to file a lawsuit.

 

 

[Calm]

"Unlike their straight counterparts, LGBT millennials don't always have the same opportunities for … traditional courtship behaviors," the article noted. "For LGBT singles in conservative families or communities, online dating may be the only safe way to meet potential suitors."

If safety is the big concern, I would not be attempting to force someone who didn't want to provide the service.  I would have less confidence it was asafe environment.  Why not just find or create a service tailormade?

I hope the services will allow clients to opt out of receiving any hookup suggestions from whatever sex they are not interested in as well as excluding those who are bisexual if they so desire.  That could cause unnecessary hurt and anger all around for those receiving unwanted attention and those receive hostile rejections if they do not provide a way to show preference.

If someone provides a public service such as a dating site for fun, but does not get paid for it, do they have to abide by laws businesses do?

[sunstoned]

10 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

I am not speaking of local local leaders whe seek to proclaim their own words as doctrine, without the approval of the First Presidency and the 12 Apostles. These individuals took the time to write it and sign it. By so doing it ithey declaring it doctrine, and these em are Prophets, Seers and Revealators . So when we raise our hands to sustain them as such, then accepting their knowing and proclaiming as doctrine. "is" doctrine. When we reject it, we no longer believe them and called of God, no longer view them aa, Prophets, Seers and Revealator, and elevate our wisdom superior to there's and to God's. So, no...they are no longer believers and must lie if they want a Temple Ricommend. Being a believer means believing that this Church, believing our Apostles are called by God and it is too them he reveals his word, his will and his wisdom. Also that we "do not become not teaches to ourselves". Rejecting the doctrine we teach, and the leaders whom He (God) calls to teach doctrine, is the first step to apostasy, where Jesus Christ Christ, teaches in 2 Nephi 29-30, warns us that if we reject his words, we will lose all that we had before".(Too Paraphrase) ..btw, not my words, but his. Also in D&C 1: 36-39, makes similar warnings. Also, the scriptures of old, do the same and condemn the same. I only seek to speak the truth, and do not seek to mislead anyone.

Your words..."I don't necessarily reject the PoF". You do or do not, either way you should not be embarrassed by telling the truth. I am not ashamed to tell the truth, without any ambiguity. I believe all of our scriptures, OT, NT, BoM, Pearl of Great Price, and all the doctrines that our Church has felt that it needed to be put into print and signed. I am not ashamed, nor embarssed...not at all. 

I don't see where the PoF has anything to do with baring some children from baptism and membership.  

[rpn]

I'd suggest the space they are talking about is the space to live the Gospel fully and protect the family.   There is already a fundamental outcry to exclude people from polite society if they do not support same sex marriage and adoption and surrogate parenting.    Or even if they say anything that suggests any of those things might be bad for society at all.

 

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Danzo said:

There's the rub.

All you have to do is define a religious doctrine as discriminatory, and you can justify any prohibition.

 

I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think it's realistically applicable to every doctrine.  How could someone twist a belief in God's nature or the resurrection into a discriminatory practice?  Sounds like a slippery slope argument to me.  

Discrimination is all about relationship to others, and fairness.  If religion teaches that one race, sex, or sexual orientation is superior to another, then putting those teachings into practice is discriminatory.  Ironically, these discriminatory teachings are in conflict with the golden rule, which is a central tenant in the gospel message.  

[CV75]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

(See above picture)

You've been saying screaming that (in so many words) all along! LOL Without participating in the conversation about the actual OP...

 

[Thinking]

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 The thing I don't think you're grasping is that this change to the world is temporary and adjusting our standards and principles is not the right answer.

You don't have to adjust your standards and principles to allow others to have their own standards and principles.

[Storm Rider]

9 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

1. Martin Luther King jr was not a church

2, dr. king was not an official representative of the baptist church. 

Big difference. Why should churches give religious reasons for secular laws and politics? Our constitution is secular. Imagine if Jehovah's Witnesses make blood transfusion illegal? 

I support religious freedom. I don't like it when tax-exempt churches get involved in politics.

Good dodge and weave.  It is hard to swallow when your position is demonstrated to be so incorrect.

Let's look at what your allegations against Church's taking a position:

• Martin Luther King was the head of a church.  You are attempting to make all churches into centralized organizations - this is simply not accurate.  MLK was most definitely a church organization because he was their leader.  Let's not play cute - people lead church organizations and MLK spoke loudly and often.
• Who is the leader of the Baptist Church?  Anyone you know?  The reason you don't know anyone is the Baptist Church is not a monolithic, centralized organization.  

King's entire premise was that his religious convictions demanded that secular laws change to align with his religious beliefs.  The problem seems to be that you want the religious person to talk loudly ONLY when you agree with him/her and if there is any degree of conflict with what you want you demand they shut up.  This is called tolerance within the Progressive Left.  It is the very height of hypocrisy and intolerance everywhere else.  

[california boy]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You've been saying screaming that (in so many words) all along! LOL Without participating in the conversation about the actual OP...

 

You obviously can not defend a church who believes it is necessary to try and take away someone's civil rights.  

You obviously can not defend a church who prohibits the baptism of children because of the sins of their parents.

You obviously can not defend a church who believes in discrimination

You obviously can not defend a church that has adopted Satan's plan of forcing others to obey your beliefs by law rather than free agency.

So you post your collection of posters.  What other options does a Mormon have.  I get it.

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, Nevo said:

I live in a country where same-sex marriage has been legal for over 10 years. On Sunday our prime minister marched in a Pride parade.

The sky hasn't fallen and overall I think it has been a good thing. Certainly I'm glad that my gay and lesbian family members and friends live in a largely tolerant, inclusive society.

But... I do think it's true that people who oppose gay marriage are being pushed to the margins. There is a private Christian university just up the road from me that has been trying to get a new law school started. The law societies of three Canadian provinces voted overwhelmingly to refuse to accredit the law school on the grounds that its "community covenant"—which requires students to pledge to abstain from sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage while attending the university—is discriminatory towards LGBTQ people. Several lawsuits have followed and the case appears to be headed for Canada's supreme court. But so far it doesn't look good for the school.

If a similar thing happened in the US, it would mean that graduates of BYU's J. Reuben Clark law school wouldn't be eligible to practice law in 15 states (including California). All because BYU upholds a religiously based "honor code." I can understand why the Church is worried.

Okay, there's probably some room for concern.  But let's not be unreasonable in expressing that concern.  we certainly could use a world where religious schools can say, "hey we want our students to live by our teachings" and no one get concerned about it.  But we also need to live in a world where a religion doesn't try and influence others to take or keep civil rights from law abiding citizens. 

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, consiglieri said:

And now the Church is going to make sure that the seminary students learn the new anti-gay policy is a revelation from God.

You know the new Doctrinal Mastery program in seminary everybody is so excited about?

 

Guess what already made it into the manual?

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrinal-mastery-new-testament-teacher-material/prophets-and-revelation?lang=eng

 

 

If you guessed President Nelson's proclamation that the November anti-gay marriage policy is revelation, you would be correct.

 

 

 

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

Sheesh, how frustrating.  In one sense I like how he pretty much suggests that humdrum policy making is elevated to revelation.  Revelation, often, doesn't seem to be much more than just men guessing at God, all too often.  On the other hand, I'm quite suspicious about his description.  And to think something that amounts to nothing more than sticking it to gay people in and out of the Church (not to mention us sympathizers) is being broadly taught as revelation from God?  Would God do that?  Or is this just more of the humans pretending to speak for God? 

[HappyJackWagon]

It feels like the church is more concerned about politically carving out the space it is comfortable with than focusing on the most pressing moral issues in the world. They want a space where they are both free to dictate how they may discriminate against others and how others may NOT discriminate against them. It's a rational position for an organization, but it's not a moral one.

 

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

This is a horrible explanation/Essay with consequences of self-destruct for a Church which has lost the focus of tolerance......It blows mind that year after year, defeat after defeat of public arena what is going to be gained to pursue this kind of a intolerant path?

So far this ideology lost in every civil arena, starting from Joe vs Wade. abortion issue

Exactly.  At some point you have to ask, what's the point of this? 

[stemelbow]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

It feels like the church is more concerned about politically carving out the space it is comfortable with than focusing on the most pressing moral issues in the world. They want a space where they are both free to dictate how they may discriminate against others and how others may NOT discriminate against them. It's a rational position for an organization, but it's not a moral one.

 

Thank you.  Very well said.  Couldn't agree more.  This is another step in solidifying for me that the Church's direction needs fixing. 

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sheesh, how frustrating.  In one sense I like how he pretty much suggests that humdrum policy making is elevated to revelation.  Revelation, often, doesn't seem to be much more than just men guessing at God, all too often.  On the other hand, I'm quite suspicious about his description.  And to think something that amounts to nothing more than sticking it to gay people in and out of the Church (not to mention us sympathizers) is being broadly taught as revelation from God?  Would God do that?  Or is this just more of the humans pretending to speak for God? 

Policy to revelation....interesting.

[Johnnie Cake]

Quote

Second, we’re concerned that legalizing same-sex marriage substantially reduces the space available to people of faith who have traditional beliefs about marriage and family.  For members of the Church, marriage between a man and woman has always been core doctrine.  In places where same-sex marriage is now legal, our ability to remain true to all aspects of that doctrine is now increasingly challenged.

I want to make this abundantly clear...the LDS Church and its members are free to "Believe" anything they want to...however...where they cross the line is when they take steps to make others NOT of their faith also beholden to the same Beliefs that they hold dear and sacred through the enactment of laws.

The church has a history of imposing its beliefs on non-adherents, Utah's bizarre alcohol laws and the well know involvement of the church in stopping medical marijuana in the state of Utah come to mind.  Its involvement in Prop 8 in California and its efforts to impose its views on SSM in Hawaii and Arizona and now Australia.

While the church has every right to free speech and is free to  introduce its beliefs into the market place of competing ideas of societal change...when society pushes back on these efforts or out right rejects them, for the church to then claim alarm or concern for society imposing consequences due to their efforts seems rather naive on the part of the church.  No one has imposed restriction on the church or its members to believe anything they desire...but what this news release is complaining  about is that the church is challenged because it placed its ideas into the market place of ideas, society heard its arguments and has rejected them. The Church continues to fight a battle and a war that they've lost and they refuse to recognize this...no wonder they feel challenged.

Memo to LDS Church:  You've LOST the battle, the war and the post war negotiations.  To continue on as you have while being perhaps noble to a lost cause is absolutely meaningless in the grand scheme of social change.  You have become that lone lost Japanese solder on some obscure Pacific island defending your tiny little turf against your self contrived demons but the world has moved on to other issues.  Eventually someone may stubble upon you living on your isolated little island, find you as a curiosity and inform you that the war you're still fighting is over, oh and by the way your side lost...you can remain on your island or you can join the rest of society and celebrate the advances we've made...its your choice.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Johnnie Cake