Mormon Church denounces Peaceful Coexistence Report

[bsjkki]

The church and 17 other religious organizations sent a letter of concern to President Obama urging him to renounce the US Commission on Civil Rights Peaceful Coexistence report.  Here are 3 links for information on this.  http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4461526-155/mormon-church-others-urge-obama-to  http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/Peaceful-Coexistence-09-07-16.PDF    http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interfaith-coalition-president-congress-biased-religious-liberty-report.

This paragraph in particularly from the Peaceful Coexistence report seems most concerning: 

7. The Commission endorses the briefing panelists’ statements as summarized at page 21 of the Report in support of these Findings. (1) schools must be allowed to insist on inclusive values; 2) throughout history, religious doctrines accepted at one time later become viewed as discriminatory, with religions changing accordingly; 3) without exemptions, groups would not use the pretext of religious doctrines to discriminate; 4) a doctrine that distinguishes between beliefs (which should be protected) and conduct (which should conform to the law) is fairer and easier to apply; 5) third parties, such as employees, should not be forced to live under the religious doctrines of their employers [unless the employer is allowed to impose such constraints by virtue of the ministerial exception]; 6) a basic [civil] right as important as the freedom to marry should not be subject to religious beliefs; and 7) even a widely accepted doctrine such as the ministerial exemption should be subject to review as to whether church employees have religious duties. Further, specifically with regard to number (2) above, religious doctrines that were widely accepted at one time came to be deemed highly discriminatory, such as slavery, homosexuality bans, and unequal treatment of women, and that what is considered within the purview of religious autonomy at one time would likely change.

I did not get through the whole report yet including all the individual commission statements.  If the recommendations are enacted, it would effect the church and how it runs its private institutions. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

I've heard this story but how specifically will this effect the church. What are some examples?

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

 If the recommendations are enacted, it would effect the church and how it runs its private institutions.

And this is supposed to be surprising to us? The writing has been on the wall for a long time now. Unfortunately too many people have been too P.C. to stop this insane overreach of government by just going along with it all instead of standing up for Christian values and morals all along.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I've heard this story but how specifically will this effect the church. What are some examples?

I think it would infringe the right of the church to impose hiring standards on employees such as the requirement to have a temple recommend.  I ran into this case too.  Would the church have to allow a transgender male to go to girls camp and tent with your daughter? http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/10/churches-sue-over-massachusetts-transgender-bathroom-law/#comments

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/23/md-schools-dont-tell-parents-transgender-males/

The language used "pretext of religious doctrines" is troublesome.

I link to these not to debate transgender issues but to ask if you believe the church has the right to control their own policies on these issues or should have to bow to the governments non-discrimination policies.

Edited October 13, 2016 by bsjkki

[cdowis]

I think it is obvious that the church will lose its ability to perform marriages in the temple, only to do sealings after a civil  marriage ceremony has been performed.

Edited October 13, 2016 by cdowis

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

I think it is obvious that the church will lose its ability to perform marriages in the temple, only to do sealings after a civil  marriage ceremony has been performed.

This is something that has been the case forever, for example, in the UK.  British LDS have basically never done it any other way.  They get married in the LDS meetinghouse (chapel, usually), then it's off to the temple to be sealed.  Not sure about other countries.  It doesn't seem to have affected anyone negatively.  

To the best of my knowledge, British law requires that marriage be in the public, and ministers of religion as a matter of law have no authority to actually perform marriages, even Church of England authorities cannot legally marry a couple.  When a marriage is performed in a church, the couple first sign their marriage document in front of a court clerk, and from that moment on are legally and lawfully married -- the religious ceremony that follows is in effect window dressing. Those who recall Prince Charles and Diana's wedding may remember their first signing their legal document of marriage before the Archbishop did the religious ceremony.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Stargazer

[stemelbow]

I'm rather disappointed in the explanation to oppose this as per the newsroom piece.  They complain of this statement:

Quote

The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance.

in so arguing against this one phrase, the only thing pointed out as problematic, they say:

Quote

At the same time, we are one in demanding that no American citizen or institution be labeled by their government as bigoted because of their religious views, and dismissed from the political life of our nation for holding those views. And yet that is precisely what the Civil Rights Commission report does.

The big concern raised here is that the Church shouldn't hear the term bigoted from the government.  Therefore if say a Church will not allow black members to have the priesthood that Church should never be said to have a bigoted policy.  This comes down to being offenders for a word.  It shouldn't matter what one calls discrimination if it's discriminating based on Church teaching. 

Opposing this seems like a waste of time. 

[Buckeye]

7 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I've heard this story but how specifically will this effect the church. What are some examples?

Here are specific examples the church lists on its religious freedom website that pertain to practices of religiously-affiliated schools and exemptions under Title IX (the issues raised in the OP):

Quote

• Churches may be forced to employ people who disagree with or refuse to live core values of their faith, threatening their ability to carry out their religious missions. 

...

• Housing units, such as dorms, at religious colleges could be forced to abandon moral standards that protect privacy, modesty, and morality, denying people the right to room with those who uphold the same standards. 
• Religious schools that maintain honor codes may lose their accreditation and be denied research funds and even federal student loans and grants, diminishing the value of their degrees, undermining the quality of their education, and making it financially impossible for many students to attend. 

https://www.lds.org/religious-freedom/understand/why-it-matters-whats-at-stake

 

IMO, issues involving church schools are much more likely to arise in the near future than "core" religious issues such as recognizing marriages and preaching the gospel. To get more specific, BYU is currently facing a lot of opposition to its inclusion in the BIG 12 conference due to the honor code. BYU has a right to uphold its code. The BIG 12 has a right to exclude BYU because of the code. That's not government action, but it still feels like religious persecution to many LDS. Likewise, I would not be at all surprised to see challenges to making federal student funding or federal research grants available to students/faculty at church schools'. BYU as an institution does not receive federal funding. But its students and faculty certainly do. Cutting off that funding would be a huge deal.

 

[hope_for_things]

7 hours ago, bsjkki said:

The church and 17 other religious organizations sent a letter of concern to President Obama urging him to renounce the US Commission on Civil Rights Peaceful Coexistence report.  Here are 3 links for information on this.  http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4461526-155/mormon-church-others-urge-obama-to  http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/Peaceful-Coexistence-09-07-16.PDF    http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interfaith-coalition-president-congress-biased-religious-liberty-report.

This paragraph in particularly from the Peaceful Coexistence report seems most concerning: 

7. The Commission endorses the briefing panelists’ statements as summarized at page 21 of the Report in support of these Findings. (1) schools must be allowed to insist on inclusive values; 2) throughout history, religious doctrines accepted at one time later become viewed as discriminatory, with religions changing accordingly; 3) without exemptions, groups would not use the pretext of religious doctrines to discriminate; 4) a doctrine that distinguishes between beliefs (which should be protected) and conduct (which should conform to the law) is fairer and easier to apply; 5) third parties, such as employees, should not be forced to live under the religious doctrines of their employers [unless the employer is allowed to impose such constraints by virtue of the ministerial exception]; 6) a basic [civil] right as important as the freedom to marry should not be subject to religious beliefs; and 7) even a widely accepted doctrine such as the ministerial exemption should be subject to review as to whether church employees have religious duties. Further, specifically with regard to number (2) above, religious doctrines that were widely accepted at one time came to be deemed highly discriminatory, such as slavery, homosexuality bans, and unequal treatment of women, and that what is considered within the purview of religious autonomy at one time would likely change.

I did not get through the whole report yet including all the individual commission statements.  If the recommendations are enacted, it would effect the church and how it runs its private institutions. 

Thanks for the post, this was a very large report and I started to skim through it yesterday.  I have to say that I can see where the LDS church is concerned, however, I think the logic and reasoning of the report is sound as far as I've been able to read so far.  I think the measures called for in OP sound reasonable, and i have no contention.  I'm sure the report isn't perfect, and I hope continued dialogue will happen, but I think that it sounds measured and respectful from what I've read so far.  

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Here are specific examples the church lists on its religious freedom website that pertain to practices of religiously-affiliated schools and exemptions under Title IX (the issues raised in the OP):

IMO, issues involving church schools are much more likely to arise in the near future than "core" religious issues such as recognizing marriages and preaching the gospel. To get more specific, BYU is currently facing a lot of opposition to its inclusion in the BIG 12 conference due to the honor code. BYU has a right to uphold its code. The BIG 12 has a right to exclude BYU because of the code. That's not government action, but it still feels like religious persecution to many LDS. Likewise, I would not be at all surprised to see challenges to making federal student funding or federal research grants available to students/faculty at church schools'. BYU as an institution does not receive federal funding. But its students and faculty certainly do. Cutting off that funding would be a huge deal.

I tend to agree with you that in the short term this may impact the church's universities first.  I have a hard time agreeing with the church's statements that you quoted, they seem like slippery slope arguments.  

1. Why would employing people who don't hold to specific beliefs hurt the church's mission?  This makes not sense to me.  

2. If the dorm room issue were a big problem, why aren't we concerned about any Mormon kids that attend other colleges all around the country? 

3. The honor code doesn't have to be abandoned, just modified to be more inclusive. 

I don't get the slippery slope reasoning.  These seem like common sense accommodations as part of the society that we jointly live in.

[thesometimesaint]

6 hours ago, waveslider said:

And this is supposed to be surprising to us? The writing has been on the wall for a long time now. Unfortunately too many people have been too P.C. to stop this insane overreach of government by just going along with it all instead of standing up for Christian values and morals all along.

Apparently the students, and faculty of Liberty University aren't Christians.

[bsjkki]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I tend to agree with you that in the short term this may impact the church's universities first.  I have a hard time agreeing with the church's statements that you quoted, they seem like slippery slope arguments.  

1. Why would employing people who don't hold to specific beliefs hurt the church's mission?  This makes not sense to me.  

2. If the dorm room issue were a big problem, why aren't we concerned about any Mormon kids that attend other colleges all around the country? 

3. The honor code doesn't have to be abandoned, just modified to be more inclusive. 

I don't get the slippery slope reasoning.  These seem like common sense accommodations as part of the society that we jointly live in.

I promise you, we should be concerned about the dorm room and Mormon kids forced to live in them if they attend in state schools. My state requires dorm living for all freshmen not living at home.  They are coed and cesspools.  I looked into the using a religious exemption to try and get out of this requirement.  BYU and private religious schools should have the right to set standards of behavior in their housing.  

[ksfisher]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 

1. Why would employing people who don't hold to specific beliefs hurt the church's mission?  This makes not sense to me.  

 

Would you want a script writer or a movies producer working on a film about the Book of Mormon or Christ if that person did not believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture or did not believe in God?

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I promise you, we should be concerned about the dorm room and Mormon kids forced to live in them if they attend in state schools. My state requires dorm living for all freshmen not living at home.  They are coed and cesspools.  I looked into the using a religious exemption to try and get out of this requirement.  BYU and private religious schools should have the right to set standards of behavior in their housing.  

What state do you live in?  And can you provide any proof about the dorm room requirement and only coed requirement for the dorm rooms.  That sounds a little extreme I have to admit, and I haven't heard of this as a requirement before.  

Also, I don't think the report is saying no standards of behavior can be set, it is just recommending limits on those standards.  For example, private schools cannot discriminate on the basis of race, I could see a similar limit requiring that they don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  But this doesn't mean they can't set any standards for behavior.  

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Would you want a script writer or a movies producer working on a film about the Book of Mormon or Christ if that person did not believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture or did not believe in God?

  Are all the actors in Mormon productions also believers in the faith?  Jimmy Stewart did a great job as Mr. Kruger.  :-)  Honestly, the church can work with non-members as instructors at BYU, they surely can also work with non-members as employees in other functions and I'd be surprised if they don't have them in place in some cases already.  Seems like a non issue to me.  

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Would you want a script writer or a movies producer working on a film about the Book of Mormon or Christ if that person did not believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture or did not believe in God?

Preferably, yes. Sticking to only believers drastically limits the talent pool and has given us some mediocre films. 

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

  Are all the actors in Mormon productions also believers in the faith?  Jimmy Stewart did a great job as Mr. Kruger.  :-)  Honestly, the church can work with non-members as instructors at BYU, they surely can also work with non-members as employees in other functions and I'd be surprised if they don't have them in place in some cases already.  Seems like a non issue to me.  

I wasn't talking about actors, was I?  

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I wasn't talking about actors, was I?  

No need to get snarky.  Non-members in lots of positions, you haven't given any reasons why this wouldn't work for script writers as well, the church will have oversight on the content that ends up in the films, its not like these non-members are going to be sneaking in some ideas that don't align with the church's desires at the end of the day.  

[Maestrophil]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't get the slippery slope reasoning.  These seem like common sense accommodations as part of the society that we jointly live in.

You don't get the slippery slope...  and in the next sentence talk about making accommodations to please society?  

 

Interesting.

 

MP

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

You don't get the slippery slope...  and in the next sentence talk about making accommodations to please society?  

 

Interesting.

 

MP

I don't consider making reasonable accommodations to be an example of slippery slope.  Care to explain your point?  

[ksfisher]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

No need to get snarky.  Non-members in lots of positions, you haven't given any reasons why this wouldn't work for script writers as well, the church will have oversight on the content that ends up in the films, its not like these non-members are going to be sneaking in some ideas that don't align with the church's desires at the end of the day.  

There was no snark intended.  I was just stating the fact that I mentioned nothing about actors in my post.

So we should have no problem with those who have no faith writing materials that are intended to promote faith.  Who would have oversight on this?  It would be a project manager who is a church employee.  Above that would be a department head who would also be a church employee.  No problems?

Edited October 13, 2016 by ksfisher

[thesometimesaint]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

No need to get snarky.  Non-members in lots of positions, you haven't given any reasons why this wouldn't work for script writers as well, the church will have oversight on the content that ends up in the films, its not like these non-members are going to be sneaking in some ideas that don't align with the church's desires at the end of the day.  

Why would the Church have any say in such productions?

[Maestrophil]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't consider making reasonable accommodations to be an example of slippery slope.  Care to explain your point?  

I honestly believe you know what I mean. And I am sure you disagree.  

For me, and many others of faith, what you may consider reasonable may seem excessive to me.  Biological males in a women's bathroom, for instance.  Reasonable?  Not to me.

Who decides what is reasonable?  At what point do we stop allowing the government and society to dictate what is acceptable?  Each 'accommodation' is one more concession IMO.  

 

[rongo]

50 minutes ago, Gray said:

Preferably, yes. Sticking to only believers drastically limits the talent pool and has given us some mediocre films. 

Richard Dutcher was trying to get Val Kilmer to play Joseph Smith in his movie before he abandoned the project. My first reaction was "Val Kilmer!?!?" But, on further reflection, he probably would have done a great job. He has a history of some eclectic roles. I think he would have needed to lose a lot of weight for the role, from what I heard . . . 

Despite Dutcher's faith crisis, I think his Joseph Smith movie would have been better than anything Church produced. In some ways, Church production is a hindrance. 

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

Richard Dutcher was trying to get Val Kilmer to play Joseph Smith in his movie before he abandoned the project. My first reaction was "Val Kilmer!?!?" But, on further reflection, he probably would have done a great job. He has a history of some eclectic roles. I think he would have needed to lose a lot of weight for the role, from what I heard . . . 

Despite Dutcher's faith crisis, I think his Joseph Smith movie would have been better than anything Church produced. In some ways, Church production is a hindrance. 

Agreed.

I like what the church tried to do with some of their more recent videos from the life of Christ. But there are some creative choices in there that bug me and take me out of the story. Like the way the actor who plays Jesus speaks. 

Edited October 13, 2016 by Gray