rongo Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Gray said: 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. My kids and I have an inside joke about this. My 12 year-old son started talking in everyday around-the-house speech (as a joke --- not all the time) like Jesus in the new videos. (with a pained, quiet voice, pausing after every two words) "I am. Going to. Start cleaning. My room. Pretty soon." He came upon the idea watching videos in deacons quorum. Edited October 13, 2016 by rongo 4
Maestrophil Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 5 minutes ago, rongo said: My kids and I have an inside joke about this. My 12 year-old son started talking in everyday around-the-house speech (as a joke --- not all the time) like Jesus in the new videos. (with a pained, quiet voice, pausing after every two words) "I am. Going to. Start cleaning. My room. Pretty soon." He came upon the idea watching videos in deacons quorum. That's funny!
cdowis Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 15 minutes ago, Gray said: 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. It may have to do with translation issues, since this will certainly be translated in many languages.
Jeanne Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 5 hours ago, Stargazer said: 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. I like it...I like it. Families can actually be together for a wedding. And it is a hoot for bride and groom to have the hoopla..and then the spiritual part is for themselves. I like it!! No guilt feelings..and inclusion is so important. 1
hope_for_things Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 32 minutes ago, ksfisher said: 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? Ever heard of the correlation committee? Church leadership, ecclesiastical designated positions would have oversight on this, just like they do today. Might require some changes in logistics, but I'm confident they could work it out.
bsjkki Posted October 13, 2016 Author Posted October 13, 2016 1 minute ago, Jeanne said: I like it...I like it. Families can actually be together for a wedding. And it is a hoot for bride and groom to have the hoopla..and then the spiritual part is for themselves. I like it!! No guilt feelings..and inclusion is so important. I wish the church would change their wedding policy but don't feel the government forcing them to do it is proper either. 1
hope_for_things Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 28 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Why would the Church have any say in such productions? Is this a serious question? How do you think things work in the church today? The brethren have to sign off on everything content wise. Why would this change in the new world? The church is paying for the production, do you honestly want me to believe that the highest levels of leadership will all the sudden have no say on what gets produced just because a couple lower level employees might not be members of the church? 1
cdowis Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 1 hour 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. Does it make sense for the church to decide the standards by which it hires employees? For example, in NYC an employer is forbidden to check criminal records for potential employees. Does that make sense to your view of the world? Before answering , tell us if you own or run a business where you are directly responsible for the individuals who are hired/ 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? We are extremely concerned, but how do you suggest that we control the rules for nonlDS universities? 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. The university is a suburb of the city of Zion. Why live in a sewer when we can live in a mansion? Both of those are in the same neighborhood/society
hope_for_things Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 29 minutes ago, Maestrophil said: 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. Thanks for explaining what you meant. Society at large will decide what is reasonable in our representative republic. As more people get informed about trans-gendered people and the issues they face, then ignorance about these issues will become minority positions. This is the information age and everyone has the opportunity to get educated on these issues. I have optimism that diversity and inclusion will win the day with the majority, over fear and ignorance. Also, just take a step back and ask yourself if you believe in the founding principles of this nation, the constitution and all that it stands for. Rule of the majority at the same time as protection of the minority. This position should resonate with Mormons as we've been in a position of minority persecution for so long. We need to stand up for the little guy, not let our fears of those who are different control our emotions.
bsjkki Posted October 13, 2016 Author Posted October 13, 2016 30 minutes ago, Gray said: 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. My mind cannot focus on these videos. They move way too slowly for my brain and I can't focus on them. They feel too heavy and solemn--joyless in some ways. I was so excited about them too. Sigh
ksfisher Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Ever heard of the correlation committee? Church leadership, ecclesiastical designated positions would have oversight on this, just like they do today. Might require some changes in logistics, but I'm confident they could work it out. Yes, I have heard of the correlation committee. However, the job of the correlation committee is not to do rewrites on every church project. The actual writing is done by paid professionals. If those paid professionals are not on the same page as the ecclesiastical church, then the church is going to be spending a lot of money on rewrites. That's your tithing money that is being spent. My wife works for the church in this field, so I do know a little of what I'm talking about. 2
ksfisher Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: do you honestly want me to believe that the highest levels of leadership will all the sudden have no say on what gets produced just because a couple lower level employees might not be members of the church? If lower level church positions are opened up to nonmembers, then all church positions (paid) would need to be opened up. We would end up with senior department heads being nonmembers. Imagine how the work would progress if the head of the missionary or temple departments were nonmembers. 2
cdowis Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: Thanks for explaining what you meant. Society at large will decide what is reasonable in our representative republic. As more people get informed about trans-gendered people and the issues they face, then ignorance about these issues will become minority positions. This is the information age and everyone has the opportunity to get educated on these issues. I have optimism that diversity and inclusion will win the day with the majority, over fear and ignorance. Of course we should protect the rights of the minority, but that does not mean that the tail should wag the dog. I am optimistic that the demands of the minority will not trample on the rights of the majority, such as privacy and to be able to practice my religion.
hope_for_things Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 5 minutes ago, cdowis said: Does it make sense for the church to decide the standards by which it hires employees? For example, in NYC an employer is forbidden to check criminal records for potential employees. Does that make sense to your view of the world? Before answering , tell us if you own or run a business where you are directly responsible for the individuals who are hired/ Yes it makes sense up to a certain limit. As long as it doesn't violate discrimination standards. The report talks about balancing freedom and protections for minority groups. The report was put together by a diverse group that included many religious leaders and different views. An no, I don't own a business, but I've hired employees many in various roles. Everyone has to accommodate the rules and laws of the societies that they live in. For all I know, there are similar rules in different states and countries that the church already follows. This is no different. 8 minutes ago, cdowis said: We are extremely concerned, but how do you suggest that we control the rules for nonlDS universities? The point is that members of the church attend these universities and already work within the parameters in place. People are pretty good about adjusting to the societies around them. I haven't seen church leadership encourage families not to send their kids to any schools that don't follow be particular rules. 10 minutes ago, cdowis said: The university is a suburb of the city of Zion. Why live in a sewer when we can live in a mansion? Both of those are in the same neighborhood/society I think being tolerant of others is a virtue, not a trip to the sewer. Your prejudice is showing
Jeanne Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 20 minutes ago, bsjkki said: I wish the church would change their wedding policy but don't feel the government forcing them to do it is proper either. Yeah..I agree. I was just stating that it would save a lot of heartbreak for many. I don't believe in force government or otherwise. 1
hope_for_things Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 10 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Yes, I have heard of the correlation committee. However, the job of the correlation committee is not to do rewrites on every church project. The actual writing is done by paid professionals. If those paid professionals are not on the same page as the ecclesiastical church, then the church is going to be spending a lot of money on rewrites. That's your tithing money that is being spent. My wife works for the church in this field, so I do know a little of what I'm talking about. I have no reason to believe that a rogue non-member is going to try and strong arm the production, they wouldn't be employed for very long if they did that. I wouldn't be surprised if these kinds of employees are already in script writing and directing positions. Its a non issue.
Maestrophil Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Thanks for explaining what you meant. Society at large will decide what is reasonable in our representative republic. As more people get informed about trans-gendered people and the issues they face, then ignorance about these issues will become minority positions. This is the information age and everyone has the opportunity to get educated on these issues. I have optimism that diversity and inclusion will win the day with the majority, over fear and ignorance. Also, just take a step back and ask yourself if you believe in the founding principles of this nation, the constitution and all that it stands for. Rule of the majority at the same time as protection of the minority. This position should resonate with Mormons as we've been in a position of minority persecution for so long. We need to stand up for the little guy, not let our fears of those who are different control our emotions. The discussion about society at large is an entirely different discussion as I believe our government does not indeed reflect the values of the majority. They set up legislators who decide what is good for the masses. If the state I live in truly voted for issues like abortion or trans-bathroom issues, I would abide by majority rule, and move if I felt that I lived in the wrong society. And trans issues are another discussion as well. With a lot more nuance than just acceptance or rejection. And fundamentally, we could talk this in circles forever as you have clearly stated you believe that enlightened people accept transgenderism as 'normal' and bigoted fools do not. The slippery slope is that if church leadership must continually change to every societal 'norm' to avoid being labeled as backwards, I feel the church would just be a useless social club with no foundational truth claims and little to no integrity. Of course, this is what people who subscribe to the world view you described already think of the church. :-) 1
hope_for_things Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 8 minutes ago, cdowis said: Of course we should protect the rights of the minority, but that does not mean that the tail should wag the dog. I am optimistic that the demands of the minority will not trample on the rights of the majority, such as privacy and to be able to practice my religion. I agree with this, and think we have to find balance. Thats what the report attempts to do, and so far from what I've read they seem to be doing a reasonable job with their recommendations. I don't see anything in there that would trample on the rights of the majority or impact your private practice of religion.
ksfisher Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I have no reason to believe that a rogue non-member is going to try and strong arm the production, they wouldn't be employed for very long if they did that. I wouldn't be surprised if these kinds of employees are already in script writing and directing positions. Its a non issue. What do you mean by "these kind of employees?" We've been talking about nonmembers filling paid positions that are currently filled by church members. Are you saying that there are currently nonmember employees of the church writing scripts and directing movies for the church? 1
hope_for_things Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 10 minutes ago, Maestrophil said: The discussion about society at large is an entirely different discussion as I believe our government does not indeed reflect the values of the majority. They set up legislators who decide what is good for the masses. If the state I live in truly voted for issues like abortion or trans-bathroom issues, I would abide by majority rule, and move if I felt that I lived in the wrong society. And trans issues are another discussion as well. With a lot more nuance than just acceptance or rejection. And fundamentally, we could talk this in circles forever as you have clearly stated you believe that enlightened people accept transgenderism as 'normal' and bigoted fools do not. The slippery slope is that if church leadership must continually change to every societal 'norm' to avoid being labeled as backwards, I feel the church would just be a useless social club with no foundational truth claims and little to no integrity. Of course, this is what people who subscribe to the world view you described already think of the church. :-) Majority values can't trump protection of minority basic rights, this is the balance that has to be found. It sounds to me like you want to live in a society where you can override these basic protections, and Mormons should be very concerned about that kind of power. There is much that science has taught us about gender and much more we have to learn. The church is behind the curve on this issue, as are most conservative institutions, it will take time to educate, but it the trajectory is towards education. I recommend brushing up on church history and history of the world in general. In less than 200 years nearly every theological position of the church has evolved significantly from their earliest iterations. This is the same with Christianity and all world religions. Religions change as societies values change.
hope_for_things Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 10 minutes ago, ksfisher said: What do you mean by "these kind of employees?" We've been talking about nonmembers filling paid positions that are currently filled by church members. Are you saying that there are currently nonmember employees of the church writing scripts and directing movies for the church? I meant non-members. I said I wouldn't be surprised if they were already in positions like this.
ksfisher Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 (edited) 24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I meant non-members. I said I wouldn't be surprised if they were already in positions like this. I would be. To be a church employee the church requires you to be a member of the church. Not only that, but a church employee is required to hold and maintain a current temple recommend as a condition of employment. So no, the church employees writing, directing, and producing church films are not nonmembers. Edited October 13, 2016 by ksfisher 1
waveslider Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Apparently the students, and faculty of Liberty University aren't Christians. There in lies part of the problem. Most universities are so liberal that they indoctrinate the students to also be liberal, creating a voter base of more liberal minded, and politically correct people, which further decays Christian values. It has gotten so bad on campuses that most comedians won't even perform at universities anymore because they will be labelled as bigoted just for cracking jokes that aren't even meant to be serious.
Maestrophil Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Majority values can't trump protection of minority basic rights, this is the balance that has to be found. It sounds to me like you want to live in a society where you can override these basic protections, and Mormons should be very concerned about that kind of power. There is much that science has taught us about gender and much more we have to learn. The church is behind the curve on this issue, as are most conservative institutions, it will take time to educate, but it the trajectory is towards education. I recommend brushing up on church history and history of the world in general. In less than 200 years nearly every theological position of the church has evolved significantly from their earliest iterations. This is the same with Christianity and all world religions. Religions change as societies values change. And around and around we go! :-) I honestly respect and understand your position. If I removed mt belief in God from the equation, I would feel much like you do. It is a 100% logical and tenable position. I disagree of course, as I believe in a God who's decrees I will follow regardless of our current societal norms or current scientific understanding. I think "Though shalt not commit adultery" has never nor will ever change, same with the other 10 commandments. If that makes me backwards, then I happily accept the charge. The trick is, how do we reconcile the two positions without squashing the safety and freedoms of others? Is is tricky, and a slippery slope. For instance... Temple marriage, and temple exclusivity - I do see things progressing to where legal action is taken by some, and possibly eventually by Govt or at least, the supreme court, to punish the LDS church for not allowing all into the temple to be sealed etc. Especially with marriage being redefined by society. Not being paranoid or saying it will happen, but it definitely could given the trajectory I observe. There is a lot of difficult, grey area, and it is indeed delicate.
ERayR Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Yes it makes sense up to a certain limit. As long as it doesn't violate discrimination standards. The report talks about balancing freedom and protections for minority groups. The report was put together by a diverse group that included many religious leaders and different views. An no, I don't own a business, but I've hired employees many in various roles. Everyone has to accommodate the rules and laws of the societies that they live in. For all I know, there are similar rules in different states and countries that the church already follows. This is no different. The point is that members of the church attend these universities and already work within the parameters in place. People are pretty good about adjusting to the societies around them. I haven't seen church leadership encourage families not to send their kids to any schools that don't follow be particular rules. I think being tolerant of others is a virtue, not a trip to the sewer. Your prejudice is showing One can and should be tolerant but that does not mean one has to associate with those who whose behavior is problematic. 2
Recommended Posts