Mormon Church denounces Peaceful Coexistence Report

[Maestrophil]

4 minutes ago, ERayR said:

One can and should be tolerant but that does not mean one has to associate with those who whose behavior is problematic.

True, tolerance and affiliation are not the same.

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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. 

The know the church employs non-members at BYU and I've read that BYU-TV employs non-members as well.  Aside from those two arenas I have no personal knowledge about other church positions, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they do employ other non-members for a multitude of positions throughout the organization.  

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, ERayR said:

One can and should be tolerant but that does not mean one has to associate with those who whose behavior is problematic.

Doesn't sound very Christian to me. 

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

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.

 

You can believe in God and still acknowledge history and science, the two aren't mutually exclusive.  As for the temple, I'm for egalitarian sealings of anyone to anyone else, but I don't think the government will ever force that on the church and I don't seen any reason to suspect that kind of intervention.  The church would just have to de-couple the sealing from the marriage.  This has already been done in other countries around the world.  Wouldn't be a problem in the USA either.  

[cdowis]

1 hour 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.  

 Are you familiar with the procedures required for firing an employee in a large corporation after they have gone thu their probationary period.  This is not a small business with a single owner/employer.  Are you familiar with the Federal laws for dismissing someone who can then sue on grounds of  discrimination.  "They fired me because I am gay."

You really don't know what you are talking about, do you.

Edited October 13, 2016 by cdowis

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

The know the church employs non-members at BYU and I've read that BYU-TV employs non-members as well.  Aside from those two arenas I have no personal knowledge about other church positions, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they do employ other non-members for a multitude of positions throughout the organization.  

I don't know about BYU (BYU even though it is owned and operated by the church is not the church), however I do know that to be an employee of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the church requires that you be a member of the church and hold and maintain a current temple recommend.  This is something I know.  The Church itself does not employ individuals who do not meet those requirements.

A government requirement that all paid church positions be open to members as well as nonmembers would open up paid temple staff, paid seminary teachers, curriculum writers, and multitude of other church positions to those who do not hold the same values, morals, ideals, and beliefs as members of the church. 

[rongo]

1 hour 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. 

Discrimination/ wrongful termination lawsuit? Fired or let go because . . . the Mormons on the team/in management weren't happy with your avante garde perspective? 

Your reassurances aren't very reassuring. 

[cdowis]

BYU has non-member staff but I understand they are bound to live by the Honor Code.

In regards to church employment, I think it would be difficult to justify a membership requirement for many positions, such as production and IT.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours 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):

Some of those listed objections may have to be litigated in future, and may end up in the U.S. Supreme Court -- where the decision will likely protect most BYU policies, except those impinging on the rights of women complaining of sexual assault to be free from any sort of retaliation from the school (and Title IX needs to be rigorously enforced).

4 hours ago, Buckeye said:

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.

It is religious persecution, but that is nothing new.  However, BYU needs to get out of the inter-collegiate sports business entirely and focus on educating the Saints -- of which it does not currently do a good enough job.  I have no objection to intramural sports activities at Church schools.

4 hours ago, Buckeye said:

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.

BYU receives millions of dollars in federal grants each year for research by faculty and grad students.  So, yes, it could be a big deal.

[Maestrophil]

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You can believe in God and still acknowledge history and science, the two aren't mutually exclusive.  As for the temple, I'm for egalitarian sealings of anyone to anyone else, but I don't think the government will ever force that on the church and I don't seen any reason to suspect that kind of intervention.  The church would just have to de-couple the sealing from the marriage.  This has already been done in other countries around the world.  Wouldn't be a problem in the USA either.  

I do acknowledge and study history and science.  I try to reconcile them with God where tenable.  Some issues do not marry well in my view in opinions of science/society and church. I also do not hold science as infallible or the final word, and thus want my choices and decisions informed by them, but not dictated.  Until I have assurances that that is not the case - assurances that the church will never be threatened over not sealing gay couples in the temple, or not allowing a gay married man to hold the priesthood etc, then I will still be leery of that 'slippery slope'.  

[Maestrophil]

54 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Doesn't sound very Christian to me. 

Really?

1 Corinthians 5:11-12New International Version (NIV)

11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[a] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

 

And

 

King James Bible
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

 

Edited October 13, 2016 by Maestrophil
Added verse

[cinepro]

4 hours 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?

Considering how the last Book of Mormon movie turned out, I think it could only be an improvement.

[cinepro]

4 hours 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.  

It's my understanding that after some awkward situations in which some non-LDS actors in a Church film in the 90s turned out to support lifestyles contrary to Church policy, all actors in Church films since then must hold a Temple Recommend. 

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

Really?

1 Corinthians 5:11-12New International Version (NIV)

11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[a] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

 

And

 

King James Bible
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

 

 

On the other hand, there is the example of Jesus, who very publicly dined with sinners, or was reported to have done so anyway.  

[Maestrophil]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

On the other hand, there is the example of Jesus, who very publicly dined with sinners, or was reported to have done so anyway.  

I am well aware of that, and I actually do the same on an individual level.  My point was twofold - 1.  it's hard to describe what defines 'Christian" behavior. 2. There is some precedent for avoiding people who are not at least trying to be humble and repentant.

Especially avoiding groups with agendas counter to the aims of the church - some avoidance of people who glorify sinful behavior (as defined by the church) is understandable and defensible while still being a Christian.  

[Buckeye]

5 hours 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 wasn't endorsing the arguments, but simply answering the question that asked for the what the church is concerned about. Your responses to each point are reasonable, but IMO the church's desires to choose who they employ and to set dorm and honor code standards at church schools are also reasonable. And their nothing new; the church as been holding those lines for a long time (see e.g., Smith v. Corp for the Presiding Bishopric; Oaks' tenure as BYU president and student dorms.) The one point I would most agree on is changing the honor code to allow for unmarried gay couples to act in the same regard as unmarried straight couples, but I'm not surprised that the church would view that as a slippery slope to approving of gay marriage.

[Sleeper Cell]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

 

13 hours ago, bsjkki said:

7) even a widely accepted doctrine such as the ministerial exemption should be subject to review as to whether church employees have religious duties. ... religious doctrines that were widely accepted at one time came to be deemed highly discriminatory ... and that what is considered within the purview of religious autonomy at one time would likely change.

Sounds like a slippery slope to me.  And one that the “US Commission on Civil Rights” not only condones, but welcomes.

BTW, what good is religious freedom unless it also protects unpopular religious doctrines? 

[Stargazer]

3 hours 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.

For all that I sustain the Church in its policies, the strict adherence to the idea that couples must be sealed at the time they are wed civilly in the Temple has always caused me difficulty.  Especially since the Church could not be universally consistent throughout the worldwide Church on this point.  Especially since couples who could not be sealed at the time of their marriage (through circumstances beyond their control), enjoy the exact same eternal blessings as those who were married/sealed in the Temple.  It has always seemed a distinction without a difference.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Considering how the last Book of Mormon movie turned out, I think it could only be an improvement.

 

Which movie are you referring to?

[Calm]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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

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

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. 

Except when the government starts labeling things "bigoted", they make laws intended to prevent/alter that behaviour.  I think they are less concerned about the label and more concerned about what that label allows the government to do (think of what changes when a crime gets the added label "hate crime").

Edited October 13, 2016 by Calm

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Except when the government starts labeling things "bigoted", they make laws intended to prevent/alter that behaviour.  I think they are less concerned about the label and more concerned about what that label allows the government to do (think of what changes when a crime gets the added label "hate crime").

Sure.  But I guess I can't figure out what the government is going to do to religion because of this.  At least not doing something that isn't healthy--like keeping religions from being racist and such. 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

 

On the other hand, there is the example of Jesus, who very publicly dined with sinners, or was reported to have done so anyway.  

I could see how Christ's example could be applicable to some and how Paul's counsel should be heeded by others.  You wouldn't want, for example, a reformed alcoholic dinning at the same table with a bunch of drunkards.  Someone who is trying to quit smoking probably shouldn't be hanging out at the local smoke shop. 

We should follow Christ's example, but if we find ourselves in a situation that we believe our own spirituality to be in danger we should leave.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I don't know about BYU (BYU even though it is owned and operated by the church is not the church), however I do know that to be an employee of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the church requires that you be a member of the church and hold and maintain a current temple recommend.  This is something I know.  The Church itself does not employ individuals who do not meet those requirements.

A government requirement that all paid church positions be open to members as well as nonmembers would open up paid temple staff, paid seminary teachers, curriculum writers, and multitude of other church positions to those who do not hold the same values, morals, ideals, and beliefs as members of the church. 

ksfisher is right. The Church does not employ non-members for positions having to the do with the Church itself, although the Church does own commercial or business enterprises -- such as my own employer, the Deseret News -- that have positions that are open to non-Mormons as well as Mormons.

[Calm]

6 hours 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? 

Back when I was a student, all professors were supposed to make an effort to tie their teaching to the gospel in some fashion.  This usually took place imo by professors not making a big deal about it, but simply talking about personal experiences and mentioning how they had felt guided by inspiration or how their LDS POV affected how they interacted with others at work (in positive ways) or such things.  My logic teacher, however, was amused at the policy (he didn't like ties as well and never wore white shirts) and made a point of discussing some church principle in terms of logic the very first day 'to get it out of the way'.  I am trying to remember it, but can only remember him doing a good job, imo, and feeling both entertained and uplifted.

Even if this is not a policy anymore, the idea of BYU imo is primarily creating an environment that allows students and faculty not only to feel safe about talking about the gospel and how it impacts their lives in positive ways, but encouraging them to do so as an example to others that shows both how and why living the gospel can be a very good thing.  Having faculty members whose personal experiences related to students (and I never had a prof who didn't speak about their life that I remember even if it was not always gospel centered or even mostly) likely involving some behaviour that is contrary to gospel principles is, imo, contrary to one of the primary purposes of BYU.  It is not a bad thing to have professors that do that, but neither is it bad to create an opportunity to receive teaching from professors that share core beliefs with you.  Removing the ability of BYU to create that experience for those who choose to have it is as wrong imo as removing the ability of other schools to promote a diverse faculty (though that is more often chosen to do so by ethnicity, which BYU can also pursue, and less ideologically) or to choose to require professors to be supportive of equal rights in what ever flavor the university prefers.

As far as dorm rooms, besides colleges that often have a first year requirement to stay in dorms, LDS students will likely be a small percentage and can look for a situation that meets their personal standards and while it may be difficult to find, I would hope most places have that option somehow, if not as convenient or cheap as just taking the first available situation.  

What would you suggest BYU or the Church do that they are not doing to deal with the concern of having students at other colleges live in morally consistent with the gospel conditions?

If BYU was required to have mixed dorms and not be able to require landlords to have separate facilities for males and females, the numbers of LDS students looking for and not being able to find separated living spaces would be very high, imo, and would make it impossible for many to achieve their desire (since many students don't choose all or even many of their roommates and assignments would have to remove gender as a variable).

[Calm]

6 hours 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.  

But it is likely that opportunities to teach the gospel, especially with the more subtle nuances, will be lost.  It is not so much the addition of the negative as the loss of positives that are concerning, imo.  A lifelong commitment to the Gospel rests on the little principles and influences as much, if not more, than the big core doctrines.  Lots of members in my experience have moved away from the faith community not because they stopped believing the core doctrines, but because the 'little things' didn't mesh for them (little things that add up to creating a house of order and love, a refuge from the world, for example).  Sometimes this is because they didn't have examples around them sufficiently to learn how to make it work; sometimes it is because they had never lived in an environment where the gospel was considered in practically every choice made so they could also feel the value of making that choice.  The BYUs, imo, have the ability to offer those opportunities in much greater quantities than nonLDS colleges.  

It is the little things that slowly add strength and resilience to testimonies as well as every day joy.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Calm