Religious Freedom Conference, Phoenix area

[rongo]

Here are my notes from the Religious Freedom Broadcast this past Saturday. The notes are my responsibility, and I alone am responsible for their content. This, by way of anticipating any CFRs or demands for links by Scott.  I thought this would be of interest to many here.

---

Religious freedom conference held at the Arizona State University LDS Institute building chapel on Saturday, January 21, 2017. Broadcast to 84 Phoenix-area stakes.

 

Elder Von E. Keetch, 1^st Quorum of the Seventy (recently called, formerly of Kirton-McConkie)

 

“I have been asked to set the table for this discussion.” Recalled a close friend from when he first started his career in the New York City area. Johnny wanted to serve his community, and became a volunteer fire fighter. His training as a volunteer consisted of being told to simply come immediately to the fire station when he heard the Klaxon siren. Wanting to be the best he could be, he researched all he could about volunteer fire-fighting at the library (pre-internet days). His first fire was a warehouse fire in Long Island. The battle-scarred battalion chief assigned him to stand in a remote corner nowhere near the fire, and watch carefully and contact dispatch if he saw any hint of fire in his area. Disappointed with this assignment, he heard the commotion of the battling of the raging inferno elsewhere, out of sight, in the massive warehouse. Struggling with his inherent obedient nature and his desire to be involved in the fray, he decided he wasn’t needed there and went to join the “real fire.” He felt guilty, and went back, only to find his corner now engulfed in flames from embers that had floated through the ceiling. The fire was eventually contained, but had spread to other buildings because it wasn’t contained in that corner. The old battalion chief told him after the fire that book learning and even training weren’t necessary to be a good volunteer fire fighter. “Son, to be a good volunteer fire fighter, only two things are needed. 1) Stand where you are assigned, and 2) Blast any fire that shows up there.

 

Anyone can make an important and meaningful contribution in the struggle over religious freedom, and no expertise is needed. We simply need to act where we stand in life and our communities, and appropriately blast any fires that show up there.

 

Elder Lance B. Wickman (Emeritus member of the Seventy, Church General Counsel for a quarter century)

                                                                                                                                                   

The peaceful transition of power with the U.S. presidency yesterday is remarkable, and most take it for granted (Trump lost the popular vote by an unprecedented 3 million votes, it was perhaps the most contentious campaign in history, we are increasingly polarized, etc.). This is because of Article 2, Section 1 --- the electoral college. A relevant corollary is the World Series, where the winner is the team that wins four games, not the team that scores the most runs or has the largest margin of victory. This ensures that the population centers do not control everything, and balances the interests of urban vs. rural areas (which was a contentious issue during the deliberation that led to the framing of the Constitution, and was as relevant then as it is today). The framing of the Constitution was much more controversial and messy than most think today than our romanticized notions. All politicians speak of “standing for the Constitution,” but this is code that means different things to their target constituencies.

 

The Constitution requires “We the People” to do the hard work of citizenship with controversial issues (this phrase “the hard work of citizenship” occurs five times between Elder Wickman and Elder Oaks). The hard work of citizenship means making appropriate compromises between strong-willed and sincere parties that see things very differently. We’ve left the definition of religious liberty to the courts, which is a mistake and is “lazy citizenship.” The courts can only deal with what comes before them.

 

There have to be priorities. Not all religious liberty claims are or should be considered to be equal. They are most critical at the individual and ecclesiastical level, then to non-profits, and less-critical the further removed one is from that core. (Elder Wickman gave an extensive list of specific examples of areas radiating outward in concentric circles). Religious liberty protections should be strongest for small settings and become weaker in larger, corporate settings. Weakest of all at the government level. Example: a county clerk with religious objections to granting gay marriage licenses may not refuse on grounds of conscientious objection. He is at the government level.

 

Hannah Smith and Alexander Dushku discussion (of Alexandria, Virginia and Centerville, Utah, respectively. Actively engaged in religious liberty activism).

 

New Church religious freedom website: religiousfreedom.lds.org includes a 2 paragraph definition of religious liberty that has been approved by the First Presidency. The website includes examples from everyday life, and a FAQ section.

 

All of us can begin in the home, by teaching our children about it and seeking opportunities to expose our children to issues and experiences in our communities. We should also write our elected officials about religious liberty issues in a moderate, articulate, and well-reasoned manner.

 

Many specific examples of people from around the country who have done simple but profound things to advance religious liberty.

 

[Elder Oaks interjected: Please do not write Church headquarters with anecdotes, stories, or counsel].

 

There is nothing better we can do than be a good example within our sphere of influence. By increasing our sphere of influence, we have more potential to impact people by our example. Courage and civility in difficult situations are imperative.

 

Q&A: Has the election outcome alleviated concerns about religious liberty?

 

---No, this issue is bigger than any one administration. The rise and impact of secularism in society has led to a pervasive view that religion should be kept purely in the private sphere, and not in the public at all.

 

Worst case scenarios, a la the late 1880s?

 

---We must distinguish between real and unrealistic threats. Many worst case scenario fears are protected by the 1^st Amendment. Real threats: firings, health care professionals required to violate conscience, loss of accreditation for religious schools, loss of research contracts for religious schools, government requirements for hiring and employment for churches.

 

Elder Dallin H. Oaks (Quorum of the 12 Apostles)

 

The doctrine of agency is central to this discussion. The starting point for discussion is the plan of salvation and our purpose for even being here in this life. Although federal and state laws prohibit restrictions on the free exercise of religion, gathering storm clouds of such restrictions, foreseen by prophets, were behind the formation in 1995 of the Proclamation on the Family.

 

The Council of Fifty minutes describe a perfect framework for a proper balance between religious liberty and individual civil rights (the Council of Fifty was a planned structure and organization, in the event that the Church would also be in charge of civic government).

 

There is a difference between agency and freedom. Agency is God-given and cannot ever be taken away, try as one might. Freedom can be given or taken away by government. If freedom is taken away from people, it can’t frustrate the plan of salvation, although it can delay experience and make exercising agency difficult. Agency remains, even when freedom is restricted or taken away by government.

 

Some people are “in a lather” about things that “just aren’t going to happen.” This distracts from real threats in school, work, or public life.

 

Why should religion get special treatment? Religion is different because of religion’s impact on behavior.

 

To opponents of religious freedom, “religious freedom” is code for “discrimination.” However, religious freedom is so fundamental and so precious that it may not be encroached on.

 

When there are tensions or conflict between religion and secular society, reasonable compromises must be reached (“hard work of citizenship”). The biggest threat to religious freedom is aggressive secularism, which insists that religion be a “strictly private hobby” that is never mentioned outside of the private sphere. We must counter this through our example and refusing to be silenced in a non-obnoxious manner. We must be the best and highest example we can, so people respect us and want to emulate us.

 

All people have to accept, to some extent, governmental restrictions on freedom. If freedom were completely unfettered by government, it would result in anarchic chaos. The real difficult Gordian knot that people and societies have to solve is how to handle differences and tension between claims of religious freedom and claims of discrimination. This is the “hard work of citizenship,” and is not easy, but has to be navigated. These are the concentric circles of strengthening/weakening areas of religious freedom Elder Wickman spoke of.

 

Aggressive secular forces, including the deterioration of the legal definition of the family, are challenging to Church doctrine, but the Church and its leaders are unable to change fundamental doctrine. Some Latter-day Saints don’t understand this, and suppose that we can vote to change doctrine, or that voting to change fundamental doctrine is inevitable over time. Everyone must understand that Church doctrine on the law of chastity will NOT change.

 

The sea change in the legal definition of marriage in our time is a morphing of marriage from being regarded as a social institution primarily for the raising of children into being regarded as a free association --- easily entered into, and easily dissolved --- primarily for the meeting of the emotional needs of the partners in the marriage. Thus, traditional man/woman marriage is under attack as merely a social construct that can just as easily be replaced or disregarded with no ill effects on society or children. When the Proclamation on the Family was issued in 1995, the reaction of most was that it was stating the obvious, and they didn’t see what the big deal was. Now, several parts of it are controversial and at the heart of the struggle, showing its necessity.

 

There are people within and without the Church who are unhappy with and attack the Church’s teachings on the purpose and proper/appropriate use of sex. Others simply disregard it. Our eternal perspective sets us against a softening or weakening of our doctrines regarding sex outside of marriage, homosexual relations whether married or unmarried, and other activities that strike at the fountain of life.

 

Analogy of a two-sided coin: one side tolerance, and one side truth. These are the sides in conflict in the struggle over religious freedom vs. anti-discrimination. Neither side can govern without consideration of the other side. Church members should never, ever, devolve to name-calling or un-Christlike demeanor --- differences must be resolved the Savior’s way. The Church’s stance is “Fairness for ALL,” and LDS have been at times as guilty as their opponents in not giving consideration and compromise to the other side of the coin. The so-called “Utah Compromise” is an unfortunate label, because the Church is not compromising its doctrine (it was a political, not a doctrinal compromise), and anti-discrimination advocates did not compromise their core values. This is a good model for how appropriate “hard work of citizenship” compromise can be done.

 

[Bob Crockett]

I voted for Clinton and campaigned with money and rhetoric with my fellow Saints against Trump.  One of my employees, with my blessing and support, has joined the inaugural protests.  But I find your interlaced commentary unsupportable, as much as I dislike Trump.  (I have my own interlaced and unsupportable commentary; I think Trump will be an enemy to the Saints.)

Quote

 (Trump lost the popular vote by an unprecedented 3 million votes, it was perhaps the most contentious campaign in history, we are increasingly polarized, etc.). 

This seems to be a popular refrain, but you weren't there for Andrew Jackson.  (He wasn't married to his "wife," who was married to his former landlord, and he fought almost 130 duels to protect his wife's honor, killing one man; the press had a field day with this and Jackson became partially paralyzed in a duel.)  You weren't there, apparently, during the Chicago riots against the Democratic Party at the DNC convention in 1968 by Vietnam protesters.  I'd say the current vote was fairly peaceful.  The protests seem rather silly as Trump hasn't really done anything yet.

I helped organize a Religious Freedom conference at Claremont last year and I have published in the field at Rutgers.  (I concluded that the court system made an unconstitutional criticism of churches for their lobbying against gay marriage.)  From the Church's perspective, it all comes down to this.   Should the Church have the freedom to campaign against equality (marriage or other public accommodations) for homosexuals if it could lead to a restraint upon the civil rights of homosexuals?   That's it.  Without the gay marriage issue the religious freedom dispute would have little traction for the Church.    Restrictions against religious freedom in China or Islam are handled much more quietly by the Church, as those nations would take great offense to a public display of criticism.

 

Edited January 23, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[rongo]

That was Elder Wickman's commentary, not mine. My interlaced commentary is in brackets, not parentheses. 

[RevTestament]

That shows the church has given a lot of thought to this subject. 

I would just like to interject a few things. I feel the law has gone far beyond the scope of the anti-establishment clause, and has begun to intrude in the freedom of religion clause. Most people do not even know what the amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Let us take the example of a school teacher who is teaching Christian history or asks if anyone in the class would like to pray. Say someone in the class is offended by praying to God or learning about the early Christian church, and files suit. What will happen under the current state of the law?

Now let us see what the teacher has violated under the amendment - 

1. did the government pass a law establishing a religion that everyone had to follow? The plain answer is no. The teacher was not following any law requiring her to do anything.

2. did congress do anything to prohibit the free exercise of anyone's religion in the hypothetical? The plain answer is no. The teacher was not following any law requiring her to do anything. Now, indirectly the schools might be looked on as extension of congress since they are funded by congress, and so if the teacher is teaching Christian history, that is where the sticky wick seems to come into play. Should it really matter whether this school is a public or a private school? But, yet now we have intrusion even into private and religious schools. I believe this is beginning to err against the clause that congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. If a church wants to have a private school, congress should not be able to tell them what they can or cannot teach in the religious sphere. Yet, this is happening indirectly. It becomes a balancing act of rights, and I believe this is what the conference was addressing. Rastafarians look at federal drug laws against pot as an intrusion into the free exercise of their religion. Traditionally, society has looked upon marijuana as a dangerous drug, and so has passed laws against its use and possession. Those who want to retain their rights to practice their faiths must be aware of their rights under the 1st Amendment, and stand up for their right to practice their religion unencumbered by federal laws which serve to prohibit the free exercise of their religion. We cannot assume government will protect our rights. We must insist what our rights are, and make our voices heard - like the vocal left does - rather than just allow the vocal left to paint Christians as the bad guys who are ruining their lives with traditional ideas about marriage, etc. Can the government force a Christian church to hire a Muslim employee or one day a Rastafarian who is smoking it up in the work place? Or a woman's "choice" advocate who protests against the church on the weekends? Is a church with contrary wishes an evil discriminator? Once we start heading down that road, it is hard to reverse the direction in favor of religious freedom from government intrusion. 

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

That was Elder Wickman's commentary, not mine. My interlaced commentary is in brackets, not parentheses. 

Actually, I see where I also used parentheses for my interjected comments. I should have had a consistent system.  

The commentary on Trump and the election/transition of power was from Elder Wickman, though.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

That shows the church has given a lot of thought to this subject. 

I would just like to interject a few things. I feel the law has gone far beyond the scope of the anti-establishment clause, and has begun to intrude in the freedom of religion clause. Most people do not even know what the amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Let us take the example of a school teacher who is teaching Christian history or asks if anyone in the class would like to pray. Say someone in the class is offended by praying to God or learning about the early Christian church, and files suit. What will happen under the current state of the law?

Now let us see what the teacher has violated under the amendment - 

1. did the government pass a law establishing a religion that everyone had to follow? The plain answer is no. The teacher was not following any law requiring her to do anything.

2. did congress do anything to prohibit the free exercise of anyone's religion in the hypothetical? The plain answer is no. The teacher was not following any law requiring her to do anything. Now, indirectly the schools might be looked on as extension of congress since they are funded by congress, and so if the teacher is teaching Christian history, that is where the sticky wick seems to come into play. Should it really matter whether this school is a public or a private school? But, yet now we have intrusion even into private and religious schools. I believe this is beginning to err against the clause that congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. If a church wants to have a private school, congress should not be able to tell them what they can or cannot teach in the religious sphere. Yet, this is happening indirectly. It becomes a balancing act of rights, and I believe this is what the conference was addressing. Rastafarians look at federal drug laws against pot as an intrusion into the free exercise of their religion. Traditionally, society has looked upon marijuana as a dangerous drug, and so has passed laws against its use and possession. Those who want to retain their rights to practice their faiths must be aware of their rights under the 1st Amendment, and stand up for their right to practice their religion unencumbered by federal laws which serve to prohibit the free exercise of their religion. We cannot assume government will protect our rights. We must insist what our rights are, and make our voices heard - like the vocal left does - rather than just allow the vocal left to paint Christians as the bad guys who are ruining their lives with traditional ideas about marriage, etc. Can the government force a Christian church to hire a Muslim employee or one day a Rastafarian who is smoking it up in the work place? Or a woman's "choice" advocate who protests against the church on the weekends? Is a church with contrary wishes an evil discriminator? Once we start heading down that road, it is hard to reverse the direction in favor of religious freedom from government intrusion. 

Under the reasoning in the broadcast, though, the LDS school teacher should avoid trying to have a prayer in class. Appropriate/reasonable compromise, where does it fall in Elder Wickman's concentric circles, etc. 

[rockpond]

It's sad to see Elder Oaks continue to misrepresent those who support marriage equality.  It's tough to respect his ongoing pleas for religious freedom when he seems to want it to be skewed against those who hold to a different belief in God.

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's sad to see Elder Oaks continue to misrepresent those who support marriage equality.  It's tough to respect his ongoing pleas for religious freedom when he seems to want it to be skewed against those who hold to a different belief in God.

Where do you see that? What I got out of it was that LDS need to do better at reaching appropriate and reasonable compromises.

[RevTestament]

40 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

.I'd say the current vote was fairly peaceful.  The protests seem rather silly as Trump hasn't really done anything yet.

I'd say the violent protesters in DC are spoiled children who just want their way, and do not respect the democratic process. Those throwing bricks and rocks should be jailed, fined etc. 

The other peaceful "protesters" have every right to boo, and hold their signs, but yes, I agree that it is all rather silly at this point. It just shows they don't like Trump, and voted against him. Well, we know half the country did. 

I am really not a Trump fan. However, He may do some things right. I believe there are a good number of things this country needs to do. We need to wean ourselves off of federal dependence, and reinvigorate the private sector, or we will spend ourselves into oblivion in the not-to-distant future, and the house of cards will fall, the same way the private housing sector did. To me it seems the public is just as oblivious to this danger as they were to the danger of the housing sector crash and the great recession, which I believe was caused by government action many years beforehand - the private sector was the scapegoat which was doing what the government allowed and even promoted.

I don't have your fear that Trump will be dangerous to the Church. In this respect I believe he will be more favorable than Obama. However, I do have reservations about Trump that extend beyond his private life and his playboy tendencies. Unfortunately, I believe the days of the truly public servants are long behind us.  These days politicians are more like hired lawyers, and the public is the insurance company that gets to pick up the tab. Let's hope the tab doesn't come due under the Trump administration. 

[RevTestament]

44 minutes ago, rongo said:

Under the reasoning in the broadcast, though, the LDS school teacher should avoid trying to have a prayer in class. Appropriate/reasonable compromise, where does it fall in Elder Wickman's concentric circles, etc. 

My point is that what the teacher did is not really a violation of the 1st amendment, like we are led to believe. Now if someone protests to the teacher about having to listen to other people pray, maybe she/he should try to respect their wishes, but I don't believe the teacher should just altogether feel some obligation to avoid prayer. Trying to paint this as coming under the 1st amendment is really taking it too far imho. The left has been able to push the anti-establishment clause so far that it is intruding into the freedom of religion clause where the government is passing laws which affect people's rights to practice their religion. The question is should we allow the government to keep making these types of intrusions? Or should we be more vocal about rights to religious freedom? Everyone discriminates. It is just whether it is ruled illegal or not. The left often discriminates against the rights of religious persons. How does a religious person practice their religion if they aren't allowed to follow their beliefs in the work place? Is the work place where religion stops? That is what the left wants us to buy - that religion only takes place in a building on Sunday or Saturday... to me that is scary thinking.

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

Where do you see that? What I got out of it was that LDS need to do better at reaching appropriate and reasonable compromises.

Well, I'm only working from your notes.  If the main message was to do better at compromise, than that makes me happy.

Looking at this quote:

The sea change in the legal definition of marriage in our time is a morphing of marriage from being regarded as a social institution primarily for the raising of children into being regarded as a free association --- easily entered into, and easily dissolved --- primarily for the meeting of the emotional needs of the partners in the marriage. Thus, traditional man/woman marriage is under attack as merely a social construct that can just as easily be replaced or disregarded with no ill effects on society or children.

My reactions are these:

First, since when did we consider marriage to be a "social institution"?  I thought we held it in much higher regard than that.

Second, I don't know anyone (including advocates of marriage equality like myself) who believe marriage should be easily entered into and easily dissolved nor that it is primarily for meeting the emotional needs of the partners in the marriage.  Gay couples enter marriages for the same reasons as heterosexual couples.

Per your notes, Oaks also said:

Some Latter-day Saints don’t understand this, and suppose that we can vote to change doctrine, or that voting to change fundamental doctrine is inevitable over time. 

Are there LDS out there suggesting that the Brethren "vote to change doctrine"?  I've never heard/read anyone suggesting that.

With both of these comments, he seems to be taking the religious views of others and secularizing them to support his hypothesis.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

My reactions are these:First, since when did we consider marriage to be a "social institution"?  I thought we held it in much higher regard than that.

What he was saying is that it used to be a given that man/woman marriage was embedded in the fabric of society. It was a "social institution," in that it was the warp and woof of society. That has degraded (and arguably more from changing heterosexual mores than from homosexual, in my opinion). Now, it is increasingly seen as non-essential. How many people live together now? How many children live and are brought up in households where the parent(s) aren't married? As a school teacher, I can tell you that this is rapidly increasing. Married households may be the minority.

Second, I don't know anyone (including advocates of marriage equality like myself) who believe marriage should be easily entered into and easily dissolved nor that it is primarily for meeting the emotional needs of the partners in the marriage.  Gay couples enter marriages for the same reasons as heterosexual couples.

In my experience, this is exactly how marriage is treated and regarded, even if this view isn't explicitly stated.

As for the second, in my notes (but not included in my write-up) was a reference to President Faust in the 2nd Worldwide Training broadcast (I think it was in 2004). He said the same thing: that marriage is not an arrangement for the meeting of the needs of the adults entering into the marriage --- it's actual purpose is for the raising of children. I don't think many people today (including many LDS) really think of the purpose of marriage in this way.

And, gay couples don't enter into marriage for the purpose of raising children. They do so for reasons having to do with their own wants and needs. Children (adopted, in-vitro, surrogate, etc., but not from the two people entering into the marriage) are secondary to the primary reasons.

Per your notes, Oaks also said:

Some Latter-day Saints don’t understand this, and suppose that we can vote to change doctrine, or that voting to change fundamental doctrine is inevitable over time. 

Are there LDS out there suggesting that the Brethren "vote to change doctrine"?  I've never heard/read anyone suggesting that.

I have heard this over and over from "the usual suspects" here: that the Church will inevitably change on this ---if not sooner, than later. It will have to, and it may take new waves of general authorities and apostles who were younger when all of this was percolating (i.e., now).

Any doctrinal or policy changes are, of course, implemented by the Brethren voting. That is exactly what "inevitable tidal wave of social change" people are suggesting will happen, if not sooner, then later.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

Here are my notes from the Religious Freedom Broadcast this past Saturday. The notes are my responsibility, and I alone am responsible for their content. This, by way of anticipating any CFRs or demands for links by Scott.  I thought this would be of interest to many here.

 

Just curious as to whether this is a fully Church-sponsored event or if it was sponsored by others with principal participation from the Church.

 

[rongo]

This was fully Church-sponsored. We received priesthood leader letters asking us to promote it, and it was broadcast to 84 stakes in the Phoenix area. While directed to an LDS audience, there were church leaders from other churches in attendance. 

I had to look up the spelling of Alexander Dushku's name, and in doing so, found that the Dallas-Ft. Worth area had a similar conference in September:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865662173/Elder-Oaks-leads-special-Mormon-regional-conference-on-defining-issue-of-religious-freedom.html

It looks like similar content, but not identical texts at each. In other words, same general message, but latitude to make each one unique to that area. It also looks like we can expect these to be in other venues around the country. I'm sure that Phoenix and Dallas aren't the only places that need to hear this!  

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

This was fully Church-sponsored. We received priesthood leader letters asking us to promote it, and it was broadcast to 84 stakes in the Phoenix area. While directed to an LDS audience, there were church leaders from other churches in attendance. 

I had to look up the spelling of Alexander Dushku's name, and in doing so, found that the Dallas-Ft. Worth area had a similar conference in September:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865662173/Elder-Oaks-leads-special-Mormon-regional-conference-on-defining-issue-of-religious-freedom.html

It looks like similar content, but not identical texts at each. In other words, same general message, but latitude to make each one unique to that area. It also looks like we can expect these to be in other venues around the country. I'm sure that Phoenix and Dallas aren't the only places that need to hear this!  

That's why I asked. I'm wondering if this is something that the Church will be rolling out elsewhere -- including where I live.

I can see the wisdom of doing it on a regional basis, as individual areas might have unique needs that should be addressed in such a conference.

[rongo]

Does Salt Lake need a religious freedom conference? Doesn't the Church theocracy control everything in Utah? . . . 

[Sky]

This whole thing felt like it really had a conservative political bent to it.  I'm not really comfortable with that.  Sorry. 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Sky said:

This whole thing felt like it really had a conservative political bent to it.  I'm not really comfortable with that.  Sorry. 

It is really tough being politically liberal in the Church. I find that most Mormons with profound policy and doctrinal criticisms of the Church are politically liberal, at heart. That is the source of their struggle. Not that in can't work (there are many who make it work), but it is very difficult to do so.

[Sky]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

It is really tough being politically liberal in the Church. I find that most Mormons with profound policy and doctrinal criticisms of the Church are politically liberal, at heart. That is the source of their struggle. Not that in can't work (there are many who make it work), but it is very difficult to do so.

I think you are correct on this to a large extent.  

[thesometimesaint]

Your religious liberty to swing your fist ends at my nose.

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Your religious liberty to swing your fist ends at my nose.

I have never found that that statement simplifies or clarifies any freedom of religion question.

50 minutes ago, Sky said:

This whole thing felt like it really had a conservative political bent to it.  I'm not really comfortable with that.  Sorry. 

Probably true. The Right has a history of trying to protect religious liberty (including protections I do not think should be granted) and the Left has a history of trying to suppress religious liberty (sometimes in specific cases I even agree and sometimes I do not).

On a personal note you stole the Seventy from our JustServe training broadcast because he had to be there instead. I hope you Phoenixians are proud of yourself.  

[ERMD]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

 Gay couples enter marriages for the same reasons as heterosexual couples.

 

Procreation?  

 

Really??

[thesometimesaint]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have never found that that statement simplifies or clarifies any freedom of religion question.

I think we have to be very careful when using religion for the freedom of religion question in law. 

SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/father-and-son-plan-to-use-the-bible-to-defend-themselves-against-charges-of-raping-a-13-year-old-girl/

[thesometimesaint]

1 minute ago, ERMD said:

Procreation?

Really??

So are older couples required by law to divorce?

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

What he was saying is that it used to be a given that man/woman marriage was embedded in the fabric of society. It was a "social institution," in that it was the warp and woof of society. That has degraded (and arguably more from changing heterosexual mores than from homosexual, in my opinion). Now, it is increasingly seen as non-essential. How many people live together now? How many children live and are brought up in households where the parent(s) aren't married? As a school teacher, I can tell you that this is rapidly increasing. Married households may be the minority.

 

 

In my experience, this is exactly how marriage is treated and regarded, even if this view isn't explicitly stated.

As for the second, in my notes (but not included in my write-up) was a reference to President Faust in the 2nd Worldwide Training broadcast (I think it was in 2004). He said the same thing: that marriage is not an arrangement for the meeting of the needs of the adults entering into the marriage --- it's actual purpose is for the raising of children. I don't think many people today (including many LDS) really think of the purpose of marriage in this way.

And, gay couples don't enter into marriage for the purpose of raising children. They do so for reasons having to do with their own wants and needs. Children (adopted, in-vitro, surrogate, etc., but not from the two people entering into the marriage) are secondary to the primary reasons.

 

 

You noted a "sea change in the legal definition of marriage".  I don't know if those were your words of Oaks'.  That, to me, sounds like the language he has used in the past when referring to gay marriage.  But perhaps, as you describe here, he was actually referring to how heterosexuals' view of marriage has changed.

I still disagree with you with regard to gay couples.  I know a number of gay couples who married and they did so for the same reasons as straight couples. Some of them wish to raise children.  Some of them don't.  Just like straight couples.  I don't know any gay couples who married only for reasons having to do with their own wants and needs. Marriage, straight or gay, is about making someone else's wants and needs part of your own wants and needs.

Working to protect religious freedom is a great thing.  But discounting the sincere beliefs of others isn't the path to get there.