Church takes public position on the transgender law

[JLHPROF]

The LDS Church has openly stated its opposition to the "shared restroom" policies such as the one Obama issued.

http://www.sltrib.com/home/4952468-155/mormon-church-joins-fight-against-feds?fullpage=1

• After spending years trying to carve out a middle ground on LGBT-friendly policies, the LDS Church has lined up against a federal directive allowing transgender students to use restrooms that match their gender identity.
  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints joined six other religious groups in an amicus, or "friend of the court," brief in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding transgender student rights in schools.
  Despite what they called "disagreements on many points of faith," the groups outlined their common opposition to the U.S. Department of Education policy extending Title IX protections to transgender students, warning it would threaten religious liberty.

 

No change in Church position here, but an interesting item for the Church to take a stance on.

 

[carbon dioxide]

It is sad that a stance even needed to be made.  Some claim that we live in a more enlightened time but if that means people don't understand the difference between male and female, remove me from this enlightenment.  If this is the evolution of this society, a nuclear war might be a good thing.

[Tacenda]

The church needs to take stances on other items of far more importance IMO.

[MormonVideoGame]

Double standard 

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The LDS Church has openly stated its opposition to the "shared restroom" policies such as the one Obama issued.

http://www.sltrib.com/home/4952468-155/mormon-church-joins-fight-against-feds?fullpage=1

• After spending years trying to carve out a middle ground on LGBT-friendly policies, the LDS Church has lined up against a federal directive allowing transgender students to use restrooms that match their gender identity.
  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints joined six other religious groups in an amicus, or "friend of the court," brief in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding transgender student rights in schools.
  Despite what they called "disagreements on many points of faith," the groups outlined their common opposition to the U.S. Department of Education policy extending Title IX protections to transgender students, warning it would threaten religious liberty.

 

No change in Church position here, but an interesting item for the Church to take a stance on.

 

"My own experience is that the church has very little in the way of a policy forthrightly stated about transgender people," the Syracuse resident said, noting that the faith doesn't change its rolls if a member identifies with a gender different than the one at birth.

I think the lack of policy is because, like other exceptional circumstances, the affected individuals are best served prayerfully on a case-by-case basis, on principle and not policy. And in the case of policy such as identifying gender on the membership records by that which is identified at birth, I’m sure exceptions can be made on the same case-by-case basis. Should it always be easy? No, that would minimize the importance of gender to the individual and the community and ignore the complexity of some of the circumstances and questions.

[MormonVideoGame]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

The church needs to take stances on other items of far more importance IMO.

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world."  

Religion has no business in the government. 

"We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government" - D&C Section 134 

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world."  

Religion has no business in the government. 

"We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government" - D&C Section 134 

You know you're right, recently I read a comment on FB and saw an article on the TRIB. http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4928746-155/letter-i-dont-want-to-be#disqus_thread I wish the church would back cannabis for medical purposes. But because of the church's stance we still don't have this needed option.

I just wish the church would go after things such as sex trafficking. Now that is something that no-one disagrees on.

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

"My own experience is that the church has very little in the way of a policy forthrightly stated about transgender people," the Syracuse resident said, noting that the faith doesn't change its rolls if a member identifies with a gender different than the one at birth.

I think the lack of policy is because, like other exceptional circumstances, the affected individuals are best served prayerfully on a case-by-case basis, on principle and not policy.

It is against policy for a transgendered person to receive the priesthood.  I would assume that would also bar them from temple ordinances.

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Religion has no business in the government.

"We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government" - D&C Section 134 

Mormonism may still believe that but has added additional perspective in the many years since.
As for D&C 134, please note the following:

1. It is NOT a revelation but a statement of belief from the Church in 1835.
2.  At that time, this declaration was given the following preamble: “That our belief with regard to earthly governments and laws in general may not be misinterpreted nor misunderstood, we have thought proper to present, at the close of this volume, our opinion concerning the same.
3. By 1844, just 9 years later Joseph Smith was running for President, the political Kingdom of God (Council of 50) had been established and Joseph was also mayor of Nauvoo, a political office.
4. Mormon doctrine teaches us to look forward to the establishment of a theocracy ruled over by Christ in the Millennial period.  Moving in that direction will obviously eliminate this notion of keeping religion out of government.

Edited February 17, 2017 by JLHPROF

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world."  

Religion has no business in the government. 

"We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government" - D&C Section 134 

This really is not an issue of religion. One does not need to be religious to know that boys and girls are not the same.  Also this is an issue of the government forcing people to have to use the restrooms with the opposite gender.  In other words. to protect the rights of a transgender, the rights of everyone else in the restroom must be cancelled out.   Personally I think passing a law is dumb because the police are not going to waste time arresting these people.  I think it is just better to settle the matter personally if one finds the wrong gender using a public restroom.

Edited February 18, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[strappinglad]

I blame Monsanto and the hormone feeders. Something is causing this upsurge in gender confusion. My solution, 3 bathrooms, one for males , one for females, and one for the ... ambiguous... or shy types. Then again , I suppose we could follow the example of the Romans and just have one big communal room for all and sundry. Question for the historians, when did this male/female bathroom separation come into vogue? On my early days at the farm the outhouse served both... just one at a time.

[rpn]

From the blurb you stated, the amicus isn't about the bathroom issue, it is about the federal department of ed's unwarranted and illegal extension of Title IX to include gender identity.    (There was a discussion of inclusion of gender identity when Title IX was passed, and it was not included.   Several times since congress proposed to amend Title IX to include it, but Congress never has passed it.   So a fed agency decided to push it as an interpretation and without any consideration of religious liberty (which has been the congressional sticking point sort of).    I don't know that we can make this amicus about transgender rights.   More about rights established by law, not ultra vires in direct conflict with what Congress has chosen to do.)

[Traela]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

I blame Monsanto and the hormone feeders. Something is causing this upsurge in gender confusion. My solution, 3 bathrooms, one for males , one for females, and one for the ... ambiguous... or shy types. Then again , I suppose we could follow the example of the Romans and just have one big communal room for all and sundry. Question for the historians, when did this male/female bathroom separation come into vogue? On my early days at the farm the outhouse served both... just one at a time.

According to one article I read, it's mostly a result of the industrial revolution.  Young girls were leaving their homes to work in factories, and parents (as well as other concerned parties) wanted to make sure that their virtue and reputations were protected.  The article showed a lot of liberal snobbery toward the notion that girls needed protecting, but I think it makes perfect sense that girls who were physically, economically, and socially at the mercy of male bosses and managers, had a safe place to do their private business.

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I just wish the church would go after things such as sex trafficking. Now that is something that no-one disagrees on.

If a public declaration against sex trafficking would help I think the church would declare that too. However it is not really a controversial issue and I am pretty sure everyone assumes by default that everyone is against it.

[Tacenda]

49 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If a public declaration against sex trafficking would help I think the church would declare that too. However it is not really a controversial issue and I am pretty sure everyone assumes by default that everyone is against it.

True, dummy me. But at least maybe more would concentrate on getting that evil practice off of the face of the earth.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

. Question for the historians, when did this male/female bathroom separation come into vogue? On my early days at the farm the outhouse served both... just one at a time.

Good question

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

True, dummy me. But at least maybe more would concentrate on getting that evil practice off of the face of the earth.

I know of LDS involved in this. The head guy of this organization is LDS. If you want to help and can I would suggest donating:

http://ourrescue.org/

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I know of LDS involved in this. The head guy of this organization is LDS. If you want to help and can I would suggest donating:

http://ourrescue.org/

I'm aware of this guy, who's LDS. And my neighbor is involved with the group. I share a lot of what is going on, on FB and get texts whenever they save a child or arrest traffickers. I just need to donate, for sure.  

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

If a public declaration against sex trafficking would help I think the church would declare that too. 

Well, Nehor, I think the church should have a declaration against beheading, especially as an incentive for religious conversion.  That should be on the top of their list for declarations.

Edited February 18, 2017 by cdowis

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Well, Nehor, I think the church should have a declaration against beheading, especially as an incentive for religious conversion.  That should be on the top of their list for declarations.

Are you trying to put us on the wrong side of the French Revolution?

[Johnnie Cake]

No surprise here

[Duncan]

How does where someone goes to the washroom affect religious liberty? what's the thinking behind that?

[Kenngo1969]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You know you're right, recently I read a comment on FB and saw an article on the TRIB. http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4928746-155/letter-i-dont-want-to-be#disqus_thread I wish the church would back cannabis for medical purposes. But because of the church's stance we still don't have this needed option.

I just wish the church would go after things such as sex trafficking. Now that is something that no-one disagrees on.

Right.  It's all the fault of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders.  Federal law, and the fact that various state laws permitting possession and use of marijuana are directly at odds with federal law, has nothing to do with it.  

Edited February 18, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

How does where someone goes to the washroom affect religious liberty? what's the thinking behind that?

Perhaps it doesn't, at least, not directly.  However, there are various things which proponents of gay marriage, of allowing people to use facilities which correspond to their gender identity rather than to their biology, and so on, want those who don't favor those things to ignore: Gay marriage, laws relating to gender identity (i.e., who uses which washroom), and so on, are Trojan horses for obliterating traditional marriage and for obliterating any legal distinction between men and women.  Such changes are not consistent with the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which holds that men and women have divinely-appointed roles, that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and that gender is an essential characteristic of premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision of the United States Supreme Court which legalized gay marriage nationwide, will eventually have a pernicious effect, not only on the traditional family, but on religious liberty, as well: Although the Constitution's Free Exercise clause states that "government shall make no law ... abridging the free exercise [of religion]," the magnanimous grant of the Obergefell majority (consistent with the Court's ongoing erosion of religious liberty which extends back more than a quarter-century (at least) to Employment Division v. Smith, a decision disfavoring the purportedly-religious practice of use of peyote as a religious sacrament in favor of allowing the government to impose restrictions upon purportedly-religious practice as long as those restrictions are of "general applicability" and as long as they only pose an "incidental burden," whatever those phrases mean) that the devout may continue to "believe" and to "teach" as they wish with respect to chastity and to traditional marriage, is more narrow than the Constitution's Free Exercise clause.

Allowing one to use a washroom which corresponds to his/her gender identity rather than to his/her biology ==> Eventually, no legal distinction between men and women; No legal distinction between men and women ==> No reason for allegedly-outmoded religious restrictions on chastity or on who should marry whom; No religious restrictions on chastity or on who should marry whom ==> No reason for allegedly-outmoded religiously motivated segregation between the sexes in student housing at faith-sponsored schools (or for limiting married student housing to opposite-sex married couples), along with a whole host of other completely common-sense gender-based policies. Yes, those who warn of the slippery slope are seen as less erudite by the illuminati who consider themselves more erudite legally and logically, but I doubt God cares.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

This really is not an issue of religion. ... 

 Maybe not, but how that issue is addressed sure as heck can have more than an incidental impact on a religion which teaches that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and that gender is an essential characteristic of premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Kenngo1969