Church statement on Equality Act

[Wade Englund]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The statistics about suicide for transgender individuals are extremely alarming when compared to the general population, this is not "in the eye of the beholder" it is something that any thoughtful person should be worried about.  So I don't see these issues as purely academic when it comes to the lives of real people, especially people that I know and love.  

https://save.org/about-suicide/suicide-facts/

I agree. The statistics aren't in the eye of the beholder. However, what is in the eye of the beholder is whether the statistic can be interpreted as indicating "most marginalized and ostracized groups"  (which is what I was speaking to) or whether it is suggestive of serious mental/emotion problems, etc..  

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

So much of your comments are infused with a seeming kind of code speech which I can only imagine is expressing a political angst towards certain positions on this topic, but unfortunately it is very unclear to me what position you are attempting to communicate.  

I am drawing upon the common contemporary political vernacular. The words that you likely view as "code speech" tend to be the ironic product of proponents of political correctness. If you find them coded, you will need to take that up with them.

However, you are correct that the "political angst" is imagined. As I mentioned to Valentinus, I am striving to avoid the argument traps of political tribalism, and I am doing so by looking simply and pragmatically at the results of various political initiatives, trusting that others will be interested whether those results worked out as intended and for the best.

It seems to me that good people, such as yourself, would want to know if what they thought might help the disadvantaged, actually ends up inadvertently harming them or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

I agree. The statistics aren't in the eye of the beholder. However, what is in the eye of the beholder is whether the statistic can be interpreted as indicating "most marginalized and ostracized groups"  (which is what I was speaking to) or whether it is suggestive of serious mental/emotion problems, etc..  

I am drawing upon the common contemporary political vernacular. The words that you likely view as "code speech" tend to be the ironic product of proponents of political correctness. If you find them coded, you will need to take that up with them.

However, you are correct that the "political angst" is imagined. As I mentioned to Valentinus, I am striving to avoid the argument traps of political tribalism, and I am doing so by looking simply and pragmatically at the results of various political initiatives, trusting that others will be interested whether those results worked out as intended and for the best.

It seems to me that good people, such as yourself, would want to know if what they thought might help the disadvantaged, actually ends up inadvertently harming them or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I'd love to see you do a similar analysis of the redefinition(s) of homosexuality from being a "psychiatric disorder" to a "sexual orientation disturbance" in 1973 by the APA, and all that flowed from that decision.  Thanks!  R

[MiserereNobis]

48 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

 

For more on this, see HERE

Thanks, -Wade Englund.

The issue isn't as clear cut as those pictures make it out to be. If a transgender man (woman transitioned to man) has to use the women's bathroom, then you are going to have some very mainly looking men in the women's bathroom.

Do a google image search of "ftm beard" (female to male)

What should be done in that situation? Which bathroom should those trans men use?

[Damien the Leper]

2 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

You are amazing!  

You asked: Can equality be reached without redefinition that does no harm?

That is the irony. Equality actually existed prior to the redefining. The redefining was needed to create an inequality that  presumably required government intervention (thus growing the already obese government),  thereby creating the unintended consequence of a seemingly unsolvable pro problem.  Hence, the dysfunction. However, as indicated, the solution is to return to the traditional and functional definition. Equality will thereby be restored. If you like, I can walk you through the dysfunctional redefining of "marriage" to show how it played out as suggested..

You also asked for evidence that trans women had issues with the Women's March (2017).  Please see HERE and HERE. The 2018 March tried to be more "inclusive" of Trans women. (see HERE)

As for the issue that trans women may take with  discussions of women's reproductive rights, it is similar to their objections to the 2017 Women's March, in that because trans women lack the same reproductive plumbing as biological women, and can't get pregnant or get someone else pregnant after reconstructive surgery, they will feel "excluded," and "offended,"  two of the most serious discriminatory violation within identity politics and  "equality" movements. Once again,  biological men are stepping on the "equal rights" of biological women,  though all in the name of "equal rights.

For another example of how trans women step on the "equal rights" of biological women,  please see my response to Buffy above.

Also, one of the fundamental planks of the Women's Movement was to decrease, if not illuminate, sexual harassment of women by men, and this to the point that men can't compliment a woman on her looks or make a pass at her in the workplace and even at school. Yet, under the guise of "equal rights," biological males are welcomed into women's most private spaces, restrooms and locker rooms, all under.the guise of "equal rights."

For more on this, see HERE

Thanks, -Wade Englund.

First, why am I amazing? What'd I do wrong to deserve that?

Second, please give me some time to look into your response so that I can respond appropriately. 

[Robert F. Smith]

The Editor of Deseret News invites everyone to sign up for regular religion newsletter, at https://deseretnews.us9.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=7967382bf9508bb5c21c89da8&id=deda0ee10e ,

Quote

Announcing State of Faith with Kelsey Dallas

I would like to introduce you to a new weekly newsletter launching next week:
State of Faith with Kelsey Dallas.

Kelsey joined the Deseret News in 2014, bringing a master’s degree in religion at Yale Divinity School. She is an award-winning journalist who has covered religion across the nation and world.

She is gifted at wading through the complexities of religious liberty and its place in the public square. She breaks down issues tied to religious and LGBTQ rights, adding vital context and understanding to how civil society and religion are connected or perhaps disconnected.  

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Wade Englund]

6 hours ago, USU78 said:

Wade, I'd love to see you do a similar analysis of the redefinition(s) of homosexuality from being a "psychiatric disorder" to a "sexual orientation disturbance" in 1973 by the APA, and all that flowed from that decision.  Thanks!  R

To do so would require getting into the politics of the APA, and I am trying to steer clear of that for the time being.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Wade Englund]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The issue isn't as clear cut as those pictures make it out to be. If a transgender man (woman transitioned to man) has to use the women's bathroom, then you are going to have some very mainly looking men in the women's bathroom.

Do a google image search of "ftm beard" (female to male)

What should be done in that situation? Which bathroom should those trans men use?

Your question underscores my point.  All sorts of baffling questions arise when societies tweak functional definitions under the guise of "equal rights."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Wade Englund]

5 hours ago, Valentinus said:

First, why am I amazing? What'd I do wrong to deserve that?

Actually, it is because you did something uncommonly right. You agreed to thoughtfully consider a seemingly opposing view. 

5 hours ago, Valentinus said:

Second, please give me some time to look into your response so that I can respond appropriately. 

Take all the time you need. And, I promise to give your response due thought and consideration.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

7 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

Quote

 

You are amazing!  

You asked: Can equality be reached without redefinition that does no harm?

That is the irony. Equality actually existed prior to the redefining. The redefining was needed to create an inequality that  presumably required government intervention (thus growing the already obese government),  thereby creating the unintended consequence of a seemingly unsolvable pro problem.  Hence, the dysfunction. However, as indicated, the solution is to return to the traditional and functional definition. Equality will thereby be restored. If you like, I can walk you through the dysfunctional redefining of "marriage" to show how it played out as suggested..

 

The obese government is in the eye of the beholder. I agree that in general that progressives tend to seek governmental overreach. OTOH, conservatives approve of big government so long as it suits their goals. Abortion is one of those issues. The hypocritical immorality of the conservative perspective would be that they are pro-life. Furthermore claiming to be pro-life is disingenuous because they are in fact pro-birth. Women are to go ahead and have a baby they are not ready for but conservatives don't want to help provide the means for which the child needs to thrive. Let me be clear, abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. People make mistakes and then there are those who seek to victimize women that results in pregnancy. I'm not concerned with any religious moral argument on the issue because hypocrisy can easily be demonstrated.

The argument for "traditional" marriage is marred with issues and cannot be supported by scripture. If an argument on the subject is to be made then it has to come from a sociological and philosophical perspective. See video below:

Quote

You also asked for evidence that trans women had issues with the Women's March (2017).  Please see HERE and HERE. The 2018 March tried to be more "inclusive" of Trans women. (see HERE)

Good grief. There is no pleasing everyone. Someone is always going to feel marginalized. This is when we need to persevere and not let marginalization get us down.

Quote

As for the issue that trans women may take with  discussions of women's reproductive rights, it is similar to their objections to the 2017 Women's March, in that because trans women lack the same reproductive plumbing as biological women, and can't get pregnant or get someone else pregnant after reconstructive surgery, they will feel "excluded," and "offended,"  two of the most serious discriminatory violation within identity politics and  "equality" movements. Once again,  biological men are stepping on the "equal rights" of biological women,  though all in the name of "equal rights.

This is seriously problematic. Trans women need to remember that there is and always be a definitive difference between them and biological women. There is no way to get around it.

Quote

Also, one of the fundamental planks of the Women's Movement was to decrease, if not illuminate, sexual harassment of women by men, and this to the point that men can't compliment a woman on her looks or make a pass at her in the workplace and even at school. Yet, under the guise of "equal rights," biological males are welcomed into women's most private spaces, restrooms and locker rooms, all under.the guise of "equal rights."

But this does not address the trans women who are attracted to men. A serious issue is a disingenuous assumption that predatory activity is inevitable. See HERE, HERE, and HERE. Trans men are in my locker room almost every day and sometimes they are around children as well. HERE is an interesting essay on female sex offenders from 2007. Here is the abstract from an essay written on female sex offenders:

Quote

Women commit sexual offenses, but the proportion of sexual offenders who are female is subject to debates. Based on 17 samples from 12 countries, the current meta-analysis found that a small proportion of sexual offenses reported to police are committed by females (fixed-effect meta-analytical average = 2.2%). In contrast, victimization surveys indicated prevalence rates of female sexual offenders that were six times higher than official data (fixed-effect meta-analytical average = 11.6%). Female sexual offenders are more common among juvenile offenders than adult offenders, with approximately 2 percentage points more female juvenile sex offenders than female adult sex offenders. We also found that males were much more likely to self-report being victimized by female sex offenders compared with females (40% vs. 4%). The current study provides a robust estimate of the prevalence of female sexual offending, using a large sample of sexual offenses across diverse countries.

You can purchase the full article HERE.

In the end, there is no clear and easy solution.

 

 

[Damien the Leper]

1 hour ago, Wade Englund said:

Actually, it is because you did something uncommonly right. You agreed to thoughtfully consider a seemingly opposing view. 

Take all the time you need. And, I promise to give your response due thought and consideration.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thank you, sir.

[Wade Englund]

5 hours ago, Valentinus said:

First, why am I amazing? What'd I do wrong to deserve that?

Second, please give me some time to look into your response so that I can respond appropriately. 

While you are processing my last post, please permit me one more example of how subsequent "equal rights" initiatives have undermined the women's movement.

At the core of feminism, at least in its early days, was the rightful objective to elevate the value of women in society from second class status to equal that of men. It was argued that women offer unique talents, perspectives, and insight that were/are just as beneficial as the same that were/are unique to men. And, on this rational basis, it was convincingly argued that women should be allowed to vote and to hold public offices and own property and participate in and run businesses, etc., thereby expanding the roles of women.

Yet, in later waves of feminism, the notion of unique but equal value of women began to be supplanted with the notion that women and men are the same--i.e. they are equal in that they are not different in talents, perspectives, insights, etc.. It was argued that women should be equally represented in public offices and business, not because they add unique value, but because it is their right. In other words, women's equality of value was stepped on or crushed by women's "equal rights."

Whether intended or not, this new notion devalued women.  No longer were they assessed on their admirable individual merits, but rather on government enforced group classification. 

However, the most serious blow to the notion of unique and equal value of women, came from gay men by way of the same-sex marriage movement, which took the ongoing devaluation of women in the workplace and public sphere,  right on into the one space that women had traditionally been held up as having particularly unique, if not greater value in some respects--i.e. the family and home. It was argued, and questionable studies commissioned for support, that two men were as capable as a man and a woman in rightly raising children. Women became expendable in the one domain where they were once considered not expendable.  

Ironically, later waves of feminism, and subsequent "equal rights" initiatives from homosexuals, made it so that biological men were once again displacing biological women.,

Even more ironic is that, by and large, it has been women supporting the movements which have undermined their unique and equal value, though they likely have little or no clue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

[sjdawg]

On 5/13/2019 at 6:22 PM, provoman said:

you are welcome to write the leaders of a Chruch and ask them.

And they will send your letter to your Bishop because they don't respond to lowly members

[CV75]

21 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think most people in Utah and the LGBTQ community were happy with the 2015 law that was passed because it represented a strong step in the right direction.  One step at a time, don't bite off more than you can chew, kind of approach.  Things are moving so quickly on these issues as people all around the country are getting more informed and perspectives are changing, so even though its only been four short years, you can see by looking at polls how attitudes towards LGBTQ individuals are evolving.  

The new Equality Act represents another step.  

As for the content of Act itself, considering the number of highly debated and more progressive topics rolled into it (which haven't been settled since its introduction in 2015), is hardly a baby step in practice. The most fundamental protected class issue should have been the easiest to address as a stand-alone act, but nooooo... The US legislators and constituencies can't do what Utah did for some reason, and I'd say that has to do with the problems the Church was pointing out in the newsroom release, which are rooted in biased information and perspectives.

Edited May 17, 2019 by CV75

[nuclearfuels]

On 5/13/2019 at 5:05 PM, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the links.  Assuming that this is accurate, look at the # of organizations backing this Equality Act:

Why would the church put out a public statement from the PR group opposing something that has such a broad support across so many influential organizations.  How is this even smart strategically?  Its one thing to be opposed to something and to work through back channels to try and defeat it, but its a whole different thing to make a public statement like they did.  How is this even wise PR strategy?  This looks so stupid on so many different levels.  

So the PR dept probably releases statements that the General Authorities approve.

I dont think the General Authorities or Jesus or God or His Ancestors created human biology or marriage or procreation requirements.

In the case of this law, politicians would be telling Apostles to redefine things God Himself didn't define but probably simply passed on or complied with, like gravity, math, physics, etc.

When you realize who you're truly accountable to and realize it's not the IRS but God, then releasing statements protesting laws which will require you to proceed in a manner that's not in accordnace with your faith, you release a PR statement like this.

 

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As for the content of Act itself, considering the number of highly debated and more progressive topics rolled into it (which haven't been settled since its introduction in 2015), is hardly a baby step in practice. The most fundamental protected class issue should have been the easiest to address as a stand-alone act, but nooooo... The US legislators and constituencies can't do what Utah did for some reason, and I'd say that has to do with the problems the Church was pointing out in the newsroom release, which are rooted in biased information and perspectives.

I called it the 2015 Utah Act a strong step in the right direction, not a baby step.  Today is 2019 and the Equality Act looks to be another strong step in the right direction from my vantage point.  

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

So the PR dept probably releases statements that the General Authorities approve.

I dont think the General Authorities or Jesus or God or His Ancestors created human biology or marriage or procreation requirements.

In the case of this law, politicians would be telling Apostles to redefine things God Himself didn't define but probably simply passed on or complied with, like gravity, math, physics, etc.

When you realize who you're truly accountable to and realize it's not the IRS but God, then releasing statements protesting laws which will require you to proceed in a manner that's not in accordnace with your faith, you release a PR statement like this.

Yes, I'm sure the statement had the backing of the brethren, I wasn't attempting to suggest otherwise.  I just think it was poor judgement to make such a statement, and I can't for the life of me see how it helps the church from a PR perspective to make a statement like that.  

I'm not sure what you even mean by God or his ancestors, I thought God was Alpha and Omega, but what do I know, perhaps you're more of an Adam God doctrine believer?  

Also, if you believe God is behind this PR statement, can you explain how you reconcile the infamous 2015 exclusion policy being a revelation from God, and the recent revocation of that same policy also being a revelation from God?  I haven't heard any satisfactory answers as to how people who believe God is directly pulling the strings on these kinds of things, explain to me how they reconcile the events around the 2015 exclusion policy and its fairly quick revocation.  

[rockpond]

49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I'm sure the statement had the backing of the brethren, I wasn't attempting to suggest otherwise.  I just think it was poor judgement to make such a statement, and I can't for the life of me see how it helps the church from a PR perspective to make a statement like that.  

I'm not sure what you even mean by God or his ancestors, I thought God was Alpha and Omega, but what do I know, perhaps you're more of an Adam God doctrine believer?  

Also, if you believe God is behind this PR statement, can you explain how you reconcile the infamous 2015 exclusion policy being a revelation from God, and the recent revocation of that same policy also being a revelation from God?  I haven't heard any satisfactory answers as to how people who believe God is directly pulling the strings on these kinds of things, explain to me how they reconcile the events around the 2015 exclusion policy and its fairly quick revocation.  

While I would assume that the PR statement was approved by at least some of the Brethren, I'd challenge anyone who believes it was inspired or revealed of God.  The headline proclaimed the Church's support of "fairness for all" but the writing of the statement revealed such a bias against the LGBTQ population and their supporters that it immediately threw the fairness claim into question.  It reads more like a propaganda piece meant to rally the base.

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

While I would assume that the PR statement was approved by at least some of the Brethren, I'd challenge anyone who believes it was inspired or revealed of God.  The headline proclaimed the Church's support of "fairness for all" but the writing of the statement revealed such a bias against the LGBTQ population and their supporters that it immediately threw the fairness claim into question.  It reads more like a propaganda piece meant to rally the base.

Personally, I believe there is a lot of political infighting within church HQ and differences of opinion on this subject.  Leaders want to present a united front, but I think inside HQ it is anything but united.  That is why we see these poorly crafted communications and policies come out at times, and then other statements and policies that seem so different.  Looks like someone with a split personality, but I think its more likely just a poorly operating system that allows for people with different perspectives to cleverly assert their will.  

[Wade Englund]

10 hours ago, Valentinus said:

The obese government is in the eye of the beholder. 

You are so right, and have hit on the crux of the matter. Differences of opinion about the obesity of government will persist and increase the more society values feelings over facts and positive self-image over health, and where, metaphorically speaking, big is beautiful:

This is all the more true the more society discourages objective analysis:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 17, 2019 by Wade Englund

[ksfisher]

53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Personally, I believe there is a lot of political infighting within church HQ and differences of opinion on this subject.  Leaders want to present a united front, but I think inside HQ it is anything but united. 

Being married to someone who works at church headquarters and who has been in meeting with apostles, general authorities, and auxiliary leaders, the experience my wife relates is exactly the opposite of what you describe.  There are differences of opinion and misunderstandings, but, as from what she has seen and related to me there is no political posturing or infighting.  Leaders are working to determine and carry out the Lord's will.  There may be bumps in the road and the Lord does expect us to do much work without His command in all things, but my belief is they truly strive to work in harmony with each other and with the Spirit.

I'm speaking about how things work in general and not meaning to comment on any particular issue. 

Edited May 17, 2019 by ksfisher

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Being married to someone who works at church headquarters and who has been in meeting with apostles, general authorities, and auxiliary leaders, the experience my wife relates is exactly the opposite of what you describe.  There are differences of opinion and misunderstandings, but, as from what she has seen and related to me there is no political posturing or infighting.  Leaders are working to determine and carry out the Lord's will.  There may be bumps in the road and the Lord does expect us to do much work without His command in all things, but my belief is they truly strive to work in harmony with each other and with the Spirit.

I'm speaking about how things work in general and not meaning to comment on any particular issue. 

I'm not questioning their intentions, as I'm sure they are all trying to do their best, and likely they feel inspired to promote their individual interpretations and strong opinions on different subjects.  For a mild example of differences of opinion consider the back and forth between President Hinckley and Elder Nelson on the topic of the emphasis of the name of the church.  Clearly there was disagreement, and President Nelson has asserted his influence now that he has power, but he received gentle push back from President Hinckley decades earlier.  

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not questioning their intentions, as I'm sure they are all trying to do their best, and likely they feel inspired to promote their individual interpretations and strong opinions on different subjects.  For a mild example of differences of opinion consider the back and forth between President Hinckley and Elder Nelson on the topic of the emphasis of the name of the church.  Clearly there was disagreement, and President Nelson has asserted his influence now that he has power, but he received gentle push back from President Hinckley decades earlier.  

So where is the political infighting you believe is taking place?  As I said, there are differences of opinion, but there is a large gap between a "gentle push back" and political infighting. 

Calling it political would seem to bring to mind leaders having separate agendas and goals from those of the church, side choosing, and back room deals. 

 

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

likely they feel inspired to promote their individual interpretations and strong opinions on different subjects. 

This is an assumption on your part.  Just as your seem to be assuming that there is political infighting.

 

I would be genuinely interested to hear what you know on the subject.

Edited May 17, 2019 by ksfisher

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So where is the political infighting you believe is taking place?  As I said, there are differences of opinion, but there is a large gap between a "gentle push back" and political infighting. 

Calling it political would seem to bring to mind leaders having separate agendas and goals from those of the church, side choosing, and back room deals. 

 

This is an assumption on your part.  Just as your seem to be assuming that there is political infighting.

 

I would be genuinely interested to hear what you know on the subject.

The public perception is gentle push back, and since I don't know how the interactions behind the scenes looked, we can only speculate.  There have been a slew of issues over the years with varying degrees of information coming to light that indicate that these disagreements are frequent and significant.  This thread on the LGBTQ topic is one topic in particular that I believe there are strong differences of opinion held by the brethren on, and I think the 2015 policy implementation and characterization by some as revelatory, and then the subsequent reversal only 4 short years later, is a topic that had some disagreement on within the Q15. 

[ksfisher]

25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the 2015 policy implementation and characterization by some as revelatory, and then the subsequent reversal only 4 short years later, is a topic that had some disagreement on within the Q15. 

What do you make of the fact that it was characterized as revelatory and changed by the same person, President Nelson. 

[clarkgoble]

On 5/13/2019 at 2:02 PM, rockpond said:

If that's the issue... that churches and faith-based universities would not be able to consider one's religion when considering employment, that's definitely a problem.

There's prior SCOTUS case law on that apparently so that they would. Exactly what that means isn't clear which may be why the Church is worried. I believe there is also a concern for federal education funds at BYU as amending Title VI of the Civil Rights Act on discrimination was part of the act. That would mean any institution that discriminates in its operations would be denied funding. Since many (particularly in a future Democratic administration) would see even banning g** s** by students or professors as discrimination I would imagine they'd seek to cut off BYU.

Of course this is all moot since it never was going to get through the Senate let alone avoid a veto. That shaped the wording of the bill since they could pass anything without worry of consequences. It's kind of like how the GOP was fine passing an Obamacare repeal every few months until there was a chance it'd actually get enacted and then quite a few GOP abandoned it. I suspect that's what's going on here. Political posturing particularly to the base which typically strongly dislikes conservative religions.

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

What do you make of the fact that it was characterized as revelatory and changed by the same person, President Nelson. 

I'd certainly love to be a fly on the wall in the internal discussions. 

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

For a mild example of differences of opinion consider the back and forth between President Hinckley and Elder Nelson on the topic of the emphasis of the name of the church.  Clearly there was disagreement, and President Nelson has asserted his influence now that he has power, but he received gentle push back from President Hinckley decades earlier.  

I didn't see pushback. I think Hinkley was skeptical it would work. I remain so skeptical because they haven't yet found shorthands that don't end up being the same as what came before. But Hinkley talked about it and at the time they even changed the Church logo.

See: https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2018/08/whats-in-a-name/

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by clarkgoble