Jump to content

Mixed-faith marriage


Recommended Posts

On 6/13/2021 at 12:55 PM, jkwilliams said:

That might actually be harder. I have that issue with my parents, and I’ve just put it on the back burner in favor of parts of the relationship that don’t involve politics or religion. 

I agree that existing happily in politically mixed marriage may be more of a challenge than a faith mixed marriage.

Link to comment
On 6/13/2021 at 5:39 PM, jkwilliams said:

Understood. I’m a conservative, and my father is a capital-T conservative. Makes life interesting. 

Just remind him that the Deseret News came out multiple times against T.  The most recent was an opinion authored by Prof. Gedecks (sp?) at BYU, the church's constitutional lawyer.  Only the most obtuse would fail to see where the church "officially" goes on T.

Certainly, one thing that bothers me is that way T mocked Romney's faith and garments.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Just remind him that the Deseret News came out multiple times against T.  The most recent was an opinion authored by Prof. Gedecks (sp?) at BYU, the church's constitutional lawyer.  Only the most obtuse would fail to see where the church "officially" goes on T.

Certainly, one thing that bothers me is that way T mocked Romney's faith and garments.

I don’t think appealing to religion would work at all with my dad. 

Link to comment
On 6/17/2021 at 2:06 PM, Bob Crockett said:

Just remind him that the Deseret News came out multiple times against T.  The most recent was an opinion authored by Prof. Gedecks (sp?) at BYU, the church's constitutional lawyer.  Only the most obtuse would fail to see where the church "officially" goes on T.

Certainly, one thing that bothers me is that way T mocked Romney's faith and garments.

Maybe a non-journalist wouldn’t readily grasp this, but a newspaper publishing an op-Ed piece is not tantamount to the newspaper itself “coming out in favor” of the position taken in the op-Ed. Newspapers typically publish a variety of views — sometimes mutually contradictory ones — in their opinion sections. During the campaign, the Deseret News published an op-Ed written by Mike Pence. It also published one from Kamala Harris, but it goes to show the fallacy of your conclusion. 
 

And your claim about the Church having an official position on Trump is patently absurd. The Church expresses its positions in authoritative teaching from Church leaders or public statements from designated spokesmen or spokeswomen, not through a newspaper’s editorial stance. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

That’s not the op-Ed piece Bob Crockett was referring to. This was an editorial published way back during the 2016 campaign. And the newspaper had an online editorial moments after Trump won acknowledging his victory and pledging support. I’m not aware of the newspaper having taken an institutional editorial position against Trump since then. 

But the point of my post was to dispute Bob’s claim that whatever the newspaper has said or done on Trump is to be taken as the official Church position. I repeat, that is patently absurd. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
On 6/17/2021 at 2:06 PM, Bob Crockett said:

The most recent was an opinion authored by Prof. Gedecks (sp?) at BYU, the church's constitutional lawyer. 

CFR that Ge d i c k s (correct spelling) is “the Church’s constitutional lawyer.” What does that even mean? Is he employed by the Church proper (he’s on the faculty at BYU, but that’s not the same thing)? Does the Church have him on retainer? 
 

Added later: You didn’t provide a citation or a link to                       Ge d I c k s’s op-ed, but I searched it up. Here’s the link:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseret.com/platform/amp/opinion/2021/2/5/22260484/impeachment-45-republican-senators-are-misinterpreting-the-constitution-donald-trump

The point of his piece is specifically to dispute that it violates the Constitution to impeach a president who is no longer in office. I don’t even see that it states that Trump was guilty of the impeachment charges. 
 

But the most telling thing is this note at the end:

Frederick Mark Ge d i c ks teaches constitutional law at Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School. His views are his own.
 

(Emphasis mine)

This contradicts your implied claim and sustains my rebuttal of that claim that Ge d I c k s’s opinion piece is tantamount to the newspaper itself — and by extension the Church — coming out against Trump. 

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe a non-journalist wouldn’t readily grasp this, but a newspaper publishing an op-Ed piece is not tantamount to the newspaper itself “coming out in favor” of the position taken in the op-Ed. Newspapers typically publish a variety of views — sometimes mutually contradictory ones — in their opinion sections. During the campaign, the Deseret News published an op-Ed written by Mike Pence. It also published one from Kamala Harris, but it goes to show the fallacy of your conclusion. 
 

And your claim about the Church having an official position on Trump is patently absurd. The Church expresses its positions in authoritative teaching from Church leaders or public statements from designated spokesmen or spokeswomen, not through a newspaper’s editorial stance. 

A number of DN editors came out in joint opposition to Trump's 2016 candicacy.  The press reported that the DN had never taken any kind of internal editorial position against any presidential candidate in the past, except once.  

Prof. Gedecks is the Church's chief outside constitutional lawyer.  He came out critical of Trump's participation in the riots.  

I've forgotten one other editorial position.

These aren't private outside interests, like Pence or Harris.  These are internal DN positions and, in the case of Gedecks, the position of the Church's lawyer.  

I realize that you have a need to support and defend President Trump, but the DN has never done that and has done the opposite.

Link to comment

How do mixed faith relationships work out?  My first GF was LDS, thing is she was Japanese so the political stuff that's a big deal here was a non issue.  I'd imagine here in the mainland USA it would be different especially when politics and other things come into play.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR that Ge d i c k s (correct spelling) is “the Church’s constitutional lawyer.” What does that even mean? Is he employed by the Church proper (he’s on the faculty at BYU, but that’s not the same thing)? Does the Church have him on retainer? 
 

Added later: You didn’t provide a citation or a link to                       Ge d I c k s’s op-ed, but I searched it up. Here’s the link:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseret.com/platform/amp/opinion/2021/2/5/22260484/impeachment-45-republican-senators-are-misinterpreting-the-constitution-donald-trump

The point of his piece is specifically to dispute that it violates the Constitution to impeach a president who is no longer in office. I don’t even see that it states that Trump was guilty of the impeachment charges. 
 

Bug the most telling thing is this note at the end:

Frederick Mark Ge d i c ks teaches constitutional law at Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School. His views are his own.
 

(Emphasis mine)

This contradicts your implied claim and sustains my rebuttal of that claim that Ge d I c k s’s opinion piece is tantamount to the newspaper itself — and by extension the Church — coming out against Trump. 

 

Once again, you're really into spelling challenges as a means to call a poster an idiot.  Yes, I'm too lazy to look up his spelling but at least I admit it.  Break me on substantive issues, not that.

My comments about the 2016 and 2021 editorials stand.  The DN has come out against Trump.

And you have sorely misinterpreted Ge****s:  "The problem for Republican senators is that the former president remains a power within their party and is already plotting the demise of those who have crossed him. This problem is not a challenge to the Constitution, but to Republican courage and integrity. Republican senators are acting out of political self-interest, not constitutional commitment, when they hide behind a weak interpretation of the Constitution that contradicts its original meaning."

Ge****s, the Church's constitutional lawyer (meaning, he appears on briefs for the Church before federal courts) argues that the Republican Party is wrong to argue that President Trump cannot be impeached.
 

Edited:  Hah hah -- the board also dislikes the correct spelling!!!  I have proved my point.

 

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Edited:  Hah hah -- the board also dislikes the correct spelling!!!  I have proved my point.

It’s because the software thinks you’re typing an obscenity. You’ll get the same result if you try to type the name of Charles D i c k ens or anything else with that sequence of letters. That’s the reason I put in the spaces. 
 

I said parenthetically that I was using the correct spelling because you had already indicated you didn’t know it. I wanted to indicate for everyone’s information that I had checked it and was using the correct one. I might not have mentioned it otherwise.   
 

But I don’t know what you’re crowing about. You haven’t proven any point that was in dispute. I never denied that the newspaper published that 2016 editorial. I stand by my statement that I’m unaware of any time since then that the newspaper as an institution has editorially opposed Trump (you do understand, do you not, the difference between that and printing somebody’s opinion piece?). 
 

But you’ve failed to address the central point of my rebuttal post: your claim that the Church of Jesus Christ officially opposes Trump. Again, one person’s opinion column, or even a newspaper’s house editorial, does not constitute an expression of official position by the Church. It was reckless and irresponsible to claim that it does, and you should retract that claim. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not aware of the newspaper having taken an institutional editorial position against Trump since then

For your consideration:

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2021/1/6/22217718/capitol-riot-protest-trump-electoral-college-vote

or this one:

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2020/2/6/21125532/impeachment-trial-trump-pelosi-ukraine-house-senate-vote-outcome

The president should be censured. He should be made to understand that presidents cannot use the power of their office and the prestige of the United States to blatantly coerce foreign nations to help their political careers. Acquittal cannot be used as a vehicle to embolden chief executives to more questionable conduct.

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s because the software thinks you’re typing an obscenity. You’ll get the same result if you try to type the name of Charles D i c k ens or anything else with that sequence of letters. That’s the reason I put in the spaces. 
 

I said parenthetically that I was using the correct spelling because you had already indicated you didn’t know it. I wanted to indicate for everyone’s information that I had checked it and was using the correct one. I might not have mentioned it otherwise.   
 

But I don’t know what you’re crowing about. You haven’t proven any point that was in dispute. I never denied that the newspaper published that 2016 editorial. I stand by my statement that I’m unaware of any time since then that the newspaper as an institution has editorially opposed Trump (you do understand, do you not, the difference between that and printing somebody’s opinion piece?). 
 

But you’ve failed to address the central point of my rebuttal post: your claim that the Church of Jesus Christ officially opposes Trump. Again, one person’s opinion column, or even a newspaper’s house editorial, does not constitute an expression of official position by the Church. It was reckless and irresponsible to claim that it does, and you should retract that claim. 

I was thinking this post was about mixed faith marriages???

Did someone change the channel to Fox News?

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For your consideration:

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2021/1/6/22217718/capitol-riot-protest-trump-electoral-college-vote

or this one:

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2020/2/6/21125532/impeachment-trial-trump-pelosi-ukraine-house-senate-vote-outcome

The president should be censured. He should be made to understand that presidents cannot use the power of their office and the prestige of the United States to blatantly coerce foreign nations to help their political careers. Acquittal cannot be used as a vehicle to embolden chief executives to more questionable conduct.

Noted. Thanks for the references. 
 

I don’t want to get dragged into a political discussion. I wouldn’t be involved here at all if Bob Crockett hadn’t overreached with his false claim that the Church is officially opposed to Trump. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Noted. Thanks for the references. 
 

I don’t want to get dragged into a political discussion. I wouldn’t be involved here at all if Bob Crockett hadn’t overreached with his false claim that the Church is officially opposed to Trump. 

Fwiw I agree with your main point on the official church position. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was reckless and irresponsible to claim that it does, and you should retract that claim. 

Hah hah. Now a retraction is demanded. 

I repeat.  Three times the DN published editorials against trump by internal editors or a church lawyer.  These question the integrity of Trump hisself or the Republican party which supports him. Them's the facts. 

As the editors control the editorial policy, I'd say the position is close to or equal to official and reflects the feelings of the Church. 

So forgive me if I double down.  Your position is absurd. 

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to comment

What better example of the challenges of a mixed faith marriage than our very own discussion of what the Deseret News did or didn't say?  Can the two opposing views work it out in a manner of mutual respect and understanding or are they both going to retreat to their own room and be angry at the other?

Link to comment
On 6/13/2021 at 12:10 PM, MrShorty said:

...More recently, I found a podcast called Marriage on a Tightrope by an LDS/ex-LDS couple documenting and talking about their experiences.

I listen to that podcast.

M.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Hah hah. Now a retraction is demanded. 

I repeat.  Three times the DN published editorials against trump by internal editors or a church lawyer.  These question the integrity of Trump hisself or the Republican party which supports him. Them's the facts. 

As the editors control the editorial policy, I'd say the position is close to or equal to official and reflects the feelings of the Church. 

So forgive me if I double down.  Your position is absurd. 

The editors are not the Church, Bob, and they don’t speak for the Church any more than you or I do. Neither does the man you misleadingly identify as “the Church lawyer.” The note on his piece said, “His views are his own.”

You know these things. Stop the distortions. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The editors are not the Church, Bob, and they don’t speak for the Church any more than you or I do. You know this. Stop the distortions. 

Examine the history of editorial policy.  The DN came out against the MX Missile and it was widely regarded as church policy.  The ERA and the repeal of prohibition. The same. How well do you know your newspaper?

Why is it necessary to support Trump in the face of three DN editorials?  Who is distorting what?

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Examine the history of editorial policy.  The DN came out against the MX Missile and it was widely regarded as church policy.  The ERA and the repeal of prohibition. The same. How well do you know your newspaper?

Why is it necessary to support Trump in the face of three DN editorials?  Who is distorting what?

It’s not my newspaper. I don’t even work for it anymore. But I know it well enough to know that its editorial stances don’t constitute the Church’s position, and that the Church maintains neutrality on the vast majority of topics on which the newspaper editorializes. Even on matters on which they happen to agree, the newspaper does not speak for the Church. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
6 hours ago, poptart said:

How do mixed faith relationships work out?  My first GF was LDS, thing is she was Japanese so the political stuff that's a big deal here was a non issue.  I'd imagine here in the mainland USA it would be different especially when politics and other things come into play.

It's really going to depend.  One of the big things is if they have been sealed in the temple.  A couple goes into this expecting to be together forever.  For us it is not just about how things have changed on earth, but also for eternity. That's going to be very hard to deal with. 

So like others have said you really have to love and respect each other to make it work.  And for the spouse that stays in the church they have to have faith that it will be ok in the end, whatever happens.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s not my newspaper. I don’t even work for it anymore. But I know it well enough to know that its editorial stances don’t constitute the Church’s position, and that the Church maintains neutrality on the vast majority of topics on which the newspaper editorializes. Even on matters on which they happen to agree, the newspaper does not speak for the Church. 

I'd say that approaches prevarication.  I'm not accusing you of a lie, but of intentional evasion.

The DN is the official organ of the church.  It has been for more than 100 years.  The church is the publisher.  The publication committee is composed of apostles and other general authorities.  When the DN ratcheted back its recent services to the public, it became more of an authorized mouthpiece for the church than a real newspaper.

It is quite common for newspapers to be the official organs of some organization.  The Washington Times has the same political philosophy, for example, of its owners, the Unification Church.  The editorial board does not publish statements contrary to the philosophy of the publisher unless the publisher comes out to distance itself.

When the multiple DN editors came out against Trump in 2016, many commentators expressed amazement and noticed that, indicating that the DN had never before done this in its history except once.  After all these commentaries, the DN never came out with a statement saying that the editors did not express the views of the church.

Gedecks' [sp] piece is quite significant if you care to read it.  He is no local bum.  He was of the opinion that the Republican Party's assertion that Trump could not be impeached because he was no longer in office was an exercise in cowardice.  Strong words on the editorial page of the DN, and from a church lawyer.  This isn't happenstance or serendipity, as you are wont to advance.  

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

The DN is the official organ of the church. 

And yet there is a significant difference in how thevDN chooses to describe itself, a property of, vs an official publication of...

Quote

The Church News is an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Jointly published by the Deseret News and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its content supports the doctrines, principles and practices of the Church.

https://www.thechurchnews.com
 

Quote

The Deseret News was founded in 1850 at the edge of the American frontier by pioneers committed to “Liberty & Truth.”...

The Deseret News is a subsidiary of the Deseret Management Corporation, which is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Deseret News retains and reaffirms its commitment to being a standard-bearer of journalistic integrity and principled reporting...

https://www.deseret.com/pages/about-us

Link to comment

Also from the church’s official website:

Quote

The Church News, an official publication of the Church, publishes news and features about the Church, its leaders, and members worldwide.

While the Deseret News national edition is not an official publication of the Church, it is a thoughtful source of news and analysis on topics related to faith and the family in contemporary society. While its focus is not centrally on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it promotes wholesome values and includes perspectives harmonious with LDS standards. Also, it provides a complementary perspective on issues that the Church magazines and Church News would not normally address.

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/subscribe-to-get-church-news-deseret-news-national-edition?lang=eng
 

How can it be called an “official organ” when it isn’t even considered an “official publication”?

”Includes perspectives harmonious to LDS standards” might be interpreted of editorials done by its own editors as in line with the Church, but I don’t think “includes” has to have a forced interpretation of “limited only to” 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...