Church Members in California Seeking "Religious Exemption" Forms for Vaccine, Church Saying "Nope."

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

Latter-day Saint leaders in California have been told not to sign “religious exemption” forms for anti-vax members who want to dodge vaccination mandates by citing their faith.

The issue has arisen in that state because it now requires vaccines for health care workers, teachers and others.

Some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have asked their lay bishops to support their applications to receive religious waivers from their employers.

“No church official can sign any kind of document supporting the notion that church doctrine/teaching is opposed to vaccination or that the church is opposed to vaccination mandates,” reads a letter sent to all bishops and stake (regional) presidents from the faith’s Area Presidency. “As to the former, the opposite is true [the church not only supports but also encourages vaccination]; as to the latter, the Brethren [top officials] have not taken a position.”

In some instances, the letter adds, “signing such documents could even be perjury.”

Of course, the Utah-based faith does have an “important doctrine about agency,” it says, “but that alone does not provide a religious basis for disobeying the law or demanding special exemptions from it.”

Assertions that belief in agency provide “a valid religious objection” to government mandates, the letter says, “have never been supported by the church.”

Interesting stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Canadiandude]

Good on the church. I concur with them on this.

[bluebell]

Wow.  That's a strong position to take, and not something that we see often from leadership.

[JLHPROF]

Utah offers the same religious exemption option.  But I don't think it requires a minister of the Church to sign.

Isn't personal religious belief sufficient without official Church doctrine to back it?

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Utah offers the same religious exemption option.  But I don't think it requires a minister of the Church to sign.

Isn't personal religious belief sufficient without official Church doctrine to back it?

Probably not in California.  

[Amulek]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Isn't personal religious belief sufficient without official Church doctrine to back it?

Generally, if a law has a religious exemption then any sincerely held belief ought to suffice - because government cannot favor religion over non-religion.

That being said, I'm surprised there would even be a religious exemption for a COVID vaccination mandate to begin with - especially since California specifically repealed their 'personal belief exemption' to their vaccine requirements a few years back and won when being challenged in court (see, e.g., Whitlow v California).

 

Edited September 10, 2021 by Amulek

[MustardSeed]

Frankly I'm annoyed that anyone would ask their bishop for such a thing.  To put a bishop in that position is wrong.  It's not like anyone has ever heard of the church preaching against vaccs - unless someone knew their bishop was personally anti vaccination and hoped to get around something by requesting a wink wink letter. 

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Wow.  That's a strong position to take, and not something that we see often from leadership.

I think the Church is trying very hard to take a "soft touch" with members.  The Brethren seem to be bending over backwards to try to accommodate members.  On this point, though, there are members trying to enmesh the Church into a civil issue.  The Church doesn't want its bishops participating as witnesses in divorce cases or other civil disputes, and also does not want bishops to be writing vaccine exemptions that invoke doctrine that isn't there.
 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

The church knows the importance of being open in churches and temples and don't want something to stop help for that.

[MustardSeed]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the Church is trying very hard to take a "soft touch" with members.  The Brethren seem to be bending over backwards to try to accommodate members.  On this point, though, there are members trying to enmesh the Church into a civil issue.  The Church doesn't want its bishops participating as witnesses in divorce cases or other civil disputes, and also does not want bishops to be writing vaccine exemptions that invoke doctrine that isn't there.
 

Thanks,

-Smac

Agreed wholeheartedly.

IMO These members are as bad as people who want to take their dogs to Hawaii with them on vacation and so they beg their therapists for a letter indicating that their dog is a special dog designed to help with their anxiety.  

Before anyone loses their minds, I believe in the power of medical assist animals. That is not what I'm referring to any more than I would be referring to people who legitimately need exemption from vaccines.    

Edited September 10, 2021 by MustardSeed

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the Church is trying very hard to take a "soft touch" with members.  The Brethren seem to be bending over backwards to try to accommodate members.  On this point, though, there are members trying to enmesh the Church into a civil issue.  The Church doesn't want its bishops participating as witnesses in divorce cases or other civil disputes, and also does not want bishops to be writing vaccine exemptions that invoke doctrine that isn't there.
 

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree.

Especially considering that the church spends money and effort to provide vaccines for other countries.

[BlueDreams]

So I really got a pet peeve on how “choice” and “agency” are being used lately. We believe in the ideas, yes, but not in this new rendition of how I’ve seen it used. The choice and agency in scriptures is usually very contextualized into choose between good and evil or the path of life or of death. These parameters are set up by god. Which leaves us to choose wisely, through careful study and checking our own responses and info to be sure we’re being led by god not just our own sentiments. It’s not just the freedom to choose whatever we feel is right for us. I feel like when I hear “agency” used in this term it’s usually confused with a more cultural individualistic variation of agency, not what is actually taught in scripture. 
 

end peeve

with luv, 

BD 
 

 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

So I really got a pet peeve on how “choice” and “agency” are being used lately. We believe in the ideas, yes, but not in this new rendition of how I’ve seen it used. The choice and agency in scriptures is usually very contextualized into choose between good and evil or the path of life or of death. These parameters are set up by god. Which leaves us to choose wisely, through careful study and checking our own responses and info to be sure we’re being led by god not just our own sentiments. It’s not just the freedom to choose whatever we feel is right for us. I feel like when I hear “agency” used in this term it’s usually confused with a more cultural individualistic variation of agency, not what is actually taught in scripture. 
 

end peeve

with luv, 

BD 
 

 

I hate how the new notion of choice or agency is being divorced from consequences of choice.

We are free to make our choices but we don’t get to choose the consequences of them. And sometimes we make choices with sucky consequences. That’s the way it is. 

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I hate how the new notion of choice or agency is being divorced from consequences of choice.

We are free to make our choices but we don’t get to choose the consequences of them. And sometimes we make choices with sucky consequences. That’s the way it is. 

Are we talking about in the Church or general culture?  Both?

Edited September 10, 2021 by Calm

[poptart]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I hate how the new notion of choice or agency is being divorced from consequences of choice.

We are free to make our choices but we don’t get to choose the consequences of them. And sometimes we make choices with sucky consequences. That’s the way it is. 

Considering how ugly politics are getting and how families are fair game on social media and IRL I'd say consequences are quite real.  Sure, if people like this are privileged enough to live in a nice suburb, have good contacts and a secure job they'll likely dodge consequences but as millenials and gen z continue to walk away from religion due to LGBTQ issues, having little care for the least of these and overall disgust with how a lot of people on the other end act, their children/grandchildren will likely not be so fortunate.  You can only step on people so long as your privilege holds up and society has means to protect you, once those are gone you're on your own especially when the people who don't like you for past and/or present actions outnumber and outvote you.  It's harsh but that's just human nature.

Edited September 10, 2021 by poptart

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are we talking about in the Church or general culture?  Both?

Both.

[provoman]

Is there a specific form? Freedom from compulsion seems to comport with the teachings of the Church. So does personal accountability.

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, provoman said:

Is there a specific form? Freedom from compulsion seems to comport with the teachings of the Church. So does personal accountability.

That was my thought as well. I would never seek for a vaccine exemption, and certainly not a letter from the Church or a local leader to that effect, but there is plenty in LDS teachings and overall Gedankengut that would support one's firmly held beliefs or subjective feelings (e.g., "I really feel strongly like I should/shouldn't . . .). 

The new handbook addition on the Church's policy on vaccinations even ends by saying it is ultimately up to individual conscience. And it is, of course, when all is said and done, and that certainly applies to personal belief, even when it is at odds with the Church's overall orientation on things like vaccines (but not when it clearly is contra-orthodoxy).

California being California, they have done an end run around personal belief by codifying that you must demonstrate a certified, codified historical belief for your church. Ironically, this was one of the main reasons the Brethren had Richard Wilkins write the Proclamation on the Family in the mid 1990s (to begin to establish such a codified historical belief, in writing, on moral issues). Starting with Hawaii, and then California and many other places around the world, the Brethren needed to be able to point to (now nearly 30 year-old written declaration) historical  precedent.

It's no surprise at all that the Church wants neither itself nor its representatives to be embroiled in things like this, so people in California seeking some writ from local leaders are out of luck. We live in such lawless times, that laws, regulations, and decrees from both parties when in power are simply ignored, so this sort of thing comes down to "state roulette" as far as enforcement. Instead of executive order, the president chose to have this be an OSHA regulation, so it will be interesting to see what happens with this in the courts. It will probably face the same fate as the eviction moratorium that was enforced by the CDC (this isn't the first time the Biden administration has tried enforcement through federal agencies rather than laws or executive orders). 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Wow.  That's a strong position to take, and not something that we see often from leadership.

I don’t see it as all that remarkable, as a matter of fact. The amazing thing would have been if the Church were to have done the opposite. 
 

The Church has never countenanced individual members refusing to obey the law. It has never backed up tax protestors, for example. And Church leadership has already come out in support of vaccination. 
 

So I’m at a loss to identify what unusual or shocking thing has taken place here. Maybe you can point it out specifically for me. 

[bOObOO]

Mother knows best.  And her husband agrees and dare I say even inspired her to think what she thinks.  (still thinking in terms of the Church as our Mother and her husband as, well, you know... him)

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

 Freedom from compulsion seems to comport with the teachings of the Church. So does personal accountability.

Tell that to the IRS!

[katherine the great]

I’m kind of interested to know which scripture might come under the category of “anti-vaccine.” I know that Jehovah’s Witnesses have some kind of scripture that they use as a prohibition on blood transfusions but I just can’t think of anything for vaccinations.

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

I’m kind of interested to know which scripture might come under the category of “anti-vaccine.” I know that Jehovah’s Witnesses have some kind of scripture that they use as a prohibition on blood transfusions but I just can’t think of anything for vaccinations.

Vaccination is surprisingly old though done differently throughout the ages. The first record of a mandated vaccination program in the US was George Washington inoculating new recruits in the Revolutionary Army against smallpox. At the time this mean inserting the powdered scabs or pus from a smallpox sore into the person’s body through an incision.

In hindsight it looks like inserting it into the skin instead of via the respiratory system usually resulted in a mild case and built up immunity.

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see it as all that remarkable, as a matter of fact. The amazing thing would have been if the Church were to have done the opposite. 
 

The Church has never countenanced individual members refusing to obey the law. It has never backed up tax protestors, for example. And Church leadership has already come out in support of vaccination. 
 

So I’m at a loss to identify what unusual or shocking thing has taken place here. Maybe you can point it out specifically for me. 

https://www.ldsliving.com/Undocumented-immigrants-on-missions/s/96

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see it as all that remarkable, as a matter of fact. The amazing thing would have been if the Church were to have done the opposite. 
 

The Church has never countenanced individual members refusing to obey the law. It has never backed up tax protestors, for example. And Church leadership has already come out in support of vaccination. 
 

So I’m at a loss to identify what unusual or shocking thing has taken place here. Maybe you can point it out specifically for me. 

I can't remember the last time the church spoke so strongly against a practice that members were involved in. 

It didn't even speak out that strongly when so many stakes were getting crazy following Julie Rowe, did they?  They haven't spoken out on DezNat stuff (just with the newsroom in response to an article, but not church leadership speaking against it on its own accord if I'm remembering right).

Silence when members go rogue seems to be more the norm than the exception. That's why this surprised me a bit.