Update on Litigation Re: Title IX (BYU and other Religious Schools)

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I also see the problem here is perhaps there is eternal or spiritual damage in our actions that we are unaware of because of our limitations, but God in his love for us has revealed the better way.

This is certainly a reality. I’m sure this happens!  Whether this is the case with this issue is THE question- as it threatens to unravel so much of what the church is built upon.  
it’s an impossible situation IMO. 
 

[JVW]

Let's say that the church had no standards and anyone could do anything they want and be a member in good standing and carry a temple recommend. Would that be good? How would that look? Is there a place where the line gets drawn and some requirements do exist? If there is a requirement to believe in Jesus Christ, then there's discrimination against non-Christians. If there's a requirement to believe in Joseph Smith or President Nelson there's some discrimination somewhere. If there's a requirement to pay tithing there's discrimination against anyone with money. If there's a requirement for no drugs, there's discrimination against addicts.

Right now, there is pressure for women's ordination, gay sealings, trans acceptance/baptism/sealings/ordination in the church. Let's say all of that was acquiesced to. Would there be no more policy changes desired from the church? What about the future when pedophilia (MAP) becomes part of the national conversation, or what if polygamy (or the inverse one) becomes officially in vogue? Are all of the discriminatory practices that the church is being accused of related to sex? Are there any -currently- that are not related to sex?

What is the wishlist of people here on what policies and doctrines should be changed in order for discrimination to not exist anymore on a systemic level in the church? And if that list is met, is there truly nothing else that can be added to it? I feel like there may be an element of March of Dimes that's been discussed in that other thread. 

[california boy]

21 minutes ago, JVW said:

Right now, there is pressure for women's ordination, gay sealings, trans acceptance/baptism/sealings/ordination in the church. Let's say all of that was acquiesced to. Would there be no more policy changes desired from the church? What about the future when pedophilia (MAP)

Never takes long before someone compares wanting to share your life with someone of the same sexy that you love so deeply and want to marry them with a pedopillia does it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

33 minutes ago, JVW said:

What about the future when pedophilia (MAP) becomes part of the national conversation,

Yay! We allow gay marriage, next comes child rape! We must draw the line somewhere! What an amazingly hateful argument you have there. Glad to see Christian love at work.

[JVW]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Never takes long before someone compares wanting to share your life with someone of the same sexy that you love so deeply and want to marry them with a pedopillia does it.

Way to dodge the general sentiment of the question. 

[JVW]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yay! We allow gay marriage, next comes child rape! We must draw the line somewhere! What an amazingly hateful argument you have there. Glad to see Christian love at work.

I can't even... Ignore the parts you don't like. I have a question that I'm generally interested in getting some insight on. Who cares if I'm a bigot or not, that's besides the point. What is your list of policies and doctrines that, after having been accomplished, will make it so the church is no longer regarded as hateful, bigoted, discriminatory, etc?

[JVW]

Also, for the record, your view of MAP people and comparing them to child rapists or viewing pedophilia with a negative connotation is hateful to people who are naturally oriented towards minors or who identify as such. This argument can go both ways and you're completely missing the point and being really dumb right now.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I agree the church is in an impossible situation.  I predicted this out loud about 25 years ago after watching a documentary about a member who was married to a man who contrived AIDS from his secret gay affairs and then died- (anyone know the name of that doc?) - It shook my world view and I told  my husband it would be a crisis for the church.  He thought I was nuts. 
 

I am sorry for how scary it is today for folks.  I don’t predict the same, but need to avoid politics here. 

I probably crossed the "no politics" line. So I'm sorry, didn't mean to do it. Just worried going forward, but maybe my worries are from watching too many YouTube's that put the fear in me. 😑

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Never takes long before someone compares wanting to share your life with someone of the same sexy that you love so deeply and want to marry them with a pedopillia does it.

No--not-- long-- at-- all.🥴

[Tacenda]

53 minutes ago, JVW said:

I can't even... Ignore the parts you don't like. I have a question that I'm generally interested in getting some insight on. Who cares if I'm a bigot or not, that's besides the point. What is your list of policies and doctrines that, after having been accomplished, will make it so the church is no longer regarded as hateful, bigoted, discriminatory, etc?

Love one another.

Which the church does teach. 

I'm fine if the church doesn't allow a gay couple to marry in the temple. The temple has meaning of the forever family. I understand the stance the church has on thinking the procreation won't happen with same sex couples. 

But other than that, I believe the first two commandments are good ones. 

Edited November 7, 2024 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Never takes long before someone compares wanting to share your life with someone of the same sexy that you love so deeply and want to marry them with a pedopillia does it.

It is almost a reflex.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

Way to dodge the general sentiment of the question. 

That homosexuality is morally comparable to pedophilia?

No, we got that part.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

Also, for the record, your view of MAP people and comparing them to child rapists or viewing pedophilia with a negative connotation is hateful to people who are naturally oriented towards minors or who identify as such. This argument can go both ways and you're completely missing the point and being really dumb right now.

Consensual adult love and sex is basically the same as child predation?

Just stop.

[Dario_M]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yay! We allow gay marriage, next comes child rape! We must draw the line somewhere! What an amazingly hateful argument you have there. Glad to see Christian love at work.

...........

 

[JVW]

59 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Love one another.

Which the church does teach. 

I'm fine if the church doesn't allow a gay couple to marry in the temple. The temple has meaning of the forever family. I understand the stance the church has on thinking the procreation won't happen with same sex couples. 

But other than that, I believe the first two commandments are good ones. 

The thing is, is that I am a loving person, and I have even learned how to love my enemies. But whether I'm a loving person or not is irrelevant to this conversation. The conversation has been about the church's interplay with the government's non-discrimination policy and there has been back and forth about seemingly discriminatory practices the church has in place.

What's frustrating about the response to my question is that the very people who I was hoping would answer my question are not responding to it, instead, they are painting me with this broad, stereotypical brush and dismissing my questions because of how they interpret what I wrote. I just want to hear from the people who are critical of the church's current doctrines and policies and learn from them what doctrines and policies they think would make the church free from discrimination at the systemic level. Instead I'm being regarded as not worth responding to and dismissed because they are misconstruing a couple of sentences from my original questions.

Whether pedos get their day in the sun of public conversation has nothing to do with gay or trans rights. It's a separate issue that is running in parallel. Just like BLM has nothing to do with gay or trans rights. I wouldn't assume that gays will lead to race issues, so why are they making a connection between gays and pedos when I did no such thing?

The fact that I'm even responding to this is going to completely derail the thread. I'll just continue to be mocked and my question will be ignored, and I'll never get to know what the perfect list of policy changes would look like for the ultimate, non-discriminatory church.

[JVW]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That homosexuality is morally comparable to pedophilia?

No, we got that part.

I said 

Quote

Right now, there is pressure for women's ordination, gay sealings, trans acceptance/baptism/sealings/ordination in the church. Let's say all of that was acquiesced to. Would there be no more policy changes desired from the church? What about the future when pedophilia (MAP) becomes part of the national conversation, or what if polygamy (or the inverse one) becomes officially in vogue? Are all of the discriminatory practices that the church is being accused of related to sex? Are there any -currently- that are not related to sex?

In no way did I make any moral judgments in the above quote. Nor did I make any equivocations. That's on you. I can't even see how you're making that connection with what I wrote in the quoted text?

[JVW]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Consensual adult love and sex is basically the same as child predation?

Just stop.

In no way did I suggest this.

[Dario_M]

I see that some here are putting words into JVWs mouth. What kind of practices are these? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

...........

 

Just to be clear, you think combining the acceptance of  child rape and homosexual relationships in a single paragraph is okay then? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, JVW said:

In no way did I suggest this.

Ask a genuine question then. Or is it your legitimate assertion that in the future that the church will be called out by main stream society for its rejection of child rape? 

[Dario_M]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Just to be clear, you think combining the acceptance of  child rape and homosexual relationships in a single paragraph is okay then? 

No. And nowhere on this topic i see JVW claiming this. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

may even become illegal again

I don’t see how this is possible.  Invalidating 3/4 of a million marriages just isn’t going to happen.  Any party pushing this is going to lose anyone under 30 and maybe most under 40, imo.  There are too many now who grew up in a society where homosexual behaviour is seen as normal (a good thing, imo, treating homosexual attraction as a mental defect is wrong and not scientifically correct, imo).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I don’t see how this is possible.  Invalidating 3/4 of a million marriages just isn’t going to happen.  Any party pushing this is going to lose anyone under 30 and maybe most under 40, imo.  There are too many now who grew up in a society where homosexual behaviour is seen as normal (a good thing, imo, treating homosexual attraction as a mental defect is wrong and not scientifically correct, imo).

Just return it to the states. State Legislatures across the country have shown they are more than willing to ignore the will of the people.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JVW said:

Is there a place where the line gets drawn and some requirements do exist?

Yes, there will always be a place because every society has taboo behaviours.

Quote

What about the future when pedophilia (MAP) becomes part of the national conversation

It is highly unlikely that pedophilia will ever become a civil rights issue like gay or mixed race marriages because the science backs the damage of non consensual sex and the inability of minors to truly consent (based on brain development) and the trend of minor rights to be protected being more important than adult rights of choice is increasing imo, not diminishing as is evidenced by the loss of some parental rights such as being informed about all medical conditions, being able to apply almost whatever parental discipline desired).

Quote

Just like BLM has nothing to do with gay or trans rights

There is actually quite a bit of crossover with the BLM movement.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/start-black-lives-matter-lgbtq-lives/story?id=71320450#:~:text=From the start%2C the founders,of whom identify as queer.

Edited November 7, 2024 by Calm

[JVW]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Just to be clear, you think combining the acceptance of  child rape and homosexual relationships in a single paragraph is okay then?

Ask a genuine question then. Or is it your legitimate assertion that in the future that the church will be called out by main stream society for its rejection of child rape? 

Look. Anytime pedophilia is brought up in any conversation, period, it's a minefield. I shouldn't have brought it into the conversation. But if I said this instead, "Right now, there is pressure for women's ordination in the church. Let's say that was acquiesced to. Would there be no more policy changes desired from the church? What about the future when pedophilia (MAP) becomes part of the national conversation?" I don't think people would be saying, "Oh man, that guy is doing a slippery slope thing and connecting the dots between women and pedos!" I think the reaction I'm getting is because back when the gay marriage thing was going on back in 2012 or whenever it was, there were a ton of people talking about slippery slopes and there's just some cultural trauma or something and now I'm getting some decades old snap judgment reactions because I brought up pedophilia in the same paragraph as gays.

I do believe that within the next 20 years pedophilia, which has been renamed to MAP (minor attracted persons), will become part of the national public conversation and there will be many people who argue in favor of that cause. If it becomes a big enough movement, then yes, the church would get flack for its rejection of that behavior. I don't really want to have that conversation in this thread, that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

Here are my questions, I'll bold the one that I'm most curious about the answer to. I'll try to be as clear and succinct as possible. I would love to hear a response from you, and the others who have been involved in the conversation on this post, to these questions.

- If everyone could be baptized/temple recommended/sealed without any requirements, would that be a good thing? Why or why not?
- Should there be any requirements for church membership and/or temple recommends? If so, what?
- Are there any -current- discriminatory doctrines or policies that the church has that are not related to sex? If so, which ones?
- In order to ensure that the church is not systemically discriminatory, what would be the perfect doctrinal and policy changes to enact? Would that list be subject to change pending future cultural shifts?